In the criminal law in force, as well as in the antecedent ones, it is not said the form of guilt negligence can be committed with, that is why there are different opinions on this matter in criminal-law literature. Some authors consider negligence as a careless crime, which can be committed thoughtlessly or negligently. They prove their opinion by the fact that the terms unconscientious or negligent attitude to service (which are used in the article on criminal negligence) point out directly at the mental element in this crime. According to their point of view, an official's negligent attitude to service corresponds to guilt in the form of negligence, unconscientious attitude - to guilt in the form of thoughtlessness. Other authors pointed out that indication of unconscientious or negligent attitude to service does not allow defining the form of guilt of an individual who committed negligence categorically as far as these terms characterize the guilty person's attitude to service, his/her attitude to duties, but not to a socially dangerous act and its consequences. Some authors come to the conclusion on a possibility of an official's intentional attitude to consequences of negligence referring to Part 2 Article 24 and the text of Part 1 Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the RF. The position of mutual contributory negligence of an individual who committed negligence is rather interesting - deliberate official's attitude to nonperformance of his/her duties and careless attitude to infliction of harmful consequences. In general, negligence is considered as careless crime by followers of this position. Negligence is considered as an exceptionally careless crime in judicial practice and by the majority of authors in the science of law; and it is not an accident. The term negligence, as well as the essence of this crime, excludes the possibility of its commitment both with direct and indirect intent. An official can intentionally avoid executing his/her duties in the process of negligence commitment however the guilty person's attitude to action consequences can be just careless. Meanwhile, literal interpretation of the text of the article on negligence actually allows drawing a conclusion that this crime can be committed intentionally both in the form of direct and indirect intents. The criminal law indication of unconscientious or negligent attitude to service of an official does not at all exclude this. Strictly speaking, the guilty person can treat his/her service and duties the same as in the crime set by Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code. The diversity of current views on the mental element in negligence provided by criminal-law literature, undoubtedly, is stipulated by a poor version of the text of this article of the law. For uniform understanding and law enforcement purposes of the rule of negligence we suppose that a legislator should point out individual's careless attitude towards infliction of essential damage and substantial breach of rights and legal interests in Part 1 Article 293 of the Criminal Code.
