Negligence and its types in criminal law: what is important to know

How does the law understand carelessness?

Law has an ambivalent attitude towards the term in question, in terms of the moments that constitute its illegal intention. Part 1, Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, crimes committed as a result of negligence, negligence, imprudent behavior, are considered acts that were caused by a dismissive, frivolous attitude or an attitude due to lack of foresight.

Misdemeanors are classified as criminal if they result in causing property damage or bodily harm. The introduction of changes to criminal legislation also changed the attitude towards the definition of this concept.

After the entry into force of the Federal Law (Federal Law) No. 97 in May 2011, negligence in criminal law is an offense that can be classified as criminal if it is provided for in the relevant sections of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which also defines negligence and its types in the criminal legal field.

Otherwise, the legislator regards carelessness as criminal with an alternative form of guilt, which implies intentional carelessness.

In practice, such atrocities include:

• transmission of HIV infection;
• damage to property;
• transfer of information that is a state secret.

Evaluating the examples given, it is quite difficult to justify the moment of imprudent behavior, since the subject who committed such offenses had the opportunity and could predict the results of his behavior.

Frivolity and negligence in criminal law, as well as imprudence, are regarded as criminal if they result in property damage.

Criminal frivolity and its characteristics

A criminal act is considered to have been committed carelessly if a person understood that there was a possibility of harmful consequences of his actions performed or not performed, but unreasonably relied on his ability to prevent them. A crime can be considered committed due to negligence if a person did not foresee the onset of negative consequences, although with due care he could have prevented them.

When considering frivolity in criminal law (Article 26, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), one must take into account that its intellectual aspect is characterized by the anticipation of the possible formation of dangerous consequences. The volitional moment of frivolity is expressed by a groundless arrogant calculation, according to which it is possible to prevent negative consequences.

In the description of frivolity there is no reference to a person’s mental attitude towards his act. In simple words, criminal frivolity is not characterized by a person’s awareness of the danger of the nature of the action he has committed or failed. At the same time, it is quite difficult to simulate a situation where a person foresees the dangerous nature of the consequences of his actions, but did not realize the danger of the act itself.

Although the law does not mention a psychological attitude, it is implied by it. Anticipation of possible consequences is a type of consciousness of the factual side of an act.

The volitional moment of frivolity is characterized by the fact that a person does not want the occurrence of dangerous consequences, and also strives to prevent them. At the same time, he relies on specific circumstances that, according to his opinion, may prevent the occurrence of a criminal result.

As a rule, in such a calculation a person relies on his own skills and abilities, the actions of other people, as well as machines, mechanisms, etc. At the same time, he incorrectly assesses the circumstances that can prevent the consequences.

When considering frivolity and negligence in criminal law, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between these concepts and indirect intent. If there is one, a person suspects the possibility of adverse consequences, but deliberately allows them.

It is not difficult to give an example of frivolity in criminal law, because in judicial practice this occurs quite often. Crimes committed out of frivolity are especially often committed at the beginning of the summer season.

Summer residents are burning last year's grass, counting on the opportunity to cope with the fire if the situation gets out of control. Some people leave the fire unattended, subsequently pointing out that it started to rain and they hoped that it would put out the fire, etc.

frivolity

A crime is considered committed due to frivolity if the person who committed it foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his action (or inaction), but without sufficient grounds, he arrogantly counted on preventing them (Part 2 of Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Foreseeing the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of one's action or inaction constitutes the intellectual element of frivolity, and arrogant calculation to prevent them is its volitional element.

Characterizing the intellectual element of frivolity, the legislator indicates only the possibility of foreseeing socially dangerous consequences, but omits the mental attitude to action or inaction. Frivolity usually involves a conscious violation of certain precautionary rules established to prevent harm, so the awareness of the behavior makes this type of reckless guilt more dangerous than negligence.

In its intellectual element, frivolity has some similarities with indirect intent. But if with indirect intent the perpetrator foresees a real (i.e. for a given specific case) possibility of the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences, then with frivolity this possibility is foreseen as abstract: the subject foresees that such actions may generally entail socially dangerous consequences, but believes that in this particular case they will not occur.

