Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine

2019 • Volume 16 • Issue 1(42)

УДК | UDC : 343
DOI: 10.37692/visnyk.aau.16.1(42).34-40
Посилання | Cite as:

The theoretical and comparative legal aspects of the careless form of guilt in criminal law. Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. . Volume 16. Issue 1(42). С. 3440.
DOI: 

Ключові слова | Keywords:

Received:
Published online: 10 Oct. 2019

Copyright © 2019 Veresha R.

Creative Commons This article is published under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Link to The theoretical and comparative legal aspects of the careless form of guilt in criminal law

The theoretical and comparative legal aspects of the careless form of guilt in criminal law

Roman Veresha

Roman Veresha

Doctor of Legal Sciences • професор
Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine

Анотація | Abstract

The Criminal Code of Ukraine contains provisions on the careless form of guilt, but the definition, in fact, has a careless within. Here there is a similar problem, as in the determination of the deliberate form of guilt: the definition of the term “negligence” in Part 1 of Art. 25 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not comply with certain rules of legislative formulation of definitions. So, in particular, the legislator violated: 1) the prohibition rule “vicious circle”, since the concept of negligence is proposed to be defined through the concept of criminal arrogance and criminal negligence; 2) the rule of completeness of the wording, since the definition of negligence itself is not provided for, which includes a list of the main features that determine the careless form of guilt. All this necessitates the development of a qualitatively new definition of the concept of a careless form of guilt and its consolidation at the legislative level. The concept of criminal arrogance and criminal negligence should be based on the concept of careless form of guilt and be consistent with it.

The most dangerous manifestations of an unwary form of guilt are the commission of a crime as a result of a deliberate violation of safety rules. In case of an unwary crime, the action of the subject, as a rule, is not aimed at achieving (conscious admission) a socially dangerous consequence. However, the public danger is manifested in the commission of a particular action or inaction, which are manifested in the irresponsible behavior of the subject of the crime and may consist in gross and deliberate violation of safety rules. In criminal law, legal negligence, willful negligence, criminal ignorance, characterizing the careless form of guilt, are also distinguished.

Література:

  1. Стрельцов Є. Л. Суб’єктивна сторона злочину. Вісник Асоціації кримінального права України. 2013. № 1(1). С. 160–170.
  2. Квашис В. Е. Преступная неосторожность. Социально-правовые и криминологические проблемы. Владивосток : Изд-во Дальневост. ун-та, 1986. 189 с.
  3. Рарог А. И. Вина в советском уголовном праве : монография / науч. ред. Б. В. Здравомыслов. Саратов : Изд-во Саратов. ун-та, 1987. 186 c.
  4. Скляров С. В. Вина и мотивы преступного поведения. Санкт-Петербург : Юридический центр Пресс, 2004. 326 с.
  5. Нежурбіда С. І. Злочинна необережність: концепція, механізм і шляхи протидії : дис. ... канд. юрид. наук  : 12.00.08. Чернівці, 2001. 218 с.
  6. Дагель П. С., Котов Д. П. Субъективная сторона преступления и ее установление / науч. ред. Г. Ф. Горский. Воронеж : Изд-во Воронеж. ун-та, 1974. 243 c.
  7. Шаргородский М. Д. Научный прогресс и уголовное право. Советское государство и право. 1969. № 12. С. 87–95.
  8. Вереша Р. В. Mens rea за кримінальним правом Англії. Право України. 2006. № 5. С. 167–170.

Works Cited