LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISCRIMINATION WITHOUT CRIME

Unfortunately, the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not answer the question of what criminal-law consequences occur for a committed act of voluntary refusal and this has become the cause of many discussions of many scholars. Some of them believe that voluntary denial is the basis for exemption from criminal liability, others that such a refusal generally excludes criminal liability. Also, there is an opinion among the scholars that the person is not subject to criminal liability when volunteering.

Part 2 of Article 17 of the Criminal Code determines only one criminal-legal consequence: a person who voluntarily refused to bring the crime to the end is liable to criminal liability only if the actual deed of the act contains another crime.

A number of authors (MD Durmanov, I. S. Tyshkevich, V. F. Karaulov, etc.) believe that the exclusion of criminal liability in the case of voluntary refusal is due to the absence in such cases of the social danger of the act and the person who committed it.

Some scholars believe that voluntary denial is the reason for the exclusion of criminal liability, because in such cases there is no crime in the act of the subject. That is, at voluntary refusal in the act of the subject there is no sign of social danger, which excludes the possibility of bringing to criminal responsibility. A person refuses to commit a crime and does not take any action to achieve a criminal result, that is, the abolition of the objective part of the crime

The reasons for the exclusion of criminal liability in the case of voluntary refusal of a crime are considered either absence or insignificance of public danger, guilt, etc. According to Art. 17 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine voluntary renunciation of a crime is an independent basis for the exclusion of criminal liability for a pending crime, because the person voluntarily refuses to stop the danger created by it, does not allow it to be realized, become a real causing damage to the object, prevents the completion of the crime.

In addition to purely procedural moments, one should not forget about the fundamentally different criminal consequences of committing a person with an act that contains the crime, and an act in which the crime is absent. In the first case, even for the release from criminal responsibility, it is necessary to formally prove the guilt of an individual in the crime committed by him, which, of course, is not required in cases where the crime is not. And in this context it is quite correct to formulate the basic approaches to the solution of this problem N.V. Maslak, who believes that in order to solve it, it is necessary first of all to find out the question of whether the person actually committed acts to the voluntary denial of the crime, her previous acts are criminal in nature.

One must agree with V.O.Navrocky's opinion that the voluntary refusal compensates for all the criminal consequences of the previously committed incomplete encroachment, in particular, it can not be taken into account as an element of the plurality of crimes, etc. In this aspect, voluntary denial can be attributed to so-called imperative exemptions from criminal liability. It is about such types of dismissal, when the court, having stated the presence of the conditions and grounds specified in the criminal law, is obliged to pass a decision to dismiss a person from criminal liability.

The legislator and law enforcers do not have the right to neglect any possibility of preventing the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences, especially when a person abandons his criminal intentions on his own initiative.

Therefore, this norm, stated in the Criminal Code, is essential for preventing the completion of crimes, as it contributes to the refusal to continue and complete the crime commenced by a person. The provisions of this rule on voluntary refusal may also be used by other persons for the prevention of crimes.