Aberratio ictus in criminal law
Keywords:
Aberratio ictus; attempt model; intent model; theory of equivalence; theory of concretisationAbstract
This article discusses different legal solutions to situations referred to as 'aberratio ictus', in terms of its particular manifestation in criminal law. The concept of aberratio ictus, that can be translated as 'attack gone astray' is used to determine criminal responsibility of the offender, when his actions, directed to committing a specific offence, abberate from the expected course of events, resulting in harming an unintended object. Doctrinal solutions in this area variate between the theory of equivalence and the theory of concretisation, both of which impose exclusive arguments regarding the object of the intent. Thus, the first one emphasizes the protection of abstract values, that results in punishing the offender for the completed, intentional offence, despite the aberration. On the other hand, the reasoning behind the theory of concretization takes into account the relevance of the specific identification regarding the object of intent. According to this view, the offender is liable for the attempt towards the first object, accompanied with negligence liability for the result. It can be noticed that the legal nature of the protected objects appears as a decisive circumstance for determining criminal responsibility. Unlike the situations when the mentioned objects are not of equal values, where there is no doubt that aberratio ictus involves the responsibility consisting of the attempted offence, in addition to negligence towards the actual result, the equivalence of the attacked and harmed object, causes divergent opinions among different authors in legal theory. This affects not only the legal solutions in positive criminal law, which are mainly based on general rules, but also the judicial practice in this area, that is evidently not unique. Also, it can not be negated that these solutions are based on valuative criteria, giving the advantage to one value versus the other. After analyzing the application of suggested theories in practice and comparative legal solutions, the author pleads in favour of the attempt model, based on the theory of concretization, suggesting the possibility of its legal regulation in Serbian criminal law. Its advantages are therefore attached to better concordance with practical demands and main principles of criminal law in general.
Downloads
References
Ambos, Kai, and Sabine Bock. 2013. "Germany." In Participation in Crime: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Alan Reed and Michael Bohlander, 323–339. Ashgate, Burlington. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315599441-19
Bačić, Franjo. 1998. Kazneno pravo – Opći deo. Informator, Zagreb.
Bačić, Franjo, et al. 1978. Komentar Krivičnog zakona Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Savremena administracija, Beograd.
Badar, Mohamed Elewa. 2005. "Mistake of Law and Mistake of Fact in German Criminal Law: A Survey for International Criminal Tribunals." International Criminal Law Review 5 (2): 203–246. https://doi.org/10.1163/1571812054127790
Baumann, Jurgen. 1973. Derecho penal: Conceptos fundamentales y Sistema. Ediciones Depalma, Buenos Aires. (Translation of: Baumann, Jurgen. 1972. Grundbegriffe und System des Strafrechts. Eine Einführung in die Systematik an Hand von Fällen. Stuttgart, translated by C. A. Finzi).
Blomsma, Jelena. 2012. Mens Rea and Defences in European Criminal Law. Intersentia, London.
Boothby, Paul. 1968. "The Deflected Blow: Aberratio ictus." Rhodesian Law Journal 8 (1): 19–39.
Bott, Ives. 2006. "Comparación de derecho penal. Los errores de tipo y los problemas correspondientes en Alemania y Uruguay." Revista de derecho de la Universidad de Montevideo 9: 173–189.
Bohlander, Michael. 2010a. "Transferred Malice and Transferred Defences: A Critique of the Traditional Doctrine and Arguments for a Change in Paradigm." New Criminal Law Review 13 (3): 555–624. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2010.13.3.555
Bohlander, Michael. 2010b. "Problems of Transferred Malice in Multiple-actor Scenarios." The Journal of Criminal Law 74 (2): 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2010.74.2.626
Burkhardt, Bernd. 1996. "Some Questions and Comments on What is Called the Mental Element of the Offence." Israel Law Review 1–2: 82–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700014965
Čejović, Branimir, and Miroslav Kulić. 2011. Krivično pravo. Eseloge, Beograd.
Dubber, Markus, and Tatjana Hörnle. 2014. Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Đokić, Ivana. 2012. "Stvarna zabluda u krivičnom pravu." In Kaznena reakcija u Srbiji: Tematska monografija – II deo, edited by Đorđe Ignjatović, 266–288. Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd.
Đorđević, Miodrag, and Đorđe Đorđević. 2005. Krivično pravo sa osnovama privrednoprestupnog i prekršajnog prava. Projuris, Beograd.
Ghanayim, Khaled, and Mordechai Kremnitzer. 2014. "Mistaken Identity and Error in Performance: A Transferred Malice." Criminal Law Quarterly 61: 329–360.
Husak, Douglas. 2012. "Transferred Intent." Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 10 (1): 65–97.
Jakobs, Günther. 1995. Derecho penal, Parte General. Fundamentos y teoría de la imputación. Marcial Pons – Ediciones Jurídicas, Madrid. (Translation of: Jakobs, Günther. 1991. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, translated by J. C. Contreras and J. L. Serrano Gonzales de Murillo). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110906424
Jovašević, Dragan. 2016. Krivično pravo – Opšti deo. Dosije studio, Beograd.
Lazarević, Ljubomir. 2006. Komentar Krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije. Savremena administracija, Beograd.
Pain, John H. 1978. "Aberratio ictus: A Comedy of Errors and Deflection." South African Law Journal 95: 480–504.
Pradel, Jean. 2014. Droit Pénal Général. Édicions Cujas, Paris.
Radovanović, Milorad. 1969. Krivično pravo – Opšti deo. Savremena administracija, Beograd.
Roxin, Claus. 1997. Derecho penal, Parte General, Tomo I. Fundamentos. La estructura de la teoría del delito. Civitas, Madrid. (Translation of: Roxin, Claus. 1997. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, Band I: Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre. Auflage Beck, München, translated by D. M. Luzón Peña et al.).
Silva Sanchez, Jesus Maria. 1984. "Aberratio ictus e imputación objetiva." Annuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales 3: 347–386.
Silving, Helen. 1947. "The Unknown and the Unknowable in Law." California Law Review 35 (3): 352–379. https://doi.org/10.2307/3477252
Srzentić, Nikola, Aleksandar Stajić, and Ljubomir Lazarević. 1984. Krivično pravo SFRJ – Opšti deo. Savremena administracija, Beograd.
Stojanović, Zoran. 2016. Komentar Krivičnog zakonika. Službeni glasnik, Beograd.
Tahović, Josip. 1956. Komentar Krivičnog zakonika. Savremena administracija, Beograd.
Tahović, Josip. 1961. Krivično pravo – opšti deo. Savremena administracija, Beograd.
Trinchera, Tomas. 2015. "Questioni in tema di aberratio ictus." Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 3: 1412–1452.
Vuković, Svetozar, and Goran Stanojčić. 2016. Komentar Krivičnog zakonika. Poslovni biro, Beograd.
Welzel, Hans. 1956. Derecho penal – Parte general. Roque Depalma Editor, Buenos Aires. (Translated by Carlos F. Balestra).
Westen, Peter. 2013. "The Significance of Transferred Intent." Criminal Law and Philosophy 7: 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9169-6
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Slađana Jovanović
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, allowing others to share the work with proper attribution to the authors and acknowledgment of its original publication in this journal.
