Types of negligence: concept and characteristics

If we turn to criminal law, negligence there will be a very uncommon form of guilt. In comparison, for example, with intent. This section of crimes is dedicated to Art. 26 of the Russian Criminal Code. In the article we will consider the concept and types of negligence. Among other things, we will thoroughly analyze their characteristics, features, and distinctive features.

Concept and types of negligence

Let us turn to Art. 26 of the Criminal Code. The letter of the law testifies that an act undertaken by negligence recognizes an act that was committed either by negligence or by frivolity. What do we have here? Two types of negligence - negligence and frivolity.

Hence the following:

• Crime of negligence. A person, performing this or that action, did not foresee the socially dangerous consequences of his act. However, with the necessary degree of attentiveness, special knowledge, it could have foreseen this.
• Crime of frivolity. Here, a person, making a particular enterprise, on the contrary, foresaw the onset of serious consequences. But presumptuously (without sufficient grounds) he hoped that they would be avoided.

Considering the concept, types of negligence in the context of criminal law, we noticed that the definition of a citizen's careless guilt is based on the specifics of his attitude to his actions (or inaction), the consequences of his own behavior, actions.

Although already the first part of Art. 26 of the Criminal Code, recklessness divides into frivolity and negligence, we see that both of these concepts are united by a similar socio-psychological content. Carrying out any activity, the guilty person was noticed in inattention, carelessness, non-observance of the duties assigned to him, ignoring safety regulations.

For two types of negligence, the following is also characteristic. If a person were properly prudent, attentive, responsible for his duties, then he would have subjective and objective reasons to understand, to realize the danger of his own actions.

And now let's look at frivolity and negligence, not only as types of negligence, but in the key to specific independent terms.

Features of frivolity

What do we see here? This type of negligence is, first of all, the fact that a person foresees the dangerous consequences of his actions. Moreover, it does not want to prevent them, to prevent them, but frivolously hopes that the consequences will bypass it. But the calculation is wrong. Certain consequences (or part of them), alas, occur.

This will bring frivolity closer to willful guilt. To be precise, with indirect intent. But this is only at first glance. Foresight with frivolity and foresight with indirect intent are strikingly different. In the first case, it is more blurry, less certain ("maybe, or maybe not," "maybe, if, and then not always," "maybe in rare cases," etc.). This leads to a frivolous calculation that the consequences may not occur.

Another difference of this type of crime by negligence from indirect intent is already in strong-willed content. What is it expressed in? By committing something with indirect intent, the attacker deliberately admits the onset of dangerous consequences for society. With frivolity, everything is different. A citizen seeks to achieve some goal, hoping that the socially dangerous consequence will bypass him.

The difference between frivolity and indirect guilt

What brings these concepts and types of intent and negligence closer? The person foresaw the socially dangerous result of his action. In the case of frivolity, it does not want it to come, and in the case of indirect guilt, the situation is different.

It is important for an authorized employee to see the fine line of this difference. For example, careless infliction of death and the commission of the same crime with indirect intent will introduce different types of punishments for citizens.

The differences are clearly seen in the intellectual and strong-willed moment:

• With frivolity, a person does not realize the social danger of his actions. With indirect fault - aware.
• If the crime was committed with frivolity, then the offender presents the consequences abstractly, blurry, implicitly. If by indirect intention, then the person is clearly and really aware of what his activities will lead to.

What is the difference between the real representation of consequences from the abstract, characteristic of this form (form) of negligence? Here is a very subtle feature. An abstract representation - a person can foresee that in similar, similar cases, exactly such a consequence occurs. But what is real? A person knows that specifically for his activity a certain consequence will come and nothing else.

Let's look at an abstract example. The face threw a stone towards the victim. It knew: if this hard sharp object hit the victim’s head at high speed, it would result in the death of the latter. But it hoped that the stone would not touch the victim. The calculation turned out to be incorrect - the item hit the head, which was the cause of death.

And now a real example. A person knows that if you beat a person with legs, hands, foreign objects for a long time, while directing blows to the head against vital organs, this will lead to the death of the victim from damage. But this brutal beating brings to life. Here you can already talk about a deliberate crime, and only about it.

Features of negligence

The specifics of negligence in the form of negligence are as follows: a person in no way foresees that his act (or inaction) will lead to dangerous, serious consequences. Here, neither the action nor the inaction of the citizen is not aimed at causing harm to someone else's rights, interests protected by law.

An important feature. A person may actually be aware that his activity is illegal for some fact (for example, that it violates safety rules), but does not understand at the same time what serious consequences such an enterprise can lead to. So why does a citizen then knowingly violate the rules he knows? The excuse is fatigue, inattention, indiscipline.

Everything said about this type of negligence in criminal law does not negate the recognition of negligence by volitional act. After all, nothing prevented the person from choosing another tactics of actions, a different way of realizing his goal, which would not lead to the observed deplorable consequences. The crime of negligence, therefore, does not negate the fact that the person was (in addition to illegal, incorrect) and the correct motive for action.

