Abstract

This article is researching an institution of exemption from criminal liability as an alternative to criminal prosecution on the basis of current criminal procedure legislation, scientific researches and judicial practice. It was found that some researchers of exemption from criminal liability refer it to the forms of criminal liability, consider exemption from criminal liability as an institution of criminal law that differentiates liability; a radical means of differentiating a criminal liability; a legal fact that terminates a criminal legal relationship, which exempts a person from adverse legal consequences, etc. Having analysed the positions of foreign and domestic scholars, it can be concluded that the norms which provide for exemption from criminal liability should be considered as «an alternative to criminal prosecution». Exemption from criminal liability is provided for in the criminal law due to the fact that in some cases there is no point in subjecting a particular person to criminal liability, as criminal liability, being lawful, is considered as an inexpedient one. The state responds to a criminal act not leaving it without consequences, but reacts in another, «alternative» form, reaching a justified legal compromise in such cases. It is proved that the institution of exemption from criminal liability is implementing a desire of the state to effectively and rationally fight against crime without punishment and in general without a guilty verdict (conviction). This institution is simultaneously implementing the principles of economy of criminal repression, humanism and individualization of liability. Thus, the legislator has provided an alternative to criminal prosecution in the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code. This alternative in certain cases includes a compromise – a person who first time committed a criminal offense or negligent minor offence, except for corruption offenses, is being exempted from criminal liability if this person: has sincerely repented after commitment of offence, has actively contributed to the disclosure of the criminal offense and has fully reimbursed the damage caused by it or has eliminated the damage (Article 45 of the Criminal Code); has reconciled with the victim and has reimbursed the damage caused by such a person or has eliminated the damage (Article 46 of the Criminal Code); when transferring on parole to the staff of the enterprise, institution or organization within a year from the date of parole such person will justify the trust of the staff, will not evade educational measures and will not violate a public order (Article 47 of the Criminal Code). Key words: alternative, liability, exemption, compromise, punishment.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call