A mulasztásról
In the field of criminal law, we can interpret omission as a type of conduct of the perpetrator. However, it cannot be defined in the same way as its counterpart, the action. According to the criminal law doctrine, the concept of omission has three several elements: the legal duty, the possibility t...
Elmentve itt :
| Szerző: | |
|---|---|
| Dokumentumtípus: | Cikk |
| Megjelent: |
2018
|
| Sorozat: | Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : forum : publicationes discipulorum iurisprudentiae
1 |
| Kulcsszavak: | Büntetőjog - magyar - mulasztás |
| Tárgyszavak: | |
| Online Access: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/70858 |
| Tartalmi kivonat: | In the field of criminal law, we can interpret omission as a type of conduct of the perpetrator. However, it cannot be defined in the same way as its counterpart, the action. According to the criminal law doctrine, the concept of omission has three several elements: the legal duty, the possibility to act, and the ability to act. This complex contexture follows a concept according to which some types of the crimes – which are committed by omission – are questionable from the aspect of criminal law literature and in some cases it brings up constitutional issues, too. The national legislation, the practice of law and surprisingly the law literature have not responded yet to the connected problems, they are still waiting for the solutions to these problems. My study is a reaction to this neglected issue in such a way that it shows the particularity of the crimes which are committed by omission based on a systematization aspect which has been unknown in Hungarian legal literature. I standardize these crimes with a formal aspect used in German and Swiss legal literature where jurisprudence makes distinction between ‘real’ and ‘not real’ crimes which are committed by omission. With the help of this classification, the types of legal duties can be linked to another dogmatic matter in this way, to the characteristic of construct of the statutory definition of the crime and the scope of offenders, too. ‘Not real omission’ can be identified as a variation of criminal offence which is regulated in ‘opened’ statutory definitions. According to the hypothesis of this paper, this kind of legislative solution has constitutional issues. The solution for these problems stands in the centre of my study. In order to make the analysis more illustrative, I use an original method of systematization, and in the comparative parts, I also use the solutions from the German and the Swiss criminal law. As a conclusion of my study, I have the aim to prove the above-mentioned hypothesis. Also, I present my de lege ferenda suggestion which is based on the conclusion of the foreign regulations and of various legal literature. |
|---|---|
| Terjedelem/Fizikai jellemzők: | 723-754 |
| ISSN: | 2560-2802 |