Pensamientos y observaciones sobre el castigo en el derecho penal contemporáneo
| Autor | Dimitris Liakopoulos |
| Cargo | Bachelor's degree in Legal Sciences, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences |
| Páginas | 283-331 |
Opinión Jurídica, 19(38) • Enero-junio de 2020 • pp. 283-331 • ISSN (en línea): 2248-4078
** This work stems from an advance d research carried o ut by the author, which originated in the questio ns
of his students durin g a class taught by him in The Hague (Netherland s).
** Bachelor’s degree in L egal Sciences, Frank furt Universit y of Applied Sciences; Mas ter’s degree in
International Law, and Master of A rts degree in Law and Diplomacy. Full-time profes sor of European
Union Law at the Fletcher School-Tuf ts University. Full-time professor of International and Eu ropean
Criminal and P rocedural Law at the De Haagse Hogen school (The Hague). Attorney at Law at New York
and Bruxelles. Ema il: prof.d.liakopoulos.984@gmail.com. Orcid: 0000-0002-1048-6468.
Thoughts and Observations of Punishment
in Contemporary Criminal Law*
Received: January 21st, 2019 • Approved: September 4th, 2019
https://doi.org/10.22395/ojum.v19n38a14
Dimitris Liakopoulos**
ABSTRACT
The present work is seeking to summarize the discrimination line between crime
and punishment through a group of situations that still today continues to provoke
questions of particular complexity. This guilt “nature” requires a reconstruction
of the meaning of controversial hypothesis that is able to express wide-ranging
evaluations that go beyond the purely literal profile of the normative formula. It
would be enough to remember the “objective elements of guilt” to measure the
extent of such a warning in depth.
Keywords: punishment of crimes; discrimination; causes of exclusion; unlawfulness;
guilt; crime theory; criminal policy.
Dimitris Liakopoulos
284
Opinión Jurídica, 19(38) • Enero-junio de 2020 • pp. 283-331 • ISSN (en línea): 2248-4078
Pensamientos y observaciones
sobre el castigo en el derecho penal contemporáneo
RESUMEN
El presente trabajo busca resumir la línea de discriminación entre crimen y
castigo a través de un grupo de situaciones que aún hoy continúan provocando
preguntas de particular complejidad. Se trata de una “naturaleza” de culpa que
requiere una reconstrucción del significado de hipótesis controvertidas, capaz
de expresar evaluaciones amplias que van más allá del perfil puramente literal
de la fórmula normativa. Sería suficiente recordar los “elementos objetivos de la
culpa” para medir en profundidad el alcance de tal advertencia.
Palabras clave: castigo de delitos; discriminación; causas de exclusión; ilegalidad;
culpa; teoría del delito; política criminal.
Pensamentos e observações
da punição no direito penal contemporâneo
RESUMO
O presente trabalho busca resumir a linha de discriminação entre crime e punição
por meio de um conjunto de situações que ainda hoje continua a provocar
questões de complexidade particular. Essa “natureza” de culpa requer uma
reconstrução do significado de hipótese controversa que é capaz de expressar
um amplo espectro de avaliações que vão além do perfil puramente literal da
fórmula normativa. Bastaria lembrar os “elementos objetivos da culpa” para medir
a extensão de tal aviso em profundidade.
Palavras-chave: punição de crimes; discriminação; causas de exclusão; ilegalidade;
culpa; teoria do crime; política criminal.
Thoughts and Observations of Punishm ent in Contemporary Criminal Law
285
Opinión Jurídica, 19(38) • Enero-junio de 2020 • pp. 283-331 • ISSN (en línea): 2248-4078
INTRODUCTION
The difficulty of finding a director capable of justifying the complex and multiform
phenomena that constellate the category of punishment, has not discouraged the
international and European doctrine from the attempt to offer a classification of the
same within an (at least relatively) homogeneous dimension, to which it is possible to
define with due precision the systematic collocation, and to verify, at the same time,
the plausibility of the normative choices placed at the base of their recognition.
What must first be remembered, for the purpose of our research, are those
conceptions that do not renounce to include in the “crime theory” the same “punitive”
dimension, and which can be subdivided, with some approximation, into two theoreti-
cal positions, moreover, of a certain contiguous measure: The first, favorable to the
insertion of additional connotations denoting an appreciation, either in “axiological” or
“teleological” terms, regarding the requisites of the fact, of the anti-juridical nature, and
of guilt; the second, rather, to conceive as a “fourth“ element of crime the punisability,
in the light of the conditions from which the order (of course, in line with the principles
that define the “face“ and the physiognomy) comes to make the inapplicability of the
penalty dependent.
As for the “need of punishment“ and/or its “merit“ (Roxin & Schünemann, 2017,
p. 71; Schmidhäuser, 1984; Stratenwerth & Kuhlen, 2011, p. 29; Langer, 1972, p. 275;
Wolter, 1996, p. 207; Klesczewski, 2016; Rönau, Hohn, & Zieschang, 2011; Freund, 2013),
a solution which would seem singular at first glance (Volk, 1985, p. 887. Günther, 1983,
p. 240; Bloy, 1976, p. 229; Jescheck & Weigend, 1996, p. 50; Kunz, 1984, p. 156; Otto,
1978, p. 53; Kempf, Lüderssen, & Volk, 2013, p. 104; Pfaffinger, 2015, p. 270; Bott, 2016;
Wessels & Beulke, 2011; Asholt, 2016; Griego, 2018; Hallmann, 2017; Schmitt-Leonardy,
2013; Sinn, 2013, p. 77) could hardly be both a typical “element“ of the “crime“ and
on the other hand to “enter” the basis for legitimizing the offense in a “circuit“ of its
own relevance, so as to avoid undesirable arbitrary configurations of non punishable
mechanisms.
It is true that the relevance of the category in question to the essential components
of the crime is affirmed without fur ther qualification profiles, rather than appealing
to “pre-normative“ considerations such as those underlying the Strafwürdigkeit
(Giannoulis, 2014) and Strafbedürfnis (Sickor, 2014). Indeed, it is limited to recall the
requirement of punishment as a necessary “complement“ of the criminal phenomenon,
placing it in direct correlation (and exclusive) with the conditions under which the order
subordinates its choices about the final evaluation’s “entry”.
It cannnot be forgotten, how, in cultivating a similar objective, the assessments
concerning (above all) the “need of punishment” and the boundaries of their legiti-
macy on the constitutional and political-criminal level come to register significant
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba