The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation qualitatively regulates the legislative life of its citizens. The criminal activities of lawbreakers are prevented and punished.
Those citizens are exempt from criminal liability if, as a result of their direct participation, random incidents occurred that caused harm to other persons.
Practice shows that approaches to liability for acts committed due to negligence are always ambiguous.
In accordance with the law, criminal negligence consists of a person’s unforeseen possibility of the consequences of his act being dangerous to society. But with care and forethought, they could have been foreseen.
Criminal liability for crimes committed through negligence arises due to the fact that the offender should not only have foreseen the occurrence of consequences dangerous to society, but could also have prevented them.
The intellectual element of negligence is characterized by the fact that the culprit is not aware of the social danger of the act committed and cannot foresee the possibility of harmful consequences. At the same time, the will of a person in case of criminal negligence is not aimed at achieving any criminally significant consequences.
When does criminal liability occur?
Some people who have committed a crime through negligence seriously consider themselves innocent. Thus, a person can claim that he did not know what his actions/inaction would lead to, and therefore cannot be held accountable for the consequences. However, from the point of view of the law, the one who provoked a potentially dangerous situation is guilty of a crime.
Having committed a criminal act, a person will be punished for it as provided for in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the intent of the criminal can be direct or indirect. It may also be absent if the crime was committed through negligence.
In criminal law there is the concept of criminal negligence. We are talking about situations where a person did not expect trouble to occur, although he had such an opportunity. It will not be possible to avoid punishment in this case.
If the crime was committed through negligence, the punishment will be less severe than if the crime was intentionally committed.
Objective and subjective criteria for criminal negligence
Criminal negligence includes a negative and a positive sign. If a positive sign of negligence is established, objective and subjective criteria must be taken into account.
According to the objective criterion, the person must have a legal duty to exercise due diligence based on the law, official status, professional functions of the perpetrator. In addition, there must be an objective opportunity to identify a dangerous situation and prevent its development.
The subjective criterion involves establishing the ability of a particular person, taking into account his individual qualities, to prevent the development of a dangerous situation. This task should be completely feasible for him from the point of view of physical, intellectual and social qualities and mental characteristics.
Criminal negligence and criminal frivolity differ from each other in that the former is considered a less dangerous form of guilt in criminal law.
Criminal negligence is present if a person does not foresee the consequences and does not allow for the possibility of causing harm, although he could have been sufficiently careful and adhered to the necessary precautions in order to understand the possible danger of his own actions.
Thus, criminal negligence contains two criteria - objective and subjective. The objective criterion is that a person must foresee the likelihood of consequences dangerous to society. The second criterion for criminal negligence is whether the person could have foreseen it.
The degree of foresight depends on the physical or intellectual capabilities of a person in a particular situation . In this case, not only individual characteristics matter, but also the specifics of the environment.
Types of negligence in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The concept of a crime committed through negligence is enshrined in Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows two types of such acts:
- frivolity;
- negligence.
At first glance it may seem that we are talking about synonyms. However, it is not.
frivolity
This concept is specified in paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When committing a crime out of frivolity, the attacker foresees the possibility of dangerous consequences, but hopes for a more favorable outcome. Thus, there is no direct or indirect intent in this case, because the criminal does not want negative consequences. At the same time, he continues to act/inact, which ultimately becomes the cause of the crime.
In most cases, frivolity is associated with a deliberate violation of established rules. And it is this awareness that makes this type of careless guilt more dangerous compared to negligence.
Frivolity has similar features to indirect intent. In both cases, the attacker foresees the onset of socially dangerous consequences, but this does not stop him. The differences between these concepts are as follows:
- In the case of indirect intent, the threat of negative consequences is real. For example, a drunk hunter decided to calm his neighbors by firing several shots from his gun in the direction of their yard. At the same time, the attacker did not pursue the goal of killing anyone, he only wanted to scare the people gathered in the yard. However, he was aware that he might hit one of them.
- When committing a crime out of frivolity, the attacker presents the results of the actions as abstract. He either hopes for a more favorable outcome, or believes that he can eliminate the negative factor on his own.
Thus, the main difference between frivolity and indirect intent is the content of the volitional element. With indirect intent, the culprit allows negative consequences to occur, but treats them with indifference. In the case of frivolity, the attacker does not want to worsen the situation, but still commits criminal acts or fails to act.
In practice, distinguishing indirect intent from frivolity is not particularly difficult. For example, two intruders broke into the house of an elderly woman. As a result of the brutal beating, the victim suffered fractures to his nose and cheek bones. Having stolen the pensioner’s money, she was tied hand and foot and gagged in her mouth. After this, the criminals left the apartment.
As a result, the victim died from suffocation. Considering the injuries inflicted, the use of a gag and immobilization, the criminals allowed a similar outcome. At the same time, they did not want the victim to die - they did not care whether she survived or not. Accordingly, the attackers acted with indirect intent.
Have a question for a lawyer? Ask now, call and get a free consultation from leading lawyers in your city. We will answer your questions quickly and try to help with your specific case.