The main, main difference between frivolity and indirect intent lies in the content of the volitional element. If, with indirect intent, the perpetrator consciously allows the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences, i.e. treats them favorably, then with frivolity there is not only a desire, but also a conscious assumption of these consequences, and, on the contrary, the subject strives to prevent their occurrence and treats them negatively.

Example

S. and I., having entered the house of 76-year-old A. for the purpose of theft, severely beat her, causing fractures of the nasal bones, cheekbones and base of the skull, tied her up and inserted a rag gag into her mouth. Having stolen the things they were interested in, S. and I. left A. tied hand and foot, with a bloody nasopharynx and a gag in her mouth, covered with a blanket and mattress. As a result of mechanical asphyxia, A. died. The described circumstances indicate that S. and I. foresaw the possibility of the death of an old woman, whose mouth was covered with a gag, and whose nasopharynx was damaged during the beating and filled with blood, and deliberately allowed such a consequence to occur, i.e. they acted with indirect intent (BVS RF. 1997. No. 3. P. 8-9).

The law characterizes the volitional content of frivolity not just as hope, but precisely as a calculation to prevent socially dangerous consequences, which has very real, although insufficient, grounds. In this case, the guilty person relies on specific, real circumstances that can, in his opinion, counteract the onset of a criminal result: on his own personal qualities (strength, dexterity, experience, skill), as well as on other circumstances, the significance of which he assesses incorrectly, as a result of which the calculation to prevent a criminal result turns out to be unfounded, arrogant, and without sufficient grounds for this.

Example

Sh., in order to prevent the theft of fish from his mesh, made an alarm, for which he ran wires from his house to the walkways from which the meshes were placed in the river and connected them to a 220 V electrical network, and installed a bell in the house. While trying to disconnect the wires from the alarm system in order to steal a fence at night, minor O. was electrocuted. Sh. foresaw the possibility of serious consequences and, in order to prevent them, widely notified fellow villagers about the existence of an alarm system under significant voltage and asked neighbors not to let children near this place. In addition, he took a number of technical measures to prevent accidental electric shock, and also connected the alarm to the power supply only at night and only when he was at home. Therefore, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR rightfully indicated that Sh., knowing about the danger that a 220 V electric current poses to humans, counted not on chance, but on such objective factors that, in his opinion, excluded the possibility of grave consequences, those. acted not intentionally, but through negligence (BVS USSR. 1969. No. 1. P. 24).

Peculiarities of qualification of criminal negligence

Within the framework of judicial practice, legal analysis of the situation is carried out at the stage of identifying criminal behavior or commission. The initial qualification is carried out by law enforcement officers at the investigation stage.

During the trial, the event may be reclassified taking into account newly discovered circumstances or for other reasons. It is at this stage that frivolity and negligence in criminal law receive legal assessment.

Acts of negligence are considered to be: causing physical harm and material damage. At the same time, visible intent or greedy goals in the actions of the citizen who committed it are absent or not discernible. The root cause was inattention and neglect.

Also read: How the parties are reconciled in criminal proceedings: everything you need to know

Summarizing the above, signs indicating inattention, negligence in the behavior of the subject are a criminal oversight, frivolity. Thus, frivolity in criminal law is characterized by features of a subjective volitional or intellectual nature.

The intellectual element is as follows:

• the citizen could have foreseen or assumed possible negative consequences of the action (negligence in Russian criminal law);
• but he arrogantly hoped to prevent negative events or thought that such events would not occur.

The volitional components are contained in the desire to prevent the occurrence of consequences, attempts to prevent them. The difficulty in classifying inattentive behavior as criminal lies in the very abstract characteristics that the author gives.

When considering the process of qualifying frivolity and indirect intent, it is advisable to distinguish the subsequent reaction of the accused when the results of his offense occur:

• if it involves attempts to prevent or avoid negative and antisocial consequences, then one can argue about frivolous behavior and improvidence;
• otherwise, he reacted to what was done with coolness, obvious indifference, tried to hide or hide the results of his atrocities, then we can assume the presence of intent.

