Guilt and Its Evaluation in Crimes against Road Traffic Safety and Motor Vehicle Operation
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The author presents opinions of Lithuanian and foreign scientists on the issue of forms and content of guilt in criminal acts against road traffic safety and motor vehicle operation. In the article forms of guilt – criminal negligence and recklessness – which can be considered to be typical to road traffic rules violation, are examined using theoretical material, cases of judicial practise and results of searching analysis.
It should be noted that intentional violation of road traffic safety and motor vehicle rules that causes criminal consequences foreseen in Article 281 of Criminal Code of Lithuania /large material damages, moderate or serious bodily injury, death of human being/ cannot be classified as a crime against road traffic safety. In these cases such intentional criminal acts should be qualified as crimes against person’s life, health or property.
The author of this article reviews different attitude of criminal law scientists towards a problem of guilt in road traffic crimes. Furthermore, the author asserts that application of concept of composite guilt trying to identify a motor vehicle driver’s psychical relation to signs of corpus delicti is not evidential enough. The author states that a violation of road traffic rules itself does not institute a separate corpus delicti but it causes a breach of administrative law. So motor vehicle driver’s perception of a fact of road traffic rule violation has an impact only to individualisation of punishment. In general, criminal acts foreseen in Article 281 of Criminal Code of Lithuania have one and undivided form of guilt.
Nullum crimen sine culpa principle, defined in Article 2 part 3 of Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, obligates institutions of pre-trial investigation and courts to explore and evaluate a motor vehicle driver’s psychical relation to criminal consequences and other objective signs of corpus delicti properly and fairly. But in judicial practice a detailed analysis of criminal recklessness or criminal negligence content in motor vehicle driver’s act is performed rather rarely. It should be noted that identification of these sorts of guilt, clarification of motor vehicle driver’s perception of a rule violation fact, other factors related to content of guilt should be precisely examined in concrete cases. Therefore, in this article intellectual and voluntary elements of criminal recklessness and criminal negligence are examined in theoretical and practical aspects.
The analysis of intellectual element of criminal recklessness is described commenting on nature of vehicle driver’s prevision to expect criminal consequences /serious bodily injury, death of human being, etc./. Also it is stated that appropriate evaluation of voluntary element of criminal recklessness is very important in order to avoid objective inculpation.
Criminal negligence as a type of guilt is very characteristic of crimes against road traffic safety. Thus objective and subjective criteria of criminal negligence are discussed and it is stated that prevision of criminal consequences of car accident cannot exceed limits of a concrete driver possibility. Consequently, drivers’ individual features, level of advertence, attention, physical state, features of a damage situation, etc. can be considered to be important factors for an impartial evaluation of guilt.
It should be noted that intentional violation of road traffic safety and motor vehicle rules that causes criminal consequences foreseen in Article 281 of Criminal Code of Lithuania /large material damages, moderate or serious bodily injury, death of human being/ cannot be classified as a crime against road traffic safety. In these cases such intentional criminal acts should be qualified as crimes against person’s life, health or property.
The author of this article reviews different attitude of criminal law scientists towards a problem of guilt in road traffic crimes. Furthermore, the author asserts that application of concept of composite guilt trying to identify a motor vehicle driver’s psychical relation to signs of corpus delicti is not evidential enough. The author states that a violation of road traffic rules itself does not institute a separate corpus delicti but it causes a breach of administrative law. So motor vehicle driver’s perception of a fact of road traffic rule violation has an impact only to individualisation of punishment. In general, criminal acts foreseen in Article 281 of Criminal Code of Lithuania have one and undivided form of guilt.
Nullum crimen sine culpa principle, defined in Article 2 part 3 of Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, obligates institutions of pre-trial investigation and courts to explore and evaluate a motor vehicle driver’s psychical relation to criminal consequences and other objective signs of corpus delicti properly and fairly. But in judicial practice a detailed analysis of criminal recklessness or criminal negligence content in motor vehicle driver’s act is performed rather rarely. It should be noted that identification of these sorts of guilt, clarification of motor vehicle driver’s perception of a rule violation fact, other factors related to content of guilt should be precisely examined in concrete cases. Therefore, in this article intellectual and voluntary elements of criminal recklessness and criminal negligence are examined in theoretical and practical aspects.
The analysis of intellectual element of criminal recklessness is described commenting on nature of vehicle driver’s prevision to expect criminal consequences /serious bodily injury, death of human being, etc./. Also it is stated that appropriate evaluation of voluntary element of criminal recklessness is very important in order to avoid objective inculpation.
Criminal negligence as a type of guilt is very characteristic of crimes against road traffic safety. Thus objective and subjective criteria of criminal negligence are discussed and it is stated that prevision of criminal consequences of car accident cannot exceed limits of a concrete driver possibility. Consequently, drivers’ individual features, level of advertence, attention, physical state, features of a damage situation, etc. can be considered to be important factors for an impartial evaluation of guilt.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
