Necessary defense: features of defensive actions against encroachments committed in complicity

Authors

Keywords:

necessary defense, causing harm, encroaching, defending, complicity, defensive actions, performer, organizer, instigator, accomplice

Abstract

 Relevance. The right to necessary defense implies the possibility of active protection from a socially dangerous encroachment by harming an encroaching person. However, such an encroachment may be carried out not by one, but by two or more persons combining their efforts and acting within the framework of the realization of a single intent. At the same time, these persons may act not only as perpetrators of the attack itself, but also as other types of accomplices. In connection with the above, it is of interest to analyze the features of defensive actions against encroachments committed in complicity.

The purpose of the article is to study the features of the criminal law assessment of defensive actions against socially dangerous assaults committed in complicity, for which the authors analyzed the provisions of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2012 No. 19 "On the application by courts of legislation on necessary defense and harm during the detention of a person who committed a crime." as well as the opinions of scientists about the social danger of the actions of various types of accomplices in crime and their impact on achieving a common criminal result.

Conclusions. As a result of the conducted research, it was concluded that harming persons who commit an encroachment in complicity is lawful if the following conditions are met: the actions of an accomplice pose a danger to the defender or other persons; harm to an accomplice is caused immediately at the time of such actions; the harm caused is aimed at suppressing and repelling a socially dangerous encroachment or making it more difficult to commit it.. It follows from this that the infliction of harm by defensive actions is permissible in relation to persons who commit a socially dangerous encroachment in complicity, while not only directly carrying out the attack, but also performing organizational or aiding functions.

Keywords: necessary defense, causing harm, encroaching, defending, complicity, defensive actions, performer, organizer, instigator, accomplice.

EDN: XCEWRU

Author Biographies

  • Victor V. Merkuryev, the Scientific Research Institute of the University of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation

    Chief Researcher of the Department of Scientific Support for Prosecutorial Supervision and Strengthening the Rule of Law in the field of federal security, Interethnic Relations and Countering Extremism 

    SPIN-код: 3506-4571
    AuthorID: 382711

  • Ilya A. Tarakanov, Vladimir Law Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia

    Assistant Professor of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology at the Faculty of Law 
    SPIN-код: 6186-7514
    AuthorID: 707939

References

1. Власов Ю.А. Рассмотрение уголовных дел, содержащих признаки необходимой обороны, с участием присяжных заседателей // Российский судья. 2021. № 2. С. 17–23. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3791-2021-2-17-23 EDN: VHDGBE.

2. Шеслер А.В. Исполнитель преступления // Lex russica. 2016. № 11. С. 71–76. DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2016.120.11.071-076 EDN: XVQAVX.

3. Мелешко Д.А. Посредственное причинение при совершении насильственных действий в отношении начальника (статья 334 УК РФ) // Право в Вооруженных Силах. 2019. № 8. С. 58–60. EDN: RKXPKL.

4. Клименко Ю.А. Правила квалификации преступлений, совершенных в соучастии // Журнал российского права. 2017. № 4. С. 112–121. DOI: 10.12737/article_58e39ece8f5725.38948020 EDN: YJVQJF.

5. Ображиев К.В. Институт соучастия в преступлении: современные тенденции развития // Российский следователь. 2024. № 1. С. 39–42. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3783-2024-1-39-42 EDN: WPSXAF.

6. Молчанов Д.М. Организатор преступления в Общей части УК РФ и специальных нормах о соучастии

Особенной части // Актуальные проблемы российского права. 2021. № 12. С. 118–133. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2021.133.12.118-133 EDN: IQFYAP.

7. Горенко М.Г. К вопросу о законодательном определении подстрекателя как соучастника преступления // Российский следователь. 2022. № 11. С. 12–14. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3783-2022-11-12-14 EDN: BENLDN.

8. Янковский Д.А. Ответственность подстрекателей к преступлению по российскому уголовному законодательству: история и современность // Российский следователь. 2021. № 3. С. 50–54. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3783-2021-3-50–54 EDN: QTNDJH.

9. Благов Е.В. О понятии соучастника преступления // Актуальные проблемы российского права. 2021. № 9. С. 114–123. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2021.130.9.114-123 EDN: MCCCEB.

10. Наумов С.Н. Совместность участия как оценочный признак соучастия в преступлении // Общество и право. 2009. № 3. С. 125–128. EDN: ONONWN.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-03-30

Issue

Section

Уголовное право и криминология

How to Cite

Necessary defense: features of defensive actions against encroachments committed in complicity. (2026). Scientific Crime and Punishment Research Journal, 1 (5), 6-14. https://scripjournal.ru/1/article/view/36