Materials for the Study of the Penal Law of Ethiopia by Steven Lowenstein (1965) by jahrastafari89

' (

, I; .

'Ct

••

________

BOUND 10 PLEAS! •

.,.,.,

MATERIALS FOR THE STUDY OF

TiiE PENAL LA

Of ETHIOPIA

STEVEN LC)WENSTEIN

.'I'• �-' . •

.... --� ...:,.,_ • -.;... • • I•

•'

FACULTY OF LAW HAILE SELLASSIE I UNIVERSITY ADDIS ABABA 1967, 211d PRINTING .

. .

-·•."'t•. •... -�·-.. .J -·' .� . .. .'. ... ...,

' 'I'! '

" r '., • :.! �

., I

.. ., .

·-

.,•

KRt)

�18(}0

�L6836

J. 9 6 5

•

: ' 1 ,• •

. . ..

- :.. ·

-....,- · ......

•,•

•

• "', '. .'' -: ...

.: \ '

' 'J

' '

·: I

.,' ''

, .,, .· . ,.. .

..... _...,,,:

...

MATERIALS FOR THE STUDY OF

THE PENAL LAW OF ETI-IIOl»J1\

. . .

. ',.;

- ..

. ....,

...

:·

......

· ··- ··,

. . .. ,;,

...

PUBLICATIONS OF THE FACULTY OF LAW HAILE SELLASSIE I UNIVERSITY W LA N IA P IO H T E F O L A RN U JO THE Published twice annually at the faculty of Law, Haile Sellassie I University in co-operation with the Ministry of Justice, Imperial Ethiopian Government. (In Etl,iopia1 £.$3.50; internationally. U.S.SJ.50 per iss�)

MATERIALS FOR THE STUDY OF THE PENAL LAW Of ETHIOPIA (1965)

...."''

Steven Lowenstein, faculty of Law, Haile Sellassie I University.

• •• I I! :r • �•• •I . ', .,'_

(In Ethiopia, E.$10.00; internationally. U.S $10.00)

, ..

.... •... . . .. ,·,

' : .1 .. . .' ' . '

THE CONFLICT Of LAWS IN ETHIOPIA (1965) Robert Allen Sedler, faculty of Law, Haile Sellassie I University.

•

.. .

.. '

( In EriJiopia1 E.$2.50; internationally, U.S.S2.50)

Ai'l JI\JTRODUCTION TO ETHIOPIAN PENAL LAW (1965) Philippe Graven, Ministry of Justice, Imperial Ethiopian Government. ( /rJ. ,E.t};ioj,i,:� £.$ 10.00; internation4/ly, U.S.$ 10.00}

.. .

J(>t:f:JT P�.Ji.,11.ECi\. flONS OF 1 HE FACULTY OF LAW }t.i',�ii.) '[I�fE. INS•l�ITUTE OF ETHIOPIAN STUDIES ..1-r. .7,, .l JL,

., • I

. I

...

J.y_, AND

1EN J. 1 URE

SERIES

i.f.,i,] [i ,�I-·i.i.\R'!"ERS Of NORTHER!\! ETHIOPIA (1965) (J.'IXr. B. f·Iuntirigford, Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, lJ1,iversi1y f)f Lo11don. (!n Ethiopia, E.$10.00; internationally. U.S.$5.00)

. ! • i ''

f-'ll.OT i= f ELD STUDY OF CI- IORE (SHOA) (1965) Ii. S. Mann, Rural Institutions Officer, F. A.O., United Nations. ( In Ethiopia, E.$6.00; intern.1tionally, U.S.S2.50)

I • II •• I

.. I

•

. .:1

All of the abo�e wor�s may be J)Urchased in Ethiopia from the Faculty of Law, _ _ Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Etl11op ·ty p ress, 1a1 or inlernalio11 allvJ, from Oxford U n1vers1 · · b1,, Kenya and , . 2 ox 1253 Na , 1ro Box 1024 ' Addis Ababa, Eth'1op1a. B

I.J'\. 1:\. r.;, •> -, n c- _::, 0 Q Q • L .

6 8 3 6 J. 9 6 �)

L I.J �... ,e 11 S t e j• 11 I

..,_ \. ;-\ w ·t i.=:11::::n c

Ma·terial� .... . f·rJ ,. r .,__ .,_ L 11 e s t . - ud y f tl1e penal law of Ethl opi;

MATERIALS FOR THE STUDY OF

THE PENAL LAW OF ETHIOPIA

,·

. '

STEVEN LOWENSTEit� .. . · - ..-··-.. . . .. .

Faculty of Law

Haile Sellassie I University

'·

-• '

-�

-. -. .

· ..· . .. '

- .

. ,. · ' .....

·.

..•

. . 4

. ''

:. . ..

· ..

',.

:'. •

.. .'

.,:,

. •

PU LISHED BY THE fACULTV OF LAW HAILE SELLASSIE I UNIVERSITY

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in association with

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Addis Ababa - Nairobi 1965

, . .,, . '

. .

.. . .

40G74

•

.' •....'• l I•

'.......•·'•�,..'·'' t., ; I. ... .i.. l,, ' I:·..··J

� I

•:

>'.

....- . II.... ' . '

•

. .

·-

-·.

.' . .. . ' '. .. ... ..

...

.. .... \

·.

J••.:

Printed at t)1e Central Printing Press Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

------- .•

·.

•

For RUSTY

...

•,

·.

·I

·.. r . ,> ...

I,.. .,•.'•. .. r

Ft .:' .'' I

..'... . '

.,'

. .,

•

•I

l . 'I '

Foreword co nc nt l�a l' ro fn nt du cti on au l Code penal de l'Empire d'Etl1iopie du 23 . .. et 1957, Je renda _ ts naturellement ho mage a I' Autorite souveraine qui JUll� !Il _ , ava1t voulu cette oeuvre novatr1ce et l ava1t rendue possible au ''Renovateur et 1 1 legislateur de l'Ethiopie''. Car l'ensemble monumental de la leaislation moderne · ste ent fi er de de. I, ant·tqu� royau�e d u ''P re'"'t re J ea n,, Ju son Feti,a Neg1,est (les _ _ � _ , f.°,s des _&is), �?nst!fue dans l evo! ut1on de I �tl11op e u e profonde et veritable ! � . rlvolutton pa1s1ble , dont les fruits do1vent etre b1enfa1sants pour l'ave11ir dLt pays et pour le peuple ethiopien. Mais, conscient des exigenc es de ce procl1e avenir et pdes innovatioi1s et r�fonnes que devait entrainer la nouvelle legislatio11, je n avais pt1 i11at1quer d'attirer ('attention sur celles qu'appelleraien t aussi en derniere analyse l' iipplicatio1i des lois nouvelles et leur juste comprel1ension, a cote des difficultes de la codification meme. Elles s'inserent en effet da11s t111e trame r1at1011 ale, j Lt ricl ique, economique et sociale profondement nouvelle, comme S. lv\. l'E1npereL1r 1·a,1ait souligne dans ses directives a la Commission de legislation et l'a co11fir111t lors de 1a promul gation du nouveau Code pe11al en 1957. ''La codification des branches fondame11tales d11 d roi t 111 est ja111ais r1i er1 aucun pays une tache aisee - relevait le Souverai11 - car elle cloit avoir ses racines profondes dans la vie et les traditions de la nation, tot1t en te11a11t compte des influences , non seuleme n t juridiques, mais at1ssi social es, ecor1 c>111 i ques et scientifiques qui sont en train de fa�onner notre v·ie et celle du J)a)'S, et fa�onneront inevitablement Ia vie de ceux qui nous suivro11t. Ces co11side rations valent particulierement pour le droit penal a ttne epoque 011, a travers )e monde, ('e]argissement des frontiereS de }a SOCiete du atlX apfJOftS de la science, Jes complexites de la vie moderne et l'accroisse ment correspo11da11t dt1 volume des lois demandent que des mesures �fficaces, _ , mais l1t1m�i11es et libera les, soient prises pour assurer que les prescr1pt1ons legales atte1g11ent au bltt de regles de conduite qui Ieur est assig11e. Des concepts nouveaux _so11t ap!Ja rus, fruits de Ia science juridique de la sociologie, d e la psycl1olog1e et, bien 1 entendu, de la penologie, et ils n� p euvent etre ignores da!1s l �laboration_ d't111 Code penal qui, fonde sur des principes de justice et de l1berte, se �ouc1e de la .P��vention et de la suppression du crime, d!-1 traitem�nt et de la reforme du cnm1nel'' sans naturellement abandonner la pe1ne, en 1·a1son de son e xempla rit�, car �lie doit ''servir d'avertissement aux delinqua11ts''. Songeant a }'application du droit ecrit nouveau sur de vast es ter rit? ires er� gran�e partie encore regis par la coutume, et a ces sages �ecomm_anda�1011s q� t deva1ent guider la pratique, j'avais rappele les m�sures q111 devra1e11t et: e pri ses et dont certaines avaient commence d'etre prises ''pour assurer_ le develo1J pement de l'education, la for111ation des elites, le recrutem e 11t des Juges et des b

11blie e1 p 7, 195 let ttil 23 du l pen de Co au :t ti F.mp ! l trod 11C on i op Ethi m, n iTt Mf pb,.J _ 1959, P· 5 Cotk I.A I. is, e Par e, par com tt gu fran�se (version originale) par le Centre franc;ais de Dro lan 38i conclusion p. 37. Traduction anglaise dans ''Journal of Ethiopian Law", vol. 1. No. 2, 1964, P. 267 l 298.

�

FOREWORD

\t I I l

• j

. �,· ··r

' •i ...� � · :�1

..... 'I ·.�· ·.�-,..· .. .. •.

:. �

: ',

. 1'

• •

'' ' '

., ..J,

•'

:I,

. .: • . .

. .

. ' •

. ..I

·! I l I

�

magistrats, et Ia reorga11isatio11 d�s tribu11aux''. , Car, ainsi qu'on I'� dit avec raison, 1 neme u11 code 1nedioc�e, , 1, ncom1Jlet OLt d� passe peut �onn�r d_ a� sez hons resultats pratiques s'1I est appl1que par des 1nag1strats 1nstru1ts, � cla1res et pru de,1ts· ,nais meme le 1nei llet1 r des codes peut don11er de mauva1s resultats et dece;oir l· es espera11ces n1ises e11 l11i, si se_� _ dispositions sont mal connues ou mal comprises, mal i11ter1Jretees et 1nal apJ)l1quees. C'est pourquoi je 11e croyais pas depla�e, de formuler u_ne sorte _ de m1ise en garde ou plutot, de rafJpeler la 11ecess1te de Ia for?'1�t1on attentive d un corps juridique de valet1r, en releva11_t _que ''lorsque Ies Iegtslateurs auront ac compli Ieur ceuvre, ce sera aux pr�t1c1e_11s �e com1nencer la_ le�r pour assurer le succes veritable de cette e11trepr1se h1stor1que de moder111sat1on du systeme juridiqt1e judiciaire et J Je11ologique· d'L111 pays qui, pendant des siecles, a con serve le droit et Jes institutions Ies 1Jlus a11tiques du monde''. J'ajoutais que ''cette o:L1vre de la r11ise e11 pratique 11e sera pas, des deux, Ia mains difficile''. Car on imagine les lJrobJemes de personnes et d'i11stitutions que pose. le pas sage - pouvait-on dire e11 scl1ematisa11t de maniere frappante cette immense entreprise, - du Code de JL1sti11ien ou de l'empereur Constantin, ou du Code de l'emrJereur Zara Vacob att Code n1oder11e de l'empereur Haile Selassie: C'est en effet jt1sq11'a l'emJJeret1r Constantin et jusqu'au concile de Nicee en 325 (JLte la tradiiio11 ell1iofJie1111e fait re1nonter l'origine des Lois des Rois, dont l't:1nrJ�ret1r Zara Yacob, pri11ce ain1ant la justice et a qui elles etaient familieres, fit r,i1)�1.11circ ei1 t.tl1ioJJie, at1 XVIe1ne siecle, Ia version traduite en Iangue gheet . f_a s<1. gesse des 11atio11s dit que l'on connait I'arbre a ses fruits: 1eur valeur gar?!1lit la <1L1alile cle la soL1cl1e qtti les produit. En 11otant done que cette en trc1Jri.�e de f\)TJTiJlio11 cl'1.111e elite scie11tifiqL1e et de cadres superieurs etait en cc.Ju.rs, j'eJ�1Jrirn2.is 1113. foi dans sa reussite apres avoir eu tout loisir pendant JJ!us de cleux a11s de collaboratio11 co11stante, de mesurer la vivacite d'intelli g·c:,�ce et d'assirnilation, et la justesse du sens juridique de I'Ethiopien. Je rap fJelr..is !es resttltats deja obte11us par Ia creation du College universitaire et de so11 l::cc1 le de droit, i11augures le 27 fevrier 1951, et par !'allocation de nom l)r1:L1ses t,ourses aux "l)acl1e)iers'' qu'elle formait, e11 vue de Ia poursuite et de racl1even1e11t de leurs etudes universitaires et l'obte11tion des grades superieurs fi l'etrz.11g·er; en atte11dant l'ouverture desiree et promise d'une Universite natio na1c ethiorJien11e, I' U11iversitc Haile Selassie fer, effectivement constituee et ou \1erte depuis lors. 2 l-=:e \1 0:u. sig11ifiail 11alttrellement aussi l'attente et la necessite d'une science lf:r cjroii petial c !/Jiopien/ cl'1111e doctri17:e qtti se revelerait et s'amplifierait dans Jes con �ac�ees at1 11ot1vea11 dro1t ,et_ �a11s les Commentaires du Code penal, _ �tuctes �u1da11t la J ur1spruder1ce dans ses dec1s1ons, pour assurer ta bonne marche des ir �stitutior1s judicia }res et , legislatives nouvelles, l'approfondissement du droit recent, et le prog·res general auquel tend tout cet extraordinaire et meritoire effort. Ce � ceu se realis� at1jo11rcl'l1ui fJuisque M. le professeur Steven LOWENSTEIN qu1 ense1gne le Dro1t pe11al ethiopien a l1Universite Haile Selassie Ier, publie I� •

nouve�u droit penal _e1/�iopie11:. De la plus ancienne d /11 plus rectn te /; islati on du mondt clans Revue 1nter� 1at1onale de cr1n11nolog1e et de police technique" Geneve g • • 1954, No. 4, P ·' - ss ., et·• De /' an tiq� e "" n?uveau drort- pen , al e'th·iopt-en, dans "La Vie Judicia ?50 irc" Paris' oct obr e I 954 · Nos. 445 et 446. Vo1r auss1 nos aulres considerations dans·• L•� ; , a1 n UJ · ,� · .. .. b.l 't ' d " o,iro nntm c mt ' ,mp� i . . . , II . nouveIIe ''eg,s. Iatio. � �,., u;sop,enne, "La v·1e J�drc1a1re , Paris, avril-mai 1955, Nos. 525 et 52(j, et: l'E thio it 1noderne et la codificat1o_ n du nou�i1ear1 drozt, dans "Revue penale suisse'', Berne, 1957 No. 4 p. 397�. �;

-· --

l/ers

·-

":'

·-,·.--.

i•

FOREWORD

pres�nt Manuel desti�e aux ,et�diants, aux praticiens, avocats, procureurs et mag1strats,. et au pu� _ l1c en general. 11 rendra effectivement ainsi Ja connaissance �e ce dro1t plus a1see et _accessi�le a tous ceux qui auront interet a ne pas ignorer son s �ns et ses _1nnoyat1 ?ns, a bien le comprendre dans sa lettre et d�ns son . .esprit, pour _ qu'1I s01t b1e11 applique . Je sttis particulierement heureux d 1nt_rodu1re ce pre1!11e � Manuel par qt1elques considerations generates . Elles so�ltgneront la cont1n�1te de l'effort accompli, et la commu11aute d'inspiration qui pourra se reconna1tre, comme nous le souhaitons l'un et l'autre entre }'au teur du Code et le maitre cl1arge de l'expliquer et d'e11 exprimer' fide]ement le sens et le but dans son enseigneme11t. L'initiation a un droit aussi totalement nouveau est en effet delicate. Car ce droit differe du droit etl,iopien tradition11e] et du droit ethiopien ecrit in� troduit pa! _le Code . penal dt1 2 novembre 1930 (23 tekemt 1923) qui avail ete de l'Empereur Haile S�lassie Ier1 aussi promulgue a l'occaston du couronnement 1 bien que du droit de ''common law L'esprit, les tecl1niques, les dispr:sitio11s et le systeme en general re]event de conceptions souver1t eloignees dans ]'hii)� toire, le temps, la nature des infractions ou la va.le11r et Ie sei1s c!(::S nen;11ite::.. ce qui ne peut qu'entrainer ou meme accroitre le- risqt1e de conf11�.Ic,11s (l'L\ d� malentendus. La science contemporaine du droit com1Ja.re a precise�Tlerii 1)()1lT but de ('eviter OU d'y remedier. '.

Dans l'Introd uction generate au Code du 23 jui]Iel 195'7 f!Ui fait 1 ! o!)jct (ie. l'enseignement et de l'ouvrage bie11venu de M. le professeur .Lo-,;":1er1siel;·1; j;:: ::·f. ;t suis efforce de mettre brievement en lumie1·e les differences, ainsi CfiJ.e 1'1dfc profonde, qui se trouvent dans les Lois des Rois comme dans le Coe;:: i)cnai. transitoire de 1930 et surtout dans le nouveau Code de 1957, er1 ctegage:111t �es grands traits de ''sa structure, ses principes et son esprit'' (cl1apitre 11, c:t!ii, 1), et j'ai cl1erche a montrer en quoi consistait la rechercl1e de la i'cor1c:iliati{)11 c,e la tradition et du progres''. On y trouve resumes, d'une part l'inspiratioil puisee dans la tradition, ou plus exactement dans 1a conception fondan1entale trad_it1011nelle du droit et du sentiment inne de justice (chif. II), et cl'autre part 1.111 cer tain nombre de dispositions caracteristiques mettant en evidence }'esprit et les besoins nouveaux {chif. II I). Ces traits essentie1s du ''portrait'' du droit per1al ethiopien contemporain, si l'on peut employer cette image, font mieux appa rattre le passage ''du plus ancien au plus recent dr?it penal_ du mond�''1. tel _ que l'esquisse de sa premiere analyse, en 1954, te�ta1t d e� signaler la <;ltfitct1l te et l'interet. Ce probleme reste le probleme capital, et 11 a ete repr1s dans l'etude generate qu'il me fut donne d'exposer [ors d'un d�bat entre juristes europeens et africains qui eut lieu en octobre 1963 a. Ven1se sur le theme: ''droit coutumier et droit legal'', et derechef en mars 1964, dans un cours au Centre Europeen universitaire de Nancy sur ''l'apport europeen en matiere de droit penal aux pays africains'' places devant la tache ardue mais passion nante de se donner des Codes modernes. 3 Ce qu'il m'avait paru indispensable de sot1ligner, en ce .qui concerne le . 3. Et•des sur It droit coutumiu afric,:,in, Collo9u� ten11 du � au � _ octobre 19�3 a la Fondati�13 Gtorgio Cini, sur le theme: Droit coutumier et droit legal; du droJt traditzonnel au drozt modernt! organise en liaison avec Ia Societe Africaine de Culture, sous le patronage de l'Unesco; Jes divers rap ports, les debals ct Jes conclusions paraitront dans les "Quaderni di San Giorgio'' en cours d'impression ( Editions Sansoni, a Florence). Cons�lter d'autr� part n�!re vt1e _d'e,nsemble au Ce� tr.e Europeen Universitaire de Nancy (�ran�e): L apport tu� �petn m mat1ert ck dro1t pt"::l 11NX Pays •fric_aJns tn wit d,: dJvtloppt:mmt, Cours de I !n�t1t11t (non p�bltes), ct synthese dans. Ia Revue de droit p�nal et de criminologie'', Bruxelles ! J Lttl!et 1 ?6� ; t! re a part, p. 6 ss. et spec1alement, en ce qui concerne le droit coutumier et la cod1f1cat1on eth1op1enne, p. 17, et p. 32 a 37.

liif1 ] :' . -

1=0REWORD

e p i 11_ co f ti? di i�a s e am �ll u� , no sa l et he ric si 11 tio droit penal elliiofJier1, sa tradi 1 _ et o spi ir tuetle qu I rea 1se 1

.".

· ::

.. . ! -.. ..· l

. I '

! I

, I I

. .. . . i . .

. ..

nt se, la t}Je sy� 1e, � 111 do 'il qu e pl in xe ] l'e st c'e _ e, ce ati av et m e prca bu1 e 1mper1a 1 1 s d an . e me s� rc et ue er<; arJ 11 bie s tre ete ait av ite la possibil nt _ et com 16! 15 e 5, les _ !1c a1t {ar ntr mo le_ bu arn pre Ce 0. n;i 193 du Code · 1Jenal de s_ �e au og r en p_ t�r s ap s ad 1t va 1ns de et a1t uv po e rn de 111o 11 pie iio etl ur ate isl leg le e i gu qu t1n d1s n ctio e : de �e cor t bu d� et. e tic j11s de t s Jri I'e de pirant encore 1 s en rs pe alo ro p eu s o1t �r r1s s _ �e s 11Je 111c pr ]es e qu ait ev rel ii et , Fe c/1a Negrtest 1t rne s?1 }t de ,. ye! mo sou ?n at1 1f1� cod de vre oeu . ere ,ni JJre te cet de e del mo ur po i se trouvent exprrmes dans l a ve11�rable leg1s encore tres voisi115 de ceux qu 1 nt v1e que la . �e sou on and qu t �an : i eto pas est n i Ce qu ne: ien latio11 etliiop u� et q �no l1_ t rom ?1b ran cou au 1ee rel est s Roi des des s 1 1 Lo� io dit 1te tra lial . 1 cl1retien, a travers I'Egl1se d Alexandr1e dont la branche d Eth1op1e a garde le plllS at1tl1e11tiqL1e l1eritage. Elle s'y rattacl1e toujot1rs par son i11spir_ation pro_ fonde pu!see. dans l'An cien et le Nouveatl Testame11ts, par les,. ecr1ts des Peres de I Eg11se ou des 11 Trois Cents Sages" dtt co11cile de Nicee, et par I� souv��ir sacre de l'empe reur cl1retie11 Constantin. Ce qtti marque ce dro1t trad1t1onnel, cette royale coutuine ethiopie11ne, c'est que fidele a cette origi11e elle. a edifie , un systen1e jl1ridique tres eleve par s011 esprit et tre� remarqttable pour s?n epoque,. cela 11011 JJas da11s l'absoltt des for111ules abstraites, 1nais e11 cons1derant touJours /c1 ·vie co,1cretc. Ses n1axirnes, fatnilieres jusqtte da11s leur [Jlus gra11de noblesse, 11arte11t toujours d'cxernples pratiqt1es1 de faits quotidiens ou de ' 1cas d'espece'_', co1nr11e le fait e11core - n11itatis m1et.111dis - le systeme de common law pr1s JJOt1r l)ase de l'enseig11eme11t jt1ridiqt1e superieur dans les Universites a11glaises et :1rncricai11es. II 111'avait t)aru convenable de le rete11ir aussi comme un point de depart esse11tiei lc,rsqtie, elabora11t le Code pe11al actuel a Addis Abeba, e11 1954 et 1955, ct ett1dia11t Ies sources etl1iotJiennes et le Fetha Neguest dans les travaux sa\,a11ts d'Ig11azio Guidi, je co11statais combien de problemes delicats avaie11t ele resolus avec finesse da11s ]'antique legislatio11 etl1iopienne, notamment da11s le do111aine du dol penal et de la negligence, de la proportio11 entre la faute el lrt pei11e 1 de l'i11dividualisation des sanctions et des possibilites de pardon ou de racl1at, du l)artage des responsabilites dans ]a participatio11 a ur,e rixe, etc., cela en parta11t des exemples !es plus courants, les plus fan1iliers, les plus accessibles a tous: Comme11t faudra-t-il jL1ger celui qui, lanc;ant t111 javelot sur la place dt1 marcl1e, blesse ou tt1e i11volo11tairement quelqt1'un, et le berger ou le cl1asseur qui, dans la brousse, le jetant contre u,1 fauve, attei11t un l1omme par ma11que de precautio11 Oll de prttdence? Voila les questions que se pose, dans sa sagesse, celui qui legifere pot1r l'ordre et la securite de la com1nunaute du peur)!e. Le roi, le soldat et le laboureur, le maitre et le serviteur, l'orfevre et l'artisan1 le traitre �t le voleur, le 1nagicien trompeur et l a prostituee, apparais se11t au ce11tre dt1 clro1t c.0111me les sujets viva11ts de la jt1stice qui leur empru11te so_i1 �aractere _ P?PUlaire el sa real!te: le droit_ 11'est I)aS seule�e11t ''eludie'' JJOUr , lui-meme ma1s 11 est vect1 et se11t1, vt1 11011 a travers un livre mais avant tout dans son afJ!Jlication deva11t le tribt111ale; ii fait partie integrante de la vie sociale. �'est ai11si qtte not1s JJOt1\1ons rattacher encore aujourd'l1ui la pensee .et les solt1�1ons n1oder11es au ra �so1111e111e11t jt1ridiqt1e et a la recherche des solutions prat1que iJropres attx 1netl1odes cie for1natio11 et meme d'excellence du droit co�1tumier. �n _ v oit des lors combie_,1 t111e 111etl1ode a11alogue bien que plus evoluee ___ do1t etre prec1euse pour des esprits tot1jot1rs l1abitues a Ia reflexion et aux de cisions de 11atur� concrete et fo11dees sur des precedents. C'est pourquoi je pense que la methode retenue par M. le professeur Lowenstein pour faire bien

FOREWORD

comprendre et pour repandre la juste appreciation du droit nouveau, est e11 J'espece tres recommandable. II est bo� pour cet �ns�ig_n�ment qui doit etre une initiation en merne temps , • des ''cas'', l des de reco11ri r au systeme qu une formation �� esprit Jur1 d1que 1 , i obli et_ ql! tes simple,. sous u fori:ne directe e et textes et des_ dec1s1ons prese � � _ _ . et gent les audt!eurs , les etud 1a11ts a reflecl11 r, a se JJOser des questions, a trot1ver des so!ut1ons a �es �roblemes ethiopiens bie11 que jt1ridiqt1eme11t universels , comm� dotv�nt le faire ,.1 avo�a� lorsgu'tl es� co11sulte, le procureur· Iorsqu'il doit requer1r, le JUg� lo�s9u 11 doit _ 1nstru1re et Juger. 11 est clair qt1e ce raisonnement sera plus facile a s:11s1r et se f1xera plus durable1ne11t dans I'esprit lorsqu'on 11e �ose pas un pro�leme en partant de forn1ules latines ou en }Jrena11t pour JJar t!es en cause Pr�mus et _ _Secund�s,, ou Caiu � et P�ulus, ma �s Ia regle simple f1xee par le, dro1t etht?pten { qui s est efforce d' avo1r des articles brefs un peu semblables a ?� �ax11!1es�, _ou la decision d'une cour etl1iopienne en exami11ar1t le cas determ��e d un Just1<:1a�le �u nom rencontre cl1aque� jour, mis at1x jJrises avec les cond1t1ons et les d1ff1cultes quotidiennes des affa1res. du marche. lle 18. vie domestique et sociale, se rapportant aux moeurs, aux ci�constai1ces et �.u:c infractions occupant habituelleme11t les- tribunaux. A�nsi le justicia�Ie comm� l'avocat et le rnagistrat sont en que!qtte sorle conduits par la main, et le Juge ne recevra pas 11r1e so!utior1 to1.�.te f.� ;,t� ei peut-etre mal assimilee de Ia theorie, mais il la constru ira lui-n·!er11e er: pa rtJ.11t (.1�-::::; donnees fondamentales qui l'eclairent et qu'il a !'obliga.t.ion cl'appr,)f(,,1cliJ. ·1J0 �-�-: mode de faire combine heureusement et claireme11t, au stacle cle J!.i st�t.�:t�t,.1 1.'i,:=·c· du droit moderne au droit traditionnel, le systeme de t'ett1d� ries '!c.��s 1 ,.(,!: distingue l'enseignement universitaire anglo�an1ericain, et celtti de: la re(:i·;c1·;_"'.!J.'· des ''principes'' ou des ''normes'' de doctri11e et de ciroit «�c;n1i:::,are er1 r1sa1it: dans les universites europeennes et latines. �

On peut ajouter que c'est precisement sur la voie d'u11 semblable eq1.1ilibrt: que s'engagent nos universites et 110s responsables du progres cles et11des e11 developpant les ''exercices pratiques'' et les ''discussions de cas'' a cote de l'enseignement ex cathedra, - tout comme l'enseignetnent superieur des familles de common law par un proces·sus analogue mais inverse que soulignent l'intro

duction de coiloques de droit -compare et les projets de ''Model Penal Code'' aux Etats-Unis cherche a mieux remonter aux pri11ci1Jes et a aboutir la synthese par la prise en consideration de Ia doctrine et des solutions d'autres S}'Stemes juridiques ou d'autres pays.

Qu'il me soit permis, en c�ncl�sion d, e me rej?� ir et de feli_citer l'Etl1iopie -aux destinees de laquelle celu1 qui y a ete accue1ll1 avec conft�nce pour tra de reste� att�cl,e,, -. en. voyant vailler et cooperer a ses progres n_e peut manquer _ des maintenant se former une doctrine et une science du dro1t penal etl11op1en. On en a pour preuves des ouvrages comme .celui de M. le professeur Lowenstein, et d'autres etudes ou commentaires en preparation, et encore des eveneme11ts comme la fondation du Journal of Ethiopian_ Law:, des. ses. d,ebut� ,cett� P�}Jlica _ _S_elasste �er, tion, qui fait honn eur. a la Faculte de Drott, de, I Un1v�rs1te Ha1le a reuni des travaux de qttalite et �'es� p!acee a u n _ �1veau, sctent1f1que qt11 a attire non seulement !'attention mats 1 esttme des 1ur1stes etrangers, et elle est pleine de promesses. Comme la promulgation du Code pe�al suisse d� 1937, �ont l'elaboratio11 si serieuse et perseverante a suscite, deputs ses premiers proJets, une doctrine

,:; ' .. ... -.�·:...- . . .·

C-)I

-.,_

_·

FOREWORD

XI I

...

.':· {; '. ".

'. . ,

. '. l • l

•

:-·

:J, .' ''I

·., ',

)

,¾l

at :onal, et cr�nt n it ro d le · t an fi 1i u1 1 e1 n <? ti er d _ si r n Pa co de ,,e ig d � et ,e cl ri tres e _ u tree en vigueur, I_ q te en u o d e_ d _ rs l1� t ;s 1I , e ss 11 st la une veritable ''scier1 ce Code p enal etl115>pten qu� se rappr�ch; du Cod e l'ettide et l'a,Jplicatior1 d t1 t e oi e nc dr du bl ie ta sc ri ve penal ethiop i e un re 1t na nt ro fe s, te co de suisse par ta,,t es anches 1u dri� tr � b au s le es �t to ns da si ts at s : ca le s ttr lle ai d' ra se ce e 111 m co ue t1t e ns qu co se 1 es u1 ch rt se en la de e 1d o1 of pr mble '' ce en ci ris co de e Cette ''pris _ '' du !e ya o _ �o el e, ev oi ''v e la pp t �s e, ur ment rg � ve en tte ce de u ea uv no t de droi n 1 , 1o I at qu sl 1 g1 , Ie 1re la sp de 1 e gn d d� an qu �r ! 1!r o1 m se ra ud vo i qu e ,,c ie sc d'urie _ e, nt et ro en �1 au le el uv no sim as n t1o sla s. g1 ile le tte ce de rit sp !'e et e nc ta bs su Ia l r1a ge pe sa 1m es M vr du ou a nt le s se es om pr les et irs po es Jes r1t joi re Ce vceu . ie op lti I' Et a 1t e1 es pr en 1e n1 do 57 19 de l na Code J)e te cet a vre s ceu si cce su ge utile de lar ur1 ns ito ha sou us no i t1o t1rq po ila Vo es ist jur ethiopiens, for m�s ux ea uv no les t e11 iss Pu 11. tei 11s we Lo r M. Je professeu e, tem Ie mecanisme le sys le nt osa exp r leu s itre ma des ole l'ec a s da11s leur pay se,,s et les buts genereux dtt droit do11t ils sauro11t, en l'apprenant, qu'il est le leur et qu'ils devro11t servir, appliquer et e11seig11er a leur tou r, se convaincre que la legislatio11 etl1iopien11e \ ise e11 defi11itive u11 settl but: Obtenir ·que ''science et co11science" co11jugt1ees gage11t le J)rogres de l'l1omme, en mem e temps que des i1 1stitutio11s jt1diciaires et sociales desiret1ses d'asst1rer a leur pays une prosperite tot1jour? I?l tis grar1de ?a11s, J' ordre_ et Ia pai� d?1�t le ....droit doit etre le garant. C esl a111s1 qtte le dro1t pe11al aura pot1r ob1ect1f supreme non de faire souffrir l'!101�11T1e, rr1:1is cir.: I'eduqtier� de le fJroteger au besoi11 contre lui-metrie et d'etre l)!CT) t.a1sa11t a l�. COITIITI Lille! ltle.

. "..,,.�, '.·. : ;.

:·.�. . : -��.....

1 ' .

II ' I

I ''

.•

• I

. '

!' • I

Proresseur Jean GRAVEN ancie11 Doyen de la faculte · de Droit et a11cien Recteur de l 'Un-iversite de Geneve' Juge a l a Cour de Cassation President de l' Association internationale de Droit penal

I I

. ''

--· - - . --·-- -- ---

-----

. '. •

' • I'

I/1 c n 1t1 �t 1 l uct i? n to tl1e Penal Code of the Empire of Ethio� � � � �{ � �f � s 1at 1 a patd l,ornage to tl,e Soverei JJia o Ju l who had desired gn � tl1is \X'orlc of 'i r,nov�tion and iad re dered �t pos�ible, ''the Renovator and ii d li L egisl ator of Etliiopia.''• 'T e 0 err, 1aws of this ancient king dom of ''Prester J0l1n," jt1stly proud of its Fi l N, 4 l1e �f{ ed rat eg int an rm fo s), ng Ki tlie of u; L� . (! � e es . '� :e wl1ole \'<'l1icl1 does indeed in Ethiopia s 111s�ory, a genuine and profound '' J JeacefLi l revolutior,'' from �l ,icl1 i ,e cou,itry , and Jts futu re peo the ple in wil l 1 derive considerab le beiiefit. Aware, 110\vever, of wliat tl,e near f utbur� l wo s· u d cha nge de ma nd the nd of a l reforms wl1icl1 t l ie ,ie\v laws wou d r11 1g about, I could not fail to draw

xr!o

• ,• . .

I I I ·1 I

' '' ' <,

.1' I

I. "Le Code penal de l'En1pire Eth'o pub lished in French (origina l version) b i �i en, Jntroduction to the Penal Code of July 23 1957", l entre Franc;ais de Droit Compare, Pari�, 19 59, l)P, 5-38; conclusion p. 37. An E ng l ish t ra Y nsle at.1on may be found in th e vo l . I, no. 2, 1964, pp. 267-298. fo,,rnAI of Dhiopum 14w,

·,

FOREWORD

XIII

attention, n�t onl)' lo t�e difficulties inherent in the codification itself, but also r

to those w�tch would, 1n the last analysis, arise from the en{o cemtn t and proper ·through His _ s. As H. M: the made clear Emperor u�der�tand1ng of these_ law_ _ d1rect1ves t ? the Cod1f1cat1on Comm 1 ss1on . and again on promulgating the Penal C?d� tn l 95�, the new laws are woven into the rapidly changing juridical economic and social patterns of Ethiopian life.

always is codifi country ation of the princiJJal bra11cl1es any ''!he of of law � , . � d1ff1c�lt task, 11o�e� the Emperor! ''si11ce it 1nust be profoundly grounded 1n. t�e life . and trad 1 t1ons <;>f the nat10�1 and it must, at the samt time, be in keeping with �nd resp�nst�� to t�e 1r1flu�11ces, not only juridi�al, but also soc�al, econom1c . and sc1 ent 1 �tc \'<-·l �tcl� ar � 1 11 the process of transforming the nation and .our lives and wl11cl1 will 1 1 1ev1tably shape tl1e lives of those wl10 after. us. These considerations apply with particular valiciity to penal legisla· come _ tton at a time when tl1roughot1t tt1e \vorld, the expanding frontiers of society, �rought about throtigh t�e contri�utions of science, the complexities of mo{teri1 life. a�d the consequent 1!1crease 111 the volume o·t laws, require that effect1.,1e, yet ht�11l_y humane and liberal procedures be adopted to ens11re that Ieg�sl:1ti 1·� prescr1pt1ons may have the effica·cy intended for tl1em as regulators of con?:111('.t, New concepts, not only juridical, b11t also tl1ose contributed by 111e scie11c��:� of sociology, psycl1olog)' a11d1 i11deed, penology, l1a,,e been develo.ped �\tld rn�Jst be taken i11to consideration i11 tl1e elaboration of ariy critninal code \r1�1icl1 would be inspired by the pri11ciples of justice and lilJerty, a!1c.l l)y cc11-c�·rrt Jci· the prevention and suppressiot1 of crime, 'for tl1e welfare arid, i1ide�d, th.e j·e}1�})11I��:\·· tio 1 1 of the individual accused of crime.'' Pt111isi1111ent s!1ould 1 of c ) r.1rs-.e, �\!:if;, be retained for ''it will serve as a lesson to f)rospecti\1e '-''rong·dOt;rs'' 1:.:y t(::�lSt'iri of tl1e example it sets. 1

Beari 1 1g in mir1d that the new written law was to apply t11rougr!ODi v·ast areas still largely governed by customary law, as well as tl1e \Vise gl1Icje:li11es set out for its implementatio11, I drew attet1tio11 to tl1ose measures \Vl1ici·i ,;vt)ulcl have to be or had recently been taken in order to ''e11sure the de11elopment of education, the formation of elites, the recruitment of qualified judges and magistrates, and tl1e reorga11ization of the various courts.'' for, as has rightly been said even a mediocre, incomplete or outdated code can lead to compar atively g�od results when put into practice by _co�p�tent, e�l!ghtened and prudent judges, while even the best of cod�s will, tf its pr�v1s1ons are only partly understood, incorrectly interpreted _ _ or improperly applied, JJroduce bad results and frustrate the hopes placed 1n 1t. I thought it appropriate, therefore, to give warning or, �ather, to ,,stress the need to carefully train a body of �ble. la�yers, by observing that, when _ the legislators have finished their task, 1t will be for those who pu� th� la� into effect to take up theirs in order to ensur� t�e. real success of this h1stor1c en terprise of the modernization of the le�al, 3ud1c1al and pe!1al system o! a �ou�try �hich, through the centuries, has retained the_ mo�t �nc1ent law,a�d 1nst1tut1ons 1n the world.'' I added that ''this task of putting 1t into effect wall not be the less difficult of the two.'' One can easily imagine the problems, ptrsonal and institutional, which, as we put it to s� !11 up this monumental un�e�taking in a striking manner accompany the trans1t1on from the Code of Just1n1an or Con stantine or fro� the Code of Zara Vacob, to the modern Code of Emperor Haile Selassie. It is in effect back to Emperor Constantine and tl1e Council of Nicaea in 325 that Ethiopian tradition dates the Llw of the Kings which Emper or Zara Vacob a ruler who loved justice, had translated into Oe'ez in the XVlth century a�d circulated in Ethiopia. •

- �. .

...- ·

-�.. .

FOREWORD

XIV

ir value guarantees the : its fru its by n ow kn is e tre a t tl1a l bia ver It i·s pro 11oting that the task of o11 t1p us, ·Th m. tl1e ars b t tl1a n1 ste tl,e of ty ali qu � t}1 e ressed my trai11i11g scl1olars and responsible perso1111el was under way! In exp . had t t provided faitl1 i 11 its future success, as two years of constant co-opera _ <;> of y 1l1t the sat ver d Ethio =an es ke enn tl1e 1g gi1 gau of y � nit rtu po op the th me wi . _ . ms ble I �ecalled pro al leg h g wit lin dea 1n cy t1ra acc its _ J)ia11 miiid as well as _ tl1e results acl1ieved tl1rougl1 tl1e creation, 011 February 27, 1 ?51, of Un1vers1ty tes dua to its gra ips rsh ola who sch of ing ant r g· the and ool Sch Law .College were tlius able to complete adva11ced. stttdies a�d obtai11 higt�er _degrees _ abr 9ad pet1di11g the expected an� m�cl1 de�1red ope111ng _of an Eth1op1an U �1vers1ty, the Haile Sellassie I U111vers1ty, which l1as now 111 fact bee n organized and inaugtirated. 2

.,:....,.

�.:

... ... ,.. ...

.... ''

. l ..

No Jess desired a11d necessar)', 11att1rall11 wa:s tl1e creation impiied i11 this expectatio11,. of a science of Ethiop ian penal law, of a doctrine that would· express -i tself �aiad expand tl1rougl1 researcl1 devoted to tl1e new law and tl1rough commentaries on tl1e Penal Code. Tl1is 11ew science wouJd guide the courts in their decisio11s, pern1it tl1e efficie11t working of the 11ew legal and judicial in stitutions and create a deep u11derslanding of tl1e new Code and the general fJrogress \Y1l1ich all this extraordir1ary and meritorious effort was aimed at ac co111 r.l isl1irrg. 1

!; i

Tl1est c!e�,ires corric true today tl1ar1ks to Professor Steven LOWENSTEIN, leri1.1rtr ii� t.thio1)iai1 penft.l law at Haile Sellassie I U11iversity, who publishes tl·ir::se 1:1,rierial!; f<)r triE ber1efit of stude11ts, legal practitioners, advocates, prose ::�1.1tr>r:-. ju�"lgt::s ! ;"i11d the gener�l rublic. Tl1is work "·ill re11der Etl1iopian penal ::-t\,.: 1:·;c!r•� I ca(iii·y accessible �11d L111derstandable t o tl,ose who should be fully :l\•'.':,rc ;1·� it� r!"i :::irii11g and i11novatio11s and grasJJ its spirit no less than its ic;.(.c:r -ii.i �!iJC it ll'iay be prOJ)erly a1Jplied. I am particularly pleased to l1ave 1.i1l'.": !}f"1i��:-., -- r,t1!1it:J s-l for111ulatii1g·, by \Vay of i11troduction to this book, a number t)i gf:;ic';;.;.l ren·,o.rks ,x:!1icl1 ':Vil! stress tf1e conti1111ity of the work done in the i·ii::i'.i r,� E.t .i1ior:ii1n crimi11al law and the commur1ity of inspiration, wl1ich we L:c..t!·( l1:)()e is ;?.p1)2.ienl to all, existing between the drafter of tl1e Code and tJ1e ,:-.rc;fts.sor (�1ltrus!ecl 'IX'ith the task of explaining it and faitl1fully expressing its 1

ITP��inine ;,tr1d jJt1rr;oses in I1is teachi11g. 1·1 1c: ir.troductio11 into a law so totally new is difficult indeed. The code differs f ron·1 tl1e 1 'comr11on law'' as well as from Ethiopian traditio11al law and written Etl,iofJiar, l�.w as contai11ed in tJ1e Penal Code of November 2, 1930 (Tekemt 23, 1 ?23) JJro1nu _I g:ated on tl1e coronation of EmJJeror Haile Selassie. The spirit, belong to conceptions of teci1111ques, prov1s!ons and ge11e:al s ystem e Code t � _ wh1cl1 are often widely separate 1n history and time, and varying with respect to the 11ature of offe11ses ?r tl1e value . or signifi�ance of pena !ties. This inevitably creates or at1gments a rtsk of co11fus1on and mrsunderstandina which the modern science of comparative law attempts to prevent or remedy.b In introd�c !ng _ the Penal Code of 1957, the basic subject matter of Profes sor Lo\ve11ste1n s timely \\<'Ork, I l1ave endeavored briefly to emphasize the

?· "Vers un �o!lveau droit p�nal cthiop_ie�: d� la plus anciennc leg1slat1on du monde, 1n Rro11e lncan11t1onttlt de r1m,nol .

la plus reccntc

dt Police Techniq� Geneva 1954 no. 4, r. 255 ff.; "De !'antique au nouveau droit penal ethiopien", in La Vie Judickurt Paris October 1954 . _nos . 445�44 6. ?ee a 1 so our other articles: "Le jubile du Couronnement imperial ct , . . 1e , , '. Lt Vir judiciaire, Pa.ris, A pril�May 1955, nos. 525-52 l � no1 1ve! le leg1sla t1011 eth1op e � 6 and � ; L Eth1op1e moderne et la cod1flcat1on du nouveau droit" ' Rro11t Pen11lt S11irst' Berne' 1957' no. 4' J). 397 ff. C

og1t tt

I I. I

I I

I•

FOREWORD

differences and tlle guidi11g principles, whicl1 are fou11d in the Law of the Kings, !�e 1930 Petl�l <;ode and tl1�. ��w Code of 1957 by pointing to the latter's structt1re, prti,ciples and �p1 r�! lPart 11,_ �e tion I). I have further attempted � m to show ti,� eans by w_h1ch tl1e reconc111at1on of tradition a11d progress'' can � e brought abottt. Ment1011 wa s made of tl1e inspiration derived from tradi !ton or, more co_rre�tly, from the basic traditional co11ception of the law and inborn s�n�e of 1u_st_1ce, on _tl1e 011e h� nd (Section II) and, on the other, some characte r1s�1c prov1s1011s wh�cl1 exemplify curre11t 11 eeds a11d tl1 e new spirit of the Code_ (Sect101� I I l ). Tl1ese ma111 fe� tt1 r:s of tl1e ''i mage' of modern Etl1iopian penal law, tf 011e w1 lI allow tl:e express1or1, tllustrate tl1e transition ''from tl1e oldest to �he newest penal law 1n the. world1 wl1icl1, as I noted i11 a short study in 1954, 111vo�ves problems at once 1nterest111g and difficult. -Tl1ese problems are still crucial a11d have be_en analyzed agai11 i11 a con1prel1ensive study which I pre pared f?r tl1� i:neet!r1g on_ ··�ustomary and Codified Law'' held by Europea.n and African Ju rtsts 111 Venice 111 October 1963, as well as in lectur·es gi11en in �arcl1 1964, at the Eltropea11 Unive_rsity Ce11ter in Na11cy, on ''The Contril1u t1ons of Europea11 Penal Law to Afr1ca11 Cou11tries' 'Which are confronted ·v-1ith tl1e arduous, yet cl1allenging task of givir1g tl1emsel .res n1odern Codes. 3 1

What I l1ad felt should be stressed with respect to Ethioi1iar! lav1, its ri1:li past and its progressi\ e and comprel1er1si�,e codification, is tl1at it set 3.n e:C ample by achieving a spiritr,al SJ'nthesis. Tl1is possibility }.�1cl 2.ireacl:/· hte.,1, jJer ceived and 11oted i11 the Itnperial Preamble to the 1930 Pen,\1 Corl� \�,l,-11c.\�1. demonstrated (Articles 5, 15 and 16) how the m<..")der11 Ethiopian 1�gis1:1:or c;:1..r! and must adjust himself to cl1anges and )'et stil] bi:: i11sr.:,frec\ b)' tI:f.: ::::pirit (Jf justice and tl1e purpose of correctiun wl1icl1 disti11guisl1 the J-::'eth�t }.!eg1-test. it �Jt:, i11 tc cl out that the principles of the Europea11 Codes tl1a'l l1ad served as a inodcl For this first modern codification are still very often close to ihose \11hic11 �l·re found expressed i11 tl1 is venerable legislatio11 , a fact \Vhich is not. surfJrRsirig if one recollects tl1at the Law of the Kings is tied to tl1e biblical and Roma11Christia11 tradi tio11 tl1rougl1 tl1e Cl1urcl1 of Alexandria, tl1e l1eritage of '11l1ich l,as been preserved intact by its Ethiopian brancl1. 1

The Law of the Kings, deeply rooted in the Old and New Testaments, tl1 e writi1 1gs of the fathers �f th _e Church or tl1e ''Three Hundred Wise ��n'' of the Nicaea11 Council and 1nsp1red by the revered memory of the Chnst1an Emperor, Constantine, Jived on i11 Ethiopia_n law. W!1at dist _ !ngu!shed this law, this royal custom of Ethiopia, is that, faithful to its or1�1ns, _it repres�nt� a juridical monument lofty in spirit and remarkable for its time. _ Eth1op1an traditional law does not express itself through abstract preceptsJ but 1s centered on daily life. Its maxims familiar even whe11 they convey the noblest concepts, always originate in practical illustrations, ':1aily events or ''cases'' �s does also, l ies ed lega anc stud are adv ed bas ch whi n upo la atis w mut mon com the is and mut J � • • tn English and American Universities. These premises were essential, I felt, when, while drafting the new 3. 1'Etudes sur le droit coutumicr africain,'' Colloquium _ hc_ ld from October 3:�. 1963 at the Giorgio Cini foundation on the subject: Customary an� Cod_1f1ed Law; �0!11 T�ad � t1onal to Mod em Law. The Colloquium was organized in co-opcrat1on with the Socr�te �fr1ca1n� de Cultu�e tinder the patronage of UNESCO. The various reports, debat�s and conclus1ons will appear 1n scd at _th e .Centre Euro Q11adtrni Ji s4n Giorgio (ed., Sansoni, Florence). See also our views e�pres . p��n . Universitaire de Nancy (France): ''L'appor� eu�opeen en m_ a t,ere de dro1t penal �ux Pays afr1ca 1ns en voie de developpement'', Cours de l lnst1tu� (unpublished) and_ su1nn1a ry 1n R� dt Droit P�rwl n dt Criminologit, Brussels, July 1964; reprint p. 6 ff. and p art1cularly, fo r custom� ary law and Ethiopian codification, p. 17 and pp. 32-37 .

. .

t,ca,

•,;,

FORE\'VORD

XVI

,.... .,. . ... .

.::1 ,.• �

, '· .. . :; .. : .. ··-·: ..

�.: . I•

. ..:....

i , '· I

I .�

·· l .

. e ars 1954 and 1955 and stud y the 11 ou th yin g Code. i11 Addis Ababa 1ar!y scho the ks . _wor 11 i of uest Neg a �e£C _I e th d an . gnazio s r ce u so n a )1 io Eth i 1 ancient Eth1op1an leg1slat1o whic1 with ty btl su n had e th Ottidi 1 I discovered notable are most e those concerni Th tiems 0 x le p m c<? ng solved so m any faul the t betw 3:nd een its tt rop� rtio sanc e , ce tion en g li g � n _ d a-n . n _ o i1 1tenti and s t redemp ion of forgivenes �tli . s: the offen m 111 5 de 0 11 r 0 t a , l1 tl e ind1v1du3: z 1 � P� �s es 0't fighting, et�. Tryese solutions conte mp c ed and tl1e sl1ar1ng of gu! 1� in d unde rstandable s1tuat1on s for the popula : lat H ce i ar ta 1 t m fa ow t, en rr cu the most place and [i market the involu in spear a ntarily w 5 ro 1 ho w e on � itl w to deal the hunter o shepherd who w r the ith thro w 0 �, s a lle ot an l�s t k or s re inju through hits another lack of care or [1 and bush e in as be ild w spear at a � 1 the legislator in his wisdom asks whicl s �estion le l e ar ch Su ? )Jrudence community. the of The king, the eace d a n q er d 0r e th re cu se to r de in or sol?ier an d tl,� plou�h ��nt ltl,e mafter atld the serf, the goldsmith and the l ief the de ceitful soothsaye r and the prostitute are artisan, tl1 �at tor an \ 1 ig res f the law 'a11d tl1e living subjects of justice, thus giving tra the cen it its po puI ar c� ara c fer a11d its reality Tl1e law is not merely ''studied'' for its ow11 sa ek b ut l!ived and felt·' it is se�n' not principally through a book, bu t ·1 tl1rougl1 !t1 s app.1·1 cati'on in court and it is, therefore, an ·1nt egraI part of soc1a life. 1·11e legal reasonit1g a11 ct searcl1 for practical soluti?ns, _which give custom-·l '· ·e ar1 d cliaracterize tl1e metl1od by• which it was created, ary I a•w.. ·tr,s.. \1a.1Lt . . can . tliLIS st\1! i}e fel.;ited no-via.days to tnodern doctri ne a11d !U 1 es. It . 1s ev1dent, tl1 e r[f tJ r::·:, ·i:l�:::t a si,11 ilaij t !1ough more elaborate me�l10?, will cont�1�ute much tci•:r.,a rri �. t r;:1 iri � 11 �!. rn irids acc:us to111ed to con ere le th 1n ktng and dec1s1ons bas�d ()tl r:r.�c�:dci1 is. �f!1 i�; is �71·,y I 1Jelieve i tiat the meth?d that Professor Low enstetn _ very 11as c1 1 os��r1 i.o Sj)r.�ac.l kr1rJ'X"f::::,Jge and 1111derst a 11d1ng of the new law 1s t' ,

f�

t"• 1 • • a ··; ·· ;. r· ·, l ··• .. ·7 l ,.., j'") I 1 \\ (::!t Stl! �-� .. ..... L.'.1 .�..-r.......�,. ..

•

1::i,..1r:Jr)se is to lrt;i11 legal ti1i11ds as well as to initiate i11 pe11al law, liis ,J.J)r)roacl1 is ·carcft, ·: !y :�l1ost?.11 i11 tl1at it sets fortl1 casei, texts and Judgments irr a ;i:111)le ,111d cjirecl: ff1sl1ior\: li1t1s compelling tl1e readers and students to rtfl.ecl, iCl asl< tl·,f�IT!Selves i::i11estio11s 1 to sol\ e EtlJiopian, albeit uni versal legal !) rol)le1ns i as 2.r1 ad.,,ocate wl1e11 he is consttlated, a prosecutor when l1e prose ct1tes a11d a jt!dge �v11er1 l1e tries a case and passes judgment. Quite c�early, legal co11cepts will be more easily grasped and leave a deeper mark tn t�e 1n ind if tl1ey are studied with reference, 11ot to a case that poses itself .1n lat1n for111t1las or involves Primus and Secundus, or Caius a n d Paulus, but to the i sim p e rt1le laid dow11 i11 tl1e Code (wl1ose provision r esen,ble maxims) or to EthioJ)ian jttdgments i11vo s aim at brevity so as to can be l1eard every day, current conditions a nd lving persons whose �ames s, di ff bu ic sin ul es tie ar is s in in g i11 tl1e mar ek t or i11 domestic or social lif e, or habits, circumstances or offenses \Xtith wl1ich tl1e cot1rts ordinarily co11cer1 1 tl1emselves. Tl,e [Jarties as �ell as tl1e advocate and the magistrate are. consequently lecl by tl1_e ha�d, �s 1t were, and tl1e a1_1d 1Joss1bJy 1ll:d1gested tl1eoretical judge is n o t provided with ready- made solutions, but must find the answer f? r l11mself, using his kn?wled�e of ?eptl� and fr�m wl11cl1 l11s a11stl1e basic principles which he must study 1n w 1s betng subst1tt1ted for tradition er springs. At a time when modern l aw al law, this method combines, in a success!ul and � lear man11er, the study o f''cases'' peculiar to Anglo-American univers1tr, teacl1!n g a_nd th� searcl1 for pr acticed tn Lat11 1 and Euro doctrinal or comparative ''principles'' o r ''no rms pe an universities. It may be added tl,at our universities and o th au e r thorities responsible ..t:-.. s }1:s

FOREWORD

XVII

f�r �he betterment of legal educatio11 are moving toward a similar com �1nat1on th!ou �h the ,?�velop�ent, alongside of ex cathedra lectures, of ''prac tical exerc�ses and d1�cuss1ons �f pro_blems.'' As is demo11strated, on the other hand, by the creation of seminars 1n comparative law a11d the American :'Model Penal Co_de''. d�afts, a p�rallel, thougl1 reverse process, is under way tn com�o� law 1nst1tut1ons. of l�1�her learning, wl1ere atten1IJls are made to �race pr1n�1ples. back to their _or1g1n and to realize a sy11tl1esis througl1 taking 1nJo cons1derat1on legal doctrines a11d provisio11s of ot11er systems or coun tries. May I be permitted,. in . conclusion, to express tl1e pleasure I feel, both for myself and for Eth1op1a, wl1ose desti11y is dear to 011e wl1om she has welcomed and trttst�d by all<:>wing l1im to co11tribt1te to lier JJrogress, at the thought that_ a _doct:1ne a11d sc1e11ce of Etl1iopia11 penal la,,y, are bei11g develo1Jed so soon. This ts ev1de11ced by ,vorks s11ch as Professor J_owenstei11's a11d otl1er research and c?mme11taries tl1at are being prepared, as \veil as by eve11ts st1cl1 as . tl1e fo�n�at1on o� th.e ]01,rna_l of Et/Jicpia11 Law. Witl1 its very -first 11!.lrr!ber, th1s p�om1s1ng_ pu �l1cal1011, \vl11cl1 does honor to tl1e Law fac11!ty of rlaile Sellass1e I U n1vers1ty l1as collected \1al uable co11trib11tions arid attai i1ecl �i scholarly level such as to deserve 11ot only tl,e atte11tion, bt1f. also tl1e esteern, of foreig11 jurists. As tl1e Swiss Penal Code, pron1ulgated i11 1937 aft\':.r year:3 0f r-1�1insla1(:iri[•: and patient preparation, has, since its first drafts1 provide(! t1·11;; gri)'li11d for a very rich and ,,atuable literature a11d, by ur1if)ri11g tl-ie natio11al 1a\Jv, 112.s r-1er1rii !:-· ted the creation of a genuinely ''Swiss legal doct ri11e'', so tl1e fJ roti1ti lg,!t(�)r1. study and implementation of tl1e Etl1iopia11 Pe11al Code, \vl1icl1 is close to i l·1i: Swiss Code in so many respects, will no dot1bt permit tl1e creation of a triJe scie11ce of Ethiopia11 penal law. Tl1is will occt1r 110 doubt i11 all otl1er bra11cr1es of Ethiopian law also. full awareness of the wealll1 tl1at lies in a mo11t1mei1t of such dimensions as those of the -new Etl1iopia11 Codes is crucial to il1e development of a science wl1icl1, after tl1e st1bstance a11d spirit of tl1e Codes has been assimilated will want to show itself w·orthy of tl1e legislatio11 tl1at l1as inspired it. This 'wish accords with tl1e desires .a11d promi�es . contained in _ the Imperial Preface which opens the Pe11al Code g1ve11 to Etl11op1a 1n 1957. 1

This is why we hope that this very useful work_ of _ Professor Low_enste�n will meet with great success. "'1,ar the you11� Eth1op1an lawyers, trained 111 their homeland by teachers acqua1nt1ng !hem w1tl1 tl1e. system, structure, mean ing and generous purposes of a law w�1ch, as tl1�y will understand when they know it is their own and whicl1 tl,ey, 1n turn, will serve, apply and teacl11 be convinc�d that this l�w in the last analysis aims at a �ingle goal: to make it possible that science et conscience togetl1er guarantee the progress of man and tl1e development of judicial and social inst_itutions desi�n�d to enable th�ir �ountry to prosper in the order and peace which the law 1s intended to ma1nta1n. The supreme ambition of penal law will t.hus be,. not to make man suffer, b�t to educate him, to protect him fro m himself, tf need be, and to make l11m a useful member of the community. Professor Jean GRAVEN

May, 1965

Geneva, Switzerland

. . '. ,.

tisv

··

·-

former Dean of the Faculty of Law former President of the University of Geneva Judge of the Cotrrt of Cassation President of the International Association of Penal Law

····· . � .

� t��-

-�•ii

��

:-� ::: ,. ; J·,

... . ·.-1 .,,

' .. .:· t .' '

Preface Tl�e �aculty of La. w of I-laile SeI lassie I U11iversity, tl1e national 1J niversity of Eth1op1a, was OJJe11ed b)r J-lis I111JJerial Majesty 011 Se1Jten1ber 23, 1963. New <;:odes l1a� b�e11 JJromulgated several years earlier but tl1ere was not at that time . a11 . 1nd1genot1s legal literature \vl1icl1 could be used for refere11ce or !e��h1ng 111 _tl1e Facttll)'. It ,vas stro11gly fell by tl1ose wl10 were i11volved i11 1111t1al plann1_ng, tl1at tl1e preparatio11 of teacl1i11g 1naterials related to t11e ne,x, and . de_velop1ng la\v of Etl1iopia \Vas of l1igl1 priorit)'· Tl1is boolr. is tl1e first real1zat1011 of t1'1at j11dg1nent. The follo\vi11g materials are clesigned for the teaching of the first }.rt:�J.r course in Penal Law. A fe\...;' v: ords concer11i11g tl1eir sources, cot1eragc and or� ganization may be helpful. 1

Tl1e starting point of eacl1 1Jroble111 examined i11 tl1ese mct.leria.ls is, of (:oui-se 1 the Pe11al Code of 195 7. W 11 e11e,,er available, oilier Etl1ioJJian �ourr�es tl1a-r. ;Jf\; helpful to the i11terpretatio11 of tl1e Code or to a11 t111dersta11c1rng of 11-ie f.):.°() :?-· lems inl1erent i11 its imple1ne11tatio11 l1ave been i11clt1ded, i11 IJarticular, :\�1dg�Ti'��1·:�� of tl1e High a nd Stt preme Courts, historical sources s1.1cl1 as tlte r�eti1rt j\f�g�st a11d the Penal Code of 1930 a11d tl1e few writings tl1al do eJ{ist cteaii11g 'l'Z1i�l1 matters relevant to the study of pe11al law. These sources, i10\v1ever, ,ire r1.1).1 sufficient to provide a cotnplete t111dersta11ding of ma11y of the provisio11s ir1 the Code; a brief summary of tl1e l1istory a11d prese11t status of the Penal Co(ie \'(/ill help to explain tl1e 11ecessity for the inclusio11 of st1bstantial S\viss ancl comparative materials in many sectio11s of this bool<. i

The drafting of the Code was begun in 1954 by Professor Jean Graven of Geneva, S\vitzerland, and upon completion was presented i11 French to a Codification Commission composed of distingt1isl1ed Ethiopians and foreigners. The Commission made certain changes in Professor Graven's original Avant projet, some of which have been recorded in notes taken in French by Dr. Philippe Graven, the drafter's son (see Appendix). The Code was then translated into Amharic and English, its official languages (Amharic is co11trolling), dis� cussed in Parliament, where debates are, for the most part, unavailable, and promulgated with tl1e approval of His Imperial Majesty as Proclamation No. 158 of 1957. Swiss commentaries and cases have been i11corporated in tl1e materials wher _ ote� and �ver Ethiopian sources, primarily the brief Co�ifi_cation C_ommissi?n J\:l Judicial opinions are not available or helpful 1n 111terpret1ng a�b1gu1t1es 1n the Code. The Swiss materials are included, however, 011ly where 1t appears, from the Ethi pian e Cod a �omparison of the two penal codes or in a !e� in�tances, ? _ with Swiss case law that the drafter drew hts 1nsp1rat1on from Swiss sources. In such areas the Swiss materials provide, as it were, a quasi-legislative l1ist ory enabling 'the student to deter�ine the probable intent of the drafte� and, therefore, also the legislature, as 1t seems to have made few cl1anges 1n the drafter's final text.

. .

.. . .

. .

� - .. -

-> ·- • • · -

. . it is nonetheless im 1, atio1 pret i11ter s Swis by ,d boui ot Altl1ough E�l1 iopia 15 �� 50 that JJrobable. �eaning can be d eter: ied stud be p�rta11t tl1at Swiss so�� 1l i 1 tat fa l e Co suc To d l1 . � . t e tl inqttiry an . wit hi � l es c ul tf ub do m111ed _for 1i11g important Gener ta11 con ls er1a nat 1 se tl,e of end e al appe11d1� appea�1 at ti sh, , gli ric En ha Am the in ant Av de Co 11al Pe 1 1 projet pia �o , l Et e f o l c 1 l ar Part e m th fro a d fic di ge er Co em tio it 1 1 Com as 1 1cl 1 e fr al 11 fi e th d 1 a1 of _ tl� e dra er er c oth o mparative so u r d a11 rts pa ter un co iss Sw t ir tl1e ce; ·tt 1 m1ss1011, togetl1er w consul ted by tl1e drafter. 1 ed e1 us be ve en l1a wh , iss Sw ey th an dea l !h r he ot s, ial er . at m e tiv ra Compa or po lic y nat�re, tl1at �re p_resente d l_ 1ca or st l11 an of ily ar im pr . with problems, e 1d t ov f�c �r ey t1 ua Th . s1t 1on rat de 1�1 1 s o� co r de ui1 not es icl art n pia ,io Etl the b s e ion ttv lut ara so mp to c? d an un 1 _ver_sal s ial ter ma n pia ,io Etl in le rladily availab . to dy t�e u st_ e nc of rie pe ex a11d Etl�1opian 1 ptl de d ad h ,ic wl ins ble petial pro r elated d1sc1pl1nes of soc1ology , l1e t o11 up es cl1 tou it as y arl cul rti pa , law penal psycl1iatry, cri1ni110Iogy and 1Je11ology.

..,-.�-; -· ...

: :; t[;' " " . ' }! . I , ' ' •. ''·.1

, ·. ' ' I

.: t

,; :

PREFACE

Tile book is divided i11lo four parls; a11 introd11ctio11 and successive parts dealii,g \X,itl, tlie general p rinciples of tl1� _Penal Code, tl1e SJJeci�l Part a1�d the Code O f Petty Offe11ces and t l1e dispos1t1011 of offend� r s_. The 1n! r oduct1on is IJriniarily of a textual 11att1re witl1 tl1e purp?se of prov1d1_11g a br�dge for the 11e,v la ,xr stt1cle11t fro111 ]1is t 1 11dergradt1ate st ud1es to t]1e special analytical demands of legal subjects. Tl1e C)peni11g cl1a1�ter i11trodt 1 ce_s _ l1 im_ t<? ll1e Codes_ an� to legal s!<ills ll1at ,�ill be exJ)ccted of l11_rr� Stt�l1 as d1�t1ngu1sl11ng factu�I s1Luat1ons, cleter1ni 11 alic)JJ ()f releva11cy a11d prec1s1011 111 read111g. The succeeding chapters cor1cer11in! tl1e ft111ctio,1, sco1)e 1 11ature a11d l1istory of Etl1iopia11 pena l law help icl 1)iacc· tl1c stibject of 11e11al la\X i11 JJerspective . Tl1e seco11d part is most ex ie:�11sivt, covt�rir1r( aII i)asic gc11eral pri11ciJJles e111bodied i 11 tl1e first eigl1ty-four artic:es of 1·11e Coclt e1-:cer)t tl-:ose allocated to tl1e course in Criminal Pr ocedure. 1·11e 1 li i rci f)a rt jJrovides art f>,;ervie\v of t.l1e S1)ecial Part a11d tl1e Code of Petty ()f fc11ces 111 ;11e l:elief tl1at tl1e stt1dc11t v,110 l1as a sour1d under standing of tl1e gcr1er�tl r:iri11ci1J1es \Vil! L11: able lo aJ)JJly tl1em to ail)' of tl1e lengtll)' catalogue c,f :; 1 :,ecial r)art :1r1d J)eit)' Offe11ce articles. In tl1e final part, a co11siderable a11lo�1:)l of tir1,c i� SJ)er1i 011 ll1e se11te11ci11g process a11d tl1e institutions wl1ich cie<l1 \':ritl1 il1e 1)e11al offe11der. 1�11is aspect of JJe11al law is too often 11eglected a,1cl, i11 l)1e o _ pir1io11 of tl1e autl1or, ofter1 l1as more importa11 l co11sequences for tl1e fu11ct101!111g _of tl1e JJer1al syst�n1. than t)1e determination of guilt upon �,hich so 111u?l1 t�me_ !S. exj)e11de�. f!11.s 1s J:lart1ct1larly true i11 a developii1g nation wl1e_re 1l1e 111st1t_l1t_1�11s of d!spos1t_1011 are i11 tl1eir formative stages, a11d tl1erefore, reta111 tl1e !)Oss1b1l1ty of pioneering to\vard r1e w solutio11s in a field in wl1ich most of tl1e i11dt1strial natio11s l1a ve bad l y falterecl. . Tl,e 111etl1od of organizalio11 of t]1e materials ,vitl1i11 ea de· is se cti on cl1 s1g11ed t? e11cour_age slt1de11ts to tl1i11k fo r tliemselves ca ely cr ea tiv re ati fu d lly a.bot1� [JI obl:ms 111 tl1e p�11al are�. Altl1ot1gl1 a co rm a ns id er i11 ab fo am le of ou tit t1011 1s JJrov1ded, tl_1e main fu11c.t1on of tl,e m J,e at t er ia ls tra in is to 1,e to lp JJe11�l law student_ 1n tl1e esse11t1al tl 1oug l it (Ja tt e r ns of tli e law)rer : tl,e ability ho is�Iate material facts, to apJ)ly abstract l egal JJri11ciples to tl1ese facts to , e r_e ev�11t and to \vorl< l1ard and i i pr vtded re1 eva11t S?urces are o rd e red ,depetidei,tly. Read answers are not a11d set out togefher wit11 questions � n� pro b l ems to guide t l ie sttideiit toward ce11lral issues · Recommended read· tngs, se ]ected f rom tl1e faculty's li . brary, a_re a Iso provided to encottrage furti� er exploration. Tl,e classrooi expriei tl1e materials and provid�s a� ex,ce bt�tlds . upon, a p re vio us grappling wit� by tl1e readings. Tl ie btirde11 15 P 1 oration 1n deptl1 of problems pre�e11te al ways put upon tl1e student to sl1are 1n the 1

• I •

I I I i I

I I

PREFACE

XXI

analysis a�d. so1utio11 of proble111s wl1icl1 is a11 ex1Jerie11ce tl1at is ofte11 frustrat

ing and d1ff1cult at the outset1 but in tl1e lor1g rt111 e11or111ot1sly frt1itft1l and rewarding for botl1 teacl1er a11d stt1de11t. �lthou&h !he _IJri_mary fJLlrpose of tl-iese 111aterials is tl1e teacl1i11g of 1Je11al law tn E_th1op1a, it . 1s _l101Jed tl1at tl1ey \v'ill also serve as a ttsefttl refere11ce tool outside of Eth1op1a. Tl1e tra11slatio11 of 11t1111erot1s Swiss a11cl co11li11e11tal sources make them available to tl1e Enolisl1 reader for t\1e first time. Also a large . nu1nber of Etl1i?pia11 �electio11s �11cl otl1er lesser l<11ow11 con1para.tive f!later1als from develop111g 11at1011s jJrovicle i11teresti11g perspective for tl-1e solu !ton of ma11y_ JJe11al . proble1ns. As co1111111111icatio11 bri11gs 11atio11s closer togetl1er, 1t becomes 1ncreas1ngly clearer t!1at a bareat deal ca11 l1e lear11ed fro111 tl1e study of comparative pe11al S)'Ste111s.

Fi11ally, I would like to express my a1Jpreciatio11 to tl1e 111ar1y peor)le \vl10 l1elped bri11g tl1is book 111to bei11g. 111 pa�rticL1lar1 I wot1ld like lo tl1a11k L)ea11 James Paul first for n1alzi11g tl1e 11ecessary fttnds available, but 111t.1cl1 111c)re importantly, for l1is \varmtl1 1 e11coL1ragement and frie11dsl1i1J \,:ri1icl1 l·1a\iC 111.ea::t so much to me. I \X1 ould also lil<e to tl1a11k the ford foundatio11 a11d tl1e Ir1sti tute of International Educatio11 of Ne\xr Yori< ·for ll1eir resc�arcl1 ,_.t:trant t!1al enabled me to stud)' a11d tra11slate tl1e S\):,iss soL1rces of tc1P- Eti·1ic•)Jja11 Pci1a! Code in Switzerland duri11g the sum111er of 1964. Prc>fess<)r lv"iic�·1af!. l(ii1�Jrecl of the faculty made innumerable l1el1Jf,:il sL1ggestic1tis a11cl. corrt,�tiori.�� c,r �1-;;:. initial manuscript and Dr. Pl1ilip1Je Oraver1 of ll1e /\r\.(!1;:tr:1 01: J1:s·\ir:c provided continual assista11ce l}articularly i11 cl1ecl<.ing ail rr,ate-rial:) t\1,:;.�_ !-iaci. !Je�:·.1 translated from t}1 e f re11cl1. Of course, fir1al reSJ)011sil)i!it)r for ai:::c:i.1rac)1 ·--·��r,?in�.i with the author. I also very 1nucl1 a1J1Jreciate tl1e assista,1ce of tl1ost \X':11.') l·ie1;J ed with proofreading, particularly Pro_ fess<?rs Starlle� Fisl1er ar� c\ l<crt}e1t S: 2d! 2r: our student researcl1 assista11ts, Ato Sl11n1el1s Metafer1a a11�l Ato z�g·::1.),e f\siJ.\"/ and the many others who found tl1ernselves cor11ei� d wttl1out ready -� xc1.1sc. Thanks go also to Mrs. Pat Krueger wl10 typed. seen11r1gtr e11dl_ess ster1c1_1s ovr..'.r a two year period and Messrs. T. and B. Asla111a111 9. _Gr11naJd1 ancl tl1� 1r asso ciates who outdid themselves setting by l1and tl1e d1ffict1lt pages of tl1!s bo� l<. finally, I would like to tl,ank my stude11ts who l1_ave made 111y y�ars 111 Etl110pia so pleasant and have taught me much of tl1e1r cot1ntr)1 a11d its penal law. 1

STEVEN LO\VENSTEIN

Addis Ababa May, 1965

•

:' ,,.' ·

] '

.....� ,·" . ..� : ·! .'

l I

·1

•1

. '.

Table of Chapters Page

Ftneword Preface Table of Contents Table of Laws Table of Cases

VII XIX X)(V ,-I ·�I .7: . _11 XLVI!

