Ukraine: Does the ‘Fear of Punishment’ Work to Prevent Traffic Violations?

1 0

Ukraine: Does the ‘fear of punishment’ work to prevent traffic violations?

In his study, Norwegian criminologist I. Andenes analyses in detail the English example, when stricter liability for driving under the influence of alcohol was introduced. The scientist emphasised that the propaganda effect of the new (at that time) law contributed to the establishment of fear of punishment. However, later on, the fear disappeared as drivers more realistically assessed the possibility of being prosecuted and sentenced. The decline in drunk driving was not the result of a reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed by drivers, but only a temporary fear that later decreased or disappeared. Moreover, the number of road accidents decreased even before the widespread information campaign, which once again proves that punishment as such is not a deterrent[1].

Let’s try to analyse the domestic example of combating road accidents by increasing sanctions for the relevant offences in Ukraine.

It is no secret that safety on Ukrainian roads is a problematic issue. According to various sources, the ratio of deaths in road accidents per 1 million vehicles in Ukraine is 7 times higher than in the EU and the US and 10 times higher than in Japan. The number of deaths per 1 billion vehicle kilometres in Ukraine is 97, in Germany – 14, and in Sweden – 8. The severity of road traffic accidents in Ukraine is 1.5 to 5 times higher.

The number of people killed in road accidents in 2011 in Ukraine was almost 11 per 100,000 people. At the same time, in the European Union, this figure averaged 6 deaths per 100,000 people.

In 2008, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine ‘On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Improving the Regulation of Relations in the Field of Road Safety’, which increased liability for violations of traffic rules. However, did this have the intended effect on drivers and pedestrians? We believe that the answer is debatable.

Thus, in 2019, 3,454 people died and 3,736 were injured in road accidents.

In 2020, 3541 people were killed and 31974 people were injured.

In 2021, 3238 people died and 29798 were injured.

In 2023, 3,053 people died as a result of accidents (2791 in 2022), including 175 children (125 in 2022). Another 29502 people were injured (23145 in 2022).

In 2024, there were 25781 accidents with victims, 3202 people died, and 32023 people were injured.

Therefore, the example of crimes and other offences in this category can be cited as one of the dubious signs of the general preventive effect of punishment.

Moreover, in February 2021, Ukraine adopted the Law ‘On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Strengthening Liability for Certain Road Safety Offences’. The Law amended the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, the Criminal Code, which inter alia increased liability for driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants. The Criminal Code of Ukraine was supplemented with Article 286-1 ‘Violation of the rules of road safety or operation of transport by persons driving vehicles while intoxicated’.

However, instead of the declared ‘fear of punishment’ and, as a result, a decrease in the number of crimes related to road accidents, on the contrary, the number of road accidents in Ukraine has increased dramatically, and with it the number of deaths and injuries. And all of this is against the backdrop of a multi-million-dollar decline in the population living in Ukraine due to forced migration to other countries following the Russian invasion in February 2022. Thus, the relevant indicators are even worse in relative terms.

These examples prove that road traffic accidents and their prevention through general preventive mechanisms is a complex issue in principle, which the State does not pay sufficient attention to.

For example, on the one hand, bringing drivers to administrative responsibility under Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences has become a permanent element of Ukrainian news, with judges being stigmatised in the media for their red tape in considering cases against offending drivers.

On the other hand, the issue of judges sabotaging the bringing of drivers to administrative responsibility under Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences has become a permanent element of the agenda of the High Council of Justice.

For example, the decision of the High Council of Justice No. 1044/2dp/15-21 of 17 May 2021 states that Judge Bakai of the Kamianka-Buzka District Court of Lviv Region, according to the complainant, did not take measures to consider 34 cases of bringing persons to administrative responsibility under Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences within the time limits established by law, as a result of which the proceedings in these cases were closed due to the expiration of the time limits for bringing to responsibility at the time of consideration of the case.

The decision of the High Council of Justice No. 383/1dp/15-24 of 12 February 2024 states that ‘by the decision of 22 June 2021, Judge Tkachenko of the Ivankiv District Court of Kyiv Region closed the proceedings in the case of an administrative offence against a person for committing an administrative offence under part one of Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences due to the insignificance of the offence committed and released him from administrative liability, limiting himself to an oral remark’.

In accordance with the decision of the High Council of Justice No. 2366/1dp/15-24 of 05 June 2024, the First Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice considered a complaint in which it was raised that the Judge Lupenko of the Suvorov District Court of Odesa had unreasonably delayed or failed to take measures to consider 16 cases of administrative offences under Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, which led to their closure and, as a result, to the avoidance of liability by persons who drove vehicles under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

In addition, it can be stated that the state does almost nothing to disseminate information about the significant increase in both criminal and administrative liability of drivers for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and causing road accidents. In other words, the English example cited by Andenes reflects trends that are also characteristic of Ukraine in terms of the effect of ‘fear of punishment’ for road safety offences.

[1] Andenes, I. (1979). Punishment and Prevention of Crimes. Moscow: Progress. С.189.

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %