The key feature that characterizes the subjective aspect of the crime is considered guilt. She acts as a subjective prerequisite for criminal liability.
In accordance with Article 5 of the Criminal Code, a citizen can be punished only for such unlawful acts / omissions and the consequences that have arisen as a result of them, in respect of which his guilt has been proved. Legislation prohibits liability for innocent damage.
The essence of guilt
The concept of "guilt" reflects the mental attitude of the subject to the actions that he performs, and the consequences that they entail. If we consider the social aspect, then this term characterizes the citizen’s reaction to the customs and rules that have developed in society, and the requirements for him. A negative attitude towards them is manifested in the commission of an unlawful action.
When considering the content and social essence of guilt, domestic lawyers rely on a materialistic understanding of the act and consciousness, responsibility and freedom. Accordingly, guilt is recognized as a reality phenomenon that really exists.
Domestic forensic experts oppose the evaluative understanding of the term, within the framework of which it is considered a rebuke addressed to the subject who committed the act.
Wines and other signs of composition are assessed by the investigating authorities and the court. However, this wine does not turn into a value concept. It acts as a fact of objective reality and is studied together with other circumstances in the manner enshrined in criminal procedure norms.
Types of guilt
It is not enough to establish that it was he who committed the assault to convict the subject. Otherwise, objective imputation will take place, that is, a person will be held liable only on the basis of the existence of a connection between him and the act. In practice, it may turn out that there is no citizen guilt. For example, a person will be convicted of rape under the stipulation of a “victim”, although in fact sexual contact was by mutual desire.
In the 1st part of the 24th article of the Criminal Code, 2 were found to be guilty of ida - negligence and intent. The latter can be direct and indirect. Carelessness can be expressed in negligence or frivolity. In Art. 27 of the Criminal Code refers to a special category of acts - crimes with 2 forms of guilt. Consider their features.
The concept of a double form of guilt
According to the Criminal Code, if serious consequences occurred during a deliberate assault, entailing a tougher punishment under the law, which were not covered by the intent of the subject, responsibility arises only if the citizen foresaw the possibility of their occurrence, but without sufficient grounds, arrogantly counted on their prevention. This situation is enshrined in Art. 27 of the Criminal Code . It is valid in cases where the subject did not foresee, but should have foreseen grave consequences. This act is generally considered intentional and perfect with a double form of guilt .
Key features
The double form of guilt in criminal law is characterized by the following features:
- There is a deliberate act.
- A perfect crime entails consequences not covered by the intent of the subject.
- The consequences are grave and, accordingly, entail stricter sanctions.
- The resulting harm and crime have a causal relationship.
- The subject's personal attitude toward the consequences is expressed in frivolity or negligence.
- The harm resulting from the infringement refers to the obligatory elements of the composition of the committed act.
It is worth saying that the Criminal Code provides for a lot of crimes with a double form of guilt . For example, intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm to health, rape, kidnapping, etc., entail, through negligence, the death of a victim of a crime or other grave consequences.
Classification
The double form of guilt and corpus delicti may imply consequences arising from intentional and reckless actions or only reckless.
The first category should include, for example, the act provided for in paragraph 4 of article 111 of the Criminal Code. When committing such an infringement, the subject intentionally inflicts harm on the victim, as defined in the first part of the same norm; the actions of the guilty in this case entail the death of the victim - the careless consequences of a criminal offense . In the basic composition of the infringement, the consequences are provided for in the same way as in a qualified one.
The second group includes intentional acts that are considered qualified in the event of reckless consequences caused by its commission. For example, the subject committed a rape that negligently caused the death of the victim. In the basic composition, the consequences are not established as a mandatory feature, unlike a qualified composition.
Difficulty in practice
The presence of criminal articles that establish punishment for acts with 2 forms of guilt creates an active discussion and entails many problems in qualifications.
Crimes with a double form of guilt have rather complex designs. This, in turn, entails a lot of enforcement mistakes.
Currently, the following points remain debatable:
- The issue of justifying the need for the existence of two different forms of guilt in one composition.
- The problem of determining the age of the perpetrator of the crime provided for in the 4th part of the 111th article.
- The presence / absence of the possibility of an attempt to commit acts with a double form of guilt .
- Questions about complicity in such crimes.
Explanations of specialists
According to a number of lawyers, the refusal of the design, which provides for liability for crimes committed with two forms of guilt , that is, in which there is a formal composition and qualified, assuming the onset of careless consequences, would be fully justified. First of all, experts say, the recognition of such attacks as a whole intentionally illogical. Secondly, such recognition, in fact, has no significant practical value. Neither complicity nor preliminary activities in such crimes are possible. In addition, the presence of such complex structures has no forensic significance.