PART I

An Introduction to the Stt1cly Chap Examination and Interpretation of �i Cod.e P1·0,1isior1 Function of Penal Law Distinction Between Civil and Penal Law Scope of Penal Law 5. The Penal Code of Ethiopia: Sources and Form 1. 2. 3. 4.

The The The The

r·

._-".. f ,j ..

�J� - - ,

40 57

PART II

The General Part 6. Introduction

7. 8. 9.. 10. 11.

The Criminal Act Criminal Guilt: The Mental Element Criminal Responsibility The Affirmative Defenses Participation in an Offense

135

159

206

253

PART III

The Special Part and The Code of Petty Offences 12. The Offense of Bigamy 13. The Petty Offense

280 297

XXIV

T ABJ_E Of CHAPTERS PART IV

s r e d n f e f O f o n io it Tl1e Dispos 14. Se11te11ci11g e c 11 re r te e D f o l a e Id e l1 T . I5 11 o ti a it il b a l1 e R f " o l a e Id e l1 16. T Appe11dix ln,lex

..·.

.. ..... , .. . ..: ·I

·;

312 33() 358

385 411

�··i

• . (I : ' . ': . '

•• J

,' .·J ' : ..

I I

;

! ; .. .

' '

I·!

! I I

I I

' '

I I

Table of Contents Page

fQTtWord Preface Table of Chapters Table of Laws Table of Cases

VII XIX XXIII XLIII XLVII PART I

An Introduction to the Study of PenJ.l L;3,w CHAPTER 1. THE EXAMINATION AND INTERPRET ATIOt-'1 oi: /:� CODE PRO'�/�SH()f'1

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (E11gla11d) Questions

Probltms

Short Statement on Objective and Subjectiv(� Stat1d2.rds Notes: 1. Tenets of Pe11al lnterpretatiorz

Bouzat, The Interpretatio11 of Pe11al Lr:;..�,s Planiol, Where the Law Has Ordained But its Meaning is Doubtful American Jurisprudence, Statutes: Interpretation Questions

2. The legislativt History Penal Code of Ethiopia, Art. 71 Notes of the Imperial Codification Commission

Questions 3. The Relevant Foreign law

Code Penal Suisse, Art. 34 Waiblinger, Tl1e State of Necessity Logoz, Necessity Legal, The Defense of Necessity in fre11cl1 Jurisprudence Questions

Problem

4. Excess of Necessity

Recommended Readings

-, !

7 Cl 0

()

10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12

CHAPTER 2. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF THE FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW Sect. A. The Function of Law Hoebel, The functions of Law Questions

Sect. B. The Purposes of Punishment Salmond, The Purposes of Crimin�1 _Justice Hall and Glueck, The Aims of Cr1m1nal Law

' '.':, '·.J:·<: :r.· . . :., :_ -.. :. . . '

-·-· ..

14 19 19

. .·

.: .,

XXVI

. .·l, }

TABJ_E Of CONTENTS

•.

;

.'.,

Notes:

se o rp u ? f ts en m te ? ta S d ie 1. Codif 1 t. r , A e c fa e r P , 1a p o 11 tl E Code of

/..· · ·.' ?�1· .'. .. . " "

·.\ ! .

' .. ., ....,'. ..

. !

. I

.. . .'

.... ·1. ; .

Pe11al c li b s u le p 50 ep 9 R eo (1 P 11 ), ia ar g n u H 1e tl f o e d o Pei,al C Sects. 1, 214 e ), od 62 C 9 l . (1 1a ct e1 P Se el od M 1.02 e, ut it st 1 f 1 v a\ L , ai ic Ainer 2. Tl,e Efficacy of Deterrence t t n ec re ff er E et I ts D 1d a1 y lt 1a e1 P 1 tl ea D e Selli i,, Tl, 3. Tl,e J,nporta11ce of Researc/1 . 1t1. t1c · 1 I R rc ea es e1 c1 S f o t ac J) n I1 e l1 T , fiarno

QrJestions

Reco1111ne12ded Readi11gs

27 27 28 28 29

AND PENAL LAW L VI CI N EE TW BE N O TI NC TI IS D E TH 3. R CHAPTE

1·1,e Public Prosectitor v. Woz. Atsede H�bte Selassie (Etl1iopia) 32 Ato Mal{o11ne11 Tacle Iiai111a11ot v. Tl1e Public Prosecutor (Etl1ioJ)ia) 33 34

Questions

Problem Notes: F1,rtl1er Comme11t Concerning the Distinction Between Ci'llil and Cri1ni11al L,1w 1. Blacl<sto11e, 0 1 1 tl1e Distinction Between Public and Private Wrc.111gs 2. 'J 011 Bar, Tort and Crime :3. Williat11s, Tl1e Defi11ition of Crime t�. Col1c11, Jv\oral P\spects of the Criminal La\v Q1{estions

Reco1111r1e11dt!d Readi11gs

34 35 36

•

Ct·�.cl rTt:R 4. Tf.'iE s,:or'E Of P.ENP,l lA W: THE LEGISLATIVE PENALIZATION Of C0 f'.JSENSt.JAL D-iOlvlOSEXUALITY ?er1al (;)Cle of Etl1iOJ)ia, Art. 600 40 Sc:{ttal Offc11ces f\ct (1956), E11gla11d, Art. 13 40 1 Iome Offices ()f E11gland a11d Scotland ' Tl1e Wolfenden Report 40 Devli11, �l�r,e Er1force1ne11t of Morals 42 i lart, Im rnorality ai1d Treaso11 46 Probie111 48 Notes: Possible Legislati'Ve Co11sidertt.tions 1. ])11/J!ic Opi11io11 TI,e Ne,v liaven Eve11i11g Register 49 Col1en, Robse11 a11d Bates, Ascertai11ing tl1e Moral Sense _ of tl1e Comn1t1111ty 50 2. Causation ,i11d Treatment Bown1a11 a11d E11gle, Sext1al Deviatio11 50 Joi,es, l11 111 ate, C onnecticut State Priso11 U 51 ni States te d ' 3. l-Jarmf1,I Effects Freud, A Letter 51 �0rd S ex Offen�es: An Anll1ropolo 52 g ic P er al sp ec ti ve 1 e�c; C 01n IJarat1ve Stt1dy of Cul lure 52 . . U111tecl Sta.tes Seiiate C0111n11·t tee on ExJ Je11d1tu res 111 Exec11t1ve De1)art111e11ts 53 �olfeiide,i Re 1Jort, Tl1e Effect of Hon1osexu 4 5 L if e Fa m il o al y n it y Q11est1011s 54 Recom1ne11ded Readi,igs 55 1

. !

.....'

;

.,,·,:' .

.......

-.;:·: . ·,;

.. •;•:. ,

I I

l' (

.... '

,._

Table of Contents Page

Foreword Preface Table of Chapters Table of Laws Table of Cases

VII XIX

XXIII XLIII

XLVII

PART I

An Introduction to tl1e Study of Penal Law CHAPTER 1. THE EXAMINATION AND INTERPRETATION OF A CODE PROVISDON Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (E11gland) 3 Questions 4 Problems 4 Short Statement on Objective a11d Subjective Sta11dards 6 Notes: 1. Tenets of Penal Interpretation

Bouzat, The lnterpretatio11 of Penal Laws Planiol, Where the Law Iias Ordained But its lv1eanir1g is Doubtful American Jurisprudence, Statutes: interpretation

Questions 2. The Legislative History

Penal Code of ·Ethiopia, Art. 71 Notes of the Imperial Codification Commission

Questions 3. The Relevant Foreign Law

Code Pe11al Suisse, Art. 34 Waiblinger, The State of Necessity Logoz, Necessity Legal, The Defense of Necessity i11 fre11cl1 Jurisprudence

Questions Problem 4. Excess of Necessity Recommended Readings

7 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12

CHAPTER 2. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF THE FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW Sect. A. The Function of Law

Hoebel, The functions of Law Questions

Sect. B. The Purposes of Punishment

e ic st Ju ! in m ri C of m es � al os S ond, The Purp _ al Law Hall a11d Glueck, T h e Aims of Cr1m1n

. ..

. ,.

14 19 19 23

.,'

TABLE Of CONTENTS

XXVIII

, e 5) 95 od . C (1 ct l Se na Pe el od M 2.01 , te itu st In w La an ic er Am Questions

Recomme1ided Readings Sect. B. Acts of Omission a. The Legal Duty to Act Logoz, Crin1i11al 0111issio11 German federal St1preme Court, Decision of 2-12-1952 Notes: 1. Otl1er Sources of Legal Duty

. -;;

.... .'•·. ': . .. ... ,).

•

R. v. M\vila Cl-iu11ga and Kunge Mapalanga (Zambia) U11ited States v. I(11owles (Cir. Ct., N.D. California) 2. Tl;e !11tent Req11ireme11t in Omissions

. ••

Questio11s

' ','

79 80 80

81 82 83 84 86 86

b. Tl1 e Legislative Extension of the Duty to Act :1'

·;

'' • . .. .'

•. •

. '

Pe11al Code of Etl1iOJJia1 Arts. 520, 54 7 I-I ugh es, Legislative I m1Jositio11 of a Duty to Aid Macaula}' et.•il., A Penal Code Prepared by tl1e Indian Law Co1111nissio11ers Notes: Furt!1er Debate on Legislative Exter1tion 1. Co11 J)erl(i11s, A Dttty to Take Positive Action CoJ.t1111bia La,v Review (Note), The failure to Rescue I folnies, Tl1c <:ommoi1 Law 2. [J '!) St. L.i.tl(e, Tl1e Par.:1ble of tl1e Good Samarita11 Bt:r!tI1�ti1·1, ()!1 il-11: DL1tv• to Act

89 91 92 92

·3_ .· �- '/1e (:;011C�/>l aJr - •. ':' °f� ("Jr r•;o ..> JI• I-•, i �. L I I'-· J'l 6 u I;: C \.,

.''·•,�.I/I'e-.}/.,L'/�:, .. . 1 )_ - .. ,l-l · ·-1s I

87 87

Q;:-11issio,1

U11der tl1e FetlJa Nagast

93 93 94 94 94 95

(;s

.. '

:l .• !:,fl

' . .. d r, 1.1. l!COi1Zini!,iCi(�Ci Jtes7. 1-"11 gs

Seer. C. Cr��11,r.':!a! ,�.tte111pi

a. T�t.e !�1f.e�·?t tce�iuirre�nent I··I 1) I r11 es, Tlie Inte1-, t Elen1e11t i11 Criminal Attern pt

\Y/ai �li11ger, Crin1ii1al Attern1Jt lv\err1tt v. Commonwealll1 (Virgi11ia, United States) Qr,estions

95 97 97 98

b. The Act Requirement

•

. II . I . .

• I • I

.. •

. . ·1'.' I

(1) The Preparatory Act

�:nal Code of Etl1iopia, Art. 26 Zurcl1er, Pre1 )aralio11 a11d Altetn pt People v. Miller (Califor11ia, U11ited State s) _ Q1test1011s (2) 1 he Act of Attempt

Pe11al Code of Etl1ioJJia, Art. 27 St111er1_ or Cottrt of tl1e Ca11to11 o f Z u ri c li , D e c is io11 o f 0?9 -1 94 3 (S ,vitzerlarid) � W tel<i�1alder c. lv\ i11 istere Public d lt Canton de Zoug (S\v1tzerla11d)

98 98 99 100 101 102 103

•

.: •

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XXVII

CHAPTER 5. THE PENAL CODE OF ETHIOPIA: SOURCES AND FORM Sect. A. Sources of the Code

Graven, The Penal �od_e of the Empire of Ethiopia . Graven, Modern Eth1op1a and the Codification of its N ew La w . · Notes of the Imperial Codification Co·mmission Questio,is

Sect. 8. Form of the · Code

Notes of tl1e Imperial Codification Commission Graven, The Penal Code of. the Empire of Ethiopia Hall, The Three Fundamental Aspects of Criminal Law

Questions Recommended Readings

57 63 63 64

64 64 65

67 67

PART II

Analysis of the Theoretical Basis of Penal Law With Specific Reference to the Law of Homicide The Ge11eral Part CHAPTER 6. INTRODUCTION TO Tl-iE GEN!Ef!At PA�.T ·sect. A. The Criminal· Act and Criminal GaJnit� B�K·ereiriuasite§ ;:10 li?ib»iil}' Logoz, Three Esse11tial Conditions for (:rin1jnal J_iab;\itj1 Williams, Tl1e Criminal Act and Crimir1al OL\ilt

Qrtestions

Sect. B. Concurrence Between the Criminai ;.\ct �nd Cirirrair�a� Guiit

Thabo Meli v. Regina (Privy C:o,Jncil, Basutoland) Palani Goundan v. Emperor (India)

Questions Problem Notes: Other Formulations of the �equirement of Concurrence

1. Bishop, Combination of Act and In�ent 2·. Perkins, Concurrence of Mens Rea and Actus Reus 3. Hall, The Principle of Concurrence

Questions

Sect.

Preliminary Examination of the Ethiopian Law of Homicide

ia) iop th ral (E ne Ge ey rn to At 1e Tl v. sie as ell es · br Oa Ato Abayneh

Questions Recommended Readings. CHAPTER 7. THE CRIMINAL ACT

Penal Code of Etl1iopia, Art. 23

a. The Components of an Act

w al La in m ri C e th in e iv ot M d an n io nt Cook Act Inte Perki�s, What Constitutes an Act Problem

Gour, Penal Law of India: ''Act''

.. ..,

72 73 73 73 74 74 74 75 75 76 76

•

Sect. A. Definition

b. Involuntary Conduct

70 70 71

77 77 78 79

XXX

TABLE Of CONTENTS

p hi e l ns L R sa io at au C of s n o · ti la u rm Fo ed ifi od 2_ Other C t 5• 0' 4 1 A ) r , 3 0 9 (l 4 Pe11al Code of Italy e , od 2) l C 96 na (1 . Pe ct Se el od M 2.03 e, ut tit 11s J w La an ic er m A

Questions

�obhm b. Intervening Cause

4 2 . rt , ia p o 1i tl E � f o e d o C al Pen _ ted St tes) People v. Lewis (California, Uni _ �1on of 1-7-1927 Oerma11 federal Supre1ne Cot1rt, Dec1s

' f ,:, -

. . .. .... --'.-.. .''' " . �. . '

.' '

.'' .. : . "

Q,,estions Problen1s Recommended Readings

' ,,! '

127 127 128

1�

129 130 132 132 133 133

CHAPTER 8. CRIMINAL GUILT: THE MENTAL ELEMENT

." I

Sect. A. Criminal Intent

' 'l '

a. Direct Intention

Penal Code of Ethiopia, Art. 58 Im1Jerial Codificatio11 Commission of Etl1iopia, Art. 5� Pe11al Code of S�;,itzerland, Art. 18 (fre11cl1 and English) Logoi, f)irect I11te11tion i11 Swiss Pe11al Law Ban(Jvitcl1 v. Co1111nonwealth (Virginia, U11ited States} }Votes:

1. T'J:ic .Et!;irJpiari Co11cept of lnte11t i11 Historical Perspective F �tl1ri. J\i,1:�ast i)er1al Code of EthiopiJ, (1930), Arts. 14, 15 2. '' lv!tns Reci"

I '!

Questioris

P;·ol,Ier,"J r1. lri;aiirect �r�ter�tion (Do�us lE·ye�1tt.ialis) Pe11al Code of Etl1io1)ia, i..\rt. 58 l1n1)erial Coditicatio11 Commissio11 of Etl1iopia, Art. 58 Logoz, l11di rect I nter1tio11 in Swiss Pe11al Law Crete11ol1d c. Proc11ret1r General du Canton de Vaud (Switzerland) 801111ard, Note to tl1e Creteno11d Case

135 135 135 136 136 139 139 140 140 141 141 142 142 143 145

Notes:

' '

1. Tl1e Comparative Codification of I11direct Intention Penal Code of Germa11y ( 1871 ), Sect. 16 146 Penal Code of tl1e Iiu11garia11 Peoples Republic ( 1950), Sect. 16 146 Pe11al Code of Greece ( 1950), Art. 27 146 2. Tl1e Concept of /11te11t in tl1e Co 111 mon Law 146

Q1iestions

�obhm Recommended Read£ngs

147 148 148

Penal Code of Etl1iopia, Art. 59 Pa11cl1aud, Neglige11ce in Swiss Pen Ato �akorinen Woldeyes v. Tl1e P al Law ublic Prosecutor {Ethiop"ia) Q uestions

148 149 149

Sect. B. Criminal Negligence a. Advertent and Inadvertent Negligence

150

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XXIX

Notes: 1 . Other Formulations of . Possible Tests to Dzs. t.inguis . h Preparatory Act� fr_om Attempted Acts

. Wa1b�1nger, Crimi�al Attempt American La:V Institute, Model Penal Code (1962) , Se ct 5. . 01 The Rl1ode�1a an_d Nyasaland La\v Jouriial Attem pt s ' to Commit Crimes 2. The Policy Considerations in Establishing a Test Pe�a_l Code of !l:e Soviet Unio11 (1958), Sects. 15, 20 W1ll1ar:is, A Cr1t1que of tl1e Proxi111ity Rule The _King v. Barker (Ne\v Zeala11d) Aus!tn, Tl1e Purpose o·f tl1e Act Requireme11t i11 Crimi11 al ./\ttempt

Questions Problems Reco111mended Readings

Sect. D. Impossibility: A Defense to Attempt?

Penal Code of Etl1iof)ia, Art. 29 Webster's Ne\v Collegiate Dictio 1 1ar)': ''Absolutt�'' Imperial Codification Co 1 n1nission of Etl1iopia, Art. 29 Code Pe11al Suisse, Art. 23 Bayard c. Tribur1al Canto11 al Valaisa11 (S\X1itzcrland) Logoz, I mpossib]e Offenses Clerc, Absolute I1npossibility

107 107 108 109 110 110 112

114 114 115 115 115 116 116 117 117 117

Criminal Code of Yugoslavia (1951), Art. 17 Penal Code of Italy (1930), Arts. 49, 215 Criminal Code of Canada ( 1954), Art. 24

Questions Recommended• Rcadi;1gs Sect. E. Renunciation and Active Repentence

Penal Code of EthiorJia, Art. 28 Ryu, Tl,1e Ne\v Korean Crimir1al Code: Witl1dra\val from Crin1e a11d Self Den u11ciatio11 WL1 st c. Ministere PL1blic clt1 Ca11to11 de Lt1cer 11 e (Switzerla11d)

Questions Recomme11ded Readings

Sect. F. Causation: The Relatio11ship Between Criminal Act and Resultant Harm a. The Causal Formula

Notes: 1. }'1,trther Theories Concerning Car-esal Relationship

106

113 113 113 113

Questions Problems No,es 1. Apparent Impossibility 2. The Comparative Treat1nent of Impossibility

Pe11al Code of EthiofJia, Art. 24 Poor Richard's Alma11ac, Poem . Logoz, Cat1satio11 in tl,e Pe11al Law of S\v1tzerla11d J--lart ar1d J--Io11ore, Tl,e Rise of Adeqt1ate Cause Tl1eory Conti11e11tal Law

105 105

i11

118 118 119 120 120

121 121 121 122

125

------------ -- -....,_ - -... TABLE OF CONTENTS

XXXII

Problem Recommended Readings

176 177

Questions

178 178 178 181

on ti ca xi to In of se en ef D e th d an y lit Sect. B. Limited Responsibi a. Limited Responsibility Penal Code of Ethiopia, Art. 49 la er of itz _ Sw aw nd 1: l na Pe e th in ty ili ib 1s o1 sp Logoz, Limited Re ) 1a p 1o th (E la ed T ab le ai H v. al er en Tl1e Advocate G b.The Defense of Intoxication Penal Code of Etl1iopia, Art. 50 fetl1a Nagast, Dru11ken11ess ce an Fr of w La l na Pe e th in n tio ca xi to at B011z In 1t e1 m sh ni Pu om fr pt em Ex s es 111 e1 1k u1 Dr Willia�s, Sho11ld

. . ... '

. ...., . ' ' ;

Questions Problem Recom1ner1ded Readi,1gs

.. - .'

' I I

' '

. . • I! : ·,

. .'

.I, . I' I

I I

Sect. C. The Defense of ln1maturity a. The legal Setting Pe11al Code of Etl1iopia, Arts. 52, 53 and 56 Imperial Codificatio11 Comn1issio11 of Ethiopia, Arts. 52, 53 and 56 Tl1e \!agra11cy a11d Vagabo11dage Proclamation (1947 O.C.), Art. 8 Penal Code of Ethiopia, Art. 471 lii1ri1 Court, Juvenile Divisio11, Crim. file No. 522/53 (Ethiopia) J)enal Cocle of Etl1io1Jia, Arts. 54-55, 161-182 1 Iig; - ij Court, J t1ve11ile Division, Crim. file No. 550/53 (Ethiopi�) f\!or.e:;: 1. 7�/Je J:�roe11ile Co1,rt 2. Tl?e Treatmr?nL of Yo1tr1g Offenders 3. 'T/Je Prevertlion of _f1�ver2ile Crime 01�estio;1s P�·o/Jlcm

b. -rhe C8u.1saiior� of juveriile Crime Riley,_ P.�n _Evaluation of Male Juvenile Delinquency in Ethiopia Ye,v1e1nsl1et _Besl1a.l�-\�oured, ... The Maki11g of Juvenile Delin c1uents 111 Etl11op1a Eco11omic.Co1nr�issio11 for Africa, Rapid Social Change and J_uve111le Del111que11cy i11 Africa Q:tesizo11s Problem Recommended Readings

CHAPTER 10. THE

AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

Sect. A. The Defense of Superior Orders a. The Defense in Etl1iopia I)e11al Code of Etl1ior)ia, Arts. 69' 70 fetha Nagast P�11_al Code of Etl1iOJ)ia (1930), Arts. 146_ 1 M1l1lary Pe11al Code of Switzerlaiid Art 49 19 lo T amrat Seyou1n v. The Public' prose A · cutor (Ethiopia) Q,,estio11s

181 182 182 183 185 186 186 187 188 188 188 189 190 190 191 191 192 192 193 196

191 199 204 204 204

206 206 207 207 207 209

TABLE OF CONTENTS b. The Test of Negligence

XXXI •

Penal Code of Etl1iopia, Art. 59 Panchaud, Negligence in Swiss Penal Law Common�ealth v. Pierce (Massacl111setts, United Stat es ) The Public Prosecutor v. Ato Terf11 Alemou (Etl1iopi a)

Notes:

1. The Deg�ee of Negligence Req1J.ired by the C'ommon Law 2. Comparative Statements of the Test of Negligence Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 28 Pe11al. Code of tl1e �I 11ngaria11 Peoples Republic (1950), Art. 17 American Law I11st1t11te, Model Per1al Code (1·962), Sect. 2.02 3. The P,,rpose of Punishing· Negligence Williams, W hy Punisl1 Negligence

Questions Problems Recomme1zded Readings

151 151 151 152 153 153 154 154 154 156 157 157

CHAPTER 9. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sect. A. Absolute Irresponsibility and the Defense of Insanity a. The Present Law and Its Origins

Penal Code of Ethiopia, Art. 48 Ato Oetatchew Oiza\v v. Tl1e Advocate Oe11eral (Ethiopia) M'Naghten's Case (E11glar1.d) Perkins, The I 11abili ty to Regulate Co11 d ttct: Tl1e Irresistible Imptt lse

Notes:

1. The Forerunners of tl1e M Naghten Test Cale11dar of Close Rolls, Ed\vard I (Engla11 d) Trial of Edward Arnolcl (E11gla11d) Fitz Herbert, Ne\v Nat11ra Brevium Hawkins, Pleas of the Cro\xrn Hale, Pleas of the Cro\xr11 2. The Progeny of the M'Nagl1ten Test Penal Code of Germa11y (1871), Sect. 51 1 oslovakia ( 1951), Art. 11 Penal Code of Czecl Penal Code of Brazil (1940), Art. 22 Draft Penal Code of Japan (1961), Art. 15 3. The Psy chopath B. v. Ministere Public du Canto11 de Lucer11e (Switzerla11d) 4. The Expert

Questions

Problem

b. A Critique of the Present Law

Weihofen, What is Wrong with tl1e Law . Durham v. United States (Ct. of App., Washingto11, D.C.) Notes: 1. The Aftermath of Durham

Blocker v. United States (Ct. of App., Wasl1ingto11 , D.C.)

2. Tests Similar to the Durham Rule Penal Code of France (1810), Art. 64 e od l C na Pe l1 nc re F , 64 . rt A r, ye So d e an ill av ej Fr

Questions

159 159 161 163 164 164 164 165 165 165 165 166 166 166 166 167 168 169 171 174 175 175 176

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XXXIV

...��,.. ,.,. "; : . '.. ' !'

' ' ·\ ,

'.,..

.. ;

' :·

:: ··1 ·:· � I

.."I

. .,.I

(C ana da) ab e equ on Ma che k v. Regina �ations b. Ignorance or Mistake of Law 8 7 . rt A , ia p o 1i tl E e d o C l 1a e1 P . d f rom ''Law'' (1) ''Fact'' Distingu1she d ct an n fa ee Law w Be c et er � iff D he T s, m � � Willia d lie is gu n ti is D aw L d an ct fa l, al Ji (2) The Policy Alternatives Tlie Crow11 v. faid Mal1moud Abdel Kader (Ethiopia) rlol1nes, Mistake of Law , . . x c Ministere Public du Ca11to11 d Argov1e (Switzerland) 0er;na11 federal Sttpreme Court, Decision of 3-18�1952

239 240 240 242

Penal Code of Ethiopia (1930), Arts. 12-21

244

Penal Code of V11goslavia (1951), Art. 10 Penal Code of I(orea ( 1953), Art. 16 Penal Code of Kenya (1930), Art. 7

245 245 245 245 247 249

Notes:

. . 1. [gnora11ce of Law in Ethiopzan History

2. Legislative Diversity in t/Je Treatment of the Defense of Ignorance of Law

' '

' .

;

Q11cstior1s

J'lroblern

Readirigs Seci. D. Otl1er ,l\ffirH'i!lat'ti·ve Deren.ses Under the Penal Code a. /\cts A.t�ihorized �)Y l�a.w or Professional Duty b. Absoluae Coerciorw c� Conuerit of ti.e � .. 1jt�rer� Part}' Recon1mended

, I I

' I

' . ''

' '' !

- I

, . II

' ' ',' ' '. '

I<-.eco1111nencle,{ 1?.eadings

CHft�r·rEf{ 'i1. PftitlT�Cif�fa..1.iOf,,] !f\l AN OFFENSE Sect. A. .P· rii'�cipa!s, /.\.cconcpiices and Accessories Pel1al Code of Ethiopia, Arts. 32, 36 and 39 .A..lo Ashenafi Aclelal111 a11d otl1ers v. The Public Prosecutor (Ethiopia) Logoz, The Distinction Bet,veen Co-offender and Accomplice Stat1ffer c. Iv\i11istere Public du Canton de Soleure (Switzerland ) Tl1e King v. Ricl1ardson (England) Notes:

1. �artic(p�1tio!2 1;:i!h l{espect to Offe11sts Rilat 2. P,irtzc1p�ttzo12 1n tl1e Legal His tory of Etl ing to Publicatio ns ,iopia fetl1a Nagast Pe11al Code of Etl1io1)ia (1930), Art s. 3541 ��tfuns fubkm

Recommended Readings

' ,'

...,..,

:.:'I

'. �· '

.. '

••• I ' ' ' • .. .,I'

••J I • I

CHAPTER 13. THE PETTY OFFENSE Sect. A. Petty Offenses in Ethiopia Penal Code of Ethiopia, Arts. 691, 702 Tl,e federal Prosecutor v. Lisci Sofia (Etl1iopia) Penal Code of Etl1iopia, Arts. 3, 375 and 736 ' Tlie Weigl1ts and Measures Proclamation (1963 O.C.)

290 291 293 294 294 295 296 296

Q11estions

297 297 299 300 300

I�ogoz, Petty Offenses in S\viss Penal Law

302

Sect. B. The Requirement of Guilt in Petty Offenses a. In Ethiopia Pe11al Code of Etl1io1Jia, Art. 697 301 Penal Code of Switzer)and, Art. 333 (french and English) 301 Ora ve11, Tl1e Classificatio11 of Offe11ses in tl1e Swiss Penal Code 302

b. In Comparative la\-v

Sa·yre The Sig11ifica11ce of tJ1e New Development of the Regulatory 1

Offe11se

' ;

Bouzat, fJetty Offenses in French Penal Law Proud111an v. Dayn1a11 (Australia).

Notes: F1,1,rtl'Jer Co11sideration of tl,e Req1,irement of Guilt In Petty Off enses

' '

. Ii I

: I '

'i''

I ..• II

. 'I .

. ..�..

' '

. ..

: ; ·: " .. ' "I

. ..-

� ' '

�'. ,(; ' , ;."

.. ,. ' '

306 l. liall, A Critique of Strict Respo11sibility 2. Fried t11a11n 1 Strict Criminal Responsibility and Public 307 VJ/ elfare Offe11ses 3. Americar1 Law Institute, Model Penal Code (1962), Sects. 1.03, 2.05 307 4. Howard, Strict Responsibility in tl1e High Court of Australia 308 308 309 310

Q1,estio11s Problems Rer:ommended Readi11gs

PART IV

·'

302 304 304

Tl1e Disposition of Off enders CHAPTER 14. SENTENCING: THE RANGE OF JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE PRESCRIPTION Sect. A. The Legislative Grading o f Offenses Frejaville and Soyer, Tl1e Determin 312 ty at P io en of n th al e Hart, Tlie Perspecti_ ve of tl1e Le 313 gislature Notes:

.� ·

,_ •

1· •

.••: •

., ,

. .' , .

TABLE O F CONTENTS

XXXV

Wecl1sle r, Jo11es and Kor11, Criminal Solicitatio11

Questions Proble,n Recommended Readings

Sect. C. Conspiracy a. The Law of Conspiracy in Ethiopia

Penal Code of Etl,iopia, Arts. 37, 472 Ato Zeryhu11 N\ako1111e11 a11d otl1ers v. Tl1e Public Prosecutor (Ethiopia) U11ited States v. Falco11e ( Ct. of AJ)f)., 2cl Cir. and Sltpre111e Ct.) Direct Sales Co. v. U11 ited States (Sur)re111e Ct.) Gour, Tl1e Requiren1e11t of a11 Overt Act Wechsler, J011es and Korn, Overt Act i11 tl1e America11 Law I 11sti tu te's Model Pe11al Code

262 263 263 264

264 265 266 268 271 272

b. Conspiracy in Comparative Law

Wagner, Co11spiracy in Civil Law Cou11tries Harvarel La ,x, Revie,x,, Co11s1)irac)' i11 tl1e Con, mor1 La,v Questio,1s Proble,n Reco1nme11ded Retzdi11gs

272 274 276 277 278

PART Ill

The Special Part and tl1e Code of Petty Offe11ces Some Illust1·ative Proble111s CHAPTER 12. THE OFFENSE OF BIGAMY

Sect. A. The Function and Form of Family Groupings Murdock, Tl1e Universality of tl1e Nuclear family Notes: Marriage Patterns in Et!?iopia 1. Marriage Under the Fet/,Ja Nagast

fetl1a Nagast, Tl1e I n1 f)Orta11ce of Marriage

2. Amhara Marriage Messing, Tl1e Higl1land Plateau An1l1ara of Ethio1)ia

285

4. Islamic Marriage

Levy, The Social Structure of Islatn

286

Problem Sect. B. The Offense of Bigamy in Ethiopian Law

fetl1a Nagast, Bigamy Penal Code of Etl1iopia (1930), Art. 390 Penal· Code Ethiopia, Arts. 616-617 Civil Code of Etl1iopia (1960), Art. 611 Questions

..,,

. ..

�-

...

284

Ro�ini, Principles of Er1trea11 Customary La\v

Questions

..:

283

3. Tigrean Marriage

5. Galla Marriage Ht1ntingford, Galla family and Marriage 6. 5idamo Marriage a pi io tl1 E t es w l1ut So of s le op Pe li, ul Cer

280

287 287 288 288 288 289 289 289 290

1 TABLE Of CONTENTS

XXXVI II

�•

J{econ1me11ded Readi,igs

· y rt e b Li f o n o ti c ri st e R e h T B . t ec S

342

a. Ethiopian Penology

ia op 11 in l�i io ct Et :e �r C , ye fa es T v ' 1 e\ l . tc ga ar Arid . . r, I er1o l11t l o! er1a ry mp I)eJ)artme,,t of Priso11s, M1111st . Et �11opian Oover11111e11t, A Cl1art of tl1e Prison Syste1n of Eth1op1a (1956 E.C., 1963-64 O.C.)

b. Comparative Penology .,.. .. .

·, : ..

Eyisoii, TI,e Pei1al Syste1n of OJ1ana Priso11 Oepartrnent, Oover11ment �f Kenya, Tl1e Annual Report 011 tl,e Treat111e11t of O·ffe11ders 1n Ke�ya_ (1961) Secretariat, U1,ited Nati�11s, Tl1e 9rgan1zat1on of the Penitentiary _ l1c of Mali S }'Ste111 in tl1e �epub Elkii, Pe11al Practice 111 E11gla11d Be1111�tt Priso11s i11 tl1e U 11ited States Ti111asl1�ff, Tl1e Ot1tcl1 Prison System

'" '

'' �

,·::-1

, .' ' '1 ..

Notes: Criticism of· A1oder11 Pe110/ogy I. A Critiq 1!e of Specifi� Correctio11al Tech11_iques

' . ''

Slil1lrna11 Tl1e Social Strt1ctt1re of Pr1s011s and Jails U.N. Cc.) 11gress 011 tl1e Preventio11 of Crime and the Treat111e11t of Offe11ders, Prison Labour Ze111ar1s ;111d Cavar1, Marital Relationsl1ips of Prisoners 1

. ''I

:2. T/J e Ji,itior1tile for Moder11 Correctional Techniq11es

St1tl1crla11d a11d Cressey, Prison Objectives a11d Conditions Cressey, Tl1e Nature a11d Effective11ess of Correctional l�ecl111iqt1es

(211es1io11s •

J>ro!J/en1

Reco111111e11(!e(I Ret1.di11gs

' '

I I

I '

' '!

' i •

I ''

•. • I'

343 345 346 347 347 348 349 350 352 352 353 353 354 355 356 356

Cl·IA[) TER 16. THE IDEAL Of REHABILITATION

Sect. /'t... Tl1e Causation of Crime

/\dvocate Oe11eral's De1)art111e11t, Ministry of Jt1stice, Imperial l:tl1i()l)ia11 Oover11111e11t, Crimi11al Statistics for Ethiopia (1954 E.C., 1961-62 O.C.) l{i.:cl<1ess, I 11troclt1cl(Jry Review of tl1e Searcl1 for Causes DeJJart1ner1t of Social a11d Eco11omic Affairs, United Nations, Preve11tio11 of [Crime] ... i11 Less Developed Countries (�1testior1s

f)ro!JLen1

f{eco111mcnded Readings

Sect. B. Prison Innovation Designed to Further the Rehabilitation

358 359 363 368 368 369

of Offenders Bouzat, 01Jen lnslitt1tio11s i11 fra11ce 370 Je\X1e1l, lv\exico's T ·es /\ \arias Peiial C 371 o lo � n y _ DerJai l111e1 1t of Social a11d Eco11omic A ff , ai N rs at U io n it ns ed ' r< )g ra 111s of Pre-Release Worl, � 373 E)'15011, Tl1 e DevelOJJment of tl1e P 375 ri so n G S y h st an i11 e a m . _ 1'. otes. Ot/;er Tecl,nrques Co11duc i'V e to the Rehabilitation of Of{tnders l. T/Je Use of Probation Departn,ei,t of Econo1nic a11d Social Affairs, United Nations, 1

,,....

'·- · ...' . . '. . .. . : . . . . •!; . .

. ... .-

:,·

•.

•'

TABLE OF CONTENTS ,.

XXXVII

1. The Competing Policies Underlr,yin · g a sente11cing Structure Bentham, O n P un1s . h ment Wecl1sler, �orrectio11 U11der tl1e N\odel Pe11al Code of the Amer1ca11 Law I 1,stitute 2. The Indeterminate Sentence Department of Social Affairs U11ited Na tio11s, Tl1e Indetermi11ate Se11tence �n .Re Lee (California, Ur1i ted States)

Questio11s Problem Sect. B. The Judicial Individualization of Punishment a. The Role of the Judge

315 316 317 318 318 319

Saleilles, The l11dividualiza tio11 of Pt1nishn1e11t Hart, The Perspective of t l1e Cot1rts

319 320

Penal . Code of Etl1ioJJia, Arts. 85, 86 Cap ta111 Kassay·e Len1ma v. Tl,e Pubiic Prosect1tor (Etl,iopia) Woz. Desta Berl1e v. Tl1e Advocate Oe11eral (Etl1iopia)

321 322 322

b. The Determination of Sentence

Notes: 1. Disparity in Sente1icing

Rhodesia a11d N)rasaland Law Journal, R.

,1.

Seve11ty

324

2. Comparative Sentencing Policy 325 Mannl1eim, Comparative Sente11cing Practice 3. The Predictive Device as a Tool irt Sentenci,ig Glueck, Predictive Devices a11d the Individualization of Justice 326 328 Questions 329 Problem Sect. C. The Administrative Role in Sentencing

Frejaville and Sayer, The Determi11ation of the Penalty Hayner, Sen tencing by an Administrati·ve Board Questions Recommended Readings

331 333 334 334

CHAPTER 15. THE IDEAL OF DETERRENCE Sect. A. Capital and Corporal Punishment a. Capital Punishment

. . . ia op h! Et i11 t en 1m sl ni Pu Lowenstein, Capital 1a p o 11 tl E tn t en m l1 1s 11 t1 P al it ap C r Graven The Rationale fo t h� Penal f o n i� is ev R 11 0 n o si is m m o Tempo�ary New York State C t en m l1 1s n u P al t i ap C st 11 ai g A d an r Law (1965), The Argumen ts fo t e ff E t _ n re er et p s � It . d an Sellin, The Death Penalty s, n io at N d e 1t 11 U s, ir a ff A ic m o n o Departm ent of Social and Ec t n e m l1 is n t1 P l a it p a C n o Comparative Statistics

336 336

ia p !o th E in t en m h is n u P Lowenstein, Corporal t 11 e m h 1s n u P l ra o rp o C r Graven, The Rationale fo . 57 rt A , 5) 95 (1 ia op l1i Revised Constitution of Et � . d en m A s, te ta S ed Constitu tion of the Unit ) s te ta S d e it n U , t. C Trop v. Dulles (Supreme

339 340 340 340 340 341

b. Corporal Punishment

Questions

.,.

.' .

. .. . . '

�

. .'

. ...

.•

337 338 338

�). ' . t·

' • .I. . ••• :• ·,

•

•• • ·1

.. ' .. . ,' .. ' ( ·:

' ..

. .,i

I ·1 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tl,e Selectio11 of Offe11ders fc>r Probation

2. T/Je Use of Co12ditio11al Rele,zse De1)artn1e11t of Social Affairs, U 11 i led Nati 011s, Parole a11d After-Care Q1,estions

Problerrz

Recom111e11cled Reacli,1gs Appe1zdix Index

·· ;:·.;; ..: \ . . �. ' .. : : . . .. . . ' .:..:,.;,,._,.,.: . ·.

;

...__..___ • • • •• •; t -

XXXIX

376 379

380 381 382 385 411

. :

NOTE ON CITATION

XLII

· ..:.'.n'

. ··..,.

�:

l ·

...'.

,'.

• .

I I

., . ., '

;

' I

I I I

i '

·1 I ''' '

I "'

.. •

• '

' I

;

i.e. - icl est (thal i:;) ItnJ>. - I n1perial infr" - below int. - international inter alia • an1ong other tl1i11gs intro. - inlrodttclion J. - J ot1rn al I c · Scienc · , _ . d PoJice • e I · · . r rzmzno ogy .1...aw, an na o Crzmz 1 al Journ • . (U.,ited States) Sci ]. Crim. L. Cri,n. and Pol. . . . J. Eth. L. - Journal of Et/Jiopian � awcase rep�rter,. 1n n, tat1o the roman nu "'!eral 1s the secti c1 ss (Swi naux Tribu es d _ JT � Journal on the 1s of page er nun1b the c arab1 particular ca,e, and the of rer>orls (IV is Penal Law), tl1e rt) po re e th of ar ye e th of at th is te da al fin L. - La\,q Leg. Not. - Legal Notice . - aul Logoz Commentazre du Code Penal , S111sse , Suisse: Partie Gfubal � Logoz, Com,nentaire du Code Penal (1939, Oelachaux & Niestle S. A., � w1t,zerlan�), A1erle, Droit Penal - Roger Merle, Drozt Penal Ge�r-al Complemenuire (1957, Presses Universitaires de France, fra11ce) Michael and Wecl1 sler, Crirnina l Law - Jeron1e �icl1ael and Herbert Wechsler, Cri!71inal LAw and Its Ad,ni nistration : Cases, Stat1'tes and Com,nentarzes (1940, Supp., 1956, The Foundation Press, Inc., United States) Mueller, Co,nparative C;iminal Lw - Gerhard Mueller, Materials on ComparAtive Criminal LAw (1960, New York University Scl1ool of Law, United States) n.b. - nota bene (note ,veil} no. - number op cit. - opus citatun1 (in the previously cited book by tl1e same author) JJ. - page para. - paragraph Paulos ·rxad1.1it , Abba, Dr. Pol. Sci., Dr. Jt1r., Fetl:,a Nagast, JJrovisional translation fron1 the Ge'ez (1964, 1:thiopia) Paulsen and l(adish, Criminal L,,,u,. - Monrad Pattlsen and Sanford Kadish, Criminal Law and /ts Processt·s: C,iscs ,.ind 1vf,1tt'riais ( 1962, Little, Brown a11d Co., United States) P.C.E. - Penal Code of Ethiopia (1957) Perkins, Cri"1in.1/ Law - Rollin Perkins, Crimin al Law ( 1957, The Foundation Press, tnc., United States) J)JJ. - pages t:>roc. - Procla1nalion r>t. - part publ. - publicaiion Reg. - Regulation Rep. - Reports; r�epori�r Rev. - Review RO - Recueil Officiel (Official Swiss case reJJOrter; in citation, the first arabic number is the volu me nttmber, lhe ron1an number stands for tl1e section of reports (IV is Penal Law), and the final arabic numl1er is the 1Jage of the particular case}. sect. - section Sup. - Supren1e supp. - supplen1cnt supra - above trans. - translation U. - University U.N. - United Nations U.S. - United Stales v. - versus, against vol. - volume Youin an d Leaute, Droit Penal - Robert V ,, · oui n an d J acq ues Lea ute Droit Pe11s1L ti CriminologJt· (I 956 , Presses Universitaires de France, Frane ) e . . W"ll 1 ta ' ms, Criminal law - Gla11ville Williain c 5, · ,ma · l i.Aw: Tbt GtnnAI P11rt (2d ed., 1961, Ste· rzm vens & Sons, Ltd. England) 1

Note On Citation Cases are cited by tlJe 11.'.l1nes of t/Je parties unless they are unavail �bl.e, and tlJen by tl1e date of the case. The footnotes of the author r11n in seq_uence by chapter; t/Jose wit/Jin quotecl te,"(ts are cited in parentheses both in the text a �1d at tlJ� foot of page by tlJeir original n11rnber exactly as !hey appeared ''? the origin�/ text. ManJ' footnotes of quoted texts are omitted us11ally without notatzon. An1erican spellings and breakings are 11-Sed by the a1,tlJor altlJ011gh spellings in q11oted texts have not been altered. . -�LI translatzor,s fro,n the FrenclJ are tlJose of the autlJor unless otherwise _ indicated. The atttlJor gratef,1/ly acknowledges the use of the following 7.vorks and the rnany otl,ers included in this book.

1\1AJOR ABBREVIATIONS AND CITATION FOR1'11S •

App. - ApJJeal Art. - Article Bouzat or Pinatel, Droit Penal - Pierre Bouzat et Jean Pinatel, Traitf: de Droit Penal et cle Cri,n inologie ( 1963, Librairie Dalloz, France} Brett and Waller, Crin1inal Law - Peter Brett and Peter Waller, C.tses and M(tterials in Criminal Law (1962, Bt1tterwortl1s, At1stralia) c. - contra (versus, against) C.C.E. - Civil Code of Ethiopia (1960) chap. - chapter Cour de Cassation - Court of Cassation C P.S. - Penal Code of S,vitzerland (1937) crin1. - crin1inal ct. - court Donnelly, et. al., Criminal /,aw - Ricl1ard Donnelly, Josepl1 Goldstei11 and Richard Schwartz, )rornulgation_, Invocation and Administration of t/Je J in n Decisio for s Problem al Law: Crimin Crimes (1962, The free Press of Glencoe, l11c., United States)

LclW of

Dr. - Doctor E.C. - Ethicpian (Julian) Calendar (7 years, 8 111onths and 11 days earlier than tl1e Gregorian calendar) ed. - editio11, editor e.g. - exe,npli gratia (for exan1 pie) Eng. - E11gland et. al. - et a/ii (and others) etc. - et cetera (and so on) Eth. - Ethiopia fed. - federal Fetl1a Nagast - see Paulos Txadua infra for. (f) - foreign Frejaville a11d Soyer, Droit Crin1inel - M. _Frejaville and J.C. Soyer, A1an11el de Droit Criminel (1960, Librairie General de Droit et de Jt1r1sprudence, France) G.C. - Gregorian Cale11clar Hall, General Principles of Cri,ninal Law - Jeron1� Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law (2cl ec.l., 1960, The Bobbs-Merrill ComJJany, Inc., United States) Harno I Criminal Law - Albert Har110,• Cases and Materials on Crirninal Law and Procedure ( 4th ed., 1957, Callaghan & Co , United States) ibid. - in the san1e source as tl1e citation i111111ecliately preceding iden1 - in the sa111e source at the sarne fJage as the citation in1n1ecliately }Jrcceding

•

•7

:re-

XLIV

·''

·":.

.· ;. · . l' .. .. ,' ' '

. '

. '.

TABLE Of LAWS

,:.\rt. 3. ,:\rts. 12-21. Arts. 35-4 I . Art. 145. r\rls. 1-16-49. Art. 390. Art. 442. ia, Avant-Projel op hi Et of n io iss m om C n io Imperial Codificat 0 ;.\rls. 1-S4. see A1Jpe11di.x al PI'· 385-41 Proclan1alions 89 of 1939 E.C.; 1947 G.C.) o. (N on ati am ocl P e ag nd bo ga \'a d a11 r cy Vagran Art. 8 C) 63 G. ; 19 C. E. 55 19 or 8 20 o. (N ion 1at lan oc Pr res asu J\1e \XI eights and Prean1ble Arts. 3, 8, 12. Decrees Unfair Trade Practices Decree (No. 50 of 1955 E.C.; 1963 G.C.) Arts. 5, 11

339 244 257 229 207 289 34

188 300

300 309

FRANCE Penal Code of France (1810) Art. 63. 1\rt. 64.

88 175 GERMANY

•

I I '

Peilal Code o, German}' (1071) Seel. lb. Intention ,� o , .1c1(:\ • i { 1�11. · �o Comn1it a felony --�� , ct.· ;·H'1a.. : : ::i I ;rresj)Ons1 b1l1ty Sect. L.av11 �)f /:,ug. 3, ·t 953 (I�ailurr to Rencler Assistance}

146 261 165 89

GREECE .

. .,

Pena! Code of Gr�ec<= (1�50), 1\rt 2·1. lni:::ntion.

Art. 28. Negiigence

' .I

Pe11al Code of Hungary (, 950) Sect. I· The Objects l)f this Act Sect. 16. Intention Sect. 17. Negligence , I I

. 'I

. . . .,

146 153

Penal Code of India (1860) Art. 494. (Bigamy)

HUNGARY

27 146 15-4 INDIA

294 ITALY

Penal Code of Italy (1930) Art. 40 . Re1at10 · 11 of Cause and Effe ct Art. 41· Concurrence of catises Art 49 Off oneou sly Prest1n1ed and Impossible Offence r � � i �f Art: 215. Des: ti Art 593. Fail11re to Lend Aid Draft Penal Code of Japan (1961) Art. 15. Mental Disorder

127 127 116 J16 88

JAPAN 166

Table of Laws This tablt includts only those lau•s wl,ich are fi,/ly or partially set out in tlie text or tippcndix.

BRAZIL Penal Code of Brazil (1940) Art. 22. (Criminal Responsibility)

166 CANADA

Criminal Code of Canada (1954) Art. 24. Attempts CHINA (PEOPLES REPUBLIC} Marriage Law (1950} Arts. 1-2.

'291

CZECHOSLOVAKIA Penal Code of Czechoslovakia (1951) Art. I I. (Criminal Responsibility)

165

ENGLAND Sexual Offences Act {1956) Art. 13. Indecency Bet�·een l\-\en ETHIOPIA Constitution, Revised (195S) Art. 57. Civil Code of Ethiopia (1960) Art. 611. Bigamy - 1. Criminal Sanction Penal Code of Ethiopia (1957) Preface

Arts. I-84. Art. 85 Art. 86. Art. 375.

Art. 471.

Art. 472. Art. 520.

Art. 547. Art. 600. Art. 616.

Appendix at pp. 385-410 Principle Calculation of Sentence Falsification of Weights and Measures Dangerous Vagrancy Conspiracy . . s ice rv Se Refusal to Provide Professional Failure to Lend Aid to Another Unnatural Carnal Offences Bigamy stt

Art. 617. Exception Art. 691. Petty Offences

. �un1shment . Art. 697. Conditions for Liability Art. 702. Exclusion of Ordinary Cr1m1nal Penalties Art. 736. Use of Illicit Weights an d Measures Penal Code of Ethiopia (1930)

Preface, Arts. I 4-15

. . .. . .

!�

340

289 27

321

299 188 265

87 87 40

289

297

301 297 299 139

TABLE Of LAWS ft, 1962) l ia ra ic D ff d O se o p ro (P Institute w La n a ic er m A , e d o C l Model Pena tion c ru st n o C f o s le ip c n ri P Sect. 1.02. Purposes; Crimes; Violation Sect. 1.03. Classes of t of Vol1111tary Act Sect. 2.01. Reqt1ire1nen uiren1ents o f Culpability Sect. 2.02. General Reqionsl1ip Between Conduct and Result; ... Sect. 2.03. Causal Relat lute Liability in Reducing Grade of Offense to Violat·ion Sect. 2.05. Effect of Abso pt Sect. 5.01. Criminal A lte111tation Sect. 5.02. Crirninal Solici YUGOSLAVIA

..'

Penal Code of Yugoslavia (1951)

Art. 10. Error in Law Art. 17. Inappropriate Atten1pt Art. 147. Failure to Extend Assistance

...1 . ....·.. .:\.' •: .. ... '.... I �• l . :.

...

� ''..

. .. • I

•

. l

I I

. I ·

• .

! I .!

•I

•

: i

• :• I •

. ,. I

..., •IJ .� .. . ', .

.! ' ;

28, 317 307 79 154 127 308 105 262

245 116 88

T ABLE OF LAWS

XLV

KENYA

Penal Code of Kenya (1930) Art. 7. Ignorance of Law

245 KOREA

Penal Code of Korea (1953)

Art. 16. Mistake of Law

245 SOVIET UNION

Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936) Art. 130.

Penal Code of lhe Soviet Union (1958)

Sect. 15. Respo11sibility for tl1e Pre1Jaration of a Cri111 e a11d for Atte111pting to Con1111it a Cri111e Sect. 20. The Ain1s of Pt1nish111ent

107 107

SUDAN Penal Code of the Sudan {1925) Art. 55. Art. 58.

227 227 SWITZERLAND

Penal Code of Switzerland (1937) (the citation jncludes both French and English J1nless ot/Jerwise i11(iic.1tcd) Art. Art. Art. 1\rt. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art. Art.

l 0.

11. 12.

13. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

24. 25. 32. 33. 34. 64.

Art. 82.

Art. 100. Art. 159.

No Pt1nisl1ment Wilhot1l Law Lack of Respo11sibility Partial Responsibility Exception Mental Exan1ination Intent and Negligence Erroneous Concept of ll1e Facts Erroneous Concept of tl1e La\v Incompleted A tte1npt a11d Witl1drawal ComJJleted Attempt a11cl 1-\ctive Repe11ta11ce Unst1itable Atten1pt Abetting Aiding a Felony or /v\isdemea11or Official Duty Self-Defense Present Danger Extent1ating Circt1n1stances General Provisions (Children) A1inors Eighteen to Twenty Years of Age Unfaithful Manage1nent (Englisl1)

Art. 191. I n1morality with Children (E11glish)

Art. 333. Application of the General Provisions to Otl1er federal Laws

Military Penal Code of Switzerland (1927) Art. 18. Superior Orders

"·() � _., ;, :, '""'()·" -�, -'l1n.-, ( oJ � -

, -i- :.101 4U6 4()f, 389, 390 389, 39fJ 391 392 393 401 222 404 408 397, 398 I,)'.),

·•

398

143 233, 241 301, 387 207, 403, 404

TANZANIA (TANGANYIKA) Penc1I Code of Tanganyika (1945)

147 147

Art. 10. Art. 233.

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (Ste Soviet Union)

UNITED STATES

Constitution of the United States (1787) Amend. 8 .

..._

- ....

...

XLVIII

TABLE Of CASES

GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC Gerrrian federal Supreine Court, 1st Cr!m!nal Senate Dec_is!on of I-7-1927 Gertnan Federal supre 111e Court, I st Crttn 1nal Sen ate Dec1s1�n _of 2-12-1952 Gernlan federal Supren1 e Court, Pl� nt1_ in of the Senate for Cr1m1��l Matters of 3-18-1952 Germatl Federal Sttpren1 e Court, D1str1ct C?ttr� of Aacl1en, Dec1s1on of 7-1-1955 I_landovery Castle, The, Supreme Court, Leipzig (1921) GHANA

Regina v. Ojojo, I 959 Gl1ana L. Rep. 208 INDIA .. •; . ·'.., '' . ' ·'..

:,,

.... .

Pala11i Goundan v. En1peror, Madras (1920)

..: .·,.

.·'......' '

228 73

ISRAEL

132 82 242 261 218

Attorney General, The v. Adolf Eichmann, District Court of Jerusalem (1961) Shn1uel Deutsch v. Tl1e Attorney General, Supren1e Court {1954) KENYA

219

Marwa s/o Robi v. Rex, East African Court of Appeals (1959)

225

153

NEW ZEALAND

King, The v. Barker, Ne,v Zealand Court of Appeal (1924)

108

NIGERIA

f{egina \'. Joseph 1\kinyemi, liigh Co11rt, Fedcral Territory of Lagos ( I 959)

153

SUDAN

(jover11111en1 v. Abciullal1 !Y1uk11tar Nttr, Major Court (1957) Govcrnrnent v. }\btt Ras Teirab and otl1ers, Major Court Confirmation (1958) Sud;;n (1,,vctninent v. I sn1ail Bnshara, Major Court Confirmation ( 1956) SHLl :111 �;ufL 1 n

234 258 226

S 'liVJTZERLA ND f·,'iinist�r•: Public dt! Canton de r_ucerne, Cot1rt of Cassation (1950) B.1·;;;,, r:.i C. rfrib .. 111c'.l C<1.11tonal Valaisan, Court of Cassation (1952)

'I .' I

•!

c:.reltnouci c. 1:.iroc:·11. rtt1r G�neral du Ca11ton de Vaud, Court of Cassation, (I 960) Koller c. /\·1inisiere Public du Canton de Sa.int-Gall, Court of Cassation {1954) L.aube c. 1-:�urer1 Court of Cassalion (1960) ,\'iinisiere F'ul,lic du Canton de Ll1cer11e c. X and Y, Court of Cassation (1959) Stauffer c. 1\linist1�re Public dt1 Cant.on de Soleure, Court of Cassation (1952) Superior Cor,rt of the Canton of Zuricl1. Decision of I 0-29-1943 \Vickihalder c. /v1inisiere Public dtt Ca11lon de Zoug, Court of Cassation (1957) \Y/ ust c. .l\1i nis lere Public du Canton de Lucero e, Court of Cassatio11, ( 1957) X c. /\1inistere Public du Canton d'Argovie, Court of Cassatio11 (1961)

166

113

143

224

223 233 255 102 103 119 240

TANZANIA (TANGANYIKA)

Rex \'. Kajuna s/o Mbake, East African Court of Appeals (1945) i

' '

'' '

UNITED STATES

Banovitch v. �01nmonwealth1 St1pre1ne Court of Virginia (1954) Blocker v. Un1ted States, Court of Appeals, District of Colun1bia Circuit (I 961) Brown v. United States, Supreme Court (1921) Co,nmonwealth v. Pierce, Supreme Co11rt of Massacl1t1setts (1884) [)irect Sales C�. v. United States, S11preme Co11rt (I 943) I?_urhan1 v .. U111te� States, Court of Appeals, District of Coluinbia Circuit (1954) 1�1scher, fritz, Trial of, Nuremberg Military Tribunals (1947) rn Re Lee, Supre1ne Cottrl of California (1918) .lv\erritt v. Con� 1110 nwealth, Stt 1:>ren1e Court of Virg·inia (1935} People v. L�w1s, Supren1e Cot1rt of California (1899) PeotJle v. Miller, Supren1e Court of California (1935) Reynolds v. l.!11ited Slates, Su 1Jren1e Court (1878) State v. Schleifer, Supreme Court of Connecticut (1923) Trap v. Dttlles, Sttpreme Court (1957)

227 136 1 75

222

151 268 171

215

318

97 130

291 263 340

Table of Cases This t4ble includes only those cases which art fully

partially set out in the text.

AUSTRALIA

Proudman v. Dayman, HigJ1 Co11rt (1944) Thomas v. The King, High Co11rt (1937)

304

232 CANADA

Regina v. lvtachekequonabe, High Court of Jt1stice for 011tario (1897)

236

ENGLAND

C�Jendar of CI �se Rolls, Edward I, 7 Edw. I 518 (1278) King, The v. Richardson, Old Bailey (1785) M'1'!aghten's Case, House of Lords (1843) Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, Queens Be11ch Division ( 1884) Thabo lv\eli v. Regina, Privy Co11ncil1 (Basutoland1 1954) Trial of Edward 1\rnold, Kingston Assizes (172-4)

151 .,• -(-j J".

ETiilOPIA

Abaynel1 Gabresellassie, Ato ,,. The Attorney General, S11pre1ne I1nperial Co11rt1 Crit11. App. No. 221/55 (1963 G.C.) Advocate General, ·r he v. Haileab Tedla, Supren1e Imperial Cot1rt, Cri111. Ji.po. No. 8/5 I ( I 958 G.C.) Ashenafi Adelahu, Ato and others v. The PLtblic Prosecutor, Supreme Imperial Couri, Crim. App. No. 35/52 (1960 G.C.) Criminal Appeal No. 29/51 (1959 G.C.), S11preme Imperial Court Crown, The v. Faid Mal1mo1td Abdel Kader, federal High Court of Eritrea, Crim. Case No. 710/53 ( I 96 I G.C.) Desta Berhe, Woz. v. The Advocate General, Supreme Imperial Court, Crim. App. No. 68/54 (1962 G.C.) federal Prosecutor, The v. Lisci Sofia, Federal S11preme Imperial Court, fed. Crim. App. No. 7/51 (1959 G.C.} Getatche w Gizaw, Ato v. The Advocate General, Supreme Imperial Court, Crim. App. No. 95/51 ( 1959 0.C.) High Court, Juvenile Division, Crim. file No. 522/53 (1961 G.C.) High Court, Juvenile Division, Crim. fi!e No. 550/53 (1961 G.C.) . . Kassaye Lemma, Captain v. The Public Prosecutor, Supreme Imperial Court, Crim. App. No. 350/53 ( 1961 O.C.) . .. . Makonnen Tacle Haimanot, Ato v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Crim. App. No. 218/53 (1961 O.C.) Makonnen Woldeyes, Ato v. The P11blic Prosecutor, Supreme Imperial Court, Crim. App. No. 335/54 (1962 O.C.) . . Public Prosecutor, The v. Ato Terfu Alemou, Supreme Imperial Court, Cnm. App. . No. 257/53 ( 1961 O.C.) . . Public Prosecutor, The v. Woz. Atsede Habte Selassie, High Court, Crim. App. No. . . • 618/51 (1959 O.C.) Shawl Demma, Ato v. The Public Prosecutor, S11preme Imperial Court, Crim. App. . No. 103/54 (1961 O.C.) Tamrat Seyotim, Ato v. The Public Prosecutor, federal Supreme Imperial Court, fed. Crim. App. No. 9/53 (1961 O.C.) Zcryhun Mal<onnen, Alo and others v. The Public Prosecutor, federal Supreme Imperial Court, Fed. Crim. App. No. 4153 ( 1961 0.C.)

' .

" · - ......

·-.

178

254 229 239 322 297 159 189

190 322

33 149 152 32

79 207 265

XLVIII

TABLE OF CASES GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC

n of 1-7-1927 !o }s ec te D na Se al in m ri C t 1s , rt ou C e m Oernian federal Su re te Dec1s1o_n _of 2· 12-1952 na Se l 11a ni ri1 C t 1s , rt ou C e em br Su Ger111an federal 1m1nal Matters of 3-18-1952 Cr for ate Sen the of im ent P l urt Co e em Gern1an f ed era1 5up - 1955 ' ion , cis en of De 1 cl1 7Aa of t ur Co ict str Di t 11r Co e . . (1921) German federal S uprre1n ' Le1pz1g , rt ou C e em pr Su , l1e T , tle as C ry ve do J_lan

)32 82 242 261 218

Regina v. Ojojo, 1959 Ol 1ana L. RetJ, 208

228

GHANA

Palani Got1ndan v. En1peror1 .l\1adras (1920)

· .; . . ·. . . . I' . ·• .'. .

ISRAEL

:. I

Attorney General, The v. Adolf Eich,nann, District Court of Jerusalem (1961) Shmuel Deutscl 1 v. Tl1e Attorney General, Supren1e Court (1954)

'�

•I'

JNDIA

.' ...

73 219 153

KENYA '

[\l\ar\l:'a s/o Robi v. Rex, East African Court of Appeals (1959)

.,'.

NEW ZEALAND

J(ing, The v. Barker, Ne\v Zealand Court of Appeal (1924)

225 108

NIGERIA

Regina v. Joseph /\kinyerni, High Cottrt, federal Territory of Lagos (1959) .

' '

153

SUDAN

Sull 3 II (}c-verr: 111en t v ..A. bcl ullah lvl ukl1tar Nur, Major Court (1957) Sud a 11 (J.ovcr11n1cn t ,,. J, lJtl Ras T cirab and ot l1ers, Major Court Confirmation ( I 958) Suc.L,n (1cvcrn1nc:nt v. lsn1ail Bttsl1ara, Major Court Confirn1ation ( 1956)

234

258 226

SWITZERLAND ..

I�. v !,·lini'.;te,·r-: P11blic du Cantor1 de J_ucerne, Cottrt of Cassation (J950) 13.-.y.::.rd c. Trib�JHrJ Cantonal Valaisa.n, Court of Cassation ( l 952) C�r<:ttnoud c. Procureur Genera.I du Canton cle Vaud, Court of Cassation 1 (1960) Koller c . .lvlinisti:re Public clu Ca11ton de Saint-Gall, Court of Cassation (1954} Laube c. l(urer, Court of Cassatiu11 (1960) :\1inislere Public d11 Canton de Lt1cerne c. X and Y, Court of Cassation (1959) Stauffer c. Iv1ini!_:tere Pub l ic du Canto11 de Sol eure, Co11rt of Cassation (1952) Superior Cot1rl of the Ca11ton of Zuricl1, Decision of I 0-29- t 943 \Vickihalcler c. J\{inistere Pub lic d ti Ca11ton d e Zo11g, Cot1rt of Cassation ( 1957) \Vt1st c: �i!listere �11blic du Canton de �ucerne, Court of Cassation 1 (1957} X c. l\\ 1 n 1st ere Publ1c d ti Canton cl' Argov1e, Cottrl of Cassatio n (196 l )

166

l 13

143 224 223 233

25 5 102

103

119 240

TANZANIA (TANGANYIKA)

Rex v. Kajuna s/o Mbake, East African Court of Appeal s (1945) . .

. I

. J • I : I

.. I

•. ,I • ' •• • I

UNtTED STATES

Banovitcb v. <;01nmonwealtl1, St1pre1ne Co11rt of Virginia (1954) locker v. U�1led States, Court of Appeals, District of Colun1bia Cir cuit (1961) � wn v. Un1led St�tcs, Suprem Bro e Court (1921) C?n1monweallh v. P1er�e, Supre1ne Cot1rt of lv\assacl1tiset [)1rect Sales C?. v. U111ted Slates, St1preme Cotirt { I 94 ts (1884) 3) q_urhan 1 �-. Unite� States, Cot1rt of AJ?[?eals, Di f1scher, fritz, Trial of, Nuremberg M1l1tary Tr strict of Columbia Circuit (1954) ln R� Lee, St1pren1e Court of California (1 91 8)ibunals (1947) lv\err1tt v. Con�n1onwealth, St1preme Court of People v. Le_w1s, Supre111e Cot1rt of CaliforniaVirginia (1935) People v. Mille�, Supre111e Court of Californ (1899) ia (1935) Reynolds v, �n1ted Stales, Supreme Cou State v. Schleifer, Supreme Court of Conrt (1878) Trop v. Dulles, St1pre1ne Court (I 957) necticut (1923)

227 136 175

222 151 268 171

215 318

130

29 1 263 3 40

TABLE OF CASES

U ited States v. Falcone, �our� of Appeals, 2d Circuit a11d St1preme Court (1940) U� ited States v. Knowles, C1rcu1t Court, Norther11 District of California (1864)

IL 266 84

ZAMBIA (NORTHERN RHODESIA) and Kt1nge Mapalanga, 5 L.R.N.R. 160 (\952) R v Mwila Chunga

3) 96 (1 3 10 .J. .L .N R 3 y, nt ve Se v: R:

. . . . . . .. ,, . . .

...

•:

.�

324

...,'. ... .. ','. 1

' ..

:�

• i' I

.: ··.

·. · . .. ' ' .. ; I

' . . ."'

WIJatever is hatefi,l ,,nto thee, do it 11ot unto t/1)' fellow. T/Jis is the 7!JIJole law, all else b,.,t co11,1ne11tary.

• j

. I

Rabbi J-1 illel, Babylonian Talmud. SIJabbath 31 a

: 'i

I • I I

!• I

•I

,.'

• : ' , ••• • • •

••

•• > •

; ---

•

_ :.

�

. • '

Part I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF PEN1\L LA\Xf

' '

.' . .

. ' .' . . '

. ··.. . ' . . . . : . . - . .... . . .. . ' . .. .

. :

. .

�·�,' '

.. -�- �..1' <

, ·. : .· ·•1 .' .

·:,· :. i � :

,. .

.: i

•• • I

CHAPTER 1

The Examination and Interpretation of a Code Provision REGINA v. DUDLEY AND STEPI-IENS Quee11's Benc/J Di'lJision, L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 273 ( 1884) E11gla11d

INDICTtv\ENT for tl1e 111t1rder of Ricl1ard Parl<er 011 tl1e l1igl1 se,ts ,vit!1i11 the j urisdictio11 of tl1e Adn1iral ty. At the trial before liuddlesto11, B., at tl1e Devo11 a1,d Corn"v1rtll \Xf111ler Assizes , Nov emher 7, 1884, tl1e jury, at tl1e sttgge stio11 of tl1e 1e,trr1ed j �1 clge found the fa_cls of tl1e case i11 a special verdict whicl1 statecl 'll1at 011 July 5! 1884, the pr1 s011ers, Tl1omas Ot1dley a11d Edward SteJJl1e11s, t<rill1 011e I3rool(s, all able-bodied E11gli sl1 seame11, a11d tl1e deceased also a11 E11glisl1 boy, l1el ,vee11 seventeen and eighteen years of age, tl1e crew of a11 E11glish yacl1t, a. registerecl English vessel, were cast a way i11 a storm on tl1e l1igl1 seas 1600 111iles f ro1n the Cape of Good Hope, and were compelled to pt1t i11to a11 open boat be longing to the said yacl1t. That in this boat tl1ey l1ad 110 stIJJply of \vater ar,cl no supply of food, except two 1 lb. ti11s of tur11ip s, a11d for three days tl1ey had nothing else to subsist upon. Tl1at on tl1e fourtl1 day they caugl1t a small turtle, upon which they s ubsis ted for a few days, and tl1is was tl1e only food they had up to the twentieth day wl1e11 the act 110,v in question was con1mitted. Tl1at on the twelftl1 day tl1e remains of the turtle were e11tirely const11ned, a11d for the next eight days they had 11otl1ing to eat. That they had no fre sl1 water, except such rain as they from time to time cat1gl1t in their oilski11 capes. Tl1at the boat was drifting on the ocean, and was J)robably more tl1an 1000 miles away from land. That on the eigl1tee11tl1 day, when tl1ey l1ad been seve11 days without food and five without water, tl1e priso11ers spoke to Brooks as to wl1at should be done if no succour came, a11d suggested that some 011e sl1ould be sacrificed to save the rest, but Brooks dissented, and the boy, to wl1om tl1ey were understood to refer, was not const1lted. Tl1at 011 tl1e 24t11 of July, tl1e day before the act now in question, the prisoner Dudley prorJosed to Stephens and Brooks that lots should be cast who sl1ould be put to deatl1 to save tl1e rest, but Brooks refused to consent, and it was not put to the boy, and in point of fact there was no drawing of lots. That on that day tl1e prisoners spoke of their having families, and suggested it would be better to kill tl1e boy that their lives should be saved, and Dt1dley proposed tl1at if tl1ere was no vessel in sight by the morrow morning the boy should be killed. Tl1at next day, .the 25th of July, no vessel appeari11g 1 Dudley told Brooks tl1at l1e 1

•

--,c- - .:.,._ - - .

... . .. .. ':. : . '. ,., : I

·.. . . ·, . ..

' !' ' .

. .' '

• • I' I

I ' '

INTRODUCTION

llad better go aitd J 1 ave � slee1J! a11d .111ade sig1 1s to Stepl1ens and Brooks tltat t1 ,e l"loy liad better be I� tiled. l l1e f)r1s011er Stepl1e11s. agreed to the act, but Brool\s clisseritecl froin 1t. Tl1at tl1c boy \Vas tl1en Iy1. ng at tl1e bottom of the bo�tt (]tiite 1,eli}less, a11cl extrc111el)' :V eal,e11ed by !amine and by dri11k�ng sea water, aiid tii,able to 1nal<e a11y res1sta11ce! 1 1or d1� l1e ever asse11t to �1s being l<illecl. Tltei, Dttclle)' offerecl a l)ra)rer. asl<111g forg1ve11ess for tl1�1n all 1f eitlter 0 [ t t1 t 111 s110t1 Id be te 111 f)tecl to co 1n1n1t a rasl1 act, and that tl1e1r souls might be saveci. Tl1at 0Ltdley, \x,itl1 tl,e asse11t of Ste_pl1e_11s, � ent to tl1e boy, aiid tellitt<r I,itn lltat l1is ti111e \v'as corne, ptrt a l<111fe 111to l11s tl1roat and killed J1im tl1e11 � 11d tl1ere; ll1at tl1e tl1rec 1ner1 fed 111Jo11 tl1e body a11d bl.cod of �lie boy for fc>ttr ciay·s; tl1at 011 tl1e fo11rtl1 ci,l)' after tl1e act l1ad been committed tl1e boat \x,as j)icl<ed tljJ by a 1Jassir1g \ressel, _a11d tl1e priso11ers were rescued, still ali\�e b11t i11 tl1e lo\v·est state of 1Jrostrat10 1 1. Tl1at tl1ey \X1ere carried to the [JOrl 'of fal111011tl1, a11d co1n111ilted for trial at Exeter. Tl1at if tl1e me11 l1ad not feel tlJJ011 tl,e bod)' of tl1e bO)' tl1ey \VOt1ld f)robably 11ot l1ave survived to be sc} JJicl(ecl t11J a11cl resclted, b11t \X1 011ld \x1 ill1i11 tl1e four da)'S l1ave died of fam� i1 1e. 1-11at tl1e 110}', beir1g i11 a mt1cl1 \X1eaker co11clitio11, w·as likel)' to have died l,efore t l1e111. �fl,at at tl1c ti111e of tl1e act i11 questio11 tl1ere \Vas 1 10 sail i11 sight 11<)r a11y re;1st)11able 1Jros1Ject of relief. Tl1at 1111der these circumstances ther� aJ)j)Carcd to {lie 1)riso11ers e\ ery 1)robabilit)' tl1al t111less tl,e)' tl1en fed or very sc)o11 fcLI t11)cJ11 lite bo:/ or c>11e of tl1e1nselves tl1e}' would die of starvatiot,. -1-11at tl1cre ,,�·�ls rt() aJ)[)recialJle cl1a11ce of savi11g life except by killing some ()11c fc1r tl1c otl1ers f.() _eat. Tl1a� �ss11111i11g a11y 11ecessit)' to kill an)rbody, tl1ere ,,:·��s r1<) �re;1ter 11ecessll)r for l<1ll111g ll1e boy tl1a11 any of tl1e otl1er three men. 1

•

Questions

It j .. ; crt1ci:1l i11 tl1e st 11cly a1 1cl jJractice of law to read textual material \X'ii l1 1Jreci_sif)11. _ �f o t i1a_t e1 1d aJJpl}' yot1rsel f to tl1e follo\vi11g si 1nple but impor1 a rit c1utst1011s 111 relat1011 to tl1e Dr,clley a11d Steplie1is case: i.

3. ' , I , .. , · 1

,, ;

.·,: •.'! • •• 1

4. 5.

I 11 \vl,:tl ) CrLr ,t11d cot111try \vas ll1e decisio11 re11dered? Before wl1icl1 judge a 1 1 ci <..:o ti rt ·1 1

\X'l1)' clo �ot� tl1.ir11<: foreig11 j11clg111e11ts are i 11clt1ded in materials designed to teac11 Etl110jJ1a11 pe11al la\v?

