Understanding Imputability in Criminal Law
Imputability in Criminal Law
ITEM 17: Imputability
Imputability is the capacity to be deemed guilty. To be guilty, one needs to be, first and foremost, imputable. Unlike guilt, imputability has to do with the author, without reference to the fact. It is not a relationship between the fact and the subject, but rather a pre-existing situation of the subject prior to the act. Imputability is a particular subject’s internal situation, which, in general, has been seen as a particular capacity to be guilty of the same or to be criminally culpable. It is the status of the author of an unlawful action that typically determines the possibility of acting as guilty. It is also the possibility, because of ill health and spiritual maturity of the author, to properly assess duties and act in accordance with that knowledge.
Moment of Imputability
Imputability must exist at the time of the event (art. 34 inc 1 CP). The time of the event means the time when performing the behavior (positive or negative), i.e., when the bodily will is expressed. It is considered attributable who, after the fact, before it produces the result, it has become unimpeachable. It may be that the same subject has voluntarily placed in the position of insanity defense and being already in it do the typical.
Non-Imputability
Non-imputability is the inability to be criminally culpable. It is a characteristic of the subject that prevents him from understanding what he does and directing his actions according to his understanding at the time that takes.
Grounds Provided for in the Criminal Code
Insufficient Powers
Insufficient powers are given in cases where the individual’s mental development has stopped at a stage that prevents him from understanding the criminality of the actions or conduct them (for example, mental weakness). Deaf-mutism is not expressly mentioned in the Criminal Code as a cause of criminal responsibility, but it is a possible hypothesis about it.
Morbid Alterations of Faculties
Cases of morbid alterations of faculties are those in which the individual’s mental capacity has been diverted, reaching some degree of abnormality. The so-called moral insanity has not been accepted as a cause of criminal responsibility. While in situations met by the concept, the individual has the power to correctly estimate the value of the acts, no loss of his mental disturbance. However, some cases within the so-called moral insanity start having a real mental disease, in which, obviously, can mediate a ground for immunity from prosecution to those provided for in Article 34.
Unconscious State
Unlike the previous ones, which remove from the individual the ability to understand the criminality of their actions or direction in a more or less prolonged manner or referred generically to any facts, unconsciousness removes those building in relation to a certain event. The law refers to an unconscious situation in which the individual is suffering from disturbances at the time of the event, affecting his consciousness, suffering the psychological effects of which starts the insanity defense, i.e., he cannot understand the nature of his acts or direct his actions. Unconsciousness works by excluding the criminal responsibility of the author when his time is not attributable to it and, in principle, it can be attributed if the author has intentionally or negligently placed himself in that state.