Article 27 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides the following:
"If a person commits an intentional crime that by negligence leads to unintentional consequences, which by law require more severe punishment, then such a crime as a whole is considered intentional".
The most clear example of such a crime is Part 4 Article 111 of the Code: Part 1 provides for a person, intentionally causing grave bodily injury to be punished with up to 8 years of imprisonment. Under Part 4 the same crime, that by negligence leads to death of a victim, is punished by up to 15 years of imprisonment.
I came across "preterintenzionale" mens rea in the Italian criminal doctrine: Article 584 of the Italian Criminal Code provides for liability of a person negligently causing death in committing battery. It's not clear to me whether it is introduced in the Italian Code as a general rule.
In German criminal law there are similar offences (Article 176 as an example), but there is no general rule, as in Russia. The same goes with French "le doi indetermine".
To put it in the context of my research. There is Article 124 of the Russian Criminal Code - not providing a patient with needed medical assistance, that negligently leads to medium\grave bodily harm or death. This composition might constitute intentionally denying medical attention which leads to inadvertent detrimental effects.
Researchers are split: some state that this is a case of double mens rea and it should be considered an intentional crime. Some state that double mens rea requires committing an intentional criminal offence that leads to negligent harm, and denying medical care is not a crime in itself, becoming one only in case of harm occuring.
The problem is, that every major scholar cites as an example only crimes such as Article 111: where the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences is provided as qualifying composition of the same Article, i.e. only when it is explicitly envisioned as such by the legislator.
I, on the other hand, think that there is a case for the Article 124 being a double mens rea crime, because of its relation to the Article 125 - "Endangerment" (leaving a person in danger if this danger is imposed by a perpetrator or if they have a duty of care to the victim). This crime is for sure intentional, and If it leads to relevant consequences it might be qualified under Article 124, and be as a whole intentional under Article 27.
I'd very grateful for your input, and much obliged if you provided relevant research.
Also, I've read on the Common Law doctrine of "transferred intent" but never came across an example of it being used in causing negligent harm to the intended victim - only in ''bad aim" cases.
Guilt is a fundamental principle of criminal responsibility that reveals the subjective attitude of a person to his socially harmful conduct (acts and omissions) and its consequences penalised by law. A person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Criminal law does not impose criminal responsibility for the conduct penalised by law if the guilt has not been established. Guilt defines the character and gravity of an act or omission, which qualifies as a crime.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Instrumentation Engineering
- Instruments