\X/l10 l1as brot1gl1t tl1e aclio11 i11 tl1e D11d/ey a11d Stepl1e12s case? Wl10 are tlie def e11da11ts? Wl1:,, is Brooks' 11ame 11ot an1ong tl1e defendants? Wl1al is a11 i1 1clict111e11t? 1�1, Ad111irall)'? A jtir:,,? (,,. b. ack's Law Dictionary, Bl � _ 1 t? _ 1� f�ttiicl� 1_1� _ t_lie L a\v Libr!lry, \vill be l1el1Jful i11 defi11i11g ma11y legal 1�1111s. I c>1 _ F1c11cl1 leg_ �tl ter1111r1olo<r:,, see · D t1 1e p i a11d t. zt d n ict101111�z1re_ e rot · · · � (J11cr11 11er, Dic tio1111 "tire /11ri,lil 11e ]ii · - �E-11g. - E,1g.- 1 r- • ) • 7 \X!IJat \Vas tl,c ctcl for \Vl1icl1 tl1e ctefe11da1 1ts were i 11dicted? \Vl1at \X'ere lite facts \'<' I11c · I 1 led to tl1e com1nissio11 of tl1at act? Introductory Problems

yot1rselves for tlie 1110,n t Q , the ng ti 1 en es pr re Counsel r1111 11 of E11gla 11 d� W ? � 11a t argtitne��1� mi��f �� made ir1 supp rt of con· �'- ic� ing �tt �1 o ey and Stepl1e11s for murd er? SttlJJJOSe

INTERPRETATION Of A CODE PROVISION

Now turn the tables and put forward your best arguments on behalf of the defe11se. Who do you tl1ink shot1ld win the case? Sho�ld n1e_11 �ike Dt1dley a11d Ste1Jl1e11s be co11sidered crimi11als? Wl1at sort of ma11 1s a cr1m1nal? Wl1at sl1ot1ld be do11e witl1 criminals? Witl1 Ot1dley a11d Stephens? After readi11g Art. 71 P. C. E. witl1 great care, do tl1e following: 1. Ent1merate eacl1 of tl1e cornponent eleme11ts of ''11ecessity''. 2. Carefttlly apply eacl1 ele1nent to the factual situation i11 tl1e Dridley and Stephe,1s case. Does tl1e D1,dley ti11d Step/Je,is case fit \vitl1i11 Art. 71? If 11ot, in wl1ich \X'a)'S does it 11ot l1arn1onize? Problems of Interpretation

Altl1ougl1 Art. 71 may ap1)ear to be complete, co11sid.er �vl1etl1er il satisfac-, torily covers the issues set out i11 a, b, a11d c below: a.

The source of tl1e '1imminent and seriot1s'' threat. A catastropl1e has befallen Ato Abebe wl10 fi11ds l1imself barely holding on to a plank in a stor1ny Red Sea off tl1e coast of Assab. Ato Tessen1a, also struggling for l1is life, attempts to grab l1old of Abebe's planl<, whereupo11 Abebe, believing (correctly) tl1at two men will sink the plar1k, pusl1es Tessema off a11d i11to tl1e sea. funeral services \Vere l1eld for Tes� sema in St. Stephanos soon thereafter. Is the case of Ato Abebe different from that of Dudley and Stepl1ens?

The method of cl1oice used in deciding which man or men sl1ould die. On that same fateful day in the heavy sea near Assab, Captain Worku of the sinking ship, Ethiopia, ordered all 75 persons. aboard into the only lifeboat. After a few minutes afloat, the Captain realized tl1at the lifeboat was overloaded and would be swamped within a few ho11rs. He ordered his crew to throw 10 persons overboard, bt1t ft1rtl1er ordered tl1em not to throw over any womer1 and 11ot to separate l1usbands from wives. Is the case of Captain Worku different fram tl1at of Dudley and Stepl1ens? Would it have mattered if tl1e Captain had cl1osen the te11 perso11s to be thrown overboard pure]y by cl1ance? See U. S. v. Holmes, 1 Wall Jr. 1 (Circuit Court Eastern District of Pen11sylvania, 1884), excerpted in Micl1ael and Wechsler, Criminal Law 60 and Brett and Waller, Criminal Law 42.

Who is to decide whether the danger was ''imminent and serious'', the defendant who fou11d himself confronted by the danger (subjective) or one who might be called a ''reasonable man'' (objective).

INTRODUCTION

i ,I '..•.

•

I ' ,. ; ;

e standards tiv b ec su d an e j tiv ec j ob on t en m te sta t or Sh l na it� ity pe tiv ec law bj su d are quite an ity tiv jec ob of ts eiJ tic Tl,e co tn used at least are fot1r s term . � e tl1es different e ledg 1,1,ow " my . To · . COil f l1SlI1g · ) a te ti 1ese various mea11iiigs 1s0 to set otrt tl1e at l JJfu 11el be l \Y'il ,v se11ses. It • • . y I og 0 111 rm te e 1s ec 1Jr e or m 1 o1 t1p e re ag a11d to e tiv be d jec � ar1 sub use ive ect obj ly 011 111s ter tl1e t tl1a in fer JJre uld \vo I 1 .) erhaps a11 r e. ov al1 ' exam�le \X'ill ''c 1n ble pro tlie sei,se tl,at tl,ey are i 11 ltelJ) 11ere. Assur11e tliat Ot1clle)' a11d Stepl1e11s l1ad_ bee11 stra11�ed 111 tl1eir lifeboat for 011ly t\vo days, \vl1ere�1Jo11 D�1d!�Y k1_lled tl1e ca�1n �oy gen uitiely belie,,i11g tliat ]1is (Ottclley's) life \V�S 1 11 1111m111e11t a11cl ser1�us �a11ger. A sLibjective standard \VOLtld cat 1s� a Jttdge to tJrobe .ou?,!ey s. 1n111d to deter111i11e wlietl1er l1e actually bel1evecl tl1at l1e \Vas 111 1111m111ent and serious'' da1,ger. If l1e dici so believe, / Ile \vould be excused t111der the defe11se of 11ecessity assu111i11g its otl1er con, fJ0_11e11ts wer� also proved. To apJ)l)' a11 objective sta11dard, a jt1dge \VOL1ld d 1sregard Dudle),'S tl1ougl1ts, and co11cer11 l1i1nself 0111}' \Vitl1 \vl1at a l'reaso11a.ble 1nan'', tl1at_ is, a 11or1nal, ordiiiar)' 1 11a11 i 1 1 tl1 is society 111igl1t l1ave do11e 111 tl1e same c1rct1msta11ces. To rettir11 to our exatn[Jle, a jt1dge i11 aJJplyi11g a11 objective sta11dard to DL1dley a11d Ste 1)l1e11s 111igl1t \'1:,ell say t_l1�t a ''reaso11�ble 1na11'' \VOuld l1ave \vaitcd Io11ger tl1a11 l\xro clays be-fore l<1ll111g tl1e cab111 bO)', and tl1erefore 11c} 1 'i111r11i11-e11t a11d seriot1s'' dar1ger existecl, 11egati11g tl1e possibility of relia11ce t11Jo11 ll1e clefer1se of 11ecessit:'.>'· It is just ll1is JJroble111 of \vl1ell1er i<) aJ)J1I>' a11 olJjective or sttbjective sta11dard i11 Art . 71 to \v·l1icl1 \x,e \viii 1)1.: a(lrl rt':Si 11 •tt 011 rselves f (Jr 1110st of ll1e ren1ai11cler of tl1e first fe\v sessions 1)f J.ic11:1I L:t,xr.

A r1;.1rr1l)cr of \vrilers i11 f)er1al Ia,v, eSJJecially tl1ose 011 tl1e Co11ti11ent, l1a\ e tlsecl t}1i; lcr11·l ''��tlbjective'' to refer to ll1e broad concept of cri111i11al ir1ll:r1tio11. Cocles \x·l1icl1 ctnbocliecl ir1le11t as a prin1ar)' eleme11t of (Jenal I iabil i ty \x,crc sa ic1 to be s Llbjecti ve i 11 a1JJ)roacl1. It is eaS}' to see tl1e deriva tio11 of tl1is se11se of 5Ltbjecti\rity i11 tl1at botl1 i11te11t and subjectivity c:011cer11 tl1e111selves witl1 a stale of 111i11d. Ot1r 110 1ne11clalt1re \Vilt be clearer, 110\vever, if \VC retai11 tl1e \�'orcl ii2tc11t l1ere a11d avoid trse of subjectivity i11 tl·\is ser1se. 1

..''

•• I

,..:..,

\.'," :.

�f ;.,: .j

..•. -

·,'j ,

More clifficL1lt is tl,e t1se of objective to de11ote actual l1arm to society a11d sttbjective lo refer to ll1e da11gerot1s dis1Josilio11 of a crimi11al. Again a1� exarnJ)le 111ay l1el1J. _ If a 111a11, ll1i11l<i11g a gu11 to be loaded, pulls tl,e trigger of a_ gu11 lltal '? a�tt1ally u11loaded i11 a1 1 atte1111)t to kill a11otl1er, it could ?e sa1 cl tl�at. st1lJ�ecl1vely lie is ver)' cla11gerot1s to society, tl1at is, l1e e11�ert�111ecl a cr1 111111al 111te11_t a11d 111a)' do so again, btit 011 tl1e otl1er l1and, ob1ect1vely 110 l1ar 111 tc) society l?ol<. J)lace, tl1at is, 110 actttal JJl1ysical cl1a11ge or l1arn1 occt1rrecl. I11stead of obJecl1ve a11d sttbjective I wot1ld st1ggest the t1se of tl1e _ter111s clti11gero!,s dispositio11 a11d ltcti,al /1ar,n t� exiJress tl1is concept a11cl to avo1cl tl,e c:011 ft1s1011 referred to above. fi11all)1, objective a11d subjectiv_e l1ave bee11 emi)loyed as words den ting � sta11dards, 011 tl1e_ 011e l1a11d, referr11 1g to ii,dividual attribtttes of a s11 1gle perso11 s11cl1 as 111s age or occttJJatio11 (subjective) otl,er l1a11d, ai tl, ,d on e tl1e broader sta11clard of. a rea�ot�able or 11orinal 111 . for in ob je ct a1 iv ( 1' e) st�11ce, Art. 59 co11cer11 111g cr1!n1 11al 11egligei,ce as s_ tio n Jre ca sp u ea '' of ks _ I mtgl,t I easoi,ably be exp_ected 1n tl1e circun1sta1 having a1 1d 1c es ca of th se e regard to·· · age, experience, edt1catio11, oc cupation and rank''. I w ould

------------- ---------------------------11111111 INTERPRETAT JON OF A CODE PROVISION

here one� again �ro�ose a cl1a11ge. Tl1e co11cept of ''reasonable11ess'' wl1icl1 w·as constder_ed obJect1ve should 110w be referred to as external, wl1ile tl1e attr1bu�es formally labeled subjective should 110w be considered as per�o�al individual.. !n t}11s \vay, \XT_e will l1ave termi,,ology ca1Jable of distinguisl1ing each spec1f1c concept wl11ch will I l1ope i11 tl,e future help to clarify our ' thinking in this area. ' d.

Assuming that Art. 71 does not 1)rovicle gt1ideli11es witl1 respect to ''source of the ti, reat'', ''1net l1od of cl1oice'' or ''objective-subjective sta11dard'', 110\v then sho�ld �n Etl1iopian judge deal witl, sucl1 gaps or ambiguities wl1icl1 he may find 111 a Pe11al Code article? In atten1JJting to a11s,ver the above questio11, co11centrate 011 tl1e issue ?f _the. standard to be applied (objective - sttbjective) ancJ carefLtlly exa111i11e tt 1n light of Art. 2 of tl1e Code ,vl1icl1 is tl1e 1Jri1nary gttide to tl1e ii1ter pretation of doubtful provisio11s ,vithin tl1e Code. Tl1e followi11g 11otes will both be he) J)ful and raise certai11 f)roble1ns wit 11 'respect to tl1e 111ear1ing of Arts. 2 a11d 71. You tnay also wish to consttlt ll1e Preface a11cl Arts. 1, 72, 521 and 524 (b) P. C. E. NOT ES

Note 1: Tenets of Penal Interpretation Bouzat, Tl1e Interpretatio11 of Pe11al J_a\vs 1 ( Co11tine11tal Law)

86. The Principle of Restrictirve lnterpretatio1i. - The_ r�le Nr:.ll1tnJ.. crir11en, . n; tll,:1 pocna, sine lege embodies a tradition�} _corollary, wl11ch 1s tl1at the 1 r1 teriJretaLtfJ11 of penal· law must be narrow, restr1ct1ve, �ot broad. 011e m ttst. �ead a11d ajJjJly tten, without going beyond the spec1f1c ·words ancl wri e wer they as the text s • • prov1s1ons.... 87. Relax4tion in Case of Doubt. - Restrictive interpret�tio11, ,v�,i�h is tl1e primary rule may be relaxed accordi11g to generally admitted op1n1011 wl1en the penal la� is obscure to tl1e point tl1at tl1e judges are not capable of grasping the inte11t of the legislators. s ay gy is alw alo a11 by ing on as Re .gy �/o An by g nin aso Re 88. Exclusion of forbidden in interpreting penal material. Planiol, Where the Law Has Ordained, But its Meaning Is Dot1btful2 (Continental Law)

218. Ust of Preparatory Studies. - ... 7"he fir� t tl1ing to be done to dissipate _ doubt, is to consult the preparatory studies leading up to the mal<i11g of tl1e 1.

2•

Bouzat, D,o;t PtMI 9J.

. I, 1 Plan10 1959).

· JiTtdtlSt

tht c:•,.v•,;l , �w lA

Pc '

t ( t 2ed , 1

•

5tate Law Inst1t · utc> by Lou1s · 1ana · · 19 39; trans 1at1on

INTRODUCTION

8 n. ! .'-r. ....�

�'..·..., .� ·;� ..

". .. ' ·:. , ...-�. . •' • ...... .' ..'. . ::· "' V :,,

.. . .. . · . 1 : I

•

;

' ! .I

e re_ports, tl1 e statements of tl1 ,_ ers 1b a11 Ch e 1 tl re fo be s the oi, ssi law (tlie discti d the e ak ide �m gu law 11c11 r is often wl t 1 l t1g tl1o e 1 tl e ,er Tl . .) etc reasoiis, explair1ed. s tl1e bi11ding force lmputed ay alw t 11o ave 1 l s, s e l1el ert 11ev s, ei,t cttm do Tl,ose , the r ort of. tl1o rep au . t11e er, etc., co uld eak sp tl1e ce, pla st fir tl,e In . i,,. to tl,e e led fai l1ay to or g, l11n read a text n_et s01 11 tte go for e ]1av ei,, tak n,is r, bee 1,ave carefttlly, etc. frei,cl1 Parliall!e11tary arcl11ves abou�d 1n exame les of blu11ders of tl,is sort. Ai,d tl1e11 tl1e d1scuss1011s, above all 111 assemblies of a certain size oftei, reflect individttal 01Jir1io11s wl1icl1 may be contrary to th e true inte nt of tli e la,v. Atid also is it freqt1e11tly said tl1at preparato�y studies give arms to all (Jarties a11d tl1at all sides to a co1�tr�versy _tl,ere ftnd ar_guments which are mutLtally destrt1ctive. Fi11ally,. 3:11d tl11s 1s part1�ularl y true 111 the .case of tl1e 1,reparator)' studies of tl1e Ctvtl Code, tl1e m111utes of the hearings are ofte11 too brief to be of 11se.... 219. T/-Je Role of Traditior1.. - I 11 tl1e seco 11d place, it should be asked wl1etl1er or 11ot tl1e law-n1al<er i11te11 ded to cl1a11ge tl,e state of tl1e law. Did he desire to i11troduce a refor111 ? Wl1at ci rcu 1 n s tances may 11ave brought about tl1is refor1n? \X 1 l1at is tl1e goal e11visaged by tl1e autl1ors of the new law? If tl1cre l1as bee11 110 refor1n, 011e m t1st go bacl< to tl1e previous law. It should l)f.: assL1rr1ecl tl1at tl1e old rules l1ave bee 11 im1Jlicitly retained. Tl1is is wl1at is callccl il1e nt1tl1c>rilj' of traditio11. It does not yield exce1Jt to tl1e extent that a 11e--�.: JJrir1.ciJJlc cor1trar.v. to it is fou11cl i11 t)1e existi11g law.

22(). Jv{c11. .�1\· o_( J>1terprel(tiio11 Draw11 fro1r1 t/Je Text Itself- finally, when these t \f ) s::-J1trce.:: 1re •.y:,1r1ti11g, a \vord, a decisio 11, a te11de 11cy, sometl1ing must be '.-:-C111�r,l1t i11 il-,r: te::.t, tal-::er1 as a wl1ole, \-Vl1icl1 explai11s the dot1btful point. Here is 011e ()l' tl1e t�rt:at r1.1les of i11terpretatio11 : l1e wl10 interprets should take into cr:>11s;c�1�ratic1r! t l 1e t(:�{t of tl1e la\v i11 its entirety in order thoroughly to under �i�1r1d i!:s r11t-:ist i11sigl1ifica11t p�tssage.... <

1\1nerica11 J 11ris1Jrudence, Statutes: I 11terpretation3 (Com111011 Law)

2 _ 23. Pri1na_ry R11-le of Co,1str1,ction: Legisl,ttive l12tent as Co11trolling Factor. -- In t!1e _ 111 terJ)�etat1011 of. st�tt1tes, tl1e legislative will is tl1e all important or control l 111� facto1. I11cle_ed, 1t 1s frequently stated i11 effect tl1at tl1e intention of the 1eg1slalltre �011st1lt1tes �l1e law.... Accordi11gly, tl1e f)rimary rule of construction f sta�tites �s to_ ascerta111 a11d cleclare tl1e i11t e 11tio11 of tl1e legislature, and carry � st1cl1 1nte11t1or1 111to effect lo tl1e fullest degree. 225. _Depende,1ce of Co11str11ction 11-po,1 Ambig11i1J'· - A statute is not open to _ co11st rL1 �t 10� as. a 111atter of cottrse. It is open to construction only where the , tised 111 tl1e statt1 le req11ires i11terpretatio11 that is where the statute !angua&e IS am bi g l�OllS, or_ will bear t\VO 01" 1110fe COllStrLICti�ns, Of is Of SUC}l doubtful . or .0 bsc1.i I e .111ea 11111g, ll1at reaso11able 1ninds migl1 t be uncertain or disagree as to I ts 1nea11111g . .. . 247 · A ssoc,a · tro· ,i 01 .r Wr ords, PIJrases, and tory sta tu Se nt of en ces an ing e Th e m ter111s de1Je11cls upo11 tl1e co1111ection i 11 \vl1ich they are used, and in the i11ter· J.

50 A,nerican jurisprudence, Statutes (1944).

------· -· - -·-- - ---------------------------····-··

•

INTERPRET AT ION OF A CODE PROVISION

pretation _thereof, th� doctri11e of_ constrt1ction, noscitur a sociis, fJrevaiis. Hence, tl1e meaning of_ part1ct�lar ter1ns 111 a stat11te may be ascertai11ed by reference �o words associated \Y11tl1 tl1e1n in the statt1te. .. . 303 .. Pmpose of Sfat1,te . ...- Tl1e 11t1rpose for wl1icl1 a stat11te is enacted is of . primary importance tn tl1e interpretatio11 tl1ereof.... Tl1e construction of the s_tatute sl1ould be 1:1acle ,vitlr reference to tl,e J)UrJJose of tl,e statute, or i11 the l1gl1t thereof, a11d 111 l1ar1no11y and cor1for1nily tl1erewitl1, i11 order to aid, ad� van�e, _ promote, s�1bserve, sttpf)Ort, a11cl effectttate st1cl1 aim, design, motive, end, asp1rat1011s, or obJect. 407. Penal �tatr,tes. - It l1as long bee11 a ,veil settled ge11eral rtrle tl1at penal statutes are st1b1ect to a . strict co11strt1ctio11. More accurately, it may be said tl1at sttcl1 la ,x,s are to be 111terpreted strictly agai11st tl1e state and liberally in favor of the accttsed. The rule is fottnded 011 the te11clerness oi the law for tl1e rigl1ts of i11dividt1als; its object is to establisl1 a certain rule, by confor111�ty to whicl1 1nanki11d wottld be safe, and tl1e discretion of tl1e court limited.... Questions

l. Wl1at do )'Ott ttndersta11d b1 1111/la JJoe11a si,ie lege? Can such a pri11tir-,lc L)c fou,,cl i11 tl1e Pe11al Code of Etl1iopia? Wl1y is a jttdge not allo\'•?c:c tc, interJ)ret a11 an1bigt1ot1s provision as l1e alo11e s�es fit? 1

Wl1at cloes a11alogy 111ea11? Is reaso11i11g by ar1alog)' t)rohibic,�c! ir1 ::::i.l·1i!i: iopia? If \x·e interpret Art. 71 to i11clt1de a ''meti1od of clioice'', ·will creating a11 offense by a11alogy?

Does Art. 2 (2) P. C. E.correspo11d to tl1e JJrinciples of inter1Jretation set out above? Is tl1ere a rt1le on restrictive i11terpretatio11 of pe11al statutes? Do tl1e co11tinental and co1nmo11 law selectio11s agree as to tl1e mea11ing· of restrictive inter1Jretatio11?

Carefully consider tl1e sig11ifica11ce of tl1� tl1ree ele1nents (spirit, le aisla tive intent a11d pttrpose) enurnerated 1n Art.2 (2). Do you agree ;itl1 tl1is stater:ient from Beccaria's fa1nous Essay 011 Crimes and P1enishments 14 (1775): There is not 11 i11g more dangerous tl1an tl1e c� 1n �on axi_on1: the Spi this 1s to gt_ve way to rit of t!Je /i1,ws is to be co12sidered. To �ctopt . tl,e torre11t of opinio11s. . . . The _sJJtr1t of tl1� laws will t�e11 �e tile result of tl1e good, or bad_ log!c of tl1e JU�ge; a11d tl11? will depei,d on his good or bad d1gest1on; 011 tl1e v1ole11ce of hts pas sions; 011 tl1e ra11k, and co11dition of tl1e _accuse?, or 011 l1is con11�c tions with t}1e judge; a11d on all t_l1ose little c1:cum!St_a11ces, which cl,ai,ge the appearance of objects 111 the fluctuating m111d of man?

\"!.f f.

Note 2: The Le gislative History Article 71, Penal Code of Ethiopia Read Art. 71 (Appendix) in both its formative and final versions (Avant projet, English, Amharic).

: ..,:·

·.

- - .- -

10 .',,· .., :,1

INTRODUCTION

Notes of the Imperial Codification Commission4 Article 71, Penal Code of Ethiopia

•I I ••i :�

e e s ith th at al w st de ch f l1i o_ w ) 71 nec es� t._ Ar ow (n 64 le tic Ar ng . Concerni t e ly set ou th ar cle to 1te r c_ ls fai ria of 1t at th de ma s wa t en mm co sity, the ry ra he nt e c� th v lie to be at, tl1 es d de that on sp re er aft dr e Th ! '. ty' ali on ''proporti le s1b os p _ to er 1m ng da r a he ot be t us m e wise 1er Tl . ist ex do ria ite cr nt sufficie , d ty) an ssi r ce of ne the fur r cte ara ch re mo ary idi bs su tl1e of ion ter cri e (th oid av d ne be do d to an cte ab pe �x by th� be ly ab on as re ot nn ca ht rig the threatened ted en op be ad s by ha h 11c wl several , 1la mt for ad bro is Th . act the doer of y arl ite cle qu t ws tha sho , de Co rights iss Sw lhe rly ula tic par es, cod n moder the o een tw tw _ be de hts rig ma be st in mu ice cho a t tha d, 1ce la1 ba be st mu question by weigl1ing their value, and that one 1s not able to go too far in protecting a legal right (the criterion of proportionality). This proportionality is also equally included in Article 65 (110w Art. 72) by the words:'' ... excess. of necessity''. But tl1e formula will be precise enough tb a void all equivocality

. .,J .' .. ,. J.:.

• �.. .

•

• �- L

·>

., ... .. . .'

•:. �..

.. .•. ' . I

''.. .'

. '. ' '

Questions

J)o tl1r.- te;�ts of tl1e Code or the Codification Commission notes help us ir� 1r\1a!·:i11i� 2'l clel:isioi1 to apf)I)' eitl1er a11 objective or a subjective standard in ./�_rf: 71 '? .P.r1; �,'II?.. 1:.ert11ittt:d to consider these sources under Art. 2 (2)? . �. .;. ..

. ..,,",jf' . \. ..

l... .

•:-. \ '

r 111

'-,:

I1 ,·1�• ,..·�

•,r-5'

.....

" ,. .� .::.,· . .,-,. ..,r.... �·D •. �; ,, ".-:. ..,., ..•,.. • ....... '-". ' H "'

.il\.rticJe 34, Code Penal Suisse -��;e��l P.. rt, 34.. 1:.1-'.S. {Appe11dix) in both french and English and compare it ··�:rltl1 tt1e P.C.E., J.;.vant-1Jrojet a11d Englisl1 translation. \X/aiblinger, Tl1e State of Necessity5 I� �ne is in error as to a state of necec;sity or as to the danoer represented by a tl11rd person, the act of help committed is not justified. b

·1 I

' .. . ' '

Logoz, Necessity6 . �or a state of necessity to exist, tl1e interest being safeguarded must, in principle, be more precious or, at least, as precious as tl1e interest being sacrificed. . . h �w is the jti�ge to evaluate tl1e respective i11terests in conflict? Acco�;lish ng n �va �ation by a purely_ objective estimation of the value of tlle ri hts i� q;· estt n 1 ts not a tota�ly satisfactory procedure. It is possible to have � distinction i etween the ob1ective value of a right and the subjective '4.

5• 6.

Proces-verbal of December 17 1954 P- 77; The n� tes of the Cod ification Commission have not yec been published and are a;ailable' 1 _ French or teaching 1n purposes. The notes were taken y by M. Philippe Graven' the son of -m �e" d rafter . , M. Jcan Graven. · ger, Acce \Va1"blin s Licites (III Etat d e N ecessite) 5, Fichts (1958). 1206 ]Nri diqu No. Suiss es es, . Logoz, Commtnt•irt d" Co" � &SSt Jt ' p,tn4 · I .Jll 141 ,

INTERPRETATION OF A CODE PROVISION

�alue of the right for _one to �hol!I it belongs. A metl1od of subjective estima t10� (or, at least, relatively subJect1ve ... } seems JJreferable. It is tl1is solution which ts adopted by the C.P .S. The judge must look into the q11estion of what one would be _ able ••reasonably'' to require ''in tl1e circumstances in which the �ct was comm1tt�d'' and in placi�g _himself i,1 the shoes of the actor, that is, tak� 1ng account . particularly of tl1e 1nst1nct of self preservation to wl1ich the actor was responding. Legal, The Defe11se of Necessity i11 Frencl1 Jurisprudence7 . I� must be �dd;d -and tl1is is a new eleme11t of complexity-that if in pr1nc1ple the we1gh1�g f)T?ceed� under objectiv� criteria, the judge still does

not remove all cons1derat1011 \vith respect to the personality of the actor him self: �he va�ue that the defended right l1ad for him; for example, the bonds of affection with a parent or with the persons i11jured. It must also be agreed that account must be taken of the 1ne11tal st;ite of a11 i11dividual who fincls him se!f i11 the uncomfortable l)Osition of l1avi11g to rnal..:e a decision i11 a. very fey,, minutes. It could not be fairly required of him that he clearly weiP-h the possibility of l1arm to which l1e is subjecting third persc•ns ancl · tl1r. fa7:t that he is committing a crime. Questio11s

Of wl1at value in Etl1iopia are tl1ese Swiss ar1d frenctI excerpts? l) J help in answeri11g our questio11 of wl1at standard to aJJply iri .t\ri. 71? 1

�l· 11 1 • '.J • -J

Problen1

Assumi11g that neitl,er tl1e drafter's 11otes (travalix preparatoires), nor Cod ification Commissio11 notes nor Parliamentary debates are available, l1ow would you, as a judge, determine legislative intent in co11formity with Art. 2 (2) in the instance of a doubtful provision? Note 4: ;.;<cess of Necessity Note that Art. 72 Excess of Necessity, is the opposite side of the coin from Art. 71 and further includes tl1e requirement that the situatio11 of necess� i_ty not be brought about by tl1e fattl� of the defe11d;1nt wh_o is clai�ing the defense of necessity. Logoz, Commentaire . du . Code Penal Su_isse . 140 . give? the following e:x:ample: ''A thief who sets a fire 1n a store to aid his actions is not ab]e to rely upon the defense of necessity wl1en � pani� ens�tes in whi�h _ tl1e thief, himself trying to flee, tramples � nother wl11le saving l11mself. t, A s1m1lar requirement is quite common in continental codes, see e.g., Art. 34, C. P. S.; Art. 54 German Penal Code·1 and. Art. 54, Italian Penal Code. Consider wheth� er a p�rson who, through imprudence, creates � situation of nece-ssity whi_ch threatens his own life should be completely denied tl1e defense of necessity when he harmed only property to save himself? 7.

. ·., .

.:.,..:_ · . : ,�.:·..;._ _--·

l��al, L'Etat de Necessite d'Apr� Ia Jurisprudence Franfaise, 75 RtV� Pinal Suisse 305-3C6 (1960).

INTRODUCTION

Recommended Readings

·.

. II

. ''

d ere off are gs to encourage din rea ed nd 1ne oin rec of l iot ect sel d oa br A re plo se ex to tho d a11 areas.of each s ial ter ma d ne sig a ,,d yo be d � students to rea are ll ey era Th n1. gen tl1e to y listed in st ere int r ula tic par of are icli subject wl, order of prefere11ce. Tl,e decisioi, of tl,e Englisl1 Cot1rt i11 Regina 'V, Duclley and Stephens may be fo1111d in: Brett a11d Waller, Crimi11al Law 35. Cross and J 011es, Cases 011 Crimi11al La1v 70 (2d ed., 1953). Do11nelly et.al., Crimi11,il Law 724. Hall a11d Oluecl{, Crin1i11al Law and Enforce,nent 286 (1958). Har110, Cri1ninal Law 394. Iv\icl1ael a11cl Wecl1sler, Cri111inal Law 51. Tt1r11er a11d Armitage, Cases on Cri1ni11al Law 51 (1953). Interpretation of Law

I(rzeczllll()\X'icz, .tl 5'itn1r11,10 T/JeorJ' of Laws w_it/; R 7feret1ce to Ethiopia11 Legislation .zs 01·· Jr!11e J, 1963, Cl1a[J. V l (a s�1or� d1sct1ss1011 of tl1e interpretation of }a\x! \,:,iii? s1Jecial referer1ce to Etl1101J1a). \\'i 11i:1111s, J_e,£r11i,1g t/;e Law 87-(}5 (195Ll) ( very readable discussion of the inter� J)rctatio11 0r sl(lit1tcs). L1ot1t'.,1l, Droit. Pe,i,il 93- 98 (co11cer11i11g fre11cl1 a11d co1nparative jurisprudence l)tt t\1e i11ter1)retatior1 of 1Je11al la\vs). 1 1.- ·i"tli:1er c. ,tfiJ1isit�r.? J)1t!J!ic et Trib1{11.:il S11perie1tr d1t Ca1ito11 de Soler,re, RO 80 I ., i' J 3, J T l �)55 I 181 ( 1954) (S\viss jurispruclet ice forbiddi11g analogy i11 fJe11al la\,:' tt11(ler J)rir1ciJ)le of 1i11lla poe11t1- si11e lege). Ti1orr:st1;dt, Tl1e Pri11ci1Jle of Legality arid 1�eleological Co11structio11 of Statutes i11 Cri111i11al La \X', i11 4 Scai1di11,1.7)£a11 St11dies i,1 L�iw 209 ( 1960) (a scl1olarly slttcly reiatir1g tl1e i11ter1Jretatio11 of la\vs to tl,e JJri11ciple of 11ulla poena sir1e lege). 1

'' .'

. i ! I ' I '

.. . .,I

The Prirlciple of Legality

I-lall, General Pri11ciples of Cri,ni11al Law 27-69 (l1istorical and IJl1iloso1)l1ical discussio11 of tl1e pri 11ci1Jle of 111ella poe11a si11e lege) . Col1,r11bia Law Rc7)iew, Tl1e Use of Ar1alogy i11 Cri111i11al Law 47 Columbia L. Re7). � 13 ( 1?47) (_a11 article co1111Jari11g Oer111a11, Russia11 anct' Anglo-American ex1�er1e11c� 111 tl11s area; 11.b. tl1e Soviet U 11io11 as of t11e proinulgatio11 of tl1e1r R�v1sed P�11al c;=o�e of 1958, J1as rei11troduced tl1e pri11ciple of nu/la poena s111e l�ge 111 cr11n111al law; see Soviet Pei,al Code, Sect. 3 and Van _ Bem111ele11, 111tro., 3 Law 111 E,1stert1 £,,rope 9 (1959). The Defense of Necessity

\X/aibli11ger, Actes 1:iciles (I �I, Et t de N o. N ec es si te ) se s, F u ic i ur he � S id s J iq ,,e s � 1206 (1958) (Swiss doctr_111e w. 1tl1 1·es1)ect to tl1e defense of necessity).

'. ..•' '

INTERPRETATION OF A CODE PROVISION

-1 3

Brett and Waller, Criminal Law 34-58 (interesting consideration of necessity at beginning of penal law materials). Williams, Criminal Law 737-745 (discussion of difficult value balancing that .takes place in situations of necessity). Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 415-436 (philosophically oriented discussion of the defense of necessity). Voui11 and Leaute, Droit Penal 227M231 (sl1ort stateme11t on the law of necessity in France). Donnelly et.al., Criminal Law 661-732 (interesting materials on underlying values of necessity and several other affirmative defenses including Soviet Sect. 13, Necessity).

. . . . .· . .. . . . ·.

. . . .. . . .. . .

,·

CHAPTER 2

''•:·•:' '.I )····,. J:

n o i t a r e d i s n o C y r a n Prelimi w l a a L n e P f o n io t c n Fu of the

. ....' . ' •I

. .

•

SECTION A. THE FUNCTION OF LAW . .

THE FUNCTIONS OF LAW1 E. Adamson Hoebel

' I '' '

•

L.a\,:,, j)erforms cert,1in functions essential to the maintenance of all but 1, ll(! \l!�ry t11ost si�nple s<)cieties. 'i'l1e. first is to de·fine relatior1sl1ip among the members of a society, to ,1ssert \\11·1.a.t acti\rities :ire permitted a11d what are ruled out, so as to maintain at lea ·.:i t tr1ir!i�11al ir1tegration ·bet\veen the activities of individuals and groups -_.,:,itl1i11 tl1t society. ·1·11e seco11d is derived f1·om the necessity of taming naked force and direcii11PO force to il1e rnainten� nee of order. It is the allocation of authority a11d tl1e determi11ation of \vho may exercise physical coercion as a socially recognized privilege-rigl1 t, along witl1 tl1e selection of the most effective forms of physical sanction to acl1ieve tl1e social ends that the law serves. The tl1ird is ll1e disposition of trouble cases as they arise. Tl1e fourtl1 is to redefi11e relations between individuals and groups as the conditions of life cl1ange. It is to maintain adaptability. Purposive definition of personal relations is the primary law job. 0th .er aspects of culture likewise work to tl1is end and indeed the law derives its worki11g principles (jural jJo�tulates) from p�stulates pre�iously de�elo�ed in to t1on the nonlegal sp er�s for action. contr1bu Howeve � r, tl 1 e importa law's nt _ the ��stc org:an1zat1on of society as a wl1ole is t11 at the law specifically and . expltc1tly defines relations. It sets tl1e expectancies of man to man and group t ? grOUfl so that . each �11ows tl1e focus and the limitations of its dema�d · nst rights 011 others, agai its d t es to as oth ers, pow ers its priv ilege-riglits and �� _ _ others, and 1t � 1!Ilmun1t1es a11d liabilities to the contemplated or att�rnp�ed ac!s of others._ Thts 1s the ''bare-bones job'' as Karl Llewellyn likes to eall 1t. It 15 the ordering of the fundamentals of living together. 1:'fo cu1tur_e h�s � specific starting point 'in time; yet in the operation of the first function 1t 1s as though me n were getting togeth and saying to each er I•

Hoebel' The Law

•

,r Pr·imitJv ·· t

1� 4 1an: A Study in ComparatiVt '" Ltg11I Dynamics 275-287 ( 195 )·

FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW

other, J'L:ook l �ere! Let's l1 �ve a little organizatio11 l1ere or we'll never get any wl1ere wtth this mess., Let s l1ave � clear t1ndersta11di"ng of wl1o's wl10, wl1at we _ are to do, and l �ow we are go111g to do it!'' I11 its essen.c._ it is wl1at tl1e soc1al-co11tract tl1eor1sts recog11ized as tl1e fot111datio11 of social or .er. 1:'he seco !1d fu11ctio11 ?f tlie la\v' - tl1e allocalio11 of at1tl1ority lo exercise coercive physical force - 1s s01netl 1i11g almost f)ecttliar to tl1i11gs legal. Ct1sto1n l1as regttl�rity, a1�d so cloes la\v. Ct1sto111 defi11es relationsl1ips, a11d so d�es la\v. Cttst_om 1s sa11ct1011ecl, a11d so is la\v. Bt1t tl1e sanctio11s of law La\x, is ctisti11gt1isl1ecl fro111 mere custo1n ii1 tl1at _ !na)' 111volve fJl1 _ys1cal coercio11. 1t e11�ows certa111_ selected �11divi �lt1als witl1 tl1e fJrivilege-rigl1t of applyi11g the sanct1011 of pl1y�1cal coerc1011, 1f 11eecl be. Tl1 e legal, let it be repeated, l1as teetl1 tl1at ca11 bite. Bt1t tl1e l1itii1g, if it is to be legal a11d 11ot 111ere gangsterism, can be done 0111)' b)' tl1ose f)erso11s to wl101n tl1e law l1as allocated tl1e 1Jrivilege - rigl1 t for tl1e affair at l1a11d. temJJorary We l1ave. see11 tl1at i11 shifting, pri1nitive law at1tl1ority is a . tl1111g. f\t1�l1 0�1t_y to e11force _ a_ 11or1n resides (for private wro11gs) wiLl1 il1e \vro11ged 111d1\1tdttals a11d 111s 11nmediate l<i11sn1en - but 011ly for tl1 e duralio11 of time necessary to follow tl1 �ot1gl1 tl1e proced ttral ste1)s tl1at lead to redress or 1Ju11isl1me11t of tl1e cttlJJrit. l11 JJrin1itive la\v tl1 e tende·ncy is to allocate �\tl thority to tl1 e j)arty wl10 is directly i11jttred. This is do11e in IJart out of cor1ve11ience, for it is easier to let tl1e wro11ged party assun1 e tl1 e respo11sibility for legal action. It is also do11e becatise tl1e jJrimiii\re l<i;1sl1i11 grot1p 1 11a,1i11}J, a more vital se11se of e11ti t)', is naturally cl1arged \v;itl1 a l1ea \'ier e1notiot1ri.l affect.. In a11 )' e\:ent, \X'he 11 tl1e co111111u11ity qua co111n1uI1ity ac1<110,x,Iedges tl,e exercise of 'force by a \xrror1ged perso11 or l1is ki11sl1i1J grottp as correct a11 d prOJ)e.r in a give11 sitt1atio11, a11d so restrai11s tl1e \xrroi,gcloer from stril<i11g back, tl1e11 la\•/ prevails a11d order trium1Jl1s over viole11ce. •

•

Power ma\! sorneti1nes be l)Crso11al, as is tl1e J)O\xrer of tl1e btrll)' ir1 tl1e society of s1nail bO)'S, a11d as w·as to sotne exte11t tl1e JJO\ver of Willia1n tl1e Co11qt1eror. Bltl JJerso11al t) ra1111}' is a rare tl1i11g atnong 11ri111itives . Brute force of tl1e i11 divicltral does not prevail. Cl1iefs mttst l1a ve followers. followers always impose limitatio11s on tl1eir leaders. E11dt1ri11g po\ver is al\vays i11stitt1tio11alized power. It is trarisperso,1ali zed. It resides in tl1e office, i11 tl1 e soci�l status, ratl1er _ than i11 tl1e ma11. Tl1e co11stitL1lional strttctt1res of tli.e several tribes exam111ed i11 tl1 is book l,ave all clearly revealecl l1ow political and legal autl1 0.rit}' are i11 eacl1 i11sta11cc delimited a11 d circt1n1scribed. This point is empl1asized 011Iy to �iSJJel a11y residu� ?f. tl1e l1�ar_y pol�tical J)l1ilosopl1ies tl1at assumed 'X'i tl1ot1t bas1s 111 fact tl1at JJr1m1t1ve soc1et1es existed tinder tl1e rule of fang a11d claw. . lioweve1-, tl1e perso11al slill obtrt1des. A11 ''office'' altl1o_ug)� 7ultura!lY defined ts, aiter all, exercised by a11 i11dividt1al. A11d . wl10 tl1at_ 1nd1v1dual . ts at any 1no1ne11t certai t1ly 111akes a differe11ce_. �l1ere ts leeway 111 tl1 e �xerc1�e o: 11?n ed t 11 _f111d1ng exercise of power just as there are l1m1 ts. A ma� 1nay be skill _ tl1e evidence and tl1e trutl1 in tl1e cases l1e must Judge a11d 1n formulating the 11orms to fit t11e case i 1 1 l1a11d - or l1e 1nay be all tl1t11nbs. I-le may be 011e wl10 tl1irsts for power a11d wl1o will wield all l1e can wl1ile_ grasping for 1nor�. qr 1,e may s11 rir1k from it. Power defined tl1rottgh allocat1011 of !egal at1tl1or1ty 1s by its 11att1re tra11spersonalized, yet by tl1e n�tttre of me11 it can .never be wl1olly depersonalized. A frankli11 Roosevelt 1s not a Warre11 Harcl1ng. 1

•

' I

\.1 •' •[

,',

(�•'

INTRODUCTION

J;.... •

·.,I

.' ' ·' ;, ." : .', ' . : �·-. :1 ··�.i

,�-

.. ·�···· .... ·· 1

•

.. ',

. . . . •. I

; '.

• I

. I I

.; •

ize al on p rs d f)� nS r� _ �r n. ''T te ow rit w is econ o s l1a e on St u s li Ju s a 1�11us it is p ou tl1 gr \(,1 it 1 g nv t!n c� �r pp su on cti by , rce fo ; and of e i1s tl1e of l ca mi s �akes more readily to leade n 1ct1o conv 1g stro1 witll rs conversely a group , , en tl1 lly t� �a �t anspersonalizati do ra Pa . . .. s n io ict 11v co on . ide11tified witl1 tl1ese b , by 11s d! 10 ad ng_ to th su jec ! 1ct nv co 1p ro th t w � re �u uc str � r ts i btittresses tlie fJO\"Ve e th to . m le or c1p 11f 1n co pr to s th c1e wi e11 11d te whic h eir tli ies iic de , ten n sttbmissio c e tho se ks ec 1� c�1 , r 11d we l�a po r_ l1e �t sin , e tl1 011 , 1i�e wl ; d _ ifie nt ide 1 liat [Jower is , nal1z111_g pr 1n �1ple, tend to conform to 1o rat tl1e tl1 \Vt d fte 1 t 1 i ide . iii fJO\ver, beiiig n e1r tl1 e ow 111 1ty or rm th de au un ey tl1 .''<S> Such it_ g i11 t1t flo by t les tllat pritlciple, is t\1e effect of the seco11d fu11ct1on of law. The tl1ird fu11ctior1 of law calls for little addition�} comment.... Some trouble cases pose absoltitely 11ew probl_ems for sol�t1�n. In these. cases the first and seco11d fu11ctio11s 111ay predominate. Vet this 1s not the situation ii, the insta11ce of n1ost legal clasl1es i11 wl1icl1 the proble1n is not the formulation of law to cover a 11e\'(f sitt1atior1 bt1t ratl1er the applicatio11 of preexisting law. Tl1ese are disposed of in accordance \'(fitl1 legal 11orms, already set before the isst1e in qt1estio11 arises. T\1e job is to clea11 tl1e case up, to SUfJpress or penalize t \1 e i lle(ral bel1avior a11d to bri11g tl1e relations of tl,e disJJutants back into bala11ce,e. so tl·tat I ife 111ay resun1e its 11orn1al course. Tl1is type of law-work has freqt1e11tlv l1ccr1 co111j)arecl to ,vorl< of tl1e medical practitioner. lt is family doctor slL1 ff, essc11tial to l<ee1)ii1g tl1e social body 011 its feet. In more l1omely terins, I-lev:te.ll) r1 l1as called it, 'garage-repair worl{ on tl1e general order of the r�:rot1 I) \x·\11.:11 tl1(1t ge11eral order rn isses fire, or gri11ds gears, or even threatens a tcllal l1real, clo\x 11.''(6) Ii is 11ot orcli11arily co11cer11ed with grand design, as is 1 l 1 e first la ,r-jc,tJ. J:',!or is it co11cer11ecl witl1 redesig11 as i s tl1e fourtl1. It works l ) clea11 ttj.J all t\1e l�ttle social r11esses (a11d tl1e occasional big 011es) tl1at re ct1 rre11tl�/ arise l)ct \X1ee11 t\1e r11ern bers of tl1e society from day to da}' · 1

• I I

•

. •I I

• ! 'I

" i

.- I

iv\ost cJf tl1 c troti'ble cases clo 11ot, i11 a civilized society, of themselves lul)t11 lar1�e <.JIJ llic social sc,:11e, altl1ot1gl1 i11 a sn1all commu11ity even one can leJd tlirectly 1c) a social e}�fJlosio11 if not successftill}' cleaned up. Indeed, in a J)rit11_itive society tl1e i11clividt1al case al,vays l1olds tl1e tl1reat of a little civil \)�ar If r>roced LI re.b�ea\.�s dow111 for fron1 its i11ceptio11 it sets ki11 group against �<111 grcJLtI: -a11d if 1t comes to figl1ting, tl1e 11t1mber of kinsmen wl10 will be 111volved 1s al�os� al_wa}'S in:1n1ediately e11larged. Tl1e figl1t may e11gulf a large �)a�t �f tl1e tribe 111 111t_er11ec!11� _tl1roat-cu�ti11g. Relatively speaking, each run-of r l1e-1111ll trot1ble case 1n JJr11 1t1ve law_ 11nposes a 111ore pressi11g demand for _ tle111e11t llfJl)ll tl1e leg·al S'.)'S�let11 set tl1ar1 ts tl1e case with tis. Wl1ile syste111 a11d i_ 11tegratio11 are esse11tial, flexibility and constant revision are 110 less so. La\v 1s a dy11a1nic process i11 \Vl1icl1 few solutions can be perrna11�nt. l-!e11ce, tl1e fottrt l1 ft111ctio11 of law: tlie redefinition of relations and tl1e reor1e11tat1or1 of ex1)ecta11cies . ew N law. the . 11�itiative \vit�, sco1)e to work n1ea11s 11ew JJroblems for ew n do lly 111vent_1011s, 11e\Y1 . ideas, new bel,aviors l<eep creei)ing in. Especia o int y newl l'l l1av1ors creep 111, Ila}', s weep i11, wl1e11 t\vo u nlike societies come be l _ f sl1al les os � 011tact. T�1e11 tl1e c la_w is called upon to decide wl1at princip � l to co11fl1cts of cla11ns rooted ir, disparate cultures Do the new claims ,e .PP fit comfortabl)' to tl1e old postulates? Must tl1e newly re�lized ways of behav·

(5) Stone, Provine� and Function of Law 7 l 1-7 I 2. (6) Llewellyn, The Normative, 49 the Legal' and the: Law-jobs: Methodi The Problem of Juristic Ya/� L. ]. 1375 ( 1940).

....----FUNCTION Of PENAL LAW

in� be wl1olly rejected and legally suppressetl becat1se tl1ey are out of l1armo11y . ,v1th the old values? Or ca11 they be modified l1ere a11d altered there to gai11 !egal acceptance? Or can tl1e more diffict1lt. 01Jeratio11 of altering or eve11 jL1nk1ng old postulates to accommodate a ne\�' ,va)' be faced? Or ca11 fictio11s be framed tl1at can 11111 tl1e mi11d i11 to acce1 Jta11ce oJ tl,e disparale 11e\X' witl1out tl1e wrench of ackn?\vledgecl j t1r1ki11g of tl1e old? Wl1at is it tl,at is wanted? Tl1e known and l1ab1tL1al, or tl1e promise of tl1e 11ew a11d t111tested? Me11 may neglect to tttrn tl1e la'X-' lo t l1e a11s\ver of sucl1 q t1estio11s. But tl1ey do not for long. Trot1ble cases ge11erated by tl1e new keep marcl1i11g i11. And tl1e fourtl1 law-job presses for atte11tio11. Recapit jt1st ()tle focus. \vill tl,ro,v tl1e 1 atio11 of process i11to Cl1eye1111e case � � _ The acq111s1t1011 of 11orses greatly al lereel all Plai11s Indian c11lt11res. One important Cl1e)1 e1111e basic 1)ost11late ra11, ''Except for la11d a11d tribal fetisl1es al! material roods ar� private JJroperl)1, b�tt tl1ey sho11ld be ge11erously shared , otl1ers. Wl1en 1t came lo_ l1orses, tl11s led some men to e�pect. t}1at tl1ey 1 w1tl1 could free�)' borrow l1orses \v1tl1011t eve11 tl1e coL1rtesy c>f ask111g. for l1orse owners this got t(J tl,e poi11t of becomi11g a serio11s n11is£tnce, as i11 il1e cases of Paw11ee a11d Wolf Lies Oo\x,11. \Volf Lies Oow11 p11t 11 is troubie c�-ise to tl1e members of tl1e Elk Soldier Society. Tl1ey got l1is l1orse bacl( for l1irn ,vi111 �1 l1a11dsome free-,vill offeri11g of additio11al ''da111,1ges'' fro111 tl1e defe11cla11t to boot. Tl,e lroL1ble case \XTas 11eatl)' dis1Josed of. BL1t tl1e Ell( Soldiers dicl 11ot stop tl1ere. T!1ere \Vas some preve11tive cl1an 11eli rig of f11ture bel1a,,i or to he done. Hence the ' No,xr \Ve sl1all 1na)(e a ne\X, rttle. Tl1er(� sl1all b� r10 1ric>rt: borrowing of l1orses witl1out asl<i11g. If a11y 1na11 tal(es a11c)tl1er's g·ooc1s \·qitliot1t aski r 1g, \Ve will go over and get tl1en1 back for l111i1. 1\1ore tl1ar1 Il·,at: if tl-1c, taker tries to keeJJ tl1e1n, ,ve \Vill give l1in1 a ,xrl1ippi11g." I-lere \Y/as tl1e fo�1rt.l1 function of la\�' bei11g JJerformed. Tl1e lines for ft1tt1re co11clt1ct re l1orses '-:vere made clear. Work under function JV represents social 1)lo.11ning b rougl1t in to foct1s by the case of tl1e instant and witl1 a11 eye to tl1e ft1ture. Tl1e IJroblem of reorie11ti11g conduct and redirecti11g it tl1rougl1 tl1e la\Y1 when new issues emerge is always tied to tl1e bare�bo11es demand of basic organization and tl1e minimal 1naintena11ce of order a11d re�t1larity. I� may also shade over i11to work colored by a greate1· or lesser desire to achieve more than a mi r1imum of smootl1ness i11 social relatio11s. Wl1e11 tl1is becomes an important aspect of law�work, a SJ)ecial aspect of law-"\Xi·ays activity may be recognized: tl1e creatio11 of tecl111iqt1es tl1at efficie11tly a11d effectively solve tl1e problems posed to all tl1e other law-jobs so tl1at the _ basic values of tl1e society are realized through the law and 11ot frustrated by 1t. The doinu of it has bee11 called by Llewellyn ''Juristic Metl1od''. It is tl1e method not ;nly of getting the law-jobs done but doi11g them \vitl1 a st1re touch for the net effect that results in smoothness in tl1e doi11g and a harmon ious wedding of what is aspired to by men and wl1at is acl1ieved througl1 tl1e law. It is the work not just of the craftsma11 but of the master craftsma11 the kind of man the Polynesians call Tui Thonga, Great Adept. Skill in juristic method may be the ttnique quality of a great_ jt1dge or chief who judges for his people. In which case you may l1ave _a s111gle man, or occasional men, cropping up to soften �ardsl�ell ]egal1s1:1 .. Or 1t may beco�e an institutional quality of a wl1ole system 111 which a trad1t1011 of method 1s �o keep one eye on the ultimate soc_ial goals of men and anotl�er _?It_ the work ing machinery to see that it is steering toward tl1ose goals. for 1ur1st1c metl1od, 1

. ··... · :i. .... ;:. · ... .

I; �

INTRODUCTION

'' ce at sti tl1 e ':ju se t? eiv rec ce a11 iev gr es ate its due , di t me im 1e t 011 s rk wo it wllile t �e ul tim ate effect of the so e bl ssi po as far as r11 ce dis l cia also looks beyond to t weighs a11d balances the ''rig I �. uc od pr ill w d� id en hts'' fJOl icy tllat tlle ratio dec r. ed fo 11e r per se and de e tl1 or t 11s a1 ag se ca r la cu rti pa i tl s J i11 al du vi of tl1e i11di es 11z �1 co _It re e. �t <?l tl1 wh a . as regularity fJ oU gr e tl1 of s ed 11e g in nn the far-ru no Di n g a n Si ch, but as l1 JS 11c wl y, r1t �la reg of � sa� _ tl,e for a ly on t no exists o � als ow 1t k11 t Btt t tl1a ce. �11 1st ex absolute al du 1v1 111ct d an l cia so to s an 111e � t 1t may to as be s ek se It y. og 1ol ys tJl1 l cia so in keep ble ssi po im regularity is t the fJOtnts w}1ere l�e y a y wa lee ow all to gh o� en le xib wa fle law tl,e \vorl{itig d an , at the ms sea tl1� same time it at t p�r to ric fab ial soc e 1 tl se cau will not law the ... of so r fibe the that it will 1n ss f11e stif e11t fici suf 11 ,tai i i ma seeks to 11ot lose its bi11di11g effect.

". ' 1 '•

.:; I1 , .. ,I '

! •••,

, 1

fiction is 011e of the great devices c>f juristic metl1od. by means of which me11 fit 11ew legal norms into old fJri11ciples so as to reor1e�t conduct witho ut tl,e 11eed to ju11l{ 1011g-st�11di11g pos�ulate_s .. Excep� for tl1e u111versal pra�tice of adoptio11, wl1ereby outsiders are 1de11t1f1ed_ as if they are actually �·�smen, fJrimit ive me11 do 11ot l1ave to rely too heavily 011 �l1e subterfuge of _f1ct1011 to acl1ieve legal cl1a11ge. Nevertl1eless, \vl1en tl1e need 1s there many tribes l1ave l1ad recourse to its use .

• l\.11oulstar1di11g exa1n1Jle 1nay l1e found in adoptive marriage among the jJatrilirie,-;,l g·rl)UfJS of Jndo11esia. Tl1e importa11t value for these people is to main tai11 tl1e t111brol;e11 cor1tir1uity of tl1e f)aternal lineage. To do tl1is, a family with out s011s adopts tl1eir dal1gl1ter's h usba11d as a ''son'' \Vith tl1e effect tl1at her cl1ilclre11 remaii1 \xritl1ii1 tl1eir cla1i and tl1eir inheri ta11ce will remai11 witl1in t l1cir 1i i1t. Lcgislatic)11 by cot111cil and edict by ki11g, or a f usio11 of the two, also fi11cl tl1eir !)laces il1 tl1e growtl1 ancl reorienlatio11 of primitive law, and so serve as iools of jttristic n1etl1od. The not u11commo11 view expressed by Salmond tl1al 1 tl'1e fu11ctio11 of tl1e State i11 its earlier co11ceptio11 is to enforce tl1e law, 11ot to rnal�e i�,'' �s o�erstated..(15) Lo'X,ie is t111fortt111ately guilty of tl1e sa�e ?verge11eral1zal1011 1n 111s assertion tl1at, ''All tl1e exige11cies of 11or111al social 1ntercot1rs. e are cov�red .by ct1sto1nary law, and tl1e bt1si11ess of sucl1 gover11men tal. macl11nery as exists 1s ratl1er to exact obedie11ce to traditio11al usage than to crea�e new preceder1Ls."< 16) Tl1is would be true for \vl1oll)' static societies; but 110 society, not even tl1e very J)rimitive, is \Vl1oll)' static; new bel1aviors do call for 11ew precede11ts a11d 11ot all societies wait for acceptable precedents to be l1am1nered out 011 tl1e l1ard a11vil of cases in })rocess. Leo-islation always b l1as a cl1ance to co11lribu le to jttristic inetliod. 11

I I I I

' '!

•

' i

•

W!1e11 tl,e law-jobs get do11e, tl1ese 11orms inevitably become tl1e comm on deiion1111ato� of .legal c�ltt1re. But. ll1e ft111ctio11s of the norf!15 r wh law ate ve , tl,�y may give rise to 111 a11y ()articular society, crucial tl1e co are ns \vl tit 1at ute universal eleme,ils of tl1e law. Any 011e or select m ay l1a so lfcie hu nd tie re d s 011e rul� of law a11d 11ot a11otl1_er - tl,e rai,g ignore ca n e no is _ ne w id bu e t tl1e law-Jobs. I 11 ll1e last a11alys1s, tl1at tl1e portan t im la \v -jo m bs or e ge do t is ne . tl1an 110w .tl1e,), . are do . 11e: T.l1�1r · t ext·st· 1:11·11111 na · I soc d 1a 0111 · g 1s · of an per 1m at1v · e e,ice. Tlieir doirig \v1tl1 1ur1st1c f111esse is a11 achieveme11t of l1igh skill. (15) Salmond, ji,risprudence 49. (16) Lowic, Primitive Society 358359.

' '

FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW

Questions

Wl,at does tl1e word ''pritnitive'' clenote?

Wha� a�e tlie four fu1:ctions of. la,v e11t1-meratecl by I-Ioebel? Are tl1ey releva11t to cr1n1111al law? Wh1cl1 fu11ct1011 seems most crucial to tl1e cri111i11al law?

fr_otn \X-'l1at. ''11�11leg_al SJ)l1eres of actio11'' (p. 14) migl1t tl1e criminal law be said to dert\te its· ''Jttral J)Oslttlates''?

4. 5.

Wl1en tl1e :J\'\fronged {)a _rt);'' (!). 15) assttmes res1Jo11sibility to wl1at extent are Hoebel s four ft111ct1ons of law satisfiecl? l11 tl�e ligl1t of 1:-loebel's article, wl1at do ')'OU see as tl1e f1111ctio11 of tl1e public f) rosec11t or? To \x:l1at exte11t does lie represe11t ''tra11sperso11alized fJower'' (p. 15)?

loosely org in W !1): are '�t r?ttble cas_es'' more da11gerous to social order _ anized soc1et1es tl1a11 111 more 111gl1ly ce11tralized 011es {!). 16)?

To wl1at degree is Etl1iopia i11volved j11 tl1e fourth ft1nctio11 of la,x, (p. 16)?

Ho\v does tl1e Etl1iopia11 Pe11al Cocle acco1nmoclate itself to the fotirtl1 fu11c tion, tl1at is, i11 �·l1at man11er does tl1e Code allo\v for tl1e !1ai1c1.li,12" '"'' of ia,)1jobs and )'et adapt itself to social cl1a11ge?

Do you thi11k that Etl1iopia's Codes are close to JJrevailing S()cial val11es? Should tl1ey be? I 11 'l l1at wa)'S n1igl1t tl1ey be brougl1t cl1Jser to social values? 1

IO. What i� t l1e fu11ction of fiction witl1i11 a legal syste111? J\!\ay !lie satne functio11 be ft1l filled t11rot1gl1 Iegislatio11? Evaluate tl1e follo\x1i11g q11otation from Sir Henry Mai11e, A11cient Law 22 (1861, Murray ed., 1911): A general propositio11 of some value 1nay be adva11ced with respect to the agencies by \Vl1icl1 Law is brought i11to har�o11y with society. These instrumentalities seem to me to be tl1ree 1n 11umber, Legal fictions, Equity, and Legislation. Their historical order is that in whicl1 I have placed them. 11. At page 18, Hoebel speaks of ''edict� of a king'' being ''tools of juristic method''. How mig11t the Emperors Chilot serve as a tool of juristic method?

SECTION

8. THE PURPOSES Of PUNISHMENT

THE PURPOSES Of CRIMINAL JUSTICE2 Sir John Salmond; 11th ed., Glanville Williams

Deterrent and Preventive Punishment: The ends of crimi� al jus�ice are four in number, and in respect of th e purposes so � erve d by 1t, pun!shment may be distinguished as (1) Deterrent, (2) Preventive, (3) Reformative, and (4) 2.

Williams, S.lmand on Jurisprudtnct 115-123 (11th ed., 1957) .

. .

. . . ··:·.. . . : :;. ·..•: '.t. . :,-...

· - ·-·

·-

INTRODUCTION

i l a11d a -i.mportan t e1 s es_ the �s st fir 1e l t ts Jec as �\ e one, i 1es l � 1 Retributive. Of t e ore· J ll ,111gs deterrent, ts 1 t e1 l n 11 1s _ un P . ry o ss ce ac y l e er m . tl1e otl1ers being i ev l 1 oer an exa�ple o}f t e k a :� o t . is m �r1 of law and and t l1e c l1ief e11d of tl,e d wi tl , 11m. s �e e11 arf comn11tte d by 1de 1 1_ -1n ike l e ar at tl1 l l a lo a warr1ing 1 1 t , Ja e1 o t l1e wro11g ctoer )J 1 r aJ o a re s, st re te 111 1e tl en ve t, be t lic i,f co 1 1 of a ces en ' _b) off ts e�1 e� oy 1Jr str de t. e11 1m l i11g this 11is Pu e. arg l at ty cie so of e :�1�<� 1 105 l<111g all de,�ds �!l ?1a ' b) 111 1g or r t 1e1 l e ow t 1ey l l c � i ,_ l ,ich '-Y to coriflict of ii,ter.ests l,em ··· by m� l\.111g ever)' t of s do tl1 �r e o t? als s 1ou ttr tnJ s ,er l ot are ii,jttrious to r e. 1de tl� to �e1 of a1n rf-! ba 111 .. M� 11 do t� a '' <e, l c Lo . of s rd wo offei,ce, iii tl,e ek ce, s 1st1 t J_ to e_ tiv mo wl11cl1 �s _tlie 1t 1e1 f1c st1f 110 ve l1a y tlie e atis bec : iiijtrstice , � e pt1_ of pos Tl1 tl1e cr1minal of it. r doe 1e l t_ of t tl1a 11 tl1a ,er ratl ers otl, <Tood of 1r1g a11l , 111 \,; s tl1u tl1e 11ature of are icl1 wl1 s tive mo tl1e art by pl)' sup to is law things. PLtiiisl1 n1e 11 t is i11 tl,e second place, fJreve11tive or disabli11g. Its primary a11d general [Jttrpo;e bei11g to d�ter by fear, its seco11d��y n11d s1Jecial p�r[JOse is, \X,I,erever fJOssible and exped1e11t, to !Jrevent � repet1t101 1 of. \X'ro11gdo111_g by tl,e clisalJle111ent of tl,e offet1der. The n1ost effective mocle of disablement ts the deatl1 pe1 1al l)' ... _ Tl,e OJJfJOsitio11 to !l1e clea_Ll1 pe11a lt��. is ba�ed partl}· 011 reli� io1.1s a11d 11artly on social grot111cls; 111 1Jart1c11lar, cr1L1cs 1Jo111t to tl1e n1orb1d excite111ei1t createcl b)' 111ltrder trials a11d tlieir 011tco1ne. 1

. . I .

. . 1

'.!

' '

/J, si111ilar scc()11clary IJllfJJose exists i11 stich pe11altics as i1n1Jriso11111ent, forfeiit1re of office, l11e s11s1Je11sio11 of clrivi11g licer1ses1 a11d in tl1e old penalt)r c,f e:-:ilc. l 1 1 111ocler11 ti111es tl1e disabli11g asJJect l1as bee11 empl1asised by statutes cc>r1f(:rri 1:g tljJ011 jltdges JJO\v;er to ser1te11ce l1abitt1al offe11clers to fJreventive tcrr11s c>f i11111risor1111e11t. 111 so f,1r as i1111Jriso11me11t is inte11ded to be 1nerel)' clis,1l">lir1g iJ1ere is, ol coL1rse, 110 need to 1nah:e it t11l[)leasa11t; a11d tl1ese se11te11ces t)f jJreve11tive d_ete11tio11 are served t111der co11ditio11s sl igl1tl)i less rigorous ti1ar1 c,rdi11arJ i11·1rrisor1111ent. 1

.', '

. I ' : ·j . I I

Refor111ati'Ve JJ1t11is/11rte1it: Pt111isl11ne11t is i11 tl1e tl1i rel jJlace refor1native. ()ffe11ces are co111111itted tl1rougl1 tl1e i11flt1ence of 111oti,�es or l">)' a cl1a ge of n 111otives UJJ011 cl1aracter. Pt111isl1111e11t as deterre11t acts i11 tl1e former 111ethod ; JJt111isl11ne11t as refor111ative i11 tl,e latter. T l1is ct1rative or 111edici11al ft111clio11 is JJractical!Y Iimit�cl to t\vo fJ�rticL1lar species of J)e11alty, r1a111el}', i111priso11m ent (\vl1ere it [)erta111s to tl1e ideal r;tt l1er tl1a11 to tl1e actt1al) �t11d JJrobatio11 . It \VOttld seen,, lto\vever, tl1al this as1Ject of tl1e cri111i11al la\v is desti11eli to �11cre�si!1g fJro1_ 11i11e11�e. Tl�e 11e\v scie11ce of crin1i11olog)' \VOLtld go far to\vard� 1d�,1�1fy111g crime w1tl1 disease, a11d \VOttlcl \X!illi11gly deli\,er 1na11)' cl asses or cr1m111al out of tl,e l1a11ds of tl1e 111e11 of la\v i11t -- tliose of tl1e 1ne11 of 111edic i11e . It is_ IJlai11 tl1�t tl1ere is �l 11ecessar)' co11flict bet\veet1 t l1e deterrer1t ?-.11d the re_forr�1�t1v� t_l1eor1es of pt1 111s l1me11t, a_i,cl tliat tlie system of crimii,al jus�ice w1II v_a1 y_ 111_ 11nf)Orta11l resJJects accord111g as tile fernier or ,e latter pri11c1ple t l prevails 1n 1t. Tl1e fJ_t1rel)' reformative tl1eor}' act 111its of punish� fo rin 01 s su 11y ch 111�1,t as are st1bser�1e11t to tl 1e educatio11 aiid d di sc ip line of tl,e crimi11a1, an �eJect� all_ l l�ose wl�1�_l1 are JJrofitahle 011I}' as de Deatl1 is . di te sa rr bl ei iii it or g 1�1 1111.5 view 110 filttiig JJe11alty; \Ve n111st them. ki ct ll ire no cr ot t i11 tr 1i1 1a ls Flogg111g ancl oll1er corporal i11flictio115 i-1av l1e law t e al fro re ad m ex )' be ci er s� , d (except fo� �ssatilts 011 JJriso11 warders) ading de fo gr r tl1 e re ar as e o1 tl1 tl1 1 at ey a11d �r�tal1s111g botl, to tl. 1ose w l,o suffer . · an (I . th et an ' n d . t . t ,c . tl o 111 fl ,ose \V ,o . 1 so fail 111 tl1e ce t1. 1 �tiipose Of· cr1in111a bation, l pr o Jus tic e. n a11 Im d pr iso nm e11 t ·�;�deedt;. as a1 r dY �ti,dicated, are tl�e 011 y r fo l l i1n ail �� p ab or av ta u1 nt i11str nents e be e P I pose J a pti rel}' reformative S)'Stem. Impriso11me11t, l1owever, to

FUNCTION Of PENAL J_A W

fitted for s1:1cl1 a purrJose, re�u}res alleviatio11 to a degree quite inaclmissiblc in the alt�rnativ� 5ystem. If _ �r1m111als are se11 t to prison i11 order to be tl1 ere tr�nsfoi n1ed 111 to g �od �1t1zens by_ {Jl1ysical, it1telleclt}al, a11d moral training, prisons mttst be tt1111ed 111to cl,vell111 g-l1 ot1ses far too cn111-fortable to serve as to tl1�se classes fro111 wl1 icl1 cri111i11als are ci'1ief!y drawn. a11y effectt�al �eterre11t _ A ft1r_tl1er_ I 11 t1stra�1on of tl1e cl1verge11ce l1el \vee11 ll1e deterre,1� a11d tl1e reformative tl1eor1es ts SLt lJfJlied �y tl1e case: of i11corrigible offe11ders. 1�1,e most sa11gtti11e

advocate of tl1e ct1rat1ve _ treat111ei1 t of cri1nii1als i11t1st acl1nit tl1at tl1ere are in tl1 e w?rld �:11_ \Vl10 are 111ct1rabl)1 bacl, 111e11 \xrl10 by some vice of 11alttre are ! eve11 Oi1cl tl1e reacl1 of refor111ative i11fluer1ces. a11d \vitl1 wl1om t� tl1e11 )·Otttl1 be) _ crime 1:. 11ot so ;11t1cl1 a bad l1a1?it a� �11 i11eradicable i11sli11ct. Wl1al sl1all be do �e \'vitl! tl1es�; Tl1e 0111 ) ' logical 111 ferei1ce froi11 tl1 e reforn,ative tl1eory, if take11 by 1t �el�, 1? tl1 at tile}' sl _ 1 L)t1ld be ab�11clo !1ed i11 deSJJair as 110 fit sL1lJjects for pe11al d1sc11:,l111 e. Tl1e Lleterre11t arid cl1sahl111g tl1eories, 011 tl1e otl1er l1ar1d �egard st1cl1 offe11clers as� bei11g }Jree111ir1e11tly tl1ose \Vitl1 wl1oi11 tl1e crimi11al la\,; 1s called UIJOti to cleat. fl1at tl1ey 111a)' be precludecl from fL1rtl1er 1niscl1ief, :1.11cl _ at �l1e _ same t1n1e . ser\·e as �1 ,,:rar11i11 g to otl1ers, tl1ey are jL1stly cleprivcd of their l1bert�,, a11d 111 extre111e cases of life itself.

1:'l1e_ a[JJ)lica� io11 o� tl_ 1e [)L1rely reforn1ative tl1 eory, ll1erefore, \VOL1lci le�1cl t() asto111sl1111g ai1d 111acl1111ss1ble rcst1lts. Tl1e !Jerfect syste111 of crin1i11al it1slice is based 011 11eitl1 er tl1e refor111ative 11or tl1e cleterre,,t 11ri11ci[Jle c�\(clt1si-,;el\', l,l1t is tl1e rest1lt of a co1111Jro111ise bet,x,ee11 tl1 en1. !r1 ll1is COi111)rorr1isc: it. is tl1e deterrent IJ ri11cipie \vl1icl1 jJOssesses prec.io111i11a11t i11 flt1e11 cc; �111cl its n.cl ,;oc;i t {�S \Vl1 0 l1ave tl1e last ,x·ord. Tl1is is tl1e [)rir11 ary :l11cl csse11li,tl e11cl (}f JJl.tr1isl1i11 (�1,t a11d all otl1ers are n1 erel}' seco11 dar}' a11d accide11tal. �fl1 e r,rest11t ter1cle11cy l<J rrttril)L1te exaggerated in1porta11ce to tl1 e reforn1ative ele111e11t is �l rea.ctio11 ag�i11st ll1<� former te11cle11C}' to r1eglect it altogetl1er, a11cl lil<e 111 ost reac.tior1s il falls ir1lc; tl1e falsel1ood of extre111es. It is a11 i11 1portar1t trt1tl1, 1111clt1111 11eglected ir1 ti111es past, tl1 at to a very large exte11t crii11i11als are 11ot 11orrr1al a11c.i l1 ealtl1y l111r11:111 bei11gs, a11d that crin1e is i11 great meastire tl1e prod11ct of pl1ysical and me11ial ab11 ormalit)' a11d degeneracy. It l1as been too 111t1cl1 tl1e fJractice to deal witl1 offe11ders on tl1e asst1m1Jtio11 that tl1ey are orcli11 ary tyJJes of l1 umanity. T<,o mttch atte11 tion l1 as bee11 paid to tl1e crime, a11d too little lo tl,e criminal. Vet we n1t1st be carefu I not to fa] I in to tl1e opposite extre111e. If crime l1as become the 1no1101Joly of the ab11ormal and tl1e dege!1era!e, or eve11 tl1e me11lc..lly unsot111d, tl1e fact n111st be ascribed to tl1e select1\·e 111flue11ce of a syste111 of criminal justice based 011 a ster11er pri11ci1Jle tl1a11 tl1at of reformation. Tl1_ e more efficie11t the coercive action of tl1e state beco111es, the n1ore successfttl it is in restrai11ing all normal ht1man bei11gs from tl1 e da11gerous JJatl1s of crime, a11d th(! hial1er becomes tt1e J)ro1Jortio11 of dege11eracy amo11g tl1ose ,vl10 breal{ the law. Evet1 with ottr present imperfect 111etl1ods tl,e tJroportion of i11sane persons among mttrderers is v�ry l1igl1; �ttt if tl1e state_ coul? succeed _ i11 !11akir1g it· impossible to comm ,t murdt!r 1n a sot111d m111d ,v1tl,out bet�g 1ndt1bitably l1a11ged for it afterwar�s, m11rder wot1ld soon becotne, w1tl1 scarcely a11 exception, Iitnited to tl1e insane. 1

•

i11 view of n1odern tl1eories a11d te11dencies, to i11sist on the primary impo rta11ce of the deterr�nt element i_n crimi11al . jttstice. Tl1e reformative eleme11t mt1st not be overlooked, but 11e1tl1er 111t1st 1t be allowed �o assume undue protn ine11ce. To wl1at exte11t i� 1nay be per1nitted i11 _1Jartict1lar t�stances to overrule the requireme11ts of a strictly deterre11t theorr 1� a qt1es t!on of time, place, a11d circt1msta_nce. In tl1e _case o-f youtl1fttl cr11�111als a11cl f1rst offenders, the chai1ces of effective refor1nal1011 are greater tha11 111 tl1at of ft is 11eedful tl1e11

. . . �. .... . . . . ... . ·· ' . .. . '"

'''

'. ' .

