The elements of crime or crime are, according to the general theory of crime, the set of components and fundamental characteristics that make up every crime. Through these elements it is possible to study crime, through an organized disintegration.
For each particular case, these elements are taken into account by the authorities or the judges in charge of formulating a criminal trial. There is no universal and exact consensus regarding what the elements of the crime are, because there are variants in the different laws of each country.
The theory of crime develops the basic concept step by step and outlines the different elements that appear in all forms of crime. This theory, although it is based on legal criteria, is systematic, because it refers to the elements of all crimes.
This theory is structured from the definition of crime. Although the theory of crime is fully accepted, there are discrepancies regarding the relationship between its elements and the components of each of these.
Article index
It refers to the different people involved in the crime. It is divided into active subject and taxable person.
It is the person who is committing the crime. It will always be incarnated by a physical person. Additionally, these figures may be distinguished within the authorship of the crime:
It is who can suffer the crime. With regard to this type of subject, a distinction is made between:
- Personal subject: the natural person who is the victim of a crime.
- Impersonal subject: the legal person who is the victim of a crime, such as a company.
It refers to human conduct as the basis for the practice of crime. The concept of action also encompasses that of omission, since there may be a behavior where an omission avoids a specific action.
Its main function is that it serves to select the actions that could be relevant for criminal law.
An action to be classified as a crime must be voluntary: the accused must have control over the act. If a defendant acts on reflex, he does not meet the requirement to be a volunteer. For example, acting in self-defense.
The mental state of the person committing it must also be taken into account. A defendant can only be found guilty if there is criminal intent. An insane, sleepwalking or unconscious person is not to blame for omissions or actions committed.
It consists of refraining from taking any action that constitutes a legal duty. The omission not only supposes the capacity to act, but also the capacity to carry out that specific action, such action being required in specific circumstances. It can be proper or improper:
In this type, the breach of duty to carry out a certain action assigned by criminal regulations is typified. Although this non-compliance is not an injury, the necessary support is not provided.
For example, if someone does not help a person who is defenseless and in serious danger, even if he could help him without risk, he could be punished with a penalty.
Likewise, when someone stops paying for a certain time any kind of financial aid in favor of their children or spouse, established in a judicial resolution in the event of divorce, separation or filiation process, they may be punished with a penalty..
Its most characteristic point is that there must be a guarantor situation by which the subject must protect a specific legal asset. Failure to do so would be equal to a harmful action of that good.
It is framing human conduct within the criminal form. For example, if the legislation indicates in the article corresponding to homicide: "whoever kills another ...", there it is typifying the human conduct of killing another individual.
A behavior is typical when observing an equivalence between the elements of the actual event carried out and those described by the legal regulations. It could be said that the type is the evaluation of criminal behavior, because all the characteristics of the illegal action will be included there..
It is the devaluation that has a typical fact opposed to the legal system or the law. Therefore, not only a behavior must be typical, but it must not be supported by any cause that justifies it..
The unlawfulness is based on not complying with the provisions of the legal regulations. For a conduct to be criminal, it must not only be guilty and typical, but also unlawful.
Any conduct that is unlawful will be considered a crime, when comparing what is stipulated in the law with the conduct carried out by a specific subject.
It is the characteristic of the subject to be charged as guilty of a determined typically unlawful act. To declare a person guilty, it will be essential that their conduct has been typically unlawful..
To establish from a practical perspective if a subject is guilty, a set of evaluations must be carried out aimed at specifying the subject's ability in relation to their way of acting, according to these forms of responsibility or guilt:
- Negligence: crime committed by failure to act.
- Recklessness: crime committed by an action, which may have been prevented.
- Rule breaking: breaking known regulations or knowing there are rules but not knowing them.
- Inappropriateness: crime committed for lacking the minimum knowledge necessary to do what was done.
Not everyone considers it a true element of the crime. This is because the penalty does not turn out to be as significant in practice as the other elements that constitute the crime..
The penalty assumes demanding a conviction when the other elements of the crime are present. The penalty could be to impede an essential right such as liberty. On the other hand, the only ones authorized to impose the penalty are the judges.
Yet No Comments