![]() is mentioned with regard to voluntary intoxication: if a person gets drunk, she will not be able use her state of inebriation to claim that, for example, her act of negligence was an accident. However, this defense is not available, for example, to a person who started the fight, thus creating a "cause" for killing in self-defense at a later time. ![]() A typical example is self-defense: in Anglo-American jurisdictions lethal action is justified under certain circumstances while protecting oneself, others, or property. The doctrine means that even if the person was not free to choose the course of action while performing an offence, he can still be held responsible for it if he voluntarily created a condition ("cause") for the offending action. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.Īctio libera in causa (frequently abbreviated as a.l.i.c., Latin for "action free in its cause") is a law principle in a typical Western law system (both common law and civil law).You should also add the template to the talk page.A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at ] see its history for attribution. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation.If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality.Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 8,930 articles in the main category, and specifying |topic= will aid in categorization.Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.View a machine-translated version of the German article.The review on the article is available at. Therefore, the findings suggest a balancing between these interests and propose a way to achieve this compromise. The examination reveals that two contradictory interests-the need to safeguard personal freedom and the need to combat lawful, yet socially harmful, acts through judicial punishment-cannot be completely ignored in practice. To determine the correct approach to nulla poena sine lege, the paper considers its history in continental criminal law and then analyses the principle theoretically. They argue that the maxim, while prohibiting judges from punishing non-criminal acts, makes it impossible for courts to deter them in a timely manner, which, in certain cases, may have a detrimental effect on society. However, its critics assert that rigid adherence to the principle nulla poena sine lege may do more harm than good. Some scholars advocate the inviolability of this maxim because it safeguards personal freedom-an opportunity to do everything not prohibited by law. This is a collection of original essays on the topic of actio libera in causa and its relations to other areas of substantive criminal law and doctrines in the generalĪbstract Multiple viewpoints have been expressed regarding the principle nulla poena sine lege (there exists no punishment without a pre-existing penal law). The first case involves rules of imputation, while the second concerns culpability, and justifying the actio libera doctrine therefore faces different challenges in the two cases. On the other hand, it disallows defendants to appeal to defences they would otherwise be entitled to use to block liability, if they culpably created the conditions of their own defence. On the one hand, the actio libera doctrine allows us to waive the voluntariness requirement that is generally needed for criminal liability. But I argue that we must distinguish between two importantly different understandings of the doctrine itself and its application in law. This doctrine seems to be instantiated in a great many actual legal practices. The actio libera doctrine allows us to impute unfree actions to persons, provided they were responsible for causing the conditions of unfreedom that characterizes those actions when performed. Like our Enlightenment counterparts, contemporary philosophers of criminal law, as well as most Western legal systems (both common law and civil), allow that persons can be responsible for acts that are not free when performed, provided they were free in their causes. The actio libera in causa doctrine, as originally formulated by various Enlightenment philosophers, concerns the imputation of responsibility to actors for actions unfree in themselves, but free in their causes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |