Committing an act by arson, explosion or other generally dangerous method

When a person dies, the lives of his loved ones are irreversibly changed. Murder is the most serious crime of all, because it cannot be corrected. If a criminal kills his victim in a way that endangers the lives of other people, then this is considered an aggravating circumstance and is classified as murder committed in a generally dangerous manner. To impute this article, there must be at least one bystander present who is not a potential victim, but whose life is endangered along with the life of the victim, and the accused understands this.

Classification

As with any intentional crime, the accused must be aware of the danger of his actions. To qualify murder under this article, you need to consider the weapon of the crime. Fits the criteria:

• explosion or arson in crowded places;
• use of vehicles in the form of a ram;
• poisoning with toxic substances by spraying them into air or water;
• shooting in which other people could have been injured and in other ways.

That is, an explosion where no one is there, or a murder with a knife in a public place cannot be classified as murder in a generally dangerous manner.

What is the punishment for murder in a generally dangerous manner?

Since the crime is particularly serious, the punishment for it is one of the maximum. A killer who chooses a generally dangerous method to eliminate a victim will receive a prison sentence of 8 to 20 years with a restriction of movement from one to two years, life imprisonment or the death penalty. If another person dies while committing a murder, the court will classify the crime under a combination of two articles - murder in a socially dangerous manner and murder of two or more persons. If no one died in the assassination attempt, then the court cannot impose more than ¾ of the maximum term.

Attempt and punishment

In a situation where the perpetrator performed all the necessary actions aimed at causing death in a generally dangerous manner, but failed to implement his plan due to circumstances beyond his control, the classification of the act will be an attempt on the unlawful act in question.
Responsibility for the crime will be less than if the plan is completed. According to the law, a punishment of more than 3/4 of what is sanctioned by Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation cannot be applied to the perpetrator. Otherwise, it is considered that the punishment was imposed in violation of legal requirements.

If you become a defendant in the case

Despite the seriousness of the article, we, thanks to our knowledge and experience, can significantly mitigate the punishment and reclassify the case to a less serious article. In case of innocence, we will achieve acquittal or dismissal of the case. To do this, call us or leave a request on the website so that we can call you back. Even if you are innocent, do not risk your freedom!

Committing an act by arson, explosion or other generally dangerous method

A generally dangerous method qualifies only the intentional destruction or damage of property (Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). As usual, when describing this feature, the legislator isolates from the concept of a generally dangerous method the most dangerous and common ones - arson and explosion. A generally dangerous method is a method the use of which creates a danger of causing harm to the life or health of at least one person. This concept (taking into account the crime in question) was formulated in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 1999 No. 1 “On judicial practice in murder cases (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).”

At the same time, persons for whom there was danger also mean persons who had property in joint ownership with the perpetrator. In paragraph 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 5, 2002 N 14, it is correctly stated: “If, as a result of the arson of one’s own property, significant damage was caused to someone else’s property or property that was the joint property of the culprit of the fire and other persons, the actions of such a person who wanted the occurrence of the indicated consequences or who did not want it, but consciously allowed them or treated them indifferently, should be qualified as the intentional destruction or damage of someone else’s property by arson (part two of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In the event that a person sets fire to his own property, resulting in large-scale damage through negligence to someone else’s property or property that was the joint property of other persons and the culprit, the latter’s actions should be qualified as destruction or damage to someone else’s property through negligence (Article 168 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In these cases, the value of the property belonging to the culprit of the fire must be excluded from the total amount of damage caused as a result of the destruction or damage to property that was his joint property with other persons.”

In addition to explosions and arson, generally dangerous methods traditionally include landslides, flooding, collapse, the use of radioactive sources to cause harm, etc. The legislator sets out the types of these methods in the analyzed composition: arson, explosion, and other generally dangerous methods.

Arson should be understood as the deliberate creation of a fire, i.e. uncontrolled combustion process, which can lead (or leads) to destruction or damage to property. Almost the same concept is given by E.M. Plyutina, with the only difference that she believes it is obligatory to indicate the purpose of the arson - destruction or damage to property * (1092). I think that the law does not require this; the same arson for hooligan reasons may not pursue such a goal at all. The presence or absence of a goal does not make an action any less socially dangerous.

