CRIMINAL LAW ERROR: Analysis of Relevance Volition and Awareness of the Concept of Construction Dogmatic / Erro no direito penal: anÃlise da relevÃncia davoliÃÃo e da consciÃncia na construÃÃo conceitual da dogmÃtica penal

AUTOR(ES)
DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO

2008

RESUMO

It is usual in the doctrine to appoint the figure of the error as one of the most complex and ambiguous matters of the criminal dogmatics, since all elements comprised in the crime structure are related to the error. Romans were the first to investigate the figure of error. The ancient Romans created the error in fact - error in law (error facti-error ius) dichotomy, which lasted until 1925, with a few changes, when Alexander Graf zu Dohna started treating the theme from the error in type - error in prohibition dichotomy, consolidated by the Finalists, mainly Hans Welzel. With the change in the dichotomy, there was a structural change in the error study objects, which were formerly the fact and the law (which originate the error in fact - error in law dichotomy), and under the Finalist point-of-view became of the criminal type and the awareness of unlawfulness (which state the error in type - error in prohibition dichotomy). One of the main advances brought by the Finalist dichotomy to the criminal dogmatics was the minimization of consequence of the old principle of error ius nocet, which cannot be conciliated with the principles of the modern criminal law, also known as culpability criminal law. The putative discriminants also cause many doubts in the theory of error, since in certain cases they may be considered as a hypothesis of error in type and, in other cases, error in prohibition

ASSUNTO(S)

error in type erro no direito penal erro de proibiÃÃo error in criminal law erro de tipo direito penal error in prohibition

ACESSO AO ARTIGO

Documentos Relacionados