Negligence in criminal law is a category of socially dangerous act, the result of which was damage to property, as well as the onset of legal liability.

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.

Criminal negligence and its characteristics

Negligence in criminal law is characterized by failure to foresee negative consequences when possible. Based on this, the intellectual moment of crimes committed due to negligence is characterized by awareness of the danger of the act and failure to foresee possible dangerous consequences.

The concept and forms of guilt in the criminal law of the Russian Federation

When considering the types of negligence in criminal law, you need to understand that careless crimes are no less common than frivolous ones. It's easy to confuse them, but the difference between them is obvious.

According to Part 3 of Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, negligent crimes are characterized by the absence of references to the volitional moment. However, it is implied, because the will of a person when committing such crimes is aimed at achieving a different result that does not prevent the onset of dangerous consequences. A person does not look for ways and means to prevent negative consequences.

Criminal liability for acts committed due to negligence is determined by the fact that a person, despite the lack of foresight, should have and could have prevented them by simply not performing any act. From the above it follows that in order to assign a crime the status of a crime committed through negligence, one must use objective and subjective criteria.

The objective criterion is expressed by the phrase “should have foreseen.” It is normative in nature, in other words, it is fixed by the rules that a person must adhere to at work, at home, etc. Using an objective criterion, the court determines whether a person was able to foresee the occurrence of dangerous consequences in the circumstances. If a person is not charged with the obligation to foresee the onset of consequences, or if any other person in his place was not able to anticipate and prevent them, then the possibility of criminal liability is excluded.

When determining the degree of guilt, it is not enough to take into account only one objective criterion. It is important to establish that a particular person in the current situation had the opportunity to foresee the onset of negative consequences. In simple words, along with the objective criterion, it is necessary to establish a subjective one.

Unlike the first, the subjective criterion does not approach the assessment of an act and the ensuing consequences from the position of obligation, because in this way a sign of equality is placed among representatives of the same profession, position, title, etc. In other words, the personal ability of a person in a specific situation to foresee must be established the onset of dangerous consequences.

You need to understand that the ability to foresee the consequences of their actions varies from person to person. It may be due to:

• life experience;
• level of intellectual development;
• degree of education;
• professional skills;
• health status;
• psychophysical characteristics of each person.

The choice of one or more factors when establishing the potential for foreseeability of consequences directly depends on the person’s experience and on the characteristics of the crime. In judicial practice, there are cases when the possibility of foresight was excluded due to the physical or psychological state of the defendant. From the foregoing, it becomes clear that criminal negligence occurs when it is established that a person in specific circumstances not only should have, but could, in accordance with his individual qualities, foresee the formation of dangerous consequences of the action performed.

Errors in criminal law: concept, types and meaning

Careless crimes in criminal law are divided into concepts such as negligence and incident. We are talking about innocent harm. A sign of this condition is the failure to foresee socially dangerous consequences. In simple words, a person performed an action and did not have the intention to commit a dangerous act. At the same time, there is no negligence in the actions.

An example of such an action is causing death while performing professional duties. It is important that safety precautions were observed and there was no intent to commit a dangerous act.

Types of negligence

The law divides criminal indiscretion into two types of categories:

1. Frivolity prohibited by law.
2. Criminal negligence.

These types of negligence in Russian criminal law can also be supplemented with innocent causing of harm.

An example of frivolity in criminal law is that a person was able to imagine and foresee the effect of what he was doing, but out of arrogance continued to perform it. Typically, such situations are associated with violation of required security measures. There are plenty of such examples in the practice of courts.

Here is one of them: the death of a child resulted from the fall of the gate. The owner of the house saw that the gate was askew and was about to fall. A child playing in the courtyard of the house approached the gate, which collapsed on him under a gust of wind. After considering the case, the court determined the signs of unintentional murder. The example clearly illustrates the essence of hindsight and negligence. Carelessness in criminal law is the result of an erroneous action or inaction of a person.

