Abstract
Guilt in criminal law in its essence is a very complex category, but at the same time, it is the main feature of the subjective side of the crime, which predetermines its rigorous and precise establishment within the framework of the classification of the crime. The paper states that the greatest difficulty in establishing guilt is in terms of subjective error, where the prerequisites are delusion and ignorance. At the same time, the non-identical nature of these concepts is emphasized. Based on a psychological and philosophical analysis, the author draws a conclusion about the causes of delusion and ignorance in criminal law relations, which are a defect in perception and a defect in information content. Taking into account the indicated reasons, as well as judicial enforcement practice, the author concludes that the main criterion for establishing guilt in terms of delusion or ignorance is an element of good faith. Given its application, the paper proposes levels of types of delusion and ignorance, and further their role in establishing the mental attitude of a person to a committed criminal act.
Highlights
Как известно, доктрина уголовного права стоит на позиции психологической теории вины, при этом законодатель в определении форм вины делает исключительный акцент на психологическую составляющую, указывая, что лицо должно осознавать, предвидеть, желать
Guilt in criminal law in its essence is a very complex category, but at the same time, it is the main feature of the subjective side of the crime, which predetermines its rigorous and precise establishment within the framework of the classification of the crime
The paper states that the greatest difficulty in establishing guilt is in terms of subjective error, where the prerequisites are delusion and ignorance
Summary
Доктрина уголовного права стоит на позиции психологической теории вины, при этом законодатель в определении форм вины делает исключительный акцент на психологическую составляющую, указывая, что лицо должно осознавать, предвидеть, желать. В статье констатируется, что наибольшую сложность установление вины представляет в условиях субъективной ошибки, где предпосылками выступают заблуждение и неведение. А также практику судебного правоприменения, автор приходит к выводу, что основным критерием при установлении вины в условиях заблуждения или неведения является признак добросовестности.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
