Nusikalstamos veikos pavojingo pobūdžio suvokimas tyčioje

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjamas tyčinės kaltės formos intelektinio elemento turinys, konkrečiai - nusikalstamos veikos pavojingo pobūdžio suvokimas. Analizuojama, kurių nusikalstamos veikos objektyviųjų požymių suvokimas yra būtinas nustatant kaltininko tyčią, kurių - galimas, bet nebūtinas ir kartu neįrodinėtinas. Daroma išvada, kad kaltininkui nusikalstamos veikos pavojingam pobūdžiui suvokti pakanka suvokti faktines nusikalstamos veikos aplinkybes, taip pat padarinius ir priežastinį rysį tarp veikos ir padarinių (jei jo padaryta nusikalstama veika yra aprašyta materialiąja sudėtimi), o nusikalstamos veikos objekto ir subjekto požymių suvokimas esant tyčiai nėra būtinas. Taip pat nagrinėjamos kai kurių aplinkybių, kurios turėtų būti kaltininko suvoktos tyčios atveju, suvokimo ypatybės. Mėginama atskleisti, kokius faktinių aplinkybių požymius turėtų suvokti tyčia veikiantis kaltininkas. Įrodinėjama galimų nusikalstamos veikos padarinių numatymo esminė reikšmė nusikalstamos veikos pavojingumo suvokimui. Analizuojamos priežastinio ryšio suvokimo ypatybės esant tyčinei kaltės formai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Kaltė; Nusikalstamos veikos pavojingumas; Padariniai; Tyčia; Tyčinė kaltė; Crime dangerousness; Guilt; Intention; Intentional fault; Result.

ENThe article deals with the concept of perception of crime dangerousness, which, as defined in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, is a substantial part of intellectual element of intention. The author analyses what elements of crime intentionally acting person must perceive, and which he may not. The author draws a conclusion that perpetrator perceives dangerousness of his offence, if person is aware of what he is doing, and of legally significant circumstances of his act or omission, and also (when the crime is described in the Criminal Code with material corpus delicti) he is aware of consequences of his act or omission and of causation. Offender’s perception or non- perception of mens rea elements, and of social values, that are damaged by the crime, and also of offender’s features, that are defined in the Criminal Code, has no significance for the decision, whether he or she was acting intentionally or not. Specialities of perception of crime elements have been analysed in the article as well. It was aimed to disclose features of factual circumstances of a crime that should be perceived by offender, committing crime intentionally. In author’s opinion, these features could be divided into two groups: physical features and features, that disclose the social content of particular circumstance. Social content of crime circumstance may contain two aspects – material and formal. Intentionally acting person must perceive at least one of these aspects.The author notes, that knowledge of the legal title of crime circumstance (e. g., bus driver’s knowledge of drugs’ title, which he agrees to transport) is insufficient to establish person’s perception of formal aspect of social content of circumstance. It is necessary, that offender would understand the legal meaning of that title as well. The author argues, that defendant’s foresight of possible prohibited result of his act or omission is essential for his perseption of dangerousness of committed crime. It has been concluded, that foresight of consequences and perception of crime dangerousness, in contrary to widely accepted opinion, are not independent elements of intellectual element of intention. Foresight of consequences is constitutional part of perception of crime dangerousness. The author proposes to consider the relation between these two notions as relation between part and totality. The author pays attention to specialities of perception of causation. He draws a conclusion, that an act or omission may be recognized as committed intentionally only if it was established, that defendant had perceived legally significant causal relationship between his act or omission and prohibited result. Offender may be not aware of details in development of causal relationship. The author points out, that it is sufficient condition to establish defendant’s intent, if defendant foresaw the possibility of prohibited result in the interval from 100 percent (as inevitable) to nearly 0 percent (almost impossible). [text from author]