Perception of Crime Dangerousness in Intentional Form of Fault
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The article deals with the concept of perception of crime dangerousness, which, as defined in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, is a substantial part of intellectual element of intention. The author analyses what elements of crime intentionally acting person must perceive, and which he may not. The author draws a conclusion that perpetrator perceives dangerousness of his offence, if person is aware of what he is doing, and of legally significant circumstances of his act or omission, and also (when the crime is described in the Criminal Code with material corpus delicti) he is aware of consequences of his act or omission and of causation. Offender’s perception or non- perception of mens rea elements, and of social values, that are damaged by the crime, and also of offender’s features, that are defined in the Criminal Code, has no significance for the decision, whether he or she was acting intentionally or not.
Specialities of perception of crime elements have been analysed in the article as well. It was aimed to disclose features of factual circumstances of a crime that should be perceived by offender, committing crime intentionally. In author’s opinion, these features could be divided into two groups: physical features and features, that disclose the social content of particular circumstance. Social content of crime circumstance may contain two aspects – material and formal. Intentionally acting person must perceive at least one of these aspects. The author notes, that knowledge of the legal title of crime circumstance (e. g., bus driver’s knowledge of drugs’ title, which he agrees to transport) is insufficient to establish person’s perception of formal aspect of social content of circumstance. It is necessary, that offender would understand the legal meaning of that title as well.
The author argues, that defendant’s foresight of possible prohibited result of his act or omission is essential for his perseption of dangerousness of committed crime. It has been concluded, that foresight of consequences and perception of crime dangerousness, in contrary to widely accepted opinion, are not independent elements of intellectual element of intention. Foresight of consequences is constitutional part of perception of crime dangerousness. The author proposes to consider the relation between these two notions as relation between part and totality.
The author pays attention to specialities of perception of causation. He draws a conclusion, that an act or omission may be recognized as committed intentionally only if it was established, that defendant had perceived legally significant causal relationship between his act or omission and prohibited result. Offender may be not aware of details in development of causal relationship. The author points out, that it is sufficient condition to establish defendant’s intent, if defendant foresaw the possibility of prohibited result in the interval from 100 percent (as inevitable) to nearly 0 percent (almost impossible).
Specialities of perception of crime elements have been analysed in the article as well. It was aimed to disclose features of factual circumstances of a crime that should be perceived by offender, committing crime intentionally. In author’s opinion, these features could be divided into two groups: physical features and features, that disclose the social content of particular circumstance. Social content of crime circumstance may contain two aspects – material and formal. Intentionally acting person must perceive at least one of these aspects. The author notes, that knowledge of the legal title of crime circumstance (e. g., bus driver’s knowledge of drugs’ title, which he agrees to transport) is insufficient to establish person’s perception of formal aspect of social content of circumstance. It is necessary, that offender would understand the legal meaning of that title as well.
The author argues, that defendant’s foresight of possible prohibited result of his act or omission is essential for his perseption of dangerousness of committed crime. It has been concluded, that foresight of consequences and perception of crime dangerousness, in contrary to widely accepted opinion, are not independent elements of intellectual element of intention. Foresight of consequences is constitutional part of perception of crime dangerousness. The author proposes to consider the relation between these two notions as relation between part and totality.
The author pays attention to specialities of perception of causation. He draws a conclusion, that an act or omission may be recognized as committed intentionally only if it was established, that defendant had perceived legally significant causal relationship between his act or omission and prohibited result. Offender may be not aware of details in development of causal relationship. The author points out, that it is sufficient condition to establish defendant’s intent, if defendant foresaw the possibility of prohibited result in the interval from 100 percent (as inevitable) to nearly 0 percent (almost impossible).
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
