In criminal law, there are examples of harsh actions against people, a hotbed of danger, certain elements, but only such an attitude can sometimes protect the lives of those around them. An extreme need is created, conditions of lawfulness, in order to eliminate the threat to one person or group, and in another way, it was not possible to do this. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in article No. 39 states that it is not a crime to protect society and even the state, by any method acceptable to the law, if the situation requires it.
Jurisprudence Terms
Sometimes circumstances guide the actions of citizens. They are forced to violate existing legal norms that regulate various spheres of human life, protect their legitimate interests. Here, jurisprudence speaks with its own terms. Having learned their meaning, it becomes clear that they are able to legitimize violations - this is an urgent need and conditions of lawfulness.
To clarify the concept, one can imagine a conflict situation in which 2 interests protected by the right collided. To protect one side, some rules will have to be violated. For example: a house is burning in order to penetrate into it, it is necessary to knock out doors, windows, destroy furniture that interferes with movement in the premises, if people inside are exposed to carbon monoxide.
It should be understood what words such as extreme necessity mean. This is a chain of certain actions, with their help the danger is eliminated. The conditions show under what circumstances the work was carried out when the result will be recognized as lawful.
Justification by law
The lawmakers considered, relying on Article 39, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that the activities in the burning house were carried out when absolutely necessary under conditions of law. Circumstances such that it was impossible to save a child from fire without causing damage to property. To apply other measures, there were no methods and there was not enough time. Legitimate conditions explain the qualification of the state of the actor, when there are no other methods to eliminate the danger to citizens, and it is impossible to cause less material damage.
In fact, human life has been preserved, which is the most important interest, but at the same time sacrificed things and building structures, which are also under the protection of the law. Justification of the behavior of the subject is an assessment of circumstances. By his actions, he would have done less harm if events had occurred without his intervention.
Who is entitled
If an urgent need has formed, the conditions for the lawfulness of the actions will be considered legal, and even the court will recognize them as necessary and necessary to eliminate the source of danger. Any citizen who has witnessed the incident can make a decision to do so.
Do not exclude from the review a special category of people who are obliged to protect or help society by the nature of their service:
- police officers;
- lifeguards;
- firefighters.
If they are eliminated from the performance of professional duties, this will entail a varying degree of responsibility.
What must happen to justify tough actions
What can happen in life if they correspond to the concept of extreme necessity and the conditions of lawfulness?
There are a number of unforeseen situations caused by:
- natural forces;
- technological disasters;
- animals marked by sudden aggression, rabies;
- a change in a person’s healthy state due to the physiological processes of the body;
- dangerous actions by criminal elements.
There is one condition for recognizing the legality of the operation performed - the real danger of the individual, to the state.
What the competent authorities do not consider a crime
The conditions of lawfulness of emergency include:
- Hazardous current situation, which cannot be eliminated by any means, only by causing harm to an unauthorized person who is not connected with the source of danger and is protected by law.
- The size of the material damage caused should be less than what they tried to prevent. The case requires taking into account the proportionality of the cost of the protected elements and causing harm. Equal damage is not a condition of lawfulness of emergency. If a person saves his life through the death of another, he will have to prove that there was no other way.
Elimination of various threats and causing equal or greater damage will entail criminal liability if intentions are proven.
What constitutes necessary defense
The conditions for the legitimacy of necessary defense and emergency are in front of a very fine line. Citizens can manifest themselves in different ways if their lives or loved ones are in physical danger. The law can justify actions as protection against attacks by third parties whose purpose was to cause harm to health.
The competent authorities have to prove that all the signs have formed:
- the threat really existed;
- offenders really tried to beat, torture;
- the attacking citizens were in a clearly aggressive state.
Defense should not begin at the moment of a shot from a firearm or when a person meets someone else's fist, but a situation does indeed arise and it is understood that this will not be possible to avoid.
To protect not only their personal rights, but also the interests of residents, the law allows, if they require physical or moral help. In this case, harm may be caused to the offender. It will be necessary to cite the facts that an extreme need has been created, and the justified risk in the conditions of lawfulness is perfect. It is necessary to take into account: if strikes are delivered, they can be directed only towards the attacker, other persons who stood aside and observed the outcome of the operation cannot be beaten.
Features
Protection from attacking people is somewhat different from the legal fact when you have to perform actions in emergency. The defense of their home or the lives of relatives, authorities can count as a legitimate act. Even if citizens could, but did not call the police for help and did not use any methods to prevent danger.
In contrast to the conditions of lawfulness in case of emergency:
- harm may be caused if they protect the interests that are protected by the criminal law;
- the threat could not be eliminated by any means;
- the limits were met, the harm done was less than prevented.
When determining whether there was an excess of forces when performing certain actions, consider:
- threat characterization;
- hazard level;
- under what circumstances was the risk eliminated;
- third parties receive damage;
- salvation of the blessing occurs only after causing losses.
The reason for starting the operation may be the presence of immediate danger. When it already exists, then the response steps are applied.
An interesting case from practice
One of the conditions for the legitimacy of harm when absolutely necessary is the basic meaning. This is the use of a legitimate means to preserve a valuable object instead of another, which is less valued.
In practice, there are cases when the death of one person was necessary to save many lives. For example, the electric train did not stop at the move. The driver noticed that a passenger car crosses the railway at high speed, the stop would cause a crash and many casualties. People in the car died, but the court acquitted the driver according to the results of a technical examination.
When responsibility comes
Whatever the case in life, if it comes to legal proceedings, the judge will rely on article 39, part 2. The legal act states that the damage caused by the actions must not exceed the extent that corresponds to the extreme need.
An increase in established standards will entail criminal liability. And if a violation is recognized by the court, the citizen who caused the damage is obliged to compensate it.
It all depends on the competence of the judiciary: in its right to carefully consider the circumstances and award damages to the person who caused the action. The judge can find out who created the threat, then the perpetrator will have to pay the costs. The legal authority and the law do not require an exact choice, if there were several to eliminate the threat. The basic requirement for emergency participants is that you cannot destroy more by saving the object than it was before external intervention.
The assessment of the level of the caused and prevented loss is carried out individually in each case. Indicators depend on the circumstances that caused the event. The only identical criterion and priority is human life, it has no price and there is no point in comparing it with the value of things.
As a result, we can conclude that the law provides the right to make a choice for a person in an emergency. Gives him "good" to participate in the prevention of harm to the interests of the individual, state and society. It is important to know: where is the limit - both in the necessary defense, and in extreme necessity, so as not to aggravate the circumstances. To do this, you need to know your strengths and not do more harm than the assistance provided to the victims.