When the subject is unlawfully neglectful, the consequences of the atrocities committed are underestimated and their antisocial effects are not recognized.

The legislator notes the positive and negative signs of such neglect:

• when the subject did not anticipate the negative effect of his misdeeds;
• the subject had a duty to be vigilant.

The latter comes from neglect of instructions, rules of behavior, official status and characteristics of professional activity.

As part of the assessment of the nature and root causes that served as the basis for the commission of offenses considered as negligent criminal behavior, subjective and objective nuances are taken into account. The latter determines whether a person could have acted differently, imagine the consequences, evaluate the situation fully, and also take preventive measures.

It is also noteworthy that the legislator defines negligence in criminal law as less dangerous than frivolity.

Harm without fault and its legal characteristics

At the same time, criminal law uses such a term as innocent causing of harm. In many ways, in content and form, it is similar to negligence in modern criminal law. This form of guilt is established by Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

It reveals the content of such an offense in the following signs, if identified, he is regarded as innocent:

1. The person did not realize, and due to the circumstances could not realize, the possibility of socially dangerous consequences.
2. The person presented a dangerous situation and had no probable opportunity to resort to preventive measures.

For clarity, it is advisable to illustrate the above with examples from judicial practice.

Also read: Sample resolution to initiate a criminal case: how to draw up a document

Three men were drinking alcohol on the edge of a ravine, after which a struggle ensued and two of them fell into the ravine. As a result, one man died and the second was injured. The court determined this situation to be an accident.

At a ski resort, while climbing to a height, moving along a rope ladder, one of the girls became dizzy and fell. The instructor who rushed to help could not hold the girl, as the unfastened glove slipped off her hand, the girl crashed. The instructor could not foresee the fact that the girl would feel dizzy and would not fasten the glove on her hand.

These examples are careless crimes in Russian criminal law.

Legal literature interprets a guilty act committed through negligence, noting that it is not always innocent. In a number of situations, the indirect intent of the persons who committed them is seen.

The latter, understanding the essence of the legal norm and having an idea of ​​the signs of such offenses, deliberately plan their atrocities in such a way that they can be classified as careless or frivolous. In this case, as part of the investigation, it is necessary to study the causes and factors of the violations, their motive, which may be obvious or hidden.

To fully understand the essence, we can give the following example: a nurse, according to her, due to forgetfulness caused by fatigue, forgot a strong sleeping pill on the table near a blind bedridden patient. The latter allegedly mistakenly took them, resulting in the death of the patient.

During the trial, it turned out that the nurse had a hidden intention, since the patient in his will wrote her a small amount, and his daughter asked to cancel this decision, because the nurse was paid in full. Based on this, negligence in the law can be considered only those offenses where selfish intent is not seen.

Criminal negligence - as a special form of guilt

Frivolity is condemned not only by the norms of public morality, but can also lead to legal liability. Considering frivolity as a special type of guilt, it is worth noting that the legislator defines it as more dangerous.

A study of the causes and factors of violations of laws shows that most often they are provoked by impunity. This is especially true for juvenile delinquency. Another significant point is frivolity. Surveys of juvenile offenders further confirm this fact.

Among all the cases from legal practice, the accused or convicted believed that there could be no consequences for their actions, calling the events an accident and the imposed punishment unfair. It is this moment when a person does not fully realize or does not want to admit his guilt, the subsequent responsibility, which makes frivolity a particularly dangerous form of guilt.

Frivolity in criminal law is a special, more severe form of guilt, when the person whose actions caused harm was not fully aware of their consequences.

The majority of road accidents occur due to carelessness, when drivers, relying on driving experience and their own skills, do not comply with safety measures in dangerous road conditions. Such offenses include driving while intoxicated, driving at high speed on ice or wet asphalt, in poor visibility. It is noteworthy that the judicial authorities, as a rule, do not regard such violations as frivolous, qualifying them according to the norms of the administrative code. Nevertheless, an element of frivolity is seen in them.

