To date, one of the main goals of the legislator has become not only the disclosure of crimes and punishment of those responsible, but also the prevention of illegal activities. After all, there are situations when a person commits an act that looks like a criminal, but in the absence of guilt, wrongfulness or because of good intentions. One of the best ways to do this was to support socially beneficial behavior by introducing into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code) a chapter containing circumstances precluding criminal acts. The Russian Federation is a state whose legislation clearly delineates these points.
Benefit and innocence are the foundation of impunity
From the point of view of science, the concept of circumstances that exclude the criminality of an act can be represented as a set of conditions, as a result of which actions that harm the interests of the law, have signs of corpus delicti, will not entail criminal liability because of their public usefulness or expediency. Such an approach has long been controversial in science and, depending on the interpretation, such factors were called differently: excluding social danger; criminal liability and punishability; wrongfulness. As a result, two main aspects of such circumstances were identified. Firstly, there are actions harmful to the interests under the protection of the law, which creates their relationship with the crime. Secondly, situations for such acts contradict their crime and thereby neutralize such a similarity. Explaining this point, A. A. Piontkovsky called them a negative element of the offense, neutralizing the illegal character. Discussions in the scientific literature are reduced mainly to the determination of the legal nature, identifying signs of circumstances that exclude the crime of an act:
- They are harmful and have signs of crime.
- Inherently not criminal.
- Committed for a useful purpose.
So what is this mysterious circumstance? Circumstances excluding criminal acts cause controversy among scientists about the presence or absence of guilt, public danger, and unlawfulness.
Some adhere to the position according to which the absence of only one or several of these signs of a crime is sufficient, while others tend to generalize in this matter. However, it seems wrong to exclude the public danger of such actions, since it exists objectively and does not depend on the assessments of the legislator or the person committing them. It occurs at the time of harming public relations protected by law. The interests of both the victim and the person committing such acts are equally important, and therefore the public danger remains.
Speaking of unlawfulness, we can say that socially dangerous acts are not always illegal, that is, they are not prohibited by law. It is important to distinguish these circumstances from related legal institutions, for example, voluntary refusal to commit a crime or expiration of the statute of limitations. Their peculiarity is in the absence of signs of crime when committing an act.Events that fall into this category are similar to a crime, but due to the pursuit of a useful goal or the absence of guilt of a person, and sometimes the ability to somehow influence the situation, they do not acquire the status of a crime.
As a sign, the encouraging essence of this institution is sometimes mentioned. Some point to the encouraging nature of the rules on self-defense and detention of a criminal, while others, on the contrary, indicate that the actor does not acquire new rights and benefits. There is no fixed legal form in the legislation to endorse such behavior. Consequently, to talk about encouragement does not seem to be correct, despite the fact that in some situations even rewarding citizens by the outcome may take place. The concept and types of circumstances that exclude criminal acts have become a very controversial issue in legal science.
Typology in science and law
The typology of these circumstances provokes as heated debates as the legal nature. The list that scientists offer is wider than enshrined in law. The position of the law is reflected in the chapter of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and clarifies the concept and types of circumstances that exclude criminal acts. Situations that fall into this category may include signs of either one corpus delicti or several homogeneous or dissimilar corpus delicti. The position of criminal law science provides for a wider range of such circumstances. It is proposed to supplement the list already given by causing harm with the consent of the victim in carrying out socially useful activities, the legal use of weapons, and some others. However, difficulties arise here, as some actions are already regulated by other branches of law.
For example, at the moment, harm done with the consent of the victim is not considered a crime until it exceeds a mild degree, is not done in a socially dangerous way and does not entail serious consequences; otherwise, civil law rules come into force. Therefore, the content of Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is considered the most important source determining the types of circumstances that exclude the crime of an act. Now we will consider situations with harm and the reasons for their classification in this category.
Legal protection of one’s own interests
Necessary defense is a set of actions aimed at suppressing harm to the personal, state or public interests protected by law that caused harm to the attacker. That is how this circumstance is defined. The circumstances excluding crime acts will show signs of crime. Everything changes the motive of the defender, aimed at achieving a useful goal, and therefore such cases are not criminal. The rules of the law can only work in relation to the suppression of action, but not inaction. Only a real defense of personal interests protected by law will allow us to classify such behavior among the circumstances under consideration. That is, there should be a significant assault. So, coffee accidentally spilled by the waiter cannot become an excuse to justify customer aggression. But given that in extreme situations, the victim cannot always adequately assess what is happening, in Art. 37, paragraph 2 was introduced. Self-defense of a person in the case when, due to the suddenness of the encroachment it was not possible to assess the degree of danger, will not be considered an excess of the necessary defense.
The participation of the population in the fight against crime
If it is necessary to cause harm to detain the subject of the crime and its subsequent transfer to representatives of law enforcement bodies or to terminate unlawful acts, it is permissible by law. Circumstances excluding the crime of an act are situations similar to crimes, but this kinship is leveled out by the generally useful goal of suppressing wrongful acts and detaining the offender.However, there are limits to this behavior. Damage can only be caused to the interests of the person committing or has already committed a crime and can be caused if there is no other way to achieve a result. A typical example would be minor damage to health when trying to prevent robbery. Its size is commensurate with the degree of public danger and the situation of the act committed by the offender. An example of exceeding the necessary can be causing death to an unarmed thief. In such situations, the actions will be qualified under the relevant criminal law articles. But still, these standards remain perhaps the most controversial in application. Thus, the limits of the necessary defense in defense against sexual crimes very often become the subject of controversy not only in science, but also in courtrooms.