Telephone in Moscow and the Moscow region: +7
Phone in St. Petersburg and Leningrad region: +7
Free hotline throughout Russia: 8 (800) 301-39-20
Current legislation characterizes the volitional content of frivolity not just as hope, but as a certain calculation to prevent socially dangerous consequences. The criminal must understand that the threat is very real, but the grounds for its occurrence are insufficient. To prevent negative consequences, he can rely on his own qualities (skill, strength, experience, dexterity) or on some circumstances, but the final assessment of the situation turns out to be incorrect.
For example, a farmer noticed that food was disappearing from his barn. To prevent further thefts, he made a makeshift alarm that would go off when the barn door was opened. In addition, he connected wires to the door handle, connecting them to an electrical network with a voltage of 220 V.
As a result, the attacker was electrocuted while trying to break into the barn. During the investigation, it was established that the farmer took a number of measures in an attempt to prevent accidental electric shock. To do this, he notified the neighbors about the voltage connection. In addition, the alarm only turned on at night.
Thus, the citizen accepted an unfavorable outcome, but considered it hypothetical, taking all measures to prevent the problem.
Negligence
The concept of negligence is enshrined in Part 3 of Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. We are talking about the only version of guilt when the offender does not foresee possible negative consequences. At the same time, with due foresight and attentiveness, the attacker could prevent an unfavorable outcome.
The concept of negligence is based on two criteria:
- Negative. A person cannot foresee that the actions he takes will lead to socially dangerous consequences. At the same time, he does not realize the social danger of the acts committed and is unable to foresee the likely criminal consequences.
- Positive. The point is that the person should have foreseen the negative factors if he had shown due care and forethought. In this case, the need for care is an objective criterion of negligence, and the possibility of foresight is a subjective one. The first means general requirements for citizens who find themselves in a similar situation, and the last means the citizen’s personal abilities to analyze the current circumstances.
Thus, when choosing a preventive measure for the perpetrator, the court must take into account both the peculiarities of the situation and the individual qualities of the attacker. Attention is paid to the physical characteristics of the criminal, his level of development, life and professional experience, education, health, etc. If a person finds himself hostage to circumstances and was unable to prevent negative consequences, he is declared innocent.
For example, during a drunken quarrel, one man hit another in the face with his hand. At the moment of the impact, the victim brought a porcelain cup to his face, which broke as a result of physical impact. Some of the fragments injured the victim's face, one hit him in the eye. The consequences were assessed by doctors as harm to health of moderate severity. The victim retained his vision, but there were permanent changes in the eye, and a deep scar appeared on his face.
As a result, the culprit received a fine for causing bodily harm by negligence, since he could have foreseen the consequences of his actions.
Direct and indirect intent in criminal law
What will the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation say? In Chapter 5, the concept of intent is considered as a form of guilt.
Types of intent:
- Straight. It implies that the offender is aware that the action or lack thereof will lead to negative consequences, but that this is the offender's goal.
- Indirect. It assumes knowledge of socially dangerous consequences, but the bandit allows this or is indifferent, but does not want sad results.
The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is applied where it is necessary to regulate civil relations if they commit various types of offenses. In administrative offenses, intention or negligence can also be distinguished.
Concept of innocent harm
If a citizen, for some reason, could not guess about the danger of the actions being performed, he is automatically released from liability. This is stated in Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This regulatory act provides for exemption from criminal liability in two cases:
- the culprit did not know and could not know that he was committing illegal actions;
- the offender could have foreseen the consequences, but circumstances did not allow him to prevent the onset of unfavorable events.
Most often, innocent harm occurs under the influence of the latter factor. Not every person has the necessary psychological, volitional and physical qualities to prevent possible danger when acting in an unusual situation.
Bibliography
- “Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” dated June 13, 1996 N 63-FZ (as amended on July 29, 2017) (as amended and supplemented, entered into force on August 26, 2017) // “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, N 113, 18.06 .1996, N 114, 06/19/1996, N 115, 06/20/1996, N 118, 06/25/1996.
- Sitkovskaya O.D. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: psychological commentary (item by article) / Academy of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. M.: CONTRACT, Wolters Kluwer, 2009.P.15.
- Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (article-by-article) // Ed. V. M. Lebedeva. – M.: Publishing house “Urayt”, 2014. P.95-96.
- Criminal law. General part: Textbook / Ed. V. N. Petrasheva. – M.: Education, 2014. – P. 85.
- Criminal law: General part: Textbook / Ed. N. I. Vetrova, Yu. I. Lyapunova. – M.: Yurayt, 2021. – P. 74.
How to distinguish negligence from innocence
There is a rather thin line between these concepts. This is used by lawyers for negligent offenders in an attempt to obtain an acquittal for their client.
In reality, establishing the truth is not as difficult as it might seem at first glance. To do this, it is enough to answer two questions:
- Could the culprit be aware of the social danger of his actions?
- Could the attacker have prevented the crime?
If a person could not prevent the onset of dangerous consequences, he is considered innocent. If such an opportunity existed, then we are talking about negligence.
