Negligence as a form of guilt is a citizen’s mental attitude to the wrongful act committed by him, which is dangerous to society. Performing illegal actions through negligence entails milder sanctions than by perfect intent. It is important to understand how these concepts are distinguished and how to identify the lack of intent on the part of the criminal.
The essence of negligence as a form of guilt
Guilt is the main attribute of any crime related to its subjective side. According to the rules of the first part of the fifth article of the Criminal Code, a person can be held criminally liable for acts dangerous to society and their consequences, the existence of which proved the citizen's guilt.
Guilt is expressed in the mental attitude of the offender to the signs of an objective nature, which are included in the composition of the act. It is characterized by the presence of strong-willed and intellectual moments. That is, a person must understand the signs of a specific situation and the possible consequences of his actions, as well as consciously direct his physical and mental efforts to achieve his goals.
The constituent elements of guilt are intelligence (consciousness) and will. Together, they form the content of the psychological aspect of guilt. The content of these elements in the subject of a specific crime is established by the design of the elements of each crime separately.
A different ratio of volitional and intellectual criteria of the psyche of the personality of a citizen who commits a crime is the basis for distinguishing forms of guilt (intent and negligence).
Together with the form and content of guilt, its degree is considered. This category is evaluative, contains a quantitative characteristic of the guilt side. The degree of guilt of a person is an expression of a measure of the negative attitude of the person guilty of this crime to the basic values of society.
Its definition is due to the severity of the harm caused by the citizen to society. With regard to the degree of guilt, subjective and objective circumstances characterizing a specific criminal offense influence. Such circumstances include the goals and motives of unlawful actions, the characteristics of the personality of the offender, the reasons for the act, the conditions for the occurrence of intent.
Negligence as a form of guilt is less common when committing crimes than intent. Its features are discussed in article 26 of the Criminal Code.
Types of negligence
Negligence as a form of guilt is a sign of a crime that allows you to reduce the citizen’s responsibility for the act committed or to cancel the punishment.
Legislation addresses two types of negligence: frivolity and negligence. Frivolity occurs if a citizen foresaw that consequences of the actions (inaction) could be dangerous for society, but arrogantly hoped to prevent them in the absence of appropriate grounds for this.
Negligence occurs if a citizen did not foresee the possibility of the negative consequences of his actions, but he should have and could have foreseen them with the necessary forethought and attentiveness.
Both types of negligence are united by similar psychological and social content. This is expressed in the fact that a person in the performance of any actions showed inattention in a certain form.
The specifics of frivolity
The expression of guilt in the form of negligence (frivolity and negligence) has differences among themselves. Frivolity is expressed in the fact that, in anticipating the possibility of negative consequences, the person believes that he himself can prevent their occurrence or increase their influence on others.
Frivolity has some resemblance to indirect intent. The difference is that foresight is more specific in intent. Also, with frivolity, the offender hopes to prevent dangerous consequences himself, and with indirect intent he does not think about them or consciously allows them.
The specifics of a crime of negligence
After analyzing the concept of guilt, types and forms (intent and negligence), one should consider the features of reckless crimes. When committing a crime through negligence, the actions of a citizen are not connected with the desire to harm anyone.
Often, when implementing his goals, he may be inattentive to the surrounding potential negative opportunities due to fatigue, lack of discipline, distraction, and inattention. Moreover, an action dangerous to society, however, is a volitional act.
If a person committed negligence in his actions, he could initially choose a more prudent version of behavior so that the negative consequences did not occur. This possibility is due to the fact that each person has a duty to motivate proper behavior.
The social essence of negligence
Guilt in the form of intent or negligence is a person’s mental attitude to his actions. It has its own social essence. It lies in the obligation of the citizen to realize that one or another of his actions can lead to negative consequences, expressed in causing harm to others, society or the state.
The legal norms indicate that a person should and can foresee the onset of consequences that are dangerous to the environment. This is expressed in the fact that the actions that were committed by him are associated with the violation of the duties that were assigned to him.
In order to apply liability measures for committing a crime through negligence as a form of guilt, it is necessary to establish what kind of duty the citizen violated and in what form it was expressed. If during the audit it is established that the commission of specific actions was not included in the list of obligations of the criminal, then the consequences will not be imputed to him.
The concept of an innocent crime
In the concept of negligence as a form of guilt, an important aspect is innocent harm. It takes place if a citizen, when committing a crime, did not realize and could not, by virtue of circumstances, realize that his actions were potentially dangerous for society, therefore he could not and should not have foreseen their consequences.
