Volume 02 Issue 12-2022
94
International Journal of Advance Scientific Research
(ISSN
–
2750-1396)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
12
Pages:
94-99
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.478
)
(2022:
5.636
)
METADATA
IF
–
7.356
A
BSTRACT
The social relations that arise in the release from responsibility due to the fact that the guilty person regrets
his act, the conditions for the release from responsibility due to the fact that the guilty person regrets his
act, and the criminal law norms regarding the basis of their application are analyzed.
K
EYWORDS
Crime, punishment, remorse, liability, term, damage, active assistance.
I
NTRODUCTION
The general conditions for release from criminal
liability due to the fact that the guilty person has
actually repented of his act are listed in Part 1 of
Article 66 of the Criminal Code, which are as
follows; Committing a crime with a low social risk
and not very serious for the first time, filing a
guilty plea, showing actual remorse, actively
helping to solve the crime, and compensating for
the damage.
Journal
Website:
http://sciencebring.co
m/index.php/ijasr
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Research Article
GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE FACT THAT THE
GUILTY PERSON HAS ACTUALLY REPENTED OF HIS ACT
Submission Date:
December 08, 2022,
Accepted Date:
December 13, 2022,
Published Date:
December 18, 2022
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijasr-02-12-14
Azizakhon Allanova
Аssociate Professor, Department Of Criminal Law, Criminology And Fight Against Corruption, Tashkent
State University Of Law Uzbekistan
Volume 02 Issue 12-2022
95
International Journal of Advance Scientific Research
(ISSN
–
2750-1396)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
12
Pages:
94-99
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.478
)
(2022:
5.636
)
METADATA
IF
–
7.356
The diversity of the general conditions of release
from criminal liability in relation to the fact that
the guilty person, listed in Part 1 of Article 66 of
the Criminal Code, has actually repented of his act
requires their classification. The classification of
the conditions of exemption from criminal
liability has theoretical and practical importance:
systematization of the accumulated knowledge
and comprehensive research of the object of
study, and helps law enforcement agencies to
more accurately implement the norms
established in the criminal law.
In our opinion, it is effective to divide the
conditions of exemption from criminal
responsibility into objective and subjective
conditions. Objective conditions include:
firstly, an objective condition existing before the
commission of a criminal act - the first time the
crime was committed;
secondly, the objective condition that arises in the
process of committing a crime is not to exceed the
limits of the damage established by the norm
(committing a crime with a low social risk and not
very serious).
Subjective conditions that may arise after the
commission of a crime, confirming that a person
has lost his social danger, are as follows: filing a
plea of guilty; to assist in the detection of a crime;
compensation for damages.
Part 1 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code defines as
an objective condition for exemption from
criminal responsibility the first time committing
a crime with a low social risk and not very serious.
A similar requirement is set for exemption from
punishment under Article 71 of the Criminal
Code.
Most jurists-scientists consider that a crime
committed for the first time is a crime committed
for the first time by a person, or if it is not the first
time, but the time limit for prosecution for a
previously committed crime has expired (Article
64 of the Criminal Code), or the term of conviction
for a previously committed crime has expired
they emphasize that it is gone or removed (Article
78 of the Сriminal Code) [1].
In addition to the conditions for exemption from
criminal responsibility listed in part 1 of Article
66 of the Criminal Code, first of all, there should
be a positive social environment. This means that
the decision on release from criminal
responsibility is made based on the presence of
relatives, neighbors, colleagues and other
persons who can and are ready to have an
educational influence on the guilty person when
he is released from criminal responsibility, who
are in close contact with him and whose opinion
he trusts. In practice, such release can be made in
the presence of guarantors.
Secondly, it is proposed that in the case of serious
crimes, acquittal due to remorse is allowed when
there are circumstances that significantly reduce
the level of social danger of the criminal. For
example, crimes against property are committed
against relatives, acquaintances, colleagues.
The existence of an incentive norm in the law
leads to a positive result, because it is in
accordance with the interests of the victim
Volume 02 Issue 12-2022
96
International Journal of Advance Scientific Research
(ISSN
–
2750-1396)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
12
Pages:
94-99
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.478
)
(2022:
5.636
)
METADATA
IF
–
7.356
(reimbursement of damages, helping to solve the
crime) and the interests of society.
A plea of guilty is a subjective sign. In accordance
with part 1 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code,
filing a plea of guilty is one of the subjective
conditions
for
release
from
criminal
responsibility due to remorse.
According to experts in the field of criminal law, it
is understood that the criminal surrenders
himself to the justice system or gives a truthful
report about the crime committed or being
prepared, while having the opportunity to hide
from the investigation and the court[2].
According to the decision of the Plenum of the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan No.
1 "On the practice of sentencing for crimes by
courts" adopted on February 3, 2006, if the
person who committed the crime has not been
identified in the case initiated on the fact of the
crime, the application or notification of the
person about his crime it should be considered as
an admission of guilt[3].
