Error in Criminal Law: Types, Definitions, and Exculpation
ITEM 26 – THE ERROR
Class of Error
We can make different classifications and give different solutions depending on the assumptions of the error. The error can be defined as a mock trial, a misconception or mistake, or ignorance of any element or circumstance of the typical action and not justified. Among the possible ratings are going to see the most relevant:
1. The Relevant and Irrelevant Error:
Considering that the error may or may not impact on the existence of penal severity, we can differentiate between these two classes.
a. Error Relevant:
For example, if I took the portfolio of A instead of B because I know that this portfolio is not mine.
b. Error Irrelevant:
For example, if the portfolio is identical to mine and thinking it’s lame when in fact mine is the other person.
2. The Proper and Improper Error:
a. Error Own:
It affects the personal training of the will of the subject. For example, would own error that sometimes lies in thinking that one thing is mine and that’s why it is lame and not mine because if I had known it was me I would not have caught.
b. Improper Error: Resident
Resident in the execution of the act. For example, I shoot at A and B. Error shooting
3. The Typical Error on an Essential Element and a Circumstance That Aggravates or Attenuates:
a. Error on an Element Essential Characteristic:
Error on an element that determines the existence of a basic type. For example, error on the strangeness of a thing in the above.
b. Error on a Circumstance That Aggravates or Attenuates:
Error that falls on a circumstance, or prohibition element that determines a type attenuated or aggravated or on a graduation circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the liability. a catalog).
4. Beatable and Unbeatable Error:
a. Beatable Error:
Error that I can avoid using due diligence.
b. Invincible Error:
Error can not be avoided or even deploying the largest of the proceedings.
5. The Error and Error Type of Prohibition:
a. Error of Type:
Type is a false, misleading or wrong knowledge or ignorance of some element of wrong type (descriptive, normative or evaluative). For example, the age of a person to whom I may apply a greater or lesser penalty, the strangeness of the thing, the length of time of detention of a person …
b. Failure of Prohibition:
Implies a failure of the conduct is prohibited by law. Within distinguish between:
- Direct-Error: Ignorance of the existence of the rule.
- Error Indirect: Error imposed on the presence of the facts of justification. For example, an individual believes that acts covered by a justification and it is not so.
As regards the legal nature of the error it make a difference between the causal theory and the theory finalist.
- Causal theory (which takes the theory of fraud) any fraud affecting the error because the error rate affects the knowledge of the typical elements, and the error of prohibition on the knowledge of the unlawfulness of the conduct.
- Finalist theory (which adopts the theory of guilt) the error affects the type of typical behavior, action.
ITEM 26 – THE BEGINNING OF NO AND CAUSES EXCULPATION ENFORCEMENT
The enforcement of a different conduct is the combination of a normal series of factual conditions that allow the subject to impose a duty to act in accordance with the standard. and is a concept-criminal normativo.El political significance of the enforceability of a different conduct is associated with the role of the legal system and particularly the criminal law in a social and democratic assumptions unenforceability Derecho.En not denied illegality of the action, because the subject chooses to perform an action prohibited, what is denied is guilt because the legal system to demand resignation personally to that particular case a different behavior to the one in care that is in a situation in which decision-making capacity is restringida.Como unenforceability causes traditionally allowed duress and necessity exculpante. Because to say that a person is guilty is necessary that the subject is in a normal situation. While the causes of insanity show an abnormality in the ability of the active subject, the causes of exoneration unenforceability or attend an abnormality situation, not the subject. The guy who relied on a ground of exculpation may be perfectly responsible, but in fact, in the particular situation that is faced is unable to act on what sets the standard (due to the abnormal situation .) In both situations (as duress or necessity exculpante) the subject is pressured or threatened by an evil, abnormal situation difficult for the subject to act lawfully.
1. Fear Insurmountable
20.6 of the Code operates under a bad Penal.Quien threatening him well known and appreciated the situation (is faced with the decision to confront evil or commit unsurpassed action to save him from his breach of a legal right). To be able to talk duress involves a series of requirements:
a. Insurmountable Fear:
The threat of evil must instill fear in the subject that evil can actually occurring. The subject does not have to lose mental clarity but should be able to know that it will produce the ability to materialize an evil, not just a simple fear.
b. Threat of Real Evil
According to the case of fear must be caused by the threat of a serious evil, imminent and not justified by the law. If evil is not real we could redirect error.
2. State of Necessity:
The theory of differentiation should be made a double classification.
a. Proof Necessity:
Course notes of Article 20.5 which requires a situation of threat of a bad (own alien) that must meet the following requirements: “May the wrong done not more than the question of evitar.-That the situation of need has not been caused intentionally by the sujeto., he needs not, by its own motion or charge, obligation to sacrifice.
b. Exculpante Necessity:
Only the balance of harm caused or legal rights. The harm done is the same entity (legal property of equal value).