Safe Operation of Transport, Protection of Public Order and Protection of An Individual

The article discusses the effectiveness of criminal legislation of the Russian Federation on liability for causing physical harm to the individual in the road offences and committed with hooligan motives. Attention is drawn to the unwarranted removal of criminal liability for the guilty infliction of physical harm of medium gravity, close to the infliction of serious harm to health when committing road offences. The author believes that it is necessary to review the question of the nature of the guilt of the driver having an accident with fatalities while heavily intoxicated. The article provides rationale for the recognition of the acts committed with indirect intent with the corresponding legal consequences. This is explained by the fact that driving in such a condition of a source of increased danger, the subject cannot but be conscious of the danger of their behaviour and, therefore, cannot fail to predict dangerous consequences. Being intoxicated when the perception of reality is delayed, s/he cannot count on their driving experience. The author also considers incorrect the legislative decision about removing the special components of the Art. 265 out of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and transferring the responsibility for abandoning a person in a life-threatening condition when you have a road traffic accident to the general components of the Art. 125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This significantly reduces the impact of criminal law to defer road offenders from committing such deeds. Given that the battery and causing light damage to health, committed with hooligan motives, in practice, in fact is equated with domestic abuse, it is proposed to remove this motive out of the components of these crimes. However, the necessity of introduction into part 1 of Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of liability for gross violation of public order, associated with violence against the person, with the transfer of the existing features of this part (clauses "a" and "b") to the qualifying ones. These elements today, according to the author, citizen, protect not the citizen but the very power, given that hooliganism is recognized as a punishable offence if it is committed for motives of extremist nature, and armed hooliganism is essentially equated to banditry.

road offences, domestic hooliganism, hooligan motive, public order, public order offense, humanization of the criminal law, the presumption of innocence, the careless crime, crimes against health, disrespecting society

1. Бунин О. Ю. Реализация принципа справедливости при установлении санкций уголовно-правовых норм. - М., 2006.

2. Генрих Н. В., Камалова А. К., Морозов Н. А. Сравнительный анализ преступности в России и зарубежных странах // Российский криминологический взгляд. - 2013. - № 3.

3. Голик Ю. В., Коробеев А. И. Реформа уголовного законодательства России: быть или не быть? // Lex Russica. - 2014. - № 12.

4. Ивасюк О. Н. Семейное насилие в механизме детерминации преступного поведения несовершеннолетних // Российский криминологический взгляд. - 2013. - № 3.

5. Колонка редактора: интервью с А. В. Наумовым // Lex Russica. - 2014. - № 12.

6. Костина О. Двигаться дальше // Щит и меч. - 2014. - № 10.

7. Лунеев В. В. Проблемы российского уголовно-правового законотворчества // Криминология: вчера, сегодня, завтра. - 2013. - № 3.

8. Омегов В. И. Некоторые проблемы современной российской уголовной статистики // Криминология: вчера, сегодня, завтра. - 2012. - № 2.

9. Ходасевич О. Н. Лишение свободы как вид наказания: специфика, положительные и отрицательные стороны // Научный портал МВД России. - 2010. - № 4.