Sąvokos "trečiasis asmuo" reikšmė esant būtinajam reikalingumui.
The legal definition of necessity – since its inclusion onto the Criminal Statute of 1845 till the Republic of Lithuania Criminal Code of 2000 – never referred to a party that sustains injury in the circumstances of necessity. Such a consistent line of the legislature, however, did not facilitate generating a well-reasoned viewpoint in the theory of criminal law. Scholars of criminal law sought in many ways to identify and define the parties who sustain harm in necessity. The definitions suggested by scholars are either more or less acceptable. In Soviet era, one notion – “inflicting harm on the third party” – started to dominate, however. Although lacking in substantial reasoning,this definition became established in most of textbooks and commentaries on criminal code and in other scientific texts. This article specifically deals with the analysis of the notion “inflicting harm on the third party”. The analysis of this issue of necessity is based on historical, linguistic, logical, analytical and other approaches. In a summary of the different viewpoints of scholars in criminal law literature, the author indicates two major streams: scholars who support the opinion that the institution of necessity must include harm done to a third party; and scholars who purport the theory of necessity that excludes harm inflicted on a third party. In research of scientific works the author finds that the criminal law theory of Lithuania lacks any profound analysis of the notion “harm inflicted on a third party”. In addition, the Lithuanian scientists of criminal law a priori support the viewpoint of the first aforementioned scholars’ group. The author backs the opinion of scholars in the second group. On the other hand, he focuses on the study, classification and analysis of the arguments presented by the first group.
- Articles / Straipsniai