•

-1 'I .

.I;,,.

INTRODUCTION

, and t11e rigl1tf�l i m portance ce on a11 tl1 e or m e im cr to in n lle fa adtilts wl,o 1 1ave �. n1e als So e r_ te 1n1 ea cr gr s, re efo er tl� is sucli as e ipl iiic J)r e tiv ma or ref e tli of t rea , ! m e .:11 t1v ma a11 1 o� tlref of ly otl,e rs. 111 d1 rea re nio t mi ad s sexual offeiice )�_ e sa1ely made in lilt b_ ma _ !s 101 ess r1c co ies �it 11u w 1�11 co ng idi ab l;w d · orderly aii . : es eti d ci ul t so e11 wo t1l rl) tu be e or 111 111 fatal to l1 11c wl t,, io 1at r11 fo re of iriterests tlie JJttb lic \velfare. e I j tic a_ n, i i11 tts i11 cr ed tl1ree of its er id 11s co ve l1a e W : ,il e 1m Retributive p1,11 is/ ve � alt a,, o � rm ref w� d a11 l1av_e no�· , g· li11 ab dis 1t, re1 ter de as ly, aspects_ nan,e ve t1t1 r1b s t _ r�l a _ )ec aSJ . t_ l�s a11d 1 1rtl . Retr1bt!tive fot its der un it li wit to de al 111 �Il}' rational S)'Stem bl� ss1 m1 ad 1s 1t l1 1ic ':"'l in 1se se1 Iy 011 e tI 1 in t, en liin ptinis _ of t!1at emotion of adiniriisterii,g jtistice, is tl1at_ wl1�cl1 serves for tl1e sat1sfac��o11 s t1e 1s . st1rre� u11 by 11�1 1 11 �1 co l1)' alt l1e all 111 1 1cl 1 \Vl 1 io1 1at ig1 iiid ve of retributi c 1 111 1. exists �ot 11, 1a t I o w a 1 ret or ge e11 rev of 11ct ti s i 11 e tl1 es tifi gra It injustice. \X'�)' of sym1Jatl1et1c extension 1 nerel),' i11 tl1e individual \Vro11gecl, bttt also by in tl1e society at large. Altl1ot1gl1 tl1e system of JJr1vate r�v_e11r!e l1n� been sup pressed, tl1e e1notio11s ancl i11stincls tl1at lay at tl1e r<?ot of �t ar� still exta11t in l1t11na11 11att1re, a11ci it is a distir1ct tl1ot1gl1 st1borcl111ate ft111ct1011 of cri1ni11al justice to afford tl1e111 tl1eir leg·itimate_satisfaction �or altl1o�gl1 i11 th�ir _ la\vless a11d 1111re<rt1Iated exercise a11cl exrJrcss1or 1 tl1ey are lttll of e\'tl, tl1ere 1s 111 the1n 11011e tl1 e less a11 ele111e11t of goocl. Tl1e ernotio11 of retribt1ti\r e indig11ation, both i11 its self wregarclii1c.r :-t11d its sy1111)atl1etic for1ns, is e\re11 )�et tile rnai11srlring of tl1e cri111i1 1al ·1a\X1. It is to tl1 e fact ll1 at tl1e f)t111isl1me11t of tl1e ,x·ro11gdoer is at tl-i e sai11e lii11<� tl1e ve11ger111ce of tl1e \v'ro11ged, tl1at tl1 e ad111i11istration of justice o\v;es :1. great 1Jart c,f its sirengtl1 a11d effectiveness. Did \X'e punisl1 criminals ri1er<.�1y fro1n a.11 i1 1 lellcctual �101)reciatio11 of tl1e ex1)edie11cy of St) doing, and 11ot becat1se t\1cir cri111es ar<)t1se ir1 11s tl1e e111otio11 of a11ger a11d tl1e i11sti11ct <)f relributio11, tl1e cri111irial 1aw wot1lcl l1e bt1t a feeble i11siru1nent. lndig11ation (1g,1insl ir1j tist ice is, 111oreover, 011e of tl1e cl1ief co11stitue11ts of tl1e moral sense of tl1 e con1mt111ilj a11d positive 111orality is 110 less depe11de11t on it tl1a11 is the la\\/ itself. It is good, tl1erefore, tl1at st1cl1 i11stincts a11d e111otio11s sl1ould be e11coL1ragecl �,11d stre11gtl1ei1eli by tl1eir satisfactio11; a11d i 11 civilised societies !l1is. �arisi:actio11 is possible i11 atl)' adequate degree 011l1r th rougl1 tl1e crimi11aJ 1ust1_ce or tl1e stale. Tl1ere ca11 be little c1t1estio11 tl1at at tl1e fJrese11t day tl1e sent1n1e11t of retribtttive i11dig11ation is deficient ratl1er tl1a11 excessive and reqt1i�es stimLtlation ratl1er tl1a11 restrai 11t. U11 questio11able as l1ave bee� the ben_ef1ts _ of tl1at gro\xrll1 of altr11istic se11ti111ent \\'l1icl1 cl1aracterises modern society, 1t ca1111?t be denied tl1at i11 s01ne resJJects it l1as tal<e11 a perverted cottrse and l1as interfered u11dul)' witl1 tl1e sterr1er virtL1es. \Ve }1ave too mucl1 !orgotten tl1at ll1e m�ntal at�itude \x1_l1icl1 best beco111es lts, \�·I1e11 fitting jt 1stice 1s do11e upo11 tl1e evildoer, 1s 11ot pit}', but sole1n11 ext1)tatio11. Tl1e foregoi�g . e�pla11ati�11 of retributive ()U11isl1me11t as esser1tiall y an . 1nst_ rument of v111d1ct1v� sat1sfactio11 is by 110 ineai,s tl,at wliicli receives universal accepta11ce. It 1s a very \Videly 1,eld Of)itiion tl,at retributiotl is in it ?elf, �part altogetlier from a�1y deterre11t or refor111ative influences exercised b J' it •. a 1 i_ gl1t �11� r:asonable tl1111g, a11d tl1e just i·eward of ir,iquity According to . th1 v ew it is rigJ,t and fJTOfJer, witl1ottt regard to 11lt t tha , e11 ces co ns eq eri u or fVI � /lOUllfd be et rn�d for evil, and tl,at ld sho as s a otl ma 1er n s wi de th als o u ,e l11 !fl5e be ;ea rt ��th. An eye for a11 eye an d is deeme_d too th a too a th for a p\a1n and self-su�f1c1e11t rule of nattiral justice. Pu rded ts re g· a so ni sl, as m en t no onger a me:e instrt, ment for tl1e attainm s h t b f en e, t we o lfa pu th bl e ic r u a become an en d itself Tl1e purtJose 0f vin . . te 1· d · _ 1na · ct 1!11 · 1 · e t1ve been sat1sfa ct1011 l1as � . without any substit�te 1 ,av.!ng been view this provided. accept Those who . common} Y adva,,ce retribution to the first pl ace among the various aspects of 1

·: ' ': ' . .,

:�

' .' . ..·.;

..... i

.. '

· I'

·1 I '

' 'I

FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW

�unishment,. th� ot�ers_ being relegated to subordinate positions. This concep tion of retr1but1ve Jttst1ce still retains a prominent place in pop ular thou ght. •

•

· is rc se el a It y ne ed fu l to ob se rv e tl1 at , fro m the 11t·11 ·t · pain · t of ,·1ew 1 ar1an · !11tliert_o _ta kei, uP.by tts, s_u c� a_ conception of retributive p u nishment is totally 1nad � iss!ble. �t�nisl11ne11t ts in itself an evil, and can be justifi�d only as the 1neans_ or . atta1111ng a greater good. Retribution is in itself not a remedy for tl1e m1 scl11ef of the offence, bt1t a11 �ggravation of it.The opposite opinion may be regarded_ as a f)rod11ct of tl1e 1ncomplete transm11tation of the conceptio'l of _revenge !nto tl1at ?f �11nisl1ment. It resttlts from a failure to appreciate the ral1?na l. bas_1s ?f th� 1nst1nct of retrib11tion - a failure to refer the emotion of retr1�t1�1ve _1nd1gnat1on to tl1e.trtte source of its rational justification - so that _ 1at10 etal 11 d�e ts n1ed an end 1n 1tself and is regarded as the essential element � 111 the conception of penal justice. THE Allv\S OF CRIMINAL LA\V 3 Livin gsto,1 Hall and Sheldo11- Glueck obvio tl1at �he ul It is mate objective of the criminal la•x r is to protect t s . � � . society b11t op1n1ons differ w idely as to just how tr1is goal is to be ac11ievec1. Tl1ese differences of opinio11, in turn, ha,,e been embodied in va;io1.1s SiB,tut1,:::3 at different times.Tl1e result is tl1at there is l1a.rdly a p�nal code th.?.. .t <:.?:II bE.: said to have a single basic principle run11i11g through ·it. The criminal law grew up at stage in history \v1her1 the dis,ci\:i1iries t�on cerned with l1uman conduct and its motivations - biolog)', 1Jsychi,1try1 socio1o:?:Y and criminology (to mentio11 tl1e more obvious) - \VJere virtually non-existerri. Its ultimate basis of pu11ishment, even when it reached a sophisticated state, . . was very simple. . •

• •

•

Commentators have fo u nd it very difficult to develop a rationale of these more or less conflicting theories of retribu tion (expiation), deterrence (of prospective law-violators), disablement {by imprisonment or execution), preven tion (of repelition of crime by ex-prisoners), correctio11 ( of offenders), and education (of the public), and l1ave been unable to agree upon the order of importance cJf these aims in the practical day-to-day administration of criminal justice.

. . . . (a) The retributive-expiative theory still of t�n dictates the �cope o� the i �deter "

m1nate-sentence spans provided by the legislature for various crimes 1n the statu te books and codes the more specific but yet indeterminate sentence im posed by the judge in the individual case, and the.still more specific sentence which the parole boat·d finally decides that the particular offender should serve. This f u ndamental j u stification of punishme11t has been stated by philos ophers in various terms, dependent upon their special systems of values: q r u ita l '' on or uti rib t re� jus a as ' d, sai en : be s ha it � , ry ssa ce un t ne en is P isl1m _ t 11 , or 1n fulfilment of a moral of ''wicked11ess'' or as a ''correlate'' of ''guil law'' (Kant), or i� the carrying ou t of a religious duty (de Maistre), or as ''logical 3.

Hall and Glueck,

• ; _

Criminal

/Aw

and Enfurcttmnt

1-4-19 (1958).

·'

•

' ·' ' , ,if . ·1

·-·. ,... ·I :. '·', :

': 1;

' '. l :

.'' i' . ' ,... '

. .. '

, I .I

INTRODUCTION

oring society's sen� e of �,ar st re of ns ea m !1 as , or l) e ge (H e im mony complement't to cr ve r ra tionalization ate t wh Bu ). art erb (H e r im c the by d e b r tu dis i h · 1 has been are y c� ba the ward -loo king : <;>n m m_ co in s thi ve ha ies or the an� :s��:ed to, such 1m 1nal. These tl_1 e� r1e� are co11siderab cr the 1an l t 1er l rat me cri lle t ly they etnpllasize 1ses ,�f cr 1 m1 � al1ty are nuinero �at the t tha , s_ day wa o n ce, den evi us the weakened by 1 se d cau b}' . tl1; ot typically n 1s inl calc o gd on wr at �lated 1 t1 d 1 ai x, ple and com . ove r , apart fr? m a11y etl1 1 ca, considera re Ma . l l w1 ee ''fr ly ete l p com a of exerci::;e rt- 1 g l 1ted a11 _ d too e��tio o sl� a b� to ed ov pr s l1a ce an 1ge 1 nal ve zed ali leg , tions � l l) a11d �oc1all}1 condition e d. ca �g1 ol b1 are t tl1a ms le b pro l, wit basis for coping _ Statistics, of r ecidivism are eloqt1ent of tl 1e_ fa1!ure of practices \�·l1 1cl1 are based essentially on socialized �engeance or .retr_1but1on. Th �se_ sl1? w tl,at tl1e great l1e r it majority of prisoners co11t1 11ue t o com1n1t crimes upon t.1e1r d1scl1arge. f11rt l 1ment becomes so Se\1ere as' to 1is 1 fJU 1 e1 1 l w l t 1at n 1eno no11 phe wn o l-kn el w is a suggest vengeance ratl,er than a d eterre11t aim or some ot l,er pr�ginatic goa l, juries are loat l1 to co1 1vict a11d �l1e l aw t l1ereby_ t�n d s . to d efeat . its ow n IJUr pose - a fa ct i11dicated by tl,e ineffectual ac\m1n1strat 1 on of var1ot1s ''l1abitu al offe11der'' statt1les co111pelli11g life imprisonme1 1t for a fot1rtl1 felo11y. fi11all)', is anyo11e wise enougl1 to at) ply the measuring-rod of retribt1 tion in tl1e i11dividual case so as to fit tl1e JJtt11isl11ne11t to tl1e deg ree of \V-ickedness a11d t l1is i11 t11rn to tl1e (Jegree of freedoin of \Vill? For st1c\1 rea.s011s tl1e ernpl1asis upon retributive justice l1as in rece11t years been lesse11ed espe cially in tl1e sentencing a11d rel easi11g_ JJrocedures of the l11orl� !Jrogressi,,e jt1risclictio11s.( 1 -1) Nevert l1eless, reform ers of tl1 c administration of cri 111ir1;1l j·ust1ce mt!st be realistic. The law dra\,qs its l ife juices from custom D.r,d !)t1lJlic 01>i,1io11. lt ca1111ot be too far in ad\,a11ce of tl1ese witl1out sl1riv eli t1 g fro111 ')'� i1t r,f }}t1blic stt]Jport. Public opi11io11 is i11 m a11)' pl aces not )'ei read�/ t:) al,ar1doi1 tl1e bacl{ward-oriented retributi\re-expiati\1e tl1eory as one of- tl�e base:::- of ti1e criminal law. Certain revolti11cr crimes 0ai\1 e rise spontat1eo1-1sly t() feeling·s of ot 1trage1 fear and i11dignatio11� a11d to a demand for rt1tl1less ve11ge;1r1ce. l�l1ese e111otions, ratio 11al ized b)' tl,e retrilJutive-expiative tl1eor)', are deetJl:>' rooted in )1 u1nan 11a tt1re. Tl 1e best tl1at ca 1 1 be l1oped for there(?re, is for the Penal Code and the a d ministrators of justice to Place thi; const 1 rt1et1t of tl1e tl1eoret1cal fot1ndation of t l1e criminal la\'I:' in a relatively mi11or positio11 in the \Ytl1ol e structure. '' 1

'' I !

.. I ''

. I

•. I .. .. I

·1

'.- . (_b) Tl1e mo�i�e o� dete.. �,ice plays an i111portant role in legislation and 1ud1c1al and adm1n 1 strat1ve practices. It is diffic11l l to measure tl,e effectiveness of_ the fea� of punisl,�ent. 011 pros1Jective wro11gdoers, exce1Jt as to certai11 w ides1J:ead.. statutory v1olat1 01 1s, suc 1 as fJ ett}' 1 11otor vel1 icle offe11ses, black inarketing, . etc. Cle_arly, i1owever, a 1 fu1 1d ame11tal weak11e of tl1e deterrent ss �pp�oacli is tl�at it_ appeals to but one co1 1stitt 1 e1 1t of lJersonality: the fear instinct. The frigl1te111ng effe ct of a tl 1reat of l 1ea l1as been osu v)' ffe pa inf rin ttl ross 1 Y exagg�rate�. Th� fact of the matter is is me nt pu th nis at h th of fe e ar §�t �ie s all item tn _a �arge _ num be r of forces tl ,at r estrain most men from � aw: relt�IOU� at1d etl1ical a� t family, tra in i11g , fear Of disgraci11g one S r;�k1 ��lee: ;or stealtng in ord er to su ppl}' economic need s, and many others. . Tl,e l1istory of pt1nisl, tnent show s that tl1ere 1s no necessary correlatio n ( 14)

A recent and persuasive rreacm · · . en. t 0f a va rian . . t ot tl11s l1eme tl1at "n,oral culpabil.ity,, sho Id b an t o � OS. essential clement of a ll cr1m1n I . , a11ty sl1 ow5 t l a · s ')l aI phiI. I eg g I tv an,on 1as v1rali ous t1 enorm it , r lp . .I ' opllers. See Hall Ge agine 0 im to ry illuso th is et�re ''I 7): (194 17 !..Aw �l t er rimin C 1 e� � ic possible to co�str:c�ava 11.rdrnct cr1rruna1 l·aw theorJ. wh"Il e d'1sregard'1J1� mora 1·1ty. ,•

FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW

between the severity of punishment and tl1e incidence of crime . This is under �tanda�le when the fact of the complexity of causation is borne in mind. One 1s. re'!linded that when the pu �Iic h_angings of pick-pockets were heaviest at _ of others _hist�r1c �ybu rn, ed fraternity were doing a thriving l1ght-f1nger the . _ �us1ness 111 p1ck1ng the J?OCkets _ of the crowd gaping up at the gibbets. Back 1n 1769, Blackstone, :varn1ng against excessive implementation of crimes with the _deatl1 penalty, satd; 11 F or is it fot111d ttpon furtl1er experience that capital punishments are more effectttal? Wa? tl1e vast territory of all the Russias worse regulated under the_ late empress El1zabeth, than under her more sanguinary predecessors? ls tt now, tinder Catherine II, less civilized, l ess social, less secure? A11 d yet we �re assured, tl1at neither of these illustrious princesses have) throughout thetr w!1ole ad_ministr�tion, . inflicted the pe11alty of death: and t�e latter has, ttpot1 f�tll .per�uas10� of its being useless, nay, even pernicious, given orders for abol1sh111g 1t e11t1rely throughottt her extensive dominions.'' < 1 �> . Neve_rtheless, t�,e . deterrent element must l1ave a place i11 tl1e system of' aims bel1111d t1ie cr1m111al law, because in certain types of \videspread viola·J:iG,11 of law it is seemi11gly effective. 011 the wl,ol e l1ow ever tl1e la\VJ ouo-ht to lea\,e to otl1er social institutio11s - tl1e l101ne, tl1e �ht1rch, tl�e school, the cl11b, the trade union, artd tl1 e like - n1ost of tl1e v1orl< of l1elpi11g yot1ll1s ar1cl a.clults to adjust to societ)·'s dema11ds without breal(i11g its la.,YJS. �fhe crimii1al 1a\(! �tr1e:i its agencies are, 011 tl1e otl,er l1a11d, strategically placecl for the tasl< or reforr.r1 and rel1abilitation of deli11q11e11ts and criminals - perso11s ,x,110, 11a,,i11g a.1:-f:r-.cl::,· defined tl1emselves as offe11ders against societ)''s la\Y1s, are '-?1itl,in tl1e coritrol of an agenc): of justice \vl1ose duty it is so to deal ,<1itl1 tl1err1 as n-iost effectivr.::l)', economically, a11d h uma11ely to counteract tl1ei r te11dencies to tl1,1t rorr,1 c)·i maladjt1stment whicl1 is called crime. ( c) Disablement. Tl1e best that can be said for tl1is theory is that it rerr1oves from circulation in society persons deemed dangerous. But inasm11ch as, ,:-1itl1 the diminution of capital punisl11nent, the vast majority of prisoners mt1st be returned to society, disablement tl1 iough imprison1nent, without accompanying educative a11d rehabilitative practices, ca11 only malce offenders worse upon their discharge than they were wl1e11 committed to prison. (d) Prevention of recidivism throug� infliction o_f. painful . punisl1ment I,as also failed, as witness the l1igl1 proportions of _repet1t1on of crimes o� the part of tl1os e already punished one . or _more times. follow-tip_ studies amply . demo11 strate that as with prospective first offenders so also with ex-prisoners, the motives for �bste ntion from criminalism are nt1merot1s and com1)lex. They are assuredly not confined to the fear of new pttnishment. (e) The theory of correction (or reformation) as tl1e chief aitn in the l1i erarchy of goals of the criminal law has also, unfortunatelr, n?t as y�t s11 own very satisfactory results in practice. Those �ho hold to tl1 1_s. vie� bel� eve that this is because there has be en too much reliance on pun1t1ve 1mpr1sonment . Punishment in the sense of the infliction of painful suffering does not suffi cie11tly and' permanet1tly affect the deeper sp� i11_ gs_ of human personality _ and character to bring abottt permanent ''reform, 1n itself. Its unfavorable reactions may eve11 exceed its favorable ones. On the one l1and, many offenders emerge (16)

-4

Bl.

Com,n. to.

,. ,.,.

INTRODUCTION

.. . ' ... :. �

'J . ' ', ' , ,• -I

, �.: I :

. .

.. .' ' I

. .'

e r_ �and, as !fl� dern _ h ot e th n O e. ng ve r� d �n psycho� d e tr . from prison full of ha eek ou t pu n1 s� ment-g1v1n� situatio s s al du v1 1 d 1n e m so ns analysis lias shown, ersonality . ne ed springing fro p ed at �se ep de s, ou ci ns co un m an in order to satisfy _ g in nd sta enologists 1-: ut .. O od ho 1l� cl1 ly ar e i� ed 1 are isl bl sta a sense of guilt e e c�1m1 nal law is of th m ai l na tio ec rr co e tl1 1f at th to ize gn beginni,,g to reco es of JJsych1atry, psych olog c ur so re e tl1 l al ay pl to in y, . 1g i 1 br succeed it must social work and education . n the i_ ti c 11ction between dis bli pu the of ion cat e�u of aim tl1e y, all ion cas (f) Oc d 11e 10 as nt e me on en be s t1� goal of r v1o l1a e b al in rim n-c no d an criminal es precedes ratl1_e: th�n follows the tim me so law w, vie s tl1i 1 I 1 e. tic jus l na crimi ean degr�e a m_?ra l1z1n g i11fluence upon 1n 110_ in ses rci exe It .. .. s ral mo lic pub . e lin of conduct to which a e_ a!tz pen r lato gis e l tl1e Let ge lar at y the communit 1 11d 1fferent, or even somewhat _ olly \Vl1 , rse ave y l1tl slig t bu is ty rali mo current favorably incli11ed and tl1e i1n1nediate �e�ult wil l be tl1at the vast majori�y of tl1e citizens will refrain from the prol11 b1ted act, JJartly becat1se tl1ey desire to avoid the saT1ction but partly becattse in a \vell-ordered community obedien ce to the con1mands 'ot a lawfully constituted autl1ority is recog11ized as a bind ing duty. Condt1ct conform}ng to tl1e_ �ictate of tl1e la ,v t�us becomes habitual, and, l1abitual co11duct reacting 011 0[)111101 1, a moral a version to the opposite conduct may gradually grow ttp; in otl1er \VOrds, wl1at was originally onl)' a legal duty, gradually acquires the obligatory force of c·ustom too.... That whicl1 is i11 the -firsi i11star1ce a sottrce of evil rapidly comes to be looked upon as ,ii1 e,1il, and fi11ally as evil ... a malr,,n q,,ia probibit11rn is converted into a rr:.a/111;1 1,er se, ir1to a moral wror1g. Tl1e legislator, tl1en, has it in l1is power, by bra.r,ding certair1 a12ts as cri1nes to 111odify, in the co11 rse of a few generations, tl·re 111oral ser1ti1ne11is of ti1e co111 111u11ity, arid it 1nay safely be asserted that in the JJast ll1e J)enal code l1as been 011e of tl1e most valuable i11struments in the 1nl1ral ed.ucatio11 o-f the I-1t1rnal1 race.''( 17) •

.. I

•

. It_ is always difficult for legis_lators, and especial I)' so for judges wl1en 1mpos111g se11tence, t? cletermtne_ wl11cl1 of t11ese major objectives of tl1e criminal la� sl1ould \J!·ed�m111ate. Not tnfreque11tly they te1 1d to give promi1 1ence to both. tl1e retr1but1ye and deterre11t tl1eories, e J)ecially si11ce tl1ey are in the S public e_ye an�. subJect to ne\vspaper com1ne11t, a 11d are tl1us particular}}' sensitive to publ�c op1_111011. _No general for111ula res1Jecti11g tl1e relative 1Jroportioi1s of tl1e various 1ngred1ents of tl1e ge11eral pu11itive-corrective aim can be worked C)Ut.

•:

. ·;

! I

. It is tlie opinion of many of tl1ose wl10 l1a ve studi ed botl1 tl1e causes of crime and the !-��ults of its treat1nent by mea11s of tl1e deatl1 1Jenalty a11d the 11 s�al forms of incarceration, tl1at for tlie vast maJ· ority of tl,e general run of · del111qu en ts an d · cr im ,·na ls ti , . 1e correct1'1.Je tl1eorJ' based upon a co11cept1 011 of . . �ulti�le ca�satt?n and curat1ve-r el1abilitative tre�tme11 om pr e cle d ar l sl1 t ou ld y ' · · 111at e 111. 1 egts 1 at 1on and 111 · · · · JU · cttctal and adn11111strati\i'e practices. No other single ti as C 1 os ely r� lat e ed to t}1 e cri m ac tu al Of C0 11d iti ms on S s m ec a11 l1a d 11is C��:ri � ., o otlle gives as mucl, pro_mise soc_iety to of r re of tu fen r11 in de tl1 g e {- ve vac�um of pun1sl1m not wit; tl�e en t-in . duc ed fea r bu t witt, tl1 e ..aff1 r!11 ative and con�:r��;iv equ11Jment - pl1 ab! d taw ys ica l, for m e nta l mo a11 ral d ingn ess.Thus in th fong run, no othe e mis pro r tl1e r ory gre ate an d practice give of protecting' socic�y. (17) Oppenheimer, Th� Rationa le of PunisJ,m�nt 293-294 (1913 ).

FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW

NOT ES

Note 1: Codified Statements of Purpose Preface, Penal Code of Etl1io1Jia

f the pri11cipal he codifica ion always bra11cl1es of law of a11y cou11try is � � ? . a d1ff1cult _task, stn�e it must be profou11dly grounded in tl1e life a11d traditions of the �at1on, and tt must, at _tl1� �atne time, be i11 l<eeJJing witl1 and res1Jonsive to the 111fluences, not 011ly Jur1d1cal, but also social economic a11d scientific which are in the process of tra11sformi11g tl1e 11ation ;nd our lives and \vl1icl1 will inevitably shape the lives of tl1ose wl10 come after us . These considerations apply with particular validity to penal legislation at .time when, tl1rougl1out tl,e world, tl1e ex1Janding fro11tiers of society brougl1t a about through tl1e co11tributio11s of science, tl1e complexities of modern life a11d conseqtte�t increase i11 tl,e volume of laws reqtiire tl1at effective, yet l1igi1ly humane and liberal procedures be adopted to e11sure tl1at legislative prescrip tions ,nay have tl1e efficacy intended for tl1em as regulators of condtict. t·Je\.v concepts, not 011ly juridical, bLtt also tl1ose coi1tributed by tl1e sc:ier1ces of sociology, psychology and, indeed penology, l1ave been develo1Jed a11d rr.t1st be taken into consideratio11 in tl1e elaboration of a11)' crin.1i11al code wl1icl-1 '.Y1011lc\ be inspired by the princi !Jles of j t1stice a11d libe.rty a11d by co11cerr1 for tl·1e prevention and sttppression of crime, for tl1e \velfare D.r1d 1 ir1deed, t:1e rel1abli i t2.� tion of tl1e individual accttsed of crin1e. Pt111isi1ment car1r1ot be a,;c}icled si11ce it acts as a deterrent to crimes; as, indeed, it l1as bee11 said, ;'or1e \Y1l10 wit11esses the punisl1rnent of a wrong-doer will beco111e [Jrude11t." It will serve as ,l lessor1 to prospective ,vrong-<loers. •

•

• •

Article 1, Penal Code of Etl1iopia Art. 1. - Object and Purpose.

The purpose of criminal law is to e11sure_ order, peace and the security of the State and its i11l1abitants for tl1e public good. 1 It aims at the prevention of offences by givi11g_ dt1e IJOtice �f the offen� es and penalties prescribed by law a11d sl1ould th1s be 1neffect1ve � y provid ing for the JJunishment and reform of offenders a11d measures LO prevent the commission of further offences. Criminal Code of the Hungarian Peoples Republic ( 1950) 4 Sect. 1. ___: The Objects of this Act. The purpose of this Act is to protect the_ political, social an? econo�ic order of the Hungarian People's Rept1bl1c, the p_erso11 �n� r1gl1ts. of its t t alts ng soc ula reg les r f. o _ ce n a_ ! ser ob ! the �oex1ste�c� s, ter zen citi to fos � y in the socialist State and c1v1c d1sc1pl1ne. To t)11s end 1t define� :� 111ch socially da11 gerous acts are crimes and what punishments may be 1nfl1cted on those committing tl1e1n. -4. Translation, P. Lamberg (Corvina Pr�s).

I. !

· Ii,

INTRODUCTION

y ntl ste o nsi _co wh but de eva rk wo f o_ s e abl cap son work per A (l) _ . 214 t. Sec g in o ed tw s. ce ar ex t ye no ty er lib of ss Jo 1 itl w ed sh ni pu be shall 5 e 2) od l C 96 na (1 Pe el od M , te American Law Institu

'�·,l .. . : .,. . . . .. 'v. ·

Sect. 1.02. Purposes; Principles of Construction. (l) Tlle general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of

offenses are: (a} to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b} to subject to public control_ per�ons whose conduct indicates that they are disposed to commit crimes; (c) to safeguard conduct that is without fault from condemnation as

:. ' ; .. l '

criminal;

( d) to give fair warni11g of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense; (e) to differe11tiaie on reaso11able grounds between serious and minor or1e11ses. r ,•

(,.t.) ("> \

1,...... b.·rp 11..... � ... �'a tl purposes of tl1e provisions governing the sentencing and :. ·· e ·· .,, ,.,, 11 �i!. L�, .c1 . offe11ders are: Ll a.1{..-. ..�1,.. (,L) io 1:;re,r(:rrt t!·1e cotnmission of offenses; (t,) to 1:ro111<;;te tJ1e correction and rel1abilitation of offenders; (c:) to safegtlard oifendcrs against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary l,

.....

pLlri is}111! en t; (d) to gi've fair war11i11g of the nature of the sentences that may be imposed. Ok1 convictior1 of an offense; (e) to differentiate among offenders witl1 a view to a just individualiza tio11 i11 their treatment; ( f) to define, coordinate and harmonize the powers, duties and functions of tJ1e courts and of administrative officers and agencies responsible for dealing with offenders; (g) to adva11ce tl1e use of generally accepted scientific methods and knowledge i11 the sentencing and treatment of offenders; (h) to integ!ale responsibility for the administration of the correctional system tn a State Department of Correction [or other single depart·

' ·1 I I

me11t or agency].

. 'I

•

Note 2: The Efficacy of Deterrence Sellin, The Death Penalty and its Deterrent Effect6 5. 6·

Proposed Official Draft. Sellin, Tht Dtatb Ptn4lty, A Rtport for UN Modtl Pouil CIXk

t Sff. ( l 959).

FUNCTION O F PENAL LA W •

•

. . .

W· l1en w e think of deterrence restra1·11t or preven t·1011 --- tl1ese terms are ' . . 1a l ng y bl ea - we usually tl1 ,nk of tl1e effect wl11c u:,ed 1nterc · h a pu 111s · I h 1m as e11 t u 1 co e e u tl f t n d on Ltc t , <:>f tl1e JJ�rso11 IJt111isl1ed a11rJ (2 (1) : ) on tl1t future . co11d�ct . 0� otl,ei s. Some \X. r1ters d1stt11guisl1 tl1ese two ,�ffects by calli11g tl1e one 111d1v1dual a11d tl1e otl1er hae11eral preve11 t1· 011 • J,, ti,e case of ti1e executed · ·ct tia.1 preve 11 t�o11 is, of course, cotnpletely effective. Tl1is is deatI1 fJetial ty ·tnctIVI � ex ec t1t pu on ed n e _ 1sl 1111e11t 111 co1111ection will, wlticll general preventio,, the alone can be studied. If tl1e deatl 1 JJe11alty ca rries a potential t l1reat . \vl1icl1 has a restraini11g i11flt1e11ce on l1t1 1na11 con.duct, we rn ay assume tl1at tl,e greater tlie tlireat the 1nore effective i l would be. . . . It seems reaso11able to asst11ne tl1at if t]1e death pe11alty exercises a deterrent or f)reventive effect on tJrospective murderers, the follo\ving pro positions \Vould be true: (�) 1\i\ urders shot1ld be le_ss fre gt1e11t i11 states t11at l1ave the ·death pe11al ty tha11 _in those tl1at l1ave abol1sl1ed 1t, otl1er factors bei11g eq1.1al. Com pa.risons of tl11s nat11re must be made among states tl1at a.re as al il(e as possible in �tll otl,er respects - cl,aracter or pOJJulatio11, social a[1d eco11.omlc co;:1d itio11, etc. - in order 11ot to i11troduce factors k110\":-'i1 to ii1flt1e11ce r1111rf�·. r2,tes ii1 (1. serious n1a1111er but JJresent in only one of t11ese stc:.tes. (b) i\i\urders shot1ld i11crease \vl1e11 ll1e deatl1 pe'i1,-1"!ty· is al1ol[sl1e<J a11{J. should decline wl1en it is restored. ( c) The deterrent effect sl1ot1ld be greatest and sl1ould ti1erefore c1.ffe•::t tnurder rates most powerfully in tl1ose com1nu11ities wl1ere tl1e crin1e occurrecl and its consequences are most stro11gly brought home to tl,e population. The data examined reveal tl1at: (I) The level of the homicide death rates varies in different grou1Js of states. It is lowest in tl1e New England areas and i11 the northern states of

the middle west and lies somewhat l1igher in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. (2) Within each group_ ?f . states . having _si�ila� social and. _economic conditions a11d populations, 1t 1s 1mposs1ble to d1st1ngu1sh the abol1t1on states from the others. (3) ·r11e tre,zds of the l1omicide deatl, rates of comparable states with or \Vitl1out tl1e death penalty are similar. e ibl rn no ce effect 011 ve dis l1a s on uti ec ex at th is 11 sio lu Tl1e inevitable conc l1 omicide deatt1 rates whicl1, as \'(le l1ave see11, are regarded as adeq 11at e indica tors of capital murder rates. •

•

Note 3: The Importance of Research Harno, The Impact of Scientific Researcl17 -rhe criminal law is the dominant factor in crime repression. The 7.

. ·. . ·�-...

Harno. Some Significant Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure in chc Last Century, 42 ]. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 140 (1951).

.. .

�··

• I

I. '

�II." �i· �·

'--�:..,,.'J..;·,.J '

•

' '' :' ; :'.:.1

I °'I.: I ": "••• II

. .. .. .a· · '; . ' •· ; 1' '

...

. ' '

INTRODUCTION

� hi . s an �ssu _T i law of yi �io es qu a is l ro nt co mption e im cr assumption is that av1or 1s a questio n of � be a l 1n n r� cr of y \vh e 1 Tl . fact tllal should be re-ev aluated ti ons. But I�w does Jlot, nc sa h lis tab es to is l w a al in 0; Tl,e missioi1 of the crim ed nd ou gr 1n ld be fac 011 sl1 t, aild tile It . cuo 'Va n i te era op t, no uld _ at least slio e th h eti uc ology of cri to 1ey Tl . lex mp co ly i11g ed ce ex e ar e me· im cr facts of of the individual; hi; up kema l nta m� and al gic olo ysi ph the e olv inv they al_l 1nte r �ela ted. If we are to k now about e ar s tor fac e e 1 s TI . etc rit, in e oii 1 vir ei s t� at ma � e tl1e crimi nc� u 1nfl f o lity tota tl1e ut abo w kno nal. �1 crime we must 1ent1st s �tr1ve to orga Sc s .. les use re a rs o t fac e d z ani org 11 u nize . Hodgepodge, t11 eir ki,owledge i11 i11terrelated ger1eral propos1t1 011s, to whtch no exception s u ivid al bel1ave as he did ind the de ma a t wh rn lea y ma \X'e s Tliu J "t53 nd. fou be ca11 The next questio11 is to find out what to do about it. Tl1�s in·1?lves tl1e aoplicatio� of propll}'lactic 1neasures and tl1is process _mu�t be as pa_ 111stak_ 1 ng � s tl1_e �iagno sis. J-lere we may e11cou11ter a 11eed for leg1slat1on. But 1 f leg1slat 1 011 1s 111dic a ted tl1ere first is tl1e question, wl1at is to be tl1e nature of the legislation? Wt1 at legislative 111easures promise to be beneficial? Tl1is is a questio11 of f)olicy. Tl1at factor l1avi11g been establisl1ed, tl1e state (organized societ)') sl1ould then a11d tl1e11 011ly express itself a11thoritatively through la\v. It should be the aim of tl,e la"\v, tl1t1s co11ceived i11 an understanding of tl1 e facts, to enact measures for crin1e repression. Tl,e la\v is a 11 applied scie11ce. Its mission is to coordin ate a11d sa11ciio11 tl1e forces for social control. A11 essential factor in this co11ce1)tior1 is tl1at meast1res desig11ed for the co11trol of l1uman behavior tl1rough la \Y/ 111 ltS l be f ou11decl in res eare l1. Questions

! '

3. I

''''

4. 5. 6.

/\�_st1111i 11g· tl1at tl1e judges i11 tl1� D,,dley. and Stephens case were i11 agreement \"11_tl·1 _S�lmond tl1at deterre11ce 1s tl1e pr1 mary aim of tl1e criminal law, 110,xr 1111ght. tl1at l1ave affected tl1eir decisio11? To .\'G'l1at extent do yot1 tl1ink potential crimi11als are deterred by the pu11�sl1n1ent of. tl1ose \Vl10 l1ave erred before tl1ern? Does the selection from �ell1n conc7r11111g �l1e deatl1 f)enalty i11 tl1 e U 11ited States (Note 2) she d l1gl1t on tl11s qt1est1on_? Is tl1e ex1Jerie11ce of tl1e United States with respect to tl1e deterre11t effect of tl1e deatl1 se11te 11c e relevanl for Ethiopia?

W?tild Salmo11d agree witl1 I-lall and Gl11eck1 s criticism of tl1e deterrent �atiotial.e on tl1e basis tl,at it a1)fJeals only to fear a11d is tl1erefo relatively re 1 1 1 1effect1 v� (fJ. 24)? Or tl1ei r criticistn tl1at tl1e ''cau se of criminality are ' s 1 umer u1 a,,d com1?lex, and tl,at \vror1gdoing is 'ca used b)' 11ot typically �� e ca fc11 at ed exercise of a co111pletely 'free will' '' (p . 24)? Do you feel that ll1e l101ne cl,ur �1 1, sc l l 100 , e t11e proper etc. ar (p. 25) i11stitt1tio11s for tile deterre11ce' o f crim e? le � : ��: [i should n1orality an d religious teaching play in the emphasis e r 1 ot ie purpo&� of the criminal law? What wo u ld Chris t's �� 5� �s response t l (;_ n ��\ 0 1 to the lex talonis: "an ey e 'for an ey e and a tooth fo r a' t�o�ri... �valt1ate Hall a11d Olueck' s re . . r 0 t ns aso f f e or ac h v mp uti dee rib ret zm as1 g the m pu nishment (pp. 23 _ 24).

(53) Sutherland, Principles of Cri minology• 3 (4th ed ., 1947 ).

(

._., '

FUNCTION OF PENAL LAW

7. 8.

How would the , corrective or reformative tl1eory deal with recidivism?

How does Harne s short excerpt (Note 3) affect the corrective tl1 eory? �hi�h of the four. th�ories has been most important in the traditional cr1m1nal law of Etl11op1a? After l1aving read tl1e Preface and first article of the Penal Co?e {Note 1), wl1ich tl,eory seems predominant in the Code? Do the selections from tl1e Criminal Code of liungary and the American Model Penal Code (Note 1) differ basically from tl1ose purposes expressed in tl1e Penal Code of Etl1iopia? Whi�h purpose(s) d_o you tl1i11k s11ould be given greatest weight? Is it possible to l1armon1ze I-lall and Glueck's ''corrective'' tl1eory with the ''deterrent'' tl1eory of Salmo11d? See contra Salmo11d (pp. 20 -21). Recommended Readings

Micl1ael and Wecl1sler, Cri111i11al Law 4-20 (excelient essay concerning inter alitt the ft111ction of pu11ishme11t e11titled: The Basic Problems of Crimir13.l Ld.,11: E11ds and J\,\ear1s). Hart, Tl1e Aims of tl1e Criminal La,v, 23 Law a1Jd Conten111or�ir.:v i"Jrob·len-;s .iJO 1..1?:4 l (1958). of tt1e funt�tio11�. friedmann, Law in a Cl1ancr0i12g Society 177-187 ( 1959) (disc1tssion • of penal sanctions and tl1eir evolution iI1 moderr1 t:rnes,.' Col1en and Col1en Readings iri Jurisp,·udence atitl Legal ]'J./1ilosoJ1hJ·' :i20-3,J:6 { 1 �)51) (readings sele�ted from well l(t10,v11 crimi11ologists arid pl1iloso1Jl1ers c�oncerr1ing the JJurposes of punisl1ment). Wood, Responsibility and Punisl11ne11t, �8 ]. Critn. _L. 630-64:9 (1938): �.iso fot!r�d in Harno, Criminal Law 12-16 (etl11cal analysis of pt1111shmer1t s sot1rces !n social responsibility). Von Bar History of Continental Criminal Law, pt. 2 (1916) (historical study o-f the function and theory of crimi11al law from Greek and Roman times to the beginning of this ce11tury). Stone The Province and Function of Law (1961) (general work of jurisprudence, n:b. chap. 27, Law and Social Control). . . . Vouin et Leaute Droit Penal 93-102 (brief analysts of the function of punishment within' the French criminal system). . Vidal, Cours de Droit Criminel et de Science Peniteniiaire 9-11 t9t_h ed., 1?47) (dis cussion of values underlying punishment from Frencl1 point of view).

I•' ,·

'' ,,

. ' 1

,. '.j,l ,l •• ;J

CHAPTER 3

.. ·I' .. ' .! ,. .' I'

.,;; .. ;.. : !>

.-·. ......... ..'1. ;I ,. , . .' '., '' '

. .

The Distinction Between Civil and Penal Law

. I . . I''

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. WOZ. ATSEDE HABTE SELASSIE

' .

J-Iig/1 Co11rt, Criminal Appeal No. 618/51 (1959 G. C.) Et/Jiopia

. .

�...·.1

. .' i

Se11e 10, 1952 E. C. (Jt1ne 17, 1959 0. C.); _Judges: Dr. "'3/· B�h�gi�r, 1� its l1ad or1g 1n tter ma ts Th un: tal1 Oe 11 111e l{o1 Iv\a /-\to , w cJ. J\.rg ele Ba!{ ri a " g�Li i. -:P tJ-ie fo.urtl1 \'lr/oreda Co1.1rt ,vl1ere 011 a complaint by Woz. Abeche W0Ide k1ros, t!:r.; 1=>ilblic. Prt)St:ct1tor c11arged \Voz. Atsede liabte Selassie, the present respond e,it. \Viti1 treso. ,1.ss un(!er Article 442 of tl1e old Etl1iopian Penal Code; with t!·1e' fJrese11f res :)011dent tl1ere \Y1as also accused one, Ato Haile·mariam Wodesik. -I'l1e facts as ciiscusst.:d i11 tl1e \Y/oreda C ourt on wl1ich the charge was based ,irt o.s follo�{{s; w· oz. P..tsede I·Iabte Selassie bot1gl1t from Ato Hailemariam '\JVoc\tsi1c a l)iot of, la11d alijacent to a ploi of land belonging to the private cornJ)laina11t, 'v'/oz.•l!..beche v.roldelciros.Woz. Atsede Habte Selassie wanted to l1ave tl1e boundaries of her la11d fixed and one Su11day she went with the JJerso11 wl10 h(td sold her tl1e land, tl1at is Ato Hailemariam W odesik, and with the local Governor, to lay do\v111 the clemarcation lines. Woz. Abecl1e Woldekiros co1n1)lained tl1at tl1e bot111daries were marked inside lier land, tl1at is at a widtl1 of 18 meters a11d a lengtl1 of 24 meters inside li er Ia11d. On the plea of tl,e accused tl1at tl1is was a civil a11d not a crimi11al matter tl1e Woreda Court ruled tl1at tl1e 1natter sl1ot1ld proceed as a criminal matter. from tl1is order. tl1ere \Vas a11_ app�al to tl1e Awradja Court by Woz. Atsede �abte Selas�1e and Ato I-la1l�mar1a1n Wodesik; tl1e latter did not appear at all hearin gs, but finally tl1e Awr�dia Court held tl1al tl1 e question between the parties wa:; a matter for t!1e c1v1l court. From tl1is order of tl1 e Aw·radja Court, Woz. Abeche Woldek1ros aprlealed t o tl1e liig}1 Court; as the case had been throug�· Ot�t coiiducted �y ll?e P1;1�lic Prosecutor, tl1e Hig h Cou rt ordered the �ublic P1 osect1to_r to give 111s op_1n1011 on tlie appeal lodged by tl,e private complainant. Tl1e Pt1bl1c Prosecutor did so supporting tl1e appeal... . • •

•

Wit� regard t� _ tlie merits of tl1e case, tl1 e facts as alleged by the prosecution ve do 1:1 ° �, in our opinion, disclose an offence ha To . Code ag Pe ain nal st the a c i_minal case of tresJJass, ll1ere must b e tl, e i 11 o pe rs a 1g tention of deprivi1 � r a 0f 115 � roperty_ unlawfully wi tl1 t tl1e knowledge tha t the land from which � f e person ·� deprived belongs to that beli est hon the per son If . in per soi a , d that a piece of land belo11gs to him, lan t tha takes l1is cattle to graze on

CIVIL AND PENAL LAW

or cuts trees growing on t�a � land, tl1at does 11ot amount to criminal trespa ss· sucl1 acts may amou11t to ci,rt1 trespass for wl1icl1 a civil ac ti da on fo m r ag e� lie. ay m Now in the present case• Woz. A tsed "-I 1 ab le Selassie ha� purcl,ased land · � from Ato Hailemariain WodeSik; aiid i,atui ally sl,e l1ad every 111te re to ha st ve · ar d Ot ti1e b ttl ies marke d; sl1e \Ver1t 011 tl1e la11d witl1 l1im and with the loca l Ooveri1 or t� lay down tl,e de 11�arcatio11 li11es. 1-ler i11le11tion wa ob s vi y ou to sl · take possess1011 of property \vl11ch sl1e beli·eved to b e 11ers and not to depr1ve woz. Abec11 e wOldek.tros of l1_er fJ1·01Jerty. l11 tl1· e opi11ion of tl1is Court tl1e • · facts as set 011t above do 11ot disclose tl1e 1·1,g 1·ect1 ents (:)f a cr11n1na offence, a11 d . 1 tl1e or cter of t l1e AwradJa Court 11111st be co11firmed.

ATO MAKONNEN T ACLE I-IAilv\ANOT v. TI-IE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Private complaina11ts:

H.E. Afeneg11s Take lie \\'/ olde 1-Ia·1:variat alld. Ato Becla11e Ser1brr.ta}

.., High Co1-1rt, Cri111 inal Ap1"' h ei-cl No. ° 2 c., -1/5 J ( '-,9�1 --' . (_.7. • .,...., c·) ,

Ethi1.lpia

Yekatit 15, 1953 E. C. (Feb. 23, 1961 0, C.); Judges: D.·. '\:</. I�t1l1a.1>"iar Ato Bakele Hable Micl1ael, Ato Mal<o1111e11 Getal1t111:- Tl1e proseculioI1 e�rid;nce ... shows tl1 at tl1e la11d i11 q11estio11 l1ad bee11 i11 tl1e possession of tl1e: sai<J Ato Bedane Senbata for tl1ree years a11d tl1at at tl1e tin·1e of t11e offe11ce it 11;.1,l been cultivated witli tomatoes a11d tJotatoes. A great cleal of evidence 1J?as heard as to whos :. JJroperty the la11d is; 011 bel1alf of tl1e prosecution it \vas stated tl1at the la11d is the property of 1-Iis Excelle11cy Afe11egus Tal{elle Wolde I-Ia\variat and on behalf of the defence it was stated tl1at the land was tl1e property of fit. Asfaw Kebede. At this stage it is importa11t to point ot1t tl1at tl1ere is a certain amount of confusio11 i11 tl1e apJJlication of Article 650 of the Penal Code. Hundreds of cases come before tl1e cou1 t· s in their crim inal jurisdiction where .�ttempts are 1nade to prove tl1e ownership of land in dispute; ownersl1i1J of la11d a11d possession of land are t\vo completely different matters; a person may be tl1e owner of land but not in possession thereof as for example a landlord wl10 l1as give11 l1is la11d on lease to a farmer· ;imilarly a perso11 may be in possession of land without being the owner thereof. Now tl1e main object of Article 650 is to protect quiet possession of land and tinder tl1at Article it is possible to prosecute the owner of tl1e land who interferes witl1 tl1e quiet possession of a person who, like a tenant, is lawfully in possessio11 of tl1at ]a11d by virtue of the lease granted to him by the ow11er. _ In . most . of_ tl1e cases, tl1erefore,. tl1e q ttestion of ownership does not arise; 1t 1s suff1c1ent for tl1e prosecution to prove possession. Th e main object of Article 650 o� tl1e Pe11al Co':1 e. is not to decide questions of ownership (tl1is is a 1natter fitter for tl1e c1v1l courts) but to ensure that no person 'takes tl1e law into his ?wn hands and t� ereby cause a breach of the peace. Now i11 the present case, 1t l1as bee11 established that Ato Bedane Senbata had been ii1 possession of tl1e land for tl1ree y�ars and had been cultivating the land with tomatoes and potatoes; eve11 assuming t11at tl1e land belonged to fit. Asfaw Kebede, the appellant had no rigl1t whatsoever to act as he did and forcibly oust the said Ato Bedane Senbata out of the land 1

1I I

-· '!' '!

INTRODUCTION

34 without du� process of law. • • • •

•

Questions

-..'.'.

... I ; •. 1 .' ' . .

.. ' ..

i . .

t se tha ca . e4e the Ats z. the Wo dispute in urt co the 1 t1 wi ree ag u yo Do l t? ur na co m1 cr1 a n tha What wer e r he rat il civ a in d tle should be set of t. 2 the Ar 44 b. (n. Penal Code ? ion cis de 's urt Co the ind 1 bel the reaso115 of 1930 concerns swi11dling: 442. A man wl10 in order to obt�in moner for hi� ?Wn_ advantage �y u11Iawful swi11dling re1noves 1t pretending t�at it 1� his own or who 1,a11ds it over to another ma11 or who guides thieves and cause s tl,em to steal it or wl10 after causing the stealing obtains a signa ture for tl1e receipt of the money sl1all pay a fine from 100 to 200 dollars a11d shall be imprisoned from 1 to 2 years. Tl1ere is no article specifically devoted to criminal trespass:) \Xfl1at do ,,ot1 tl1irik: are the basic differences between a criminal and a civil off1::nse? ·�x,11.a t co11sequences result from categorizing an offense as .c :i,1�1 f}r criri1ir1 ;:1l? Do 0tl1e purposes and re1nedies of tl1e criminal law differ -,<.- <'· c, 1 :· l. ·1 e :: ,-r,,L-�, r l-Vl l } a,y,? .. - ·:l ...I- . · 1 'f\1:::'. ./lio _iv,((.!, {·or1nir1, case states tl1at }1u11dreds of cases come before courts �ri tl-.e:ir i.:ri 1 -r1i r1al jttrisdiction wl1ere atternpts are made to prove tl1e owner� s11i1j of 1J rid in clis1Jute''. Wl1y do you tl1ir1k a citizer1 migl1t prefer criminal to c�i�;i\ procetcii11gs? l

. I

t1.

i\�.._ J, _

... ,

""'

'"·

Does Blacl{sione (l'-lote l irifra at fJ. 35) support tl1e above Ethiopian decisions txrl1e11 J.1e siates:

... If I detain a field from ar1otl1er man, to wl1ich tl1e law has given l1i1n a rigl1t, tl1is is a civil i11jt1ry, and 11ot a crime; for l1ere 011ly tl1e rigl1t of an i11dividt1al is co11cerned, and it is immaterial to the public \Vl1icl1 of tts is i11 posse·ssion of tl1e land.

Problem

Cogniza11t of tl1e Court's. decisio11 in tl1e Ato Makonnen case, would you as: a. Public Prosecuto7:: permit tl1e instittttion of proceedings in an instance wl!e�e you believed tl1at a con1plai11a11t was attempting to use the crim111�l pro�ess for esse11tially civil ends, tl1 at is, was attempting to de�er!nttle Litle to Ia11d tl1rougl1 tl1e crimi11al process? See Art. 42 Cr1m111al Procedure Code. r unde s arise b. Judge: determin� tl1e �t1estion of title to land wl1en a case ut has c X Art. 65 � (t) (a) 111 wl11ch tl1e complainant states tl,at Ato it t fa c in 1 111 s 0 (tlie ? w_i com1Jlainant's) tree while X maintains that ts his tree (asst1me reqttisite i11tent)? ? ode c. Legislato7:: include sucl1 Articles as 650-652 in tl1 e Penal C ? W�yon might abuse of tl1ese Articles be limited? Does the interpretat, in ie Ato Makonnen case help?

!"1°;

CIVIL AND PENAL LAW

NOT ES

Note 1:

Further Comment Concerning the Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Law

Blackstone, 011 tl1e Disti11ctio 1 1 Between · Pttblic and Private Wrongs1

Th_e . di_st!nc�ion of public wro11gs fro 1n private, of cri1nes and misdemeanors from_ �· v_1l . 1nJ_t1r1es, seen1s _ fJ1:i11ci f)al I}' to co1�sist i11 tl1is: tl1at private w1·ongs,

or c1v1I tn}ur�e�, are a11 11 _1fr111gen1e11t or f)ftvation of tl1e civil rigl1ts wl1ich belo11g_ to 111d1v1dt 1als, co11s1dered 111erely as i11dividt1als; f)Ublic wro11gs, or crimes a11d m1sdemea11ors, are a_ breacl1 �11d violatio 11 of the public rights and dt1ties dt1e t � the wl1 ?le con11:1t111 1t)':, co11s1dered as a commu11ity, i11 its social aggrega.te capacity. As, 1f I deta1 1 1 a field from a11otl1er man, to which the law l1as eiven !1i� � rigl1�, tl1is is a civil i11jt1r:y, _and not. a crime; for here only tl1e rigl1t =of a11 111d1v1d�al ts co11cerr1ed, and 1t 1s 1mmater1 al to the public wl1icl1 of tts is i,·1 f)Ossess101� of tl1� la 1 1d: but treaso11, mt1rd<.'r, a11d robbery are iJroperiy rai1!{�cl amo11g crimes; since, besides tl1e i 11jury do11e to i11 di victuals, tl1ey st.rilr.1:: at tl1e: very bei11g of society, ,vl1icl1 cannot possibly sul)sist '-:lfl1ere actiOilS of t11is sort ,are suffered to escape witl1 i1npunit)'· In all cases tl1e crime i11cludes a11 i11jury: ever�, IJUlJl,c off =-:11c2 is r�!:;o ::.\ private wrong, a11d s01newl1at 1nore; it affects tl-ie inciiviclual, a11�] it lil(e·\�:r1se affects the community .... Mttrderis an i11jur}; lo tl1e I·1Ie or ,1!1 i11c.1i·v1d1.12.i; iJ�li tl1e la\v of society considers pri11cipally tl1e loss wi1ich tl1e st,lte sustai11� t;y i)�i,lf; deprived of a mernber, a11d tl1e fJer11icious exa1n1Jle t}·1ereby· set for ot.l1eis i:o do the like. Robbery may be co11sidered i11 tl1e sa1ne view: it is an injt1ry to private property; but, \Vere tl1at all, a ci vii satisfactio11 i11 dai11ages rn igi1t cl.tone for it; tl1e p,,blic miscl1ief is tl1e tl1i11g for tl1e preve11tio11 of \,1l1icl1 ottr la\lif.S l1ave made it a capital offence. lr1 tl1ese gross a11d atrociot1s injuries tl1e private wrong is swallowed up ir1 tl1e public: \Ve seldom l1ear any mentio11 made of satisfaction to tl1e individual, tl1e satisfactio11 to tl1e community being so very great. A11d, indeed, as tl1e public crime is not otl1erwise avenged than by forfeiture of life and property, it is impossible afterwards to mal<e any repara tio11 for the private wrong, wl1ich can 011ly be l1ad from tl1e body or goods of tl1e aggressor. Bt1t tl1ere are cri1 nes of a11 ir1ferior nature, in wl1ich tl1e public pu11is11 me11t is not so severe bttt it affords roo1n for a private coin JJe11sation also; and l1erein tl1e disti11ction of crimes from civil injt1ries is very apparent. For i11stance� i1 1 t11e case of battery, or beating another, the aggressor may be indicted for this at the suit of tl1e ki11g, for disturbing the public peace, and be punisl1 ed crimi11ally by fi11e and imprisonment; a11d tl1� _party b_eaten i_nay al�o l1ave l1 is private remedy by actio 11 of trespass for tl1e 111Jury wh1cl1 h� tn partic ular st1stai11s 1 a11d recover a civil satisfaction in damages. So, also, 1n case of � pul)lic nt1isance, as digging a ditcl1 across a l1i� hway: tl1is is ·1Ju�ishab_le h7 111(1 ictment as a common offense to the whole kingdom and all 111s ma1esty s s�tbjects; but if any individual sustains a� y special damage thereby, as laming 111s l1orse, breaking 1,is carriage, or the l1k�, tl1e .o!fender may be co°!pelled to make ample satisfaction, as well for tl1e private 1n1ury as for the public wrong_ Upon the whole, we may observe th_at, in _taking cognizance of all wrongs or t1nlawful acts the law has a double view, viz.: not only to redress the party 1

4 Bldcks:one CommtntAries

l 428-14JO (Lewis

ed.,

l 897).

�.' I

INTRODUCTION

o by e, l ng vi ib gi ss po if , ht rig � s hi him an m hi to . g in _ _ in1·ured b either restor s r1e u1 111 1n t of e prece�ing ct Je ob e th as w � 9 1 cl l1i w g in do of r ne an m e e uivalenf. th e 1c tl1 fit bl ne be P e t� to of soc1 �ty, re cu se to 1:1 so al t bu , es ri ta en m m co e es lll b�ok of 11 of tl1ose laws wliich t10 la d v1 an ch ea br y er <? ev g in sl, i,i pu reventing or b e tl1 r rn fo ve go ish bl ta es t en to m er op pr 1t gl and ou tli s ha r we po n ig re ve �o t? e tranquility of tl1e whole.

:- : •,. < ,: ••

. .. '.

.. . ' :.... . . . ' .

...

.. ' .

Note 2:

i' I 'i

I I

Tort and Crime - Tl1e disti11ction between civil .�rongs (i.e. torts) and

wrongs punishable cri�inally. is now apparent. A c1v1l �r?ng represents a condition at v.ariance \v1ll1 a r1gl1t regardles� of ,vl1e� l1e_r 1t is_ founded u�on an action contrary to morality. A wro11g pt1111s_ hable cr1 f!II11_ally 1s an act special ly characterized as bei11g co11trary .to 111o�a!1ty; and 1t �s �e11er�lly but not necessarily a violatio11 or at least a 1eopard12111g of a subj ect1 ve r1gl1t. Jlege l's L)iscinc tio11 - Especially is it incorrect to l1old witl1 He�el tl1a t tl1e _ _ tort be111g u111nten� disljnclio11 coi1sists in cri1ne being i11 te11tio11al wro11g and 111 tioi1ti.l <)r ir1nocer1t \Y1ror1g. Tl1e positive law shows us tl1at tl1ere are acts of 11,:2glige11ce v1!1icl1 are punisl1ecl crimii1all)', a11d tl1ai 011 tl1e otl1er hand ll1ere 2.re cases of ·�1ro11g com111itted c1t1ite i11tentio11ally \'ll1icl1 11evertl1eless remain 11·,i�rciy · iort�,; f:Jr e.>;.arriple, \Vl1e11 a perso11, ope11 ly a11d \Vitl1 knowledge of its i1l1.::g,ilit)!, bt�t ·-11itl1ot1t otl1er vic•le11ce to perso11 or thing occupies a piece of 1i·r c)t1,nc� belo�1gi11g to anotl1e r, or wl1e11 one sl1an1elessly refuses to discl1arge an oblig· i iion of debt u11eq11ivocally entered into.... If somell1i11g is objectively quit,e trivial a11d e11tirely witl1ot1t da11ger, tl1en it \,,ould be absolutel)' improper to J)Ul i;1to rnotioi1 tl1e clumS}' 1nachi11ery of cri111inal justice wl1icl1 e11tails such 11eavy e::r{Jense for tl1e cou11tr)'· .. . •

I I

;

.. �I

�-

., . ...

Von Bar, Tort and Crime2

•

. . . Iiowever, one ca11 asse11t to Iiegel's view that inte11tior1al acts, in \vl-1icl1 tl1e result in questio11 is intended, are tl1ose \vl1icl1 cot1stitute tl1 e major portion of �rimes, and tl1at in private law tl1e question of guilt occupies a very subord111ate JJositio11. Private law is tl1e la\v as external regulation; crim· inal la\x, is tl1e law as morality. Bt1t as critninal law does not limit itself to tl1e intention, but also takes into co11sideration tl1e externa 1 effect of tl1e act, so to a certain e�tent _tl1e private Ia w [Jroceeds more lenie11tly with }1im wl10 is in· nocent than.w1t�1 l11m wl1ose gt1ilt or malice ca11 be proven. Criminal justice must use guilty intention as a fot111dation, but private law does not require it. . . - . Relation of Tort and <;:rime - Moreover, 011e ma y no t as Binding l1as don� draw tl1e gen�ral conclt1� 1?r1 that tl1e disti1,ctio11 betwee,, tort and crim e 1s purely a cr�ation o� po�tt!ve law, - tl1at ·t l1ere is no fixed fJrincipl nor even. a e _ general basis for this d1st1nct 1011, a11d tliat every c-rim conta the essential e itis element ?f tort. 1!owever, �very wro11g, even the g entailin t, ins mo ign . st ifi ca n . as only_ a c1v1l sanct1011, contains one element ,vhicl, qualify 1t m po ig ss ht ib ly a crt1'!1e, alt�ougli often only one: and Merke l is really correct to tl1e extent t�at z.n certam ca�es the obligation to pay damages repres the to wa ca rd n ten s d st00 of wroJ?g, JUSi as pui, isl1111e11t. The legislator wl1 0 would subject e_ve ry _ _ wrong to cr1m1nal pun1sl1me11t would wor k a hardship upon _hu�a11ity and do 2. Von Bar. History of Continental Criminal i.Aw 524-533 ( 1916).

CIVIL AND PENAL LAW

violence to his ?Wn authority. Such freedom of action and omnipotence do not_ belong to hJm. Where gentler mea�s ��uld acc�mplish .the same end, the legislator commits a grave wrong by 1nfl1ctlng pun1sl1ment. Therefore it is absol�tely corre�t to say that where th e civil sa11ction is sufficient there is no ' meaning to pun1shme11t. • •

•

• •

•

It is mor� in a�cor:d w�t11 actual relatio11s, if one place the nature and purpose of private Just1�e simply in · the adjustn1ent and arrangement of the actu�l or alle_ged confusion of tl1e. spl1eres of rigl1ts of two or n1ore possessors _ of .right. Whtle t�e element of guilt 1s of very co11s iderable importance in private law, yet _ it plays only a secondary part. It is only by an artificial and therefore defective argume11t that tl1e duty to indemnify is based upon guilt. C.rim_e Disting1:'is/Jed fron1 Tort - •.. Accordi11g to our conception, an act is 1n principle punishable 11ot because it violates a subjective right, bttt ratl1er because it is contrary to 1norality. . . . . . . In a tl1eory \Vl1icl1 fot111ds cri1nii1al law directly upon morality, the civil sa11ction recei\,es attention simply as a ''factum' 1, a ''factum' 1 'Yil1icl1 ma.y have the possible co11sequence that tl1e State may 01nit pu11isl1me11t. .

Note

•

3: Willian1s, Tl1e Defin itio11 of Crime3

... It is perl1aps 11att1ral to suppose tl1at since ''a crirne'1 differs fro111 ''a civil wrong 11 tl1ere must be son1etl1i11g i11 a crin1e to 111ake it different from ,1 civil wrong. As everybody knows, t]1ere is one seriotts l1i11drance to a solutio11 of tl1is kind. This is the overlap betwee11 crime a11cl tort. Since tl1e same act can be botl1 a crime and a tort, as i11 mttrder ai1d assa11lt1 it is impossible to divide the two branches of t11e law by refere11ce to tl1e type of act. So also it is impossible to divide them by reference to the physical conseque11ces of tl1e act, for if the act is th,e same tl1e physical consequences must be the same. It l1 as occurred to some tl1at tl1 ere -is a possible escape from this difficulty. Although the act, and its consequences� are tl1e same, tl1e ac_t and co11seque�ces _ have a number of different character1st1cs or aspects; and 1t may be possible to.identify some of these ·characteristics as crimi11al and_ some as civil_. Pui:su�11g thts Jine of tl1ought two separate aspects have been seized upon as ident1fy111g crime: tl1e aspect dt moral wro11g and the aspect of damage to tl1e public.... The proposition tl1at criine is a moral :<'ro11g may l1ave this me�sure of truth : that the a.verage crime is mor e shocking, a11d l1as graver social con seq11ences, than the average tort. Vet crimes of strict respo11sibility can be committed without moral wrong, while torts and breaches of trust may be, and often are, gross moral wrongs. 4

•

The second intrinsic difference between crimes and civil wrongs found by some writers is in respect of the damage done. In tort there is almost invar3• Wi]liams, The Definition of Crime, 195S CMrrtnt ug;1/ Problems 107.

. . ·· .. , .·• f ,

·: . , .,:.;:.

•

. j_ :

• .

. i.. '

-� I

•II.

ii,. ,,

INTRODUCTION

•�i • I .. . .•'I 1 • •

.. J

. .. .

,I . 'I

'. . ' . ' • •

such crime g in dama reas 1 e e w1 n perso is not so to e ag m da al tu �c iably . � � tlie co�mut,ity as a whole.... Again ther e are esse11t1al, tl,e �l1re� t bet g e damag (such re requi as t no � tre do torts e spass 0� . ns io ct e J ob le ab id for1n damage. private Some involve crimes are do e ri an 1 1le and libel), wl : Ti ity mun com . altho the of f 1gs feeli1 ugh th ey r � l mora 0 i, ro af a11 pu111sl1ed a:; true of is This tl1e wl,ole. a as group of y �mui,it co 111 e e a1na cat1se 110 � . blasphemy, � J� e aspect: religious attem a d e es gr d e pt ,g rii e f 1 111 1g: v11 l1a crimes . enity of obsc and true adult homo ly large also is It . iny iga b 11, t10 or ab :, d suici for e: le, damag examp public cattse iiot when a d e de ti � n Ev .. lity ua sex 1notl1er ktll_s 11 r 1 i, �a11 [ � -�d. This creates no general se11se of insecurity; the o11ly t11� ter1a1 foss to so�i�ty is tl1e loss of tl1e child, and wl1ether that is econom1cal ly a rea1 loss or. a gai11 depends 011 whether the cou11try is underor over-pOfJt1 lated at tl1e t tme. Note 4:

Col1e11, Moral Aspects of tl1e Criminal Law4

. . . \VJ 1 at I \Visli to i11sist 011 is t11at the cri111 i 11�1 law_ is an i�legral part <)f tJ·1 e legal s}·stel11 a11d is st1bject to tl1 e_ �a1ne cons1de:at�o11s which do and siic)l.Ii c l i,ifl1ier1ce tl1e "\vl1<)le . .'V\ore spec1f1cally, the crtf!1t11_al law ca11n�t be t1istiiif:tiisi1ccl fror11 tl1e rest by a11y difference of. moral pr1nc1ple. Some cr1mes, .l, ,,J- ·1-J1_. ... ·, 1·e I ra··"' - r, • · ,,,t.. l '- s 11 oc I< i 11 b c,..l but tl1 e re ar e many cr1mes• tl1at a re felt to be much • • lc:-:s !·ei1re!1e11sil)1e tl1a11 11]any ot1trageot1s forms of 1nJL1�t1ce, crue}ty or fraud, ,�:,11 icl1 ti1e la.,��, cioes 11ol !JU11isl1 at all, or else mak es tl1e1r p erpetrator l1ab)e to rr;, o 11 e->' (la.111 ages i 11 a civi I suit. . . . I ! . I

Questions 1• I

• I

') -·

• i I

, II

I .. . '

• •I

4. 5.

'I.

Wl1at are t lie basic distinctions wl1icl1 Blackstone finds separating torts fro111 cri111es? \Vl1at is ce11tral to Von Bar's conception .of penal liability? Do Willia1ns a11d Col1en agree witl1 tl1ese distinctions? 111 actt1al social a11d 1egal ttsage are torts easily separable from crimes? Wl1y are ' i11te11t'', ''111oralily'', ''co1nmunity injury as against private injury", criticize d as disti11gt1isl1i11g factors? After reading tl1e above Notes, wl1at do you feel actually distingu�s�es cri 1ne fro1n tort? Do you tl1i11l< tl1at tl1e I-Iigl1 Cot1rt made its div1s1on bel \xree,1 tl1e two pro1)e rly witl1 resrJect to property offenses? • EvaI �1ate _Bl�cl(sto11e's conte!,tio11 tl1at reparati 1m · is on of w ro pr a ng iv at e 1)oss1ble 111 111st,111ces of serious critne. r�l -mo pen�t the g?v�r111ne�tal_ bodies Wl1at are clotl1ed witl1 establishing order �1t!1!11 Etl11op1a? W l1y l1ave tl1ese specific institutions been given this res1) 011s1b1l1ty? Do tl1e same institutio11s establish the civil order? Con�ultn tl1e Revised . Co11stitution of Ethiopia of 1955 in answering this questio a11d see J)art1cularly Arts. 26, 69, 70, 76, 88 and 108. 1

Cohen, Moral Aspects of the Criminal Lawi 49 y111/e L.

989-990 (1940).

CIVIL AND PENAL LAW

Recommended Readings

Mueller, Tort, �rime a11d t11e Primitive, 46 ]. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 303-332 ( 19:::>5) (an excellent essay co11cer11i11g inter alia tl1e distinction be twee11 tort a11d crime). Jour1zal oj Public Law, Compe11sation for Victims of Criminal Violence, 8 ]. JJublic L. 191-253 ( 1959) (see JJarticularly the Silvi11g and Mueller articles). Ken11y1 Outlines of Cri,nirial La'lv 1-5 (1952) (brief discussion of tl1e l1istorical development of tl1e disti11ction bet\vee11 tort and critne). liall, Ge12eral Pri11ciples of Criminal Law 240-246 (discussion of several theories co11cerni11g tl1e distinctio11. betwee11 pe11al a11d civil l1arm). Bot1zat, Droit Pe,1al 134 - 137 { discussio11 of tl1e. disti11ction between penal and civil offe11ses i11 fre11cl1 law). Williarns, Tl1e Defi nitio11 uf Crime, 1955 Curre11t Legal Problems 107; also fo�_11cl in Elliott a11d Wood, A Casebook 011 Criminal Law 7 -9 (a11 atte111pt t9 9et111e crime in part by distinguisl1ing it from a civil offense; se r�xcc:i jJt s1,pra for sl1ort selectio11 from tl1is article). Maine, Ancie11t Law, Chap. 10 entitled; Tl1e Early Iiistory of DeJjct ancl (:riJ�(ie (1861, lv1t1rray ed. 1911). 1�

."f.' i ,'

"' I

CI-JAPTER 4

The Scope of Penal Law: The Legislative Penalization of Consensual Homosexuality

. :: . I. . '. .. . ...

�. ....'. ..

Tt-IE PRESENT LA \Y/

.,L\rt. 600. -

U1111r.{.t1;.ral

C,ir11aL Ofje11ces.

( 1) \.Y/t1rJsoever I)erfor111s \vitl1 a11other perso11 of tl1e same sex an act r1i?'. ,_ to tl1e sext1al act, or any otl1er i11dece11t act, is pur1isl1able corresr)o11di .. \Viil1 si 1111Jle i 1n J) risori 111e11t. . . . ..

• I

E11gla11d, Sex11al Offe 11ces Act (1956) i-\.rt. 13. - I,1,iecenc;• betwee11 me11. It is a11 offence for a ma11 to co111111it a11 act of gross i11dece 11cy wi �h a 11otl1er n1a11, \vl·1etl1er ir1 J)ttblic or 1Jrivate, or to be a fJart)' to tl1e co111m1s� sion by a n1a11 of a11 act of gross i1 1dece11C)' witl1 a11otl1er 1na11, or _to proct1re tl1e co1n1nissio11 by a 111a11 of a11 act of gross i11dece11cy w·1th a11otl1er 111a11.

