نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار، گروه حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
2 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری، حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Abstract
The necessity of paying attention to the role of gender in some areas of law is an issue that has been raised by some legal researchers in recent decades. One of these areas in which it is necessary to pay attention to gender differences is moral damages. The existence of brain biological and functional differences in men and women, as well as differences in social responsibilities, roles, and expectations, justify this necessity.
In the case of moral damages, both sex differences (biological differences in the brains of men and women) and gender differences (differences in social responsibilities and expectations) are effective. To explain the sex differences between men and women, we must start with the brain: The brain is one of the organs that researchers say is highly influenced by sex. Although there are differences in the physics of men and women's brains, such as the size of the brain in men being generally larger than in women, or that there is more gray matter in the brain of women and more white matter in the brain of men. However, what makes the difference between men and women is not the anatomical structure of the brain, but its function, including differences in the function of neurotransmitters and hormones. According to the researches, sex differences-especially in the discussion of moral damages- are related to three important parts in the brain, namely, hippocampus, amygdala, and neocortex.
In addition to these biological differences, the existence of differences in expectations and social responsibilities between men and women is another factor that shows the need to pay attention to gender in the discussion of moral damages. Gender norms that are traditionally predetermined in society and the expectations that exist in this regard in some cases cause women to suffer more psychological damage in the event of an accident. One of these factors is the "duty of care" that women often have in their families. If we look at the process of reproduction and the stages of child rearing in society, we find that in most cases mothers are more involved in caring and custody of children than fathers, and this leads to more emotional feeling between mothers and their children. This means that if an accident happens to a child or the parents see their child being killed or injured, this will hurt the mother more than the father.
Another example is the cases of rape that cause the loss of virginity in women. Given that according to social norms in many societies, being a virgin is very important for women in marriage, in such cases, the society will impose an additional harm to women, along with the moral damages caused by the crime, while men will not have the same experience.
In order to be able to take into account these gender differences in moral damage assessment, it is necessary to use psychometric tools as complementary tools of moral damage assessment based on indicators. It can be used to measure biological and emotional differences in calculating damages. Although this issue is not specified in the Iranian legal system, there will be no barrier in this regard, because according to Article 3 of the Civil Responsibility Code and Article 515 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is the judges who must determine the amount of damages according to the circumstances of each case. Therefore, judges can pay more attention to the victim gender in assessing moral damage. This will make the compensation more realistic and efficient.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
منابع
الف) فارسی
ب) خارجی
10. Amato, Paul (2001). “Good Enough Marriages: Parental Discord Divorce and Children’s Long-term Well-being”, Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, Vol. 9, pp. 71-94.
Core U.S. Journals – HeinOnline.org (semantak.com) (Accessed 22 January 2022).
11.Bartow, Ann (2006). “Legal Theory Lexicon: Feminist Legal Theory”, at:http://Isolum.Typepad.com/legaltheorylexicon/2006/11/legal_theory_le.html. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
12. Bellace, Matthew, Michael, Williams, Firoze, Mohamed, Scott, Faro, (2013). “An fMRI Study of the Activation of the Hippocampus by Emotional Memory”, International Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 123, pp. 212-127. DOI: 10.3109/00207454.2012.742894.
13. Bender, Leslie (1988). “A Lawyer’s Primer on Feminist Theory and Tort”, Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 38, No. 1-2, pp. 3-38. https://heinonlineorg.ezp3.semantak.com
/HOL/Contents?handle=hein.journals/jled38&id=1&size=2&index=&collection=usjournals. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
14. ___________ (1993). “An Overview of Feminist Torts Scholarship”, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 78, pp. 575-596. https://heinonlineorg.ezp3.semantak.com/HOL. /Contents?handle=hein.journals/clqv78&id=1&size=2&index=&collection=usjournals. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
15. Brown, Craig & Melanie, Randall (2004). “Compensating the Harms of Sexual and Domestic Violence: Tort Law Insurance and the Role of the State”, Queen’s Law Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 311-347. Https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?Abstract_id=1459037. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
16. Cahill, Larry (2006). “Why Sex Matter for Neuroscience”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Vol. 7, pp. 477-484. https://www.nature.com/articles/mn1090. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
17. Cassels, Jamie (1995). “(In)equality and the law of tort: Gender, Race and the Assessment of Damages”, Advocates’ Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 158-198. https://heinonline.org/HOL /P?h=hein.journals/aqrty17&i=194.
18. Chamallas, Martha & Lynne, Robert (2018). “Feminist Legal Theory and Tort Law”, The Ohio State University: Public Law and Legal Theory Working, Paper Series, No.448, pp. 1-41. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3198115. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
19. Chamallas, Martha & Wriggins, Jennifer (2010). The Measure of Injury: Race, Gender and Tort Law, New York University Press.
20. Filkowskim Megan & Rachel Olsen & Bryant Duda & Timonthy Wanger & Dean Sabatinelli, (2017). “Sex Differences in Emotional Perception: Meta-Analysis of Divergent Activation”, Neuro Image, Vol. 147, pp. 925-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.016.https://heinonlineorg.ezp3.semantak.com/HOL/Contents?handle=hein.journals/duljo70&id=1&size=2&index=&collection=usjournals. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
21. Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela (2008). “Selective Recognition of Gender Difference in the Law: Revaluing the Cartaker Role”, Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, Vol. 31, No. 1. pp. 1-66. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1021071. (Accessed 8 December 2021).
22. Liarena, Zharama (2018). “The Implementation of Moral Damages Based on Calculated Exponential Injury Severity Score for Procedural Torts”, US-China Law Review, Vol: 15. No. 2, pp: 83-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.17265/1548-6605/2018.02.003.
23. Richardson, Janice & Rackley, Erika (2012). Feminist Perspectives on Tort Law, 1st edition, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
24. Shen, Francis (2016). “Law and Neuroscience”, Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 1043-1087.https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/604.(Accessed 22 January
2022).
25. Cosgrove, Kelly; Carolyn, Masure & Staley, Julie (2007). “Evolving knowledge of sex Differences in Brain Structure, Function and Chemistry”, Biological psychiatry, Vol. 62, pp. 847-855. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.03.001.
26. Sanger, Carol (2017). “The Lopsided Harms of Reproductive Negligence”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 118., pp. 29-47. https://colombialawreview.org/content/ The- Lopsided –Harms- of- Reproductive- Negligence/. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
27. Tobias, Carol (1999). “The Imminent Demise of Interspousal Tort Immunity”, Montana Law Review, Vol. 60, No.5, pp. 101-108. https: //scholarworks.umt.edu/mlr/vol60/iss1/5. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
28. Tylka, Brook (2021). “Getting to Tarasoff: A Gender-based History of Tort Law Doctrine”, California Legal History, Vol. 16, pp. 237-264. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/calegh16&i=245. (Accessed 22 January 2022).
29. Walters, Amy. P, (1994). “Gender and the Role of Expert Witnesses in Federal Courts”, George Town Law Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 635-664. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=
hein.journals/glj83&i=663. (Accessed 8 December 2021).
30. West, Robin (2000). “The Difference in Women’s Hedonic Lives: A Phenomenological Critique of Feminist Legal theory”, Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 149-216. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/wiswo15&i=155.(Accessed 8 December 2021).
31. _________ (2018). “Women in the legal Academy: A Brief History of Feminist Legal Theory”, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 977-1004. https://heinonline.org/HOL/ P?h=hein.journals/flr87&i=1010. (Accessed 8 December 2021).
)