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. Mezguer considers that criminal law is only interested in causes that are adequate to produce the result, however for him, the determination of the adequacy of the case operates in a strictly legal level, based on the criminal. To Mezguer causal equivalence of all conditions does not imply its legal equivalent, thus separating the phenomena of causation and responsibility. (Vargas Gonzalez et al, op.cit, p. 48).
And criminal responsibility will rest on three conditions:
1. Causal link between action and result.
2. Relevance of causation.
3. Guilt.
Causal link between action and result
The existence of the connection is determined by the same formula proposed by the theory of equivalence. The action of the author must be a conditio sine qua non of the result. There must be the first event of the complaint objectively, I have studied the second.
Relevance of causation
Such relevance is determined from the level of criminality. It requires the action of the subject which operated as a conditio sine qua non and the results produced are typical, as well as the causal course between one and another is “relevant” according to the type. To determine a relevant character assumes the criterion of the adequacy of the theory itself of adequate cause. The nature of the adjustment is determined from the offense, which shows us the causative courses relevant or appropriate. (Vargas Gonzalez et al, op.cit, pp. 49-51).
Theory of the prohibition to return
This theory, which in its infancy, is linked to the interruption theory of causation, is raised by Frank and implies that if causal courses of action are not exploited by malicious intentional action to cause the result, is barred from returning … more behind the malicious action to find reasons not malicious. Here improperly shuffled assessment criteria as causal problem, to the point that this theory points since the previous actions are not authorship but reckless participation, but also rejects them as causes. Apart from its impropriety as causal theory, and in the field of partner in crime should be noted that the mere participation goes unpunished reckless whether intentionally encourages authorship as reckless. (Luzon Peña, p. 72).
Causality is not “interrupted” because between the conduct and outcome, the action is malicious third party. That’s what formerly defended the theory of re-entry ban, she said, the return (return) to the conditions that preceded an intentional crime temporarily.
This theory was originally constructed on the basis of the causal theory of action, the rationale is that the remote causes (“remote cause”) are “void” then by who intentionally cause the outcome (“proximate cause”) and solves this how the problem of concurrent causes from different subjects when a single result. Put another way, the willful participation in the conduct willful and self-responsible of the crime is always with impunity, so that the second fraudulent act takes away the first show its relevance willful criminal. For these authors, the setting of preconditions to the result, so malicious, it involves making a crime in immediate authorship, but it is sanctioned, usually as participation (instigation or complicity). (Castillo, 2008, pp. 490-491).
Theory of causation
It is the foundation of any claim to such objective: for the first budget of the realization of the type is always the perpetrator caused the result. But with the causation of behavior for the typical result has not yet been performed, provided the type as previously believed, but attend other elements typical writings. Thus eg the complaint may also be missing although the author has caused the result, but that causation is due to chance: If A persuades B to take a flight to Mallorca, which B dies plane crash certainly A has caused B’s death and his council, but despite that B has not killed because the event is presented as an accident incalculable and therefore can not be attributed to as his work. There are also random with other causes that can exclude the target rate. (Roxin, op.cit, p.121).
Within it is the so-called theory of causation interruption which holds that in certain courses or irregular cumulative causal intervention of an “external factor” although causal support in the course before, immediately leads to the result, breaking the previous course causal, and therefore the results may not be devolved to the first author. An example: when a person has been injured dies as a result of surgery or wrong because the ambulance crashes that carried to the hospital. (Vargas Gonzalez et al, op.cit, p.39).
Posted in 
Tags:
Hi there
This post was interesting, how long did it take you to write?