Tipo activo doloso. Relación de causalidad

Understanding the Concept of Typicity in Criminal Law

Introduction to Typicity

• The study of typicity in criminal law often begins with the concept of active intentional type as it is the most comprehensive penal type. This approach simplifies the explanation of culpable active types and omissive types.

Objective and Subjective Aspects

• The active intentional type is divided into two aspects: objective and subjective, referred to as objective type and subjective type, respectively. This division aids in logically separating elements for better understanding.

Elements of Typicity

• The objective aspect includes all elements that must be present according to the typical description, focusing on reality and external circumstances. In contrast, the subjective aspect encompasses the author's mental state regarding their criminal conduct.

Example: Homicide

• For instance, in simple homicide (Article 79 of the Argentine Penal Code), objective elements include an action resulting in death, establishing a causal relationship between actions and outcomes. Meanwhile, subjective elements involve verifying whether the author had knowledge or intent (dolo) when committing the act.

Complexity in Result Crimes

• In crimes requiring a result (e.g., homicide), establishing typicity becomes more complex due to needing both an action and a specific outcome, along with verifying causality and objective imputation relationships between them.

Types of Crimes: Pure Activity vs Result Crimes

Pure Activity Crimes

• Pure activity crimes do not necessitate a specific result; they only require proof that certain elements are present during analysis. An example is defamation, where mere expression can constitute a crime without needing to verify actual harm done to someone's honor.

Example: Carrying Firearms

• Another example is illegal possession of firearms; no specific result needs verification—only proof that an individual carried a weapon at a given time suffices for establishing typicity under this crime category.

Causality Relationships in Result Crimes

Causality Verification

• In result crimes, it's essential not only to confirm an action but also to establish that it led to a specific outcome (typical result). This involves examining both physical causation and legal/normative implications concerning whether such actions fall within penal norms aimed at prevention.

Theories Explaining Causality

• One theory addressing this relationship is known as the theory of equivalence of conditions, which was one of the initial frameworks proposed for explaining how actions relate to their results within criminal law contexts. Further exploration into these theories will clarify their relevance in understanding causation within typicity discussions.

The Theory of Equivalence of Conditions in Law

Overview of the Theory

• The theory of equivalence of conditions is applied not only in criminal law but also in civil law, despite facing numerous criticisms over time.

• This theory posits that all necessary conditions for a result are considered causes; thus, any condition leading to a specific outcome is identified as a cause.

Causality and Hypothetical Suppression

• For instance, shooting someone with a firearm resulting in death illustrates that the act of shooting is a cause since it is an essential condition for the outcome.

• To verify causality, the theory employs a method known as hypothetical mental suppression, where one mentally removes the action to see if the result still occurs under identical conditions.

Application of Hypothetical Mental Suppression

• If removing the action (e.g., shooting) results in no occurrence of death under similar circumstances, then that action is deemed causal.

• Conversely, if death still occurs without that action being taken, it indicates that the action was not causal.

Historical Context and Critiques

• The theory was formulated by German authors many years ago and has faced various critiques which some proponents have addressed successfully.

• One significant critique involved hypothetical causal courses that did not occur in reality. An example from German penal doctrine illustrates this point using an incident involving multiple knives.

Addressing Hypothetical Scenarios

• In this scenario, if an individual had left a knife on a table intending to kill someone but could have used another available knife instead, it raises questions about causation.

• Critics argued that if alternative means existed to achieve the same result (death), then leaving one knife should not be considered causal.

Correctives to the Theory

• Proponents responded by stating it's incorrect to consider hypothetical scenarios that did not happen; only actual events should inform causation assessments.

• Another objection involves alternative actions taken by different individuals aiming for the same outcome. For example, two nephews poisoning their uncle independently raises questions about each one's contribution to causation.

This structured approach provides clarity on complex legal theories while allowing easy navigation through timestamps for further exploration.

Causality and the Theory of Equivalence

Hypothetical Suppression of Conduct

• The discussion begins with a hypothetical scenario where a behavior is suppressed to determine if it causes a result. If the result does not occur, the behavior is deemed causal; if it does occur, then it is not.

• The complexity arises when two actions can lead to the same outcome, challenging the theory of equivalence of conditions.

Corrections to the Theory

• A second correction was introduced to address issues in the original theory regarding hypothetical mental suppression. It states that multiple actions can be mentally suppressed without eliminating the result unless both are removed cumulatively.

• This means that if removing both actions results in no outcome, then both actions are considered causal.

Limitations of Causal Attribution

• The original formula for mental suppression and its critiques highlight limitations in understanding causation within legal contexts.

• One major critique is that this theory leads to an unlimited extension of causality, suggesting every condition could be seen as a cause for an outcome.

Absurdity in Legal Implications

• This perspective implies absurdities where even distant ancestors or unrelated parties could be implicated in causing outcomes due to their roles in existence.

• Such reasoning raises concerns about limitless liability under criminal law, which has not been adequately addressed by proponents of equivalence theory.

Practical Implications and Further Critiques

• In legal terms, statutes like Article 79 focus on direct actions (e.g., shooting someone), disregarding broader implications such as those involving weapon sellers or parents.

• Another critique highlights that this theory fails to establish causality when prior knowledge about relationships between actions and outcomes is lacking.

Case Studies Highlighting Causality Issues

• The inability to ascertain specific causes for harmful products complicates legal accountability.

• Notable cases include thalidomide in Germany and colza oil in Spain, where statistical evidence showed harm but lacked clarity on specific causal components.

Causality and Criminal Responsibility

The Theory of Equivalence of Conditions

• The theory of equivalence of conditions struggles to address two main criticisms: the unlimited extension of causality leading back to Adam and Eve as responsible for all human crimes, and its inability to predict causal relationships in advance.

• Despite these criticisms, figures like Hans Welzel and Eugenio Zaffaroni in Argentina continued to use this theory within a finalistic framework to explain the relationship between actions and outcomes.

• The theory posits that causality can be understood through hypothetical mental suppression—if an action is removed, the result does not occur, thus establishing a causal link.

Critique Through Hypothetical Scenarios

• A notable objection involves a scenario where a nephew encourages his uncle to travel by plane with the hope that he might die in an accident. This raises questions about whether such encouragement constitutes a causal act leading to homicide.

• According to the equivalence theory, if we hypothetically remove the nephew's invitation, the uncle would not have died; hence, it appears absurd to charge him with homicide given his lack of control over actual events.

Addressing Absurdity in Causation

• It seems unreasonable to attribute homicide charges based on mere encouragement without direct involvement or control over the outcome.

• The finalistic approach attempts to navigate this critique by suggesting that while the nephew's behavior may be causally linked, he lacked intent or control over causing death.

Alternative Theories of Causation

Adequate Causation Theory

• In response to limitations of previous theories, alternative frameworks were sought. One such alternative is called "adequate causation," which asserts that only those conditions deemed adequate by common experience can be considered causes for specific results.

• This theory aims for rational explanations regarding why certain actions (like inviting someone on a flight without knowledge of danger) should not lead to criminal liability for resulting deaths.

Practical Implications

• Under adequate causation theory, actions must align with common experiences; thus, encouraging someone without knowledge of potential danger does not constitute typical conduct leading directly to death.

• For example, administering sugar could lead to death if given knowingly to a diabetic. However, if one is unaware of their condition, it would not typically qualify as homicide under this framework.

Legal Valuation Incorporation

• Adequate causation incorporates legal evaluations into its analysis rather than remaining purely causal. This shift allows for more nuanced interpretations but moves away from being strictly about cause-and-effect relationships as seen in earlier theories.

Causality and Legal Theory

Theories of Causality in Criminal Law

• The discussion begins with the critique of the theory of equivalence of conditions, highlighting its limitations in addressing objections related to adequate causation.

• An example is provided regarding a doctor's intervention that prolongs life but ultimately leads to death, illustrating how such actions can be seen as risk reduction rather than typical homicide.

• It is noted that despite the medical intervention causing death eventually, it poses a challenge to the adequate causation theory, which fails to account for certain scenarios where risks are socially accepted.

• Driving is cited as an example of a permitted risk within society; even though it causes many deaths and injuries, it remains necessary for social functioning.

• The concept of "permitted risks" is introduced, emphasizing that certain behaviors are allowed under specific conditions (e.g., obeying traffic signals), reflecting societal norms.

Evolution of Causation Theories

• While the adequate causation theory aimed to replace the equivalence theory, it does not fully resolve issues related to typicity or other legal theories like typical relevance.

• New theories attempt to incorporate legal valuations into causal relationships, suggesting that criminal law must consider more than just physical causation when defining actions like murder.

• These evolving theories culminate in what is known today as objective imputation theory, which seeks to clarify normative relationships between actions and outcomes in criminal law.

• Objective imputation serves as a complement rather than a replacement for equivalence theory; both are used together to explain causal links from both physical and normative perspectives.

• A dual approach is emphasized: first establishing a physical causal link followed by assessing normative compliance before determining if an action qualifies as typical within criminal law contexts.