Крайня необхідність: фізичний та психологічний примус

Abstract

Extreme necessity is defined as a situation in which a person is forced to violate the law in order to avoid greater harm that threatens his or her life, health or other legitimate interests. An important aspect is the proportionality of the choice: the damage caused must be less than the damage that could have been avoided. Infliction of harm in a state of passion in the course of necessary defense by citizens under the age of 18 is not criminally punishable. Within the framework of legitimate self-defense, a citizen must inflict minimal harm on criminals, as the case law says, such harm must be less dangerous than the attacker’s. Without exceeding these limits of self-defense, a third party can also protect a citizen who has been attacked. Necessary defense cannot be so qualified during the detention of an attacker or other measures taken by law enforcement officers and is a criterion only in “domestic” relations. Given the basic essence of extreme necessity, protection is provided when criminal acts can be prevented solely by physical influence. Therefore, for example, in case of refusal to pay alimony, such self-defense is considered unlawful. Physical or mental coercion as a circumstance that excludes the criminality of an act is a violent influence on a person (person), the purpose of which is to perform certain illegal actions by the said person, contrary to his or her will, limiting the person’s right to freedom of choice. Causing harm in the course of overcoming physical and mental coercion is considered in accordance with the rules provided for extreme necessity. In order to recognize as lawful the behavior of causing harm which is outwardly similar to a certain criminal offense, it is necessary to comply with the conditions set forth in legislation: the existence of a threat of significant harm to interests; impossibility to avoid it by other means without causing harm; harm caused for the sake of preserving a more important interest.