ON THE NECESSITY OF DIFFERENTIATING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR TRAFFIC RULES VIOLATION
Elements of crime (Article 264 of the RF Criminal Code) providing the liability for violation of traffic rules or vehicle exploitation rules by a person driving a car, tram or other mechanic vehicle causing negligent infliction of harm or death, committed under the influence of alcohol, are analyzed. The prevention of traffic rules violation by providing a strict punishment and a complex of educational, propagandists and legal measures is proved to be efficient. Despite the fact that the increase in punitive measures has caused the decrease in traffic rules violation, this method is effectual for elements of crime with formal structure of objective side and such type of mens rea as intent. The preventive function of the legal proposition fixed in actual wording of the Article 264 of the RF Criminal Code is argued to be ineffective: a person under the influence of alcohol realizes the violation of traffic rules, foresees the abstract possibility of committing traffic accident as well as causing infliction of harm or death to another person, but presumptuously reckons on preventing these consequences and discharging from criminal liability. The authors prove that existing types of liability for traffic rules violation and related harmful and dangerous consequences do not provide realization of the purpose to prevent committing new offences and cause the necessity to improve the legislation in this regard.