Judicial practice of imposing punishments for damage to the health or life of a person inflicted in a state of strong mental excitement

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The article is dedicated to the study of the judicial practice of imposing punishments for damage to the health or life of a person inflicted in a state of strong mental excitement. In particular, an analysis of judicial statistics was carried out regarding the number of persons convicted of the crimes provided for in Articles 116 and 123 of the Criminal Code, and the types and size of punishments imposed for committing specified crimes were investigated. In particular, it was established that courts, when imposing punishments for damage to the health or life of a person inflicted in a state of strong mental excitement, as a rule, apply a punishment that is not associated with restriction or deprivation of liberty, which should be considered a positive trend, since the imposition of a punishment with release from serving it also contributes to its purpose as defined by Article 50 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, i.e., correction of the convicted person and prevention of him committing new criminal offenses. Attention is focused on the motivational part of guilty verdicts, in particular regarding consideration by the courts when imposing punishments of the degree of gravity of the committed crime, the guilty party and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Judicial practice of the Supreme Court was reviewed in terms of reviewing court decisions in cases of crimes committed in a state of strong mental excitement. The emphasis was made on the fact that the imposition of punishment belongs to the sphere of judicial discretion and depends both on the circumstances of the criminal proceedings and on the identity of the culprit and his legal position in the case. The opinion is expressed that when imposing a punishment for damage to the health or life of a person inflicted in a state of strong mental excitement, a balanced approach should be taken to the imposition of a punishment in the form of imprisonment, both with its actual serving, and with the subsequent release from serving it with probation, especially in cases when the sanction of the law under which the person is found guilty, along with deprivation of liberty for a certain period, provides for milder types of punishment, such as: restriction of liberty, community service or correctional labor. It is also stated that the criminal offenses provided for in Articles 116 and 123 of the Criminal Code are crimes with privileged components, according to Article 12 of the Criminal Code – they are mild, they are always associated with the wrongful actions of the victim, which have a significant impact on the emotional state of the offender and lead to him committing a crime. Conclusions were made that ensuring the unity of judicial practice in matters of imposing punishment for damage to the health or life of a person inflicted in a state of strong mental excitement is one of the main tasks of law enforcement activity, and the uncertainty of legislative rules and their ambiguous interpretation by courts complicates the unification of punishment for identical criminal offenses committed. Key words: judicial discretion, law enforcement activity, a state of strong mental excitement, judicial practice, conclusions of the Supreme Court, verdict, ruling, punishment, imposition of punishment, deprivation of liberty, exemption from serving a sentence with probation, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, identity of culprit, criminal offenses, statistical data.