Search

[spa] La presente investigación tiene por objetivo analizar las relaciones internas entre la teoría de la intervención delictiva y los criterios de imputación subjetiva, concentrándose específicamente en la estructura de la coautoría en el injusto imprudente. Para este propósito, se ofrece un enfoque centrado fundamentalmente en aspectos de carácter conceptual y estructural. Dicha perspectiva de análisis se desarrolla utilizando una determinada aproximación a las teorías de la imputación y de la acción. Luego de someterse a un examen particular, en aplicación de tales herramientas teóricas, se propone un análisis coordinado de las modalidades de intervención delictiva y de las formas de imputación subjetiva. Una vez fijado el objeto, estructura y presupuestos de la coautoría, se defiende y desarrolla su aplicación al injusto imprudente. Para ello, se ofrece una réplica al conjunto de críticas que acusan su presunta incompatibilidad, así como también un estudio de las principales propuestas constructivas en la dogmática penal actual. A continuación, sobre la base del aparato conceptual de las teorías de la imputación y de la acción, se propone un modelo de análisis que vincule los requisitos internos tanto de la coautoría como de la imprudencia. Esta estructura se aplica igualmente a los delitos impropios de omisión. La investigación finaliza ofreciendo una delimitación con otros casos de pluralidad de autorías en delitos imprudentes, que no satisfacen los requisitos de la coautoría., [cat] La present recerca té com objectiu analitzar les relacions internes entre la teoria de la intervenció delictiva i els criteris d'imputació subjectiva, concentrant-se específicament en l'estructura de la coautoria en l'injust imprudent. Amb aquest propòsit, s'ofereix un enfocament centrat fonamentalment en aspectes de caràcter conceptual i estructural. Aquesta perspectiva d'anàlisi es desenvolupa emprant una determinada aproximació a les teories de la imputació i de l'acció. Després de sotmetre's a un examen particular, en aplicació d’ aquestes eines teòriques, es proposa una anàlisi coordinada de les modalitats d'intervenció delictiva i de les formes d'imputació subjectiva. Un cop fixat l'objecte, estructura i pressupostos de la coautoria, es defensa i desenvolupa la seva aplicació a l'injust imprudent. Per a això, s'ofereix una rèplica al conjunt de crítiques que acusen la seva presumpta incompatibilitat, així com també un estudi de les principals propostes constructives en la dogmàtica penal actual. A continuació, sobre la base de l'aparell conceptual de les teories de la imputació i de l'acció, es proposa un model d'anàlisi que vinculi els requisits interns tant de la coautoria com de la imprudència. Aquesta estructura s'aplica igualment als delictes d'omissió impròpia. La recerca finalitza oferint una delimitació amb altres casos de pluralitat d'autories en delictes imprudents que no satisfan els requisits de la coautoria., [eng] The current investigation’s objective is to analyse the internal relationships between the participation theory and the subjective dimension of crime. In particular it focuses in co- perpetration’s structure in negligent wrongful offences. For that purpose, the approach used throughout this research is focused essentially in conceptual and structural aspects. In order to develop this analysis, a specific approach to imputation theory and action theory is applied. After having undergone a particular examination, those theoretical tools are applied in order to propose a coordinated analysis of the modalities of criminal participation and the forms of subjective imputation. Once the object, structure and elements of co-perpetration have been established, their application to the negligent wrongful is sustained and developed. In order to do so, firstly, the set of criticisms that accuse of an alleged incompatibility is answered, as well as a study of the main proposals in the current state of the debate that do recognize this possibility is developed. Then, based on the conceptual framework of the imputation and action theories, an analysis model that links the internal requirements of both co-perpetration and negligence is proposed. This same structure will be applied to improper omission offences. The research ends by offering a delimitation with other instances of plurality of authorship in negligent crimes, which do not satisfy the requirements of co-perpetration.

