The term “negligence” is mainly applicable to officials who are directly responsible for each of their actions or inactions - these are doctors, police officers or the Ministry of Emergency Situations, teachers, managers and employees of enterprises, etc. Negligence can manifest itself not only in intentional refusal to fulfill the obligations prescribed by law and internal charter, but also a banal overestimation of one’s strengths or underestimation of the current situation. Within the framework of this article, human carelessness, which caused the death of a person, will be considered.
Negligence resulting in death results in criminal liability.
Responsibility
For the crime in question, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has a separate article numbered 293, the provisions of which are as follows:
- Negligence, that is, failure or improper performance by an official of his duties as a result of dishonest or negligent attitude towards service or duties of the position, if this entailed causing major damage or a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state, is punishable by a fine. in the amount of up to one hundred twenty thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to 1 year, compulsory labor for up to three hundred and sixty hours, correctional labor for up to one year, or arrest for a term of up to three months.
- The same act, which entailed the infliction of especially large damage, is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years. years or without it, or compulsory labor for up to four hundred eighty hours, or correctional labor for up to two years, or arrest for up to six months.
- An act provided for in the first part of this article, which through negligence entailed the infliction of grievous harm to health or the death of a person, is punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or by imprisonment for a term up to five years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years.
- An act provided for in the first part of this article, resulting through negligence in the death of two or more persons, is punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or by imprisonment for a term of up to seven. years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years.
So, as can be seen from the provisions of Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of a person’s death as a result of dishonest performance of one’s duties, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for up to 5 years, and in the case of two or more victims – up to 7 years. That is, Part 2 falls under the category of moderate gravity, and acts classified under Part 3 are classified as serious crimes.
Who can be the subject of a crime under Art. 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?
As indicated above, a person who can be found guilty of negligence is, from the point of view of criminal law, a special subject.
The specificity of the perpetrator in this category of cases is emphasized by the presence of a certain number of duties assigned to him officially and directly related to his work activities.
In judicial practice, as a rule, the following three types of negligence are distinguished:
- Responsibilities performed inappropriately or unfulfilled are assigned to the culprit in connection with his position.
- Such responsibilities are specific to specific types of profession.
- A labor function not performed or performed in bad faith is provided for by the service performed by the culprit.
From the above categories it follows that official negligence is charged against the accused, who, in connection with their position, are obliged to perform the duty of exercising administrative functions, economic powers or actions of an organizational nature (for example, an accountant of an enterprise).
For official negligence, a court sentence is passed on people holding government positions (the subject is a civil servant).
And professional negligence is charged against doctors (for example, failure to provide necessary medical care), police officers, traffic police officers, and employees of the educational sector (for example, teachers).
Peculiarities
The legislator has defined three factors included in the crime, the presence of which is necessary for qualification under Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely:
- Objectivity - characterized by the presence of a cause-and-effect relationship, that is, certain actions or inaction of a person led to the death of a person.
- Subjectivity is the identification of a specific person whose actions or inactions led to the death of a person.
- Damage is an assessment of the specific consequences that occurred as a result.
Determination of guilt
Proving the guilt of civil servants, official or professional persons, as almost all scientific and practical comments interpret, is a rather complex process.
The investigative team needs to carry out a number of operations to determine the presence or absence of guilt of a particular citizen:
- The investigator is obliged to establish the range of professional responsibilities of a person who is accused of committing a crime under Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as a rule, all job responsibilities must be specified in the job description). It should be noted that the legislator has created a typical list of labor and professional responsibilities, which are recommended to be taken as a basis when developing job descriptions of enterprises and institutions. Such an establishment is necessary in order to accurately prove the existence of official duties, non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment, which led to one or a group of the above-described consequences.
- A sincere independent admission of guilt by the accused. Moreover, such recognition can take place upon the onset of negative consequences or before their onset.
- Finding out whether there were any circumstances that directly or indirectly could prevent a civil servant, official or official from fulfilling their obligations. If, even in the presence of the most severe consequences, it turns out that the person was unable to fulfill his work duties due to force majeure circumstances, the court’s decision will be acquittal.
- If a person has not performed the necessary professional functions due to lack of appropriate qualifications, he cannot be charged with a crime under Article 293. In such a situation, responsibility for the negative consequences will be assigned to the person who appointed a person who does not have the necessary skills to a certain position ( for example, the chief physician will be held liable if it turns out that one of his subordinates did not fulfill his official obligation due to insufficient knowledge or skills).