Thus, careless crimes in criminal law are classified as difficult to prove, difficult to qualify actions and determine punishments.

Species diversity of criminal indiscretion

To fully understand the essence and significance of the study and subsequent prevention of criminal carelessness, it is advisable to reveal their species diversity, in other words, what they look like within the framework of judicial practice.

The bulk of such cases are associated with violations of household safety standards, where there is banal negligence, carelessness, in production when handling equipment - technical negligence. When carrying out professional activities - official negligence, based on these features, the types of negligence in modern criminal law differ.

The category of technical carelessness includes illegal actions:

1. Arising from violations of safety instructions when handling technical devices, machines, machines and equipment in the field of construction, industrial production, agricultural work, handling weapons and military equipment, failure to comply with recommendations, rules for storing chemical, radioactive, explosive substances.
2. Violation of instructions, safety rules when operating vehicles of various types, violations during movement, repairs, violations of cargo transportation rules.
3. Examples of incidents involving professional or official negligence include: loss or damage to documents, including those containing classified information, state secrets, personal information, medical, commercial secrets and other confidential information. The category of the most dangerous types of violations includes negligence in the performance of professional or official duties. For example, when handling equipment, instruments, computers. A number of environmental violations can also be noted here.
4. Carelessness often entails consequences that fall under articles of criminal and civil legislation. These are moments of civil responsibility - the need to be responsible for the consequences of one’s erroneous actions or inactions related to everyday issues. For example, a water leak that led to damage to neighbors' property. Failure to provide assistance, causing unintentional damage to the property or health of third parties.

The growth of such careless crimes in modern criminal law and practice is directly related to the development of scientific and technological progress and the accessibility of its products to the masses.

The Prosecutor General's Office of Russia recalled treason in connection with the events in Ukraine - what does this mean?

- It’s not clear here either. Our legislation on state secrets and the legislation that provides for responsibility for collecting state secrets are extremely vague. It is unclear what the presidential decree classifies in detail. Lists of information subject to classification are themselves secret. Until now, we cannot understand whether such information is information about one person killed or whether the secret consists of some statistical data on the number of deaths in a specific military unit during special operations. It is impossible to answer this question due to the secrecy of our legislation. We tried to challenge this decree in the Supreme Court. We were refused. Neither the representatives of the Prosecutor General's Office nor the representatives of the Russian Presidential Administration in court could answer the question that we are now discussing. — If a foreign journalist or expert calls me, a journalist or an expert, etc. and asks for my opinion, what am I risking?

— We have the case of Ivan Safronov.
Journalist who covered topics related to the Ministry of Defense. This is a very famous thing. Ivan is still in jail (since July 2022 on charges of treason . - Ed.
).
In fact, he is held accountable for his conversations with his colleagues. “I call my brother in Kherson and tell him that his brother from the so-called Pskov is now on the outskirts of Kherson as part of the Russian troops, that he can wave to him through the window.
Is this treason? - Yet again.
Due to the fact that you and I do not know what exactly is a state secret, we cannot say for sure whether this action is treason or not. But, of course, there will be questions about how you learned this information. And further questions that will be important for qualification, what your brother does, to whom he can convey this information. — What is the proof in the above cases?
Correspondence, billing, something else? — In principle, in these cases, any data that confirms the transfer of any information is used as evidence.
SMS messages, correspondence in the messenger, wiretapping of telephone conversations, testimony of witnesses who were nearby, recordings from video cameras in the cafe. All this can be evidence. — Is the warning from the Prosecutor General’s Office itself legal in conditions where de jure a special regime has not been introduced in Russia?
As far as we understand, after February 24, neither a wartime regime nor a national emergency regime was introduced in Russia. — The text of the warning from the Prosecutor General’s Office consists of 90% quotes from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Quoting our code is, of course, legal. It is important to understand that this norm is valid not only from February 24, 2022. It has been in effect since the end of 2012. This rule applies regardless of whether martial law or some other special regime has been introduced in the country.

