Understanding Legal Errors in Criminal Law
Current Solutions in Criminal Procedure
The Criminal Procedure Code addresses errors, false knowledge, or ignorance in Article 14:
- Invincible error regarding an act constituting an offense excludes criminal responsibility. If the error, in the circumstances of fact and those of the author, was beatable, the offense will be punished, if any, as reckless.
- Error regarding an event that qualifies the offense or an aggravating circumstance prevents its appreciation.
- Invincible error regarding the illegality of the act constituting the offense excludes criminal responsibility. If the mistake was beatable, the applicable penalty is lower by one or two degrees.
Error Type
The author believes their conduct does not fulfill some or all elements of the offense. If the offense is present but ignored, the error can concern any condition required by law. This determines the presence of intent (dolus) or not, and whether the error negates all or part of that knowledge.
If the error is beatable: Recklessness exists, and criminal liability may arise. Reproach is possible when the error could have been avoided with due care. Beatable error is punished as recklessness, according to the penalty specified for such cases.
If the error is invincible: Article 14 excludes liability.
Error on Circumstances Increasing Penalty
Punishment should reflect the subject’s knowledge, as one cannot be punished for the unknown. Article 65 addresses extenuating circumstances and the application of mitigating factors.
Two types of circumstances exist:
- Subjective: Personal and affecting the degree of capacity. These apply regardless of the subject’s awareness.
- Motivating the Subject: Objective factors influencing the subject’s actions.
Error of Prohibition
(whether direct or indirect) we exclude the reprehensible fraud. If, however, is an invincible error, we will remove completely reprehensible. And if an error is beatable convert the willful or reckless conduct. T th of guilt: They understand that the illegality is an element of guilt other than willful misconduct. They admit that this error affects the guilty but deny that affects the fraud. Thus, they maintain that the error does not preclude the prohibition of fraud and is only a cause of innocence. If the error is invincible, it is completely excluded, but the error is beatable if you can determine a diminished responsibility. Here s two different theories:T ª strict: he understands that treatment of the error as the cause of innocence applies to all types of error (both direct and indirect). When an error is beatable, it only affects the guilt because, they say, is the element of knowledge of illegality. In no way affect the intent. Thus, the proponents of this theory argue that the subject is unaware of that law, could not choose to behave differently, so that we can not blame him, and I can not convert the willful or reckless conduct. They only admit that the error diminishes the guilt of the subject in so far as it could be beat. T ª limited: He claims to provide a different solution to the error directly and indirectly. Thus, when one of direct, be a mistake to ban and eliminate or mitigate the blame. However, when an error is indirect, is a type error, rests on a factual situation which affects the implementation, not the knowledge of the ban. According to proponents of this theory limited the grounds of justification must receive the same treatment as the type error. Supporters of this theory are those who follow the so-called theory of the negative elements of type (TENT). *** The SC said in its article 14.3 that invincible error ban exempts beatable if we have to lessen the pain in one or two degrees. Error ban: It is in the implementation phase. And there are three types: Error in the object or person: The person confused person on the other. It is wrong because it does have relevance own when the subject has a social condition that does change the type. Example: I want to kill A, but B is killed a police officer. Aberratio deviation of stroke or blow: The object or person being attacked is really different from that proposed by the subject. The stroke aberratio punishable as a crime contest between what the subject wanted and reckless crime consummated).