TI-IE WOLFENDEN REPORT 1 Report of t/Je Co1nn1ittee 011 I---Jo11,ose."C11al Offe11ces a11,i Prostit1,tion I-Jome Offices of E11gla11d ,znd Scotla11ci, 195 7

. '' . i ' •I

."· I

•

. .' . .'· .j

• •

•

13. Our primary dttly l1as bee11 to co11sider tl1e extent to wl1ich ho�o

sexttal bel1avior a11d fe111ale prostitt1tion sl1ot1ld con1e tinder tl1e conde m11at!on of tl1e cri 111i11al law,_ a11d tl1is l1as f)rese 1 1ted us witl1 tl1e difficulty of deciding w!1at ar� tl1e ess�n�t�l eleme11ts of a cri1ni11al offence. Tl1ere aJJIJears t� be no unq11est10 11ed def11 11t1011 of wl1at co1 1stitt1tes or oucrl1t to co11stitute a cr1rpe. To defi11: it as ''a11 act wl1icl1 is pt111isl1ed by tl1e0 State'' does 11ot ai1swer tlie qttestion: . Wl1at acts ougl1t to be pt111isl1ed by the State? We l1ave tl1e refore workecl w1tl1 ottr ow11 for1nt1lation of tl1e ft111ction of tl1e crimi1 1al law so far as 1·

43 4 J'lJe Wolfenden Report, Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offencts and Prostitution 23·2 , -tl· ,. 48 (Authorized American ed., 1963) .

• '

. .

·-.

.. ..

,•

SCOPE OF PENAL LAW

. . it concerns th e subjects of tl1is inquiry. In t11is field i.; · , as \�e see it! · t . f t111 tton ts pu ' or bli tle c r rv an e d e s f de e ce 11cy to prot ect tl1e c1 tze11 rom \vhat _1s ?ffens1ve to pr or injurious, an d to provid e s tr�f ici � 11t saf e gt1ar ls aga.11 st ex1)lo1tat1on and � c i rs of l1e ot n la tio c11 rti , }Ja , · rly p 1 tl. ose . v 10 a1· corru e spec1allJ v LIl 11 era ble because c: _ , weak 111 · bodY or m111d, 1 11ex1)erie11ced, 01· 111 · a 5tate o,, s p ecial they .are you. n g physical, off1c1al or eco1101nic clei:-i<:,1clei,ce. 14. It is 11ot· -t i11 011r vi e\v t l1e f t111ct1·011 of t11e I a\V t o t· 11 terve11e 1· n t11e ·t tzei,s, or t o f ct es v ? · 1 e a t · see'k to e1 1force a11y 1Jartict1lar 1Jatter11 of bel1avior "Jrtv \ t furt11er 1an 15 11ec�ssar}: to carry ot1 t tl1e {JtlffJOses \Ve l1ave ot1tli11ed It foll o\VJ� · tl1at we do 11ot believe it to be a ftt1 1c tic , of tlie ta,,· , ' ,v t o atte111 IJt to cover a11 . · t I1e f.1elds u� f �exua l be l1av1·or. Cer ta111 for ms of sex11al bel,avior are regarded by ma1 1y _ �-s s111f11l, morally �v·r?t}g, or objectio11a�le for reaso11s of co11sc1e11ce, or of rel 1g1011 s or cttltttral_ t1_ad1 t 1 011; a11d sl1cl1 act101 1s 111ay be re,Jrobated on these gr�1111ds. B1�t tl1e cr1111 111al la\v cloes 1 1ot cover all such actio11s at tl,e prese1 1t time; for 11�sta11ce, aclLtltery a11cl for1 1icatio1 1 are 11ot offe11ces for \Y1l1icli a person ca1 1 be jJt1111sl1ecl by tl1e cri111 i11a l la\v1. Nor i11d.eed is JJrostit11tion as stic1,.2 c

. 1_5. _We a1JJJreciate tl 1at 01Ji 11io11 s will differ ilS to wl1at is 01ie11sive, i11j11riot1s or 1n1m1cal _to tl1 e corn11_1011 good, �11? also �s to \Vl1at coi1stit11tes exJJloitcLtio11 or corrupt10 1 1; a11d tl1ar tl1ese OfJlt11011s \,,ill be based 011 111oral 1 social or cultural sta11darcls. \Y/e hav e been guided by our estirnate of tl1e sianciatcls of t�� commt1nity· in ge11era_l, recog11 izi11g ll1at t:l·1ey \Viil i1ot tJe 2.cce1� tt!Cl b)' all c1t1zens, a11d tl1at ot1r est1 rnate of tl1 e 1n 111ay be 111ista!{e.n . 1

. _16. \Ve have l 1ad to co11sider tl 1e rel ationsl 1i1J bei\vee11 tl1e l,1\Y1 a11cl JJttblic ·op1n1on . It seetns to tis tl1at tl1ere are two over-defi11ite ,.,-ie\,qs abottt tl1is. 011 �!1e one hand, it is l1el d tl1at tl1e la\xr ot1gl1t to follo\v bcl1i11cl JJt1blic opir1io1·,, so tl 1at tl1e la\v ca 11 cot111t 011 tl1e SlllJfJOrt of tl1e co111111t1r1ity c1.s �l ,!; }·1ole. 011 the otl1er hand, it is l1 el d tl1at a 1 1ecessa.r}' fJUrJJose of tl1e la-xv' is to leacl C)r fortify public OJJi11io11. C ertai11ly it is clear tl1at if ail)' legal e11act111e11t is markedly ot1t of tune witl1 }Jttblic 01Ji11io11 it will qttickl y fall into clisre1Jt1te. Beyond tl1is ,ve sl1ould 11ot wisl1 to clog 111atize, for 011 t l1e matters \xrit h \vl1icl1 we are calle d t1po11 to deal \Ve l1ave 11ot st1cceeded in discoveri11g an t1r1eqttiv ocal ''public opi11ion," a11d \Ve l1ave felt botl11d _to try to re_acl1 co11cl t1sio11s for ourselves rather t l1a11 to base tl1e 1 n 011 wl1at 1s of te11 tra11s1e11t a11cl seldom precisely asc ertain able. • •

•

ve �evie\xred tl1e l1a e . It tl1 �8 i s agai11st . bel1av1or bet \vee11 ex1st1ng provisio11s of tl1 e male perso ns. \V e I1ave fo u1 1d tl1at witl1 tl1e great 1najority of tl1 ese provisions we are in complete agreeme11 t. W e believe tl�at it is JJart of t l1e _-ft111ctio11 of tl1 e law to safeguard tl 1ose wlio need JJrotect1011 by reaso11 of_ tl1 e1r yot1tl 1 or som e mental defect an d w e do not \Visl1 to se e a11 y cl1a11ge 111 tl 1e law tl1at would \veak en th is 'protection. Men \-vl10 comn1it off e11c es agai11st st1cl1 perso� s s�ou1d be treated as criminal offe11ders. WJ1atever 1nay be tl1c catrs es of tl1e1r disposition or th e prooer tr eatm e11 t fo r i t , ll1e la\v 1 n11st asst11ne tl1_at tl1 e resp onsibility for the ov'ert acts ren1 ains tl1eirs, exce1Jt �l� er e tl,ere are c1rct1r1:i s�ances wl1ich it accepts as ex e mpti ng fro111 accot111t ab1l I ty. 0 f!e11ces of tl1_1s ktn�. are particularly repret1e11sible wl1en the n1e11 wl10 con11 n1t tl 1en 1 are 111 Pos1t1ons of sp ecial respoi,sibility or t�t1st. \Y/e l1a ve bee11 mad� a� a�e tl1at where a man is in volved in an off e11ce w1tl1 a boy or yot1tl 1 tl1e 111v1tat1on to

foregoin g backgrot111cl tl1 at \Ve law in r elatio1 1 to l1omosext1al

l ... In Ethiopia. Seduction (Art. 596) and Adultery (Art. 618) are p unisl,ab lc. . . . . , .,,.., . .. , .. . . ., ' :., . ' . ,, ·. :}�\: :: . ; � . �:. . ..

::·

·.

·,

·- .. .

INl"RODUCTION

. .f�..: . . ' • ,. .!

•: t.,, .. •

,.., !

:..... ·]..., • . .• •' •

'.. J

. .'::' I '

. ' '.

. i

.I ''

er m tl1 hi ra om an fr th �s In C<? es fro im et m so m the t ac e th of tl io iss m m the co ct es fa do at th so t no 1s 1s tl1 en wh serve to en ev at 1 tl ve lie man. But we be excttl pate tl1e man. 49. It is also part of tl1e fu11ction of t11e law to prese�ve public order and deceilcy.We tl1erefore J1old t}1a� when l1omosexual. behav1oi: b�tween males takes place iii public it should co11t1nue to be dealt w1tl1 by cr1m1nal law.... t jus m ; d l1a\ one we n�i nce e _ off ?f s e ri_ namely, ego � cat two the s 50. Beside 1 ces t!n itte off mm d co a d �n public es 111l e 1uv tl1 w1 s � ult ad by d itte mm offences co ve d ha ha we 1 1cl �o give long wh to e enc off of ss cla rd thi a is ere 1 places, tl s ted act mit ual com sex no 1101 of t between tl1a is It 1. tio1 era sid con l efu car a11ct adults i11 private. • •

• •

52. We I1ave indicated.... our opi11io11 as to tl1e province of the law and its sa11ctions and how far it properly applies to tl1e sexual behavior of the i11dividt1al citize11. On the basis of tl1e considerations tl1ere advanced we have reacl1ed tl1e conclusio11 tl1at legislation wl1ich covers acts in the third category we have me11tioned goes bcyo11d tl1e proper sphere of tlie law's concern.We do 11ot tl1inl{ tl1at it is proper for the law to concern itself witl1 what a man does i11 private t1t1less it can be sl1own to be so co11trary to tl1e public good that tl1e la.\�,. ot1gl1t to irltervene i11 its ft111ction as the guardian of that public good.

·I I

.' '

61 .... �fl1ere ren1ai 11s one additio11al . . . argument wl1icl1 we believe to J.1e det:isi·11e, 11i.rn.cly, tl1e i111porta11ce \Vl1ich society and the law ought to give to indivi<:1:ual frcecl()r�. of cl1oic� a11d action in matters of private morality. lJ11less a c.ie1iberatc altemJJt is to be made by society, acting through the agen cy of tl1e la\�', to equate the spl1ere of crime with that of sin, there must ret11ain a realn1 of private morality arid immorality which is, in brief and crude ter11·1s, 11ot the lav1's business. To say tl1is is not to condone or encourage private i11·1morality. 9n the contrary, to empl1asize tl1e personal and private 11ature of rrioral or 11nmoral conduct is to e m1Jl1asize the personal and private �espon�ibility of the individttal for l1is own actio11, and that is a responsibil ity \Vhtch a mat11re age11t can }Jroperly be expected to carry for himself with ot1t tl1e tl1reat of pu11ishme11t from tl1e law. 62. We accordingly recommend tl1at l1on1osexual bel1avior between consent ing ad11lts i11 IJrivate sl1ould no longer be a criminal offence.

. ..,I

. .

'·.

.. 'II ..

TliE ENFORCEMENT Of MORALS3 Sir Patrick Devli,1. What is tl1e connectio11 between crime and sin and to what extent , if at all, should tl1e �rimi�1al la� of Engla11d concern itself wi th the enforcement of morals and punish sin or immorality as such? • • •

•

· · : lf the criminal law were to be reformed it m fro ate eli mi so n as to ey�rYth1"� tl1 at_ was not designed to preserve ect pr ot to order an d decency or cit ze s (includin� tl�e protection of youth t0rn ov er d ; wo fr ul om � co rr up tio it n) , a �n ame tal pr_inciple. It would also en d a a Eu t� s. cr im e number of specific nasta, or tr1e k1ll1ng of another at l1is ow n request, suicide, attempted suic ide 3.

Maccabaian Ltct11re in }Hrisprudtnct 0 .r tht B rz.. J mJ• 4-23 (1959). ttSJ. 'J Acaut 'J

•'

SCOPE OF PENAL LAW

and suicide pacts, duelling, abort ion ii1 cest between brother and sist er, are all · · i � can be n ich do wh e in acts vat pri e nd wi t 1 0ti t Offe11 ce t o ot11ers and need 11ot · nvoIve th e corrupt10 · . · n or ex p lo 1tat 1on of ott1 ers. . . . 1 · · I think it is clear tl1at t l1e critni11al law a \X;; k !,o w it s based upon moral nu mber of crirnes its f 1;nctio�1 pr inciple. In a � 51111 PlY o en fo rce a moral principle and no thing else. . . . I� jurispru?et,ce, as I l1ave said, everythi11g is throw1 1 p o di en to sc us si on e b e tl1 e li f 1n tl 1at tl1ey cover tl1e wl,ole field, I have framed and, tl 1re e t11terrog� ad atories dressed to myself t o a11s\ver: 1. I-Ias society tl�e ri gl 1t to fJass judg111e11t at all on 1natters of 1n or al s? 0 ug ht t here, 111 otl1e r ,vords, to be a JJttblic morality or ar· e morals always a matter for fJrivate judg111 e11t? ' 2. If society l1as the 1·igl1t to pass j11dg ment, has it also tl1e right to use the weapon of tl1e la,v to e11force it? 3. !f so, o�gl1t it to t1se tl1 at 'Yea_pon i11 all cases or only i11 son1e; a11d tf only 1n some, on \vl1at pr111c1ples s11ould it ,jistingu isl1? . . . The langt1age 11sed i 11 . . ..tl1e . Wolfe11der1 Rei)Ort st1gg·ests tl1e ,,ie·� ti1at there ougl1 t not to be a collective 1udg1ne11t abo11t irn1nora.lit.}' per se. Is tl1is what is meant by ''private moralit)1'' ancl ''i11divid1.1al freedc-rt1 (Jf ci,c)ic� c"1n<.1 actio11''? Some people sincerely believe that l10111osexual i ty is 11f:ither ir:.1�11ora.l nor unnatural. I$ the ''freedo1n of choice ancl actior1'' that is offered i:o tl1e indiv�d_ual, freedom to decide for l1imself \vl·1at is r11oral or iz11 r11orai, society rema1n1ng neutral; or is it freedom to be in1111oral if lie \vants to be? · �rl-,e language of the Report may be ope11 to q11estio11 , but tl1e cot1clusior1s 3.t \:vl1icl1 the Committee arrive s answer tl1is question unambig11ously. If society is 11ot prepared to say t hat l10 1nosexuality is 111orally wrong, there would be no basis for a law protecting youtl1 fro1n ''corrttJJ tio11'' or fJU11isl1i11g a 1na11 for livi11g on the ''immoral'' earnings of a l1omosexual prostitute, as the Report 1·eco111mends. This attitttde tl1e Com m ittee 1nal(es even clearer \vl1e11 it comes to deal with prostitut ion. In t rutl,, tl,e Repor t talces it for granted tl1at tl,ere is in existence a public morality whicl1 co11de1nns l1omosex11ality a11d prostitutio11. What the Re 1Jort s ee m s to 1nea11 by private rnorality migl1t perl,aps be better described as private behavior in m atters of morals.

This view - that there is st1cl1 a thing as fJUblic morality - ca11 also be jus�ified by a priori argument. Wl1a t m akes _ a society of any sort i� con11nunity of ideas, not only political ideas bt1t also ideas a_bo11t tl1e :" ay its me mbers sho_uld behave at1d govern t he ir lives; tl1ese lat_ t�r ideas are its 1noral_s. Every society has a moral structure as well as a fJOl1t1c1l one: or ratl1er, since that might suggest two independe11t syste m s, I sl1ould say t11at tl1 e structure of · every society is made up bot11 of JJOlitics a11d morals. . . . t ics, m�rals, and e tl,ics no . soci�t y ca11 li . po 011 .. as ide t d ou e ar ith s11 W . exist. Each one of tts ha s ideas about what ts good a11d what ts evil; tl,e y can1 1ot be kept private fro m the society in whicl1 we live. If 1ne11 and ,vome11 try to reate a society in whicl1 there �s no f1111damental ag reeme11t abott t goocl � and ev•l tl1ey will fail; if 11 a ving based 1t or1. com?1011 agree me r�t, tl,e ag�eeme11t goes, the so ciety will disintegrate. for societ y ts not something tl1at 1s kept together physically; it is held by th e i11visible bonds of _com mon tl1ottghl. If t. A com�1011 a\ ap ift dr t he bonds 11ld :"0 e rs mb e m the d e were too far relax morality is part of tl,e botidage. Tl,e bo11dage 1s part of t11e JJr1ce of societ y; . /:_<.� �· . : . . : · :' '

.•

•

.it

INTRODUCTION

. . . . e ic r s p it y a JJ t s u m , ty ie c So d s e e n l1 ic l1 w , d in and n1a11l{ ng that there di en in 11g nt lo co o . to r fa 11 ke ta ve a 1 1 . . is You 111ay ti 1111 k tl,'at I allly, a pro1Jos·1 t·10 11· w l11·c11 most 1 pe op 1 e wo u d r • r o eadil m _ . c li 1b a Jt a such a tl,1nb ; I ss cu o t dis tl1e me t _ le t litt nex too ! f s sel que r11y t lef tio� , 1ave l m tl o a t, accep ) . wl1at extent sl1ou l d societ to 1lty c1 d1ff1 : ter grea � ttse c may ds 1 m 11y a 1 to l1icl1 1 w � 1 �ce its 1110 .ral J ·t1d 0<)t11er1ts? But I believe tl1at tl1e ans wer to thye · 11s e tl1e la\V/ t 0 e · 1fo • cI ,_ tI ,e seco11 d shouId be a_1J proacl1e d l1 ,� in ay w· ,e I t_ 1 �nd io11 deterrni11ts

. ., -.� '.· , :. ,' ..,::, .,.. .. ' ' '( . ,. ·, . ·

. -- ., .

first t1est d o11 sec ion tl1e est qu to . er sw If an tl1e soc e tat dic iety y arl 11e y er v d d ee _ 1na)' g111 t f us · d m 111 aw I . I 1� t e , n1 s_ I so a or tn 1 01 e �p JlS et gm t1d j cial e . ak 111 to l1t rig l1as 110 ua ex os 1ty d m an l1o if : 1ty al t or os n1 pr of t itu ld fie � e ion tl1 1g ri1 te e11 r fo 11 io at fic justi l} ar ry n o _ ve cle . is s tl1e 1u ?1 la e tl1 wg e11 tl1 1g, or iver \vr s lve ,se en tl, i i t no e ar to em of tl1 fy sti cts Ju 1)e as the 1! rta ce 1st excep. 1 ai1 ag V Ja\ a e . m fra to who \vai,ts J n ke a m� ma dg JU to t d an ht r!g e tlJ s 1as it l1a ty cie so if t tioi,al treat111e11t. Bu ry ty ssa to cie ce so 11e as 1s as, �ay,. a y l1t ra 1n? ed 11iz og ec a t tl,a sis ba on tl,e law pr� l? l1e t _ use t ay ral1 m? iety soc y _in 11 t�1e 1,t, me er11 gov d ,ize � ogi rec tl,e same \x,ay ,ts it t1ses tl to safegt1a1 � a11ytl1111g else tl1at �s essen�1al to its existei,ce.If tl1erefore tl1e f irst J)fOJJosit1011 .1s secttrely_ establ1sl1�d �1tl1 all its i1111)licatio11s, pritna facie society l1as tl1e r1gl1t to legislate against 1mmorality as sucl1 .... •

•·::·. I

•,. .· ••1i

•I

• •I '

•

'' iI I

serve

' '

' ' •• I ,I

.. .' . !

·1 I

-•'·

' '

i tl1ir1l{ tl1erefore, tl1at i l is 11ot possible to set tl1eoretical limits to the l)0\"1er of tl1e State to legislate agai11st i111morality. It is not possible to settle ir1 a<1var1cc exceJJtior1s to tl1e ge11eral rttle or to defi11e i11flexibl)' areas of morality ii1to ,;.:,i1icl1 tl1e la\xr is ir1 110 circt11nstar1ces to be allo\X1 ed to e11ter.Society is e: 11iitleli by i11e.r�11s of its la\v;s Lo protect itself from da11gers, whetl1er from \>1iil1i11 l)r \Y.-·1t11out. I-Iere agai11 I tl1i11l\ tllilt tl1e JJOlitical fJarallel is legitimate. �fl·1 e ia,�7 of t_r,2.1so11 is directed agai 11st aidi11g tl1e King's ene1nies a11d against seditio11 fror1;1 \'<titi1in. �rl,e justificatio11 for tl1is is tl1at establisl1ed government is 11ecessar)! for tl1e e:<iste11ce of societ)' a11d tl1erefore its safet}' agai11st violent o·-1ertl1 ro\v 1r1L1st be secLtred . Btit an establisl1ed morality is as necessary as good g·overrJ111e11t to tl1e \v;el.fare of society. Societies disi 11tegrate fro1n witl1i11 more freque11tl}' tl1a11 tl1ey are brol{e11 LtJJ l1y exter11al pressures. Tl1ere is disintegra !io11 \X1hen 110 co111111�11 111orality is observed a11d l1istory s 110\vs tl1at tl1e I oose� tng of 111oral bo11ds 1s ofte11 tl1e first state of disi11tearation so tl1at societ}' 1s justified i_r1 taki11g tl1e same ste1)s to [Jreserve its 7i,oral 'code as it does _to !Jreserve its goverr1111ent �11d otl1er esse11tial institutio11 s.TI 1 e sttpJJressio 11 of _v1�e 1s as 1nucl1 tl1� law's bt1�111ess as tl1e su1Jf)ressio11 of subversive activitie s; 1t_ 1s no n1ore tJoss1ble to cl_ef111e � �IJl1ere of private morality tt1a11 it is to define one of pr1vate st1bvers1ve act1v1ty.... _In wl1at cir�t11nsta11ces tl1e State sl,otild exercise its power is tl1e tl1ir d _of tl1e_ 1nterr?gator1es I l1ave fra111ed _ Bt.1t before 1 ge nt poi a rai se mu st t to it l \vl,icl, 1!1 1 glit liave bee11. brougl1t ltf) i11 a11y he t are Ho w . i,orn:ial_ Jttdginei,ts of_ S?Ctely to be as ce rtai11 one of tl1e tl1reeun a I r. , 110 w ed til ? � By Ie it av i11 g �sk tt •n tlie more l11111ted form tl1at is 110\v i Ho , . os e pu rp su m ffi cie11t f or y ts tl1e � a\Vmaker to ascertai11 tl1e 111oral j not ely su r enoug tl1at tl1ey sl1o�I� be reacl1ed by udgn1ents of society? It is it wo uld tl1 e opi11ion of the majority; be �oo m u�, to reqt11re the individual as � ,v Ia l1 En gl asse11t of every citizen. is o d �� : ,:; rff� !a �!Y us�stf standard wl1ich does not depend on the co; n��i tl 1 ds at. o ,e reaso11able man. He is 11ot to be conf us . , : . the rational �a11 d U e is 11ot expected_ to reason about anytl1ing and h1s. J 7 fe me11t ma be la;ge a a_tter t street_ Jr to use a! are�aism fof ! _ ltng. It is the viewpoint of the maCnl3'r"hal11 a1n1l1ar to all lawyers - tl1e ma11 in the ee

I ' '

SCOPE OF PENAL LAW

omnibus. He .might also be called tl1e i· l1 t-mitlded ma11. for m: y pu rp os e I cal to him l lik e tl1e uld ma ti i tl tlle r_ !rY bo , fo r tl1 e moral udgm sho en of t J � so b e me mu tl1i st 1g i y societ abottt wi,icl1 at y t \VJ e ve rn� t, or \VJOmeJ 11 dra wn at mi aft gl1 er t dis ct1 om ssi on be expected, to be u11a11 1 n1ous. .. ra11d .

. . . . .. . But- and tl1is bri11 g s n1 e to tlie ti i d qttestlO il - t}1e 111_d1v1dual has �; a )OCllS sta11di too ; lie ca11tlOt be ex )ected SLtrrei,der to t!1� Judgm(:nt of society tl1e \Xi'l1ole co11dt1ct of 11is lif� It is tiie old .aiid_ fam 11 tar question of . · striki11g a bala11ce bet,vee11 tl,e ri O o-l i ts- ai1 d 111le i.est_ s of society a11d those of tl1e . ct·IVI·ct Lia I . . . . 1n

· · Tl , re mu s_t be t_oleratior1 of. tI-1e 111aximt11n i11dividt.ial freed{)m that is � :� co11s1::.te11t w1tl1 tl1e 1 11te.::::crr1t)' of society · · · · 1 11 all 1natters of co11scle11ce tl1e

· · le l I1 �ve stated ts ge11�rall)' l1eld to [Jrevail. It is not co11fir1ed to thougl1t pr111cip a11d s1Jeec!1� 1� e>: tei1ds_ to_ act10_11, as is �l10\v11 by tl1 e recog11itior1 of tl1e riP-l 0 1t to co11sc1e11t1ous obJect1011 111 ,var-t1r11e· tl,is examJ)le sI10'1:vs as� 1 t. J1a t conscie11ce \Vill b� res1Jecte· d eve11 in ti1ne 11 cal1 da11a . s' - of 11ali� c: oer. T 1l e })rt 11c I IJ le a1JIJears to me_ to be pect1l1,1rly a1J1::iropr 1 ate to _ all q11estio11s of ,noraJs. r,rotlii,,g sl1�11ld be p11r1 ts l1ed b} , tl1e la\v' tl1at does 11ot I te beyor1d tl,e }i ini ts CJ f tolera.r 1 ce. l a r1rc.1clice; tl 1ere IllLlst be It ts 11 ot 1�earl}'" e11ot1gl1 �? Sa)' ll1at a 111ajority disli{e a real feel111g �r reprobal1011. Tl1ose \vl10 are dissatisfiL�cl \vi{l1 tl1e !)ieser1t }a'.:,:r o�� l1omosext1al1t� ofte11 �ay tl1at_ tl1e oppo11e nts of refor1,1 ar� s\iqa)recl si111iJl)' by· , . d!::igLrst _I_f _tl1_at \1 ere so rt \vould be \vrortg, btlt I do 11ot tl1i11k Oi1e car1 ir'.110:r e c�1sgust 1r 1t ts deeply felt a11d �ot 1na11uf�clt1red. Its prese11ce is a goocl ,t{dica t1on that tl1e bou�1ds of tolerat�o11 are bei n g· reacl1ed. I·,lot everyt11ir1g is to be tolerated. No soc1�ty ca11 do wi thout intole_ra11ce, i_ndig1121lion, �.nd disg�lst; they are the fo_rces _ beh i nd tl1e moral la\v, a11d 111d�ed it ca11 1?e arguett tl1D.t if they or s01neth1ng like_ them ar� 11?t. prese11 t tl1 e feel111gs of society car1not. be ,veight.y �nougl1 to depr i ve tl1e 1nd1v1dual of freedotn of cl,oice.... Every n1 oral JLt�grne11t, unless it claims a divi11e sottrce, is simply a feeli11g that. no right m111ded 1na11 could bel1ave in any otl1er way \Vitl1out admitting that lie ·,r,as doing wro11g.. . . There is, for exatnpie, a general abl1orrence of homosexuality. \Y/e s1,ould ask ours elves in tl1e first i11sta11ce wl1etl1er look:ing at it calmly and dispassionately, w·e re gard it as a vice so abomi11able tl1at its mere presence is an offence. If tl1at is tl1 e gent1ine feeli11 g of tl1e society in which we live, I do not see l1 ow society ca11 be de11ied the right to eradicate it....

. . . Tl1e boll 11da ry betwee11 the crimi11 al law and tl1e moral law is fixed by bala11cing in the case of eacl1 1�articular crime a11 d Jsic] �ros and co11s of legal e11forceme nt in a ccor da nce w1tl1 the sort of cons1derat 1ons I have been outlining. The fact tl1 at adultery, fornication, and . lesbianism ar� u11touched by the cri1ninal law d oes 11ot prove that l1omosext1al1ty ou_ght not to be toucl1 ed. Tl1 e error of jurjsprude11 ce in tl1e . Wolfe11?e.n. Report 1s cau_sed by th� search for some single principle to explain tl1e d1y1s_1on betwee1� crime a11d sin. �l1e r e l? rotect1on th fo s ist ex law l a_ 1n m cr 1 � tl at th � le Report fi11 ds it i n t11 e princip . en g ts ns 1n ul ee n co ad tw e b _ � !e 1va pr _ In n t1o 1ca r11 fo ?f i ndividuals; on this principle 1s outside th e law an d th us i t becomes log1cally 111defens1ble to br111g l1omo �exuality between cotise11ting adults i11 private w_itl1ir1 it. But tl1e tr�e princi�le 1s tl1at t he law exists fo r tl1e protectio11 of soc i ety. It does not d1scl1arge its functio n by protec t ing t he individtial from i_11ju:y, . a1111oyance, corrttJJtio11_, and 1e commt1n1ty_ of tl d _ an ns t1o 1tu st 1n e tl1 so al t ec �xploitatio,,; tl,e law must prot ideas, political and moral, \"Vi tl,out whicl1 people cannot live . togetl1e: . Society ; s lty n hi 1t ya ca an lo tl1 e or m y an l 1a t d_ vi di i1 a not ignore th e morality of tl1e � . � n •t f lourishes on both and witl1out either tl dies.

INTRODUCTION

IMMORALITY AND TREASON4 /-/.. L. A. flart

11d Prostitution re es nc ffe O l 11a ex os � om rl 1 1 0 com Tlle wolfei,de,1 1 or v1 ee l1a tw be be 11 al xu se 1 11s 11 1 co 0 _ at tl1 �11ting 1 � to 12 . of y rit ajo 111 a by d e meiid. e. n e O tl1 11c 0� fe of l 1a Comn:iittee's 111 111 � �r a be er 11g 10 10 1 ld ou sl, e at iv })r ii, adults 11 1 ed _ ss its re r ex rt s po \va 1 9n at 1d 1� this 1 e 111 � in co re is 1 � tt r fo s i,d ou gr )al ciJ . prii, d � a11 1111 y l1l 1101al1ty wl1ic l, in ra 1no te tva JJr of n alt re a 111 11a 1 re st .. y· '•Tllere mu 1 l 1al l _ ca�l tl11s tl1� liberal point s I s." 1es si1 b11 S 1 \' la tl1e t 11o is ins ter ;�ef ar,d crtide _ r p_r1nc1ples of liber a l tl1ou ght _ of vie\'G': for it is a special a1)plicalio11 of those wide 1 ber_ty. �\ 1 11' s L 011 os' famous ay ess l1is 1 i 1 ed lat 111u for ll Ivti art °: wliicl, John Stu . e words, less cautio11s I)er11aps tl1an t11e \Volfe11de11 Com1111tte s \\lere. Tl,e only purpose for \V11icl1 po\ver_ ca11 be_ righ_tfullf e:"ercised over 111st_ 111s wil l 1s to. preve nt aga any member of a civilized comm11111ty _ l1arn1 to otl1ers. Iiis own good, either J)l1ys1cal or moral, 1s not a sufficient 'Y1arra11t. He can11ot rigl1tfully be compelled to do or for bear ... becattse i11 tl1e 01Jit1io11 of others to do so would be wise or eve11 rigl1t. Tl1e lil1eral JJoi11t C)f \ it\V has ofte11 bee11 attacked, botl1 before a11d after l\-1.ill. I sl·1all discttss liere tl1e rep11diatio 11 of it made by Sir Patrick Devli11, in l1is r(:c1:.11t lectt1r1::; \\'1l1icl1 l1as 110w bee11 fJUbl isl1ed. . . .

Coin 111 i ttee

<.' " ·

. ; ;�.J

.. !, :r

' .. !•'

n..:

• ' ••·1 ;•• I

...

..••. ' .· j1

.. . .:' . IJ

...

... Jv\ii! s forr11t1l2.tio11 of ll1e liberal poi 11t of vie\V 1nay \"1ell be too simple. 1'l1<.: grot111cis for ir1terferi11g will1 l11 1111a11 liberty are 1nore various tl1an the sir1gle criterior1 of ''l1ari11 to otl1ers'' st1ggests; cr11elty to a11imals or organizing 1)rostit1Ltiori for g;:1i11 do 11ot 1 as Iv1ill l1it11self sa,v, fall easil}1 t111der tl1e descrip tic)r1 of 11ar111 to otl1ers. Co11versely 1 eve11 \vl1ere tl1ere is l1arm to otl1ers in the 111ost iiteral ser1se, tl1ere 1nay \vell be otl1er 1)ri11ciples limiting tl1e extent to \\1l1icl1 l1ar111ful activities s11ot1ld be repressed by la\"1. So tl1ere are 1nultiple criteri,1, 11ot a si11gle criterio11, deter1ni11i11g \Vl1e11 l 111n1a11 libert)' 111ay be restrict ed. Perl1aJJS tl1is is \Vl1at Sir Patricl( 111ea11s b)' a c11riot1s disti11ction wl1icl1 l1_e o!t:1� stress�s betwe�11 tl,eo�·etical a11d IJractical Ii1ni ts. Bt1t witl1 all its s1m1)l 1c1 ti_es tl1e liberal po111� of v1e\'<' is a better gtticle tl1a11 Sir Patrick to clear tl1ot1gl1t 111 tl1e f)fOfJer relat1011 of 111orality to tl1e crin1i11al la\v: for it stresses ,vl1at l1e obscttres - 11a1nely, tl1e IJOi11 ts at \vl1icl1 tl1ot1 al1t is 11eeded before we 0 lur11 !)O!Jular 111orality i11to crimi11al la\v. No d _ oubt ,v_e �ot1lcl _all a_gree tl1at a co11se11sL1s of 111oral 01Ji11io11 011 certain 1natters 1s essential 1f society 1s to � e ,vortI1 livitig iti. Laws against murder, tl1�ft, a11d_ n1t1cl1 else :v�11 td be of little t 1se if tliey \'\Iere 110t supported by a widely. d1f.ft1�ed cor1v1 �t1011 ll1at ,vl1at tl1ese la\'\'S forbid is also im1noral. So 1n11ch 1s _obvious. But it �oes 11ot follo\v tl,at everytlli w1 1icl1 tl1e mor� l to i,g vetoes of ac��J)tecl 1nor,1l1ty attacl� is of eqttal inlf) y; nor 15 so cie t ot ·ta to ric e tl1e�e tl1: sl1gl1test :easo11 for_ tl1111l<ii1g of nioral one ity as a seainless web: \vl11cl1 \v1ll fall to JJ1eces carry111g society \'vit11 es it 1,, ,le ss __ all its etnpli atic vet o are e,,forced ?Y law. Stirel_y eve11 i11 tl1e face p u is th at of I tl1e moral feeli11cr to coi,cer t pitch.- tl1e trio of i11tolera e 11ce;' i11dig11atior1 · a11d �disgu5l -w_ us au ! se to th11�k. We nius� ask question at Sir hi ch w �atr1c 13 ne le tw o diff;rent vels .� < ve! clear�y e11ougl1 ident1f 1es or se1Jarates first w e mttst ask wl!e tl1er a practice wl11cl1 offends tnoral fe eli11g is ha�mftil, , i11d epe11dently of ,ts 1

' i . ' '

. . 'I

.. I

I . I

·I ..J ,

62 Lisrener 162�163 (July 30, 1959).

[

SCOPE O F PENAL LAW

repercussion on the ?:eneral moral cod e. Secoi,dlY, what about repercussi n o on code ? 1t I s re mora l a lly trtte the that atlu . e to translate this item of general morality i 11to criminal law \v ill jeopard!ize t� e wl1ole fabric of morality an d so y? societ W. e cannot escape tl1i11ki11g abo11t tliese two differe11t ques ion t· s me rely by u I O , rse t o e . v tl s 11g 1 1 e t vag11e n�str111n; ''Tl1is is JJart of public moralit and repe� publi c moraltt) must be [Jreserved. 1f society 1·5 to ex15· t.,, somet·1mes s·tr Paytrte · k · , f Ot. lie says 111 words wl1icl1 botl1 Mill an seems to _act mt· t ti115 W d ol th fen e de n �eJJort mig�t I 1 ave t!sed, tl1a� tl1er: 11111st be tl1e maximutn resp ect for individ ual _ t11 tl1e 111 tegr1 ty of I 1berty co11s1ste11 t_ w� society. Vet tl,is, as his contrasting exan:iples of. for111c�tto11 ancl l1omosex11a�ity sho\v, turiis out to inean only tl,at the 1mmo r�l1ty :vh1c�1 tl1e la\-i;r 111a)' JJU11 1sl1 must be ge11erally -felt to be intol erable. T!11s pla111 ly_ 1s 110 ad_eqt1ate substitute for a reasoned estimate of tl,e damage to tl1e fabric of society lil<ely to e11sue if it is 11ot suppressed. otl1i 11g. perl1arJs sl10\x,·s 111?re clea rl:y th e inadeqt1acy of Sir Patrick's ap � proac11 t_o tl11s tJrobletn tl1a11. 111s com1Jar1son bet\vee11 ti1e suppression of sext1al 1mm_oral1ty. a�,d t�1e sttfJIJress1011 of treason or sttbversive activity� Priv·ate sub versive act 1v1ty 1s, of cot1rse, a co11tradiction ii1 terms becau.se ''su.bversio11'' means overtl1ro \vi11g go':'er11n1e11t, \vl1icr1 is a f)Ublic thii1g. Bt1t it is grotesque, ev_e11 wher e moral feel111g agai11st 1101n asexuality is ·urJ to 1.�ct1cert iJitcr1 1 to th111k of the ho1nosext1al behavior of t\v10 ar1ults i11 1:,ri,,ate a.s i11 anv \va1r lil,e treason or sedition either in i11te11tion or effect. ·\�f/e car1 11·tai:e [t see� li!(e treason 011ly if w·e assum e tl1at deviation from a. get1eral tnorai c<Jcle is bot1r1cl to affect that code, and to lead 11ot 1ner ely to irs moclificatioiI but to its destrtI<.>· tion . The a11alogy could begi11 to 1}e fJlausible only if it \Vas clear tlt}lt offenci. ing against this item of 1norality was lil{ely to jeorJardizc tl1e 'v'1l1ole structt1re. Bttt we have ample evidence for believi11g tl1at people will 11ot abanclo11 r11or ality, will not think any b etter of mt1rde1·, crttelty, and disl1011 esty, merely because some private sexu al practice wl1ich they abon1i11ate is 11ot JJU11ished by the la\v. . . . cis1n per, criti a dee aps perh er, wid a to 11 e p o also Sir Patrick's d octrine is In his reaction against a 1·ationalist's 1norality and his st ress on feeli 11g1 he l1as I think tl1rown o ut tl1e baby and kept tl1e . bath ':vat;r; and tl1e ba!h wate_r may turn out to be very di rty inde ed. When Sir Patr�ck s lectt!re was first deltv�r_ed 1 me l1ty lco m1 we hu � y111 a mo 1s ere Th ' s: d r wo se the es l1 wit Tim it ete d gre !1nhe �he conception that society s l1ould . not be �sked to g!. �e 1t� reason for re fusing to tolerate w}1 at i n its heart 1t feels intolerable This drew from a correspondent in Cambridge the retort: ''I am afraid that w_e are le�s . humble than we used to be. W e once burnt . old women �ecause, ,v11�l1out g1v1ng our reasons, we felt in ou r hearts tl1at witchcraft was intolerable. ary . We are 11ot, I t lu sa is ss e n r tte bi . its t ye e, on is Th retort is a bitte r suppose likely in England to take again to the burnt11g of old :"omen for witchcr�ft or t� ptinisl,ing 'people fo r associating with tl10s� of a d1ff� rent r ace or colour, or to pui,ishing people again for. adultery. Yet tf tl1ese th111gs 1were y1ewed with intolerance, indignatioi1 and d1_sgust, �s �he s�co_nd of then _ still 1s. in 5ome countries , it seems t1iat on Sir Patrick s pr1nc1ple� no rat1011al crtticism co uld be opposed to the claim that _th�y should be pun�s11ed hr law. . ift sh ht ig e m nc e ra l o t f o s 1t I1m e t] 1 e W could only pray, in hi s words, tt1at ck t o this result. ri at r P Si d l� as h ic g o J It is impossible to see what curious For him a p r ct·ice · s t·mmoraI if the thought of 1t makes tl1e man on the � � 1m m o11 alt the t s1 no e w d ul 1o sl hy w Clapham omnib us sick . S o be s·t · S , ll ti ,

ti '

' I

I·

I' '•I ;

�

•'

INTRODUCTION

. ' .. '

., ." ... ... . . •.._ I

\�..� l

�(/1

• : ;. I1 ·• . � :''-::1 ·.' •: • I .' : '.

\ .. : I

.: I •

I ' '

. I .

• I ' ''

ll as as we , tic ing cri nd sta der un al I etic inte 1 llig c t niJa syt o;:; a; r: u� of e , resou�ce_ � � o d int rne aw is m cri tu l ing � fee l ina ral l general mo 1t 1 s? k' ic r tr _Si Pa m e o _ ur fr _S nd l y, the ki nt re ffe di a of leg �y fil ru i� !�gml�t! J t� !c d se on ba is n? y ig it al or m rance, sup e l ra 11e ge e tl1 r e . tl1 l1e w k r ator sl1ould as l se f� co 1 a t is ep 1c 1on tl1at tho .tl1ere r l1e 1et wl g; in 11d sta er 11d isu m se �tition or s n da , wa ous 1er ger 1 11 otl or are · 5 hostile t0 in11 ,de coi t · 1 at wl, wI10. 1J' ractise r t·ie_s, ti ,e blac kmat·1 an d t he otl1e r pa 11y ma to . y iser n1 tl1e evi societ , and w·l1etl1er l n t, es1Jec1ally for sexual offe11ces, are we � fJUtiisl,me Y crimii,al of · ce ll c onsequen · _ th e . ti11n . gs �l11c g on am t · ,� t l 11 sir · Patrick ry 11a rd1 rao ext y rel st1 is It understood. ra t mo ins 1m l 1ty the se appe aga te isla leg ,ve ore bef d ere sid con be ar . says ar e to _e ''tl1eoret1c al limits'' I '' e _on t· a I t s, ion era ·ct 1s1 co1 l ica act ''pr as n eve 110t . nowliere; 1 n:1 1nal law_ may be r c the . t tl1a s �rt ass e, on s thi e lik 1 ict wh ory used the 1 To atiy 1s y ral 1t_ 1no essen tial to society ?f 1_ t101 rva ese r p tl1e t tl1a d oun g r ue vag on tt,e and yet omits to stress atl1e need fo.r cr1�1cal scrut1n)' ou r reply sl1ould b e: ''Morality, wl1at crimes m y be con1m1tte d 111 tl1y name? As Mill saw 1 and de Tocqt1eville sl1owed i11 detai l long ago in l1is critical but sy111patl1etic st11dy of de111oc!acy, it is fatall)' eaS)' to_ c�nfuse. the democratic JJrir1ciple tl1at power sl1ot1ld be 1 11 tl1e l1a11ds of tl1e maJ ortty with tl1e utterly differe11t claim tl1at tl,e 111ajority, ,vitl1 power in tl1eir hands, 11eed respect no li 111its. Certai11ly tl-1ere is a special risl< in a den1o craC)' that the majorit)' may dictate 110\v aII sl1ot1ld iive. Tl1is is tl1e risk ,ve run, an d sl1ould gladly run; for it is t11e f)rice of all t11at is so good in den1ocratic rule. Bt1t lo}'alty to der11ocratic jJri11ci1Jlf�s cioes r1ot req11ire 11s to maximize tl,is risk: yet tl1is is wliat \v;e sl1all clo if \ve 1110�111t tl1e 1na11 i11 tl1e street on the top of tl1e Clapham 011111ib11s a.r1d tell l1i111 tl1at if Olll)' l1e feels sick enougl1 about wl1at other IJeople do in l)ri 'J,1.te to detna11<i its su JJpressio11 b y law 110 tl1eoretical criticisn1 cat1 be 111acle of his demai1d. 11

r}roblem

. I I

Co11sider carefully tl1e wisdo1n of tl1e followi11g l1y potl1etical l1appe11ings: A_ pub�ic ?IJi11io11 IJoll is tak_e11 \vl1icJ1 discloses tl1at tl1e great JJreponderance of Etl110�1a11 peo1Jle feel qt11te stro11gly tl1at leisure time sl1ould be spent co11struct1vely. 1 _1 1 �11swer to a questio11 defi11i11g ''co11structive''1 tl1e res1Jonse 0� tl1e �reat 1na1or1ty of people i11dicates tl1at visiti11a good O relatives and discttssions_ are co11sidered co11strt1ctive e11terprises wl1ereas sitting idly and �rean1111_g or wa11deri11g are 11ot. A com111 ittee of Parliament carefully con5 iders tlits poll a11d fi11di11g it acc11rate drafts tl,e following statute: ''Any _pers�11 fottnd idli11g dt1ri11g e th to ct su da bj yl e ig l,t ic ho ur s follo\\: 111g 'fines. . . ." ��r � �1�1e p :l en lary_ debate�, one parliam en ta rian states in answer to ��i as t . 1e meaning o f ''1dl11i g' tl1at: Tl1is law is 1neant to go far . le op e tl 1 t er wa n tha 11 sim E ple We 11cy vag . ra to be pro. d t· tv · �� e. _ven tl,ose st11de11ts up at th University , p e te e J ad � � ; riot be u nd ng a r un d betw ee11 1 i 1 e. t av I 1 ' l 1ot re s sse 1ey cla if t � t clecenl dlsctts!l�n or t11 ey d bett er watcl1 out. The members o f both I,ou ve . . o b s sentime11t. Tl,e new law is sii �eemed to be 111 agreeme11t w1tl1_ tl1M�jestY and duly promulg ated in th N1 t ie_reafter ap pr ov ed by His Imp erial e egar 1t ·Oazeta b y . n e P of the Mi11iste r 1

�tm

•'.

SCOPE OF PENAL LA W

49,

NOTE S POSSIBLE LEGISL ATIVE CONSIDERATIONS Note 1:

Public Opinion

The Ne\v Haven Evening Registers Homo-sexuality is a disease . · Most fair-mir1ded perso11s, we are sttre, would be sw·ft 1 o t ag ree that 1t 1s. · . Bttt, for the protect1011 of society' it cannot be regarded as a ct·1sease a1one m �ch as we m1· gl1 t 1 '.· 1<e to do so and beneficial as such an attitude mi hi ult1matel}, becon:i�, :x. ere complete a11d foolproof facilities available for tr;at ment and rel1ab1l1tat1011. So, l1omo-sexuality rnttst be lool{ed t1po11 as a disease - a11d as a crim.e, too. We ti1in k tl1at, l1ere agai11, most fair-n1inded per·soi1s -v:i,ill be four1d ir1 iI£ree� men t on this score. l11 Hartford rece11tly Judge Elmer R)1a11 of 0111· city· -.:112.s 11ar1<llin°' a a le:\::::,dness case. In sentencing the IJerpetrator of the act at is�.ue lt1C , .f:1 l elA. ,:-;... b'� 0, 0 111 Ci . ,,f . 5.i movement against co11sideri 11g 1101110-sexuality z. cri1ne. We join him in l1is vie\Y,. . . Judge Ryan was swift to 1nal<e l{11ow11 I1is opinio11 tl1at lie did not Jail to rehabilitate tl1e l1omo-sexual or the degenerate. We agree, I 00 per cent. But, in imposing a jail sentence, he en1pl1asized his convictior1 that individ � als such as tl1ese ca11not be allowed to roam free, to prey t1pon an unsuspect ing society- or worse yet to prey upon tl1e young, the innocent, the helpless. With Judge Ryan we entertain tl1e hope tl1at although jail cannot success fully rehabilitate it can stand as a restraining influence, a deterrent. It is elementary fact tl1at a ma n confined to a pen.al institution cannot at the same time be roaming abroad, a menace to society, to decency and to himself. . Of course, it probably would be much b��ter_ if we had adequate hospitals, train ed and equipped for treatment and rehab1l1tat1on ... as well as a place for enforced confinement . But those thi11gs we do not have now. . nd ha at on so be ill w ey th at A nd there is no prospect th an m e co Ry dg Ju as d an e at St e th of s w la s hi e T being 50 where th mented, where the' basic law, t11 e T en Co�mandments - are breached, we m ust fully utilize our jails to protect society from such as these, and to Protect them, too, from their own ills an d weaknesses. Q

· ' . . :. .:, �\�::::, : �· :- · :-· · ·, . · .· . : .. �

Editoria� A Disease, A Crime, N� HAven Evtning · th' material in these narcs is derived from Donnelly

:.,

..' ..., . ..,

f:J.

�· •

• ...

,·...

•

.. :-::,

Rtgister 2_4 .col. 2 (Sept. 24, 1957); much of tt.AL., c,,m,�l Law pt. 3 B.

i',

.' 1! •

·'

INTRODUCTION

g the Moral in in ta er sc A , es at B d an 11 se ob R C ol1e11, 6 t y i n 1 u n m " o se,1 se of tl1e C If the ascertatnnlent of tl1e 1noral sense of tl1e commu11ity is _relevant tile lawtllakiilg process, eitl1er as a 1 1_or 1 11 for tl1e lawmaker to_ consider or as to a be 1eed not left to 1 conJecture, to I1unch nor111 to follo,v, ,v, it is our view tl1at 1t · . · �ou Id. more reli· ably' or t o i1 1tuitio11 , and tl1at mode:11 so�ia1 sctenc� t ecI1niques be utilized for tile task. Witl1 f111a1 1c1al support from � 11e Un1vers1t}1 of Nebra ska, we tinderto o k a pilot project t� demo11strate th1� concrete1y. It was our purpose (1) to develop a 1ncre reliable method tl�a� 1s 1 10w _used ?Y lawmakers for measuring tJ1e moral sense of the c ommunity, (2) with this method, to test empirically the assumption often . made by lawmakers that tl1e legal �orms that they establish are in 11armo11y with . tl1e moral sense of th� community; (3) to test en1pirically the oft-ex1Jressed vie� that tl1e commun!ty has a moral sense, rather t11a 11 mdnJ' m?ral senses; -(4)_ 1f, and wl1ere, there 1s heterogen� ity of values in tl1e con101un1ty, to ascertain whetl1er �r,ott p� of pe ople l1old1ng roug11Iy the same sets of val�tes could b1:o�dly �e 1dent1f1ed by refer�nc� t_o sucl1 other i 1 1depe11denl criteria as age, rel1g1on, income, etc.; and (5) 1f 1t 1s possible to distinguisl1 such groups, to ascertai� whether the I�w coincides \Vill1 any of ll1e valt1es l1eld by s_ucl_1 groups 1n t�e commu�1ty, a11d also yvJ1etl1er tl1e la\'<' ger1erc1lly tei1ds t o co111c1de more cons1ste11tl)' w1tl1 tl1e values of or1e grottf) il1a11 \Xiitl1 tl1ose of otl1ers.

... I . ... :."'. •: '·I ' I C

...i' , ': • 'J � ' ',: '

., .' . " "

. .. '' . i .I " ' "

Bown1ar1 a11d E11gle, Sexual Deviati o117 ,

.i' I

. i!

'i ' I

<I I

"' '

. • I ·1 ' 1

'fhe causes of 110111osexuality are not understood. Some in\,estigat ors regard tl1e deviatio11 as \vl1olly or al1nost \vl1 olly co11stitt1tio11al a 11d pl1ysiological, even tl1ougl1 tl1ese aspects are 11ot at prese11t den1onst rable. Otl1ers co11sider the deviatio11 to be prim,1rily 1Jsycl1ic, one of retarded emotio11al developn1e11t, or psycl10Iogical co11diti oning \Vitl1i 1 1 a fa1 nily sitt1atio11 of pare11tal rejection or reversal of the pater11al a11d 111aternal roles. Tr�atment witl1 se;>e l1 orn1011es l1as no effect 011 I10111o sexuality, except for a p ossible JJsycl1olog1cal effect i11 tl1e i11di\1id t1al case. Admi11istratio11 of estroge11s to males will decrease their sex driv e a11d admi1 1istratio11 oi androgens to _fe�ales will usttally produce 111asculi 1� izatio11; bt1t a11droge11s in large d o ses \'\'Ill increase sex desire i11 tl1e fe111ale a11d i 1 1 s01ne cases i11 the male. Psycliotl?erapy a11d PS)'Cl1o a11alytic treat1ne11t l1ave bee11 suggested too, �ut_ �ery few_ 11npro�eme11ts l�ave bee11 re1Jorted. It 111a)', l1owever, l1elp so rne 1nd1v1dt1als w1tl1 a111 b1vale11_t dr1_ves to attai11 11 eterosex adjustment, si11ce tl1ey tia l are not coin�letely s�� aga111st tt; and it 1nay l1el1J tl l101no 11der stan? to 1e se xu al u a11d accept l11s �011d1l10!1 a,1d to live \Vit11 it, as it Fr ett p d ointed o tit, altl1ougl1 . does �ot alter 111s C_?ndttron. In tl1is se e. val u gr 11s ea e, t su ch I1a tre d 11a at m s en t N evei tl1 eless, tl1ere is at prese11t 110 clear-cut accepted medical solutio11 to the proble1n. •

•

VII Journal of Legal Education 141-14 2 (1955). Bowman and Engle, Sex Offcns · ·ons, ...?5 L.i-r.: es T h . M . e edical and legal Implications of Sex Variati and Conten1,,norar./ p.,.,obltms � O ( .) 4 1960). 11

. . .. . . : '. . - '\.. ;

SCOPE OF PENAL LAW

Jones, Inmate, Con11ecticut State Prison Unit ed States8 , Have you ever tri ed goi11g wit11 ottt Sex f 1. year 111 aiid year out, can yo u alone s thi does wl1at to a er so,1 mticll less all tl1e otl1er items l1e imagjne 11as to do \vitl1out. Well tal{ e it fr�tn nl� oti 1 1ave to 1,ave_ a very, very strong mirid to keep from being of 50111e\X!ll af 11 115�a�le 0 •n tl11s. � 11d I do n't ' t 1,,iss SLex 11 care \Vl10 tl1e person is, if l1e cloesi, 011 �are for � t or do11't 1 want any, well tl1en, l1e j11st is11 t 1,orni al ... A1 w Ii et1 1111s o11 � 1t e1 n_ alone _ ; ' I a d t1 n1 in so i 1 m cl o1 t on 1 t r tt y yo s t )·r to sa' t is f Y yottr d es1res w1tl1 tl1e presse · · and on1y th.111g ·ava t·1 ab le - 1·t )'Otl are ca11gl1t' i,,0 u <ai·e c Ies 1)tse · d bY off1c1als severely pu111s11e d. We 11 I l,ave l1a.d 110 Sex, sitlce 1· 11.carce 1.ated I 1er e a11d 1· t l1as · · 1 l1at car1 m111 l m) c o ou B t f • · me tit ,x rove ,,011 d do - All yo11 ca11 d0 IS JUSt J 1 yo11 eracl, lt[J - tl1a · t is if yott do n't 1 1ave a very stro11g su ff er and su ffer 11 11t·1 · · 1 e e\re you 1)1 rytl 11g else tt})011 tl1is, i11clticlii,g a Parole Detiial a11ct 1_ 1 N O\V m111 · d. you ca�1 see \vl1y jJersol1 It l{e t1�)'Self- is very dissa tisfiecl, disagreeable, �tf)set and very l1ateft1l_. \1_011 really ca11't u 11 ctersta11 ct tl,is sort of tliirir,.::. and b1tter .)Otl yo11r self l1ave to live 1t d::t )' by day-· ho11r by 11011 r . . . . unless

�'.>

Note 3: Harmful Effects Dear lv\rs. . . ,

. I gatl1er from yo11r letter tl1at }'Ottr so11 -�s a l10111ose}:tJai. I �111 rnost _ by tl1e �act tl1at you do. 11ot rne11tio11 ti1is ter!11 )'ourse!f ii1 y·otlr �mpressed !nforrnat101_1 about l11n1. l\1ay I quest1oi1 yo11, \v1l1y yo1.1 avoid it? f -lon1<.)sext1,tlity ts assur�dly . no ad vantage, but it i s r1otl1ir1g to be asl1arr1ecl n f, r10 vi,::e, 110 degradation, tt canr1ot be classified as a11 ill11ess; \X'e co11sicler it to be a \rariatio11 of the sexual functio11 prodttced by a ce1·t(1i11 arrest of se x11al ci1�veloprne11i. lv\any higl1ly respectable individ t1 als of a11cie11t a11d moderr1 ti 1r1es l1ave bee11 homosexuals, several of tl1e g1·eatest men a111011g tl1em (Plato, Micl1elcti1gelo, Leo�ardo da Vinci, etc.) It i s a great i11jt1stice to IJersect1te l10111osext1ality as - e· a crime, and cruelty too. If yo11 do 11ot believe 111e, read tl1e books of Ilav lock Ellis. no o1 i l1 isl ol 11 ab ca I if e, s po up s I 1 1, ea m u yo , l1J l1e By asking m e if I can sexuality and m ak e 11ormal l1eteros exuality tal{e its place. Tl1e a11swer is, in a � es ca r of be m nu i11 rta ce a In it. ve e l1i ac general way, ,ve cannot tJromise to 1e s 1c e1 11d te l. �a s ex ro te l1e o! s rm ge ed we . succeed i 11 de velopi11g tl1e bligl1t . e or 1n no 1� 1 _ t s e� ca of 1ty or a1 m e th wh1c? are present in ev er y hon,os ext1al, in pos sib le. It is a qtiestion of tl1 e qttality and tl 1e age of tl1e 1nd1v1dual. Tl1e result of treatme 11t cannot be pred icted. t li11e. I! l1e is t re fe i� d a in ! s 1 ru 11 s0 � _ Wl1at analysis can d o fo r your sis_ may y al an , fe li al ci o s s 1 11 1 1 ! ed it un_happy, neuro tic, tori, by coi1fticts, ii1hib . a s n a1 1n re lie r 1e tl l1 w , cy � en c1 f1 ef brin g him harmony, peace of mind, fttll e av h . ld u o sh he , d in m 11r yo p u horno�exual or g et s clianged. 1 f yott ma _k e . a n n ie V to _ r ve o e m co to s 1, e l1 !! l il analysis w it h me !! I dotl,t ex pect yott w � r u o y 1e n t e iv g o ct le eg n t 11 1 have no intention o f le a v in g liere. Ho wever, do answer. s, e sh wi 11d ki tli wi s r tt o y ly e r e c Sin freucl9 8· 9'

Prom Donnelly tt.al., Criminal Law

3 Jones,

The Life of

164.

Frt11d 195 ( 1957).

I Nl'RODUCTION

Ford, Sex Offenses: An Antl1ropological Perspective 10 1101nose�u�lity, both male a11d female, is q_uite coI?mon 0� · 1 j1e oiller liand, ly of tl1ese societies, a11d, for som� of tl1em, it

reported for mai1y constitutes a problem, in tl1e ser1se tliat they atte1npt to. fJreve11t I ts occurrence. A�out one d1�afJproves l of y stro11g l1omose surveyed societies of tt1e third xual1ty, espe· cially ii, males, ai,d altemJJts from early �l11]d_I1ood to. co1:1�at a11y te11dencies itl tl,is direction [sicJ. Ge 11 erally, tl1e sa11ct1011 1mJJosed 1s r1d1cule a11d derision -altl,ougl, ii, a few, stro11ger 111east1res are take11. A very few are so op�osed to 11omosexuality t11at detected offe_11der� are JJtrt to deatl1. 111 t!1e rem�inder of these societies, J 1on1osexual bel1 av1or, 111 _ 0 11e form or a11otl1er, 1s _cons1d�red 11ormal a11 d socially acceptable for certa111 1ne111 bers, or at certain periods al o11g tl1e l ifel i11e....

. .

-: • I

.. 1'' . " . ,, . '

lv1ead, Comparative Slttdy of C11Iture 11

I I

... [TJl1e co1111)aralive _sttld)' of ct1_]tt1res .... �a11 �e�no11strate, from data 011 otl1er cu!tttres (a 1 1cl by v1rtt1e of tl1e1r relal1\1 e s1111pl1c1ty and tl1e exte11t to 'l:·1l1icl1 tl1ey differ fron1 ot1r O\Vil c11lt11re a11 d rerJrese11t parallel devel opments ratlier tl 1a1 1 a!1cesiral or d i,1ergcr1 t fo rn1s of Otlr O\v11 c11l ture, f)articularl} from [Jri1r1ili\ c ct!lli.tres) il1at every c11ltt1re mtist be see11 as a wl1ole, \X itl1 its \ alue s,,s�ern as a:1. i11e;<Lricabl c co111 1)011e11t. It ca11 refute and bra11d as 1111scientific, i rrcsr:011sible } a:1cl da11gr.:ro11s ll1e 11se of cross-ct1llt1ral data for pt1rposes of ,J=,:a!t1c1.tir1g :i11y t�ive11 c11ltL1ral syste111 by tl1e clen1011 stratio11 tl1at otl1er cultures l1a,,e j)l�ctd ,Ji f fere11t e111 J)l1ases a11cl di ffere11 L valttes on son1e isolated detail of bel1a vior. I-listori{:all;i, tl1ose \'(/l10 are desiro11s of brenki11g do,x 11 sorne partic11lar traditior1ai valt1e for our society l1ave arrayecl a 111 iscell a11eous assort1nent of diverge11l f}ractices, sl1o"l:vi11 g tl1at tl1 is a11d tl1at ot l1 er people, or indeed oursel ves at some oll1er period ir1 l1isiory, regarded a giver1 tJraclice i 1 1 a different moral light, arg·tiir1g tl1 at, tl1erefore, all moral practices are Ii 111itecl i 11 tirne a11d place and tl1ere fore lack ar1y 11l ti1nate val idity 1·11is 111iscl1ievo11s a11 d u11i11for111ed use of cultural !na_terial is ofte11 111istake11Ir cal led cult11ral relali\rit)', bt1t tl1at is exactly wl_,at . 1t 1s not, for ct�ltural relativity dema11ds tl1at ever)' item of ct1ltural bel1av1� r be �ee11 as rela!1ve to tl1e c�1l_tt1re of \vl1icl1 it is a IJart, a11d i11 tl1at systematic ?ett111g every 1len1 l1as_ (Jos1t1ve or 11egali\1e 111ea11i11g a11d value. Even w h�re items of c11l�ural bel 1av1or, so�cal lcd ct1ltL1ral traits, l1 ave been so easy to identify a11 d so �ll ur111g· lo tl1e rne111bers of otl 1er cul lt1res tl 1at tl1ey I1ave diffused J)rogress1vely borrowed by tl 1e 1nembers of cliffere11 t ct1ltures in contact one witl1 a11otl1 er - n:iod�r11 social a11tl1ro1Jology lias sliO\'<'ll 1,ow a trait wl1ich appe�rs t? be_ ob1ect1vel y tl1e sa1ne may l1a\1e rnarkedl)' different meaning and fu11ct1011 in d1ffere11t cultttral setti11gs.Tl1 e scie,,ce of cul ture can insist, there fore, ll1at wl1en we co11sider contrasti11g types of beliavior we shall attend always to tlie con} fJlete . system,_ a11d tl1at ra11dom, i11discriminate citations ?f c11l tur�l co11tra_sts 1n detail_ ?e strictly _ recognized for wl iat tl1ey are, ic 11oclast1c ? _ polern1c matertal, a1nn1u111t1011 for agitators, bttl witI1 110 scientific val1d 1ty. • • • 1

. '

I . . I' I . I I I

•

10. 25 Law and Contempcr,try Problems 227 (1 960). 11. Mead, The Comparative Study of Culture . Ideals, ratic an d ti 1e Democ P urpos,ve Cu Ir1vat of . 1on . . Second S'\l 1ercnce on Sczen ..,,mrhosi11111, ('0n.r. ce, Pl,ilosopl,J· and Religion 56 (1942).

SCOPE OF PENAL LAW

•

• •

•

United Sta!es Se11ate Con11 nittee o11 Ex J)enditures In Executive Departn1 e11ts 1 2

Law enforcement officers }1ave ir,fo r ed tl,e 511�comm1ttee. tl1at ere tl1 are . bla ck :m of ailers wlio nial<e a reg gangs 1!1 tlar f)tacttce of tJre�111 g tt f)Ot1 tl1e homosext1al. Tl1e m od us operai ldi i i , tl,ese \ ioi o�exttal blacl<1na1l cases ust1ally follows tl1e same ae11eral J)at terti Tlie v. ct.1111, ,v r10 5 a liotnosext1al, l1as ma11aged ! i · · · ti· a� d te l er s ea hi �v nc ' pe co i i tiv e to s c a 11 , t1s t1a 1 1y e11JO ''S a goocl !·epttta t·1011 111 I 11· s . . J The 1111ty. black rnaile comm rs t , b, ) . o11e . 111e a11s o1 a11otl1er, discover ll1at tl1e . . t· vie tm 15 actct·ICtect t0. I10111osext1al1l)' a11d t111der ll1e tl1reat of clisclosure tl1e, ney fro11� l t t 111- Tl1�se l1lacl( 1 11a i I c rs ofte11 i111 fJerso11 a le oIice office t?s �xtort in carry1n� o11t tl1 e1r �lacl,111a1l scl1e111es.lv\a11)' cases l1ave co1ne tg tl1e alter1tio11 re litg_lil� respectecl ir1diviclt 1�ls l1ave J)aid out SL1bsta11tial st11ns 0: tlie poltc� o_ mon�y O _ack 1na1le1�� over� �� 11g J)er. 1ocl of ti111e ratl1er tl1a11 risl{ tl1e d1sclostt� e of t\1e1_r 11on1osext1al act 1v1t 1es. Tl1e police believe tl,at tliis t Je of YI blackmail racl<et 1s m11cl1 n1ore. exte 11sive t} 1a• 11 is gerierall , y I<11ow11, becat1se ti 1ey : I1ave f ot11.1_d t'1 1at 1110s t o f tl_1� v1cl1ms are very l1esita11t to bri11g tl1e 111att,;r to the atten t1011 of t 11e a11 t 11o rtt1 cs. (

1:1°

wtf

In furtl1_e r _ co11side ri 11g tl1e _ ge11 eral s11itability of JJe rverts as Oover,1i11e11t emplo}·�es, 1t 1s ge 1 1erall) l")el1 eved tliat. ll1ose \vl10 er1gage ir1 overt ,1cts c>f perversion lack tl1e _e111olio11al stability of 11or111al J)ersc)11s. ·111 3cJcliti.011 t!1ere :�� a11 abu11da11�e of ev 1de11ce to sustai11 tl1e co11clt1sio11 tl1at 111cl111ge11ct: ir1 acts of �ex perv�rs1011 \X'eakens tl1e moral fiber of a11 i11d.ividu.1l t,) a cler�ree. tt1�l,: ]1!2 ... ts not suitable for a 1Jositio11 of res1Jo11sibility. lv\ost of tl1e authorities agree a11d ottr i11,iestigatil)11 l1�ts slJ0\\:1 1.1 t.!10.l t}-ie presence of a sex per,,ert i11 a Qo,,er11n1er1t agc11c:,,, te11cls tc) l1a \1 e a co rrosi \'� 1nflue11ce upon l1is fello\XI e1111)loyees.... It is j)artict11:1rly= irr1J)Orla11t tl1at thousa1�ds of )'Ot111g n1e11 a11cl ,,,0111e11 ,v110 are brot1gl1t i11to 1 eLleral j()l1s riot be st1b1ected to tl,at t}:JJe of i 11 flt1e11ce \vl1ile i11 tl1e service of tl1e Qo,1err11r1c11t. One ho1nosex11al ca11 1JollL1te a Oover11111e11t office . . . . Emi 11e11t psycl1iatrists l1ave i11for111ed tl1e st1bcornn1ittee tl1at tl1e 1101110sexual is likely to seek l1 is O\xr11 ki11d because tl1e JJresst1res of society are st1cl1 that he f eels u11comfortable 1111less l1e is witl1 l1is O\v11 l<i11cl. Due to tl1is sitt1a tion the )1omosext 1al te11ds to s11 rrot1 11cl l1i1nself \x1itl1 otl1er l10111osexL1als 1 11ot only in l1is social but i11 l1is bt1si11 ess life. U11der tl1ese circt1msla11ces if a e l1ir 11c tl,e lt1e 11 i11f ca l1e e 1er \Vl 1t e1 1n r11 ve Oo i11 1 l io1 ua sil sex po mo a �o attains' . 1ng of per son11el it is almost i11evitable tl1at l1e will attem pt to place otl1er homosexuals in Oove r11ment jobs. • • • • x perv� rts a11d se t os 1n it� 1d 11 t fo is l1 1ic wl ty ili ab st al 1 1 e Th lack of emotio e1 1 ts 1n sl1 d1 e tl1 an bl to e bl 1 t ep sc 1 st n1 e tl1 es ak m the weak 11es s of tlieir moral fiber1 perts tl1at of the foreig11 espionage age11t. [ t is tl1e expe ri_e11ce of i11�ellige11ce ex , n ot ld tl se ey 1d a 1 r 1e 1 01 t 1 es q1 cl le {1l sl a by n perverts are vt tlne rable to int errogatio te ga re ng to co nd ts te er rv e p e or m e, or rm l1e rt refuse to talk about tl,emselves. fu f led 1t} e1 be id 11 ca �s ac pl 1 c� l1i ':'<' , rs ba 1 a1 at_ the same restaurants, 11igl,t cl11bs, � c u1t111 g re a e r l fo 1b ss J)O 1t g 1r1 ak 1n : y, with comparative ease in an y commu111t g e na io e r sp d fo se 1 1 be n ca 1 cl hi w ps agent to develop clandestine relationsl1i 1

purposes.

. .. . .

s and other

12- Senate Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments, E,nployment of I-lom ose.'(11al (l 950) . ss. Se 2d g. on C st 81 1, 24 o. N . Sex P�ts in Govtrnment 1, t 9, S. Doc

•••

,.., .

.:.. - ·

' '

I·

• I !

'·•

,. '.' •. ''

. .

INTRODUCTION

L m y F it n al o u se a o 13 o ily x of m t Ii ec e ff if e E l1 T t, or ep R Wolfeildetl

55_ ·

or vi ha e be tw l be t1a ex os en mal� s has 1n l10 at tl1 11, ti� 1 t�r 1 i co T li e secoild , ed de we In �. tru ve ha be ll d we l1a y 111a J e, lif evid ence . )' 111 �a1 011 t ec eff lg i a damagi "' e on or tl1 v1 rt l1a pa be of l t1a the ex os 111 I10 l1 husband 11c w1 111 s se ca is; , i te of that it e er_ are tl1 d o �11 als , re ra es cas s a11 111e in which 110 by are e ag rri 1na a ttfJ ei, ok br lias . ly rel 1ve ak 1s we t 1 1e1 al Jo 111 ver co ne r l t1a 1 sex the 1no 110 less a 111a11 i il \Vllotn tl,e at l1e tl1 es ts do t tle no ou l t1a ex os 111 enter upon . l10 1n fro 11 tio fac tis sa derives sucli 1ly l1a p J_ an� �t1m lly con sfu ces suc 1 mate d. We e11 be e ]1av t g11 1ni l, liic r \x. a marriage 1t of u11 stc iety; but cases b� soc tl1e as ar� reg . we at wl1 to e 11ag cta1 s tt1i deplore l1as n ge bee rr1a n1a � brol(en up by 1cl1 wJ1 111 ed 1ter ot11 e11c tly_ uen freq also are . e, a11d 110 doubt son1e women, too wif tl1e of t 110111oscxual bel1av1or 011 tl1e par derive sufficie11t satisfactio11 fro111 l1omosexu!ll otit1lets to f)revent their i:narrying'. We l 1ave l1ad 110 reaso11s sl1ow11 to Lts \v'l11cl1 \x oul d lead us to believe that 1ee11 n1ales i11flicts a11)1 grea ter dam ag·e 011 family bet\x vior life bel1a }10111osexual tl1an adultery, forr1icatio11 or lesbia11 bel1avior. Tl1ese practices are all reprel,en sible fro111 tl1e 1Joi11t of vie\v of l1arn1 to tl1e fa111il}', but it is difficult to see \v111y 011 tl1is grot111d 1nale l10111osext1al bel1avior alo11e a111ong them sl1ould be a cri111i11al offe11se, Tl1is arg111ne11t is 11ot to be take11 as saying tl1at society sl1ot1lcl cor1(io11e or afJl)rove 111ale l1on1osex11al bel1avior. But wl1ere adultery f l1r11icatio11 a11<.l lesbi::ir1 bel1avior are riot crimi11al offe11ses there seems to us t� IJc 11() v�.licl grot111d, 011 tl1e basis of darnage to tl1e family·, for so regarding 11 or11c1se}�t1al b<�l,av·irJr bet \X,ee11 111e11. Jvioreover, it l1as to be recognized that il1f. r11ert e�(isterlce of tl1t� co11dition of l1omosex11alit)' i11 one of the part11ers ca11 res1.1lt ir1 �1.r1 t!r1satisfactory n1arriage, so tl1at for a l1omosexual to 1narry sirnJ)l�/ for ilie �ak:e of co11forn1ity ,qitl1 tl·1e accerJted strttclure of society or in tl1e l1c>J)e of c11ri11g l1is coi1ditio11 may rest1lt i11 disaster.

. .......•...

,. ' •I I ; ,. I

•

. .I

' . !

. !

Questions

'''

<;:011si�ering tl1� Wolfe1�clen RerJort a11d tl,e debate wl1icl1 it precipitated, toge_t11er \y1tl1 t!1e Noles sett111g ot1t 1naterial of JJote11tial co11cer11 to legislators dealing w1tl1 tl11s J)roble1n (and st11JI)le111e11ted by 011tside readino wl1ere 11eeded) b address yo 11rself to tl1ese q11estio11 s: 1. Assuiniiig. tl1at basic l?Ol_icy decisio11s for a societ)r (i.e., tl1e co11duct �o be de11 ?1�1 1�ated as cr1111111al �t11d tl1erefore fJt111isl,able) are made wit�1n tl1e. leg!slcLttve IJroc.ess, sl1ot1ld tl1ere be li111its or bou11ds beyo11d wl11cl1 Ieg1slat1011 sl1ot1ld 11ot ir1trt1de? 2· Evalttate tlie fttnctio11 s of fJe11al law in tl1 es as set of fe e ns ar m of ea or al f�rtli b tl,e \Volfeiicle11 I"{eJJort (fJjJ. 40-4 re as ons tl1 1 ). e ex am 11 I i11 tu e r11 i; give,, Y tlie ReJJort for 11ot allowi11 g law to intervene i11 certain areas. 3. J -lo\v sl1ould l l1e cri111i 1�I Ia�v · · v i ew tl1e difficult and recurring f JfOblem of tl1 e state's 1. I 1-1 11s{11 wrt 1 To it? si e 1 ,gl v ose d 11p ivi i11d ls co ho ua \ r l � J � � wl1at exte11t sl o 11 so� ie �y coi, to and trol als . tl1e bel1avior of i11dividu wl1at extetll sl,ottld a11 111d1v1d ual b e free to act as l1e wisl1es? . . 4. Witt, respect to I o . . e� ttality, 1 s it important to dra\v a dist111ctio� bet\vee 11 coi,ser,stta� �� ' t 1111IJOsed l101nosexuality? Betw xua ose hom ee11 13. The Wol/rnden Report, {Ip. cit. at p. 44.

·. i

SCOPE O F PENAL LAW

acts among adults and those in wh·ic11 a you ng er person is involved? Between pr iv at e and public acts? 5. H ow does Justice Devlin k iiow· tl,at tl1 ere 1 s a ''ge ner ab ho al rrence of homosexualit '' ( 45 ).? To v l1 at xte11 t has public 11 io ed in lp op he to � , 1 1 · � { e at ul th pe a aw of E th t·op1a? form 6. Does Justice D_evlii�'s �rgume11t assume agree1nent on moral issues? e hcattons of such a view for a culturally pluralistic !�!\ it: in�io;?�f 7. If ''private immorality'' is 11 ot tl1e concer11 of tl1e pe11 al law, as the Wolfe!1 den Report mai11tains (p. 42) how sl1ould society dea l witl1 st1cl1 ' behavior? 8. Gra11ting t �at public mor_ality is 11ecessary to a society (Devlin, p. 43), w�y must it �e e�forced z11 toto tl1ro11gl1 crimir1al la\v? \Y./ill it cease to e�1�t. as morality if not c�imi11ally e11f?rced? Consider wl1 ether 1ro11 stop v1s1t1ng. your sick 1111cle 1n tl1e l10s1J1tal beca11se there is r10 crir11inal law wl11cl1 comma11 ds y ou to visit hin1. 011 the other 110.11d, if 1\rt. 600 were �epealed tomorro\,v would yo11 tl1er1 begi11 tl1e practice ol I1omo sexual1ty? 9. If as Jtts _tice f?evlin. argues, (p. 44) rr1c,ral order is 11.ecessar::1 io S{JC\'cI:,' �nd_ society 1s �nt1tled by its la\vs to protect ·\vl1at is r1{:cess2,r�:1 to 1t, ts not the logical co11clusion tJ1 at society car1 go to r,e:a.rly a1i·�, lc1.1f.::tl1 in establishing and mai11tainii1g do111i11a11t r11ora! attit1.1des? \Xlor,ld it ;ot be proper then to outlaw ''idli11g''? 10. Wl1en society tl1 rougl1 its legislators co11 te1rif)lates labeli11 g certain bel1avior as criminal, wl1 at weigl1t sl1ould be attacl1ed to tl,e l1 arm or lack of l1 arm caused society by that bel1avior? Sholtld tl1 e 1nere presence of certain beha vior be declared criminal if it can11ot be sl1own to harm society? 11. To what extent ca11 consensual l101nosexuality be said to undermine the moral order necessary to society and tl1erefore harm it? Why is Mr. l sua 1 1 sen iso of con par com 's vlin De e tic Jus h wit ned cer Hart so con homosexuality with treason? 12. Should the ''right minded man . . . on the Clapham omnib11s'' (Devlin, 1? re cla ed to de ow be all a en Ka to !a az Pi m _ fro O 1 . No the p. 44) or on l na in at pe pa of all of s air aff ate iv pr e 1 tl in t uc 11d co what is proper sanction for non-conformity? 13. Finally, based, upon Justice Dev! in's standard tl1at �'There. must _ be toleration of the maximum i11dv1dt1al freedom tl1 at 1s co11s1stent \v1tl1 the integrity of society,'' (p. 45) evaluate l1is conclt1sio11s a11 d those_ of Hart and the Wolfenden Report with respect to co11se11st1al l1omosexual1ty. Recommended Readings

The following are selected statutory provisions with respect to l1omosext1al behavior and offenses of immorality: . ) ( 58 19 n, be aa d W (;o 5 22 t. Danuh Penal e, Sec

,. I

·I '

INTRODUCTION

t. 12 Sec IV, ·(3 on, Uni Law in Earttrn iet Sov the of Law al min Cri Federal

.... :'· '·I ':. � ; .,.\ f·•.··11 C . /1 :..·t I .

.·.1

;

'..'

: '·, 1 . '' '. . .� l : . .'

' . 1'

;

Europe , I 959). . . re of fo gr1 s nal r1 Pe Se can eri (Am Codes, l 9fiO). 331 t. Ar ! , d e Co � al Pen J nc/ e Fr gn rei of Fo 1es Pe11al Codes, (19fil). Se 1 ca1 eri (Am 175 t. Sec e, Cod al en P � Germa,i 213 Art. tute, Insti (Proposed Official Law rican Ame , Code al en P l Mode Draft, 1962). Revised .Penal Code of the Philipi11es, Art. 200 (Rey e s, 1963). Uganda Penal Code, Art. 143 (1 Laws of Uganda, Cl1ap. 22,· 1950). The U7olfenden Report: Report ?f tl1e Com1nit�ee 011 Ho_mosexual Offences and Prostitution, Appendix �II, (Autl1or1z�d A m e �1can ed., 1963) for laws co11cerning l1omosext1al1ty 1n Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy Netl1erlands, Nor\xray, Spai11 a11d Swede11. Th e Wol{e11de-n Report: Report of t}1e Committee 011 Homosexual Offences and Prostitt1tion, Pts. I a11d I I (Authorized A1nerican ed., 1963) (concerning findi11gs and fully developed positions 011 ()enalization of co11sensual hornosex11ality). D01111ell�,' et. al., Crirni1za l L,iw 123 ff., Pt 3, entitled:. Consensual Homosexual /-\cts Bel\veen Adttlts i11 Private -A Crin1e? A Problem for the Legislature. S::{ri1posi LIITI 011 Se)c Of fe11ses, 25 Law a1id CoritemporarJ' Problems 215-377 (1960) (a series of articles of vario11s disciplit1es deali11g i11 part witl1 the problem of horr1osexuality as fl cri1ni11al offe11se). };·ate Ltt71J 1·0:rr1ial, Priv�lte Co11se,1s11al I-lon1osexual Bel1avior: TJ1e Crime and its Er1torcernc11t, 70 Yale L. ]. 623-635 (1961) ( discussio11 of a specific case c:oi-icer11i11g l10111osexualit)1 a11d e11trap111e11t in Wasl1ington, D. C.). Col1e11, l\1oral Pl.spects of tl-1e Crimi11al La,v, 49 Yale L. ]. 987 (1940). \Xlilliarns, Tl1e Pro1)er Sco1Je attd f1111ctio11 of Criminal Law 74 Law Quarterly Re'T). 76-81 ( l 958) (reflections on the Wolfenden Report). 110 U. De\1 lin, Law, Democ:acy, a11d Moralit)r, P en 1z5J,lva12ia L. Re'U. 635-649 _ (1962) (Lord Devlin co11s1ders tl1e role of n1orals witl1i11 legal systems). Ii uglies, fy\orals and tl1e Crimi11al Law, 71 Y,1le L. J. 662-683 ( 1962) (critical a11alys1s of Lorcl Devlin's lecture attacking tl1e Wolfe11den Report).

•• I!

l I •. I

•

., I

'i ;

:'·, j . j

. :,,.'

�i

'I ·1' .. ' I

•••, •

•

CHAPTER 5

The Penal Code of Ethiopia: Sources and Form SECTION

A. SOURCES

OF TliE CODE

THE PENAL CODE OF TI-IE El\ttfJJRE OF ETHIOPif\1 Jean Grave11 /.f·rom Traditio,zal Law To A1oder11 Law: ... U11ti1 tl1e rece11t da_\X'il fJt modern times and tl1e begi11r1i11g of tl1e 11e\'v' Etl1 iopia11 E 1111) ire, ir1dcec{, 111J to the promttlgation of tt,e Pe11al Code of 1930, \'<'1l1icl1 occtlrrec! \YJit}i tl1 e acl'ient of tl1e present �m_peror, . �tl1iOfJ �a l1ad 110 L111ified, y.;,ritte11 or codifi(::d lc'.gal syst�1 �. Tl1e pr1�c1pal or1g1ns �f la\'v' \v'�re tl1e FetlJcl jVegcist, for tl1e Co1)tic �hr1st1an populat1011s of tl1e a11c1ent 1Jrov111ces; tl·1e 1\11osle1i1 la\v·, for t1·1c 1;c)pula- t1ons of Harrar and the coastal areas of tl1e f{ecl Sea; ancl the cL1sto1112.r1' ia·'IY;, for the other regions of tl1e co1111try wl1ich are cor1siderecl more ''Africa.ii'' [n the popular sense. �. The ''Law of the Kings'J or ''Fetha Negast : Tl1e fetl1a Negast or (f'JegL1est) 1s a Juridical and social monume11t of tl1e first order whicl1 embraces tl1e religious and the civil domains at tl1e same ti1ne. Its extraordi11ar;' inflL1ence 011 Ethiopia is explained by tl1e fact that tl1is cou11try has, fro1n time immemorial, attached itself to tl1e Coptic Cht1rcl1 of Alexandria. Its first bisl1op, Saint frumentius (for the Ethiopia11s, Aba Sala111a, fatl1er of Peace) was consecrated by Athanasius, defe11der of tl1e Nicaea faith, sl1ortly after his promotion to patriarch .of Alexandria in 328. Later, in the l3tl1 ce11tury, tl1e patriarcl1 Cyrill III (1235-12 43) anxiOllS to ir1troduce a general reforn1 of his churcl1 wl1icl1 had been weakened and threatened from all sides, establisl,ed a code, or more accu�ately, a compilation of religious and civil precepts whicl1 was to serve as a guide. The sources of the Cyr�lian Code are the Old and the _New Testa� ments, a certain number of apostolic writings, the ca11011s of the first councils and some writings of various fatl1ers of the Cl1urch....The Fet!Ja Negast expr essly refers to Constantine and to the ''Three Ht1ndred Sages'' or ''Wise Men'' (Selest Meeti the 318 fathers of the Churcl1), who are reputed by Ethiopian tradition 'to be the authors themselves.... Translated into Oe'ez, the learned language of the Ethiopian Church, and adopted, tl1ey say, upon the ))

Graven,

Intro, Lt Code Perzai de /'Empire d'Ethiopie 5-29 (Centre Fran�ais de Droit Compare, l 959); English translation, I ]. Eth. L. 268-290 ( 1964).

'•

•

.••.

INTRODUCTION

d o ce ve in wh lo JJr a sti ju ) 60 14 26 ce so (14 b co Ya ra Za r ro pe Em of order r de of ur m e a r t� fo l1 ve at �la de t� 11 , and s? n ow s hi d ne em nd co he at much th s w wa la 1 i� ce re Th . e ly v _ us uo 1� � ss a _ as a s' ng Ki e th oj aw ''L e 1 tI ed di stu who me so 1n way 111v10Ia ble ts en nt c� 1t� th . wi , law of de co lay true cai1on and _ ed , l1t atn pl ug x e, ta d s an 1st ur J d u an s ca lar l1o sc sed ts, ies pr e tli ich 1 w1 d, re sac and . ez on Oe e rsi ve Th .. .. beca�e 11s tio a r_ ne ge e tl1 ut l1o ug ro th to be respected d ire qu d ac a11 the law the of authority 1de gt1 tl1e d an n tio da un fo for Etliiopia the of a true and unique code....

' '. i .'• . I '!

' I

. !

' I '.

: .i '

...One can110t J1elp being struck by the l?f_tiness �f tl1e rules and tlieir perfect accord with the time.Tl1e 11arrow and p1t1Iess talion law u11der which the punisl1ment is in proportion to the har m done has lo11g been . extin ct. Co11crete cases are cited, for laws develop only slowly from tl1e spec1f1c case to the abstract rule from the ''casuistry'' (tl1at f)art of tl1eology that deals with cases concerning �011science) to tl1e doctri11e from which there appear the principles tl1at dictate them1 especially concer11i�g problems of res_ponsibility a11d guilt1 participatio11, penalty a11d its P:OIJ?rt1�11 ,to tl1e !a_ult. M1stake_ and coercion leaiti1nate defense and 11ecessity, 1nst1gat1on, compl1c1t)1 and being an accessory after the fact are all taken into co11sideration. The extreme cases of i11ter\.'eni11g cat1ses a11d bra\vls, \Vl1icl1 still worry jurists nowadays, are resol\i·ed i11 iiUat1ces ,y,itl1 re111arl<able com1non sense a11d jttridical fi11esse.The 'perso11ality of ti1e f,tLtll'' is clearly defined� ''f atl1ers are not to be put to death instead of tl1ei r sons; ,1 so11 is 11ot to be pt1nisl1ed for his father's crime, 11or a fatl1er for liis s,J11's.'r So too is tl1e IJrinciple of the ''i11dividualization'' of the punishment. De, r1ot j11dge ,ill crir11es witl1 tl1e same judgment: tl1e punisl1ment for he ,r,110 si11s by actio11s is 11ot to be the ()U11isl1me11t for he wl10 sins by w·ord or deecl. ·1·here a.re certai11 wro11gdoers against \X'l1om one must become only irri taied a.nd ,vhom one mt1st scold; for ot l1ers, one must order the givi11g of al111s c,r fasti11g, still otl1 ers must be ba11ished fro1n tl1e cl1urcl1 i11 proportion to tJ1e crirne committed; for ,ille Law of Moses does not imJJOSe one punish rr1ti1t for all tl1e gt1ilty. Tl1e punisl1ment for oi1e wl10 commits_ a crime volu11tarily is not tl1e sa1ne as tl1e punisl1111ent for one wl10 does so i11\ olur1taril }r· for son1e tl1e penalty of deatl1 is dt1e, for some a floo·ging for some a levy on tl1eir goods, and for otl1ers the pt111isJ11nent of t11e ''talion''; tl1ey must suffer w:hat tl1ey. made a11other suffer.''K110\v tl1en a different punisl1rne1 1t for ea�h guilty o�e 1n order tl1at there 11ot be a11y ir1iquity 011 your part, for it is said, as you Judge, so sl1all you be judged.'' 11

·I

.!' ' I

•

' I

. ..

. ..'

' '

•

• •

Therefor�, ti,,�. apJ?lication of . tl1e JJririciples of tlie penal law found in tl1e _ Law of th� Kings, 1n_ ligl1! of Cl1r1st1a 11 ca11011s attd doctrine concerning personal f�ult and 1 �s re_parat_1on, 1s wortl1}'. ?f atte11tion a11d is very adva11ced for its time. Bea�tng 111 1n1_nd tl1e co11d1t1ons at tl,at time, as well as the fact that harsh pun1sl1men_ts dtd not sl1ock a11y 011e because tl,ey we re in accordance with the r,o�ul�r sent1_n1e,�ts a11d seemed perfectly adequate to what might be called tl,e criminal policy of that epoch, it mt1st be co11ceded that the said principles ofte� correspond to . what is required today of a evolved. }' su bje law cti ve l Ancient corporal pun1sl1m�nt wa�, incidentally, f o me ti th e tile decline at the penetration o_f western ideas 111t0 tllis high forton represent· a re Et ss hi w op hi i ch ed, and th� pt enal Code. of 1923-1930 will ost alm lea l1a di ng ve no trouble effortlessI y tn o a new regime. he fir1t;thi�pian Penal Code ( 1923-1930): T n e o t at m d � s eff fir he or st cod'If�. ton in teaf. iopia was accomplisl1ed in the do m ai n of penal law . Thi

'' ! . .•,

PENAL CODE O F ETHIOPIA

was natu�al, since this _is the la w wl1ich a bove all others needed to be separat ed an cu ci ent sto ms 1n order to be adapted not nI to from th e ne s e d o f presen y ''c ri minal po licy,'' but also to tl1e ' cte1nands if i d" 1 day "d l r t e t_ o to the p_r�nciples o f legality included in modern wri�te� i aU: 5 � �s �� r:�ted the condtt�on� for a better _ and . more ge11er al enf orcement of tl1e law at a time whe n Eth topta wa s ope�ing its doors t o international relations, trends o f modern th ought and foretgners. The Ethiopian Penal �ode of 23 Tekemt, 1923 (Ethiopian Calendar) or o f N oven:iber 2, 1930 {_�r�gor1a11 Cale11dar) was proclaimed on the occasion of the crown�ng <:>f the re1g�1ng Emperor, J-Iis Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I. Conce1_ ved 1n t_he f asl11on of o ur co ?es, it i11cludes an important Preamble of 22 art1cl�s, wl11ch expre?ses,. acco:d,1n� to tl1e So vereig n wl10 gave it to J-lis people� its reason for being, its sp1r1t, its scope and tl1e results \Y/hich it expe�ts t? �t!atn. A Oe_neral Part covers tl1e ge11e�al principles co11cerni11g offences and l1ab1l1ty .to punishment (Book I); tl1e Special Part contai11s tt1e definitions and the punishment for offe11ces against the State, persons and property as ·�ell as petty o ffences.

The Preamble,. r�flecti�g a feeling for progress ancl for eqt1ity1 ha.s de�ons_trated well (1n _ 1�s Art_1cte� 5, 15 a11d 16) �ow a modern legislator c,tn st.ill be 1nsp1red by tl1e sp1 r1t of Justice and correct1011 o-f il1e Fetha i'!e,ac.sr or of !he ''Law of the Kings," and it l1 as pointed ot1t justly {Article 3) tl1at tl1e iJrincip1�s of the m?dern Europea11 Codes 11sed as mc)dels are still {)fte11 \Iery close to those which are found expressed in tl1is venerable legislation, a fai:! ,zrhici1 is not surprising after what we have said about tl1e Etl1iopian j11dical traclitiort being tied in w·itl1 tl1e great Cl1ristian trend. \Y/l1etl1er co1111non sc,11.rces I1J.i:l been transmitted by way of Rome, as i11 Europe, or ·by ft,_le,candria, as iii Ethiopia, on many points tl1e Roma n -Occidental coi1ceptic,n, refiected i11 the classic Co ntinental Codes, a 11d the Oriental or Alexandria11, reflected in the Ethiopian tradition, joined togetl1er a nd easily allowed the moder11izatio11 of the work o n this ground. The Co de o f 1923- 1930 is a first interesting attempt which is praiseworthy in this sense, as it l1as OJJe11ed the paths toward the delicate task of modernizing and co difying Etl1iopian law in general. A primary funda mental adva ntage of the Code is the defining, in an exact fashion, the crimes and respective pu11ishments .... A second attribttte of the Code is that it not only defined, and restricted but als o considerably softened and improved the penalties. .... �utilations were fundamentally a bolished and totally ex�lu�ed, and �he rem�1n1ng .traces of the talion were forbidden. After much hes1tat1on, and 1n keeping with the example of other countries, such a s England, o nly flogging was kept as a f orm of corporal punishment.. ..

A third ve ry interesting an d very accepta_ble aspect in t!1e pri�ciple•.if !1o t st ts fir th ich 1n wh er nn ma e th 1s , ted a i11 the form in wh ich er op en ha d be d re or ltu e cu or , m ed �c pl er gh hi is o wh e , Code within the just idea that on more favored by go od fortune is generally mo re guilty an� �u.st be more serio usly punished so that a true equality and a tempered JUd_1c1al . treatment op _ or 1t pr 11g k1 m a by lty na pe a e iz al du vi may di in • • • •

. be assured, has strained to tionate to the crime, the rank, the duties and the res ources of the cr1m1nal• . .. ! al d ec se Sp es pr ex ll e _ w a d te ea cr so al s ha 0 93 fin�liy, the Code of 1923-1 Part, setting its sights on the three great classic categories of pr o tected tn-

1: 1'

l I

I I

,'.

t 1

.. ' '

·,·•, I

•'.1

INTRODUCTION

s to 0 le ic 16 rt A , 2) 27 , II k rs oo pe (B on ity iv ct lle s (B k co d n e t St 1 1e t _ terests; s le ic �t , A IV 416 to 418). Oo _ k oo (B ty er op pr 1d a1 , 5) 41 l 27� ti r l ei na th h pe it w �y . es . itn cr l lta llS e th A Certa�� of t os m ��erei11 ��I; · e rv as se ts to in po le ab of en be e av J 1 de r,s sio · l rtu re, ov pa Pr Se · f 11 u1nber o ti 1e · t w ne f th o e d o f er nat e, s on 1s1 a ov pr e th r_ fo n iso ar rnp co U ura ' inspiratio11, or d d te a:1 ap ad d te l� . p _ . m to co t , ed ew he pres eJ vi re lly ca di ho et m en be havi11 s ou at vi th is ob 1s th it st r �1r f� 1ts . e1 transit ory em uir req l ica rid ju d an JJracti�al ted e:1 It �s pr ts. en ll ·em st� 111 qt _re rn de mo it su t 110 . too many d di on legislati t1c 11s ma th for and bo re 1d we r1g 1 11cl wl tem acc ording sys t ien ar,c tile of aes t· s h 419 suc ), as to 404 the es ticl _(Ar application ion dit tra l rsa ive u n t 1 ie, anc �i 1;�e the of ary se tom tho �us t? 1lar s1m s, feud al law rate 1 eir tl aiid s fine s iou var of 1g at11 of enu ext �nd aggr avating t1on 1cep co: l 1era ge1 the , 42) t to 52 es ticl (Ar . din pon res ger cor lon no g to an elab 1011 cat 1 tif1 jus a11d s use exc s 11ce sta tim circ nt exte the of u11t of_ a crime and acco a11 g J)i11 l<ee for e1n syst c iodi netl 1 e orat its pt111 isl1me11t (Artic1es 46 to 51, 145 and 15 I), or tl1e regulat10� of homici de and its 1Je11alty, sti)l partly based on the old. rule of agreement with t�e family of tl1e ,,ictim a11d fJay ment of blood mo11ey 111 case of excusable homicide. In tl1is sort of co111 JJromise bet\vee11 traditio11al pri11ciples \vl1ich still had a mark eel JJri,,ate cl1aracter a11d tl1e 11ecessity of 1·egulations and modern public order tl1ere \'{las a11 ele111e11t of per1Jlexity and of difficulties wl1ich had to disappear'.

1r��

. ' �;-...{.' ll ....' ' '

:;:.:

. : ' ·l

..j

' '

3. TIJe Corrcciio,1 of Gaps artd t!Je Complementary Legislatiori of ''Proclamations": Tl1e first cc�clificalir)11, st1r1nou11ti11g st1cl1 a sig11ificant, l1istorical step as that

'! . '; I

' I

I I

• I

. .I . I

." I ... ;1:I .: i ,,

fro111 t1·aditior1c1l a11d ct1sto1nary la\v to ,vriiten law, was not yet able to foresee ar,cl rer�t1late e\1 erytl1ir1g, and tl1at is ,�l1y it had to establish a11 elastic principle i 11 its pr,�lir11i r1ary j)rovisio11s. Em (Jl1asizing tl1e fact that in passing over to t lie 11e\'l j ttcl icial sy ste1r1 t1"1ere 'v1011ld be 110 lack of occasion for stumbling ii1to cases t1I1foresee 1 1 b}' tl1e law, tl1e Preamble specified tl1at it would be s11i!a.ble, i 1 1 c_leali11g _\'ijitl1 tl1ese cases, to apply o n tl1e one hand those rules w l11cl1 by tl1e1r \1tord111g covered tl1e case t111 der consideration (Article 11) and on tl1_e otl1er I1a11d, to l1ave e11tirely 11ew cases \Vl1ich \'(rere not covered by the wo!·d111g o_f exist}11g provisions decided by tl1e Su preme Court (Article 12}. Thrs solt1t1011, \Y11se e11 ou�l1 at that sta o·e of tl1e law a11d in accord with the teacliin�s of l1istory a11? tl;e reqt1ire1ne11t; of reaso11, \xras, 11eedless to say, to be revi_ewed _at tl1e t1r1�e of. tl1_e defi11itive codificatio11, si11ce it was not comp�tible �v1tl1. tl1e strict pr111c1ple of t11e ''legality' of i 11crimi11ations a�d JJenalties wl7 tcl1 1_s commoi1ly e1nboclied in exl1austiv codif nor wifb ns ica e tio tl,at of ''separatro11 of fJO\vers'' wl1ic)1 i 1 1 co w�itte n laws, u11 ha tri ve tl1a es t ! en�s to reserve .for t11e leg·i slator alo1�e tl1e forn,atio of tl1e law avoids n an d its for1nal ''JJretor1an'' creatio11 b)' tl1e judg an d ep , st e. on e Bu t on ly is tl w 1 as e Prean1_ble also br_?ug·l1t out very clearl)' tl1 at one must 11ot lose sight ?f ��e iie�ess ·tt e, e ity of rnal<tiig tl1e pe11al la,v l1ar1no11ize witl1 the conditio ns of his al l d by tlie JJrece1Jt of tl1e Tl, ree 1-1t1ndred Sages (Article s 2 and 5), f � � � an o t 1e act. tl1at ''tin1e 111arcl1es be ps . ste o1 1'' th (A at rti cl e 7) pr It oposed. . . ta ken very caut1ot1s1J,,I as e m h · e · n nt1o e t tz as . d re P of corpora_1 pt11_ 11sl11ne�t (Article 3, C b )' its dispositions regarding the the �e\V . P.), tl1e effects o f i norance of ts i vations (Articles 14 ff.), . the f o � e � ;� t m ! u ea m et ic o u � r jA�tic�� 5 ff. tm ;d and 15 9), and tl,e pt1111sl1ment 3 of insult, bodily harm homicide (Articles 27 3 I 33 9 alld 494 ff.). After the period o f tlie t n me h 15 of tl,e natior,al regin,e 11 \1 ta1.1 a11 occupation, and with the reestabl' d the 5, 1941, the Code was completed, penal, tl1e legislative a11d j .lv. f o fes d 1 1 a s ste y � was put to the test by a sea�r the ''proclamations'' or speci� aws a1

published in the

official joum

'. . ' ' : .\. :. ·':. ;,,-,:i' ··. ·•·: � ..: .... ' '.

. r ..

'. �,'/, ·:' 1' '1 . "'· ... .. '• ;� ... �

I :

." ·"� . .. ' i'

.·. ·· ,.l ·, . ' '. .

, ;

PENAL CODE OF ETHIOPIA

. Negarit Gazeta from 1942 to 1952. t. · · I11 ti 115 · way 011 e l1as stra1n ed

mee t, way best possible in tl1e ' tl,e mo 5 ttrrre11t n1od ern 11eeds·, ti 11s, · however, was • • inevitably detr1mental to tt1 e sin 1. c� t of tl1e syst�1n as a \Vl�ole a11d the consistency of tl1e applic able pri��t ;;s, aiid complicated considerably the knowledge and aJJplication of tl1 e fJ ertP .111e11t pe11a' l J)t·ovisio115 wt·t11out eve11 fu11y improving certai11 imp- ortai,t eraps. Tlltts, t 11 e Oe11eral. Part did not deal \vitl1 · c-' t he scope O f ti,e aJJJJ1tcatio� _o_f 11ational legislatio11 a11d conflicts ,vitl1 forei n pen a_l law, IJenal respoi,sib�lity a11d tl1e co11ditio11s a11d forms of uilt tTie special penal treat nt of m 111ors a11d. 1·ecid ivists, limitatio11 of tl1e pr�sec{1tion �� and ��ntence, 11or \'t 1tl1 tl1e probler11s 11n po rtai,t iii inode n- 1�,v, 0 f [ Ji..ObaLton, ,· cond1t1onal release and rel1a biIi tatioii ,.011ceivccl as m etl1o�s o e� a1 treat1n�1� t . In additio11, tl1e S 1Jecial Pnrt . of ll1e Code did n'ot r1egulate SLt fp.11c1en1.t-f y certa111 . .c /; as 1ose ti f o f.1e Ids, sue l1 , otfe 11ce s acra 111st tl1e Ja,v, 0 . . l 11at·10 11 S, IJ ll bl'1C ·1 il teres,: S . · . 6 · . 1 of Justice ' e tc) riP--=-lit s 111 { I1ea It l1, _co�11mu111cat 1011s1 adt111111strat101 1.; or. · . IJ -1 O[�JCJ_ .t,· economic interests. . 4. TIJe Directi·,:�s for t/Je l'.Je7.v J)en{il Co£le: Sucl1 \�r;as tl1e foundatio11 1-11JC)il �1cl1 as,,to e bt11lt a �e\v, co11�[Jlete �11d clear }Jenal Ia-::,· 1 11 ftccorcI \::;rit, 1 :d1r�ct1v �es re\�ealecl b)' -�I1s lill[Jt:r_ial_ Iv1aJ..esty� tl,e E 111 )f:�ror, it tl1 e OjJ ::ri�r1.g ; 1 ·' 1·0,., 011 i',i\,:,rc-·11 '" lf•()';�·1--:-l session of tl1e co11st1ltat1ve Con1Il1!SSIOI1 Tor f.i1e i1e·rq -b 1 g:>... 4 • • • • to

Y'i

1 -·• l"

• !l

- ·1 A (1.....

ri r.�.

.�r �.)'

1 ) _for tl1e metl1od to be follo,vecl, As t :vo {;Sse11tic1.1 jJri11ci1)1cs ,x1er t:: se1 -1:,:� as a guide a11d w·ere i·eaffirn1ed i11 tl1e l111j)erial PrefJ_<:e c,f tl1.e r1e,��· Ccr.le. lr\ :1 way, . altl1ot1gh Etl1iOJ)ia n1igl1t jt1stl3r cl�tiiTl. ' 1 \v!12t isl i-,crl1�\PS 1 :-.l1 r.: tf)ilgr:::s'.: standt?lg system o.f la\,;; i11 tl1e ,�:rorlcl tocla)',' ii1e Err11Jeror ol1ser\tec:.. \;f(,� 1��1-,,e ne\t·er l1esitated to adO[Jt tl1e best t11at (>tl1er S};ste111s of l;J·v/ c,1r1 ofic�r, ro :1-;e �xte11t tl1at tl1e)' res1Jo11d a11d ca11 be adatJied f{J tl1e geni11s of ot1r 1Jariict1l�tr 111s�itutio11s1 Tl1at wl1icl1 l1ad bee11 trlte i11 tl1e JJrefJarai.or�/ -,:<;or!( c)f (l1t c:011sti tut1on, was also · to be trtte for tl1e plai1S of tl1e ge11eral <.�odificai.iori. 1 -·11e � ppeal made to Europea11 jttrists for tl1e elaboratio11 of tl1e varioL1s cocle [)ro J ects. demonstrated tl1at Etl1io1Jia \va11ted a 111oder11 \VOrl<, in l(eepi11g ,;vitl1 the requ1reme11ts of n1oder11 scie11ce. But, 011 t11e otl1er l1a11ci, a11d tl1is is i11deed what must be understood \v'l1en s1Jeaki11g of adajJtatioi1 1 tl1e past an d experience must also k eep tl1eir Ja,x:s. ''T}1e poi11t of departttre n1ust re111a.in tl1e ge11ius of Ethiopian lega l traditio11s ar1d tl1e i11stitt1tio11s wl1icl1 l1ave origi11s of unparal leled antiquity a11d co11ti 11tiity." It w ould not be fitting sin1ply to COJJY foreig11 c?des� however good a11d famous the)' 1ni�l1t be, without co11sidering tl1e h1stor1cal an d political develofJme11 t of wl11cl1 they are the product or tl1e conditions an d customs for wl1icl1 tl1ey were 1nade, nor tl1ose often so totally different from the country for whicl1 tl1ey ar e inte11ded. •

•

elaborati11g a system of penal of n tio es qu a as w it e iz Therefore to sum1nar legislation which would be t�tally original a11d truly n_atj�� al, correspo11ding 1f rcem� nt s e1 of t1e 1l! 1b ss o p t l1e 1d a1 s ed � ne l ta o . vi ! th� tradition of justice, tl1e in this . country. This diffi c ult work of c ompl�te �enovat10� 1n keeping �1th the_ Et�1opian spirit, anim ated by the best co ntr1but1ons possible from f?re tgn leg1slat1ve expe rience, the method of work ado_pted� a11d t �e �oo� erat1? n of the Legislative Commission were to m ak e possible its real1zat1on 1 n spite of fore seeable obstacles. These were surmounted in a relatively rapid and, we trust, satisfactory m an ne r since the Commission, as well as the Parliament, con sidered that this adap'tation to Ethiopian realities and 11eeds had met the d emands of tradition and recetit progress, of the past and of the future. • • •

•

• • • •

. . .. .. .,. . ; .,•. . '. :. I. , . . '· :·. -: . .

....

. -.

I '.·

•I

\t ;i

INTRODUCTION

i e d l1 T ce re p · ss ng re g ro P m �o d an m on iti d ra T : of ta en _ n tio r lia ci on ec R /Je T 5 nal Code; tt is no l . Pe 1an op h1 Et e th . of lty ve no e tl, y es s · ug 11 to tndi'cate i s e 1 1o 1 n o ·ch _1 t ct·t· ·1 we I a I l r .av n e o �g a d 1e tl ecall . n r o s st re e e , d o 1 C is . th · , true tl1at �� t r sk I g tn n f o n ru tm l b ou h it w a it h it w ance or k a re b . ly re ti n t e o i1 and could lts e_ it su re qu o e )p at Of un rt o f_ d t1n se ve ha to the d ul co s hi T t. se ttp er at some re d \? ser�e . Tl1e first

... �, .( ·1 '' . ' .. . .

.� l- ;: ';· r-. . , :

j: :. : '

. ::

' '

. . . .. '

·'"'. .

•

' '

I I I I

I I ., i

1e �1 s1 ?e ssenti as w e al of od C e th h 1 ic l f. w ds benefi�al en t b , 1s o e_ ns p . to ap va 11o 1n bl tca its t e and ea gr r ve we ho , on ati isl a piece of leg it n:i ho 1s r w fo e � ad os m th . of As long ns _ ti? ic nv co e tl, to ry ra nt co not to run n, io at d rv an se e is ob th th e ad m eu 111 �embers sq te o� � is, Lo s de it ago as the Espr re tu e na tl1 d an e:" n qu k_ ll re we o wh irem ents n, io iss mm Co ive lat gis of tl,e Le n er 11c � co �s us ll 1 _ we is th � a _ �y ed id by the gu y 1tl 1 ta ns co re we y, r t· of th e coun d l e a11 na t1c tio na Jt1s of ut1l1ty could n tio ep nc co d un ofo pr 1 eir tl at wh stai ,dard of accept. _ ode set it�elf firmly in t_l1e patl1 . of the ''new con�ep_ts," AltI1ougI1 t11 e C 11oted i i, the Imper 1al Preface, 1n order_ !O attain_ the e11ds of ! t�e 11�w cr!mtn al policy, it did ,1ot a11d �o.uld 11ot s�r1�1ce the idea - deepl) 1ngra1ned 1_n the Ethiopia 1 1 mi1 1d arid trad1t1011 - of cr1m1_na� fault a11d, �eterrer1t an� expiato ry J)t111isJ1111e11t, simply beca11se of tl1e pr1nc1ples of social readaptatton and the te11de11cy io 111ake tl1e la\V systetnatically milder. . . 111 tl1e Etl1ior)ian coi1le:v.:t i.t would i11 particular l1a ve been an i11co11ceivable 1r1istal.;:e, a11cl even a11 i111fJOssibility, lo abolisl1 tl1e deatl1 pe 11alty at tl1 e present i:i 111e. rt is riot 011 I}' 11ecessary for social tJrotection, but is based 0 11 tl1e very <Jee1Jest feelir1gs or tl1e Etl1i<.1pia11 people for justice a11d for atonement: the (iestruc.tio11 of Ii f<::, tl1 e l1igl1est acl1ieve111ent of tl1e Creator, ca11 only be paid for b)i il1e sacrifice of tl1e iife of tl1e guilty perso11 .... CoTporal punishment (ftoggii1g), \vl1ose abolitio11 was already e11visaged by tl1e Code of 1930, is another exa1111)le of tl1e ,:onflict between traditio11 and ideas concer11ing pu11ishments.... .A.fter a great cleal of l1esitatio11 ancl discL1ssio11, it \vas tl,is traditio11al considera· tio11 tl1�t . e·ver1tually carried tl�e day before Parliame11 t wl1e11 a majority of the Com1111ss1011 l1ad previously been i11 favor of abolition. But wl1ile tl1e Code �f 1957 .reiains _carJital (JU 11isl1ment - always st1bject to Imperial ·confirma t1or1 -:- w1tl1 fl�gg111g as a �e�o11dary pu11 isl1me11t, it l1 as 11aturally taken great care 1 11_ regLtl�t1ng tl1e cond1t1ons whic11 provide botl1 fo r tl1e limitation of the cases 111 \vl11cl1 tl1e cot1rt can impose tl1e1n and for tt1eir executio11 u1 1der decer,t and l1 uma 1 1e co11ditio11s . . . . �thiopi_a11 traditio� is. also evident i11 tl1e fie Id of pecu11iary punisl1 ment, esp_ecially _in tl1e co�f1scat 1on of property, to a limited exte11t, in tl1e case of serio_ti� crimes aga111st tl1e Sovereig11 and tl1e State (Article 97), and in the f)rov1s1ons fo� tl1e payme 11t of compensat io,, f<Jr datnage caused to the injured partr., I-lere, it was necessary t_o take accou11t of tl,e a"1 cie 1 t private pa�ment 1 , 1 , of blood moi,ey, or pecu111ary re1Jaratio11, a pri cip wl conti nued l1a s 11 1ic le h dowi, to the presei,t day. Tl1ese passages sl1 ion from tra ns it ow l1o tl1e w cttstomary l_aw _ t o modern law l1 as bee11 carr nta l am e fu 11d ied a 110 ou \v t, a11d 011.cept of Just1 ce _ ca11. be i:eform ulated wl1ile 1-etai11i11g ge 1 1eral acceptance.The t�: 11� �!� o�; co,jtsc�tion, 1� order to safeguard tl,e n1ea11s of subsiste11ce of f d an 1115• family, and to pre e th on me nt vent tl,e least encroacl1 personi1. good5 of an 111nocent person, ol1 l cu 5f m l1a ve fr o be en di re ta ct 1 ke ly 1 11 m d y ll1 e writte11 law (for tl,ese were already present in A rtic!� s �; �� 3 � 1 � t 3 0/: Tliey are characteristic of tl1e sense of eq u�is ? which don�ii ,ate� ��fi� i i�a Jus i ce, an� 1 e_ p r9gr of tl tl1e for advan tages even , of modern law wh'ic1l ma y som f o on rat1 eti mes be gained from the insp1 a1 1cient solutio1,;.

.,: . . ..

PENAL CODE OF ETHIOPIA

Tl1e same can be said of several O · IO · ns r gu }�t111g t }1e prin�iple, the � . extent an? the ptlnisl1ment of i ndivid lt�r V�� lt. al t g to COOS1d } V t n 1o at er 1 i O ll� l <l r i 1 l i untary mistakes Of eXCLISable igt orat Ce O t e aw (Arttcl_e 78); !ack of intel ligence or understa11ding, previous o-ood 011 Ju t, 1°,�ty motive or sincere convic� tion, or repente!1ce immediately sll�\Vtl llie� o�fet1de1· as exte11t1ati11g cir cumstances (Article 79); a 11 ct perficly ai,d ?;a�� inotive, or tl1e_ abuse of a posi tion of power or privilege as ag rav;tiil. ct 1 �ttin a ces (Ar:trcle 81 ), are taken directly from Etl1iopia1 1 JJ ractice !lreacly � aiicttoi� e� gy law 111 tl1e Code of 1930 (Article 44 ff.), b trt I1ave beei, giver, ti;� 111 01 e abstract a11d ge11eral form suited to a moder11 syster11 of la'"'·

1 t

· · · [After a detailed descriptio11 of tl1e ne\v c de an.cl several of its 1n11ovat1ons, . f stateriierit co11cerning specific . Professor Orave11 1n akes tl, e foll O\Vltlg b 1_ie foreign sources of tl1e. C 0 ct �] ·· · · E very effort l1as been tnade to formulate . each precept 111ethod1call)', 1n a \xray \vl1 icli is easy t 0 gias1J d speak to so , a11 ' · · · I Lt ct·111g tecl111teal . or c 01111JI icated tei·in s . 1115 p1ra popuIar, wtthou t 111c · t·1011 1 ,as bee11 drawn f rom the metl,10 ds of B ellot' 111 tl1e Oe11evan cod"·1f1' cat·1o11 of t·11 e 1 ast cen tu ry, and O f Eugene Httber a11 d C_arl Stooss in tl1e n1ore rece11t S X'qiss Ci11ii an d p enal C odes. .. . [ foot11otes Oi111tted]. •

•

fll

•

MODERN ETHIOPI;.\ AND TiiE CODIFICATIO.t,f jc,l-Jl Grit'VeJJ • •

•

c,1::

I·rs I\iE1;yj· L1\- "\Xl2

•

�ie,, fi:{r.ct l(:!Q'et! The fou11dation of tl1e Pe11al Code \Vas l1ot, 111 fact, a si11i system such as tl1e French, Anglo-Saxor1 or Swiss. Certainly the Contine11tal syste1n , a11d its great fre11cl1 n1odel i11 f),1rtict1lar l1as been retained wi tl1 respect to ger1eral j 11riclical metl1ocl. <;,,

•

ey derived t tl1 tl1a on ati pir i11s tl1e d a11 rts pe ex of p ...Also, tl1e grou ll1e e 011 nc lt1e i11f le rab ide ns co d l1a vs la\ l na tio 11a from u11derstanding tl1eir ow11 new Ethiopian legislation.Tl1e most 1noder11 codes a11d projects wl1icl1 are rs l1e 1g ot o1 am r1 lia Ita d an 1 1a1 rn Oe , iss Sw e tl1 st generally considered th e be . 11s tio lt1 so 1d a1 11s io st ge 1g st s ou er m nu were precious so ur ce s [Jroviding

3 N IO S S \I llv lv 0 C N IO T A IC IF D O C L IA R E P IM E NOTES Of TJ-I

ed d n u is fo ) 7) 5 I 9 ( ia p o 1i tl E . f o e d o C M. Graven stated that it [tl1e Penal es d er co ld o 11 o 1J u ed as b s 11 0 t1 es g ig st upon a modern a11d continental base bttt t 11o o d y 1e tl if ly 11 0 n o ti ra e d si or A n glo-Sa xon codes will b e take11 'i11 to co11 ed iz 11 g co re is s es ln u ef is t r ei th if d an run counter to tile adopted systein .. . by all. s e rc u l a so 11 o ti a 11 e rs e iv d e th g • M.Graven further responded ... by citin e th ll a 1d a1 0 3 19 f o e � o C \V h he has used. Tile fetlia Negast, tl1e Pe�al d 11 a re a c st c te ht . a re g 1e tl h it w d 1e 11 Negar1t Oazeta Proclamatiotis 11ave b e e n exa1n taken into nside tion e a c h time that it was possible to do so. ra co '

2. 72 R� rtnal n, S'4isse 404 ( l 957).

3 · Proce t-verbal of Ma 28, 1954 and November 24, 1954, PP· 18, 35· y

i l ' '

I '

.•

,., · iI:-•••.

:,' . ' .. '...,,

,..

' •.

INTRODUCTION

Questions

:lt... .l r:• ';

1•

" •

' "

'.; ' .'' ' '.> ..' '..' :·�... '•: ' ' ,'

.•

. .. . .1'',

�-': '

e P. <;:- E. _of 1957 h el� in understa th of s ce r u so ndi n In what ways do the t st l in a ca po on ? nd st h1 an t om ha fr W nt ta r po im valu e� ey th the Code? Are there in legal history? ed a consi_d �rable _ r ole in !'-y pl ve ha to m e se s e c the Which Ethiopian sour n to prov1s1o s tn the Cod t 111 po u yo 1 a1 C e? od C w ne e drafti11g of tl1e es ? so ur c tl1 es e to ta bl e at tr ib u directly em to ha ve �een relie d se an 1Ji _ o l1i Et or n ig re upon fo _ Wllich sources r ate e gre anc of reli ues val upo tive rela n either tl1e ·e 1 a at w1, ? vily hea most foreign oi EthioJJian sources? d on de up a tt� o f_ t no gle sin s wa de �o foreign tl1:e . t tha tes sta r fte dra e Th sottrce.from your exam1nat1on of tl1� Etl11op1an and_ Swiss Penal Codes (Appeiidix) to \vl1at e�{tent do you �l11nl< t�at tl1e primary source of the General Pait of tl1e P. C. E.\Y1as Swiss? It 1s known that the Yugoslav Penal 1.:ocie of 1951 "'as tl1e model \Vitl1 res1)ect to military offenses.Aside from the (:011ti11ei1tal C:odes (Fre11cl1, 181 O; German, 1870; Italian, 1930), it has been sta1ecl tl1at t\1e Orcel( (1950) a11d Brazilia11 (1940) Codes (also inspired by the :;·l!:riss} I1ave: bee11 co11s11ltecl.Cri111i11al procedttre, it must be remembered is closer ,to t)1e comi11011 la\Y/ tl1�ln it is to tl1at of tl1e Co11tinent, see Graven '•Jc�rs t111 i'·--Iou·,1ea'i1 Droit Penal Etl1iopie11 ... at p. 267 (recommended r,ea,:�i11gs ir1{;-ct). Do yoLl tl1i11l< tl,at tl1e use o-f common law procedure with �1. cc,11il11(!11tali:,1 i 11 spired peI1al code is lil{el)' to cause difficulty? 0 f\\.t �..!::!r··1-n·u

·�'' ... -

!f})

:Lll <•

Lif;:o " ��M :.�

OF THE CODE

l\JOTES 01::- 'Ti-lE IlvlPER11\L CODIFICATION COMMISSION4

I .,I ' '

, . !he drafter p_re!ers to see the Comn1ission adopt a bipartite division. T hi s d1 v1s1on p�es�11ts ��1me:1se advantages in its si1n1)licity and furtl1er corres _po� ds not _o_nly t� tl1e.t1�nd 1n moder11 p enal legislation, but also to the sub1ect1v e tr�d!tion or Ethiopian la\v (tl1e Code of 1930 did not disti11guish felonies from m1saemeanors). ,I I

• • • •

THE PENAL CODE Of T liE Elv\PIRE O F ETHIOPIA5 Jea11 Grave11

n tl le �'' on e h� vi iid sio , ab an di d on in g tl rt 1e ite famo.us I1istorical ''t. ri pa of offo ences according to thetr tS· · sup1Josedly different m nies, felo 11atures, into · hro . demeanors and t off nces, the n ew Ethiopian law has deliberately enJ J1 ed the identity � re of )he e � al n off e en ces,. retained in the P C� iptes o f them simply can�d �f¥ence , rin �h lll p d an l era e en th l g un i e ty th of al ehe which are ap plicable t O them. ()n tl1 e o m fr 1er ed otl ach det d, han has it he nor t t mi forma l and pe y o fences, wl1icl1 form the subject matte r 1:eren t Code o f Petty ·ft ences· � ! ere he natural disti11ction between evidently d 1 o

�f !f

'4. 5.

Proces-verbal of May 7 1954, p. 11 . ' Graven, Intro, op. cit· at p· 24'· E.ng lish translation I ]. Eth. L . 285 ( 1964 ). .

PENAL CODE OF ETHIOPIA

· fields is i11st antly perceptible, si11ce Jett O ffendei.s · · do t no te 1n 1ca ral ne 1nd a ge _ Y r · . t1s ero cl1aracter they ai � n? t dtsl,oi,ottrable really dang a11d are sent before trib t1nals wl,ose p;·ocedt re ts s 1 m Jler disti11ct 11d er. ift sw But tl1e t111ity of � 1 t method a11d inspiration, as well _ a s tl�e. coni,ect 1 o11s bet their structure1 principles and d tsposttion, are asSLtredwee11 the t\vo parts in by fac tl1e tl1a t all t · b ro are s t1g nce offe . - l,t t oo · c-etli er 1n tl1e san1e law a11d . de a o a It · 11 ·t f \X'l 1 as pat s s111gle overall JJtcture . . . . THE TiiREE fUNDAl\t1ENTAL ASPECTS Of CR IMINAL LAW6 Jero,ne !-}all

· I · Tl1e great problem tl1'at ma11k . 1 11ct f aces 1s t 1e question \vl1etl1er tl1e rational methods _ of a jtist legal order will prevail over the bli 11 d forces of do111inatioi1 and pass1011- If the gap bet\vee11 tl1e discoveries of scie11ce a11d our k 11owledae of how to C<? 1 1trol l1t1man e111otions a11d a111bitio11s is to be closed tl 1 at ch�l Ienge - �o discover ratio11al, jt1st a11d fJeacefttl ways of solvi11a tl{e jJroblerns of ma11k1nd -must be met by tl1e legal professio11. \Xll1at I want bto do is discuss a smal_l segme11t of legal scie11ce to indicate tl1e l<i11d ot tl1 i11l<i11g tl1at may l1ei 1J to achieve tl1�t g_oal. I sl1all �se very bro�d strokes to fill ir1 a large !Jiclt1re, a]tl1?t1gh I w1sl1 it were IJ�ss1ble t o exar11111e tl1e valiclity of eacl1 step bc1t tl1at obviously can11ot be d?ne 111 a short pa1Jer sucl1 as tl·1is. I tl1i11l< it preferalJle to present tl1e large picture, the large fra111eworl<, to i11dicate tl1e ge11eral scl1eme of thought. I apfJroacl1 any field of law from a tl1reefold perspective. Tl1erc is first, tl1e formal or logical apJJroacl1 -tl1e orga11izatio11al aspect of a scie11ce its ra tional structt1re, which mal<es pl1ysics, for exan1ple, a11 orga11ized bocly of knowledge. We l1ave that l<ind of k110\Y1ledge in the la\xr since 011e of its znajor characteristics is t he structural one, tl1e systernatic side of any body of la\v ... •

Tl1e penal codes, stemming from the Oer111an and tl1e frer1cl1 Per1 al Codes, had their orig.in i11 the Code Penal of 1810. In tl1ose codes tl1ere are two IJarts, the general part and t11e special part , a11d that pattern l1as been widely followed. l 1 1 place of tl1a t classificat�on I suggest a threefold division. I retai11 the special part just as do tl1 e above codes. I sl1all 11ot say anything- about the SjJ_ecial par t except tha t it sta t es the distinctive prOJJer ties of . tl1e vari�us crimes. But witl1 reference t o the general part, I tl11nl< there 1s room 1or improvement on the European _ pla11. I divide the g�11eral part i11 to t\vO d_ivisions which I call doctrines an d principles. By doct�1nes I n1�a11 �ucl1 no�1ons. as �hose concer11i11g mistake of fact a11d law, �ecess1t y, coerc1011, 111fa11 cy, 1nsan1ty, 1�toxicaticr1, solicitat ion, attemp t an d co11sp1racy._ 111 order t o_ l1ave the s_ubstan t1ve criminal law fully defined one need? to unite the special part w1t_l1 tl1e doctrines. Haviiig done so , and no t 11nt1l one I1 as d_one t l1at, _ 01:e <:1er1ves a complete definition of each crime. l11 sttm, eacl1 cr1111e l1as d1st111ct1ve_ char acterist ics stated in th e specific par t, and ge11eral as1Jects statecl 1n th.doctrines nd e u _ to ce o er y_ as . Th �s rin ct d<? an th ns i? at li� ra ne ge . Principles ai·e broader a higher level of ab s tract ion a11d, v1ew1ng the f1!s1on of !l1e spec1f1c part an_d the doctrines, yott ask: wha t are the common ideas wh1cl1 run through this 6·

In Mueller, Essays in Crimin11l Science 159-162 (l96l).

INTRODUCTION

. . "

...

.... . ' ' , t. \

, •' : .I

,.,,: J

' •.: • ! .;: ·:,

:: . j . '.,I .

.., ,

. ., ·'

t, is es t a , gg tl1 su th , I_ e :e are se er w s 1_ 1 a l1e T ? w la l 1a 1 1i i11 ve n of cr . ld fie le l1o \V and meate unify pei tl11s . wl1icl1 br es aiich 0f Jriricipl ' 1 , . e i. s, ea 1 I ·ct ft111da 1ne11ta ) , 4 o ' e ns rea, ( 5) _ the co11c ff r t) me ac t ' ( ) 3 , rm l1a ( (2) ty, ali leg urlaw. Tl,e)' are (1) co1 1duct, (6) causation ' tllat tl1e form to act tl,e '¥. ' t. t li ea i· s , rence of ti1e 1ne11.s r 11 d tI,� I1 ar�1 , a11 d (7). tl1e p uniti a t uc 11d co e tl1 11 ee t\v be . ve �l causal relatio11sl1i1J les c1p 1n ste JJr ba 11 h ve 11c se wl e tl1 e comprise ar e ies Tl i,. tio i,c sa e tli i,attire of · . . . ' \v la l 1a 1 i im cr 1e tl of 11 io at tl,e fot111d .

. .

11al law is ex1Jressed i1 1 terms of certain �11i cri tl1e of ure Ltct str . In SLtr,,, les al ru eci tl1e (sp to 1p sl1 oi1 part) and the ati rel ite fin de a ar be , IJrii,ciples \Vllicl cioctri11es of cri 111 i11al la\X'. "

tl 1e

Tlie above scl1e1ne l1as certai11 adva11tages. I 11 t!1e first JJlace, tl1e European ge,,eral part is 11 ot clerived fro111 \Vl1at is essential i11 eac}1 crin1e, but. co11ce rns Jaws wl1icl1 for 011e reaso11 or a11otl1er, apfJl}' ge11eral ly to eacl, crime. For exarnple, jt1:-isdictio11 is listec.l i11 tl1� E.11rOJJea11 ge.11eral pa�t, bt1 t wl1ile jurisdiction co11cer11s al I cri n1es, it is 11ot cler1ved fro111 tl1e1 r essent 1al eleme1 1ts.

Tl1e EL1ro1)ea11 scl1i::111e also fails to disti11gt1isl1 doclri11es from principles. f.:3til cl l)ctrir1cs cliffer fr )111 pri11ciples in very i111porta11t \X'a)'S. for exa1nple, the doctri11e tl11t ,tr1 i11sa11e JJerso11 cloes 11ot co111111it a cri111e because l1e lacks the 11ece��:1r); ca1:,acit�i1 is �.itr�ly ,1 differe11t l<ii1d of generalizatio11 from the require111e11t tl1rtl tl1f:re 11111st be a 111e11s reci i11 every crime, tl1at tl1ere 111t1st be a l11r1n a11tl S(> cirl. 1·i,e s1)ecificatio11 t1f i11sa11ity as a qttalificatio11 of the special J);trl f�<j�S le) l\1<: clefi11itio11 of a cri111e; it is esse11tial to tl1e correct legal defi11itio11 of tl1e �1,ecific cri111r:s.B11t 1)ri11cirJles are r11t1cl1 broader 11otio11s \\!hich, as sl:1ted, ir1cl11de (loctrir1es; a11c .l tl-1ey' ma11 also be vie\'i;!ecl as stai1di11g otitside tl1e J)Ositi\·c · la'\v of crirnes, ser\,i11g as clescri1Jtive JJropositions of a crii11inal scie11ce. -r11L1s, 111y secc>11cl criticis111 of ll1e Et1ro1Jea1 1 scl1e111e is tl,at it lumps cloctri11es a11cl J)rir1cirJies i11cli�cri111i11ately i11 \Vl1at is called tl1e ''ge11eral IJart". �11cl, of_ cot1rsc it follo\vs, i_ f tl1is criticis111 of tl1e Et1ro1Jea11 scl1e111e is ,,alid, that it l1a11d1car)s tl1e co11struct1on of a scie11ce of cri111i1 1al law. It does S(> because it is riot li111iled to tl1e esse11tial cl1aracteristics of crimes a11d cri1ni11al law but ii1trocluces ext1:a11_c..:ous 111atlers, co11fuses doctri11es \\!itl1 pri11ciples a11� so, it see111s tL) 11-le, 1l 1s 11ot a11 acieqt1ate tl1el)r.>' leadi11(r to ,1 scie11ce of cri1n1nal law. 011e sl10�1l� 11ot be stirprised tl1at tl1e EL1roJ)ea11 cscl1e111e I1as so111e litnitations b�.c�L!se 1t 1s at least as o�d as ll1e fre11cl1 Code of 1810.St1rely after 150 )'ears c11t1c1s1n <)f tl1al tl1eory \x,111 11ot be tl1ot1gl1 t rasl1• 1

. .

I .• 1' '

I I '

•

If sorn� ii,si�l1t i11 lo tl1e for111al side, tlie arcl1itect11re, of tl1e crimin al la\v lias beei, gi \'e11, il 11eecl 011 ly be adcl eel tl1at tl1is l1a f)ract for ce rta n im po s ical tlie la\x, er _ becaLise lie ca11not l)e fa1T1iliar ,vi e wl1 ol tl1e in cri t\1 me ev ery � I le 11.1 ay catalogtie. 11cver l1ave I·1acl ar1y occasioi1 i1 1 la\X' school or elsewl1er_e to Sittcl)' t_l,e cr1111e of �ot1�1terfeiti11g or if _ Bu t es. tre as or 1 or 111 1 1 , otl,er crim a oiie tiiider5laiids tl1e _ 1Jr111c11Jles of cri111i11 l wi t1 k ,vo r al. la\v oi1e l1as) tl1e tools to a11cl to analyze a11y cri1ne · If I·1e i1as t1 · ant lev re 1e 11s eqLt11)1 11e1'1t lie ca1'1 ask, wl1at 1s : t I . . · Clltal state Ill tllJS Crltlle, \'(i}1at is l}1e l1artll \X'}1a t COtldllCt is required what abO�: �r1e " co11ct1_rre11ce of tl1e 111e11tal side witl1 tl1e' act ern:11 p s �i pl e pr i11 T l1e a1 1d so 01 · 1 ' a nd reqt11re 011e to asl·\ tlie cot.rec . e, . urs c f · o t , o qt 1 est1 011s ab ou t eacl1 crime. A1 1d _ · f ti a e[��a t�� 0� tl is for constructing a sc ence o c i f r( m n i ��nca:n::d, �11 � l y o ?Ol< at_ a11y book of pll}'Sics to real1ze_ t� i1 :0:) e of the lJro ress i11 I,e J ys os a th f 1ca � l � I sc 1 s e11 ce o s fo rm is al dt 1e tl, to e ide l1emat scie11ces . rffe laws o l1ysics ar : organ_ized i11to a system so tl1at a ma� ·atta.i11 i x ical pl1ysicist, for ' e a Pl e, 11eve1 goes into a laboratory. We shall neve

.• '

. . . '. .

·'

'$- ,

•:

PENAL CODE O F ETHIOPIA

any such rigorous organization of criminal law, but that objective is none�heless important. ,

Questions

Before a11swering the f?ll owing questio11s carefully examine the Table of _ _ Con!e11ts of . the P. C. E., g1v1ng s1Jec1al atte11tion to Book Title' Cl1apter and ' Section l1ead1ngs. I. Wl1at is the relatio11�l1ip � et:<'een tl1e Code of Petty Offe11ces a11d the P�nal Code? Wl1at article w1th111 tl1e Code of Petty Offences discloses tl1e difference b�t,x,eet1 _a p�tty �ff�1�ce a11d a11 ordi11ary offence? Wl1y not l1ave three codes 111 a tr1parttte dt v1s1on? \Vl1y 11ot a single code? 2. Why does the Penal Code of Etl1iopia l1ave both a Oe11eral a11d a Special Part? Wl1at are tl1e ft111ctio11s of each part? 3. What is tl1e relatio11sl1i p bet\veen tl1e s1Jecific definitio11 of a crime (SJJecial Part) and the broader principles gover11ing pena.l law (General Part)? for instance, consider tl1e relationsl1i p bet"·�en Art. 630 a11d Arts. 26 a11d 58. May Special Part articles co11tain exce1Jtio11s to pririciples establislied i11 tl1e Oe11eral Part? 4. Is it important, as Hall mai11tains (1J. 66), to disti11gL1isi1 prir1cip'te�; fro,1-1 doctrines? Are tl1ey easily sepa.rable ? Consider t]1is cor1te:1liori: All potentially cri n1i nal behavior should lJe exatnine;d i11 rel at ic)11 io eacl1 of Hall's tl1ree tl1eoretical grot1pi11gs: pri11ci pies, doctri11r.:s ;�i1d spec1{-ic definitions (elements of fJart ictilar crirnes). To fi11d crir11 inf'll liability eacl1 of f-lall's seve11 basic pri11ciples J)lt1s eacl1 of tl,e specific defining ele111e11ts of il1e crin1es 1n 11st be present wl1iie tl1e doctri!1es (primarily irresponsibility, Arts. 48-56 and tt1e defenses Arts. 64-78) must be absent. 5. What are the implications of the last paragrapl1 of Hall's excerpt for legal education ?

' I

I ,

I·

Recommended Readings

Graven Introduction1 Le Code Penal De l'Empire D'Ethiopie (Centre fran�ais de Dr�it Compare 1959)· Amharic and Englisl1 tra11slatio11, I.]. Et/1. L. 207-298 ( 1964) (the best and �ost comprel1e11sive statem�nt by the drafter as to the sources, theory an d spirit of tl1e Penal CodeJ. Graven Vers un Nouveau Droit Penal Ethiopien: de la plus Ancienne a la Pl�s Recente L�gislation du Monde, 8 Revue In�ernatio�2ale de_ Cr[mi:10/ogie et de Police Technique 250-280 (1954) (comprehensive article quite s1m1lar to the Introduction to the Code Penal supra). Graven L'Ethiopie Moderne et la Codification du Nouveau Droit, 72 Revi,e Pe� al Suisse 397-407 (1957) (short statement concerning the background and period of codification of the Penal Code). Graven, De l' Antique au Nouveau Droit Penal Ethiopien, Oct. 18 � 30, 1954 La Vie J11diciare 445-446.

\' ' '

'·

' '

INTRODUCTION

n e la t d er ic od ol P M 14 e u (M 9 ev R , n ar ie p io ch th E l a en P e d o C u a e v s s t fe a ro h r P w o Hilgert, Le Nou to h c v u ra m G e d n d a h as t o n s e o d le ic rt a is h (t ) April, 1961 ). e d o C e th g in n r 7 already said conce s t ff E t s e s e l a e en P e d o 3 C u f R d s n o ti c a r In s e d n o ti a c fi n o ti f a o Graven, La Classi ic �n if s ff s o la e c th s· f se o "' "' n io ' s n. s b. u c is d d o o (g ) 8 5 9 1 ( Penal Suisse 1 ). ia p io th E g in n r e c n o c 1 pp. 34-4 re o ical statement con. e th ad o � r (b ? -2 11 w a L l a i m �i C · of :z es l p ci 11 ri P l ra e e1 G i liall, n ir a e d rg th n o n a o ti w ! za la l a in tn m n c a f o s le p ct n n p l ta n e m a d n fu cernmg code). .. ... .'.

.· : I

.. '

: ,:

. !

. � .. ;

;

:. i

. .' ' .' '

. �. . .

Part II ANALYSIS OF TI-IE THEORETICP� B/-1SIS OF PENAL LAW

WITH SPECIFIC REFER.EI\TCE TO OF HOMICIDE . ·-� " -R ·-' I '· �-

/• .,_

:' •1.

,. ,1.·�\. !. \..

.n.

" j'"

;

. r, �:

! ,!

( 1: '

.. .- ,. ..... · . � . .. . . ' . .. ·::,. _.; ' .:: '.. >.:'...:-. .:'.... ·:;. . .: ,. :. : ·...· . ·'· ' .

(•

•

CHAPTER 6

t r l a a P r e n e G e h t o t n Introductio SECTION A. THE CRIMINAL ACT AND CRIMINAL GUilT: PREREQUISITES TO LIABILITY

THREE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY 1 Paul Logoz ( Continental Law)

Ti1ree essential conditions 1nust be realized in order to constitute a crim iI1al offense: a) �fl1e offense must be the manifestation of hu1!7a_11 activity and this_ act!v ity musi be prescribed by law.... The l1uman act1v1ty may also be 1nact1v ity as triere are crimes of con1missio11 and those of omissio11. b) Or1ly tl1ose acts \Vl1icl1 are coi1.trary to law rnay constitute offenses.

c) Eve11 whe:11 tl1e first t'\vO conditions are realized, tl1ere \):rill not be an offe11se unless there is guilt (i11 tl1e for1n of i11tention or, in certain cases, in the form of 11eglige11ce). . . .

I . I

THE CRIMINAL ACT AND CRIMINAL OUIL T2 Glanville Williams (Common Law)

!he necessity {o r_ an act: The cl1i�f problems i11 the general part of crimin al law pertain to tl1e requirement of a cr1m1nal state of mind mens rea· but thes e

can11ot be adequately discussed witl1out a preliminary e�ploration �f the nature of an actus reus. . . Tha� crime requ�res an act is i11variably true if the proposition be read as meaning tha� a private tl1ougl1t is not sufficient to found responsibility. Shakespeare s lines express sou11d legal doctrine: ''His acts did 11ot 01 ertake his bad intent· And must be buried but as an intent That perish'd by tl1e way: thoughts are no subjects 1 Intents but merely thoughts.'' 1

1. Logoz, Commentaire dH Code Penal Suisse 30. 2. Williams, Criminal !.Aw 1, 30.

INTRODUCTION

''So long as an act rests i n bare i11te ntion '' sa id Lord Mansfield ''i t , is 1> < ot ' by ir ab la le 1 w l s' '; s pu and tl1is i s so eve n tl�ougl the i11te11tion be not ni ve d by the confession of tl1 e pro 1tly 1 da bur i accttsed. a It is w o_rth p�usi ng to iriquir� into tl1e reaso11 for tl1s ru le. A reaso11 c mmo11I Y g_1 ve n is th e s u p osed 1111po�sibility of J�ovi11g � 111ental state . ''A , , sa Black5lo e }; � I id ri , catinot _pt1n1sl1 for \Vl1 at 1 t can11 ct k11ow."<2> So als tr1bu11al, o tli ''T ot tgl1t of mar,. 1s 11 ot triable I for tl1e de,il l1 imself i<11 owet l,e Bria1 1 C. J.: l1 . B B ') (" ut r1a11 was SJJeal<i11g of a11 i1 te11t 11ot declared not tl1e t I 1ot1 g1 1 t of man .'' in \Xlords or cor1dt1ct, an _ d _on an�tl1er occa�io11 lie recogniz€d tl1at inte1 1t can be inferred from acts. S1m1 larly, 1 t can be 111ferred from a co11 fessio11 . Iie11ce it is 11 ot tr u e to say, tl1 at i1 1te1 1t ca1111 ot be tried. Better reaio11 s for tl1e rt1le \'\'OUI� be. ( 1) tl1e clifficttlty of di�ti11gt1 isl·1 i11g betwee11 day-dream a11d fixed i1 1te11t101 1 111 tl1e abse11 ce of beha v1 ot1r te11di110- towards ti,� crime inte11ded and (2) tl1e ttndesirabi 1 ity of spread i11g tl1 e �-imi11 al la.\x, so wide as to cove� a me11 tal state that t 1 1 e acct1sed 11 1igh t be too irresolute �ven to beai n to translate into actio1 1. Tl1 ere ca11 l1ardly' be a11 )!011e ,vl10 l1as ,ever tl1ot1?'l�t evil. Wl1en a desire is i11l1ibited it 111 ay find exJress io11 i 11 fa11tasr; bt1 t it ,v� u ld be 1 abst1rd to condemn tl1is r1att1 ral psycl1 ological n1ecl1a1 1isrn as illegal. Nczture of t!Je req1,,ire1ne1 1t of n1e11s rea: Tl1ere is 11 0 r1eed l1ere to go into tl1e remote l1 istory of 1ne11s re",; st1ffice it to Sa)' tl1at the req1ireme11t of a guilty' state of 1 nincl (at least for tl1 e 1nore serioL1s cri111es) had b�en cleveloped b)r tl1 e ti1ne of Coke, \vl1 icl1 is as far bacl< as tl1e 111oderr1 la\xyer 11 eeds to go. "If 011e sl1oot at a11 y ,vilcl fo\vl t1 po11 a tree, arid tl1 e arro\v l<illetl1 a11y reason able creature afar off, witl1out a11y e vil inte11 t i 11 I1 ir11, tl1 is i: per infor lt1rzi1,{.1n."(·1> It may be said tl1at any tl1 eory of cri1ni1 1al pt111isl1 _me11t leads to a re_gt1ire mer1t of so111 e l<ind of ;neris reti. Tl·1e c!eterre11t tl1eor)' 1s \Y/CTl<able 011l)i 1f tl1 e culprit !1as k11 0\vl.eclge of tl1 e legal sar1ctio11s; a11d if a 11:a11 does _ 11.ot_ foresee tl1e co1 1sec1ue11 ce of l1is act lie ca11 11ot apJJreciate tl1at fJL1 111sl1111e11t l1e_s 1�1 store for l1irn if he cloes it. Tl1e retribt1tive tl1eor)' 1JrestlfJfJOses 11oral gt11lt; 111�a1Jac itatio1 1 SUfJfJOses s_ocial da1 1ger; a11d tl1 e refor1T1ati,1 e ain1 is ot1t of !)lace 1.f tl1e offender's sense of values is 1 1ot ,x,arped. .J

•

\'1'hat, the n, does legal men s rea mea1 1?. It refers to tie n1ental eler:ne11�

1 " ) 11a 1 1t 11e 1 ele l nta 11e 1 s 1 tl1 _ l)� e1tl1 e1 necessary' for tl1 e JJarticL1 lar crime, 1 in sor:ne 0 e 11c q.1e 1se 1 �0 e tl1 t 1 ot ab g 11 i br or t io ac te ent int n to do tl1 e i111media � crimes) r ckless12ess as to su ch act or --conseqt1e11ce. 11 1 d1fferert aiid inoi e f?re�is: lang L1aae 1nens rea means i1 1te11 tion or recl<less1 1ess as to tlie el�mer,:s nst�tut11�0 0 ' e) 1 ie c 10 1 ,, es s11 les cl< re d 11 a 1 1 tio 1 1 te e 1 th act%s s. T l1e se two co11cepts, i1 the understanding of a large part of cri1 11 inal Ia,v. · · ·

a11 cl

�f

reu

Questions

1. 2·

· · I ac t an cl cri111i1 1al gt1i t exist i1 1 Etl1iopia? Do the reqt1ire rne1 1ts of a criniina , 1 icl1 is l \v 11 io it iid m l ia iit se s e d 1 We l1a v e already clisct1ssed Logoz seco1 embodied in Art. 2 P. C. E. , n1a11 a l1 is n u J e \V ld tt o 1 1 s 1 s? m y ii o ii sy Are tl1e \Xi'Ords ''act'' and ''actus reus ,

(l) Scofielcl (1784) Cald. 402.

( 2) Comm. iv 21. (J) Y. B. (1477) P. 17 E. 4. 2a, pl. 2. (4) Coke, Institutes iii 56 -(1628).

THE GENERAL PART

intended to commit a

es that ss e f n co e h , d e t ac ot n if, although h e has crime? . ere be�t er words that _could th re . ft ? e t no e d a re What does lhe word mens . nt go n de pu c! ac u� a� he s s 1_ e do d? hy W t? ep nc co is th s es pr ex to be used al of n 1n 1o 1m us cr cl 1n e te th in n t t or pp su t en 1m s1 ni pu of ns tio nc th Do e fu within the Penal Code?

SIECilON 80 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN THE CRIMINAL ACT

AND CRIMINAL GUilT

THABO MELI v. REGINA

J,�dicial Committee, Privy Council, 1 All Eng. Rep. 373 (1954_)

•

The judgment of their Lord�hips was deliv ered by L�rd Reid. The fo_ur appellants in t l1is case were convicted. of murd er after a t r ial before H arrag1n, J ., in the Higl1 Court of Basutoland, 1n Marcl1, 1953. . . . It is established b)' evider1ce, wl1ich was believed and which is a1Jpareritly credible, tl,at tl1e re \Y1as a preconceived plot on th� par:t of the four accus ed to bri11g· tl1e deceased mar1 to a hut and tl1ere to kill l11 ; and_ then ,or their act. to falce an accident, so that tl1e accus ed s l,ould escape the penalty � The deceased ma11 \Vas brougl1t to the l1ut. lie '\Y1as there treated to beer and \vas at least partially intoxicated; and lie was then struck over the head in accorda11ce \v1itl1 the J)!a11 of tl1e accused. There is 110 e,,idence that the accus ed tl,en believed t l1at he was dead, but their Lordships are prepared to assume that they did; and it is only on that asst1mptio11 that any statable case ran be made for this appeal. The accu�ed tool< out tl1e body, rolled it over a ,v,x,, krantz or cliff, and dressed up the scene to rnal<e it look Iil<e an accide11t. Obviously tl1ey believed at that time that tl1e ma11 was dead, but it appears from the medical evidence that tl1e injuries wl1icl1 he received in the l1ut were 11ot sufficient to cause the death and that the fi11a l cause of l1is death \Xtas expos u re where he was left at the foot of the lcrantz. !he point of la\v1 wl1ich was raised in this case can be simply stat�d. It . 1s said t l1at two act s were n�cessary a 1 1d w ere separable: first, t he attack 1 n the l1ut_; a11d, s �condly, the placing �f tl,e body outside afterwards. It is said that, ,�h1 le the firs t act was accompanied by mens rea it was not the cause of death; but that tl1e seco,,d act, wl1ile it was tl,e cause �f death was 110t accompanied by me11s rea; and 011 tl1at ground it is said tl,at the accused are not guilt y of any crime except perhaps culpable homicide. . It �Pl)e�rs t<;> tl1eir Lordship s i1n1)ossible to divide up what was really one transaction. 1 n this way. T!1ere is no doubt that t he accused se t out to do a_ll these act s 1n _order to acl11eve tl1eir pl a1 1 and as J)arts of tlleir plan; and it 1s muc_h too ref1n�d a ground of judgment to say that, because they were under a � 1s apprehens 10� at one _s tage and tliougl 1 t that thei r guilty purpose }1ad been !he pe . a sc e fact ach 1 ev_ed before 1n . 1t was achieved, therefore they are tomatter wh ich pe11alt1es o_f tl1e law. Tl1e1r . Lordships do not tl1ink tl,at tl,is is a uth So in 1s s_ usceptible of elabo ra�10 1 1. Tl1ere appears to be no case either nt e pre e 1 t s . Af rica o r England , or for th at matter elsewhere, which resembles J 1

•

------ - - --�- - ---------

INTRODUCTION

Their Lordships can . find no difference relevant to the present case between the law of South Africa and the law of . E�gland, and tl1ey are of - opinio11 that by both laws there could �e no separation such as thai. for wl1ich the accused contend, as to reduce tl1e cr1m_e from mur?er to a lesser critne, merely because the accuse? w�re. under some m1sapprehens1on for a tin1e during the completion of their criminal plot. Their Lordships must, therefore l1umbly advise lier Majesty that this ' appeal should be dismissed.

