Understanding Criminal Law: Torts, Guilt, and Causality
Torts in Criminal Law
Torts and crimes share the concept of action and inaction leading to harm. Guilt in torts arises from recklessness or negligence, essentially a lack of due care.
Intentional Crimes vs. Torts
Intentional crimes involve actions directed towards a specific result, while torts involve actions not intended to produce a particular outcome.
Subjective Intent
In intentional crimes with subjective intent, the actor wills the action, but may not desire the specific outcome.
Objective Intent
Intentional crimes with objective intent involve a lack of due care (recklessness or negligence).
Requirements for Fault (Breach of Duty of Care)
- The risk must be foreseeable and preventable (otherwise, it’s accidental).
- An obligation to mitigate risk exists (subjective duty of care).
- Behavior must meet the required standard of care (objective duty of care).
Torts as Crimes in the Criminal Code
Generally, blameworthy acts are not punishable (Articles 4 and 10, No. 13), except when explicitly sanctioned. Some torts are considered crimes based on the level of culpability:
Recklessness (Highest Degree of Guilt)
Recklessness is a failure of care that even less diligent individuals would recognize as creating risk. It’s comparable to blameworthy intent in the Criminal Code.
Mere Negligence
Mere negligence is a lesser degree of fault, involving a lack of attention in one’s actions. It’s similar to ordinary negligence in civil law.
Negligence in Regulatory Offenses
This involves the same fault as mere negligence, but occurs alongside a violation of a procedural standard.
Conscious Guilt
The subject knows their action is wrong or risky, but proceeds regardless. This differs from dolus eventualis, where the subject accepts the risk with indifference.
Unconscious Guilt
The person does not foresee the expected risk.
Guilt and its Structure
Guilt is the personal criticism directed at the perpetrator of an unlawful act. Determining guilt requires certain conditions:
Criminal Capacity
The subject’s ability to understand the legal implications of their actions and act accordingly. This involves knowing right from wrong.
Awareness of Illegality
The accused’s ability to understand the legality or illegality of their behavior in the specific situation. This involves recognizing that their action violates the law.
Enforceability of Conduct Under Law (Normal Motivation)
The possibility of demanding adherence to legal norms in the specific circumstances of the act. For example, a woman fleeing a fire might be justified in taking a child without permission.
Insanity Defense
Madness or Dementia (Art. 10, No. 1)
Not all mental illnesses preclude criminal responsibility. The analysis focuses on whether the individual lacked clarity of reasoning at the time of the act. Acts committed during lucid intervals are attributable.
Age
Individuals under 14 are not criminally responsible. Psychological criteria for those between 16 and 18 are addressed in juvenile criminal liability law.
Other Grounds for Unenforceability of Conduct
Irresistible Force (Vis Compelling)
Absolute material force compels a person to act against their will, rendering them an object rather than an agent.
Duress
Fear of a serious, imminent threat overwhelms the individual’s will and clouds their judgment.