Search

The modern doctrine of causation has received scant attention in Romanian criminal law literature, despite the current european trend. In the first part of the article we have dealt with the conception of causation by analyzing it's place within the topographic scheme of criminal offences, subsequently presenting a chronological approach of the different causation related theories elaborated throughout the years and finally reaching the modern approach of objective ascription, also known as the objective imputation theory. While exposing the first stage of the algorithm of the latter theory in the first part, the author moves on to the second part, continuing the analysis of the issue on four levels. The first part covers the materialization of the already analyzed relevant risk into a legally referred to consequence. Moving on, we will try breaking down the four groups of cases that attracted the attention of criminal law academics. These constructions try to introduce other factors into the causal analysis in order to determine their influence in the event. They may diminish or even exclude offender liability. Therefore the decisive task will be to determine which causal contribution was more "intense" or even "overwhelming." The first group contains cases in which the chain of causation is interrupted by a new intervening cause, even if the offender created a legally relevant danger for the social value. The second group deals with cases in which the victim's reckless behaviour takes place after the offender's act, i.e., the victim, after being intentionally harmed by the offender, does not take care of her wounds or refuses to receive medical treatment. The third group in our study addresses the lawful alternative behaviour of the author as a cause of criminal impunity. Even if negatively influencing the line of causation by his actions, the author will be exempted from criminal responsibility if the original, bound to happen result, was equally damaging. The fourth and last group within our area of analysis, deals with the so-called unprotected risk. German law recognises a category of cases where there is no functional causal relationship between the violation of a legal duty and the actual result, in other words, the actual result is not covered by the aim or purpose of the legal provision. Furthermore, the second level of this study explores the approach of the german author Gunther Jakobs regarding objective ascription, through the four concepts that he considered as cornerstones: the allowed risk (very similar to permissible risk), the confidence's principle (regarding the division of tasks), redress prohibition (as a reverse of punishable participation) and acting at one's own risk (concerning the victim's behaviour). Carrying on, the article synthesizes a series of three groups of particularly relevant situations, extracted from case-law. The first two groups contains cases in which both victim and offender were somehow interacting at the origin of the risk that finally injured the victim. For instance, cases in which victim and offender were dealing with a certain substance or mechanism, i.e., a medical drug, a machine, or a narcotic, and the victim ends up injured because of using the machine or taking the drug, or cases involving injury through reckless driving. This approach distinguishes between self-endangering, i.e., putting oneself at risk, which is not subject to punishment, and endangering someone else, i.e., putting others at risk, which indeed deserves punishment. The last group refers to third party imputation cases. Imputarea rezultatului in sarcina altei persoane The last section of the paper at hand points out the pros and cons of the objective imputation theory. Things are far from settled in all areas and there is considerable dogmatic uncertainty both in the literature and the case law. The author concludes by stating the main reasons why this theory could and should be applied in Romanian courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers Günther Jakobs' controversial theory of ‘the criminal law of the enemy’ ( Feindstrafrecht). Taking an interpretive perspective that is anchored in social theory, rather than normative principles, the article traces the implications of Jakobs' central claims concerning trust relations in society as mediated by the criminal law and endeavours to articulate their relevance for English law, particularly as regards the growing role of diversion and preventive orders in criminal justice. It identifies the various ways in which these current alternatives to the criminal sanctioning process link with neo-liberal technologies of government by connecting Jakobs' thoughts on trust with key themes in the Foucauldian governmentality literature and recent research on the ascent of auditing as a meta-regulatory mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses some approaches Günther Jakobs on enemy criminal law, notably the argument that those individuals who do not provide sufficient certainty cognitive part that in the future in the legal community should not expect to be treated as persons. This thesis faces the challenges of the constitutionalization of relations international policies in the context of international corpus of human rights and the fact that in this, so even those repeated challenge or attack "order" must be treated as persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes, without considering particular cases — and preferably by consulting the work of Günther Jakobs and some of his commentators — the main features of the Criminal Law of the Enemy, abstractly. This, so as to evaluate their compatibility with the concept of Human Dignity, present in the majority of contemporary constitutional systems as well as in Human Rights protection systems. It is argued by applying the general statement, proposed by the theoretical neoconstitutionalism, specially the principle that stresses the hierarchical structure of legal systems, in which the existence of a law depends on its compatibility and adequacy relative to higher laws. Through this work, we focus on the main non-positivism in the theory of law. It proposes that laws that recognize the Criminal Law of the Enemy are unconstitutional if Human Dignity is included in the pertaining legal system's Constitution. It concludes reflecting on some features of Criminal Law of the Enemy, which cause irreconcilable issues with the concept of Human Dignity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following article is the final product of the (legal-sociological) investigation seminar directed by Gustavo Cote. Based on 2002 decree of the year 2002, the one that created the rehabilitation and consolidation zones in Colombia, this article studies the characteristics that those zones showed. Afterwards, by studying some authors who have developed the concept of "enemy criminal law", the article makes a link between this one and the rehabilitation and consolidation zones. The article specially analyses Günther Jakobs and Alessandro Baratta stands, and finally it finds out, in a critical way, that both, enemy criminal law and a particular criminal policy, are tools of a specific politic project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the beginning of the twenty-first century two legal concepts linking citizen/ enemy status with criminal law have provoked heated discussion both in Europe and in the United States. The American concept, i.e., Enemy Combatants, has been basically developed by the U.S. Supreme Court and more recently by the Bush administration. The European term, Feindstrafrecht/Enemy Criminal Law, has been fundamentally coined and explained by leading German academic Professor Günther Jakobs. Though born and raised by different parents, the two concepts have numerous aspects in common, or at least this will be argued throughout the paper. The most important common ground is that both concepts, with similar terminology, try to address the problem of what to do with individuals who are viewed as sources of extreme dangerousness. Put differently, they both tackle the question of whether citizenship--in a broad sense--concedes certain rights but imposes a fundamental duty: to have a minimum of law-abiding behavior If the duty is not fulfilled, then the rights are not acknowledged and the individual is treated as an enemy, not as a citizen. The underlying reasoning oozes social contract theory. This is not by chance, as great philosophers (Rousseau, Fichte, Hobbes, Kant) have employed similar arguments that are briefly sketched in the essay. There are also references to the legal theory behind the scenes predicating that in order for legal constructions to exist (rights, the State), they need to be followed by most people. Hence such a duty to comply, in general terms, with the law is imposed upon all persons. If not, law would be just daydreaming. Strong and consistent as all these arguments sound, the basic problem with this type of reasoning is that it is hard for the legal system to follow without entering into self-contradiction. In this light, criticism will be brought by one of the most prominent social theories of the time, i.e., systems theory, arguing that law-abiding behavior is a precondition for legal institutions to exist, yes, but it cannot be secured by law itself. It is a precondition that has to be presupposed by the legal system. Moreover, using this kind of necessity rule, i.e., the State and the Law need to secure the preconditions of their own existence (self-preservation), entails a diabolic logic as it may lead to the destruction of the system itself. To this extent, self-preservation against external threats (terrorist attacks) and internal threats (curtailment of civil liberties) seems equally important. The essay finishes with some proposals for resolving this delicate matter, trying to reflect a keen sense of balance and forward-looking thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El artículo presenta un discurso realizado por Dr. Günter Jakobs a la Universidad de San Martín de Porres enfocando en cuestiones con respeto a la dogmática penal funcionalista.