PALANI GOUNDAN v. EMPEROR3 1920 Madras 862 India

... Tl1e accused struck his wife a blow on her head witl1 a plougl1share , which, though not known to be a blow likely to cau.se deatl1, did, in fact, render h�r unconscious and believing her to be dead, in order to lay the foundation of a false defence of suicide by hanging, the ,tccused hanged her on a beam by a rope and thereby caused her deatl1 by stra.ngulation, and it was held by the full Bencl1 that tl1e accused was not guilty of either m11rder or culpable homicide not amot1nti11g to n1urder as the original intentio11 was not to cause deatl1 but only to caL1se injury and the second i11tention was 011ly to dispose of a supposedly dead body in a way co11·venient for the defence which the accused was about to set up. . . . Q!!Jesiions

Are the Thabo Meli a11d Palani Goundan cases disti11guisl1able? Wl1at is tl1e defe11se theory bei11g argued i11 botl1 cases? :W\1icl1 judgmen� �o you a�ree with? Does Art. 60(1) P.C.E. help i11 clar1fy1ng il1e confl1ct1ng holdings in these cases?

Does the wording within Arts. 57-61 P.C.E. _imply. t�e necessity of co� , s currence between 'act'' and ''intent'' or ''negligence· 1n order to �onst1tute criminal liability in Ethiopia? N.b., ''concurre11t offenses'' as considered in Arts. 60-63 is a fundame11tally differe11t co11cept from co11ct1rrence between ''act'' and ''intent''. A questio11 of concurre�t offenses to be solved, inter alia, under Arts. 60-63 mi_gl1t be tl�e following: A shoots at B intending to kill him but misses and instead kills C, a bystander. Problem

May Ato Balai be convicted of tl�eft ttnder Art. 630 P.C.E. wl1en l1e takes _ a certain article believing it to be }11s, and later discovers tl1at l1e made a mistake but retains the article a11yway? See also Art. 643 P.C.E. 3- As discussed in Gour, JI Tbt Ptnal Law of Indut 1363 (7th ed., 1963)-

1·1iE GENERAL PART

NOT ES Other formulations of the Requirement of Concurrence

Note 1:

Bishop, Combination of Act and Intent4

h lis e tl1 tab ies _es rit th le, a11 ru e th d an that 1g, oi1 reg fo tt1e � m . fro s ult res It . a e 111. law ut e. t1t 1 11: 11s cr co to ine mb co And, t us m t en int il ev d an t ac a,, _ 1Jo ur 111t _111 of time.... 11c c? st mu t en i11t d an t ac e tl1 s, ,ay al\X s gei,erally, peri1arJ _ t, 1en ff1c tl1e two must No amount of intent alo11e, or of act alo11e, ts su combi11e . ... Note 2: Perl<ins, Co11ct1rre11ce of Mens Rea and Actus Reus 5

1 f

011e error to l1e avoided is tl1e false 11otion tl1at ''concurre11ce'', as here used, mear1s 110 n1ore tl1an mere coi11cicle11ce, beca11se tl,e actual requiren1ent is that tl1e t\XIO elernents of cri1ne 111t1st be ''brougl1t together'' i11 the sense of a causal relation bet\,;,een tl1e 11ie11s rea a11d tl1e aclt{s rei,s. Stated in otl1er \VOrds the act11s reus must be atiribt1table to tl1e n1e,1s rea, a11d if tl1is relatio11 is clearly sl10\v11 it is t111in1r;ortar1t tl1at tl1e t\x10 were not prese11t at tl1e same ti1ne, \Y1l1ereas c:o-existence is 11ot st1fficie11t if tl1e causal relatio11 is lacl<i11g. The la\x, \x,i!I recog11ize l1omicirle, for exan1ple, althougl1 a 1011g period of time elarJsed btt\(/eer1 tl1e bio\v a11d tl1e deatl1, if it \Vas witl1i11 tl1e establisl1ed "year arid a da�)', bL1t the l{illi11g \x:ill be 111urcler if, and 011ly if, tl1e loss of life resiiltecl fro,n a state. of mir1d 111eeti11g tl1e requireme11ts of 111alice aforethought. If the blo,,<,, was strt1cl< \Vitl1 n1alice aforetl1ot1g·l1t tl1e resulti110- deatl1 is mL1rder despite tl1e fact tl1at tl1e assaila11t SL1bseqL1e11tly cl1a11ged llis 1ni11d and was hopi11g very sincerely, before tl1e encl can1e, tl1at l1is victim \x ould survive; \Vhereas, if the blo,v \Vas strt1cl< i11 privileged self-defei1se it is i11nocent·l1omicide altl1ougl1 tl1e defe11der later decided to l<ill l1is former assaila11t in cold blood a11d was searcl1i11g f<?r l1im 1 u11sL1ccessf11ll)', \Viti, tl1is thougl1t i11· mind at the very mome11t of deatl1. 11

Note 3: Iiall, Tl1e Pri11ciple of Co11curre11ce6 ....Tl1e principle of concurre11ce requires that the ,nens rea (tl1e i11ternal fusion of tho11gl1t a11d effort) coalesce \Vitli the additional mariifested effort (''act' '), tl�at . tl1ey ft111ction �xt_ernall)' as a u,,it_ to comprise criminal co11duct. 1 1 r\s \X as IJI evioti_sl� stat�d, tl11s 1s a wa)' of n1al<1ng certain tl1at t}1e defe11dant 5 condLict was cr1m111al, i.e. tl1at l1is co11dt1ct actt1ally expressed a 111.ens rea. . �or exa111pl�, last wee_ l< D decided to kill X To are both th ey da y cl1mbing a,, .AIp111e 1nou 11t1a11, D's foot sli [JS and in j er belo\V, cli m b. ti �-es x th � wl10 loses his l1old a11cl falls to l1is death; and D's ev il int'ention is discovered. 4. Bishop, The Criminal Law 1 J 3, 263 (8tl1 ed., 1892). 5. Perkins, Cri1ni11al Law 7 26. 6. Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 18 5-186,

INTRODUCTION

The p rinciple of concurrence _bars the addition of tl1e mens rea to the physi.cal movement t_o �ffect a mechanical ''s_um'' of crimi 1 1al conduct.This is anything but a tecl1n1cality. lnstefid, the requirement of the integration or ''concurrence'' of mens !ea . _and manifested effort (''act'') p rescribes an essential quality of m ?r �Ily significant conduct - �-he conduct met in life-situatio11s, wl1ich causes Thus, the _fui:1ct1on of the principle of concurrence ...is to criminal harms. _ _ 1t make quite clear that cr1m1nal conduct; not tl1inking or movement or both of them ur1related to each other, is requi red to i11 cur criminal liability. • •

•

Questions

Which J?hrase !Drmulation defining concurrence is most acct1rate? Wl1icl1 would help 1n solving the Thabo Meli and Palani Goztndan problems? a.Article 60: ''The .. . criminal act... flowing from a si11 gle crimi11al intention or act of negligence. ... ,, b. Bishop: ''... An act and evil intent must combine. ... 1

•

c. Perkins: '' ... Causal relation bet\veen mens rea and actus . reus''; or, '' •.. actus reus must be attributable to mens rea." d. Hall: ''Mens rea ... coalesce with ... act, t]1 at tl1ey fu11ction exter� nally as a unit ....''

SECTION C. . PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF TiiE ETHIOPIAN LAW OF HOi\11CIDE

ATO ABAYNEH OABRESELLASSIE v.THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Supreme Imperial Court, Criminal App_eal No. 221/55 ( 1963 G.C.)

Ethiopia

Tahsas 27 1956 E.C. (Dec. 25, 1963 0.C.); Justices: Mr. 0. Debbas, Ato Haile Aman �nd Ato Tessemma Negede: - Tl1is is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of t}1e High Cou·rt (first Cri1n.inal Division) dated 24th Ter, 1950, in Criminal Case No.661/49, whereby the appellant was found guilty of murder... • •

• •

As stated by the eye-witnesses, the deceased was heard crying ancl sc_ reaming . in he r house· then· she ran out from the house a11d fled to tl1e ne 1 gl1 bour s house to which appellant pursued her a11d dragged her out to tl1e door and stabbed her at the doorsteps. Tl1e JJostmortem examination revealed that tl1ere �e re scars of beating and hitting on tl1e dead body....The a_ppellant started indeed, after he had stabbed his wife, to cry and weep regrett1ngly....The husband beat his wife first she ran away to tl1e neighbours, and he pursued her, dragged her out and �tabbed l1er at the doorsteps of tl1e neighbours, and then sta rted crying like a child, after he realised what l1e had done.... 1

' '

THE GENERAL PAR·r

•

Questions

After carefully reading Ai-ts. 521-�2�, 526 P.<;.E., try_ �o place Ato Abayi1eh witliin tl1e proper prov1s1on gove�n1ng hom1c1de. Would it help to l<now that the same court tl1at decided the Ato Abti:.Yneh case later held in tl1e case of Ato Leggesse _Tum� u and Ato Argaw Mametcha v. Attorney General, Supreme Imperial Court, Crim. App. No. 643/55 (1964 G.C.): Tliis is an appeal against the conviction and sen�ence of_ the High Court (first Cri1ninal Division) dated 23rd Megabit, 1_955, 1n Criminal Case No. 461;53, wl1ereby both appellants were con\11cted of murder contrary to ,Article 522 of tl1e P.C.E. of 1957, and ser1tenced to death. It is important to em1Jl1asize ever since the beginning that there is not n1ucl1 to disct1ss in ti1is appeal regarding the question of conviction. Both ap1Jella11ts were co11victed on the strength of their own confession to the police. Tl1e m t1rder \X,as considered as aggravated in that the beati11g was re1Jeated a11d the deceased l1ad been wou11ded in six clifferent places, and fi11aily died as a result of intercranial hemorrhage cat1sed by t11e inflicted wo1111ds. Tl1e Court considered this beating as brt1tal a11d passed death sentence on both a1Jpellants. . . .. .

Co11victior1 confirmed. 2. 3. 4.

Do you fir1d any particular order among Arts. 521-524, 526? Are all i11te11tio11al homicides pu11isl1able? (see e.g., Art. 64 P.C.E.) 1v1ay a deatl1 sentence be exect1ted upon court order alone? W!1y does P.,rt. 523 11ot 111ention Art. 526? \X/hy is ''violent emotion'' or ''intense JJassion'' more excusable than ''premeditatio11''? What degree of negligence constitutes ''criminal neg ligence''? (Tl1e Ger1eral Part may help you in answering this question.) Recommended Readings

frejaville and Soyer, Droit Criminel 13-22 (discussio11 of tl1e leo-al material and moral prereqt1isites for cri1ninal liability in France·' seeb Art. 23 P.C.E. for t1se of similar terminology). Bouzat, Droit Penal 120-133 (brief statement of t11e position of the material a11d n1oral eleme11ts of per1al liability i11 frencl1 law). Iiolin_es,_ !he. Common Law 53-57 (disct1ssion of act and intent as elements of l1ab1l1ty 1n tl1e common law). Harno, Criminal l,1.w 21-40, Cl1ap. II, e11titled: ''Elemetits of Criminal Liability". Dession, Crim�nal Law Adn1inistration and P t,blic Order 430-461 (1948) (cases and materials on the act a11d ir1tent prerequi sites for penal liability).

CHAPTER 7

••

The Criminal Act SECTION A. DEFINITION

J) ENAL CODE Of ETI-IIOPIA Art. 23.- Offences. (1) A crirninal offence is a11 act or 0111ission \Vl1ich is prol1ibited by law. . - . .

a. The Componertts of an Act ACT, INTENTION AND MOTJVE IN �fJ-IE CRIMINAL LA \X/1 W. C'ook It is a common saying tl1at every crime may be looked at as co1nposed of two elements: (1) an act a11d (2) the intentior1, or state of mind \\'1itl1 \Vl1ich the �ct is _done. I� connection with the_ latter tl1e question 111ost commor1ly asl<ed 1s, ''Dtd or dtd not the one \vl10 did tl1e act intend to bring· about the resL1lts which actually took place? Was tl1at l1is inter1tio11?'' I-lo\vever sirr11Jle and clear such statements and questions may aJJpear to be at first sight, a mo1nent's reflection reveals that the two tern1s, act and intentior1, are by r10 111eans free from ambiguity. ... first then of the term act: no word is more co111111011ly used by judges and writers upon law, as a rule a1J(Jarently without 1nucl1 thought of a11y pos sible ambiguity. Legal literature is full of pl1rases sucl1 as ''tl1e cri·mi11al act, 1' ''an act of homicide," ''an act of trespass," etc., etc.. Let us analyze one of these phrases. Take, for examfJle, a11 act of l1omicide''.Su(Jpose A murders B by shooting hi·m with a pistol. What is ''the act1 '? Tl1e usual a11swer would probably be, ''tl1e act of killi11g B''.Eve_n a brie! co11side:ation shows us that '!'e have here a complex rather than a simple tl11�g; tl1at if we are to us� words 1n an accurate scientific ma1111er we must recognize tl1at tl1e ter1n act 1s l1ere used so as to'include more than one tl1ing. Apparently it covefs (I) wl1at may be called the act (or series of acts) in a narrow sense of tl1e ·word i.e., a muscular movement (or movements) willed by the actor; (2) some reference to the surrounding circumstances· (3) the consequences or results of the move ment (or movements). It 'seems obvious tl1at if we are to make any care ful analysis, we must distinguish between tl1ese three things; to do so, \Ve need to have separate names for them. Perhaps we cannot do better than to l.

26 Yak L. ]. 647-658 (1917).

THE CRIMINAL ACT

uggeste?, i.e., so that s e ov ab e ns se er ow rr na e th to it res trict tl1e word act do is, e th we w c a11 sa y that �f . ed ill w is at th nt me ve mo lar scu mu a y pl means sim e a ) th ct (0r (1 er id ns co to ve l1a 1 acts); (2) we y lit bi lia al in m i cr g in er id in coris _ e th r to (4! ac , es s nc ue eq st ns co ate of e tl1 (3) ; es nc sta m ctt cir 11t a it om nc the co : c1 cum � ta nce� and con � es th to ce en fer re th wi s t ac lie mind at tlie time g, r1n in de s 1s1 1 _ tl11 co e ar rro na we ich wh se \ver ca e ret nc co tI1e In es. nc ue seq lar of scu mu ies m ovements ser a f o_ ist 11s co A of s act the rd sense of tlie wo u_de, for exam JJle, the fact that l 1nc s nce sta um circ t itan co,n con e Tt1 willed by A. _ d, de s loa wa etc., etc. The tol fJts the t tha ; tol pis the of ge ran n B was withi us; �o me _are, for example, ro 1ne 11� ry ve rse u co of are s act A's of conse quences the trigger IS pulled back; the ; ion ect dir B's i11 11ed tt1r a11d sed rai is tol tl1e pis . I1aminer falls; the powder is i�nited and expl�des; tl1e bullet IS e�pelled from tlie pistol goes tl1rot1gl1 tl1e air toward B, strikes tl1e surf�ce of B s body and penetrate; the same_; as a resu1� B'� _body undergoes _ physical cha11ges which result i11 deatl,. Stric tly and sc1ent1f1cally1 all these things and m any others are not parts of A's ac t, but - merely the co1isequences of the same.... 2 . ACT AN S UTE STIT CON W·I-IAT Rolli11 Perkins

1-he \Vord 11 act 11 , like tl1e \'1/'0rd ' 1l101ne111 is one of ambiguous import used in various se11ses of differe11t degrees of ge11erality.< 1 > A perso11 wl10 is asked wl1ere l1is l101ne: is by a reside11t of tl1e same ge11eral neigl1borl1ood may reply by givir1g merely tl1e street and 11t1m ber. In response to tl1e sa1ne ques tion asked by a fre11cl1man dLiri11g a casual conversation i11 China, tl1e same person may ar1s\xrer tl1at tl1e U11ited States is l1is l10111e. U11der otl1er circumstances he may give as l1is l1on1e the state of Ne\v York, Ne\v York City or tl1e borough of Mar1!1attan.Tl1ese \xridely differe11t forms of expression do 11ot indicate any change in tl1e place of l1is abode.They involve neitl1er misstatement nor mis tinderstanding. Tl1e \vord l1as tl1is 1nucl1 elasticity and tl1e manner of its use will ordi,1arily indicate tl1e degree of generali ty. Holmes was incli11ed to limit tl1e word ''act'' to the willed movement of tl1e body itself, as tl1e mere crooking of tl1e finaer ir1 tl1e-case suggested .(2> Salmond te11ds to insist t1po11 the inclusio11 of all factt1al occurre11ces occasioned by tl1e exertion of tl1e will .... <3) Cus tomary ttsa ge, eitl1er in juridical discus2. Perk.ins, Crin1inal Law 471--¼72. (I) Salmond, Jurispr11dence, 381 (8th ed., 1930). (2) "For instance, to crook the forefinger with a certain force is the sam� act whether the trig·ger of a pistol is next to it or not. It is only the surrounding circumstances of ·a pistol loaded and . _ cocked, and of a l1uman bein g 1n such a relation to it as to b e manifestly likely to be hit, that ake the a�t a wrong." 1-Iolmes, The Common Law 54 ( 1881). � is ��de up of � cc factors or constituent parts. These .are ( 1) its origin in some n,..ncaJ (3) Every act _ or bodily acc1v1ty �r pass1�1cy o� tl1e doer, (2) its circumstances, and (3) its conseq�nces. Let us _ . suppose that 1n pract1c1n .? w1c�1 a r1fl I s11oot some person by acc .en:s of elem mat eria l The ide nt_ . � _ my ac _t are che f �llow:ing: Its or1g 1n or ·primary state, namely a series of muscular contraca oosi _ by which the rifle ls r�1scd and cl1e trigger pulled; secondly, which of ;hie f the ·circ the um stan ces, are the faces that the rifle _1s loaded and in working orde the h h person kille r, and t.atte . d , is in , line o ff.ire; t h.dl 1r y, th� conseq�ences, the chief of whi<>h are the sion fall of the trigger, the explo o� the P'!,wder, the d1scharge of the bullet, its passage through the b_ody of the man killed , and _ his death. Salmond, op. cit. supra note l che . uses . at ·me 38 3 , Th f cr1 · e d" tra o · a1· 1t1on 1n1aon d , !! f · · · , . · . " . ,, . . l w or d ac � in t 11: sense. A crime or misdemeanor is an act committed or omitted, in v1olat1on o f a public law either forbidding or commanding it.,. 4 Bl. Comm. 5. • . •

�

DEFINITION

sion or in ordinary conversation, lends some support to either view. The prese11t trend is in the direction of the position taken by Holmes rather than that by Salmond. Problem

Consider the following fact situatio11 and tl1e11 address yourself to the questions below: The appellant was charged. \vith an offense under Art. 462 of the Penal Code in that he, wit-h the intention of getting more votes corrttpted electors by giving tl1em . money to i11duce t}1em to vote for l1im' in the elections for 1nembers of Parliament.. ..Tl1e High Court found tl1e appella11t guilty of offering money to electors tl1rough l1is agents, convicted l111n, and sentenced him to a fine of E$500 and i. n default to a period of imprisonment for.... six montl1s....Ato Shawl Demma v. The Public Prosecutor, Supreme Imperial Court, Crim... ApfJ.No. 103/54 (19610.C.). a.Using Holmes' definition of ''willed, muscular move1nent'', what would you say were tl1e willed, muscular movernents which made the defendant in the abov� case criminally liable? At wl1at poi·nt was the act complete? Is Holmes' or Salmo11d's definition of act more useful for our purposes? b. Wl1at were the concomitant circumsta11ces st1rrot1nding the act wl1icl1 contributed to its criminality? c.What were tl1e consequences of t11e defendant's act? At \vl1at point do willed muscular movements end a11d co11sequences begin? Co11sicier wl1ether Cook is right ih his determi11atio11 of the breaki11g point betwee11 act a11d consequence in the excerpt above. d.What is the difference betwee11 a11 act a11d an offense? See Art. 23 P.C.E.supra. b. Involuntary Conduct PENAL LAW Of INDIA: ''ACT'' Dr.H. S. Gour

An act is, properly speaking, a determination of t�e will producing an effect in the sensible w.orld. It means sometl1ing voluntarily done by a hu �an being, as for example, walking, speaking or writing.It involves an operation of the mind as well as of the body... MODEL PENAL CODE4 American Law Institute

Sect.2.01. - Requirement of Voluntary Act; · · · d on se ba y is lit bi lia s hi ss le un e ns fe of an of y ilt (I) A person is not gu 3. 4.

Gour, I Penal Law of India 133 (7th ed., 1963). Tentative Draft No. 4 (1955).

Tl-IE CRIMINAL ACT

ion iss to om e th or r t ac rfo pe y tar m aii act lun vo a es lud inc ich wh t conduc . m or rf pe to le ib ss po ly al ic which it was phys n thi the wi s n act ani me ry 1ta g of this lu1 vo t no are ing low fol (2) The section: (a) a reflex or convulsion; . (b) a bodily moveme11t dt1ring unconsciousness [ coma?] or sleep; (c) conduct during l1ypnosis or resulting fro m l1yp11otic. suggestion; (d) a bodily move1nent that other�ise is not _a product �f the e�fort or determination of tl1e actor, either conscious or habitual; ... •

I. Paragrapl1 (1) requires that criminal liability be based on conduct and tl1at the co11duct which gives. ris� to liabilit� include � voluntary act or tl1e omission to perform an act which it was physically possible to have performed. Tl1is is not, of course, to say that these conditions are enough for the establisl1ment of liability bt1t only that they are essential elements when liability obtains. That penal sanctions can not be employed witl1 justice unless these require me11ts are satisfied seen1s ,�holly clear. The law can 11ot hope to deter involuntary n1overnent or to stin1ulate actio11 tl1at can 11ot physically be performed: the sense of personal security would be shortlived in a society, where such move ment or i11activity coulcl lead to formal social condemnation of the sort tl1at a co11viction 11ecessarily entails . People wl1ose involuntary movements threaten l1arm to others may prese11t a public health or safety problem, calling for therapy or ever1 for custodial commitrr1ent; tl1ey do 11ot present a problem of correction. Comments.. s

•

Questions

1. 2.

Wl1y does tl1e criminal la\v include tl1e \Vill or mind as an i11gredient of a· crimir1al act? Evaluate ti1is co11tention: a. willed muscular 1noveme11t constitutes an intentional act. b. muscular 111ovement wl1icl1 is 11ot willed but \vhicl1 could }1ave been will�d (i.e., the n1ovement of one's leg) co11stitutes an omission that is equivalent to an act. c. mt1scular moven1ent \Vhicl1 ca11not be willed (i.e., the movement of one's heart) does not constit1-tte a,i a.:t. Co11sider �l1ether tl1e f_ollo\vin� are �cts: Dreaming; meditation; hitt!ng ano!her while sleep w . alking, wl11le hypi,otized, \X'hile drunk; not moving 011e s arm; not 1nov1ng one's ear. Recommended Readings

Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 222-228 (philosopl1ical approach to the 5.

Ibid. at p. 119.

DEFINITION

definition and function of actus reus in penal law). William�, Crimin_al L_a'U.! 1-30 (tl1orough textttal cons1· derat·ton of the act requirement 111 criminal law). Perkin s, <;riminal Law 410-415 (discttssion of the necess1·ty for and det1n1t1on · ·· of ''act''). l 20 Bouzat, Droit �enal (paragraph staten1ent defi11 i ng the material element of _ an o f fense 1n fre11ch penal la\v). 1958 Law Quarterly Rev. 20 (disc11ssio11 of a11 Englisl1 case, R. v. cunning · ham, 2 Q · B · 396 w l11c · h t ur11ed 11pon tl1e distinction between a11 act and its conseque11ce). 1958 Law Quarterly Rev. 176 (d i sci1ssion of anotl1er Ena i l v. Bax ter, t:>lisl, case , H'l . · 2. W · L · R: 76 cons1·de�1ng t I1e. qt1est1011 wl1etl1er falling asleep while driving 1s essentially automatic behavior 11egating tl1e willed element of action). SECTION B. ACTS OF OMISSIOt�

a.. Tl1e Legal Duty to Act CRI MI NAL Olv1 ISSION6 Paul Logoz

In tl1e defini t i on of a11 offe11se, expressions sucl-1 as 11l1t1man 111ovement'' or '_'l�uman _action'' must be co11strued broadly to i11c!L1de 11egative as well as pos1t1ve action. Without doubt most infractio11s are cr i mes of commission i11 violation of legal proscriptions; in these cases, tl1e offender cloes tl1at wl1icl1 the law prohibits. But there are othe r ·possibilities as whe11 tl1e pe11al law com111ands - under threat of punishment - tl1at one act. To violate sucl1 a law one must refrain from acting. Tl1e se are crimes c1f true omission. • •

•

e s t of tru me no cri are ich wl1 ion iss om of s me cri , ver e w ho There are also, om ission. These are crimes wl1ich cons i st in producing a certain l1arm, by not committing an act wl1ich the offender is jud i cially reqL1ired to co1nmit. To the contrary of tru e omission these ha ve certai11 conseque11ces due to tl1e incrim inating inactio11 of the offe11der. Anotl1er 11a1ne ofte11 give_n to this catego.ry of crimes by omissio11 is delicta per omissionem commi�sa [crimes of comr:i,i ssion by omission]. In short, they consist of of!e�ses �l11cl1, . n?r111aily, are crimes_ of h .) t 11c u etc b_ wl . , ry 1u 1n t1l llf w1 , d� 1c1 1:1 ho 11t e ig gl is ne �omm sion (int entional or f or example, a Ja! Iei:, wh_o . on ct1 111a . in_ certain cases may be committed by 1 1n s tl1 tl1 se w1 ca l11 . . : . ?d of ? !o _ m hi s e iv wishes to kill his prisoner, depr c� tegory, it is only possible to ha ve such om1ss1o_ns if _ tl1e off�11der has a ;u1z d e r to avoid or 1n t ac to Lon at lig ob .. .. c et cial - by virtue of law or contract the unfort unate ha rm which he produced. 6· Logoz, Commtntaire dM Code PenJtl Suisse 31-32.

THE CRIMINAL ACT

GERMA·N FEDERAL SUPREME COURT 1st Criniinal Senate Decisiori of 2-12-1952 1 .St. R. 59/50; 2 B. G. H. St. 150 (1952j1 d killed hiinself, an �b hu s nt' da fen de e Tl1 . JI: h nic Mu urt Co y Jur J. m fro .J!ppeal

d l1a lie me co ter be Af . les ub tro c uncon sti n1 do d an al rit er ma ov , ii,g i,g lia by � scious, but at a time wlien !1e still c?uld_ have bee n s�ved, tl1e defendant appeared on tl,e sce11e, perceived tl1e situat10�, bt1t let him_ l1ang. S11� was ''quite satisfied with the �ourse o! eve11ts wl1ich. wa s brot1g_ht a�o� t without lier intervention'' and ''did not w1sl1 to cl1ange 1t by rendering aid. . .. • • •

•

(5) However, by indepei1de11t a11d gt1ilty �onduct tl�e _def�ndant may have participated i11 cat1sing l1er l1t1sba11d's �e�th, e1t0er by 1�tent�onal or by r1eg ligent homicide, and could tl1us be cr1m111ally_ liable for 1t. Since sl1e has �ot become active in a11y way, sl1e ca1111ot be gt11lty as a perpet�atoi: by guilt)' actio11. Rather wl1e11 sl1e fot1nd lier t111conscious l1usband dangling 1n tl1e noose sl1e we11t a\vay and re1nai11ed i11active.Stich an i11activity_ leads to tl1e defendant's crimi11al liability if it contravened a duty of hers and if sl1e k11ew tl1at (see 6 infra), si11ce or11ission i11 vi?latioi1 of dt1ty l1�s �l1e same cont�nt of unlawfulness as 1Jrol1ibited actio11. Tl1at 1s a n1atter of pr1nc11Jle. Tl1us, 1f somebody wl10 stood ir1 110 relatio11sl1ip of dL1ty to tl1e defenda11t's husba11d, wl1icl1 will be explai11ed 1nore fully below, l1ad co11dL1cted l1in1self exactly as passively as the defe11da11t u11der exactly tl1e sa1ne circt1mstances, no crimi11al blan1e could be levelled agair1st l1in1, lacl<i11g the special prereqt1isites of § 330c Pe11al Code, and abse11t tl1e crimi11ality of aidi11g and abetti11g a st1icide, altl1ougl1, depending or1 tl1e circumsta11ces, 1noral blan1e may \Veil attacl1 . But tl1e legal situation is differen t \1<1it }1 this defe11 da11t. Sl1 e 1 i ved i11 111a ri tal corn n1 LI n i ty witl1 11er J·1t1s1;Jand and tl1erefore owed him special duties. The crimi11al la\v l1as long known spe cial relations of dL1ty whicl1 bi11cl tl1ose co11ceri1ed, or 01,e of tl,em, to l1elp eacl1 otl1er, or one tl1e otl1er, a11d, under certain circumstances, to av�rt dangers tl1reatenir1g the life of tl1e otl1er. Sue!, a legal duty to aid a11d to avert danger may rest 011 law·, ,;,:,ritten or u11\vritten, and also 011 contract. Tl1e conte11t and exte11t of such dt1ties vary a11d depend on tl1e partict1lar circt1mstances and legal situatio11s. Tl1ey fi11d tl1eir maximal lin1its 011ly in tl1e stre11gtl1 and skill of _tl1e duty-b?L1!1d person. The guilt)' violation of st1cl1 a duty may rest on act1pn or omission. Tr1e conte11t of t1r1la\v.ft1l11ess of tl1is \riolatio11 of duty may be tl1e same in botl1 cases. Suci1 dt1ties, tl1e co11tei1t a11d exte11t of \v!1ich \xre do not_ wis�, to_ detail l1er�, n1ay attacl1 to certai11 police officers, tl,e fireman, the sw1mm1ng 1nstrL1ctor, indeed a11y teacl1er tl,e manaaer of an educatio11al institL1tion, tl1e directo _r of a dor1nitory scl1o�l or of a prison, a 11urse or gov erness, always de1Je11d111g 011 tl1e varying fact situatio11s. Tl1e. -�id St1pr�n1e C,ot1rt found sucl1 relations of duty also in tl1e case of �ommun1t1es for life wl11cl1 are governed by the dttty of faithfulness. 66 R. O. St.. 71; 64. R.O. St._ 316; 64 R.9. S�. 278; 69 R.R. St. 321; 72 R. O. St. 3�3. This ap_pl1es espec1a_lly to mar1t�l . com1nu11ities. Spouses O\Ve recipro cal.duties for marital commu111ty, § 1_353 C1v1l . Code, part of which is a duty to atd _an d protect each otl1er, ac_cord111g to tl1e1r best ability, in life endangering s1ttiat1ons at least as lo11g as 11e1ther spouse l1as a legal right to 1 ive seJJarately and apart, and as long as botl1 spouses, as l1ere, live iti a domesti community (see 71 c . R. 0. St l 87, 189). We i1eed 11ot ascertain l1ere in detail how far tl1is duty .7: Translation, Mueller, Comparative Criminal Law 75-80a (1960)

ACTS OF· OMISSION

reacl1es, _a11d to what efforts in wl1 at J)erils it bi11ds tlie i11dividual spot1se. Suffice it to say that l1 ere the defenda11t could l1 ave saved lier l1usba11d with little trouble a11d no da11 ger to lierself, by cutting liin1 do�,n, as sl1 e Iiad do11e once before, years ago. Her inactivity was· not due tc a danger to herself, or becaus� �f any lack of strengtl1 for st1cl1 a resct1e, but merely becattse slie was 111d1fferent abot1t her littsband's st1icide or eve1i welcomed it. By re11iaini�g ina�tive i11 violation of dt1ty slie failed to interrur)t tl1e course of events set 111 1not101i by lier l1t1sba1id. Tl1ereby sli e has co-jointly caused his death. Tlie l 1t1sbat1d's suici?al i11t_e1_1tio11 does 11ot relieve tli e defenda11t of lier duty to avert tlie da11ger. I-11s dec1s101i constitL1ted a da11aer to liis life a11d tl1e b defe11da11t sl1ot1ld l1ave done l1 er best to cou11ter it. It is true tl1at s1)ouses l1ave general rigl1ts, as a rnatter of pri1i ciple; \X,itl1i11 the marital co1nmunity eacl1 may ex1)ect respect for l1is moral decisions. But tl1ere is notl1 i11a in this fact situation wl1icl1 comJ)els LIS to exa1ni11 e u11der wl1 at circumstancesb this legal principle \vould l1ave relieved tl1e defe11da11t of l1er dt1ty to aid a11d protect. Tl1e defen dant's husba11 d \vas not inct1rably ill, 11or was lie subjected to any otl1er seri ous and t111bearable danger from \Vhicli tliere was 11 0 otli er way 0L1t. There is absoltttely 11 0 circL1111 sta11ce fJrese11 t wl1 ich wot1ld liave rendered tl1e l1 t1sband's suicide decisio11 so exceptio11al that even tl1 e spousal dt1ty of aid and rescue \VOttld liave been i11a1JfJlicable a11 d \vould liave precluded pe11al liability. Accord ing to the opinio11 below, tlie l1usband l<illed l1imself because he coL1ld no lo11ger stand tl1 e domestic qt1arrels witli wl1ich lie \Vas co11stantly co11fronted by his wife, l1 is daugl1 ter a11d l1is '.'so1i-i11-la'IX1 '. M_ore?ver, !1e l<ille� hi111self rigl1t after st1ch a qttarrel. Tliat certainly does not Jt1st1fy an exe1111Jt1on from the duty to aid. 1

(6) The jury court will li ave to exami11e \Y1l1et�er tl1is viol_atio11 of tl1_e duty

to aid was a gt1ilty one. A dt1ty resti11 g on a special legal basis ca11 �e violated [ with guilt], b>' action or on1 issio1i, 011111 by a perso_n \X"lio _kno\X"s t!i1s duty a!1d its extent. Tl1is holds es1Jecially true i11 cases of orn1ss1on 111 v1olat1011 o_f duty. But it is 110 part of the k11owledge of dt1ty tl}at tl1e defe11da11t engaged 1�_ legal reasoning or even be capabl� of �uch. It st1ff1ces tliat sl1e 1<110\X" the c11cum sta11 ces wl1icl1 in general give rise to the S])OUsal . duty to aid, a!1d k�ow also tliat spouses are duty-bou11d to help each otl1 :r 1n l1fe-enda11ger1ng s1tt1a tions according to tl,eir best abilities, as spouses indeed l1 el1J each other as a rule. . . . NOT ES

Note 1:

Other Sources of Legal Duty

a g an al ap M e g t1n K 1d a1 a g n u l1 C R. v. M wila 5 L.R.N.R. 160 (1952) Zambia

d ife d by :V an an sb hu e a ar rs ne iso JJr e tli se ca LEWEY c J . I n this Cl1ristian ma'rria · e -�nd they are charged witli the mans!at1gl1ter of t_he�r small daugl1ter Kasai, � � the cllarge is based on tl1e pare11ts al�eged om1ss1o_n arid neglect with rfgard to the care an d treatment, a11 d especially tlie feeding of the child.

. .

•

THE CRIMINAL ACT

nd I ? pe se de ca t �n es pr ief ch e th ly upo n . in w ho s ce en id ev e til What docs on of l1n ul r _C e th ste Si d an s cl�nic, atld n lli Co . Dr by o t rn wo s what has been _ d en ha be ild ch s uffering fro ed as ce de e tl1 at th g in w m ho s to d it was directe n to _ e v1se tl1e mot r tak a� en be d. ha r� ca le ab er id ns co he malnutrition, and t hat , ed ild uir ch tl1at_ the cl!ni req t�e ich wh iet d t ac ex the t s a c er) on s i pr (the female � r _ e!1 he to att d ir� d t he clinic qu re 1d 1 a r, lie r fo et di of provided tlie articles . is Th ed s n su i 1de ev be uld co e. d foo further y sar ces ne � the t tlia so ily da twice e nc s a� _tl1e clinic, that a d_ en att r he . up ep ke to led fai n ma wo showed that the of v�s1ts t� the clinic on pti um res ef bri a er aft t tha 1d a 1 , for t en she had bee11 s s ry of tl11 rua b _ �e year the child h t 7 2 _ e th_ ?n t tha d an . ay, aw t . she again kep t the tha ath on de 1�i op e t was du e to 1 f111 de hts s . a 1t en giv has s llin died. Dr Co d ha ve b�en corrected ul :W? 1cl1 wh ncy icie def tein pro to due ion trit lnu severe ma ct ial effe efic ben dt!ring the s hort x ver a had had icl1 wh ed, crib s pre t die the by . the ho s l _to pita d itte _adm Th� clerk n be� l1ad perio d duri11g whicl1 the cl1ild from the cli11ic gave evidence as to his 1nterpretat1on to tl1e mother of the doctor' s and sister's instructions , and corrfirmed that the motlier understo od them. \Y/itl1 regard to the woman, it seems to me that she cannot escape respon sibilit1,; her hL1sba11d earned good \�ages, she also had ration money. She had the cleares t i11structions as to the tal(ing of tl1ose steps which alone could, it seems, have saved tl1e cl1ild's life, yet s l1e con1pletely failed to d o what was 11ecessary and what she had bee11 told.... ! find that the facts proved in this ca se are sucl1 as to constitute the lesser offence of neglecting, as a parent, to provide sufficient food for the decea s ed being a chil d of tender year s and unable to provi de for herself, s o as thereby to injure the cl1ild' s I1ealth, a 11d I tl1erefore convict l1er of an offe nce 11nder Section 148 of the Penal Code. •

.r,

U11 ited States v. Knowle s

Circuit Coi-�rt, Northern District of Califor11ia, 26 Fed. Cas. 801 (1864) U11ited States

fI�L{? , CIRC�IT JUSTICE (Charging jury): Tl1e defenda11t is charged 1n the 1nd1ct1nent \v1tl1 tl1e crim� of murder upo 11 tl1e I1ig11 seas. .. . It all�ges tl1�t the defendant �as, on t_h� firs t day of April, 1864, captain of tl1e American sl11p Charger b�long1ng to cit1ze11s of tl1e U11ite d States; that t11e sl1ip had on boar� ten 11:ar1ners, a11d among tl1em one John P. Swainson; tl1at tl1e s hip was provided \¥1 1th tl1ree .boats, for tl1e . protection and safety of the lives of the persons on board, 1r1 case of accident; and that it was the duty of the defend�nt to manage and control tl1e sl,iJJ arid boats so as to insure such protection and safety; tl1at on tl1e first of April 1864 ti,e said Sw·ains on was �mplo�ed as seaman . upo11 the royal-yard-iarm' of tl�e mainmas t of tl1e sl1ip in furl111g tl1e royal-s ail; tl1at \vl1i]st tl1us employed lie acc d entally fell i11to the i s�a ; and tl1at the defe11da11t willfull y omitted to stop the ship or to lower eilher . of the boats, or to make any attetnpt as to re sc ue sa ve' Swainson , an d s his du ty 10 do; Iha( Swainson would have been rescued and saved ha_d '13' t e �efenda11t st0PPed his s hip and lowere hi s d either of the boats and from neg 1g. ence and om·1ss1o · n 1n · t i 1i·s re s pect, Swainson was drowned. 1 �s you will t�us perceive, gentlemen of alh e d th , tl1e char e is that e . ainson was occas Sw ioned by th e willful omission of tl� defen dant to st0P the .

ACTS OF OMISSION

ship, lowe_r t_he boats, and rescue l1im, or to make a1 1y attempt for his rescue . 1t _o y f ca m aJ s� or s w he re th e manslaughter is charged, the cleath alleged l1a In s di re fr ct vi om ol en c� lte d on tl1e part of tl1e acct1sed. I-Iere tl1 e deatl1 is resu charged to ha ve be en occasioned b y tl1e willful 0111issio11 of tl1e defenda1 1t to perform a plain duty. There may be in tl1e omissio11 to do a particular act t11 1d er s0 1 n e circt1m w el l as as in the c_ommissio_11 �f a 11 act, st1cl1 a clegree statices, of cr im 1ality i1 tl1 of e_ r� fender liable to 111d1ct1 ne11t for manslaugl1t as to nde� er Tl . 1e la 11 w 0 tl1 the subJect 1s 1s: tl1at \vl1ere deatl1 is the direct ancl im111ediate rest1lt of tl1e omis sion of a party to JJerform a plain dt1 ty i1n JJosed u1Jo11 l1im by law or contract, he is guilty of a fel o1 1iot1s hon1i cide. Tl1ere are several IJarticulars in this stateme11t of tl1e law, to wl1icl1 yot1r atte11tio11 is directed. In the first place, tl1e duty omitted must be a plai11 cluty, by wl1icl1 I mean t}1at it mu st be 011e tl1at does 11ot ad1n it of a11y disct1ssio11 as to its obligatory force; 011e uiJ011 wl1 ich differer1t mi11 ds 111ust agree, or_ \v1ill gen�rally agree. Where doubt exists as to \vl1at co11duct sl1ot1ld be fJL1rsued 111 a particular case a11d i11t e 11 ige11t men differ as to tl1e p ro jJer act i o11 to be had, the 1 aw doe� not in1fJL1te guilt to any 011e, if, fro1n 01n issio11 to adoJJt 011e course instead of anotl1er, fatal cor1seque 11ces follow to otl1ers. Tl1e la\v does n?t enter into any consideratio11 of tl1e reaso11s gover11i11g tl1e cor1dttct of me11 111 sucl1 cases, to detern1ine wl1ether tl1ey are culJ Jable or not.

In the seco11d place, the duty 01nitted n1ust be 011e wi1icl1 tl1e party_ is bou11d to perform by la\v or co11tract, a11d 11ot 011e _t l 1e . performa11c� of \vl11cl1 depends simply upon 11is }1Ll manity, or 11 is se11 se of JLI st1 ce or profJ r1�ty. In_ �lie absence of sucl1 obliaations, it is undot1bteclly the n1oral duty _of every per :so11 to extend to others :ssista11ce w l 1e11 in danger; to tl1row, . for 1nstar1ce a_ pl,lilk or rope to a drow1 1ing man, or make otl1er efforts for l11s rescL1e, a11d if_ sL1ch 11e \Xt·l1e1 1 tl1ey cot1ld be �n ade \vitli_out 0 efforts by d any omitte sl1ould be · ·1 · h'1s own 1 1·.c°' 1c, J1e would , t,, Imper1 Ing · t1ct ' dra w UJJ011 l11111self tl1e JL1st J l1is co11d Jc 1 · 1 1n1er1 t t 0 \Y/h·---1 censure and reproacl1 of good me11; but tl1is is tl1e 011ly pL1i1 1s l1e would be subjected by society. · · · · · N ow, In the case 0 i1 a person falling overboard fron1 a sl1ip at se�, · not killed by the fall t l 1ere 1s whetl1er the passenger or seaman, whe11 h e _is no question as to tl1e dut� ?f tl1e co!nma;de 1 _ _ e is bot111d both by Ia,x, a11d t l I Itl1e safety �f the sl1ip and of \XII by contract, to do everytl1 1ng coi,sisten the passengers an d crew, necessar y to resctt 1 tl�e ersoii overboard, and for f ts and tlirow to him sucl1 bo that purpose to stor1 the yessel, lo�er t 1�t i , ed that 111ay serve to a i ob ly 1 rea e _ buoys or other articles wl1Ich . can ats and saved. No support him in the water until he �s rea �h fd by the bo \Xll1 at exrJe11se to the or on ed s c e matter wl1 at del�y in tl1e voy�ge m. ion ss ni 01 y r an fo r cte a11 i�m co e f ( tl, �� excu owners may be 1 11curred, notl11ng wt can be taken y tlif ed rid o\ [)r d ar r b to_ take tl1ese steps to save tl1e pers n 1 1ing on board. ai 111 re rs l1e ot ' d �n i 1 P with a due regard to tl1e safety of t e 5 , 1an an se or r ge en ss pa r he et wh a t Subject to this condition, every person s l1i r fo el ss ve e tli of r de an m � ;i � has a right to all reasonable efforts 1 . d Any ar bo er ov n ow 1r tJ be or 11 resc ue, in case he should by accI en f.a tl1e loss by ed w llo fo if cl aii al . mi cri eg be n lect to make sucl1 efforts would of the person overboard, wl1en by t l em �e ' ln ight have bee 1 1 saved, the com mander \Vould be guilty of m�ns;attghter and miglit b e indicted and Punished for that offense.

•

°tf

TI-IE CRIMINAL ACT

The Intent Requirement in Omissions

Note 2:

is t l1e ex�e11t to whic s o11 ssi 11i 0 l i11a im cr tl1 wi ! ed olv inv h Oiie fJroblem adily be see11 � hat tl11s JJrobI�111 is re ll \xri It . ion ict 11v co for ed ttir intent is req � 1ce no ta1 m1 111s co of 01111 ssion for a , law of_ e 11c ora 1 igi of t tl1a to closely allied _ l1 11 11c \Xtl y es do du al le 11ot ki1ow a f1ll � fLll to ts 11 011 � e on e ier \vl � y is JJrecisel _ proble111 co11s1de.1 t111s state me11t . exists. In t t,i11 I< i1,g about t 111s . . . Tl,ese difficulties are 1nore aJJpare11t tha11 real. Tl1ey are a revel ation of tl1e u11fortunate te11dency \xrl1icl1 besets me11 ge11er ally and ual jurists ii, partict1lar to cot1strt1ct g�11eralizatio11s_ frotn i11divid _ l1 11�st fres a tl1e 11ce id wl11ch de instances and tl1e11 to SlifJfJress or avo fies t11 e ge11eralizatio11. l�l,e co11cept of ,nens rea and its_ s_ubco11cepts, intention a11d recl<lcss11ess, were C()t1strt1cted as ge11eral1zat1011s of the in.stances of liability for offe11ses of co1n1nissio11. Tl1e)' can11ot be fluently applied to offe11ses of 01nissio11, a11d it is a 1nistake to attenlJJt to do so. The real co11cer11 sl1ould 11ot be witl1 t}1e circu1nsta11ce i11 \xrl1icl1 an omission 1nay properly be described as inte11tior1a l but \Vitl1 tl1ose circum sta11ces in wl1icl1 an omissio11 is excL1sable or ot1gl1t to be excL1sable. 8 •

•

See also, Oer1na11 federal S11preme Court decision of 2-12-52 supra a11d Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 200. Questions 1. 2.

5. 6.

May ''omissio11" be defined in tl1e same 111a1111er as ''act''? Is it as 1mpor. . t ant to prohibit illegal on1issions as illegal acts ? Are sucl1 01111551011S prol1ibited 11ncler tl1e P.C. E.? St10L1ld tl,e cri111i11al law disti11gL1isl1 bet\xreen l101nicide ca11sed by a man wl-10 pt1sl1es a11otl1er from a cliff and l1on1icide cat1sed by a n1an ,x,, h o, l<nowing tl1e prese11ce of. tl1e cliff, i11te11tio11ally fails to \'larr1 }1is \x,-alking co111pa11io11 of its existence? Wo11ld you arrive at tl1e sa111e co11clL1sion if tl1e failure to \x,ar11 were due to 11eglige11ce? Wl,at do yot1 see as tl1e disti11ctio11 betwee11 true 0111issio11s and criines of c?mmissio11 by omissio,,? Witl1i11 \xrl1icl1 category \1;1011ld tl1e Oer1nan, the Mwila Chu11g a a11cl the K11owles cases s1,tpra fall? W ot1ld violation of Arts. 520 or 547 P.C.E. be a trt1e 0111issio11? Is a legal dL 1ty req11ired i11 Etl1io1)ia for co11victio11 of criminal omission? Under Art. 23 n1a), tl1e legal fJrol1ibitio11 be fou11d otitside of tl1e Penal Code? Ma� tl1e legal dt1ty wl1icl·1 gi\res rise to tlie oblig·atio11 to �ct be . fou11d 0L1ts1de of tl1e Pe11al Code? Wl1ere did tl,e wife's duty arise 1n the German case? v: , as re Wl1e existed. n tl,e above Note cases try to decide if a legal duty � it fou11d? I-low \vould you resolve botl1 cases ur1der t l1e P.C.E.? rerno � und of tl1 �ow eff�ctive ca,, � cri mi11al law be in solvi11g· fJrobl ems la Mwi , as 1s 1s11me11t tn a develOfJtt7 g cot111try? Do yoLl tl1inl< sucl1 d.ecisio1 e bov a the Chunga. l,ave de!erre.17t effect? CoLtld tl1e defenda11ts in a11y of tl1ree cases be said to be da11gero11s persoi,s?

8. Hughes, Criminal On1is!-ions, 67 Yale L. ]. 605-606 ( l 958).

ACTS OF OMISSION

Who caused tl1 e death in each of th e cases? To -_ es�a�lisl1 criminal liability, th pu nL1 e bl st ic prosecutor ro:! that an om1ss1011 1 caused tl1 e l1arm jJroscribed by law? How m ighf one prov tl1 at the captai11 in the Knowles � il f v sed ca l1e death of t e sean an Swaitisoi,? It case sl1 0L1 rem ld be e1nbered tra � dit io1 1al concepts of e a {a tl,at l1. as ''causatio11 '' a11 d ''intent'' v SLI� \ �� , developed with respect to cri · of con� tlltssiot!· Are �u ch co nc ep us ts efLtl rel 1 atio1 to omissio tis? Is the in t t o to f a t tl1e s1t o11 1ati o11 issi 01n of L i i, i t�� : � esser1tially an exercise i t legal c

b. The Legislative Extension of the Duty to Act PENAL CODE OF ETJ-IIOPIA

Art. 520. - RefHsal to provide Professional Services.

(1) Any doctor, pl1armacist, de11ti s t, veterinary surgeon mid\vife or 11urse or any other person la\vf1.1lly. e11titled to render fJr�fessio11al atte11tioi� aiid car�, wh_o, co11_trary _ to 111s duty and witl1011t just cause, refuses to provide 1!1s service s 1n a case of seriot1s need· wl1 etl1er from i i,dif !ere11ce, _self1sl111ess, CLifJidity, hatred or conten1pt; or for any otl,er sim ilar motive, is pu�isl1 a_ble \Vi�l1 fi�,e a11d, i11 tl1e eve11 t of repetitio11 of tl1e ofience \X11tl1 s1111ple 1m1Jr1son111 e11t not exceeding one 1no11tl1 witl1out prejLtdice to recovery in tl1e civil COllrts of damages for tl;e injury do11 e. (2) Notl1i11g in tl1is Article shall affect tl1e more severe provision (Art. 54'/ (2)) pu11isl1ing failt1re to le11 d aid to a person in grave a11d i1n n1 ine11t peril of 11is life, person or l1ealtl1 .

A.rt. 547. - failure to lend aid to another.

(J) WI1osoever i11te11tio11ally leaves witl1out help a person in immi11e11t and grave f)eril _.o f l1is life, person or healtl1, \vl1e11 l1e could l1 a\1e lent l1im assi s ta11ce, clirect or indirect, witl1out risl< to himself or to tl1 ird parties, is fJUi1ishable with simple im1Jrisonme11 t 11ot exceedi11g six montl1s, or fi11 e. (2) Simple imprison1nent shall be in addition to the fine, and shall be from 011e 111onth to 011e year, wl1 ere: (a) t11 e victim has bee11 wounded by tl1e offe11 der l1imself no matter in wl1at circumstances or by what mea11s; or l, ua ct ra 1 1 nt or al sio co es of pr 11, io at lig ob an er 1d (b) the offender was u1 1 e victim's aid or to lend tl to go to r, he ot or e m iti medical, mar him assistance.

LEGISLATIVE IMPOSITION Of A DUTY TO AID9 Graham Hughes

Judicial extension of liability for homicide by 11eglect is one way in wl1ich 9·

Hughes, Criminal Omissions, 67 Yalt

L.J 631-634 (1958),

THE CRIMINAL ACT

. ed at ul im st In be ay e m th ss r1: st di co in an m m. w llo fe s e' on d ai to ty the du eem s to � ave halted a �o�t the s on i ns pa e f o d o th e m )_{ mon-law c ountries, this rog' .ess w1t�1n the er p f of le �� pa ca n ? i s ar � pe ap end of th e last century an d rect legislative 1s ty di 1li 1b ss 1? e iv at � r e l t _ a 1 A1 . rk o � ew _ e xisting c o·nceptual fram ose in pe� il . l11 comm�n-law cou n th d ai to e r ilu fa a r o f imposition of liability e:xpr ess� on e xcept in motorist e r t 1c 01 o ed � iv ce re � s l1a � tries, this proposal i o nable . sh fa y gl s1n ea cr in g in m c o be s i it , e cases. But in Europ ose � f� r a failure to p im s wa t i y l i liab I, 1 94 f o law In france, by a Vichy t � 1s l1f� or s�ffered s lo on rs pe at tl1 e er wh ril pe in 11 o rs pe a _ to e c give assistan 145) �fte 1 tl1e l1berat 1on this ct. gie ne e � law tl1 1 f serious bodily t1arm as a rest1lt o e s1xty�three of tl1e Code Pena l: l tic ar as 1d 1 u o f e b t o w no s i d an d ele od rem was Wl1oever is able t o J)reve11t by l1is immediate action, witl1out risk to l1i111sel f o r otl1ers, t he com111issi on of a seriou s crime or offe nse against the 1)erso11, and v oluntarily 11eg lect s to do so sl1� ll be liable to imprison111e11t from 011e mo11tl1 t o tl1ree y ears a11d a f 111e of 24, 000 t o 1,000,000 francs, or 011e of t l1ese penalties 011ly. 11 l' _ eglects he sa111e j)t111ishments a re af)p licable to one \who volt111tarily n to give to a person in peril assista nce whicl1 l1e could render witl1out risk t o l1i111self or otl1e rs \vl1ether by his p ers onal action or by procuri1 1g aid."( 146) Tl1e Da lloz edilor con1111e11ts tl1at tl1e article does not specify tl1e cause o r 11ature of tl1e peril; it is e110L1gl1 tl1at it be ''immine11t et co11stant et necessite L111e intervention i1111r1ediate. < 147l It l1as bee 11 app lied t o a doctor wl10 re fused to go to a person wl10 was danger ou sly illl 148) and a hospital director who . .:9J refused to admit a patie11t wl1on1 a doct or dec l ar e d to be da 11gerously il1o 011 the otl1er l1and, an accident wit11ess, l1i1nself i njured a11d in 11eed of treat1ne11t1 was relieved of l1is duty to aid a victi111.<150> . Agai11, artic le 147 of tl1e Yugoslav Crimi11al Code provides tl1at ''wl1oever fails to offer help_ to a perso11 exposed to im111edia te da11ger, altl1ougl 1 l1e \X'as able to do so w1thot1t any da11ger t o l1imse lf or a11y otl1er ])erson' sl1all be pu11isl1ed by detentio11 for no t m ore tl1a n one year.11c1s1 ) And the I talia11 Penal Code of 1930, a1-ticle 593, provid es that: 1 'W l1oever fi11ds, aba�doned or lost, a cl1ild u11der tl1e age of ten yea rs , or a11otl1er person i ncapable tl1roL1g l1 dis·ease o.f mi11d or body, or tl1ro�gh ?ld ag� or oth� � ca_use, of looking after l1in1self, a11d ne� lects to_ give in1111ed!ate n ot1ficat1on to tl1e at1tl1 o rities sl 1all be punis hed witl1 pena l servitude up to t l1ree 111ontl1s or a fi11e.... '�A11y tJerson w l10, fi11di11g a huma11 b ody wliicl1 is or appears to be lifeless, or a tJerso1_ 1 wou11ded or otl1erwise i11 danger, neglects to affofd the 11�c.essary ass1sta11ce or to give i m n1 ediate notification to th e autl1or1t1es, sl1all be liable t o tl1e sa1n e p e11alty.'' 11

( 145) Donned!eu de Vabres, Traite de Droit Criminel 73 (3d ed., 194 7). Co Pe de nal art. 63 (53d ed. ' Dalloz 1956 (146) ..) · TransI at1· on by th e auth · or .... , Pe o e nal art. 63 (53d ed., Dalloz 1956). ( 147) C d . rec· ou cor ( 148) � r de Cassat1on (Ch. crim.), May 3 t, 1949, [ 194·9 nal d Tr ibu ) Dal/oz Juris ru ence 347; _ t1onnel de Charlev1ll e, Feb. 6 1952 [t 952] Da/loz Jurz.·sprud · ence 48 1• . • • :P ' . ' r1 un , (149) T ·b al correct1onnel de· Doua1 Dec 20 195 1 [1952) D 53 • c · II ' · ' , a oz JOmma::res r1 T 'b 1 150) un co a ( rrect1onnel de Rouen, March 31 1949 ·• 9· c' ' , (1950] DaIIoz JOmma1res (151) See DonnellY, Tl1e N ew yugoslav Criminal Code, 61 Yale L,j. 510, 526, 534 (1952).

ACTS OF OMISSION

.. ''If by r easo 1 1 of tl1e guilty p ers0�� , .conduct a pe rso na l 1111 ury r e s11lts, pu ni shm ent sh al l b e incre as e , 1 f death r es11 th e lts , th pe e na lty sh all ) 2 ts { " d. be doubl e A Soviet commentator ha s conject ed tl ,_at,, �•m ·Iar duty is imposed _ _ by · � ; th e Constitutio 1 1 of the J� article 130 of . · S R 1 is t 1� duty of every c1t 1z en of the U.S.S.R. to ab ide by the Constit \� . ·n ··of tl,e � ri_io� of Soviet Socialist Rep11blics, to observe the laws, to maiti �i labo r dts�t f)_l111e,_ l1onestly to per ; c [) es tt i S c dt i 1d bl a1 pu to re e t th e rul s 0� socialist intercourse.'' The form co1nmentator write s: ''Illegality of a failt1re to act 111ay be b ased 1 1ot 011ly on spec1f1c · · ents of tl, e 1 a\v reqt1irem · . but also 0 1 1 tl1e ft1 1 1dan1e11tal pro1Jositions . . conta11 1�d 111 art. 130 of ·tl1e Co11stitution of ti ,e u · s · s R. Tl1e court, · . 1 noo 0n tl1 e c�ncrete pec11l i ariti es of a g i ve11 situatio depend n must · t'ance to establ1sl1 wl1ether a 0 o-1v e 1 1 perso11 is required to render ass1s · another . . from . th. e poi� t o f . view of the relationsl1ip wl1ich ougl1t to exist 1 n a soc1al1st society (Ir1 accorda 11ce with tl,e rules of commL 1 n1· ty . · 1·t 1 e u� de� socia 1Ism). For exa1111Jl e 1t \vould violate art. 130 of tl1e Co_11st 1 t11_t1011 of the U. �.S. R. if a healthy person wt-10 knew how to S\v 1 m faile� to _re1 1de� a 1 cl 1_ n t11e su111n1er ti111e to a1 1other perso11 \vl10 \vas dro\vni11g· 1 1 1 a river not far from tl1e bai,k."(IS3) l 1 1 the German Federal Re1Jt1blic, a la\v of 1953 fJrovides: ''Wl1oever fa ils to render assistance i 1 1 case of accidents or con1rno11 danger or emerge11cy, e ve11 thot 1 gl1 st1cl1 assistar1ce was rec1uirecl a11d 11� cot 1 ld be �xpected to re 1 1der it L!11der tl1e circL1mstar1ces, 1JarticL1larly :x,1tl1out consid e rable da11ger to l11111self arid \Vitl1out violati11g other Important duties, sl1all b e pt 1 nisl1ed w i tl1 in1prisonme11t UfJ to 011e )'ear or b;' fi 1 1e."<154> In 1952 tl1e Bundesgericl1tsl1of l1eld tl1at a si1nilar earlier provisio11 clid 1 1ot apply to a w i fe who had qttarrelecl w i tl1 lier l1usba 1 1d a11d did riot corr1e to his ai d wl1e11 sl1e foL1nd hi111 l1ang i ng l1imself.<155) Tl1e court's decisio11 was based on the vi ew that sui cide could not be regarded as a11 accident witl1i 11 tl1 e meani ng of the provision, but on tl1i s fJOirrt the f i ndi 1 1g l1as been 110w reversed. 10 RS NE IO 1SS MM CO W LA AN DI IN A PENAL CODE PREPARED BY THE Macaulay and other lJJdian Law Commissioners

to 1 1sider co r us fo y ar ss ce :e 1 e m ca be it e d Co e Early in tl1e progress of tl1 at d th n _ e ou tl1 gr on le ab 1 sl1 1n pt e ad m e ar ts the following question: .When ac 1 1 to be likely to xr O\ l<� e ar or e, uc od pr to . . those acts produce, or ar e int e 11ded 1 ch produce, l1 w 1s 1 0 sI 1Is on ht 1g 01 nt te ex produce c ertain evil effects to w ha t e L1c od y pr to el lik e b to 1 1 w 1o k1 e ar 1 cl whi ch are intended to produce or wl1i (152) ( 153)

( 154) ( 155) 10.

tion 1304 (1940). ra ist dn in A its d an aw L al in m ri � C . Quoted in Michael a nd Wechsler, als ? S ). 47 (19 ee 4 w La et vi So on s al 'Tz at� r J\1 d, a az H in � 11 Graz/Jdanskoe Pravo 392 (1938), q1;1 oced udy 52 Col111nb1a L. Rev. 631 (l 95�). The· ex t ract 1s · St ' . 'A Comparative Note, Fa'I1 ure To Rescue. · g men tator 1s imp1y1n m co 1 t 1e at h c r ea l c t no e or r ef e th 's 1 ·c f rom a sovie · 1·1 law, and 1 · c text on civ . . a c riminal sanction. . 1 fied ve rsio n of z a na de s s nt re r ep s hi T 5. 73 at l � _ La\v of Aug. 3, 1953 (1953] B,,sndtsgesetzblatt pt. posed a ducy co d 1a im l1 1c h v.: 3, 83 at l . ! pt t at bl etz es , .... the Law of June 28, 1935, (1935] Reichsg t n n 1e 1 nt sound sc 's le op pe e th co g in r d st o si as when there wa s a duty "acc Decision of Bun desge r ichtshof, Feb. 12, l 952. · · · Note M, 103-106 (1H38).

THE CRIMINAL ACT

? le ab l1 is 11 u p e ad 1n e b to s ct fe tl1e sa1 11e evil ef t som_e o: tl1ese o m.i�si tl1 st, � fir ; t e11 id ev be to ons _ T\x,o tliiiigs we tal<e 1 1 w_l11cl1 acts a_re JJUtiishe 1 r 11e a11 m e n1 sa e tl1 �ly ac ex d; _ otigl,t to be pttnislied iii 1 11sl1ed. It will l1ardly pu to be t 11o t gl1 ot1 11s s10 iis on be · seco11 dly, tl,at all tliese 1 o de th e · th f a J)r1? oner b y es t1s ca · y 1 ar 1:t lt1 vo !10 w er ol � ga a at tli _ disptited 1 1ur�e. \-vl10 volu11t�r1ly cau a 01 , od fo 1 ll \Vt r 11e 1s0 JJr at tli ses 0 1111t,iiig to supj)ly 11g tt1 to ta �e 1t out of a n1 01 by re ca r lie to ed 1st trt en t aii iiif a11 of i atl the de d as ate 1lty of murder. tre gt1 be to t _ gh ot1 1, le1 fal s l1a it l1 iic \x:l o iiit ter \x,a f o tub 1_ n ed tl1 at a ma . 1 1 sl1ould be J)L11iis hed a int 11a 1 1 be ly ard 1 I ll \v'i it d, 1an 011 the otl,er ar, 1 1 tl10L1gh there gg eve be a e iev rel to d itte 01n lie e atis btc r as a tTILtrclere 1 e beggar \Vas tl�e effect of this l t _ of l1 eat d _ l1e t t tl1a of pro st are cle tlic might be w s lm_ k11e tl1e e tl_1at the death giv to � d 1tte on1 0 1 wl 11 ma tl1e t tl,a a,id oii, ornissi 011. I 1ss1 om t will l1 ar�lly be tl1e of ct effe tl1e be to ly lil<e \xras gar beg tlie of r r mair1tai11ecl tl1at a st1r<.reo11 OL1gl1t to be treated as a murdere for rert1s1 ng to go fro1n Calct1tta to �1eerltt to 1Jerfor n1 a11 operation, altl:ot1gl1 _it sh ould be absolL1tel)' certai11 tl1a t tliis st1rr{eo11 \XJas tl1e only perso11 111, l 1 1d1a wl10 could rerfor 1 n it, a11d tl1at if it \X:et"e 11ot JJerformed tl1e jJerso� wl10 reqttired it \v'Ot1ld die. It is clifficult to say \Y1l1etl1er a Pe11al Code \X1l11cl1 sl1 ould IJUt no ornissio11s 011 tl1e sa111e footing \v1itl1 acts, or a Pe1 1al Cocle wl1icl1 sl1ould put all or11issio11s 011 tl1 e sa111 e footi11g \Viti, acts \X10L1ld JJroclt1ce co11seqt1e1 1ces more abstrrcl a11d re\1olti11g. ·r11ere is 110 cot111try i11 wl1icl1 eitl1er of tl1ese principles is acl(111tccl. lnclcccl, ii is l1arc.l to cor1ceive l1 0\X1 1 if eitl1er \Vere aclo1)ted, society c <) ll ld be l1 e I cl toge tl1 er. It is jJlai11, tl1erefore, tl1at a 1niddle course mt1st be tal<e11. B1.1t it is not easy to deter111 ir1e \v1l1at tl1at 1niddle co1.1rse ot1gl1t to be. Tl1e absurditj' of the t\XIO extre111es is obviot1s. [Jut tl1ere are i1111t1merable i11 ter 111ediate J)Oi11ts; and \Vl1erever ll1e li 1 1e of cle111nrcatio11 111aj' be dra\v 11 it \Viii, \Ve fear, i nclt1de so1ne cases \X,l1 icl1 we n1igl1t \X isl1 lo exe111JJt, a11c! \viii exem1Jt son1e \vl1icl1 \Xte n1ight l ilze l o i11clLI cle. Ivi.r. Livi11gsto11's Code jJrovicles, tl1at a j)erso11 sl1all be co11siclered as gttilt}' of l1ornicide \Xrl10 0111its to save life, \vl1icl1 l1e could save ''\xrithot1t per s01:al da11g_er, . or j)tcL1r1iar)' loss'' .c 1 i Tl1is rL1le a1)1)ears to us to be ope11 to ser1ot1s ob1ect1011. Tl1ere 11 1ay be extre111e i11co11ve11ie11ce \vitl10L1t tl1e s111 allest perso11al da11ger, or tl1e s111allest risl< of J)CCL111iary loss, as i11 tl1e case \ve la�ely J)Ut of a s1.1rgeo11 sL1111111011ed from C:1lct1tta to MeerL1t, to 1Jerforn1 a11 01)erat1on. I l-e 111ay be offered sucl1 a fee tl1at l1e wot1lcl be a gai11er b)' goi11g. I -le may � 1ave 11� grot111cl to a1JfJrel1end �l1at l1e sl10L1ld ru 1 1 a11y greater JJers o r1al risk by 1our11ey1_11 g to tl1e U1J1)er Provinces tl1a11 by co11tir1t1i 1 1g to reside i11 Bengal . But lie 1s _ abotit_ to 1Jroceed to EL1_rOJ)e imn1ediately, or lie exJ)ects some me1n bers_ of l11s famtlj' by tl1e next sl1 11J, ancl \XJislies to be at ti1e !)residency_ to receive t11e1n. J-le, tl1 erefore, reft1ses to go. Stirely, 11e otiglit 110t, for so r�fus1ng, _ ec.l as � 1n Lt to be t I_eat rderer. It \XfOu Id be somewliat i 1 1co r1siste11 t to !JU n1sl1 one ma1 1 f or 11ot stay111g: tl1ree 111011tl1s i11 Itidia to sa ve tl1e life of anotl,�r, and to le_ave \vl1olly t1111J1.1111sl1 ecl a 111a11 wl10, e11joyi11 a aiTiple \vealt slio1.tld refuse to d1sb�1rse a 11 a_n11a to save tl1e life of a11otl,er. Again it appe li to us tl1 t it ,nay ar� � _ be fit t_ o J)t1111sl1 a perso 1 1 as a 1 n�trderer fo r catts n a 11g 1 t om 1t by de i,, ath g ac t wlit�l1 ca11 11ot be performed w1tl1ot1t perso1 . A 1al cla 1 1ger, or pect11 1iary loss pare iit t�iay be Ltiiable to proc1. 1 re food for th·e a1 1 i 1 1fa11 t \Vitl1ot1t 1no 1 1ey. Yet lJare,,t, tf lie lias tlie inea 1 1s, is bot1 11d to ft1 f , ai, d d, foo rnisl1 tl1e i11fa11t \vitl1 1

( l) S(le8e7L3)ivi�gston, Code of Cri,nes and Punisl,,nents, Art. 484, in Cornplcte Works in Crirnina l Jurisprude 11ct , 11, 126-127.

ACTS OF OMISSION

by omitting to do so he voluntary_ causes its death he may with propriety be �reate� as � murderer. A nurse hired to atte11d a person suffering from an !nfect�o us disea_se cannot perform. her duty witl1out running some risk of 1nfect1on. Yet if she �eserts the sick J)erson, and tht1s volu11tarily causes his death, we should be disposed to treat her as a 1nurderer. We pronounce _w i_ th confidence, therefore, tl1at tl1e line 011gl1t not to be drawn_ where Mr. L1v1ngsto11 has qr�wn it._ But it is with great diffidence that we �ring _for�ard. our own proposttton. It 1s open to objections: cases n1ay be put_ 1n wh1ch it w111 operate too severely, and cases in wl1ich it will operate too leniently: but we are unable to devise a better. What we propose is tl1is, tl1at \vl1ere acts are made pu11ishable on the ground that tl1 �y l1ave caused, or 11ave been i11te11ded to cause, or l1ave been known to be likely to cause a certain evil effect omissions whicl1 l1ave caused which have been intended to cause, or which h�ve been kno\Y111 to be likely to cause the. s�me effect shall be punisl1able in tl1e same manner; provided that such om1ss1on were, on otl1er grou11ds, illegal. A11 omission is illegal if it be an offense, if it be a breach of some directio11 of law, or if it be st1cl1 c:. wrong as would be a good grou11d for a civil action .... We are sensible tl1at in some of tl1e cases \Whicl1 \Ve l1a ve fJUt ot1r ·r1J.le may appear too lenient. But we do not thinl{ that it c2J1 be made n1orr; se,_1er�, without disturbing the whole order of society.... It is, indeed, most higl1ly desirable that n1en shrJtlld not me:rr.:J 1, �ib�;·ta :i.t1 from doing harm to their neigl1bours, but shot1ld ·renrler active services to tl1eir neighbours. In general ho\vever the pe11al law n1ust conte11t itself 'Yiit!1 l{�CJJing men from doing positive l1arm, and must leave to public opii1ion, f!.r1c! to ti1e teachers of morality and religion, the office of fur11ishing 111en ,x;itl1 rrioiives for doing positive good. It is evident tl1at to atten1pt to pttnisl1 1ne11 by Ja,-u· for not rendering to others all the service wl1ich it is their duty to rendea· to otl1ers would be preposterous. We must grant i1npunity to the vast majority_ of those omissions which a benevolent morality would pronounce reprel1ens1ble, arid must content ourselves with punisl1i11g such omissions only ,-vl1en they are distinguished from the rest by some circumsta11ce 'Yhich marks tl1em ot1t as peculiarly fit object� of pe11al le£!islatio_n. Now, no c1r: umsta11ce appears to us so well fitted to be the mark as the circumstance which we have selected. It will generally be found in the most atrociou_s �ases of <?m�ssion: it will scar� cely ever be found in a venial case of om1ss1on:. and 1t ts more cl�ar _and certain than any other mark that has occurred to us. _That there are obJect1�ns to the line which we propose to draw, we have ad�1tted. But there are obJec tions to every line which can be drawn, and some line mt1st be drawn.11 •

NOTES

N O SI N TE EX E V TI LA IS G LE N O TE A EB FURTHER D Note 1: Con

Perkins,

A Duty to Take Positive Action 12

The failure of the law [common Ia":] to impose a duty [to rescue] has l t. The views e�:"pressed by the Indian Law Commissioners were enacted into the law of India: See Art. SCJJ, Indian Penal C.Ode (1930). 12. Perkins, Criminal I.Aw 516.

. ,

...'..

•, :·

I·.

' . ".