In our opinion, the definition given by A.A.
Magomedov of the concept of being present with
a confession of guilt is relatively complete. In his
opinion, "confessing to guilt is a person's appeal
to the state authorities directly or through other
persons about the crime committed orally or in
writing before the fact or subject of the crime is
determined by the law enforcement agencies. As
a rule, along with being present with a confession
of guilt, repentance and recognition of one's guilt
are also carried out [4].
The practice of applying the law shows that the
form of presence of the guilty person and the
choice of the div to which he will be present
with such an appeal are different. For example,
some individuals who intend to plead guilty will
put their decision in writing and mail it to law
enforcement. Others will be notified by phone.
The third category of people inform about the
committed crime through their relatives [5].
Confession of guilt should be distinguished from
remorse. From the point of view of criminal law,
confession of guilt means consent to the factual
circumstances of the act and its legal assessment
(qualification), while remorse is characterized by
the mental state of the person who actually
blames himself for the violation of the law[6].
Actively helping to solve crimes, it is noted in the
literature that the norms of criminal law can serve
to solve crimes in three different ways:
1) by releasing the persons guilty of the crime
from criminal responsibility;
2) by reducing the punishment;
3) by determining criminal responsibility for
obstructing the activity of investigative and
judicial bodies.
A person's active assistance in solving a crime
makes it easier to identify the circumstances and
expose all the persons who are guilty of
committing a socially dangerous crime. It also
helps in the search for hidden crimes and
compensation for the damage caused by the
crime, accelerates the resolution of the case, leads
Volume 02 Issue 12-2022
97
International Journal of Advance Scientific Research
(ISSN
–
2750-1396)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
12
Pages:
94-99
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.478
)
(2022:
5.636
)
METADATA
IF
–
7.356
to the use of fewer tools and makes the criminal
process more efficient.
Compensation for the damage caused in practice
is defined in Part 1 of Article 66 of the Criminal
Code as a condition for exemption from criminal
liability due to remorse.
Compensation for damages is voluntary
restoration of the rights and interests that the
criminal deprived the victim as a result of
committing a crime (return of lost property,
return of monetary value to the victim, etc.).
Full or partial coverage of harmful consequences
is important in legal assessment.
Part 1 of Article 66 of the Legislative Criminal
Code stipulates that a person shall be released
from criminal liability in case of compensation for
damages, but it does not provide for elimination
of the harmful consequences of the crime.
In the legal literature, there are many points of
view that first of all the damages should be
compulsorily compensated, and secondly, they
should always be fully compensated, not partially.
According to P.V. Alyushkin, being present with a
confession of guilt and helping to solve the crime
can be alternative forms of remorse, while
compensating for the damage is a mandatory
form.
Compensation of damage in the criminal law of
the Republic of Uzbekistan does not guarantee the
resolution of the dispute - the termination of the
criminal case based on part 1 of Article 66 of the
Criminal Code.
Thus, in our opinion, full compensation of
damages should be mandatory only when the
injured person (legal or physical) demands full
compensation of damages or damages to
property interests of the state. The law enforcer
should pay attention to the fact that the guilty
person should not have the proceeds of the crime
while being released from criminal responsibility.
R
EFERENCES
1.
Жиянов М.Х. Бир қанча жиноят содир
этганлик учун жавобгарлик. Монография.
// Масъул муҳаррир: ю.ф.д., проф.
М.Х.Рустамбоев. –Тошкент:ТДЮИ, 2011. –Б.
98.; Уголовное право. Общая часть.
-
М.,
1997.
С.
264;
Аликперов
Х.Д.
Освобож¬дение
от
уголовной
ответственности в связи с деятельным
раскаянием // Законность. 1999. №5. –
С.17; Савкин А. Распространить норму о
деятельном раскаянии на совершивших
пре¬ступления средней тяжести //
Российская юстиция. 2002. №5. –
С. 43.
2.
Комментарий к Уголовному кодексу
Российской Федерации / Отв. ред. проф.
А.В.Наумов.
-
М., 1996. –
С. 196; Уголовное
право. Общая часть: Учебник для вузов /
Отв. ред. ИЯ. Козаченко u З.А. Незнамова. 2
-
е изд., стер.
-
М., 2000. –
С. 420; Уголовное
право России. Общая часть: Учебник для
вузов / Под ред. проф. Ф.Р.Сундурова.
-
Volume 02 Issue 12-2022
98
International Journal of Advance Scientific Research
(ISSN
–
2750-1396)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
12
Pages:
94-99
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.478
)
(2022:
5.636
)
METADATA
IF
–
7.356
Казань, 2003.С.512; Тарханов НА. Указ.
монография. –С. 243.
3.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий суди
Пленуми қарорлари тўплами 1991
-2006.