- Finding out whether there was physical or moral, direct or indirect pressure on the accused, due to which he refused to perform his duties or performed them improperly. Such pressure may include blackmail, threats of physical harm or moral torture addressed to both the accused himself and his family members. If the fact of pressure is proven, as a rule, this will provide grounds for acquitting the accused.
With timely notification of immediate superiors about the committed act and an explanation of its reasons, as judicial practice shows, in most cases it is possible to avoid the onset of consequences and, as follows from this, criminal punishment for the perpetrator.
Types and examples
The types of crime in question are many, and such disastrous results are achieved both intentionally and without malice, viz.
Misunderstanding, neglect or lack of competence
For example, citizen N., without the necessary knowledge and skills, got a job as an expert in the field of technical safety at one large plant thanks to his good friends, that is, in simple terms, through connections. One working day, an employee approached him with a complaint about possible malfunctions of the machine at the workplace and indicated that these breakdowns could lead to bad consequences. Citizen N., not having the necessary technical knowledge, ignored the employee’s statement and did not go to carry out an inspection, the implementation of which was entirely within his competence and responsibilities. On the same day, the previously mentioned applicant, while working on a problematic machine, received an injury that caused his death.
As can be seen from the example, there was no malicious intent on N.’s part, but his lack of the skills necessary for his position and refusal to perform his direct work led to the death of the person.
Condescension and connivance
Citizen P. was responsible for compliance with safety regulations at the shooting club. His friends approached him with a request, which was to provide assistance in clarifying and resolving the dispute that had arisen. The dispute, in turn, was to determine who was bolder and more accurate. Having waited until the moment when only P. and his friends remained in the club, he agreed to provide them with weapons and open the gates of the shooting range. The friends' dispute was whether one of them could knock an apple off the other's head with a shot from an air gun. Accused P. did not check the weapons given to the disputants and instead of an air pistol, he gave out a firearm. As a result, one of the debaters died from a bullet wound.
In this example, there is evidence of leniency towards his friends, since the accused, taking advantage of his official position, allowed them to go to the shooting range, as well as a negligent attitude towards checking the weapons issued, which is his direct responsibility.
Incorrect assessment of the situation
The fire brigade received a call due to a fire in one of the garages. Having arrived at the scene, the responsible duty officer, seeing that the garage was almost completely burned out, did not give the command to extinguish and cordon off. But in this garage there were several gas cylinders, which detonated, killing one member of the team and one eyewitness watching the development of the situation.
These deaths could have been avoided if the person in charge had correctly assessed the situation, put out the fire in time, and put in place an appropriate cordon. Unfortunately, negligence is a fairly common phenomenon in two very important structures for the safety of human life - in medical institutions and law enforcement agencies. Similar cases due to the fault of unscrupulous employees arise every day.
Composition of the offense
In order to accurately determine that a given offense occurred, it must lead to negative consequences.
If the fact of an adverse consequence, for example, damage to property, a failure in the operation of an enterprise or the death of a person, then a connection should be established between the inaction (poorly performed action) of the employee and the consequences that occurred. After establishing a connection between the incident and the employee’s actions, it is determined whether these actions were part of the employee’s job responsibilities. If they were not spelled out in the agreement, there can be no question of negligence.
The last stage in determining the elements of the offense is to establish the identity of the employee whose inaction or poor performance of duties led to the negative incident.
An object
The object of the offense is social relations that have 3 forms of expression:
- major damage;
- violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens given to them by the legislation of the Russian Federation;
- violation of the interests of society and the state.
Subject
The subject is the official who committed negligence.
Signs
Signs of negligence:
- committed by negligence;
- the official could have prevented the negative consequences from occurring, but did not;
- a sufficient level of official qualifications, experience, education, skills to prevent negative consequences.
Attention! If the official did not have sufficient skills (education, experience, etc.) to prevent the incident, this means that we are not talking about negligence.
Related violations and negligence
Negligence is difficult to protect from other related offenses.
Because often it is precisely this that is the “trigger mechanism” as a result of which other crimes occur. For example, if a seller's daily earnings are stolen, it is difficult for him to prove that he caused this through negligence, and did not conspire with the thief to enrich himself.
Negligence is not committed with direct intent. Therefore, it differs from offenses in which this intent is present. For example, abuse of work responsibilities.
Negligence should not lead to the benefit of the person who committed it. If there was a benefit, we are talking about a different crime.
