Problems of criminal-law assessment of subjective signs in components of criminal negligence

In the criminal law in force, as well as in the antecedent ones, it is notsaid the form of guilt negligence can be committed with, that is why there are different opinions on this matter in criminal-law literature.Some authors consider negligence as a careless crime, which can be committed thoughtlessly or negligently. They prove their opinionby the fact that the terms unconscientious or negligent attitude to service (which are used in the article on criminal negligence) point outdirectly at the mental element in this crime. According to their point of view, an officials negligent attitude to service corresponds toguilt in the form of negligence, unconscientious attitude - to guilt in the form of thoughtlessness. Other authors pointed out that indicationof unconscientious or negligent attitude to service does not allow defining the form of guilt of an individual who committed negligencecategorically as far as these terms characterize the guilty persons attitude to service, his/her attitude to duties, but not to a sociallydangerous act and its consequences. Some authors come to the conclusion on a possibility of an officials intentional attitude to consequencesof negligence referring to Part 2 Article 24 and the text of Part 1 Article 293 of the Criminal Сode of the RF. The position ofmutual contributory negligence of an individual who committed negligence is rather interesting - deliberate officials attitude to nonperformanceof his/her duties and careless attitude to infliction of harmful consequences. In general, negligence is considered as carelesscrime by followers of this position. Negligence is considered as an exceptionally careless crime in judicial practice and by the majorityof authors in the science of law; and it is not an accident. The term negligence, as well as the essence of this crime, excludes the possibilityof its commitment both with direct and indirect intent. An official can intentionally avoid executing his/her duties in the process ofnegligence commitment however the guilty persons attitude to action consequences can be just careless. Meanwhile, literal interpretationof the text of the article on negligence actually allows drawing a conclusion that this crime can be committed intentionally both inthe form of direct and indirect intents. The criminal law indication of unconscientious or negligent attitude to service of an official doesnot at all exclude this. Strictly speaking, the guilty person can treat his/her service and duties the same as in the crime set by Articles 285and 286 of the Criminal Сode. The diversity of current views on the mental element in negligence provided by criminal-law literature,undoubtedly, is stipulated by a poor version of the text of this article of the law. For uniform understanding and law enforcement purposesof the rule of negligence we suppose that a legislator should point out individuals careless attitude towards infliction of essentialdamage and substantial breach of rights and legal interests in Part 1 Article 293 of the Criminal Сode.

Keywords

Authors

References