The psychological aspect of imprudence and frivolity: preventive measures

Preventive measures to prevent criminal negligence and frivolity are selected based on the reasons and social factors that contributed to the increase in the number of such acts.

Also read: Peculiarities of criminal liability of minors: types of punishments and deferment

At the present stage of development we observe:

• the growing negative impact of the development of scientific and technological progress;
• accelerated growth of production and economic sectors of society.

At the same time, there are trends in the development of a sharply negative attitude among young people towards any kind of restrictions in the form of rules, social norms, and legislative norms.

It is precisely such subjects of society that account for the bulk of frivolous offenses, careless, negligent offenses. This is where the negative impact of the development of information technology is seen. A number of researchers on this issue note the harmful influence of advertising, certain genres of musical art and cinema.

It is worth noting the latest attempts to introduce restrictions for film directors, which include a ban on showing chases in vehicles and cars, open shootouts between heroes, and other similar scenes. In many ways, such events by public organizations, deputies and the government can be classified as preventive measures.

Considering the background of official, professional negligence or negligence, among the reasons often cited are inconsistency of professional qualifications, position held, insufficient competence and inexperience of employees. The combination of these reasons and factors gives the legislation grounds to classify such situations as socially dangerous and difficult.

Innocent harm

If a citizen does not have the opportunity to guess and realize the social danger from his certain actions, then the law exempts him from criminal liability.

Innocent harm is qualified in the legislation of 2022 as an incidental situation with a person in which persons are not responsible even for the most severe harm caused:

1. The first part of Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation indicates the complete absence of corpus delicti in human activities. At the same time, it is impossible to foresee extremely dangerous consequences of actions committed by a citizen.
2. The second part of the article provides for a situation in which persons have the opportunity to foresee the occurrence of a dangerous situation as a result of their actions, but circumstances develop in such a way that they cannot be prevented.

In accordance with the law, innocent causing of harm is recognized in the following cases:

1. If the person who committed such an act did not realize and, due to the circumstances, could not realize the social danger of his actions or inactions.
2. In the case where the person who committed the act foresaw the possibility of consequences dangerous for society, but, despite this, was unable to prevent these consequences due to the inconsistency of his own psychophysical qualities with the requirements of extreme conditions or neuropsychic overload.

Serious nervous stress, mental disorders, and the absence of certain psychophysical qualities in extreme conditions quite often do not allow a person to orient himself in a timely manner and act in such a way as to eliminate the dangerous situation that has arisen.

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.

Types of innocent harm

When determining a person’s innocence of causing harm, all the circumstances of the incident are taken into account, and possible options for the person’s behavior in cases that caused harm and provoked serious consequences are considered.

Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for three types of innocent harm:

1. If the citizen did not realize and, due to circumstances, could not realize the dangerous and tragic consequences of his own actions or inaction.
2. If a person did not foresee and could not foresee the danger in the actions that he performed.
3. If a citizen had the opportunity to foresee the danger in his actions, but as a result of great nervous stress, mental disorders due to the lack of psychophysical qualities in the extreme conditions created, he was unable to prevent the dangerous situation that arose.

Actions of a citizen committed accidentally, which entailed dangerous or tragic consequences, will be recognized as innocent in cases where, in accordance with the laws, it is proven that the person did not know and, due to the circumstances, could not know about the results of the actions he committed, and also did not had the opportunity to prevent them.

All three types of innocent injury contain some elements of negligent behavior and careless actions. But a detailed analysis and thorough investigation make it possible to understand that they are not negligence.

It should be borne in mind that sometimes it is not possible to prove your innocence . Depending on the type of damage caused, the court will impose an appropriate punishment.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Instead of results

I would like to conclude the written material with conclusions:

1. In judicial and legal practice there are criminal acts that are classified as crimes of negligence.
2. There is a special classification within which two types of negligence in criminal law are distinguished.
3. When analyzing a crime, all the mandatory signs of a crime must be present, indicating that it was committed as a result of carelessness, negligence, or inattention.
4. The accused is not always found guilty. In some situations, the case is classified as an accident.

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.