Author

Kokorin D.L., Tokarev D.S.

Title of article

On the necessity of differentiating criminal liability for traffic rules violation

Section

Criminal Law

Issue, year

1 (31) 2015

Abstract

Elements of crime (Article 264 of the RF Criminal Code) providing the liability for violation of traffic rules or vehicle exploitation rules by a person driving a car, tram or other mechanic vehicle causing negligent infliction of harm or death, committed under the influence of alcohol, are analyzed. The prevention of traffic rules violation by providing a strict punishment and a complex of educational, propagandistic and legal measures is proved to be efficient. Despite the fact that the increase in punitive measures has caused the decrease in traffic rules violation, this method is effectual for elements of crime with formal structure of objective side and such type of mens rea as intent. The preventive function of the legal proposition fixed in actual wording of the Article 264 of the RF Criminal Code is argued to be ineffective: a person under the influence of alcohol realizes the violation of traffic rules, foresees the abstract possibility of committing traffic accident as well as causing infliction of harm or death to another person, but presumptuously reckons on preventing these consequences and discharging from criminal liability. The authors prove that existing types of liability for traffic rules violation and related harmful and dangerous consequences do not provide realization of the purpose to prevent committing new offences and cause the necessity to improve the legislation in this regard.

Keywords

driving, alcoholic intoxication, criminal liability, traffic accident.

References

1. Nikitin E.V., Pashnin A.N. Osnovnye napravleniya sovershenstvovaniya viktimologicheskoy profilaktiki avtotransportnykh prestupleniy [Main directions of improvement of viktimologichesky prevention of motor transportation crimes]. Problemy sovremennogo rossiyskogo zakonodatel’stva [Problems of the modern Russian legislation. In 2 parts. Рart 1]. Moscow; Irkutsk, 2012. Pp. 287-291.

2. Kokorin D.L., Tokarev D.S. K voprosu ob ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti za prichinenie imushchestvennogo ushcherba vsledstvie dorozhno-transportnogo proisshestviya [To a question of criminal liability for causing property damage owing to road accident]. Sovershenstvovanie deyatel’nosti po rassledovaniyu dorozhno-transportnykh prestupleniy [Improvement of activities for investigation of road and transport crimes]. Tyumen, Tyumen Advanced Training Institute of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation, 2012. Pp. 13-16.

3. Imanov D.F. Problema differentsiatsii ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti za narusheniya pravil dorozhnogo dvizheniya i ekspluatatsii transportnykh sredstv [Problem of differentiation of criminal liability for violations of the rules of traffic and operation of vehicles]. Zakon i pravo – Law and Legislation, 2013, no. 2, pp. 84-87.

4. Maslov I.I. Sostoyanie op’yaneniya kak priznak, differentsiruyushchiy ugolovnuyu otvetstvennost’ [A state of intoxication as the sign differentiating criminal liability]. Yuridicheskaya nauka – Legal Science, 2011, no. 3, pp. 57-62.