Problem of determining form of guilt in crime in which it is not specified, and method of its solving

In crimes with an unspecified form of guilt, the law enforcer determines it. As a result, the courts establish a different form of guilt in similar cases. Such situation is caused by different interpretation of Russian Federation Criminal Code Article 24 Part 2. According to one interpretation, the absence of the form of guilt and signs of intent in a crime permits recognizing it as both intentional and negligent. In this case, there is a problem of the same sanction for intentional and negligent act, the public danger of which is certainly different. The legislature, which, while treating intentional and negligent acts similarly in terms of outcome, imposes markedly different sentences as reflected in distinct statutory provisions recognizes this discrepancy. According to another approach, the absence of negligence indication in the norm means only intentional nature of the crime. At the same time, the act of committing a crime with an unspecified form of guilt by negligence, including crimes resulting in serious consequences, excludes the criminality of the act. The purpose of the study was to find a solution to the problem of determining the form of guilt in crime and its solution. The research used scientific analysis, comparative-legal and formal-logical methods, differentiation and systematization methods, as well as the formalization method. This study’s key finding was the authors’ proposed solution, introducing new criminal legal regulations for crimes with unspecified forms of guilt and outlining sentencing procedures based on whether the crime was intentional or negligent.