It is indicated that an important feature of the injured person, which allows to distinguish him from other persons, is related to the infliction of damage. The etymological and semantic analysis of the term «victim» shows that damage is an integral feature of a victim. The article examines the possibility and expediency of recognizing a person as a victim in the criminal law field in the event of a threat to cause harm to him. Provisions of the current Criminal Code of Ukraine, the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine, national judicial practice are taken into account. It is argued that in context of the injured person, term damage is understood in two meanings: 1) narrowly (includes only real damage); 2) in a broad sense (includes both damage and the danger/threat of causing it, as well as the threat). At the same time, attributing the threat as an independent action to a type of harm, as suggested by authors of the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine, seems debatable, because in such a case the term «threat» will denote both an action and a consequence. It is also worth paying attention to whether there is a need to use both the term «threat» and the term «danger» in the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine. It has been established that the term «threat» in the context of the definition of the victim means both actual moral or other types of harm to him, as well as the threat/danger of his task. It has been proven that victim in a certain composition of a criminal offense can be characterized not only by harm in its narrow sense, but also by threat or danger of its occurrence, that is, harm in the broad sense, as well as the threat of harm. The threat in the context of the criminal-legal understanding of victim is important, first of all, if there is no implementation. In case of the implementation of a threat, which is provided as an independent crime and is a stage of a single criminal activity, united by a single intention and aimed at causing damage to the same object, qualification under the article providing for responsibility for the threat is not required, and therefore and there is no need to establish the victim of the threat. If a threat is a way of committing an act, then the victim is determined in the context of act in general, taking into account the threat as a way of committing it.
Read full abstract