Under human civilization, crime has become more dangerous and complex, and its forms and images have diversified, and are no longer limited to recurring patterns, and were previously faced with appropriate legislation, but in light of this remarkable change in the nature of crime, criminal responsibility is no longer purely material, as was the case in ancient judicial legislation. Nowadays, it has become based on the basis of moral and moral responsibility as well.
Therefore, we find that the legislator went beyond the general rule which states that “the offender is not responsible for a crime that is not the result of his criminal activity or participated in it by one of the means stipulated in the law.” It stipulated the responsibility of the offender for the “possible crime,” and required him to bear the consequences of a crime. It can fall within the natural sequence of events, and it is sufficient for these results to be expected in themselves, regardless of whether the offender expected them, or not, and we can illustrate this with some examples and cases.
It is possible, for example, when a person commits a crime such as theft and carries a weapon with him, that he uses this weapon when he discovers his command during the execution of the crime against those who are trying to arrest him, or as someone who helps someone steal a house, and the owner of the house intercepted them, so the original perpetrator took out a pistol and fired The owner of the house killed him on the spot. Here, both the executor and the assistant are questioned about the murder.
And if one of them put poison in the food of a person with the intention of killing him, and he knows that another person may eat with him, yet he continues to carry out his crime, in this case the intent is direct in the case of the person who planned to kill him, and my possibility in the case of killing another person who shared the food with him.
The UAE legislator dealt with “possible intent” in Article (38) of Federal Penal Code No. (3) of 1987 and its amendments by stating that “the offender has the intention of premeditated intent towards his will to commit an act, or abstain from a legally criminal act, with the intent of causing a direct result.” or other possible legally criminal consequence that the offender had anticipated.”
And in accordance with the text of Article (51) of the law, the accomplice in the crime, whether directly or as a cause, shall be punished with the penalty of the crime that actually occurred, even if it was not the one he intended to commit, when the crime that occurred was a possible result of the participation that took place.
Finally, we clarify that the probable crime is that which the offender did not intend. It is an unintended crime that is likely to occur during the execution of the original crime, and is based on the assumption that the offender expects during the commission of the crime that his act may exceed the intended purpose, but he proceeds with its implementation.
• A probable crime is an unintended crime that is likely to occur during the execution of the original crime.
Senior legal advisor