Search

Copyright of Verba Iuris is the property of Universidad Libre Bogota, Centre de Investigaciones Socio Juridicas de la Facultad de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

the contents and the structure of wrongdoing have been subject to an intense dogmatic debate throughout time. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and evaluate the main theories on that subject in the current Spanish and German dogmatic debate, as well as their connection to the punishment of the attempted crime, especially of the so-called "unsuitable attempt". Finally, I will defend a dualist conception of wrongdoing (based as a general rule on an objective and subjective wrongful conduct and a wrongful result), in which, however, some exceptions without the latter are allowed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper exposes a reconstruction of the legal and moral foundations of the right to self-defense in the criminal law, as well as its relationship to the idea of criminal wrongdoing. Self-defense is theoretically founded through an interpretation of the concept of threat of unlawful violence as a formal infringement of prohibitions which constitute subjective rights of others and must be therefore attributed to the responsability of the aggressor. In its second part, the article attempts to reconstruct the systematic relationship between the rules of attribution of legal responsibility (imputation) for a crime and legal responsibility for a threat of unlawful violence as a second base of the theory of the right to self-defense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

La perspectiva desde la cual la doctrina y la jurisprudencia tradicionalmente leen las normas de los artículos 193, 194 y 197 del Código penal, se encuentra inmersa en una serie de dicotomías, que le impide ver el injusto propio de los delitos de falsedad documental. Estas dicotomías son cuatro: fe pública como bien jurídico colectivo / patrimonio como bien jurídico personal (1a); documento público como portador de fe pública / documento privado como instrumento de defraudación (2a); falsedad ideológica / falsedad material como injustos esencialmente diferentes (3a); delito especial / delito común (4a). El análisis de estas dicotomías y, en particular, de la tercera (3a), permite redescubrir la distinción entre "declaraciones de ciencia" y "declaraciones de voluntad" propuesta por Francisco Grisolía en 1956 y reformular la diferenciación del concepto de verdad en el documento privado y en el documento público, propuesta recientemente por Bacigalupo en la doctrina española. Sobre la base de estas distinciones, se propone una reconstrucción dogmática del sistema de normas de los artículos 193, 194 y 197 del Código penal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taking into account the construction of characters and figures made by the interlocutors of Platonic dialogues, we will study that of the just and the unjust men (made by Glaucon and Adeimantus in Republic II) and that of the sophist (shaped by the Eleatic Stranger and Theaetetus in Sophist), without ignoring the peculiar presentation of the philosopher in this last dialogue. Once introduced those four characters, we will try to make clear the relations that turn the just and the unjust men into the precedents of the philosopher and the sophist. Finally, we will stress the consequences deriving from this hypothesis, in order to achieve a deeper comprehension of the Platonic interpretation of these two characters, the philosopher and his rival, the sophist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Derecho Penal y Criminologia is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departamento de Derecho Penal y Criminologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)