Välillisen ja varsinaisen tekemisen rajankäynti pakotetun itseloukkauksen tilanteessa sekä menettelyn suhde syyllisyysperiaatteeseen

Kirjoittajat

• Robert Sandberg Oikeustieteen maisteri

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33344/vol18iss2pp66-90

Abstrakti

This article covers the demarcation between proper commission of an offence and commission through an agent in a situation where a person of legal capacity is coerced by another to commit a crime against themselves. Also, potential problems related to criminal liability in the light of the principle of guilt when acting as described above are discussed. Coerced self-infringement is a term used for said coercion.A hypothetical case, where A coerces B (by putting a knife on Bs throat threatening to kill him otherwise) to cut off his own finger, is employed to illustrate. Can A be liable for properly committing aggravated assault (CCoF 21:6) or for committing said offence through B as an agent? Three different alternatives are introduced and reasoned for: criminal liability through proper commission, criminal liability through commission with B as an agent as well as exemption from liability for the violence itself.Without legislative measures or a verdict from the Supreme court the legal situation is deemed unclear. Furthermore, a case resembling the hypothetical put forward will likely lead to a verdict of exemption from liability unless legislative measures are undertaken. This assessment is based on the wording of assault offences and CCoF 5:4, formulations in the government proposal regarding commission through an agent as well as the requirement of predictability within the principle of legality.