Causes of Justification in Criminal Law
ITEM 21-Causes of justification:
Regulated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of Article 20 of the Penal Code.
The justifications are special situations where the occurrence of the characteristic is not unlawful because there is a rule that authorizes or requires. Any cause of justification presupposes an unusually permissive rule that allows the realization of the type. Prohibitive rules (mostly) and generally prohibit the execution of an abstract characteristic made (injury to legal rights), but sometimes those rules are interfered by permissive provisions difficult to assess objectively the occurrence of the typical and remove evidence of illegality. The operating justifications allowing in certain cases to situations which are generally prohibited.
SOURCES CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION:
The causes of justification can come from any sector of the legal and need not be regulated by criminal law. If an action is justified or not is decided according to the entire legal system. The sources of justifications coincide with the sources of law but the Supreme Court has held for many years that there are no more justifications than those down in the Penal Code. However, there is a doctrinal sector acknowledges that the root cause of justification can be found outside the Penal Code. The fulfillment of duty (ie the legitimate exercise of a right, title, trade …) is one of the causes justification in Article 20 and we often complete with rules outside the Penal Code. Therefore, the sources of justifications lie in the whole legal system. Article 20 of the Penal Code also provides for defenses (in which case it is the ability to remove the subject) and causes inimputablidad (cases in which eliminate the liability of the subject he knows not what it does). Initially, the justifications be regulated began in reference to specific crimes (self-defense in relation to the murder), but for reasons of economy, legislative and legal technical codes usually deal with the current justifications in an article to regulate all of them and we give them the name of generic justifications.
Are likely to apply to any crime. Along with these generic justifications sometimes we find specific justifications that the Code governs a particular crime and takes effect for that crime (eg socorriere not a person without risk to himself or others). The fact that they are in specific articles not mean they are not subject to the same rules as the rest of the causes of justification or that produce different effects, the only difference is the place where found.
ITEM 21 -FUNDAMENT OR CAUSES OF GROUNDS:
The foundation of such authorization will be stated in two principles:
* 1
The overriding interest:
Rules that recognize justifications try to resolve conflicts of interest. On one side is the legally injured or endangered, on the other, the interest in serving the cause of justification and may be an interest to assert the law against unjust aggression (defense); avoid another bad greater than the evil which is caused (in need), the exercise of a right recognized by law, the interest in safeguarding the rule requiring to perform the behavior (performance of a duty) … When you meet all the requirements by the provision that provides a justification the law considers that the interest that this case represents is of higher value than the injured interest is an overriding interest.
* 2. Lack of interest:
the criminal laws established to protect legal rights. Where the holder of the legally protected expresses disinterest in the defense of the legal consenting to injury, the conduct can not be considered unlawful. To justify the conduct is necessary for the legal right to be in danger either available or waived. This foundation will serve us only on specific grounds of justification: the consent of the victim, who has a rather limited scope.
GENERAL EFFECTS OF ALL CAUSES OF GROUNDS:
The existence of a justification determines that the conduct is not unlawful, but that makes the conduct lawful. This effect mainly deduced consequences, effects that also have no other grounds for excluding criminal responsibility.
* 1. Not precluded self-defense against those who acts covered by a justification (I can not be in self-defense against a policeman who is in line of duty.)
* 2. Anyone who participates in an act justified is exempt from criminal responsibility
Accessoriness theory falls precisely at this point because in order to punish, according to this theory, the accomplice of a crime is necessary that the author has performed a typical behavior and unlawful.
* 3.Efecto which is determined by the responsibility that comes of justifications. To what extent a person who acts covered by a justification respond?
not criminally liable because it makes a lawful act, but there is also no liability claim, a kind of answer given to the implementation of a wrongful act which causes injury to another. In this case can not be responsible, with the exception of necessity to defend a third party interest. In this case the law expressly provides that the liability falls to the person for whom it has caused the damage. In that case, acting in need also acts lawfully, but it is also true that the recipient of the favor itself assumes a responsibility is to repair the damage. *
4. Nor can it impose a security measure which acts covered by a justification, because he takes a perfectly legal act is not a dangerous individual and therefore there is no basis for the implementation of security measures. Furthermore, it is absurd to apply a sanction to those who act according to law.