In the spread of the topic, it will be useful to touch on the social essence of the category of "negligence":

• The behavior of a person is always associated with one important violation - to be careful and attentive in their actions.
• Although the offender did not foresee the dangerous results of his activity (or inaction), but in the framework of the prudence and attentiveness necessary for a person, he must have taken into account the possibility of such consequences.
• Negligent actions indicate a violation of a person’s obligations.

Therefore, if it comes to criminal liability, the investigator, the judge must carefully scrupulously find out what exactly was the responsibility of the offender. What is expressed in every ignored prescription. Here, something else is important. If a deed (or inaction) committed by a person was not included in the list of his duties, then all consequences of the case cannot be attributed to this citizen.

Negligence characteristic

Let's look at a set of factors that will characterize negligence:

• A person acts or does not act, not realizing the social danger of his behavior.
• From the point of view of consciousness or will, the offender does not show his attitude to the event, which, through his own fault, can lead to a dangerous consequence. That is, he can sleep, talk on the phone, read a book - not to do anything at first glance illegal. But be guilty. Because I have to do something different at this time.
• A person does not want the onset of socially dangerous consequences (as with direct intent), does not allow them (as with indirect intent), does not expect to prevent them (as with frivolity). His consciousness and will are inactive at the time of the offense.
• The person here will be responsible not for the fact of the occurrence of a socially dangerous result, but for the result of his improper behavior.
• The consequences already occurring for the offender are specifically related to his actions (or inaction).
• Another feature. The legislative responsibility for the perpetrator of the crime of negligence is in some cases unexpected. Indeed, in fact, he did not know that his activities would turn into a negative outcome. And, accordingly, I could not be aware that this would somehow affect him.

Subjective criterion of negligence

We continue to analyze carelessness and its types. In order to state the fact of negligence, the authorized person needs to establish that in this situation the offender could have foreseen the dangerous consequences of his actions.

But what is the starting point? Ideas of the ideal person, what honors the rules and the law everywhere? Or a certain average person who is forgiven for some carelessness, forgetfulness, fatigue? Neither one nor the other.

The complexity and importance of establishing the fact of negligence is that the authorized person must determine if our offender, with his individual characteristics, could have acted differently in retrospect. Without negative consequences. This is a subjective criterion. Hence the criminal punishment for a crime committed through negligence, comes only on the fact of the evidence by the judge, the investigator that the given citizen really could have acted differently in this situation, to know that the negative consequences of his act will not take long.

Objective criterion of negligence

So, we know that the subjective criterion for negligence is "he could." The person had the opportunity to predict that the case would turn out exactly as it happened in reality. But what is the objective criterion? It is expressed in "should." A person must foresee that his actions are socially dangerous.

Where does such an obligation come from? These are all-Russian legislative acts, service regulations, safety regulations and other documentation that is located, was in the public domain for the offender. He had to get acquainted with her in order to be aware of the rights and obligations that ensure his life, health, well-being. No one can live in society and be free from it, if we express this criterion philosophically.

The difference between negligence and the deliberate category of guilt

This type of criminal negligence will be distinguished from an intentional form of guilt, for which a more severe punishment is introduced by criminal law:

• With carelessness, the guilty person does not realize that his act will lead to a socially dangerous outcome.
• With a careless form, a person will not positively relate to the result of his act, to desire just such a consequence.
• With carelessness, a person cannot foresee what his activities will lead to. And, perhaps, if he was aware of the results, then he would like to prevent them by all means.

The general here: crimes of negligence, and frivolity, and malice - with the material composition.

Recognition of the act not guilty

In the framework of the topic "Negligence and its types" it is important to consider who in this aspect can be found not guilty:

• The person who committed the act, which led to dangerous consequences, did not realize and could not in any way realize what negative results his activities would lead to.
• The person did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences and could not even foresee this.
• The person who committed the dangerous act (or inaction) foresaw the fullness of the negative results, but could not prevent the onset of these consequences due to the inconsistency of their mental, physical qualities with the requirements that these extreme conditions assumed.

Careless guilt in the Penal Code

Let us turn to Art. 26 of the Russian Criminal Code, which is exactly the same is devoted to our parsed issue:

• Part 1. Here we distinguish such types of negligence as the frivolity and negligence mentioned by us.
• Part 2. This section provides a definition of frivolity.
• Part 3. There will be an analysis of the term "negligence", with which the reader is already familiar.

Final comparison table

At the end of the article, we highlight the main points of what was said in the comparative table.

Now you know the difference in crime by negligence. Namely - through negligence and frivolity. Each of these categories is distinguished by its own characteristics, sometimes very subtle and subjective even in relation to the same act, characteristic of different persons, committed in different circumstances.