An explosion is a physical and (or) chemical fast process with the release of significant energy in a small volume, leading to shock, vibration and thermal effects on the environment and high-speed expansion of gases * (1093).

Other generally dangerous methods are mentioned above, these include everything except arson and explosion.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the use of the listed methods does not at all mean the unconditional use of a generally dangerous method; it is necessary that when they are used there is a real danger to the life or health of other persons. In the above-mentioned resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 5, 2002 N 14 o (clause 6).

We find the same explanation in a specific criminal case. By the verdict of the Proletarsky District Court of Saransk, N. was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 166 and part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The cassation instance - the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia, having considered this case, noted the following. Qualifying N.’s actions under Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court did not take into account the fact that, according to the provisions of this provision of the law under Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the actions of the perpetrators can be qualified only in cases where the arson of a car created a threat of harm to people or other people's property, provided that significant damage was caused to the victim. As the court found, the car was set on fire by the perpetrator in a deserted place, far from property that could be damaged by fire. Due to the fact that there were also violations of the criminal procedural law in this case, the verdict was overturned and the case was sent for a new trial * (1094).

A generally dangerous method qualifies only the intentional destruction or damage of property (Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). As usual, when describing this feature, the legislator isolates from the concept of a generally dangerous method the most dangerous and common ones - arson and explosion. A generally dangerous method is a method the use of which creates a danger of causing harm to the life or health of at least one person. This concept (taking into account the crime in question) was formulated in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 1999 No. 1 “On judicial practice in murder cases (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).”

At the same time, persons for whom there was danger also mean persons who had property in joint ownership with the perpetrator. In paragraph 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 5, 2002 N 14, it is correctly stated: “If, as a result of the arson of one’s own property, significant damage was caused to someone else’s property or property that was the joint property of the culprit of the fire and other persons, the actions of such a person who wanted the occurrence of the indicated consequences or who did not want it, but consciously allowed them or treated them indifferently, should be qualified as the intentional destruction or damage of someone else’s property by arson (part two of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In the event that a person sets fire to his own property, resulting in large-scale damage through negligence to someone else’s property or property that was the joint property of other persons and the culprit, the latter’s actions should be qualified as destruction or damage to someone else’s property through negligence (Article 168 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In these cases, the value of the property belonging to the culprit of the fire must be excluded from the total amount of damage caused as a result of the destruction or damage to property that was his joint property with other persons.”

In addition to explosions and arson, generally dangerous methods traditionally include landslides, flooding, collapse, the use of radioactive sources to cause harm, etc. The legislator sets out the types of these methods in the analyzed composition: arson, explosion, and other generally dangerous methods.

Arson should be understood as the deliberate creation of a fire, i.e. uncontrolled combustion process, which can lead (or leads) to destruction or damage to property. Almost the same concept is given by E.M. Plyutina, with the only difference that she believes it is obligatory to indicate the purpose of the arson - destruction or damage to property * (1092). I think that the law does not require this; the same arson for hooligan reasons may not pursue such a goal at all. The presence or absence of a goal does not make an action any less socially dangerous.

An explosion is a physical and (or) chemical fast process with the release of significant energy in a small volume, leading to shock, vibration and thermal effects on the environment and high-speed expansion of gases * (1093).

Other generally dangerous methods are mentioned above, these include everything except arson and explosion.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the use of the listed methods does not at all mean the unconditional use of a generally dangerous method; it is necessary that when they are used there is a real danger to the life or health of other persons. In the above-mentioned resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 5, 2002 N 14 o (clause 6).

We find the same explanation in a specific criminal case. By the verdict of the Proletarsky District Court of Saransk, N. was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 166 and part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The cassation instance - the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia, having considered this case, noted the following. Qualifying N.’s actions under Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court did not take into account the fact that, according to the provisions of this provision of the law under Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the actions of the perpetrators can be qualified only in cases where the arson of a car created a threat of harm to people or other people's property, provided that significant damage was caused to the victim. As the court found, the car was set on fire by the perpetrator in a deserted place, far from property that could be damaged by fire. Due to the fact that there were also violations of the criminal procedural law in this case, the verdict was overturned and the case was sent for a new trial * (1094).