Иккинчи жилд. –Тошкент: Адолат, 2006. –
Б. 227.
4.
Магомедов
А.А.
Уголовная
ответственность и освобождение от нее:
(Эволюция
правовых
воззрений
и
современность). Дисс. ... докт. юрид. наук.
-
М., 1998. –
С. 223.
5.
Марогулова И.Л. Проблемы гуманизации
советского уголовного права.
-
М.,1991. /
Рукопись депонирован в ИНИОН РАН
№52/26138. –
С. 16
1.
6.
Будников В.Л., Головчанский В.М. О
признательных показаниях обвиняемого
// Предварительное следствие в условиях
правовой реформы.
-
Волгоград, 1991. –
С.
92
7.
Худайкулов Ф. Х. Жиноят таркиби
объектив
томони
ва
“actus
reus”
концепциясининг
қиёсий
-
ҳуқуқий
таҳлили: муаммо ва таклиф //ЖУРНАЛ
ПРАВОВЫХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ. –
2022.
–
№.
SI-3.
8.
Худайкулов Ф. Жиноят ҳуқуқида сабабий
боғланиш ва унинг детерминизм билан
ўзаро
муносабати
//Общество
и
инновации. –
2022.
–
Т. 3. –
№. 8/S. –
С. 122
-
131.
9.
Худайкулов Ф.
Жиноят объектив томони
зарурий
белгиларининг
ўзига
хос
хусусиятлари:
таҳлил
ва
таклиф
//Общество и инновации. –
2022.
–
Т. 3. –
№. 6/S. –
С. 309
-322.
10.
Абзалова Х. М., Тохтабакиев К. А.
ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЕ
И
ПРИЧИНЫ
ЕГО
ВОЗНИКНОВЕНИЯ
//Universum:
экономика и юриспруденция. –
2022.
–
№.
4 (91).
–
С. 16
-18.
11.
Абзалова
Х.
М.
РАЗРАБОТКА
ЭФФЕКТИВНОЙ
СТРАТЕГИИ
ПРЕДУПРЕЖДЕНИЯ
УБИЙСТВА:
НА
ОСНОВЕ АНАЛИЗА ЛИЧНОСТИ УБИЙЦЫ
//ЖУРНАЛ ПРАВОВЫХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ. –
2022.
–
Т. 7. –
№. 10.
12.
Абзалова Х. ОБЩЕСОЦИАЛЬНЫЕ МЕРЫ
ПРЕДУПРЕЖДЕНИЯ
ОПАСНОГО
ДЛЯ
ЖИЗНИ
НАСИЛИЯ
ПРОТИВ
НЕСОВЕРШЕННОЛЕТНИХ В СЕМЬЕ В
УСЛОВИЯХ ПАНДЕМИИ //Review of law
sciences.
–
2020.
–
№. 2. –
С. 220
-223.
13.
Rozimova Q. Inflicting penalty in the criminal
law of uzbekistan //The American Journal of
Political Science Law and Criminology.
–
2022.
–
Т. 4. –
№. 05. –
С. 28
-36.
14.
Rozimova Q. Improving the Penal Institution
for Several Crimes in the Criminal Law of
Uzbekistan //Eurasian Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences.
–
2022.
–
Т. 7. –
С. 12
-17.
15.
Турабаева З. Я. ПОРЯДОК НАЗНАЧЕНИЯ
НАКАЗАНИЯ
И
ВИДЫ
НАКАЗАНИЙ
НАЗНАЧАЕМЫХ НЕСОВЕРШЕННОЛЕТНЫМ
В УЗБЕКИСТАНЕ //ЖУРНАЛ ПРАВОВЫХ
ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ. –
2022.
–
Т. 7. –
№. 2.
16.
Ziyoda T. Prevention and prophylaxis of youth
delinquency and peculiarities of imposing
punishments on minors //Review of law
sciences.
–
2020.
–
Т. 3. –
№. Спецвыпуск. –
С.
233-239.
Volume 02 Issue 12-2022
99
International Journal of Advance Scientific Research
(ISSN
–
2750-1396)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
12
Pages:
94-99
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.478
)
(2022:
5.636
)
METADATA
IF
–
7.356
17.
Турабаева З. Особенности назначения
наказания несовершеннолетним в период
пандемии //Review of law sciences. –
2020.
–
№. 2. –
С. 242
-245.
18.
Абзалова
Х.
М.
УГОЛОВНАЯ
ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ ЗА УБИЙСТВО В
АВЕСТЕ //Review of law sciences. –
2020.
–
№. 1. –
С. 211
-213.
19.
Абзалова Х. М. Особенности уголовной
ответственности за убийство в США и
Республике Узбекистан: сравнительный
анализ
//Юридическая
наука
и
правоохранительная практика. –
2019.
–
№. 4 (50). –
С. 108
-115.
