Conducta. Teoría del delito

Understanding Conduct in Criminal Law Theory

The Concept of Conduct

• The discussion begins with defining conduct as the first element of criminal law theory, emphasizing that a crime is characterized by typical, unlawful, and culpable behavior.

• Conduct is described as an avoidable external behavior, encompassing both actions and omissions within current criminal law theory.

Historical Perspectives on Conduct

• The origins of criminal law theory are traced back to German authors associated with causalism or traditional schools, who defined conduct as a minimal human behavior requiring only basic mental engagement.

• Causalists believed that any muscular movement resulting in a significant outcome was sufficient for establishing conduct relevant to law.

Limitations of Causalism

• A key limitation noted is the lack of consideration for the subject's intent or purpose behind their actions; causalism focused solely on physical movements without analyzing underlying motivations.

• This approach struggled to explain crimes committed through omission since it primarily emphasized action over intention.

Evolution Towards Neo-Kantianism

• Following causalism, neo-Kantian perspectives emerged, advocating for voluntary human behavior as essential in defining conduct. Authors like Metzger highlighted the need to analyze subjective elements.

• However, neo-Kantian views still fell short by not fully exploring the content or purpose behind an individual's will until later stages of culpability analysis.

Finalist School's Contribution

• The finalist school led by Hans Welzel introduced a philosophical shift asserting that human actions must consider the subject's purpose; no action can exist without intent.

• This perspective argued that legal concepts cannot be separated from real-world implications where every action carries inherent goals or intentions.

Implications for Criminal Law Theory

• The integration of purpose into legal definitions means that conduct in criminal law should reflect real-life behaviors where intention plays a crucial role.

• Ultimately, this evolution suggests that subjective elements like intention should be analyzed earlier in criminal law theory rather than relegated solely to discussions of culpability.

Understanding Criminal Action and Its Exclusions

Concept of Typicity in Criminal Law

• The concept of typicity introduces two modalities of crime based on the author's intent: dolosa (intentional) and culposa (negligent). This marks a shift from previous models where intent was viewed differently.

• In contemporary legal frameworks, culpability is no longer seen as a form of typicity but rather as an aspect that must be understood within the context of action.

Exclusions from Criminal Action

Key Exclusion Criteria

• Three main criteria are identified that exclude actions from being considered criminal: irresistible physical force, reflex actions, and states of unconsciousness. Each will be analyzed in detail.

• Actions originating from nature or animals are not deemed criminal; for instance, if a dog bites someone, it is not classified as a crime unless human intervention is involved.

Nature vs. Human Conduct

• Natural events like storms or floods causing harm are excluded from criminal liability since they do not constitute human conduct.

• Thoughts alone cannot be penalized under the principle of legality; only externalized actions can lead to criminal responsibility.

Legal Framework and Article 34 Implications

Understanding Article 34

• Article 34 of the Argentine Penal Code outlines various scenarios where individuals may not be held liable due to their state at the time of the act, emphasizing that lack of consciousness excludes action.

• The three exclusion criteria—unconsciousness, irresistible force, and reflex actions—must be evaluated in specific cases to determine non-punishability.

Detailed Analysis of Unconsciousness

• Unconsciousness can arise from various conditions such as deep sleep or extreme intoxication (e.g., alcoholic coma), which impairs one's ability to comprehend their actions.

• According to Article 34(1), individuals unable to understand their actions due to unconsciousness cannot be punished for those acts.

Distinction Between Reflex Actions and Irresistible Force

Classification Challenges

• Article 34 includes diverse cases with different legal natures regarding non-punishability; some exclude action while others address typicity or culpability issues.

• Reflex actions and irresistible physical force may sometimes be grouped together by certain authors but can also be treated separately depending on legal interpretations.

Mechanisms Behind Physical Force

• Irresistible physical force refers to situations where an individual cannot control their movements due to external forces acting upon them, likening them to mechanical entities rather than conscious actors.

Legal Exclusions of Conduct in Criminal Law

Understanding Irresistible Physical Force

• The Argentine Penal Code, Article 34, states that actions performed under irresistible physical force are not punishable. This highlights the legal basis for excluding certain behaviors from criminal liability.

Reflex Actions and Legal Implications

• Reflex actions are movements made without conscious control that can lead to significant outcomes, such as injury or property damage. These actions raise questions about culpability in criminal law.

Lack of Human Conduct in Reflex Actions

• If a reflex action results in harm (e.g., accidentally injuring someone while cooking), it is not considered a human conduct under the law, thus exempting it from penalties outlined in Articles 89 and 90 of the Penal Code.

Consensus Among Legal Theorists

• Despite advancements in criminal theory since 2020, there remains consensus among theorists like Sebastián Soler and Zaffaroni regarding how to handle cases involving reflex actions and irresistible force.

Application to Active and Omissive Crimes

• The principles discussed apply equally to both active crimes (actions taken) and omissive crimes (failure to act). For instance, a guard failing to lower a barrier due to unconsciousness exemplifies an omission where no conduct occurs.

Assessing Responsibility Despite Unconsciousness

Consequences of Unconscious Behavior

• A driver who falls asleep at the wheel may cause fatal accidents. While they may be unconscious during the act, this does not absolve them from potential criminal responsibility if prior awareness of fatigue existed.

Theory of Causal Connection

• The concept known as "act liberate causa" suggests that even if an individual was unconscious at the moment of causing harm, their previous conscious state could establish liability based on earlier decisions leading up to the incident.

Evaluating Prior Consciousness

• In cases where individuals were aware of their condition before an incident (like fatigue), they may still bear responsibility for their actions despite being unconscious when harm occurred. This emphasizes accountability for prior choices leading up to negligent behavior.

Theoretical Perspectives on Criminal Responsibility

Discussion on Act and Liability

• The speaker discusses the application of the theory of act and liability in criminal law, emphasizing that some scholars resist applying it in certain contexts. They argue that this approach mixes elements of a crime from different actions or moments.

• There is a consensus among legal experts regarding the need to consider potential criminal responsibility at an earlier stage, suggesting that prior actions may influence current liability.