Summary of Teoria del delito 1- Zaffaroni

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

In this video, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime, focusing on the concept of "mano del sigue el como del hecho." He states that in order to have the hand of heaven as the deed, he must first determine if there was deliberate wrongdoing. However, before determining if there was harm, he must first determine if the act was "dominable or not." If it is not, he will ask himself the subject's state of mind at the time of the action. If the act is dominable, the subject must also have the "dominaBILIDAD" to be able to control it. If not, the subject is a "partícipe." Partícipes are not equal to authors, as they do not have the requisite knowledge and skill to control the act.

00:00:00 In this video, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime, outlining the three criteria for a crime to exist: a human action, a conflictual situation, and an objective fact. He then goes on to discuss the concept of a crime in legal terms, explaining that a crime must involve a conflictual situation and an objective fact that is legally permissible. Finally, he discusses a specific crime, robbery, and how it meets all three criteria. Dusko Monti's example of a geometrical figure in a norm provides an illustrative example of how a norm can be a part of a crime.
00:05:00 In this video, Zaffaroni explains the theory of crime, which states that in cases of conflict, the law will allow a person to solve the conflict in whatever way they see fit. He then goes on to say that, even if the conflict is resolved in this way, it is still resolved and the person can go home. If the conflict cannot be resolved this way, the law will allow for a personal reproof. He finishes by saying that the third crime - unjust punishment - can be reproached, and provides an example of how this might happen.
00:10:00 The video discusses the concept of "conducta," which is defined as the behavior that constitutes a crime. The video points out that this concept is derived from common life and common sense, to some extent. The main concept, "conducta," is the behavior that is required to have a crime be effective. This principle is derived from the country's Constitution, which states that there cannot be a crime without a certain type of behavior. The video then goes on to explain that the concept of "conducta" is not something that I need to go find in the Constitution. It is something that is imposed by the law. The law can limit the definition of "conducta," but the concept of "conducta" is still based on an objective point of view. It is up to the particular science to find evidence of the behavior that they are studying, and the law has the same right to select that data as any other discipline. The goal of the law when drafting the concept of "conducta" is to make the constitutional principle of non-crimes a reality. Any crime without "conducta" would be considered null and void.
00:15:00 Zaffaroni explains the theory of crime, which states that to commit a crime, two essential facts must be present: the will and the externalization of the will. These two elements are necessary and sufficient for crime to take place, and they are not based on any subjective or emotional factors. Instead, the theory holds that all crimes take place in a human-made world of fantasy, where the subject is temporarily or permanently incapable of exercising their will. This incapacity can be due to a mental disorder, such as an oligofrénico, who does not have a mental capacity to act on their own volition. The second possibility is that the subject has lost their ability to will due to a traumatic event. However, even in these cases, Zaffaroni argues that the criminal act still takes place, as the lack of will is only an external factor that must be present for the crime to take place. Furthermore, he points out that the concept of crime is not limited to objective facts such as the act itself, but also includes thoughts and feelings (such as hate), which are not necessarily manifested in outward actions. Finally, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime in relation to the legal concept of mens rea, or criminal
00:20:00 The video discusses the theory of crime, which states that there must be a voluntariness impairment in culpability in order to have incapacity of conduct. In order to have this impairment, there must be an unconscious state of mind, which is referred to as privation of conscience. There must also be an external force that is irresistible, either internally or externally. This force is known as irresistible force, and it can be either an internal or external paralysis. The consequences of saying that a person is legally unable to act are notable, as it would mean that they would not be able to defend themselves in criminal law. However, this theory does not change any of the fundamental principles of criminal law. It is instead a discussion of organicism, which is the theory that the brain is located here and the other limbs are over there. A person juridical is unable to act, but this does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions. They may still be subject to administrative sanctions, alongside criminal sanctions. I will not list all of the consequences here, as you will see them for yourself in the video.
