Necessary defense and rights and duties of police officers

Abstract

The subject matter of this paper is one of the most important criminal law institutes. The purpose of this institute together with its effect on perpetrator of a crime points out the significance of self-defense within contemporary legislation. It is well known that self-defense protects the law against non-law, that is, protects legal property of the attacked person against unlawful attack. Although our legal practice researches showed that generally we can speak of protection of the most important properties of every human being: life, physical integrity, and property. Moreover, unlawful attack violates the legal system, while the use of self-defense contributes to its reestablishing. But, did the legislator want to provide protection exclusively to the attacked person or legal system, without taking into account the interest of the perpetrator? It is interesting to know that nowadays there are numerous discussions in Germany related to whether criminal act of extortion of evidence by officials can be justified by self-defense of another, in spite of prohibition of torture in proceedings in front of governmental agencies, contained in criminal law regulations, the Constitution, police rights standards, and international conventions. It is generally known that police officials frequently find themselves such situations as may require self-defense or repelling unlawful attacks from their own property. This raises a question whether it is justified to apply criminal legislation regulations related to self-defense in this case, or is the priority given to police regulations related to use of force? .

Tema ovog rada je nesumnjivo jedan od najvažnijih instituta krivičnog prava. Na značaj nužne odbrane u savremenim zakonodavstvima, teoriji i sudskoj praksi ukazuje svrha primene ovog instituta i dejstvo u odnosu na učinioca krivičnog dela. Dobro je poznato da se nužnom odbranom štiti pravo od neprava, tj. štite pravna dobra napadnutog lica od protivpravnog napada. Naša istraživanja sudske prakse su pokazala da se najčešće može govoriti o zaštiti najznačajnijih dobara svakog čoveka: života, telesnog integriteta i imovine. Štaviše, preduzimanjem protivpravnog napada narušava se pravni poredak, dok primena nužne odbrane doprinosi njegovom ponovnom uspostavljanju. Ali, da li je zakonodavac želeo da obezbedi zaštitu isključivo napadnutom i pravnom poretku, zanemarujući interese napadača? Zanimljivo je da se danas u Nemačkoj vode rasprave da li se krivično delo iznuđivanje iskaza od strane službenog lica može opravdati nužnom odbranom drugoga, uprkos zabrani torture u postupcima pred državnim organima koja je sadržana u krivično-pravnim propisima, Ustavu, normama policijskog prava i međunarodnim konvencijama. Poznato je da su policijski službenici, zbog prirode profesije koju obavljaju, često u prilici da pružaju nužnu pomoć ili odbijaju protivpravni napad od svog dobra. Nameće se pitanje, da li je opravdano u tom slučaju primeniti propise krivičnog zakonodavstva koji regulišu nužnu odbranu, ili prednost imaju odredbe policijskog prava koje se odnose na upotrebu sredstava prinude? .