Зарубежный опыт правовой регламентации внесудебных форм защиты прав и свобод личности, исключающих преступность деяния

Alexander М. Smirnov

doi:10.21638/spbu14.2021.110

Authors

Alexander М. Smirnov Research Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, 15a, Narvskaya ul., Moscow, 125130, Russian Federation International Law Institute, 4, ul. Kashenkin Lug, Moscow, 127427, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4779-4971

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.110

Abstract

The article describes the provisions of the sources of criminal law of some foreign countries regarding the regulation of extrajudicial forms of protection of an individual’s rights and freedoms, excluding the criminality of the act. The author refers to these forms as a necessary defense, causing harm to the person who committed the crime, and extreme necessity. The article discusses the possibility of implementing the provisions of these sources in Russian criminal law to improve the state response to the implementation of these forms. The author comes to the conclusion that the most positive and constructive features of legal regulation in foreign countries, extrajudicial forms of protection of an individual’s rights and freedoms while excluding the criminality of the act, deserve scientific attention and consideration of their implementation in domestic criminal law and legal practice. The main features consist of the following: the conditions for the onset of the right to necessary defense, extreme need and infliction of harm during the detention of a person who has committed a crime, and the grounds for exceeding it; taking into account the situation when determining the legitimacy of the given circumstances; allocation of privileged conditions under which a person is either exempted from criminal liability or not exempted from it, but can count on mitigation of punishment; criminal prosecution for actions if absolutely necessary only if they have resulted in more harm than the harm prevented; regulation of legal and factual error with the necessary defense and extreme necessity; legal regulation of the conditions for the use of weapons in the implementation of these forms; holding accountable those who provoked the necessary defense; the emergence of the right to necessary defense of the person whose rights are being encroached upon.

Keywords:

human rights, extrajudicial protection, self-defense rights, necessary defense, harm to the offender, extreme necessity

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Библиография

Бошно, Светалана В. 2016. Теория государства и права: учебник. 3-е изд. М.: Юстиция.

Васин, Дмитрий М. 2013. «Необходимая оборона как обстоятельство, исключающее преступность деяния: место и роль в уголовно-правовом регулировании». Автореф. дис. … канд. юрид. наук, Уральская государственная юридическая академия.

Козочкин, Иван Д., ред. 2003. Уголовное право зарубежных государств. Общая часть. М.: Омега-Л, Институт международного права и экономики им. А. С. Грибоедова.

Кузнецова, Нинель Ф., ред. 1991. Преступление и наказание в Англии, США, Франции, ФРГ, Японии: Общая часть уголовного права. М.: Юридическая литература.

Малешина, Анастасия В. 2008. «Особенности уголовно-правовых систем стран общего права». Актуальные проблемы российского права 3 (8): 595–602.

Никифоров, Борис С., ред. 1969. Примерный уголовный кодекс (США): офиц. проект Института американского права = Model penal code: The American Law Institute Proposed Official Draft, пер. с англ. М.: Прогресс.

Побегайло, Эдуард Ф. 2008. «О пределах необходимой обороны». Уголовное право 2: 21–24.

Савин, Павел Т. 2014. «Необходимая оборона на макроуровне как основа самоопределения наций». Актуальные проблемы современного законодательства: сб. ст. студентов, аспирантов, соискателей и преподавателей. М.: Московская финансово-юридическая академия.

Oleson, Kathryn C., Julia M. Darley. 1999. “Community perceptions of allowable counterforce in self-defense and defense of property”. Law and human behavior 23 (6): 629–651.

Robinson, Paul H. 1982. “Criminal Law Defenses: A Systematic Analysis”. Columbia Law Review 82: 199–211.

References

Boshno, Svetalana V. 2016. Theory of state and law: a textbook. 3rd ed. Moscow, Iustitsiia Publ. (In Russian)

Kozochkin, Ivan D., ed. 2003. Criminal law of foreign states. A common part. Moscow, Omega-L Publ., Institut mezhdunarodnogo prava i ekonomiki im. A. S. Griboedova Publ. (In Russian)

Kuznetsova, Ninel’ F., ed. 1991. Crime and punishment in England, USA, France, Germany, Japan: General part of criminal law. Moscow, Iuridicheskaia literature Publ. (In Russian)

Maleshina, Anastasiia V. 2008. “Features of the criminal law systems of common law countries”. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava 3 (8): 595–602. (In Russian)

Nikiforov, Boris S., ed. 1969. Model penal code: The American Law Institute Proposed Official Draft. Rus. ed. Moscow, Progress Publ. (In Russian)

Oleson, Kathryn C., Julia M. Darley. 1999. “Community perceptions of allowable counterforce in self-defense and defense of property”. Law and human behavior 23 (6): 629–651.

Pobegailo, Eduard F. 2008. “On the limits of necessary defense”. Ugolovnoe pravo 2: 21–24. (In Russian)

Robinson, Paul H. 1982. “Criminal Law Defenses: A Systematic Analysis”. Columbia Law Review 82: 199–211.

Savin, Pavel T. 2014. “Necessary defense at the macro level as the basis for the self-determination of nations”. Aktual’nye problemy sovremennogo zakonodatel’stva: sb. st. studentov, aspirantov, soiskatelei i prepodavatelei. Moscow, Moskovskaia finansovo-iuridicheskaia akademiia Publ. (In Russian)

Vasin, Dmitrii M. 2013. “Necessary defense as a circumstance excluding the crime of an act: place and role in the criminal law regulation”. PhD abstract, Ural’skaia gosudarstvennaia iuridicheskaia akademiia.(In Russian)