THE ISSUE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF ORGANIZERS, INSTIGATORS AND ACCOMPLICES IN VOLUNTARY DESISTANCE FROM A ACCOMPLICE TO THE CRIME

Аннотация

We can say that the religious authority represented by Sayyed Ali al-Sistani, after the year 2003, called for, in its directives, positions and responses, the building of a civil state in Iraq, a state of constitution, law, freedoms, the supremacy of the popular will, and the strengthening of the spirit of citizenship, and although Sayyed al-Sistani did not use the description of the civil state categorically, But the form he wanted for Iraq was completely similar to the concept of a civil state. https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc 29 THE USA JOURNALS THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803) VOLUME 06 ISSUE03 INTRODUCTION instigator realizes the socially dangerous nature of his act and the desire to commit a crime in others Due to the fact that the accomplices of the crime are under its influence and he wants them to commit a differentiated according to the level of mutual crime. Accordingly, in order for the instigator to be social danger, it is appropriate that the situation of considered a voluntary desistance, actions aimed at voluntary desistance from crime should be preventing the perpetrator from committing a differentiated based on the level of participation of crime must be carried out. Firstly, the acting each participant in the crime. In criminal instigator does not start committing a crime due to complicity, each participant is responsible not only the influence (persuasion, request, etc.) on him. for his own behavior, but also for the criminal activities of other accomplices (except for the Secondly, the perpetrator has a desire to commit a perpetrator of the excess). Therefore, the voluntary crime and tries to eliminate the consequences of desistance of the participant deviates from the his act or informs the law enforcement agencies to scope of the criminal acts committed directly by the prevent the crime. partners. According to some lawyer scholars, “despite the According to Article 30 of the Criminal Code of the fact that all the actions related to him have been Republic of Uzbekistan, the fact that the organizer, taken to prevent the commission of the crime that instigator or accomplices voluntary desistance the instigator is interested in, if the perpetrator from the crime and took all measures related to commits the crime, the causal connection, which is him in time to prevent the crime, precludes a necessary element of participation, does not exist, responsibility for accomplice to the crime. It should the perpetrator becomes a sole participant in the be noted that this rule does not fully cover all cases crime, the intention of other partners is not related to the voluntary desistance of each covered by his will to exempt the accomplices from participant. In particular, it is not specified what responsibility will be the basis ”. actions should be taken by the accomplices what is According to other authors, “in cases where the meant by “crime prevention” and how organizer and instigator renounce the crime, they responsibility should be solved in cases where the will not have the opportunity to control the actions consequences occur despite the fact that of the perpetrator, so the perpetrator shall act prevention measures have been taken. It should be according to his will. Therefore, responsibilty noted that the organizer, instgator and accomplices arises in cases where the commission of a crime is commit the tasks of “accomplices” in the crime, not prevented despite the active behavior of the provides assistance to the crime committed by the organizer and instigator. A necessary condition for perpetrator, facilitates its commission. Therefore, non-responsibilty is the prevention of criminal it is necessary to refrain from the crime of the consequences as a result of the actions taken by the organizer, instgator and accomplices aimed at organizer and instigator ”. The above two points preventing the crime committed by the perpetrator are valid in a certain sense. On the one hand, if the or eliminating the created conditions. According to instigator commits a socially dangerous act, the functions performed by the accomplices in the despite the fact that the perpetrator encouraged crime, it is appropriate to analyze each of them the instigator to desist from the crime, there is no separately due to the fact that the cases of “subjective connection” between the accomplices. desistance of the crime are mutually differentiated. On the other hand, the instigator “shall not have the 1. Voluntary desistance of the instgator from opportunity to control the actions of the committing a crime perpetrator”. Despite the efforts of the instigator, the perpetrator may commit the crime. If we pay According to Article 28 of the Criminal Code, attention, the law does not link the voluntary instigator shall be a person who tempted desistance of the accomplices with the absence of somebody to commission of a crime. The consequences, the main conditio