أثر عيب فساد الاستدلال في الحُكم الجزائي (دراسة مقارنة)

The effect of the defect of corruption of inference on the penal judgment ( A comparative study )

The basic principle in penal judgments is that the judge of the subject has complete freedom to build reasons of wisdom on his sentimental conviction through whatever evidence he obtains on the subject matter of the case, and this freedom is not restricted unless his deduction of the facts is sound, not tainted by any defects.
In order for the penal judgment to be valid, the premises or factual reasons on which the subject judge relied in his judgment must be valid according to the rules of logical reason in order to achieve the conclusion he reached.
If the trial court has an absolute assessment of the material evidence of the facts in the criminal case, it does not exempt it from correct legal thinking, because this absolute does not completely exclude the control of the higher courts over the penal judgment, because it monitors within the limits of its function the application of the legal rules of evidence, whether Concerning the burden of proof and the legality of the evidence,
On the other hand, if the issue of estimating the evidence is an area forbidden to the higher courts in oversight, this does not mean that the Court of Cassation ignores the facts of the case.
The existence of reasons or their sufficiency, which form the basis for issuing the judgment, is not considered sufficient, but these reasons must be valid in terms of reason and logic to reach the conclusion reached by the subject court in the judgment, because the reasoning that leads to results that are unpalatable and unfit for judgment, is not It makes it valid premises for the issuance and pronunciation of the judgment, which makes the judgment flawed and tainted by corruption in inference through the wrong deduction of the facts of the case.
The main problem that the study seeks to find a solution for lies in the effect of the logical reasoning carried out by the judge while he is in the process of understanding the incident and the evidence in the case, whether it is inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning that is not sound, and how its corruption leads to the injury of the penal judgment with the corruption of inference. It also addresses the extent to which the defect of corruption of reasoning affects the validity of the judgment issued by the trial court, and how it is addressed, in the absence of a legislative text in the amended Iraqi Code of Criminal Procedure No. (23) of 1971.
In order to protect the judgment from procedural waste, both in terms of judicial effort and time, and to protect litigants, it is necessary to find means, whether judicial or legislative, in order to correct judgments and not to waste them and to avoid falling into the defect of corruption of inference.