This is a caption

This is a caption
Amir Salar Davoudi

A few days ago, news was released with the following content: “Car thieves kidnapped a car that had an eight-month-old baby girl inside, but within a few days, unfortunately, the car was found abandoned in one of the outskirts of the capital, and the eight-month-old baby mentioned had tragically passed away due to thirst, hunger, and extreme heat.”

According to detectives, when the car was found, the windows of the stolen car were completely rolled up, containing an eight-month-old baby. It is not known whether the car doors were locked or not, but in any case, if the eight-month-old baby had not been locked in the car, there would have been no possibility of opening the door and rescuing them. Additionally, the body of the eight-month-old baby, “Benita”, had become stiff and bloated due to the intense heat…

As for the thieves, after their arrest, they presented two important and verifiable claims. First, that they were not aware or involved in the presence of an eight-month-old baby during the car theft and only realized it shortly after taking the car. However, due to fear of being caught or lack of ability to make a proper decision about returning the baby, they did not want to or were unable to return the baby. Their main goal was only to steal the car, not to kidnap a person. Second, they claim to have informed the police about abandoning the car in a specific area, but despite this, the police did not take any action (of course, the information about the stolen car was already reported to all police units within the first hour).

Regarding the second claim, it is noteworthy that the Attorney General of the country confirms the police’s information about the release of the vehicle.

And as for whether the car thieves carrying an eight-month-old infant have committed intentional murder!?

In response, it must first be said that the infant Binita has lost her life as a result of severe hunger, thirst, and extreme heat. Therefore, the thieves have been the main cause of creating such conditions that have led to the loss of life, and it seems that their claim of being unaware of the presence of an eight-month-old baby during the theft is likely to be true.

Therefore, if we consider this claim of the thieves’ lack of knowledge to be true, we must believe in the specific malicious intent of intentional murder regarding the thieves.

Thieves were unaware of the presence of the infant in the car during the theft, so they had no intention of kidnapping the baby and may not have even had a plan for the infant after the kidnapping. However, the whole issue arises when they become aware of the presence of the infant, and now that they could have returned the baby to its worried parents in dozens of ways, or even left the baby in front of a police station or with social services, for unknown reasons they made the worst choice.

They left the baby in the car and abandoned the car in a neighborhood. They were even worried that someone might steal the baby and therefore, they locked the doors and rolled up the windows. They have also informed the police. Now, if they can prove the news to the police, their legal situation will provide them with the necessary evidence to report the incident.

In fact, if they can prove their whereabouts to the police regarding the location and place where the car was abandoned, then their unintentional murder will be confirmed and they will be responsible for the blood money. However, if they cannot prove their whereabouts to the police, or if they did not report the abandoned car carrying the infant to the police, their actions will be considered as intentional killing and they will not be exempt from punishment.

The ultimate hope is that the handling of these cases, which are under the influence of public opinion, will not be rushed and driven by ordinary emotions, and that we witness the clear presence of judicial rationality in the process of handling.