00:25:00 The video discusses the theory of crime, according to which the defendant has the same breadth of legitimate defense as there is no fundamental proportion between the aggressive action and the defensive action. Who uses whom and to what end is the direct actor not the indirect actor without me bearing responsibility, and throws it on top of another person I am the direct actor of the fact hiding the same way but with the same effect as if you were to use this hammer or if you throw a bag filled with bricks there are types that require intervention of 23 more people etcetera, types that have multiple objectives in the case of types with multiple objectives I can't count as an intervention more the one of a person who does not engage in behavior, that is to say I have to count the intervention of those who engage in behavior. There can be some doubt about the mental capacity in some states of sleep hypnosis etc. The person performing the conduct does not perform the behavior and there are scientific discussions by neurologists etc. and can be planted a real doubt in penalizing a question of fact in each case I believe that has to be resolved and if there is a situation of doubt has to function the in dubio pro reo' in doubt I have to be the most favorable to the subject
00:30:00 The video discusses the theory that crime functions as a form of punishment, but also serves as a way to limit the power of the positive. Without a type of penal system, positive power is exercised at the discretion of the individual, as has been the case in some political regimes, such as the penal system in Nazi Germany. The right penal system, without a type penal, eventually becomes a criminal law of author. It is a search for enemy in the search for enemy, and the judge becomes a policeman instead. There are no policemen, no judges, and no power of containment.
00:35:00 This video discusses the theory of the crime, focusing on the concept of the crime being a form of conflict resolution between the will of the subject and the goal of that will. It goes on to discuss the two main types of crime-dolosus activus and culposus activus- and their respective criminal penalties. Finally, it covers the concept of fault, which is used to differentiate between these types of crimes.
00:40:00 The video discusses the difference between criminal offenses and civil wrongs, and how criminal offenses have a result (usually physical injury or damage to property) while civil wrongs do not. The video then goes on to discuss the different types of criminal offenses, and how the criminal intent and the criminal act must both be present for a criminal offense to be committed. Once the criminal intent and criminal act are both present, the criminal offense is then classified as either a type- A or type-B offense. Type-A offenses require that the criminal act have a specific result (usually physical injury), while type-B offenses do not. The video then goes on to discuss the different types of type-B offenses, and how the criminal intent and criminal act must both be present for the offense to be committed. Once the criminal intent and criminal act are both present, the offense can be classified as either a felony or a misdemeanor. The video finishes by discussing the different types of felony offenses, and how the criminal intent and criminal act must both be present for the offense to be committed.
00:45:00 <could not summarize>
00:50:00 This video discusses the classification of criminal offenses, based on the requirements that different types of offenses have. This has led to the development of something called "parte general de la parte especial," or "parte general of the special part." The parte general de la parte especial covers general principles of criminal law, while the other two parts cover specific types of offenses. There are three basic types of offenses: subsistent, independent, and subordinate. There are also several aggravated and privileged types of offenses. The basic offense is the simplest type, while the aggravated and privileged offenses are more complex. There are very few privileged offenses in the penal code, because Rodolfo Moreno had been very careful in drafting it. Now, due to our intelligent legislator, all privileged offenses have been raised to the level of basic offenses. We no longer have privileged offenses, and we have high minimums instead. However, there are legislative inconsistencies, which leave open the possibility of a criminal act being prosecuted as the act of the perpetrator, without the need for a causal relationship between the act and the perpetrator. This is called "pragma binding." If I cannot prosecute an act as the act of the perpetrator, then it is not a criminal act.
00:55:00 Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime, focusing on the concept of "mano del sigue el como del hecho." He states that in order to have the hand of heaven as the deed, he must first determine if there was deliberate wrongdoing. However, before determining if there was harm, he must first determine if the act was "dominable or not." If it is not, he will ask himself the subject's state of mind at the time of the action. If the act is dominable, the subject must also have the "dominaBILIDAD" to be able to control it. If not, the subject is a "partícipe." Partícipes are not equal to authors, as they do not have the requisite knowledge and skill to control the act.