Also, innocent harm is considered the realization of intent to perform any actions in which a person did not foresee the onset of any consequences due to the psychophysiological properties of the person, neuropsychic overloads or because of extreme (crisis) conditions.
Features of the types of crimes committed through negligence
Having considered negligence as a form of guilt and its types, it is necessary to study the peculiarities of committing crimes for each type. If an offense under the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was committed unintentionally, by frivolity, harm to any other degree of severity is caused to other persons or property of third parties.
For example, when driving a vehicle, the driver exceeds speed, hoping that his skill will allow him to avoid the occurrence of negative situations on the road. As a result of this, the car runs into a pedestrian, thereby causing harm to his health, regarded as severe.
If the offense is committed through negligence, a citizen commits a crime due to his own inattention. For example: a nurse, when administering a medicine to a patient, mixed up the vials and collected a quick-acting poison into the syringe. As a result, the citizen died.
The difference between negligence and direct intent
In the study of negligence as a form of guilt and its signs should consider the differences of negligence from intent. The first form of guilt is distinguished by the fact that, according to the norms of the law, a person does not realize that his deed can lead to dangerous consequences for society.
Carelessness does not imply that the guilty person is positive about the consequences (either he does not foresee them or thinks that he will eliminate them on his own).
Crimes committed through negligence have a material composition. The offense is considered completed from the moment the consequences have come. If the specified consequences did not occur, criminal liability does not take place.
The difference between frivolity and negligence from indirect intent
Negligence as a form of guilt (in particular, frivolity) differs from intent of the indirect type by the following criteria of volitional and intellectual moment:
- Frivolity implies that a person does not realize that his actions are socially dangerous. Indirect intent implies that a citizen really understands that his act carries a potential threat to other people.
- With frivolity, awareness of the onset of negative consequences is abstract in nature, and with indirect intent, real.
- The attitude of the volitional type differ according to the following criteria. With frivolity, the citizen has an active position, which is expressed in the prevention of negative consequences, with the intent of the indirect type - passive, since the person does not make efforts to eliminate them.
Guilt in the form of negligence with negligence manifests itself in the fact that a person can perform ordinary actions, because of which crisis situations can arise, and a person will be found guilty of them. For example, when a citizen smoked in an apartment, and because of an undamped cigarette, a fire broke out in the whole house.
When there is negligence, the citizen is inactive or acts without realizing the social nature of his actions, and does not think that they can cause any negative consequences.
With negligence, a person with a strong-willed position does not show it in relation to consequences dangerous to society when they occur. He does not want them to arise (as is the case with direct intent), does not allow cases of their occurrence (as is the case with indirect intent) and does not expect to prevent them on his own (as is the case with frivolity).
In those situations where there is negligence, the will and consciousness of the citizen are inactive. Moreover, if a person’s behavior led to the appearance of negative consequences that he could and should have foreseen, he was found guilty of an offense with reference to article 26 of the Criminal Code.
In case of negligence, a person is liable only for those consequences that were the direct result of his unlawful behavior, and not for all the consequences that occurred as a result of one action.
In other words, there should be a causal relationship between the act and the consequences. For example, if a motorist unintentionally knocked down a person, exceeding speed, and the victim of the fall broke a nearby fence or another car, the offender is only responsible for the health damage caused to the pedestrian.
Criteria of negligence
Negligence as a form of guilt is characterized by its own characteristics for each species. When considering negligence, its two criteria should be studied: objective and subjective.
The essence of the subjective criterion is obligation, that is, the obligation of a person to foresee that his actions can have negative consequences. The essence of the subjective criterion is the possibility, that is, awareness of the potential occurrence of negative events after the actions of a citizen.
The obligation of a person to anticipate the negative consequences of his actions follows from the rules of normal behavior established in society and the corresponding precautions that citizens should be guided by.
The indicated rules follow from the requirements of the norms of legislation or other legal acts, contracts, features of the position, work, status of a citizen, established rules of cohabitation. These requirements can affect any area of human activity.
If a citizen belongs to a particular social caste or performs a certain role, he must observe the established rules in his work and precaution. The obligation of a person to anticipate the possibility of the onset of the consequences of dangerous for society consequences of his actions should be established and proved on the basis of the analysis of each specific case.
For example, the distinction between intent and negligence as a form of guilt in relation to crimes committed by negligence occurs as follows. A person may be held liable under Article 293 of the Criminal Code if, due to his careless performance of his duties, negative consequences have occurred.
Guilt in the form of negligence is a common occurrence, despite the fact that punishments for intentional crimes are assigned much more often. Carelessness must be proved during investigative experiments and interviews with the offender and witnesses. Circumstances mitigating guilt are also subject to proof.