However, there are several types of causality that can present problems:

- Causation alternative: Several independent conditions acting together, each one of them sufficient to produce the result. All of them are effective while for the result. For example: A and B independently give each other, one dose of deadly poison that acts the same time.

- Cumulative Causation: In this case, several conditions independently act through joint action in the result. For example: A and B are independently each other a poison to C, which acts lethally on him because of the joint operation of the two doses.

- Courses causal atypical: It produces a result for a cause that is attached to the action. For example: A injures B. The doctor C, which caters to B, makes a medical error (malpractice), for which B dies.

- Causation hypothetical: Another cause could have caused the same time the result. For example: A gives B a lethal dose of poison. B would have died even without the dose of poison at the same time point.

- Cases of causality interrupted or broken: In these cases there is an independent intervening event preclude the existence of the previous causality, so that it is no longer operational. For example: A food poisoning B. Before the poison takes effect, C killed by a bullet to B.

- Support for a causal process and implemented: In this case, a hazard that already exists. For example: A, before the imminence of a train crash in the lane in which he found that would produce injured, he wandered to another lane, in which also produces shocks and shock injuries. (Castillo, 2003, pp. 43-55).

- Causation advance: Opera in cases where two or more behaviors are directed to the same end, but one is ahead of the others and produces first results. The problems of causation advanced was easily resolved with natural logic: “One of the conduct of behavior was the result displayed so that those actions that” almost “what caused and are quite irrelevant from the point of causal view and we are also from the standpoint of criminal responsibility for the outcome, because if you clearly define the causal link with one of them, the other takes a back seat. If not able to determine the producing agent of the result, should apply the principle in dubio pro reo. (Vargas Gonzalez et al, 1998, p.57).

Possibility Related Posts:

• The Objective Imputation Theory : Basic Formula
  The basic formula that uses objective imputation is as follows: "One result is objectively attributable, when the author has created a significant risk, which is done in the typical result in your...
• The Objective Imputation Theory : Objective Allocation
  The following will be discussed relevant aspects of the scope of the complaint, as well as different views of what is this theory. It is generally accepted as a principle objective imputation that...
• Theory of causation
  Relevant theory of causation For this theory, the cause is just to delete that condition which leads to the disappearance mind the outcome, just as the latter is understood as a legal category. Me...
• Individualizing theories, Theory of the adequacy, and Adequate theory of causation
  Individualizing theories With this name is sought to package a set of criteria that limit the extent of chasing the equivalence of conditions. It aims to select in each case the factor is decisive...
• Theories of Causation : Theory of Equivalence of Conditions (part II)
  This theory is called theory of conditio sine qua non, understood the Latin "essential" or "precondition", the formula conditio sine qua non is a mechanism to assign a cause factor category. The con...

The principle that causes all remains a result is called the principle of causality and the link that connects the cause and the result is called causality.

To attribute a result to a specific behavior, is required to establish firstly, if between this action and this outcome there is a causal link from a natural perspective, however, has not yet solved the problem, it is also necessary determine that the natural link of interest to criminal law</a>. However, that case is to formulate a legal opinion, also known as imputation trial objective. Checking the existence of causation is the first step of objective imputation. (Berdugo, 2002, p. 196).

Furthermore causality is defined as the process by which the complaint comes with several conditions, the causal link between the conduct and outcome criminally reprehensible, without being the only condition for such criticism, it should be taken into account author’s intention, the degree of accountability at the time of committing the act, exempting from liability, etc., all within a “subjective complaint” of the result. The main problem that may face the judge is not aware enough to know if the causal relationship is met in a given case, because this right outside the natural sciences may be involved in the case study. (Vargas Gonzalez et al, 1998, pp. 55-56).

Then the judge will have to adhere to the fore the so-called generic causation. This implies that [...] the development of causal laws is a scientific problem whose task it is for each particular branch of knowledge [...] in a judicial proceeding can only be taken as demonstrating the existence of a causal law in the relevant science, permits this. (Reyes Alvarado, 1994, p.41).

Once the process is achieved by determining the scientific causal law, the judge comes to the so-called specific causation where appropriate to assess whether the conduct of the defendant adheres to the scientific causality caused the result, in which case other assessments prior the penalty will be imposed for the crime committed. (Vargas Gonzalez et al, 1998, p.56).

Bear in mind that causality is only the minimum requirement of objective imputation of the outcome, it still must be added the legal significance of the causal relationship between action and result, of course, the causal relevance of the courses is not limited objective but also the requirement of a subjective aspect of fact, consistently, has a limiting effect. (Jakobs, 2002, p. 107).

Clearly the importance of causality in the theory of objective imputation, all criminal behavior is always an outcome and hence is attributable, as well as a physical phenomenon, the behavior will always produce a result. (Vargas Gonzalez et al, 1998 , pp. 54-55).

Possibility Related Posts:

• The Objective Imputation Theory in Criminal Law : Types of Causation
  In most cases, the existence of causation is not problematic. If A throws a stone vase intentionally against B and destroys it, there is no doubt that the operations of A (throwing the stone) and the ...
• The Objective Imputation Theory : Basic Formula
  The basic formula that uses objective imputation is as follows: "One result is objectively attributable, when the author has created a significant risk, which is done in the typical result in your...
• The Objective Imputation Theory : Objective Allocation
  The following will be discussed relevant aspects of the scope of the complaint, as well as different views of what is this theory. It is generally accepted as a principle objective imputation that...
• Theory of causation
  Relevant theory of causation For this theory, the cause is just to delete that condition which leads to the disappearance mind the outcome, just as the latter is understood as a legal category. Me...
• Individualizing theories, Theory of the adequacy, and Adequate theory of causation
  Individualizing theories With this name is sought to package a set of criteria that limit the extent of chasing the equivalence of conditions. It aims to select in each case the factor is decisive...