![]() Nevertheless, Romania’s current legislation denies this perspective, since Article 28 of the Criminal Code (which shows one of the causes that eliminates imputation), according to various voices of legal literature, only covers the situations in which the subject did not self-induce the irresponsible state (Streteanu and Nițu, 2014, p.416). The legal frame of reference in Romania’s legislation on the matter On the other hand, the lack of voluntariness is not simply a ‘mens rea’ (meaning proof of fault and culpability) negating defence, but provides something more: the defence negates the ‘actus reus’ (meaning the external behaviour or conduct which is prohibited by the criminal law) required for the crime (Shute and Simester, 2002, p.148).Ģ. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is a Latin maxim, which means that the act is not culpable unless there it implies a guilty mind as well. The generally accepted solution, and in my opinion the most coherent one, is to strictly analyse the subject’s intentional position regarding the result of his or her actions referring to the moment or the point when the subject caused the irresponsible state in which the crime was committed. The Romanian Criminal Code includes causes which eliminate the possibility of imputing one’s criminal action, two of which are irresponsibility and complete intoxication with psychoactive substances, such as alcohol and drugs.Īccording to a well-known scholarly work, the traditional approach towards the action libera in causa is roughly the same as the approach we can find in German law (Shute and Simester, 2002, p.147). Contrary, irresponsibility implies a total lack of psychological capacity of will and understanding in a certain situation (Streteanu and Nițu, 2014, p.416). Responsibility is defined as one’s capacity of understanding the value, the consequences of his or her actions, and determining – in an intentional way – the free will by which conscious choice is to be made between many possible circumstances. However, objective liability is the manifestation of a rather primitive approach, since already the Code of Hammurabi separated the intentionally committed crimes from the culpable ones (Mirișan, 1996, p.19). It pertains tothe application of punishment for actions and their consequences in cases where the person being held accountable did not or could not have foreseen the consequences. An important distinction was made between objective and subjective liability, as the objective way involved making a person criminally accountable for causing social harm without establishing guilt. Criminal law has faced a shift in approach when the personal imputation of a crime was finally considered an element of the criminal action’s structure by abandoning the psychological theory of responsibility (Streteanu and Nițu, 2014, p.409). Holding a person responsible for criminal actions also means finding a way of imputing these actions as illicit in a subjective manner. Subjective liability with reference to the concept of responsibility ![]() Examples will be offered for a better understanding of this approach, along with the jurisdiction of Romania’s Supreme Court, and a comparative view of the actio libera in causa in different legal systems in Europe.ġ. Consequently, this article will review and analyse doctrinal, legal and jurisprudential matters concerning the evolution of the relation between responsibility and liability connected to the actio libera in causa issue. This exceptional nature, however, determines a very strict interpretation of the notion. ![]() The action libera in causa may be a basic principle in some continental legal systems, but it is in fact an exception from a generally accepted rule, according to which the subject’s intentional position is analysed at the very moment of the crime, and not earlier in time. Even so, he will remain liable for the offence due to his previous guilt in self-inducing the irresponsible state (Foster and Sule, 2010, p.356). This last notion is defined by a German doctrine as a situation in which the subject is self-inducing alcohol intoxication with the aim of committing an offence later, while being in a state of incapacity. The aim of this article is to give an answer to this question from the perspective of criminal responsibility and the situation called actio libera in causa. But how can one identify these conditions, especially considering the fact that one’s responsibility does not eliminate liability nor reduces it? being held responsible for an illegal behaviour that causes harm or damage to someone or something) is a legal consequence of committing criminal actions under certain conditions. A person who commits a crime must be held responsible for his or her actions if the crime is committed with a certain form of guilt, in an unjustified and illicit manner. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |