Legal Literacy - This article discusses the meaning and types of reasons for the elimination of criminal liability. Let's take a look at the explanation below!
Understanding Criminal Liability Excuses
Reasons for the elimination of criminal liability are reasons that allow a person who commits an act that fulfills the formulation of a criminal offense/crime not to be penalized.
Regarding this matter Criminal Code is contained in Chapter III of Book I regarding “Reasons for eliminating, reducing, and aggravating punishmentâ€. The M.v.T of the Criminal Code (Netherlands) in its explanation regarding the reasons for eliminating criminal liability, puts forward what is called “reasons why a person cannot be held accountable or reasons why a person cannot be penalizedâ€. M.v.T mentions 2 (two) reasons:
- Reasons why a person cannot be held accountable that lie within the person (inwending), and
- reasons why a person cannot be held accountable that lie outside the person (uitweding).
The reason mentioned in number 1 is (a) imperfect or disturbed mental growth due to illness (Article 44), (b) young age. Regarding young age, Indonesia and also the Netherlands since 1905 are no longer reasons for eliminating criminal liability).
The reasons mentioned in number 2 are contained in Articles 48 to 51 of the Criminal Code, namely force majeure (overmacht) (Article 48); forced defense (Article 49); implementing the law (Article 50); carrying out official orders (Article 51).
In addition to the differences explained in M.v.T, the science of Criminal Law also makes its own distinctions, namely:
- General reasons for eliminating criminal liability, which apply generally to each second and are mentioned in articles 44, 48 to 51 of the Criminal Code;
- Special reasons for eliminating criminal liability, which only apply to certain moments, for example:
- Article 166 of the Criminal Code: “the provisions of articles 164 and 165 of the Criminal Code do not apply to people who, because of the notification, are in danger of being prosecuted themselves and so on....â€.
Articles 164 and 165 contain the provision: if a person knows that there is treason against a crime that endangers the state and the head of state, then that person must report it.
- Article 221 paragraph 2: “hiding people who commit crimes and so onâ€. Here he is not prosecuted if he wants to prevent prosecution from his wife, husband and so on (people who are still related by blood).
The science of criminal law also makes another distinction, in line with the distinction between the punishability of the act and the punishability of the perpetrator. The elimination of criminal liability can concern the act or the perpetrator (person). In this case, a distinction is made between two types of reasons for eliminating criminal liability:
- Justification (rechtvaardigingsggrond, fait justificatif, rechtfertigungs-grund), and
- Reason for excuse or reason for eliminating guilt (schulduitsluitings-grond, faitd’excuse, entschuldigungsgrund, Schuldausschliesunggs-grund).
Justification reasons eliminate the unlawful nature of an act, even though this act has fulfilled the elements of a crime in the law. If the act is not against the law, then there can be no punishment. Justifying reasons in the Criminal Code include Article 49 paragraph (1) concerning forced defense, Article 50 concerning carrying out statutory regulations, and Article 51 paragraph (1) concerning official orders.
Excusatory reasons concern the perpetrator's personal circumstances, in the sense that this person cannot be blamed (according to the law); in other words, that he is not guilty or cannot be held accountable, even though his actions are unlawful. Thus, in this case, there is a reason that eliminates the perpetrator's guilt, so there can be no punishment. Excusatory reasons contained in the Criminal Code are Article 44 (incapable of being responsible), Article 49 paragraph (2) (excessive self-defense), Article 51 paragraph (2) concerning acting in good faith in carrying out unlawful official orders.
As for Article 48 (coercion), there are two possibilities: it can be a justifying reason or an excusatory reason.
In addition to these two reasons, in criminal law theory, according to Moeljatno, there is one more, namely a reason for dismissing prosecution. In this case, the issue is not about justifying or excusatory reasons. Thus, there is no consideration of the nature of the act or the nature of the person committing the act. However, the government considers that, based on utility or its benefit to society, it is best not to prosecute. The consideration is the public interest. If the case is not prosecuted, then the person who committed the act cannot be sentenced to criminal punishment.
Comments (0)
Write a comment