Ar asmens veika pažeidžiant KET dėl ko mirė kitas žmogus, gali būti kvalifikuota pagal LR BK 129 straipsnį?
Kurlianskas, Žygimantas |
Mirtys kelių eismo įvykiuose tapo opia problema ne tik Lietuvoje, bet ir visame pasaulyje. Pasaulio sveikatos duomenimis mirtys kelių eismo įvykiuose yra 9 daugiausiai žmonių gyvybių nusinešanti priežastis. Spartėjanti mokslo ir technikos raida lėmė transporto priemonių pagausėjimą keliuose, todėl, be abejo, padaugėjo ir nelaimių skaičius keliuose. Už nusikalstamas veikas padarytas vairuojant transporto priemonę yra numatyta baudžiamoji atsakomybė, tačiau nei visuomenė, nei teisininkai nesutaria, ar pakankamas sankcijų griežtumas asmenims įvykdžiusiems šias veikas. Šiame darbe analizuojamos nusikalstamos veikos padarytos kelių transporto eismo saugumui ir keliamas klausimas, ar gali tokia asmens veika būti kvalifikuojama kaip nužudymas, jei dėl KET pažeidimų miršta žmogus. Istoriniu tyrimo metodu nagrinėjami įstatymai, pagal kuriuos XX a. ir XXI amžiuje buvo kvalifikuojamos nusikalstamos veikos prieš kelių eismo saugumą ir žmogaus gyvybę. Apžvelgiamos kaltės rūšys, jų formos, išskiriant neatsargios kaltės formą (nusikalstamą nerūpestingumą ir nusikalstamą pasitikėjimą) ir netiesioginę tyčia. Trumpai aptariamos šios neatsargios kaltės formos. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į jų atskyrimo nuo netiesioginės tyčios problematiką, valinio ir intelektinio momentų skirtumus šiose kaltės rūšyse. Darbe šalia teorinių aiškinimų pateikiami Lietuvos teismų praktikos pavyzdžiai palengvinantys teorinės dalies suvokimą. Taip pat, apžvelgiama Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų (Teksaso, Minesotos, Ohajo, Alabamos ir kt.) teismų praktika panašiais atvejais, pateikiami bylų pavyzdžiai bei analizuojami šių valstijų įstatymai. Pateikiama ir trumpa Vokietijos įstatymų apžvalga. Darbo pabaigoje pateikiamos išvados.
Modern world has brought a lot of new challenges for mankind. One of them is fatalities in road traffic accidents. New technologies, faster lifestyle rise obvious problem. According to World Health Organization about 1.25 million people die each yearas a result of road traffic crashesand it is the leading cause of death among young people, aged 15–29 years. Between 20 and 50 million more people suffer non-fatalinjuries, with many incurring a disability as a result of their injury. Numbers are huge and critical. Moreover, half of those dying on the world’sroads are “vulnerable road users”: pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Road traffic injuries are not only heartbreaking experience for families and relatives, but considerable economic loss too. Not only for a family, but to nations as a whole. So, as you can see this problem is global. We are going to look closer to Lithuania and how this issue is managed in this country. Lithuania is leading in Baltic countries by deaths in road traffic accidents, leaving behind Latvia and Estonia. There are 10,6 deaths per 100 thousand people in Lithuania caused by road traffic accidents, while in Latvia – 10, and 7 per 100 thousand in Estonia. So, it is evident that there is an issue and it is interesting, what legal actions can be done in Lithuania. First of all, it is necessary to elucidate how this criminal offense is qualified in Lithuania. Article 281 states that “whoever violated road traffic regulations or vehicle operating rules while driving and caused road traffic accident”. So there is an article that targets directly these illegal acts. But was there always? During the period of 100 years, there were 4 different criminal codes in Lithuania. For example, after Lithuania regained its independence, there were no time to create new criminal code, so they used 1903 Russian criminal code with minor changes that was already in effect in this area. Article 231 stated that “whoever drive negligently or to fast in a city or a country, or entrust his horse for a person who is knowingly inadequate or drunk”. Crime made under the article 281 of Lithuanian criminal code is classified as careless crime, so the punishments are softer than punishments for intentional crimes, e.g., manslaughter. So this is the main reason for discusses and dissatisfaction of society. Most of the time road traffic accidents are caused by drivers who are driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), exceeding speed limits and generally ignoring road traffic regulations (RTR). More waves are provoked, when this kind of driver causes road traffic accident where died more then one person or, even worse, juvenile or infant. So, main question, is it rational, wise and just, to punish these drivers under the same article with others, whose crime was careless, not reckless. Court decisions in Lithuania are unambiguous. Road traffic accidents caused by drivers who violated RTR and in which person died is qualified under article 281 of Lithuanian criminal code as it is a careless crime. In this study we do not examine criminal acts done by direct intent. To understand why these crimes are punished the same, we have to examine intellectual moment and volition of guilt. There are minor differences between negligent crime and indirect intent if examined through intellectual moment and volition. However, it is main reason why Lithuanian court practice is unambiguous. Theoretical and practical sides of it is examined in this study with examples of both. Recently, Lithuanian Supreme Court made decision without a precedent, qualified criminal act of reckless driver in whose criminal act violating RTR died 3 people under article 129 of Lithuanian criminal code as a manslaughter. Article 129 section 1 of Lithuanian criminal code states that “whoever killed other person is punished with imprisonment from 7 to 15 years”. Guilt type of this crime is intent, direct or indirect. So reckless driving if person dies in this road traffic accident can be qualified as a manslaughter. Though, it is still unsure if this precedent take root. At the end of the study examples of USA and Germany legal system and court decisions are given. It is interesting, that USA have such a big variety of states and decisions and punishments are different to. Some of states qualify careless driving as a vehicular manslaughter. That is the difference between Lithuania and USA. Lithuania qualifies these criminal acts as violation of road traffic regulations where person died, but USA has special institute created for it. Author of study not entirely agree, that actofviolatingtheroadtrafficregulations, bywhichtheotherpersonhasdied, should be qualifiedqualifiedas a manslaughterin Lithuania. But as Lithuania does not have legal base created for this type of criminal acts, it is better to qualify these criminal acts as a manslaughter, so it may reduce road traffic accidents.