The article deals with problem of joint criminal behavior of several subjects in reckless crimes.The author has exposed the genesis of discussion approaches concerning co-operation in domestic and foreign doctrine, as well as examples of co-infliction in crimes in terms of scientific and technological progress, confirmed by judicial practice. He has noted a spread of crimes with signs of co- infliction in the area of traffic, characterized by the guilt of several vehicles’ drivers. He has argued that the criminal law and judicial practice artificially divide these acts into several reckless crimes. Such an approach leads to an objective attitude to accuse one person for the result of criminal negligence behavior of other actors. He has disproved that there is a position in theory and court practice that only one person can be guilty of a road traffic crime.There is the critical analysis of the recommendation of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the practice of courts to apply legislation on road traffic offenses concerning the criminal liability of two or more drivers who have caused an emergency. Taking into account the theory, expert and judicial practice, the author has made the analysis of the concept «emergency situation» as an indication of the objective side of these crimes and its significance for co-infliction.He has concluded that co-infliction in a crime should be regulated by criminal law which in the theoretical and applied aspects requires the definition of: doctrinal principles of the institution of co-infliction; the concept of co-infliction in a crime and its features; forms of reckless co-infliction; types of participants in co-infliction; delimitation of co-infliction from complicity in a crime; peculiarities of criminal liability of subjects of infliction and their punishment; system of rules concerning co-infliction in a crime for introduction into criminal legislation., У статті розглянуто кримінально-правові питання співзаподіяння у злочині. Досліджено ґенезу підходів щодо поняття співзаподіяння та його зв’язку з ученням про співучасть у кримінальному праві. Проаналізовано судову практику, пов’язану із вчиненням необережного співзаподіяння. Окреслено коло питань щодо впровадження співзаподіяння у злочині в чинне кримінальне законодавство.

У статті розглянуто кримінально-правові питання співзаподіяння у злочині. Досліджено ґенезу підходів щодо поняття співзаподіяння та його зв’язку з ученням про співучасть у кримінальному праві. Проаналізовано судову практику, пов’язану із вчиненням необережного співзаподіяння. Окреслено коло питань щодо впровадження співзаподіяння у злочині в чинне кримінальне законодавство. The article deals with criminal-legal issues of co-infliction in a crime. The author has studied the genesis of approaches to the notion of co-infliction and its relation to the doctrine of complicity in criminal law. He has analyzed the judicial practice related to reckless co-infliction. He has outlined the scope of matters concerning the introduction of co-infliction in a crime into the current criminal law. В статье рассмотрены уголовно-правовые вопросы сопричинения в преступлении. Исследован генезис подходов относительно понятия сопричинения и его связи сучением о соучастии. Про-анализировано судебную практику, связанную с совершением неосторожного сопричинения. Очерчено круг вопросов, связанных с имплементацией сопричинения в преступлении в действующее уголовное законодательство.

Agnotology is the study of ignorance —how it is culturally created or condoned, and the purposes it serves in a society. Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor, a historian of science and technology, coined the word from the Greek agnosis, “not knowing,” and -ology, a subject of study or a branch of knowledge. The term first appeared in popular usage in 2003 in an article in the New York Times. “[A] great deal of attention has been given to epistemology (the study of how we know) when ‘how or why we don’t know’ is often just as important,” say Proctor and Londa Schiebinger in their seminal book Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. These authors have entered a target-rich territory, because the ways in which ignorance is created (agnogenesis) in our society are infinite—through media neglect and obfuscation, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, myriad forms of cultural and political selectivity, inattention and forgetfulness, outright attempts to deceive and mislead (aka lying), and more. Proctor believes the study of ignorance has life-or-death consequences. This conviction stems from his role in the tobacco controversies in the waning years of the 20th century, in which he was a stern critic of the industry. “The tobacco industry is famous for having seen itself as a manufacturer of two different products, tobacco and doubt,” he asserts. The doubt refers to the tobacco companies' insistence that the science impugning tobacco was pie