The article is devoted to the history of the formation of criminal law on the detention of a person who has committed a criminal offense. In the history of domestic criminal law, the first circumstance that excludes the criminality of the act was the state of self-defense, which can be found in “Russian Truth” (Article 26), “Military Article” in 1715 (Article 156), “Regulations on criminal and correctional punishments” of 1845 (art. 107), etc. In the Soviet criminal law “Guiding Principles of Criminal Law of the RSFSR” of 1919 provided as such a circumstance also only the necessary defense (Article 15). The Criminal Codes of the USSR of 1922 and 1927 already enshrined three circumstances that exclude public danger and illegality of the act: 1) necessary defense, 2) extreme necessity – in the norms of the General Part, 3) detention of a criminal – in the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. Regarding the history of detention of a person who has committed a criminal offense, it should be emphasized that the first mention of harm in the detention of a person who has committed a criminal offense, we can find in Art. 38 of the Short edition of “Russian Truth”, which legally establishes a rule, the roots of which go back to the custom – to kill a thief at the scene of the crime. St. 40 of the Grand edition of Russkaya Pravda gave the victim the right to kill a night thief if the latter was not tied up and resisted. The process of feudalization of the ancient n state, strengthening the role of the prince and the prince's court made adjustments and restrictions in pre-trial executions. Yes, Art. 6 of the Dvina charter of 1397-1398 contained responsibility for the agreement between the victim and the offender, in which the victim received the amount of the fine due to the governor. In most criminal law works on the detention of a criminal, the establishment of this institution is associated with the Soviet period in Ukraine, and this is quite justified, because at this stage the legislative formation of rules on detention of a person who committed a crime, as in Ukraine, and throughout the Soviet Union. During the civil war, economic devastation, rampant crime, according to jurists, the state was forced to resort to such repressive measures, because, above all, its goal was to restore order at the front and rear as soon as possible. In such a situation, of course, there could be no clear legal limitations on the infliction of harm to a person who has committed a criminal offense when he is detained. Until 1922, in Ukrainian criminal law, the detention of a criminal, as a circumstance that excludes the criminality of the act, was characterized not only by the lack of appropriate normative, but even theoretical development. The criminal legislation of the Soviet period also did not provide for a special rule on the infliction of harm in the detention of a person who has committed a criminal offense. Only the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922 contained Art. 145 and Art. 152, which provide for liability for murder and grievous bodily harm to the offender during his detention. In Ukraine, a new stage in the development of the criminal law institution of detention of a person who has committed a criminal offense began with the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR in 1960. This law in the regulation of the detention of a criminal differed favorably from similar laws of most union republics and the Fundamentals of Criminal Law of the USSR in 1958. Thus, in Part 3 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR stated that “actions committed by victims and other persons immediately after the encroachment to apprehend the offender and deliver him to the appropriate authorities are legitimate, equate to necessary defense, if they were necessary for detention and met the danger of encroachment and detention criminal. Currently, the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for the following circumstances that exclude the criminality of the act: 1) the necessary defense; 2) imaginary defense; 3) detention of a person who has committed a crime; 4) extreme necessity; 5) physical or mental coercion; 6) execution of an order or instruction; 7) an act related to risk; 8) performance of a special task of their prevention or disclosure of criminal activity of an organized group or criminal organization.
1. Serhatyi M. O., Lavrenko M. A. (2013). Shchodo pytannia pro rozshyrennia kola obstavyn, shcho vykliuchaiut zlochynnist diiannia [On the issue of expanding the range of circumstances that exclude the criminality of the act.]. Derzhava ta rehiony. Seriia: Pravo. No. 2 (40). P. 144-147.
2. Prymachenko V. F. (2008). Zatrymannia osoby, yaka vchynyla zlochyn, yak obstavyna, shcho vykliuchaie zlochynnist diiannia [Detention of a person who has committed a crime as a circumstance that excludes the criminality of the act]. Dysertatsiia na zdobuttia naukovoho stupenia kandydata yurydychnykh nauk. D. 246 p.
3. Pashnyn A. N., Pronyna M. M. (2005). Prychynenye vreda pry zaderzhanyy lytsa, sovershyvsheho prestuplenye: uholovno-pravovaia rehlamentatsyia y ee sovershenstvovanye [Infliction of harm during the detention of a person who has committed a crime: criminal law regulations and their improvement]. Ch.: ChHU, 172 p.
4. Savynov A. V. (2002). Prychynenye vreda pry zaderzhanyy lytsa, sovershyvsheho prestuplenye, kak obstoiatelstvo, yskliuchaiushchee prestupnost deianyia [Infliction of harm during the detention of a person who has committed a crime, as a circumstance that excludes the criminality of the act]. Dyssertatsyia na soyskanye uchёnoi stepeny kandydata yurydycheskykh nauk. M. 180 p.