Urgent need as an excuse
The law allows harm to personal or public interests protected by law also in cases of emergency, but only if it is impossible to avoid another way to eliminate the threat to them. A person should not be able to prevent the danger in another way and exceed the limits of necessity, which correspond to the degree of danger and the prevailing circumstances. Such actions are guilty. If it is established that the limits of extreme necessity are exceeded, such actions will be qualified as reckless crimes, or the consequences will not occur due to the innocent nature of the harm. They may contain signs of one or many crimes, but the fact that the harm caused will be less than possible and it is not possible to avoid it gives grounds to qualify them as circumstances that exclude the crime of an act. In the Criminal Code, this is clearly defined. For example, if in order to save the life of a wounded man or for the quick delivery of a woman in labor to a medical facility it is necessary to commit a theft, the hijacker will not be held responsible, because the consequences of leaving the patient without help are worse than the car that disappeared for a while.
Coercion and loss of control over actions
One of the most difficult questions in its qualification poses Art. 40 of the Criminal Code. The article not only provides for the separation of physical and mental coercion, but also classifies it into surmountable and irresistible. The objective ability to control one’s behavior or inaction acts as a classifying attribute in such a situation. The norms of this article closely border on the extreme need in a situation where a person had the opportunity to manage their activities or inaction, in which case they will be qualified in accordance with it. If the harm caused under duress exceeds the limits of emergency, it will be considered taking into account extenuating circumstances. The absence of unlawfulness and guilt in acts under duress became the basis for qualifying such actions as circumstances precluding the criminal act. In the case of surmountable coercion, there is a useful goal - to avoid more serious consequences. If pizza with sleeping pills is delivered to the bank guard, and then a robbery occurs, the employee will not be guilty. This is a typical case of complete loss of control and inaction. But if, under the threat of weapons, the guard opens a bank safe, the question will arise about the overcoming of coercion.
Risk and its validity
The harm caused by legally protected personal, state or public interests as a result of the justification of the risk necessary to achieve a goal useful to society is qualified as a circumstance described in the article. The circumstances excluding crime acts are the main sign of the admissibility of such harm is the inability to achieve benefits and benefits in a way that does not involve risk.The reason for such a decision of the legislator is obvious, since a person is guided by a good task. But at the same time certain restrictions remain. Despite the fact that the amount of harm with the necessary and reasonable risk is generally unlimited, the possibility of environmental or public disaster and human life is not allowed. The peculiarity of such situations is that they arise without danger, but only to improve an existing situation. In such a situation, one can talk about the guilt of the person, and the actions taken may have signs of one or many crimes. When rescuing captured hostages or rendering harmless the offender, law enforcement officials are at a reasonable risk.
Submission and its consequences
The execution of a lawful order or instruction is the last type of circumstances in which the harm caused will be within the framework of the circumstances in question. The peculiarity of this article is that, unlike the others, there is a person who is responsible for such actions, since he issued an appropriate order or order. In such a situation, a goal that is useful for society is not achieved, but in a certain situation a person is obliged to fulfill an order. The situation can be any, the main thing in it is the subordination of the person to the one who gave the order. The main thing in this case is the legality of the order and its recognition as such. If someone complied with illegal instructions and was aware of this, he will respond in accordance with the relevant article of the Criminal Code. Based on this, the main reason for the circumstances that exclude the crime of an act is such submission, was the person’s obligation to comply with instructions due to his official position. Fulfilling the order to shoot, a sniper causes harm to health, and sometimes life, but is not responsible for this.
Comparison of the Roman-Germanic and Anglo-Saxon systems of law
The legislative systems of the world inevitably come into contact, and circumstances that exclude criminal acts and criminal liability in one state do not work in another. It is especially interesting to compare the legislation of Russia, which applies the Romano-German system of law, with the countries of the Anglo-Saxon system, which are used by England, the USA, and Australia. However, even within the framework of one legislative system, there are differences. English law as a country using case law, it does not contain a clear list of what circumstances preclude criminal acts, and the practice of judicial activity considers them to be situations that are not useful and inappropriate from the point of view of the Russian criminal law science.
So, in the criminal procedure law of England in some cases circumstances that exclude the crime of an act include intoxication or the commission of an offense by a legal entity. US law at the federal level does not specifically govern criminal circumstances. In this case, factors excluding criminal acts can be prescribed at another legislative level. At the state level, for example, there are valuable findings. Thus, in the criminal law of the State of New York, incitement by public servants to illegal actions with the aim of further prosecution is highlighted. Australian law is essentially close to American, but more systematic and reasoned.
The meaning of liability disclaimer
Unfortunately, it is not always possible for a person to wait for the protection of personal rights and interests protected by law by authorized authorities. The significance of circumstances precluding the crime of an act is independent for everyone, not only in the legal, but also in the practical sense. It is defined not only common to all, but also specific to each of the signs and conditions.Their combination allows not to classify externally criminal acts as crimes and free the accused from criminal liability. The application of the rules on freedom from criminal liability in these cases allows you to independently protect personal rights, as well as prevent violations of the rights of others and save the punishment of innocents.
This is especially important in the light of modern social realities. The circumstances themselves, which exclude the crime of an act, are present in criminal law as a concept, and an increase in their number can contribute to the construction of a rule of law in Russia.