Delineation of acts
As practice shows, most often law-enforcement errors arise when qualifying acts with a double form of guilt , entailing reckless and deliberate consequences.
For example, the process of delimiting deliberate grievous bodily harm (part 4 of article 111) and murder (article 105 of the Criminal Code) is accompanied by difficulties. In both the first and second cases, the victim is harmed, resulting in death. But in the first case, the assault belongs to the category of crimes against health, and in the second - against life. As part of the act provided for in the 4th part of the 111th article, the presence of any intent on the offender for causing the victim death is excluded.
Judicial Mistake Example
The culprit and the victim lived in an official marriage. The wife led an asocial lifestyle, abused alcohol, often did not spend the night at home, drank money, sold household property. All this led to quarrels between the spouses.
One evening, the victim came to a friend, where they drank and went to bed. On the same day, the victim’s husband came to the acquaintance’s house, dragged her out of bed and began to beat her, striking her in different parts of the body with her legs and arms. He continued to beat her on the way home, then dragged her into the corridor and continued to strike. Then the husband went to bed.
When in the morning he tried to wake his wife, it turned out that she had passed away. The husband who beat his wife was convicted of murder. However, this sentence is not substantiated, since he had no intention of causing death to his wife.
Mental attitude as a sign of composition
The outward manifestation of a crime can be complex. An act may include one or more actions. Moreover, in a number of cases, dangerous consequences of different severity and nature arise. Consequently, the subject’s mental attitude to actions / inactions committed by him can manifest itself in different ways. A citizen, for example, can injure a victim in the leg with a knife and be reckless about death resulting from this.
It follows from this that, in practice, situations are quite possible where the reaction to a crime and its consequences varies. It is on this discrepancy that the concept of assault with a double form of guilt is based .
Such a manifestation of the subject’s mental attitude takes place in acts in which the purpose of the action / inaction does not coincide with the consequences that have occurred. When analyzing a crime and establishing the guilt of a person, one must take into account his subjective reaction to what is happening.
conclusions
In some cases, when determining the measure of responsibility for a crime in the norms of the Criminal Code, several consequences are taken into account, the subjective attitude of the perpetrator to which is not the same. An example is the act provided for by part 4 of the 111th article (which was already mentioned above) and part 3 of the 123rd Code of the Code (illegal abortion, which resulted in the death of the victim). In these situations, the perpetrator’s attitude to the various consequences will indeed be different. In the case of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, the subject may inadvertently (carelessly or frivolously) relate to the occurrence of another consequence - the death of the victim of the assault.
The determination of two forms of guilt is of particular practical importance, since it allows one to delimit acts from related compositions in each individual case.
Taking into account the subjective signs, one can differentiate the intentional infliction of damage to health, as a result of which the death of a person (part 4 of Article 111) and murder (105th norm) occurred on the one hand, and on the other hand, from causing a careless death (Art. . 109).
If the intent of the guilty party included not only the infliction of harm, but also the deprivation of the life of the victim, the action should be qualified as murder. If the citizen did not have the goal of causing grievous bodily harm, and his mental attitude towards the death of the injured person is characterized by negligence, the offense is considered to be causing an careless death.
Mutual fault
The Code does not indicate the consequences of committing an act in the presence of fault not only the causer of the damage, but also the victim. Such a concept, as a rule, is used in civil law. Meanwhile, in investigative practice, situations often arise when mutual guilt is seen in a crime. In these cases, they talk about the actions of the victim and their influence on the limits of liability for the causer of damage.
Mutual guilt refers to the subjective attitude of persons participating in a criminal event to the incident, in which they intentionally or inadvertently commit illegal actions. For example, two intoxicated people started a fight. As a result, they both inflicted grave or moderate harm to each other's health, insulted each other, etc.
According to many lawyers, it is advisable to consolidate the concept of mutual guilt. It is also necessary at the legislative level to disclose the content of this term, to determine the degree of its influence on the limits of responsibility of entities participating in a criminal event.
Finally
In the Special Part, there are by no means always direct indications of a specific form of guilt in one or another unlawful act / omission. In such situations, its determination is carried out in accordance with the nature of the act, the method of commission and on the basis of other subjective signs (goals, motive, etc.). For example, in the 129th article , the dissemination of knowingly false information defaming the dignity, honor of the victim, and undermining his reputation is recognized as slander. In this norm, there is no indication of the form of guilt. But the presence in the disposition of the mention of knowingly false information allows us to consider that this act is intentional.
The double form of guilt significantly complicates the situation of not only the perpetrator, but also creates problems for the investigating authorities. Often, the perpetrators of crimes, in order to reduce the size / term of punishment, indicate negligence in their actions, covering it with the true intentions that guided them.