01:00:00 - 01:40:00

In the video, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime and how motive can be used to determine the severity of a crime. He distinguishes between three types of motive: subjective, objective, and ultra-objective. He argues that motive is an important factor in determining a crime's severity and that, in most cases, motive requires repetition for it to be considered habitual.

01:00:00 In this video, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime and how it can be broken down into two categories: the banal and the criminal. He explains that the banal nature of an act doesn't always equate to a criminal act, and that it depends on the situation at hand. The roles that we take on in our lives are always dynamic, and can change based on the current circumstances. In order to determine whether an act is criminal or not, we need to take into account the entire legal framework in which the crime takes place. This includes the law that defines the crime, as well as the other laws that are in place that may impact the situation. The principle of offense or harm in criminal law is derived clearly from the article 19 of the national Constitution. Offense is the basis of the criminal type objective, which has a value-promoting function and a determinant function. It directs the actor towards a subject to determine their behavior, and it is true that it also directs those who interpret criminal law to evaluate the conduct. However, offense does not have one sole function: it is also a determinant of harm. A law that has this dual function is termed a "determinant law." The state is always available to act in
01:05:00 In this video, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of the crime. He states that the possibility of using an object to perform ourselves is what defines the concept of 'social de derecho'. He goes on to say that using the state as a tool to achieve our goals within the democratic space is acceptable, as long as we are aware of the security we are providing. He also points out that, as long as we rely on the state every day, we are using the state in a clear way. If we did not have these security guarantees, we would lack many essential legal protections. Almost all of our activities take place within the context of the state providing us with a guarantee that we will not be killed. However, if one's life is used throughout the entirety of their life, then that is still considered use of the state. Zaffaroni argues that the only thing the criminal law does is demand that a juridical harm be inflicted on a juridical good, which is already protected by law. The moral private sphere cannot create moral goods and cannot justify actions that harm the juridical good of the individual. Finally, Zaffaroni points out that, because the principle of non-action without harm is based on the article 19
01:10:00 One way to try to destroy the concept of juridical harm as a limit on the power of the state is to invent the abstract danger of danger. This abstract danger is when there is a risk of danger in the attempt. This replicating of that danger would result in all behaviors being dangerous. Another interpretation of the abstract danger is that it tries to eliminatetheguarantee of this limit. There are other ways to eliminate this limit that is to invent new juridical concepts all the time. These new juridical concepts will affect real juridical property. They are not real, and the principle of insignificance, which is a principle from Roman law, is important to remember. There are cases where juridical harm is absolutely insignificant and, as a result, the conduct is atypical. When looking at the objective type of harm, I must understand that the normativesthat I am dealing with is not a chaos. However, the legislator sometimes seems blind, and I find paintings in the museum that I cannot understand. However, when I look at the juridical system as a whole or as one unnamed rule, I find that there are normas that cut other normas directly. This is the fulfillment of
01:15:00 In this video, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime, focusing on the concept of típica conduct. He states that, in order to be guilty of a crime, an act must be typical of the behavior, as defined by the law that imposes that duty. He goes on to say that this law, which prohibits me from violating it, is the rule that is limiting the behavior that I can consider to be typical. In the case of fulfilling a legal duty, it is clear to me that this is not as clear as it is in doctrine, as some people maintain that in case of a collision between these two norms, and an innocence situation, I do not believe there is any situation of inculpability. The principle of republican government requires me to know what is due in each situation, if then, well, I can have some confusion about the hierarchy of duties. That is another thing, but in every situation the right must tell me what I am obliged to do, and not tell me anything and let me do anything at once. This then makes me crazy--I have no order of normativity to rely on for anything. Evidently, there always exists a superior duty that is pre-eminent, and I can be mistaken
01:20:00 <could not summarize>
01:25:00 In this video, Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime, specifically discussing the difference between a vencible and invencible error. He explains that an error that is venible can be corrected by someone using normal effort, while an error that is invencible cannot be corrected. He also discusses the difference between an error that excludes all pain, called an error of type error, and an error that excludes only criminal intent, called an error of type criminal. Finally, he explains that an error that is venible can lead to a criminal charge, but an error that is invencible cannot.
01:30:00 The video discusses the concept of "absolute arbitrariness" and its various manifestations, including the impersonal error and the eventuality. According to the presenter, the impersonal error is actually a value-based judgement by the judge, while the eventuality refers to a hypothetical situation in which the person carrying out the act mistakenly identifies the object they are attacking as someone else. In either case, the act is still considered criminal, regardless of whether the victim is actually killed. The main problem with the two general forms of ictus is that they can happen prematurely or be delayed beyond what was intended. If I want to kill someone, and then throw their body into a river to make it look like an accident happened, my act would still be considered criminal, even though I actually killed the person unintentionally. If I fight someone and believe they are dead, and then throw their body into the river, my act would be considered two separate crimes - murder and attempted murder. However, if I fight someone, and then accidentally kill them while trying to harm them, my act would only be attempted murder, since I did not intent to kill them. In either case, the solution would still be determined by a hypothetical "perfect" criminal trial, in which all possible intentions
01:35:00 Zaffaroni discusses the different types of crime, including those where greater difficulties are encountered in prosecuting because of the subjective element of guilt. He notes that in some cases the subjective element is hypertrofiated in relation to the objective element, making the subjective element more important than the objective element in certain cases. Zaffaroni goes on to discuss crimes of subjective intent, which are considered constitutional because they involve elements of subjective intent that are not solely related to achieving a desired result. This includes cases such as the theft of goods that is not simply motivated by the desire to acquire property, but by the desire to take advantage of a situation in which the victim is in a vulnerable position. Zaffaroni also discusses crimes of subjective motive, which are considered to be particularly dangerous because they allow for arbitrary interpretation of the law in favor of friends, without taking into account the potential harm that such a policy could inflict on innocent people.
01:40:00 In this video, Professor Francesco Zaffaroni discusses the theory of crime, specifically focusing on the concept of motive. Zaffaroni distinguishes between three types of motive: subjective, objective, and ultra-objective. Subjective motive refers to an individual's own feelings or emotions, objective motive refers to the external factors that influenced the crime, and ultra-objective motive refers to the criminal's specific reasons for committing the crime. Zaffaroni argues that motive is an important factor in determining a crime's severity. He points out that, in most cases, motive requires repetition for it to be considered habitual. He also points out that certain emotions, such as anger or revenge, can be considered habitual even if they don't require repetition. Zaffaroni concludes the video by discussing the difference between subjective and objective motive and the different ways in which they can influence a crime's severity.