Murder through negligence

There are in the life of man categories, which are completely differently viewed from the point of view of the philosophical and our real life. The concept of murder is one of the most controversial categories. Legally affirms a negative attitude towards this, the same can be said about morality. However, the media, and everyday communication with others, presents us with murder as an ordinary and even habitual part of life. Moreover, even from a legal point of view, the concept of murder was formulated relatively recently.

It's an amazing thing, but neither the criminal legislation of pre-revolutionary times, nor even the Criminal Code in the Soviet period contained the wording that defines the very concept of murder. It was the current Criminal Code that gave him the first transcript. Proceeding from the first part of Article 105, only if death was caused to another person intentionally, the action falls under the category of murder.

Until 1996, there were two slightly different points of view on the definition of murder. Differences concerned such a problem as unintentional homicide. And, although the legislation has already given its official interpretation, disputes concerning this issue can not be considered closed. Recall that some forensic experts believe that it is possible to consider such not only unlawful and willful deprivation of life, but also complete murder by negligence should be considered in this category. However, we repeat, the current legislation treats this as causing death by negligence.

The concept of murder precisely because it should be clearly defined, because it falls into the category of particularly serious crimes. Punishment for this is determined by various circumstances, such as motive, purpose, form of guilt, the danger of deed and some others.

Returning to our topic (murder by imprudence), it is necessary to sharpen its focus on its difference with respect to a deliberate act of this kind. For judicial practice it is very important to differentiate frivolity from indirect intent. In both cases, the perpetrator can foresee that as a result of his actions, the actual occurrence of the death of the victim is real. In both cases, there is no conscious desire for this, but indirect intent implies a conscious admission of the onset of death, as well as the absence of any action to prevent it.

Murder through negligence is also not synonymous with the concept of accidental causing death. In this case, the person who caused the death of the victim not only did not foresee such a result of his personal actions (or, possibly, inaction), but should not and could not provide for the circumstances of the case. This situation is classified as an accident, the fault of the person is excluded, accordingly, there is no criminal responsibility here. While in case of unintentional murder, it will come to the extent that the gravity of the guilt will be proved. The maximum penalty for this type of violation is imprisonment up to five years.

Unintentional killing can occur as a result of negligence or frivolity. The first case implies that the person did not foresee the probability of death, however, the situation required foresight, which would definitely prevent the death. The second case characterizes the situation when the person foresaw the result of his actions, but showed arrogance, unreasonably counting on the favorable outcome of the event.

It must be understood that it is precisely gross disobedience that leads to the phenomenon of murder by imprudence. Perhaps, it is impossible to equate the degree of danger to the society of premeditated murder with causing death by negligence, however, the consequences of it are no less severe. Moreover, statistics argue that the increase in the number of this category as the cause of death is inexorably growing.

Therefore, even the Church imposes penance on a person who committed an unintentional murder, thus calling to account for their actions.