soxumis saxelmwifo universiteti soxumis saxelmwifo universitetis ...

soxumis saxelmwifo universiteti
GURAM NACHKEBIA
THE PROBLEM OF EVENTUAL INTENT IN CRIMINAL LAW
In the article it is proved that eventual premeditation side as the negligent
dependence the subject before his infringing activities is unknown to the traditional
fault theories.This is the evaluative “negligence” conception, which psychological
analog does not exist. The same points the 342 nd Article of Criminal
Code of Georgian (service negligence), that is the sign of indifference.
It comes of it that eventual premeditation and negligence are both characterized
as common sign(indifference). This wiil be justified that the “indifferent”
we can change with the term “irresponsible”. This means that the subject
revealed the irresponsible dependence before the requirement of the criminal or
provided norms, as the result of which he committed a infringing activity
provoded by the criminal law. The premeditation before the state is the conscious
negation of the positive responsibility, and the carelessness is recognized
by his repudiation.
From the other side,the fault for: the infringing activity – this is not an
abstract accusal, as it is taken in the normative fault theory (the accusalhas not
the corresponding subject), but is the basis of the accusal (the subject is accused
of his irresponsibility in the infringing acrivity). Though the problem needs to
be examinated.
33