, ' "

·..:

THE CRIMINAL ACT

ith a d w le r · up l1e c? at r n io 1it fi1 de o pr of n lty cu ffi di e tl, to te dt en b bly be d ve ar st to 11t fa 1n th n _ a A de . l1y o� . in os 1il pl ss iie tsi bt iiw ��i c!d mii,d-your-o y ar ss to ce i ne sta od . su fo e tl1 n th wi e. lif it Jly p( su t no d di s ,,t re pa ts I Cl ic · � e re er we Th d or fe m �t. go ca i 1_ 1 Cl tha ii1 e 1 on No it. d fe k oc bl e tl, ii, �· i; N� s o ate h S� d w_ te ni U did e th 1n le not op pe 11 io ill m y nt ve se d 011e littndred an . ly us 1t io bv 9 ds lan uld r wo he ot of be ts tan bi l1a i11 e 1 tl ti tio en m to fe ed it, 11ot t e. u� fan n ca i_ e be th of 1 atl nobody de e th ed tts ca 11e yo er ev at tl, y sa absurd to ill be no d1ff1culty in w re the s 1ce ta1 ms ct1 cir l ua us t111 of 1ce se1 ab the In it. fed r tl1e of rt. he pa fat the of on re l1e the act e tiv ga 11e ed 11iz og rec y all leg a g i dii fin ! � re n. d we ati� hel s1tu the . ut l abo ega ew y l<n y_ rel me o wh rs ,bo l g· cl,ild But if nei cl,argeable with tl1e deatl1, tl1ere might be no end of officious_ meddlin.g 1n other }iornes beca11se of a disagreerne11t between pare11ts and neighbors as to wl1at cl1ildren sl1ould eat. Col11mbia Law Review (Note), Tl1e failure to Rescue13 •

•

Tl1 e 1nost basic objection asserts that it is a forn1 of slavery to make one serve a.11otl·1er.It is socially 11ecessary to restrict the freedom to act, the ar gume11t goes, bul to req11ire action runs too stro11gly agai11st tl1e grain of the A.ngio-Arnericar1 ir1dividualistic traditio11.....In tl1is connection, it is i11teresting to 11ote t!1e Soviet en11)i1asis 011 remaki11g men into ''socialist'' me111 which see1r1s to mea11 tl1e sort of n1e11 wl10 aid otl1ers, who co11sciously co11tribute b.)l tl1ei r labor to tl1e society of \XI l1icl1 tl1ey are a part, a11d wl10 put the interests of tr1e state above tl1eir ow11.On tl1e other ha11d, it is doubtful whe tl1er the ir1clusion of Article 63 in the fre11ch Penal Code l1as any significant relatior1shi1) to concepts ,xrl1icl1 exalt tl1e state at the expense of the i11dividual or which have a ''socialist'' or a ''totalitarian' 1 co11tent. A11d tl1e enactment of Article 63 in the face of its i11trodt1ction i11to frencl1 la,xr by the Vicl1y gov er11me11t .affir111atively indicates that its purposes are consistent witl1 the ends of crimi11al law i11 a de1nocratic society.

A11otl1e� obj_ec!io11 _centers around tl1e possibility of false prosecutions.fear of l_egal .act1011, 1t 1s said, \vould cattse i11dividuals to interfere officiously in affairs or others. PeoJJle woL1ld 11ot k110\xr \xrl1etl1er, in tl1e situation confronting tl1e�, a duty to resc11e_ l1ad arisen .. A_s�de fron1 the possibility of maladmini stration by tl1e executive - a possibility prese11t in the -enforceme11t of any la_w. - th� real groL11�d of tl1is objectio11 is vag11eness: tl,ere is an i11escapable d1ff1culty 111 for1n11lat111g a r11le \Vl1icl1 will cover only tl1e bel,avior aimed at. • • • •

. Still a third objectior1 ste111s from the fJOssibility tliat more than one person !night l1aye l<11owledge of danger to a11_otl1er and tl1e ability to avert or mitigate 1t. Tl1e view l1as been adva11ced tl1at 1n sucl, a situatioi, no ''legal'' duty to act coL1l� rest l!po11 all pote11tial rescuers because if all atternpted rescue it "Yould fail, a11d if 011ly one attempted it, the others could scarcely be held liable .... Holmes, The Common Lawt4

Altl1ot1gh a ma11 l1as a perfect right to stand by and see his neighbor's 13• 14.

No te, Th Failure to Rescue: A Comparativ e Study, 52 Columbia L. Rro. 641-643 195 ;. ( 2). H o l mes, i,'h e Co,nmon law 278 (1881).

ACTS OF OMISSION

· property destroyed, or, for tl1e matter f th t to watcl, h ·s ne1g or l l1b ris 1 for 1Je i ctf � , ' want of l1 is he) p, yet if lie once i i ter ed . e5 lie 11 0 longer l1as tl1e same freedorn • He ca11not witl,dra,v..v, at w1-11. To give a 1nore spec1·t1c· exa1npIe, 1"f a . surgeon from benevolence cuts tl1 _11mb1. l1c al cord of a newly-bor11 cl1ild, l1e can� not stop tl1ere and watcl1 the pa tei,t b leed to deatl1. It woLtld be mt1rder ·,. the 1ntention · wi. lful l), to a11ow de�atl1 to come to JJass i 11 tl1 at ,v ay, as mttc11 as Ir · . . has been entertai . "1i ed at ti,e t·tm_e of ct1tt111g tl,e cord. It would 11ot ma tter · · whetl1er tl1e w 1cked11ess l)ega11 \,:r1tl1 tl1e act or ,...,..\/, 1·t11 the stt bseque11t om1ss1on.

Note 2:

Pro St. Lttke, Tl1e Parable of tlie Ooocl Sa1narita111 s

. 30. Atid Jesus a11s\ve1·i1_1g said. f� certai_11 n1a11 we11t down from Jert1salem to Jertc�o, and fell an1or1g tli !eves, \X1l11cl1 strt[)ped him of l1is raime11t, and ,vound ed l1zm, a11 d de1)arted, leav111g !1i,11 l1alf dead. • 31. Atid by cl1a11ce tl1ere came do\v• 11 a ce1·ta1·11 i)r1es · t tl· 1at ,va:1>1: ancl w11en he saw l1in1, lie J)assed by 011 tl1e otl1er side. 32. And like\vise a Levite, \vl1e11 l1e \Vas at tl1e place, ca111e a11ci lorJl<ed orz /;im, a1id passed by 011 t l1e otlier side. 33. But a certai11 Sa11i arita 1 1, as lie j 011 rr1eyed, c�trr1e \YJl1ere !1e \:VQS; ancl whe11 l1e sa\v }1in1, }1e l1acl co111J)assio11 011 !Ji1n, 34. A11d \v·c11t to /:,i,11, a1id bot111cl tlfJ l1is \X'OU11ds, fJOt1ri11g ir1 oil a.r1cl 'l:vi11e, and set liim 011 l1is O\Vl1 beast, a11d broL1gl1t J1im to a11 inn, a11cl tool( care of 1

l1im.

35. And on tl1e 1norrow \Vl1er1 l1e de1)arted, l1e toolc 0L1t l\v;o JJe11ce, a11d tl1en1 to tl1e l1ost, and said tttito l1im, Tal{e care of l1i 1n; a11cl \xrl1atsoever spe11dest more, \vhe11 I co111e agai11, I \Vilt rerJay tl1ee. 36. Whicl1 no\v of tl1ese tl1ree, tl1i11l<est thou, was 11eighbour unto tl1at fell among tl1e tl1 ievess 37. And l1 e said, J Ie - tl1at sl1e\ved mercy 011 l1im. Tl1en said Jestis him, Oo, and do tl1ou like\vise.

ga.,,e tl1ou l1im t111to

Be11tham, 011 the Duty to Act

A woman's I1ead-dress catcl1es fire: water is at hand: a man, i11 stead of _ ,. fallin_g as�isti ng to queiich th e fire, looks 011, an� l_auglls at it. A dru11k�n man w1tl1 l1is face do�·nward iii to a puddle, 1s In da11ger of suffoca_t1011 : l1ft1ng 1�1s s d let him a11 -s es tl11 se 11 1na r l1e ot an n: l1i1 ve sa ad d he a little on one side woul g to in in s go i _ an m : a om a r? t ou b a_ d re t� at sc s lie ie cr wd . po ! . � quantity of gu 11 �t with a lighted candle: anotl1 er , knowing tl11s, lets htm �o 1n w_Itl,out war_n1ng. Who is t11ere that in any of tl1ese cases would tl1111k IJttr11sl11nent m1sapplied?t6 n e, he ca if 1c a1 st si of as ed ne ve ha ho w e os tl1 st si as Every man is bound to 1 s.

16·

··.

'· ' .

Holy Bible, St. Luke l O; 30�37. Benth am , Principlts 0/ Morals and Legislation 323 ( I 823, 1948 ed.).

I . •

' ' ,.!'

,. :•,

1.:.. ' I

·.

. 1 . ,·

I1 • ; :

. ' '.

,·

.'. '

,F ,.,

�l

,..

THE CRIMINAL ACT

. is ce h n T ie g n li ve ob n co io in at _ le n b si n se is to lf · se im h g n si po ex t do it witllou r er e fo at th re g e on e . th , ts r ge an d d an e th as on ti or p ro p n to c h would be the cas r. he ot t S� e. fo � � ss le e e tl1 im h ng vi er es o pr � hl f i� �f :11: h e clothes of the t ng ei se al du v1 d1 1n an d an e fir e · · hin · g near th · · . . of a man s1eepin th ti . e � c g e ie m ri is gu ti_n ex l ds ou ar w w t� d g in th no g in do d an , re fi ch first cat , but from ss ne le om fr id y pl m si t no g tin � om fr . be greater if he refrai_ned � malice or some pecuniary interest. a N ag ast th Fe he t er nd U n io s is m O of The Concept

Note 3:

18 n e m al sh tu ni iri Pu d Sp t an al or rp Co Its d a11 fetha Nagast, Homicide r ste l1is a m_ e o� lif must be tl1e e tak to pts en1 att o wh t van ser e Th .... of l11s master w�ile ies _cr the rs l1�a o wh t van ser the e, tru ; fire the o int t h rown at s �l1 th wa wi d 1 nte happening a aqu s wa d an w kne lie or ed, kill ng bei he is . hed nis be pu st mu . . .. elp h r 1de re1 t 11o did and r ste 111a l1is to

l 1

Questions

1. 2. 3.

V/hat factor disti11gt1is lies Art. 547 (1) from 547 (2) (b)? On which side of tl1e li11e would Arts. 520 and 625 fall? Wl1at reaso11s 1nigl1t be given to sLtpport tl1e following assertion: Not all omissions sl1ould be fJL1nished; s0111e 110\xrever must be pu11ished?

Tl1e difficulty comes i11 dra\X1i 11g tl1e legal line at an equitable n1iddle position. Wl1ere do t\1e I 1 1dian La\v Commissior1ers draw it? Wl1ere do tl1e Penal Codes of Etl1iopia, the Conti11ent, a 1 1d tl1e common law draw the line of criminal liability for omissions? l11 wha_t respe_ct�, if a11)'.', �oes tl1e jJroblem of for1nulati11g a just criterion for d1fferent1at 1ng cr1111111al fro1n non-criminal acts differ from that of _fo:mulating sue� a test for differentiati11g crimi11al from non-critninal 0 1111ss 1ons? Wl1ere, ideally sl1ould sucl1 a li11e be draw11? Has Etl1iopia gone too far or not far enoL1gl1 i11 [Jenalizing on1issions? Problems

_ eal_tl1y ma11 in. Etl1ioJJi� \X1]10. comes upon a beggar. appe�ring to _Is a w be 1n 1mm1nent a11d grave peril of }115 \iealtl,'' leoally obliged to give alms to !hat beggar? ML1st the wealtl1y ma1 1 give enough bmoney to restore tl1e beg gar s health? �ust lie_ ta�<� tl1e beggar to tl1e hosJJital? Does tl1e man have to be wealthy to incur l1ab 1 l1ty t1 11der Art. 547 P.C.E.? 11

CE . Is a doctor to be held crimi11ally liable in EthiotJia under Art . 520 P o .be. t e desir his he refuses to attend a seriously ill patient due to when present at: a. his son's wedding? b. his son's funeral?

17. 18.

Bentham, Speci,nen of a Penal Code . · ,n w;orks 164· ( 1843). Chap. XLVII.

ACTS OF OMISSION

N?te. tl1at . m?t_ive, qtrite exceptio11 ally, is included as a11 esse11 tial element of cr1m1nal l1abil1ty under Art . 520. Ca11 tl1is doctor also be JJrosec11ted 1111der Art. 547? Wl1en does a ''IJrofessio11al obligation'' arise 11nder Art. 547 (2) (b)? Recommended Readings

Da\vso11, Negotior11n1 Oestio: Tl1e Altrt1islic l 11 ter111edcller, 74 J-Jarrr1ard L. Rev. 817-865, 10?3-1129 (1?61) (a co1111Jrel1 e 11sive clisc11ssio11 co111 1Jari11 g tl1e A11glo-A111er1ca11 la\�' w1tl1 Oer111a11, S\viss a 1 1d Jtalia11 la\v i 11 tl1 e area of 11 nsolici te(i i11 terver1tio11 ). Hall, General Pri11ciples of Cri1t1i,1,il Law 190-205 ( excelle11t disc11ssic)r1 of 01nis sio11s i11clt1dir1g cor1sicier<1tior1 of tl1e JJroblems of ca11satio11 a11d i11te11t). Largt1ier, fre11cl1 Pe11al La \V a11cl tl1e DLtl }' to Aid Perso11s ir1 Da1 1ger, 38 Titl,zne L. Re·v. 81-90 ( 1963). Har7.'ard Law Revie1i Fre 11 cl1 St.att1te I1n1Josi11g Cri 111inal Liability for \/olt111tary Failttre to Assist Perso11 s i11 Peril AjJjJlied lo Pl1ysicia11s, 63 Jf..,rv,ird L. Rev . 886-888 (1950). Bot1zat, Droit Pe,z.zl 120-129 (discussio 1 1 of 0111issio11 i 11 fre11cl1 Ia\v i 11 clt1di11g rece11t juris1Jrt1de 11 ce i11 re .,i\.rt. 63 of tl1 e fre11 c]1 Pe11al Code). Vot1i11 ancl Lea11te, Droit Pe,zal 180-186 (classificatio11 of a11cl pl1 iloso1,l1y he:l1i!'}Cl 0111issio11 in fre11 cl1 law). Hofstetter a11d lv1arscl,all, A111e11d111e11t to tl1 e Belgian Cocle Pe 11 al: Tl·,e O L1 ty to Resct1e Persor1s i11 Seriotts Da11ger, 11 Americ&.1.11 ]. of C'u,11/J.ir�ztiroe L, 66-72 (1962). Kircl1!1eimer, Cri111i11al On1issio11s, 55 1-I"zrvard /_. Rev. 61_5*6,12 (l 9�-1:2) (e:�celle11t disc11ssion of omissio11 i11 tl1e cri111i11al la\v of A111 er1ca). Shm1,el Dez,tsch v. Tl1e Attor11ey Ge11eral, 2 Selected J11dger;1ents of' the 5t�preiJte C'ot:.rt of Israel 92 (1952) (decisio11 co11sideri11 g liability for cat1si11g deatl1 tl1ro1,1gi1 u11Ia\Vful, neglige11 t on1 issi 011). 1,

.JI

I I

I .. '

SECTION C. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT

a. T/ze /11tent Requirenient THE INTENT ELEMENT IN CRIMINAL ATTE!v1PT 19 Oliver lfl'endall Holnles disti net tl1ings., I11te11t to commit o tw tem pt a11d ·J 11te 11 t , of course , are At . · · · · · g to coma ·crime 1s 110 t 1·tseIf cr1m1na I . Tl,ere 1s 110 law aga11· 1st a man s 11· 1 te11d1n m 1t a murd er the d ay aft er to -morrow · TJ1,=,- law 011ly de·a Is w· t·ti 1 condtic t. A11 1a ti t ti • · I 1e 1 t e t!S, 1n 11n cr ed pt m te at e ll1 attempt 1s om fr rs · an overt act . It d1·ffe · . act l1as failed to bring abo11 t the rest1l t wl1 1cl1 wot1 Id have g1·�e11 11 t ti,e c Iia� · • 1t . tl 1 • ea c lt s 1n su re r de ttr m to pt m ct tt e ? er of tl1e principal crt me. If an a . ds' b 1s murder. If an atternpt to steal res11Jts in carryitig off tl,e ow11e r's aoo it is larceny . 19- Holmes, Tht Common Law 65-69 ( 1881 ) · See A rts. 21 � 22 C.P.S. (A ppcndix) for the source of Art. 27 P.C.E.

'. J

' '

I • ' ;

I' .

. .. '1··: I'

I ,• I, •

.. , ,,' ....' . . ..... . ·..

i: _- ,

·-

. .�

THE CRIMINAL ACT

le �b ct fe ob ef pr d an de l ra u� tu r na e th 1 cl the hi w . . of ne do is t ac an If e, e th im cr 1m e cr tiv . tan bs l su 111a a of law' t en hm s i· pl m co ac e · th c1rcumsta11ces 1s s · h t �1 o f en pu m y ·t r1 1 ·f ve se e e th th e at �r od m act h_ ttg 1o e1 ly er op while it may pr n ai t st ge ab ly to rd �l ha r �e n ca , se ca from ar ul ic rt pa e tl, in ct fe 1,as not that ef al tu t a11 ac e11 at 1nt th 1s 1ed gL ar all that en be s ha It ry · eo tl, y an on ·t 1, · 1.11ng · pu11is . . ·. t ·t th u i . B e es 1c t a1 � s · ew in vi ch su 11:1 1ic �] r te ac ar h ch al can give tile act a crimiii d, e e un th so e_ sam ar 111c ter pr gl1 lau ns ma iples d an er rd 1nu to as ed nc va I have ad l. ra ne ts tn ge Ac ts ac ul sho O! y lit d be na mi cri the ne mi ter de to lly ica ought log , t es 11o nc by sta m cu the cir r1 ow kn actual e tl1 r de un y nc de ten eir tl1 by judged intent which accompa11ies thenJ. It may be true tl1at in tl1e region of attempts, as elsew�ere, the law began witl1 cases of actual intent1 as those cases are tl1e most obvious ones. But it cannot stop witl1 them, un less if attaches more import�11�e to the ety11:ological meaning of the word attempt· than to tl1e g�neral pr111c1ples of_ . pt1111shment. Accordir1gly tl1ere is at least col�r of autl:or1t,y for the propos1t10� that an act is punisl1able as an attempt, 1f, suppos111g 1t to l1ave p�oduc�d its 11atural and probable effect, it would have amot1 1 1ted to a substantive crime. But sL1ch acts are not tl1e only pu11ishable attempts. There is anotl1er class in wl1 icl1 actual inte11t is clearly necessary, a11d tl1e existence of tl1is class as \veil as tl1e name (attempt) no doubt te11ds to affect the \vl1ole doctrine.

I '

S01ne ,lets may be atte1npts or misdemea11ors which could not l1ave effected tl1e crime u11less followed by otl1er acts 011 the part of the '.trro11g-doer. for i11star1ce, ligl1ting a matcl1 witl1 intent to set fire to a haystack l1as bee11 l1eld to amoL1nt t0 a criminal attempt to burn it, altl1ougl1 tl1e defendant blew out the matcl1 011 seeing tl1at l1e was watched.( 2) So tl1e purcl1ase qf dies for making cou11terfeit coir1 is a misdemeanor, although of course the coi11 would not be cou11terfeited unless the dies were used.<3 > 111 such cases the law goes on a new principle, differe11t from tl1at gov erni11g most substantive crimes. The· reason for pu11isl1i11g a11y act 1nust gen erally be to. prevent sor11e harm which is foresee11 as Iik.ely to follow that act u11der the circumstances in \Vl1icl1 it is done. In most st1bstantive cri1nes the ground 011 \vhich that lik�lihood sta11ds is the common working of 11atural causes_ as _sl1own by experience. But when an act is punisl1ed tl1e 11atural effect of �l11ch ts not ha�n:ift1l under tl1e circumstances, that grou11d alo11e will �ot sL1ff 1 ce. Tl1e probab1l1ty does 11ot exist ttnless tl1ere are a-rounds for ex1Ject1ng tl1at the. act done will be follo\ved by other acts i 11 co11�ection witl1 wl1icl1 its effect will be l1�rmft1l, altl1ougl1 11ot so otl1 erwise. But as in fact 110 such acts l1ave followed, it. cannot, i11 ge11eral, be assttmed, fro m the mere doing of wl�at lias been done, tl1at tl1ey wot1ld l1ave follo,ved if tl1e actor l1ad not been in terruped. They wot1ld !1ot have followed it ttnless the actor l1ad cl1osen, and the only _way gener�lly available to show that he \vould l1ave cl1osen to do them is by ?howtn� that he intended to do tl1em when lie did what he did. Tl1e accom pai1 ng y} es intent in . t�at case . re,1ders the otherwise innocent act l1arm because it rais ful , a probability that 1 t will be followed by such other wil l as s eve 11t and act s . all together re�ult in harm. Tl1e importance of .tl1e inte11t is not to show that the act was wicked, but to show that it was tfu l hu r by fo lik llo ely we be d to conseque11ces� e It will be readily seen that there are ·tim Th ity . lia bil its to this kind of (2) Rtg. v. Taylor, 1 F. & F. 511. (3) Rtg. v. Robtrts, 25 L. J. M. c . 17_ ...

ATTEMPT

law _does not punish every act which is done with th e intent to bring about a _cr�m e . If a man starts from Boston to Cambridge for the purpose of com m1tt1n g a _murder when h� gets th e re,. but is stopped by tl1e draw and goes ho-me, he 1s no more punishable than 1f l1e had sat in l1is chair and resolved to shoot s01nebody, but on s econd thoughts 11ad given up tl1e notion.... We have see n what amounts to an �ttempt to burn a haystack· but it was said in the same case, that, if the defendant l1ad gone 110 further than to buy a box of matches for tl1e purpose, lie would 11ot hav e been liable. Eminent judges have been p uzzled wl1ere to draw the line or even to state the principle on whicl1 it sl1ould b e draw11, between the tw� sets of cases. But the principle is believed to be similarto tl1at on wl1icl1 all otl1er li11es are drawn by th e law. Public policy, that is to say, legislative co11siderations, are at the bottom of the matter; the considerations being, in tl1is case, tl1e 11earr1ess of the danger, the greatness of tl1e harm, and the degree of apprehension felt. When a man buys matches to fire a haystack, or starts on a jour11ey mea11i11g to murder at the end of it, there is still a considerable cl1a11ce tl1at lie \Y1ill. change his mind before he comes to the poi11t. But wl,en lie has strucl< tl,e match, or cocked and aimed the pistol, tl1ere is very little cl1a11ce tl1at l1e 'vJill not pe rsist to the end, a.nd the danger beco1nes so great that the la\'11 steps i11. With an obj ect which could not be used i1111ocently, tl1e point o! ii1 ter,1�n�io11 might be put further back, as it1 tl1e case of the fjt1rchase of a d1e \Qr co1n111g. CRIMINAL ATl,El\11PT20 Max Waibli11ger

The intention 11ecessary to the existence of ,1r1 atternpt - the , l(no�vledge and ,vill tending toward the fulfillment of tl1e act-rnust _ 11ot or1]y oe cl1rectecl without ambiguity in the direction <?f !he goal to be att�111ed,_ bt1t mt1st also be irrevocable to a high degree. Tl11s 1nst1res t11� t . tl1e 111 te11t1011 \voulcl l1ave passed the critical moment when tl1e actt1al cr1m1nal. act would 11ave bee11 J. directed to\vard tl1e accompl1shme11t of Ll1at act ..... that it was consummated, . . . for an at tern pt, indire ct intention is sufficient in tl1e sa1ne ma1111er as for a completecl crime.. . .

I j

! .

... A negligent attempt is naturally inconceivable . ,.

MERRITT v. COMMONWEALTI-I Supreme Court of Virginia, 164 Va. 653 (1935) United States

�

e iv nt 1e ta l t_ of bs t s� ?r t, sh ac e th n he w ly on ts is ex _ · : : The indictable attempt e evi l thing, tl1us tir e en tl1 do to nt te in t'c f t' . cri · me' · proceeds from th e ·spec a tl t 1a say we . 1en ·1· Wl 1ty b1 lpa cu ial ec sp a ne t do g impar 1n to so muc h as 1s e intended to do it h that n mea e ng, r o w man�tt n give . . empted to do a · nd mi tl1e it1 e11t int e . Th itig do the � tn wa r spec1f1cally; and proceeded a certain covers the thing in full; th e act covers it only in part. · · · (1957). 99 11 o N , ts ss s Sui 11e iq id 111 J s . ht ic F 3 . s) "'" 20• wai'bl"anger, La Tentaove (I• Gc1.neLralit�

.. . 'i .

I. . I I

i '' .. . · .·, I

. ''.. ..

TliE CRIMINAL ACT

Questions

2. 3.

es pt do em att w I-lo t? differ from e11 int re me m fro fer dif iJt em att es lio\v do tl1e completed, substantive crime? \X/1,at are tl,e two classes of attempt made illegal under Art. 27? Read the case decided by tl1e StI(Jerior Court of tl1e Canton of -Zurich infra ca·refull)-' before a11s\vering tl1is question. J-lol111es speaks of ''actual i11te11t''; Waiblinger of intent ''irrevocable to a l1igl1 degree''; a11d, tl1e judge in Merritt v. Commonw�alth _of ''specific i 11 tent'' i11 order to co11stitute attempt. What do yot1 tl1111 k . 1s meant by st1cl1 terms? Wl1at are tl1e reaso11s for reqt1iri11g sucl1 a l1igh degree of proof witl1 respect to i11te11t? for \vhicl1 class of attempt does Holmes feel an actt1al i11te11t is 11ecessary? I-low does he deal witl1 tl1e otl1er class of atte111pt? Does tl1e structttre of Art-= 27 sup1Jort Holmes' view?

I Io\x - r \x,ould a j)Ltblic IJrosecLttor go about provi11g intent in the absence o-f a co1111Jletecl act? I-low \VOL1ld l1e prove in J-Iolmes' hypothetical that tl1e 111a11 wl10 lit tl1e matcl1 actually i11te11ded to fire tl1e l1aystack?

Art. 522? How is st1ch Wl·1at i11te11t is reqt1ired for Aggravatecl JIon1icide, a 11 i 11 le11 t J) roved?

Wcit1lcl f\lo I-Iaile iv\ariam be gt1ilty C)f atten1pt \vl1e11 l1e, \xrl1ile a bit drunk, tried i11 jest to sl1oot a bottle from tl1e \Vall i11 a 11earby tej bet but, in fact, jt1st 111issecl l1itti11g· a ct1sto111er wl1e11 tl1e bt1llet we11t astray?

b. The Act Requi1'ement

I .I

(1) The Preparatory Act

PENAL CODE Of ETJ-IIOPIA Art. 26. - Preparatory Acts.

Acts \�l1icl1 ;-tre merel)' desig11ed to jJre1Jare or n1al<e IJOssible a11 offence, by JJrOcL1r111g tl1e n1ea11s or creati11g tl1e co11ditio11s for its co1nmissio11 are not p unisl1 a bI e t111les s: or by la\x,; a11 offe 1ce defi11ed (a) i11 t ;iemselves tl1ey co11stitt1te ( _ _ , (b) tl,e)-. are ex [)J essl�>' co11st1tt1tecl a S[Jec1al offence by law by reaso11 of t]1e1r _ _ ge11eral cla11ger tl1ey e11t·ail. g1av1t), or tl1e

I•

PREPARATION ANO: ATTEMPT21 I

I 'I

I I I' I '

' . '

•

E. Ziircl;er •

•

Still witli�n ti�: r�al111 of jJreJJaratory acts are tl1 fabric Jle irn 1 tl1e of r1 ati e o _ 11e 11t s of st1 bsl�11ce tl! at \v11ll be Ltsed [to comtnit a crirne] or ftirtlier, to meet � . wliei e a [JI O[Josed . 111 a place attacl< will occttr. Bt1t raisi11g or1e's arm 11 1 0rder 21. Zurcher, Cocle f)cnal Suisse' E.\J,>ose des 1\,fot1js i\lfred n, cio 1ant-P cle rransl a f'/l'l.. rojet SS-59 (French Gautier, 19 r--g,,. \.,

ATTEMPT

to hit a!1ot)1er , or drawi_ng a knife in tl1e presence of a cl1osen victim constitutes tl1e beg1nn 1ng of execut1011 [comme11 ce1ne11t d ex ' ecutiori]. PEOPLE v. MILLER S1,pre,ne Co1irt of· Califor11i,,, 2 Cal. 2d. 527 ( J 935) U,1ited 5'tates •

•

· o11 tl1 e day 111

•

· qt1est1on

Tl1e evide,,ce is 1Jr:ict· · •. · 1ca 11Y :'!i·ti1ot1 t co11 fl1ct. the _ ., defe11 da11t, sornewl1at _ t 111ll�r tl1e 111flt1e11ce of liqtior, ai,d iti tlie J)resence of otl1ers, at tl1 e post off tee 111 tl1e lo\vn of B0011 evi I le, t1 1reale11 ed to l< ill Albert Jeans . for r�asot�s avo\x·ed b)r ll1e de re11cla11 t t l1 at Jea11s a 11e�ro I1ad beei1 arlllO}'lllg 111S \X1 1fe �lJld tl1 at _ tl1� aLtll_1orities \XIOUlcl IlOl 'take cfl [lrge of tl1e !"Tlatter. Jea11s l1a� s0111e assoc1at1011 ,v1tl1 tl1e clefe11da11t a,1� oti1er ,x,!iite j)eople 111 tl1at co111n1t1111t.Y. f<.)r"� 11t11!1ber of years. 011 tl1at clay Jea, 1 s ,r;as e111ployec.i o � tl1e l1op ra11cl1 of 0111ocl�10, \vl10 ,vas tl1e co11 stable of Boor1e,;ille . J�\boLit o clo�k that �1fter110011 ,,;;!11le Co11stal1le Oi11ocl1io, Jea11s a11d oll1ers '(•1ere _pla_11t!11g �1ops, t�1e de _fe11da11t e 11lered tl1e l10J) field of Oir1ocl1io c.arr)·i 11g a .22 caliber rifle. 01 !1ocl11 o \x-·as abot1 t 250 or 300 yarcls awa.y � 11d J ea 11 s abotii 30 11 t \vall(ed i11 a direct Ii11e to\rJrcJ. Oir1ocl1io, y�rds be)'Ot1 d c 111 ��- _T!1e defe11da _ Whe 11 �l1e d�1e1�clL111t 11ad g?11e a�1ot1t 100 yarcls l1e stOJ)jJtcl a11Ll a1Jj)eareci ('.) be load1r1 g 111s rifle.At 110 time d1cl l1e Iifl l1is rifle ,ls tl·1ot1gl1 to cal{e airr1. Jea,,s, as s?o11 as. lie JJerceivecl tl1e defe11dJ11t, fl_ed ()11 a i111e at ;tl)(1Ltt rig!1t a11gl_es to /v\1ller s l111e of apJJroa_cl1 , bt1l \v;l1:,�l1er o�'fore rJr after tl1t� stooi)ii1��: mot1011 made by tl1e defe11 da11t 1s 11 ot. clear. 1 l1e dete11 dar1t co11ti1111ed ·io1.x'::trc; Oi11ocl1io \\-·110 tool, tl1e gt111 i11to l1is 0\'({11 1Jossessior1, tl1e defe11cia11t c1ffl�rir1�· 110 resista11ce. The gt111 ,vas fot111d to be loadecl \�itl1 a .22 caliber Io11�2·, o';.· higl1-speed, cartridge. Tl1e foregoir1g are tl1e salie11 t fac:ts s tatee.I \Vil l1ot1't' tl1e color afforded b)' il1e epitl1ets a11d la11guage used b)' tl,e defe11da11t i11 111al<ir�g· l1is threats. 1.J:

•

Wl1ere the critne re111ai11s t111fi11isl1ed a11d tl1e defenda11t is cl1 arged \>1itl1. attempt, two im1Jorta11t elen1e11ls are esse11tial: A s1Jecific i11te11t to cornr11it tl1 e cri 111e a11d a tiirect it1effectt1al act do11 e toward its cornmissio11 . .IV\ere ir1tentio11 to commit a SJ)ecified critne cloes 11ot a1nou11t to an atte111pt. PrerJaratio11 alo11e in not sufficie11 t. ''Sometl1ir1 g more is reqt1ire� tl1 a11 r1:1ere. mer,a�e_s, f)reparatio11 or [)lan11ing." (30 Cor.Jttr. I 3) 1 'Tl1 e pre1Jarat1011 consists 111 dev1s1 ng or arra11g� ing tl1e 111ea11s or n1eas-L1res 11ecessary for tl,e com111issio11 of tl1e offei1se; tl1e attern pt is tl1e direct movement towards tl1e coin111ission after tl1e preparations are made....Therefore, tl,e act mt1st reacl1 far e11ot1gl1 to\x,ards tl1e accomplisl1-· me,1t of tl1e desired result to amot111t to tl1e con1111enceme11t of tl1e const11n matio11.1' (8 ·R.C.L., JJIJ. 278, 279). ''Tl1ere m�st be so111e a1)preciable_ fra�tne,,t of tl1e crime co1nmitted, a11d it 111t1s_t be 1n sucl,_ J)rogress tl1at rt \v1_ll be 1 111 of e11t t1d � e1)e of tt1e 111d s 1ce ta1 ms 1 ct c1r by st1 con mmated uiiless ir1terrt1pted the attempter.' ' (WJ,artoii ' s Crimi11al Law, 12tl1 ed., vol. 1, IJ, 280.) It 1s also stated in tt1e sam e work at page 292 of volt111�e 1: ''If tl1e JJreparatio11 is 11ot of itself indictable or will 11 ot of itself, if t111 111terrtIJJted extra11eously, result ir1 crime, tl1e weight of reasoning is tl1at it ca1111ot be macle per se i11dictable as an attern pt. for first, there is no evi?e11ce as a ge11er�l rt1le, tl1at ca11 prove that a particu lar preparation was des1g11eci for .� part1ct1lar e11 d. Tl1us a gu11 �ay be bought as w el l for } 1 t1i1 ting as for .l1om1c1de.Nor can we lay down at1)' intelligible tine between preparations wl11ch betray more clearly and tl1ose

I I

,. ' ·.,,, .

I '.

I. I ' l . .'

: '· �

.....

.' ,,

100

THE CRIMINAL ACT

n ee , ly tw 11d be co ep ?e pr _ . s� po r _ JLt I _ at ar s ou 1:i lo ion fe a rly ea cl ss le y whicl1 betra ce ca11not _fill up so as en 1d rt sp r1 1u al 111 1m cr 1 1 cl h w p ga a is and executioi1 tllere e ng f put pose, or the ? 1a cl a_ be ay ni re 1� Tl e. 11s fe of t1s t1o to make 011e co11ti11 1cl1 t� e law cannot ':'7h to 1 _ e, st1 ea f!l y 1ar 01 1 t 1 at ec IJr � gu ya � , preparatioi, inay be t11 lty act. .. . g 1to 11 1 1 1 1Je r to y ad re , 11t 1te appetid a IJositive cr11n1 11al 11 . it· �ti 11 presLifJposes so1ne direct act or 1_novem�11t i 11 exect1tio11_ of the desigi,, as disti11gtiisl1ed fr��1 1nere preJJarat1on wl11�h lea�� s tl1e_ intended assaila11t 011Iy i11 tl1e co11d1t1on to con1mence . t�e f 1r�t d11 ect act_ to\vard coi,suinmatio11 of 1,is desig11. Tl1e reason for r_equ1r111g e�1den�e of a d_1rect act, 1,owever sliglit, toward co11sum 1natio11 of tl1e 111t�11ded cr1r�1e,. 1s, as po111ted out by tl1e at1thor ir1 Wl1arto11's Cri1ni11al Law, �l1�t 111 tl1e 1na.Jor1ty of cases u� to that time the condt1ct of tlie defe11da11t, co 11s1st111g 1nerel}' of acts of preparation, 1,as 11e\1er ceased to be equivocal; and tl1is is 11ecessarily so, irrespective of I,is declared i11te11t. It is tl1at quality of bei-11g eqt1ivocal tl1at must be lacking before tl1e act beco111es one \x1!1icl1 1na)' be said to be a corf\mencement of the commission of tl1e crir11e1 or a11 overt act, or before an)' frag111e11t of tl1e crime itself l1as been con1111itted, a11d tl1is is so for tl1e reaso11 tl1at so long as the eqt1ivocal c1L1ality re 1nai11s 110 011e can say \xritl1 certainty wl1al tl1e i11te11t of the defe11da11t is. As statecl i11 U11itecl States v.ford, 34 fed. 26, 27, ''tl1e i11tention of tl1e actor ca11 alo11e be clearly ascertai1 1ed by tl1e 1noven1e11ts wl1icl1 lie l1ad n1acle to co1111)lete l1is desigr1." 111 tl1e early case of Peo1Jle v. Mt1rray, 14 Cal. 159, a co11victio11 of attempt to co11tract an i11cestt1ot1s marriage \X1as reversed. I 11 disct1ssi11g· tl1e disti11ctio 11 betwee11 pre1Jaratio11 a11d atten11Jt 1 it \XJas said; ''To illt1strate: a [Jarty may !JLtrcl1ase and loacl a gt111, \X1itl1 tl1e declared inte11tion to sl1oot !1is 11eighbor; but t111til son1e n1ove111e11t is ,nade to use tl1e wearJon upo11 tl1e person of his i11te11ded victim, tl1ere is 011ly [Jreparatio11 and 11ot an atte111pt. for the pre1Jara tion, l1e 1nay be l1eld to l<eerJ tl1e peace; bt1t lie is not cl1aro·eable \X1ith any atten1pt to l<ill." l11 tl1e case of Stol<es v. State it was I1eld tl1at, the i11te11t bei11g clear, tl1e taki11g of a loaded o-t111 and o-oi110· i11 search of tl1e i11te11ded victin1 co11stitt1ted a11 atte 111pt. Jt1stificatio11 f�r the decision i11 that case �ay be said to lie ir1 tl·1e _IJOssibility of tl1e jt1ry 1 s fi11di11g 11nder tl1e f�cts there 111v?lved that tl1e. pre1Jarat1011 for tl1e assault \Vas \xritl1out at1}' equivocal1ty, and tl1e 111tent tl1t1s be111g proved, tl1e 1Jre1Jaratio11 was st1fficie11t to co11stitu te tl1e overt act. Tl1e sa�1e reaso11i11g a1J1Jlies to tl1e cases of People v. La11zit, 70 Cal.. }\PfJ. 4?8, \�l1ere111 tl1e defenda11t l1ad IJrepared a botnb for tl1e purpose of k1ll111g his wife; a11d PeorJ!e v. Stites, 75 Cal.570, \xrl,erein tl1e defendant l1ad _pr�f)ared to place d�11amite 011 railway tracks, and i,1 both of wl1ich co11v1ct1011s were upl1elcl. 11,ese cases illustrate tJ1e small class of cases wher e !l1e acts of pre1?aratio11 the1nselves clearly i,1cticate tl,e certain unambiguous intent a11d st1ff1ce to co11stitute tl1e atte,niJt. 111 th e present case tip to _ the mome11t tl1e gu1� · \Y1as taken fro 1n t!1e defe11clatit 110 one could say \xrith certa1n!Y wl1etl1er tl1e clefenda11t l1ad co1ne 111to tlie field to carry out 11is tl,reat to kill Jeans or merely to demand l1is arrest by tl1e constable U11der tl1e autl1oriti e5, tl1erefore, tl1e ac_ts _of tl1e defe11da11t do 110t constit mi t co m to att em pt an ut e· 1nurder. [i\\ost c1tat10 11s 0 1nitted].

. I

' ' '

I •

Questions

I I I

s doe n Wl1e At \-Vl7at_ JJoii,t does a11 act beco1ne subject to legal liability? preJ)aration end a11d tl1e crimi11al act begi11 under tl1e P.C.E.? . '-

ATTEMPT

101

After exatni11 ing tl1e facts 111 Peornle 'V • .1v1i A.,f 'll er w1·ti1 great care a11d assuming . . . . qt11s1te 111 ti,at the 1e . te11t is })rese11t, co11sider tl1e follo,vi11 g:

a. ;;vhat . v·ere tile ac�s per1Jetrated by tl1e defe 11 da11t, Miller, wl1icl1 could e sa1; to be lead111g to\vard tl1e sl1ooti11g of Jea11s? b. Wl1icl1 act(s) brot1gl1 t tl1e defe 11cla11t closest to co1111nitting 1101niride? c. picl _ Iv\iller proceecl far e1101.1gl1 to l1a\rc co111 111iltecl a cri11 1i11al act, tl1at is, d1 cl 11 e I} roceecl be)' 011 cl t f1 e stage or J)re IJa ratio 11: (1) U11cler tl1e test set 0L1 t i11 i\rl. 26? (2) U 1 1der tl1e test set ottl

i11

Art. 27?

(3) U11cler tl1e tests citetl b )' tl 1 e StttJre111e Cottrt of Califor11ia? (4) U11ller a111· of tl1e tests e11t1r11eralcd i11 Nole 1 infra? (5) LT 11ue r :,·ottr o \x·11 test? 3.

\VI,�· cloes �1-\rt. '.26 as a ge11eral J)ri11ci JJle exe1111)t JJre1)arat(>rv acts fro1n J)L_t111sl1111i..:11l? 1\re st1cl 1 s,,�cial Part Articles as 254, 269 �l11cl 286 i11co11siste11t \X'1ll1 Art. 26?

\Vl_1�1t_ is tl1ere i11 tl1e JJt1r11oses of J)t111isl1111e11t �s stJte(l by tl1e Soviel Cr1111111al Code (Art. 20) \vl1icl1 lea(ls tl1c Sc1\r iet U11i1J11 to j)t111isl1 j)rt::1)ar�1. tory acis (,:\rt. 15)? See Note 2 i,zjrL ,. Wl1;:i.t otl1er re8.s011s 111ig·l1t l->e giv·e,1 for [JUi1isl1i11g j)rerJarator)' acts? (2} The Act of Atiempt

PENAL CODE OF ETI-IIOPIA Art. 27. - Atten1pt (I} \Vl1oever i1 1te 11tio 1 1ally begi11s to com111it a1 1 offence a11d does not pursue

es 10 rsu \vl pu or d, e11 its to ty ivi act l 11a 1ni cri l1is e rsu 11t1 to or is t111 able c 11e ult tl1e res i11g iev ach t1t tl1o \vi d e11 its to t}' ivi act l1is cri 1 ni11al essary for tl1e com1)letio11 of tl1 e offe11ce sl1all be g11ilty of a11 atte111pt. ed ar rm cle t rfo ac pe e tl1 11 1e wl 11 gu be be to ed 1 e11 de is Tl1 e offe11ce n. io iss rn n1 co its at , ce 1 1 t1e eq 11s co ct re di l}' ai1ns, lJ y way of · id ov ise tJr rw l1e is ot as ve sa le 1ab isl 111 JJt ys wa al (2) A 1 1 attc11111ted of fence is ed by law. e es 11c d fe of 1 1 a1 i e al iJJ ic rt IJa or e at ig st � � i11 to A mere atternJ)t . 1d ov sly fJr es pr ts ex it ss 1le t11 law e tl1 of 1s o1 isi not con1e \\::itl1 ir1 tl1e prov ed to tl1e co1 1trary. TI e tl1 J)U e to bl lia is er 11d fe of e tJ1 e 11c fe of ed pt tn (3) l11 tl1e case of a1 1 atte it: n1 n1 co to ed nd te i11 l1e e nc fe of e tl1 to 11t 1g ne 1ir isl11 attacl ce du re ay m rt Lt co e tl1 fy ti t1s j so s ce an st 1 t1n rc ci Prc)vi ded tl1 at if . 4) . 18 rt (A . w la by ed id ov pr ts 11i li1 1e tl tl1e punishment witl1i11

l. .

I •

' l ·,

,.'.' .

.. '

l',: "

• '

L'"

I'' ;� 1

!!ti

102

TliE CRIMINAL ACT 22 H IC f R O U N Z O T N A C E H T f O T R U O C R IO R E P U S · pr. 23 9 944)

is ur J e d se is Su . ev R 0 4 43 19 9-2 10 , Dec1s1on o.11 Switzerland

it a y w ns gi ac be pt m i te wh at � � 1e � Tl ch is y. er rg fo 1. 25 t. Ar de Petial Co s r to 1o ra r1t et te 111 rp pe n e th to es os Jp uJ es do pr t bu y er rg fo d ar w to directed }1arm or to gain a11 unlawful adva11tage. g attem1Jted to vin th ha wi ed rg h s wa nt da fen de � � tl1e 11 tio ma or inf In tlie l �dva11tage b y fu law a11 un g 1n 1n ga of r1 tio en int e th tl1 \X'i _ nt me cLi do forge a _ r tl1e ne on tio ter sta let a lf _ � of his doing the followi11g acts: I-le wrote �11mse r lette tl11s l1e att T xed r 19 30, the 1l A1Jr d date Co., _ � �� & .W. A.-0 r loye emJJ , s but not yet , I-I/ the r 1atu y, s1g1 JJan e. com the of er r1ag n1a nt ista ass tlie of rk ma Tliis letter co11tai11ed i11for1nation to tl1e effect tl1at tl1e co1n1Jany l1ad emplo 1,ed tl,e defe11dar1t as of May l, 1943, at fr. 510 a mo11tl1, ''�itl1 a 2 per cent deduc tio,1 for wage loss corn1Je11sation. As it l1as been established tl1at tl1e _defendant obtained credit by fraL1d 011 May 1, 1943, and attem 1Jted to obtain furtl1er credit by fraLtd 011 May 3, 1943, it is to b e_ assL1med tl1at l1e - likewise i11tended to use tl1is letter for fraudL1le11t pL1r1Joses 111 orcler to prove a matter of legal sigi1tficance. Tl1e Superior Court l1as acquitted tl1e defendant of the c11arge of atte1n1Jted forgery. Art. 251, para. 1, Pe11al Code, pur1isl1es for forger)' an1 r body wl10 "falsely 1nal< es o r faIs ifies a docum e11t w i t I1 t 11 e i 11 t er1 t io11 of 11 arm i11g so rr1 ebody in l1is pro1Jerty or other rigl1ts, or to obtai11 an u11la\X1fl1l adva11tage._ Tl1erefore, tl1ere is an i r1co1n11lete atter11pt of forgery \vhen tl1e j)er1Jetrator l1as commenced l1is falsificatio11 wit\1 tl1e ir1tentio11 of completi11g it, but l1as 11ot 11 et com1Jleted it (Art. 21, para. 1, Pe11al Code). I11 tl1is case tl1e defe11da11t beg·a11 to \Vrite a letter 011 tl·1e statior1ery with tl1e letterl1ead ''W.A.-f. lie affixed tl1ereto the tnark of tl1e assista11t n1a11ager of tl1e W. Compa11y a11d falsely stated therein that as of May, 1943 l1e was to be e1111Jloyed ''definitely' at a salary of fr. ? 10.. The defense co11 te11cls tl1at tl1is constitLItes merely a preparatory act. Thatp 1s simply 11ot s�, eve11 tl10L1g\1 tl1e letter lacl<s a sig11ature, a rubber sta1n a11d tl1e co11clL1d111g se11tence1 a11d even tl10L1o·J1 not ever1 tl1e text itself has been_ c:ornpletecl. Ratl1er, JJresLtfJposi11g tl1at tl1ere is tl1e necessary intent required by Art. 251, Pe11al Code, \vl1at tl1e defendai1t l1as dor1e i11 tl1is case amounts to tl1e comm�nceme11t of tl1e executio11 of forgery·. If in addition tl_1t letter �0L1ld_ co11ta111 tl1e co11cludi11g remarks, the rLibber stamp and the the of use actual tl11s cr1m½ woL1ld l1ave been tl1e s1g11ature, co1n1Jleted since fo.rgery for fraudL1le11t pLtrposes is 11ot part of tl1� defi11itio11al elements. an ·r 11e _ defense. conte11ds tl1at in case of tl,e production of a false document do We . affixed co1�st1tutecl 011ly 1s wl1e11 bee 11 pt a false attem_ signature 11as e fals _ a of 11_ot agr�e. QL11te apart from tl1e fact tl1at ir1 case of the affixir1g 11 leted , ? com1J rJJoses tI1e crime woLild 11ave been �1g11ature for fra t1dL1l�11t f U .. ·ai 1s necessary to l<eep 11� mind _tl1at 11ot every document needs a sig11a tt1reactu _ �atl1er,_ any sort _ of _aff1xtt1re intended to co11vince some bod)' tl1at • tl1e k bec Q ver issuer 1s a. ge�u111e 1ssL1er of tl1e documei,t will suffice {Tl,orma111,[D�s Scl?weiz_erische Strafgesetz_bucl, (Kom7:1�nta�) 1940/41], ref. to Art = 251, N� 20�� con the This crime 1s con1pleted w1tl1 tl1e falsificatio,,; ai, attempt lies witl1 11

I II I I

22.

Translation, Mueller, Comparative Criminal Law

186-187 ( 1960). .

...:

ATTEMPT

103

mencement of the falsificatio n (Hafter [Lehrb,,ch des Scl1weizerisc/1en Strafrechts 1937/43] Besonderar Tei/, (J. 600). However, as Hafter points ot1t, t l1ere is, wl1e11 tl1e falsificatio11 l1as bee11 commeticed, an atte_mpt 011ly ''if tl 1e perpetrator acted \Vitlt tl1e i11te1 1tio11 to do harm .or to acquire a11 u11la\vft1l advantage''. 111 case of a11 atte1n1Jt jt1 st as mucl1 _ as tn the case of tl1 e_ co1npleted offe11se, tl1e i11 te11tio11 mttst cover all material elem�nts of tl1e crtm: �Oer1na1111, D,is Verbrecl1 er, im 11e1,en Strafrec/1 1, p. 1 �8). Tl1e esse.11ce of a cr1mt 11al a_tte1n1.)t is tl1e sttbjecti ve a11cl objective relatiot1 of a certain co11dt1ct t? a certa111 cor;,,,s delic ti (I-Iafter, All en1ei11er Tei!, g Wh no ere sttc11 relat1011 ca�1 be fot111d, tl1c J)ri11ci1)le of certai11ty of p. I 94). law demands_ tl1 at tl�ere be no co11victio11 (I-Iaftcr, op. cit. s1,pr,i). Tl,is is s11cl1 a case. Tl1e 1nformat1011 1nerely sa}'S ''it is to be assL1 med'' tl1at tl1e defe11da11t in!ended to t!se the letter for fra_t1dt1le11t J)ttrposes . Tl1ere is 110 JJroof s111Jporti11g this assum_JJtton. I11deed, tl1e trial cot1rt restecl tl1e clefe11da11t's co11victio11 of forgery merely on l1is admissio11 tl1at ,vitl1 tl,is letter l1e l1acl n1ea11t t() co11vi11ce his fiancee that he l1ad a ste,ldy job. Co11trary to tl1e trial cottrl's opi11ion, it does not follow l1erefrom l l1at tl1 e defe1 1da11 t also i11te 11 ded to i 11d t1ce 11 is fiancee to act i11 a \Vay sl1e wotild 11ot l1ave acted l1ad sl1e k110\Y1t1 tl,e true facts, nor indeed, would tl1is prove tl1at l1e i11te11ded tl1L1s to gain an 1111lawf11l ad\'a11tage from his fiancee. Tl1e prosecuting office itself does 11ot 111al<e ,tr1y SLlcl1 assumptio11s, althougl1 it kne\v tl1e clefenda11t•s assertior1. Ratl1er, it refers to t.111� fact that on i\t1ay l al1d 3, 1943, tl1e defei1cla11t obtai11ed, or atte1111)ted to obl�1i11, credit by fraudulent statements, a11d fro1n tl 1 at it i11fers·tl1at tl1e clefe11c.!a11� rnear1t to use the forged letter likewise for frat1dttle11 t JJLI rposes. But t l1is is or, l y a gl1ess. The defendant must be acqLtilted of tl1e c:l1arges of rttte11111ted fc)rgcry. WICKIHALDER

1;,

1'11INISTERE PUBLIC DU CPLNTOt� DE ZOUO

RO 83 IV 142, ]T IV 99 (1957)

.5witzerla11d

A. from August, 1954, to febrtiary, 19?5, Jose_f \Vi�l<i1_1a!der, sotnetirnes in the company of Karl Roge111noser, l�is wife _ l\t1ar1a W1�l�1l1alder-Tl1oma or alone, committed a large number of diverse orfenses, pat t�cul�rly tl,eft a1;d robbery. Soon after tlie 21st of J a11 11ary, 1955, l1� agreed _\VI tl1 Roger1n1oser_ � o attempt to rob those persons that tl1ey cotild f111d \Valk111g alo11g a ce1 la111 1tl1e ca1 1 a 01 Ba ar 11e er os n1n ge Ro t me l1e fe, wi . eet str �_ _ Accompanied by t1is k y too e tl1e e1 1 l_ \°'i' rg arb Ba o� t res fo tl1e of � ge ed al ton route to Neuheim at tl,e s es 1t cc ot su tl1 w1 d 1te \va 1g v11 l1a ter Af . er lv vo re a up watch. Wickihalder carried e t!1 rd \va ve to mo to n ga be ey tl1 , 'rr� cti vi a r fo for about a quarter of an J,our st a cli cy ted ot �p ey tl1 , ad ro e th ng l11 ac re re fo Baar-S itilbrugg cantonal route. Be to ed r11 tu ily re st l1a y !1e _T . im )1e eu N d ar w to moving along t lle cantotial route the Neul,eim route by a shortcut in tlie l1ope_ of arr1v1�g s0011 er10L1gl1 t� �e 1st cl 11 w ci 11� 1k e t11 tl1 11, 10 at ct 1Je r:x _ r e1 tl1 to able to carry out tlieir attack. Contrary y _ 1e �l <. cl d ba 1e r1 tu 1 e1 tl1 d an le l11 w e ttl did not pass them; tliey waited for a Ii resumed tlieir lookout for another victim to aJJJJroacl 1 aloi1g tl1e ca11to11al 1 oad, but did not meet with any success. . f 1 � o1 1l a1 1e C tl � o_ al t1n b r1 T l 1a 1 e_ P r i� er up S B. On the 26th of February, t ile t s JJr r a, cle ye ve fi d a 1t e1 1m o1 1s pr 1m � s ar Zoug conde mned Wickihalder to five ye vation of civil rig hts for� tlleft and attempted theft committed J? urs11�r1t to 1e tl 111 d te it m y m er co bb ro d te 1p n te at cr1'm1·naI agreement and f or robbery and

same manner. • • • •

i ·, . i •1 '' ' ;. I

I, . . .'

•' '' '

'. ... '' .·' "..

THE CRiMINAL ACT

104

or ri Je l ur 1e na S tl Pe t 1a tl ib y Tr or 1e tl � th un n al � le ea JIJ ai er ld � l,a ki ic W C. y er in the case of bb d ro te 1J 1n te at r fo 1m l1 11g t1 1c v 11 co violated federal la\,, in th e u11l<11o\X111 cycl ist. .. . ted 1vic had co1 the defe ndrity l1o aut nal 1to ca1 . e Ti1 · 1 g· · .r in 11 so ea . S1tmmary o1 R . . y b se er bb ro au ec e �ct pt m he te at of liad, y ilt gu 1 e1 be . 11g vi ha r fo ant 011 apJJeal , 11n t he u no e_ e to N ut ro r f� l 1a o1 11t ca from e tl1 1. 01 5, 95 I , 21 y ar nu . soo11 after Ja k 111m by surprise an d � ta at t� er rd o _ 111 s! cl1 cy 1 X1l1 o\ l<i1 Baar soug 1t a11 un _ n ad on !lie ro sig de s _ 111 uld at co tl1 �11� ts not Jec ob er ald <ili icl W s . tlii To n. ro b liir g 11n 1�l pl m tl1e crime. co 1n �c J ste e 1v c1s de cl a11 e 1at 1 tin 11l e tli as cl ere id iis co be l1 s l11c 7 '-". wa 111m e !1ot the for be d sse JJa d l1a st cli cy tl1e if t tl1a lie 111aiiitai115 ty to b 1111 ro rt1 111m.. .. po op tl1e d l1a ve l1a 11 tl1e t1ld \X10 r, de ial l<il /ic 1 case - lie \' ard e tow ect tl1is �ict!m, dir t 11o s wa 1 1: tio e1 � i11t liis _ t tl1a tes sta lie , ftirtl1er1n�re es tut tl1e 1st1 co1 at beg1nn1 ng \X1]1 of 11 st10 a c111e o 111t lf itse es olv res e cas e Tl1 . .. 0 f e Xe CLI ti O11. a) Accorcli11g to Article 21 jJara.1 C.P.S.,. a11 attempt req_uires that the actor co111111e11ce tl1e execL1tio11 of a felony or misdemeanor.In tl11s respect, on e i11clt1cles 011 tl1e side of executio11, tl1e act \X1l1ich, ir1 tl1e pla11 of the actor, re1Jrese11ts tl1e �1lti111ate a11d decisive ste1J leacli11g to tl1e success of the \1ei1tt1re ar1d at \,1!1icl1 1Joir1t, lt11der general rttles, 011e is no longer able to re11our1ce. ·Exce1Jt i1 1 cases \X1l1ere sucl1 re111111ciation was prompted by external circt11r1sta1 1ces \Vl1icl1 re11dered tl1e execL1tio11 of t11e i11tention more diffict11t or i1111Jossiblc (RO 80 IV 178, JT 1955 IV 84 ...), tl1e judge 1nt1st co11sider tl1 e perso11ality of tl1e offe 1 1der a11d tl1e circu1nstances of tl1e case before hi1n i1 1 order to cleter111i11e, i11 tl1e 111i11d of tl1e actor, wl1etl1er tl1e stage reached is a 11011-1J1111isl1 able JJreJJaratory act or \vl1etl1er tl1e activity l1as go11e too far.... ;\ 1111111ber of jt1dg111e11ts are foL111cled 011 actual experience, 011 tl1e ordinary coL1rse of eve 1 1ts, to determine wlietl1er tl1e defendant \X10t1ld l1ave committed tl1e offe11se If, as some l1ave said, tl1e subjective JJoi11t of view should be e1111JI0) ed to disti11gL1isl1 a {Jreparator�>' act fron1 tl1e exec11tio11 of tl1e offense, it \VOUld be qt1ite llllil11j)Orta11t \Vl1et}1er t}1e cri1ni11al desio-11 Of t]1e offende r b \Vas aJJ!Jare11t to t.l1e victi111 or wit1 1esses. . . b) Tl1ere is_ 110 �0�1bt i11 tl�is case tl1at tl1e a1Jpella11t renounced the accom !Jl1sl11ne1 1 t of l·11s cr11111nal design d11e solely to external circ11msta11 ces.Th e irrevocable cl1 aracter df l1is decisio11 to act discloses l1is deter1ni11atio11 to co1111Jlete l·1is JJ!a11.Not 0111)'. clid lie see tl1e t111lc11ow11 cyclist movi11g alo1ig the ca11to11al road to\X1ard Net1l1e�t11, bt1t r11sl1ed l1urriedl)' by a sliortcut to tl1e place wl1ere l1� (Jro1Josed to SL1r1Jr1se tl1e C)'Clist a11d eve11 111ore, already involved on tl,e retu111 road, lie rett1rr1ed to tl1e place \vl1e11 l1e tl1011gl1t tl1at l1e l1ear� so!17 e _ ?11e.�l,e fact tl1at l1e bro11gl1t a revolver \Xtitl1 l1im a· lso demonstrates his fi ri:n 111te1}t1o1i. to e�ect1te !1is cri111i11al pla11.\Vl1etl1er l1is gL111 \Vas loaded or no_t 1•5 of litt_le 1111iJOJ.. �a11ce; _1t \Vas caJ Ja_ble of ir1ti111idati 1 1g tl1e victim. lti this, . Wtcki , s act111g lialciei \X1a \X1Itl1 co1111Ja111011s, \X1l10 were, i11 tl1is case, l1is \Vtfe and Rogei1111?s��- We lciio\xr fron1 ex1Jerie11ce tl1at wl1e11 several perso1is· act togell1er, tl7� P� s�ibtli_ty.o_f oi,e of t�1e1n re11011nci11g tlieir con1 ]aS t the at pl an 1n on mtilLtte_. IS din1_1 r�isl1ecl.N�tl1111g aJJJJears i11 tl1e de of wa y by . be l1alf exceptioi, �o tl,is rLtle. f111all)', tl1e fact tl1at W fe11dar1t's trn h ai n re str 11o t ic kil1alder did s�lf_ to a s i,, �-e atte111pt, b11t co111mitted in 0 es ser i wh ole a � sl1 a tim or t e, 1 s1m1 ar robbei tes, forces us to the JJositio an d ck e att a n tl1 l1a at ve wo he uld r bbed the unkno n _ cyclist on the road sed as p ha d to Neuheim if the victim t � spot :xrliere_ W�ickilialder \x,as main iba ct fa � th e _ tai 11i _ De ng sp ite hi lo s ok ou t. 011 Y exte 1•11al cit �uinst�11ces lrave led r Y.� � or tt th e rectly dec1cled tl11s case \X'l1e11 the}' to tl1is decisio11, the cantonal auth 1v c1s de held tl1at Wickil1alder had take11 e 1

, I II

•

I '. ' I I

I '

. I •

ATTEMPT

105

•

ard tl1e realization of his critne and was, tl1erefore, gt1ilty of at e te1n1Jted :� b:� ; •

•

Cotir de Cassatioii - lvllv\. faster, Mt1l1ein1, Bacl1tler, Perri11 a11cl Grisel. NOTES Other Formula!ions of Possible Tests lo Distinguisl1 Preparatory Acts from 1\tten1pled Acts

Note I:

\Vaib l i11g·e r, Cri 111i11,1l 1-\tle111 l)t 23 According to Art. 21 ]Jar�t. l C.P.S., tl1ere is an merely preJ)aratory aels \,,J1er1 tl1e offe11der ''\Xii}I liave the felo11y or 1 nisde_1nea11or' Tl1is JJl1raseolog)' is close Pe11al Code - \X-' l11cl1 states tl1e test: 'co1111ne11ce111e11t 1

•

atte1nrJt a11cl 110 lo11ger ,_ begttll t.l1e CXCClttio11 (Jf to 1-\rt. 2 of Ll1 c F rei1 r.J1 of tl1e exect1tio11 .... ''

1-\meric�lil La\'\' J11stitt1te, lvtoclel Pe11al Coclc: (1962) 2 -1

-· '

Sect. 5.0 I. Crimi11'"il .Atte1i1pt.

(1) Defi,1ition of 1ltte,11,Dt. 1\ j)erso11 is gtii!ty of a11 atle111;}t to t�or11·!11ii :.1 crime if, acti11g ·witl1 tl1e l\i11cl of ct1lJ)[1.bility otl1er\v;isf� rec1L1ircc.l ior cc)111111i�;si(.JJt of tl1e cri111e, l1e:

l':

•

(c) pt1r1Josely does or 0111its to clo a11;rt}1ir1,g· \YJl1icl1, t.111cler tl1c� circ1_1r11. sta11ces as ]1e believes tl1e1n to be, is a11 act c>r cr111issic)11 C(J11slitL1li11t: J. st1bstantial step in a cot1rse of co11dt1ct !)la1111ecl to Cl1l1T1ir1,1iJ� iri l1is ccJr111nissio11 of tl1e cri1ne, (2) Cort dttc t Whic/J 1\,fay Be l!elt:l S1ibst"1,11ti�il Ste1, U1,£ler ::,1£bsecliot1 (.!) (c). Condttct shall 11ot be l1eld to co11stitt1 te a st1bslar1tial ster) t1r1der St1bsectior1 (1) (c) of this Sectio11 t11 1less it is stro11gly corroborative of tl1e actor's crirnir1al purpose. Witl1ot1t negaiivinJ; tl1 e st1fficie11C)' of otl1er co11clt1ct, tl1e follo\v_i11g·, if stro1 1gly corroborative of tl1e actor's cri,11ir1 al pttrJJose, sl1all 11ot be l1eld 111st1fficient as a matter ot law: (a) lyi11g in wait, searcl1i11g for or follo,vi11g tl1e co11te1 111)lated victi111 of the cri1ne; (b) e11tici11 g or seeking to ent!ce tl1e c�11t�111r)lated victi,n of tl1e cri111e to go to the place contemJJlated for its co1111111ss1011; (c) reco11no iteritig tJ1e JJlace co11ten1plated for tl1e co111111issio11 of tl1e cri111e; (d) unlawful e11try of a str11ctt1re, ve!1 icle or e11clost1 re i11 \vl1icl1 it is contemplated that the crime will be co1111n1tted; 1e, in e cr of tl1 11 io iss 111 1n co e tlt i11 ed oy 1)l ern be to (e) possessio11 of inateriats 23, Waiblinger, L� Tentative (II) 1, 24· Proposed Official Draft.

• •, ,,'1., •

Fie/Jes

Juridiq11es S1,isses, No 120::l (1957).

I I

I I . I:

l . '

' '

I ;

·.

' I

r ., ! .. , I' '

·- . ..... .. .. '

" "

t, '

l:-:; i :

..,,..

1-: .•!' I

i· ., �, .i ' :\1

-' '

THE CRIMINAL ACT

106

· se or which can serve u . l wfu l a n u 1 ucl s r o f d no . . which are specially des1gne s, e c 11 a st m u c 1r c e 1 tl er d 11 u lawful purpose of the actor . atio n of m a t er� als to be emplo ye _ ic br fa d in or 11 io ct lle co , n o si es (f) poss ntemplated for its com c � ac pl e th ? �r ne or t a e, im cr e the comniission of tl1 abr1cat1on serves no lawful purf or 11 10 ct lle co , on si es ss po inission, wl1ere sucl, tances; s m u rc ci e th er 11d u r to ac 1e pose of tl t uc ti tuting an elens nd co co in ge ga en t t o en ag nt ce 11o ir1 (g) soliciting a11 me11t of tl1e crin1e. •

•

25 to 1it mn pts Co tem es At im al, Cr urn Jo \v La 1d .la1 as? Ny The RI1odesia and

Some bra11cl1 es of tl1e law \vi ll 11ever be perfect, for they deal with shades of grey tl1at must never tl1eless be classified as black or w_hite.. Contributory 1 1egligence, re1note11ess of da1nage and atte mpts_ to c?mmtt crimes lead the field wl1en tl1is type of difficulty co1nes 11p for d1scuss1on, and any case that lays do\v11 or apJJlies a si1nple test is to be welcomed, but not without a \varni1 1g of tl1e da11 gers of over-simJJlification. first, tl1e \Xtelcorne. Beadle J. (witl1 whom Voting J. concurred) had to decide wl1etl1er certai11 acts committed by a butcher were sufficie11t to consti tL1te tl 1e cri1ne of atte1111Jted tl1eft of five l1ead of cattle. Having considered R. v. S'c lJoon1 bi e , 1945 A.D.541, R.v.B., 1958 (1) S.A. 199(A.D.) andR.v.Hlatwayo, 1933 T. P. D. 441, tl,e CoL1rt resisted tl1e tern ptation to juggle with words such as ''acts of pre1Jaratio11 '', ' tl1e com mencement of tl1e consumma tion'', ''the end of tl1e begin11i11g a11d tl1e begi1 1ning of tl1e e 11d'' and o ther unl1elp.ful combina tio11s1 a11d Beadle J., at 35, set tl1is simple test: ''It seems to me tl1at if tl1e 011ly reasonable i11ferenc e wl1icl1 can be drawn from tl1 e overt acts of a11 accused is tl1at he would l1ave com pleted tl1e crime l1ad lie 11ot been interrupted then tl1ere can be n o doubt but tl1at l1e is guilty of an atte1npt to commit tl1at crime." . I-Ie dre\xr this _test from tl1e j11dgment of W atertneyer C.J. in R. v.Schoom bie (supra) a11d_ from Ke11ny's 01,1,tlines of Criminal Law, 16th ed., p. 81.J. W.C. Turner_ (v1!10 introduced t�at passage i11to Ke11ny's in11nortal work) has �ade tl�e 1Jo11 1t cl_ear to I ge11er �t1ons of Cambridge stude11t s by asking them to 1i:na g111e tl,e ev1de11ce L1nfold1ng on a . .ci11ema screen. At a certain point the ftlm breaks. If tl1ey l1ave 110 reasonable doubt tl1at when the film is reconnected tl1ey will see the accL1sed commit a particular cri me ' tl1en J1e i s already guilty of an attern1Jt to commit tl1at crin1e. . Nex�, tl1e war11ing. Tl1� first 11otes of this were sounded by Beadle J. himself, 1/� a !Jassage follow111g shortly after tl1at qt1oted above: · . . Tliis apJJroacl1 ma y not be applicable to all c ases. for example, tn soine cases . tl1e ac�used may still be guilty of a11 attempt even wl1 e�e he volu11tar1ly desists fro1n carrying out his original intention, as in the case of R. v B. (s1-1pra). '' u� fL�r A l tl1e r ex� rni ng mu s t be itse lf sou 11ded. Beadle J.'s test concerns . �� e s1vely w1tl1 tl1e overt acts'' of· tl,e accused and ec id d t o us ed be e whether the actus reus of the atte mpt has been prcan oi,ly sti th for ns remai ll ov ed. It Crown to prove tl,e necessary mens rea. .. • 1

•

, I

j 'I

' I' I '

. I

, ,. I 1 I II I

. '

I . I 'I

25.

R.H.C., Attempts to Commit Crimes , 1961 Rhodesia · an d N'YtSSa l:and L• J. 8-9•

ATTEMPT

107

Nc>te 2: The Policy Considerations in Establishing a Test The Pena.I Code of tl1 e Soviet Union (1958 26 } Sect. 15. Re, s po12sibility for the pre"P,1ration of· a crz·me an u' Jr.or at ten1p lt11g crin1e.

to commit a

Preparatio1 1 of a crime is tl1e seeki11a · 0 or JJroctir,· 1 ,g of inea11s, or otherw1se . . · r11 1g1 , e co11d1t1011 s for com1nitti,1g a criiiie. 11 g abOttt t11 · b y \vi·1f LlII f\�1 �ttempt to �0 1� 1111it a crime is a11 i!1te1 1tio11al act directly (!itnecl at tl1e . cr11 f a 1:e, 1ss1 011 tl1o t1gl1 tl1 e cr1111e 1s 11ot co111JJletely carried out O\l,ing corn111 � to cat1ses \vl11 cl1 are 111de1Je11<.lrr1t of tl1e \vill of tl,e offei,der. Pre_ JJaratio11 a11d tl1e atte1111)t �,1� . of a crin1e are [Jt111isl1ed accordir1 g to tl1e tl1e resrJ01 1s1b1l1ty_ for tl1e [completed] crime. Jr 1 deterla�.,., . \Vl11cl1 regttlates _ 1n111111g tl1e l)t1111s!1111e11 t tl1e � ot1rt \v1ll take i11to accou11t t11e cliaracter aiid exte,1t of _tl1e social. d�11 ge� 111l1e_re11t i11 tl1e actio11 of tl1e offe11der, tl 1e poitit UIJ to \X'l11 cl1 tl1e cr1111111al 111ter1t1011 \'(las carried ot1 t, and tl1e caL1ses \xrl1icl1 1Jrever1ted tl1e con11Jletio11 of tl1e cri111e. •

•

Sect. 20. T/.)e ai111s of p1,11isl ,11e11t. 1

Pt1nisl·1 1ne11 t is not 011 ly retaliatio11 for a cri111e co111111ilted bttl ain1 s aisc, at refor111i11g ar1d re-edt1cating tl1e convicted J)erso11s ir1 ti1e SJJirit ()f a11 l1or1est attitt1de tO\X,·ards labot1r, strict obser\1 a11ce of tl1e la\v, a11cl resJJect C)f tl1e rL1les of tl1e socialist societ}·; a11d also at fJreve11ti11g tl1e co111n1issio11 or otl'1er cri1nes as ,x:ell b}' tl1e co,, victed perso1 1s as by otl1 ers. Pt111isl1 me11 t does 11ot aim at tl1e inflictio11 of JJl1ysical st1fferi11g or at tl1e hu 111 iliation of l1 uma1 1 dignil}'·

I'' !

•

Williams, A Critique of t)1e Proximity Rule ge � I11 a ratio11al system of jt1stice tl1e p�lice would be give11 _ every e11 cou _ n1e11t to i11 terve1 1e early wl1ere a s11spect 1s clearly be11t on cr_1me. Vet 111 t.ng la,,d, if tl1 e police come on tl1e scene too early tl1ey _ may _f111 d tl1 _at. they can do 11otl1i 11 g witl1 tl1 e ir1tendi11g offender except admon1sl1 him. Tl11s 1s largely becat,se of tl,e rt1 le tl1at, a11 attempt, to be indictable, mttst be sufficientl_y '' r> roxirnate'' to tlie crime in te1 1ded, . . . One is led to ask wl1etl1er ll1 ere 1s a11y real 11eed for tli e rec1tiirement of proxi111ity i11 tl1e la\v of attempt. Quite apart fror11 t}1 is. requirement, it must be _ proved beyo11 d reaso11ab!e doubt tl1at tl1e accused ii,te,,ded to commit tl1e cr1 n1e ... a1 1d tl,a_t I,� did some _ act t�wards c0111 mi ttitig it. If 011 Iy a ren1ot� ac t ?f. preparat1011 1s alleged aga�nst 111� 1 • tl1at will weigll witli tli e co 1:1rt 111 dec1 cl111g wl1etl1 er J1e l�ad tl1e f1ri:n �r1m1nal intention alleged agaitist t11m. If, 110\vever, tl1e cott_ rt . f111cls tl1at tl11s 111tention existed, is tliere ar,y reason wl1� t�1e would�� cr1n1 1nal s1,ould not be dealt witl1 by tl,e police and by tl1e cr11n1nal courts? s 1It st re it at tl1 y sa to is le ru ity im ox pr Anotl,er w ay of supporting tlie 26· 3 Law in Eastern £11ropt 45, 47 (1959}.

27· WiU,ams, Police Crim, L Rtv. 69• 5 195 , als min Cri ng Control of Intendi

:.:.•

\i '. 'i

' ' '

:..

THE CRIMINAL ACT

108

y et ci s So l1a not thouoht it . ng ro w le ab sh ni pu a as e im cr f o n from tl1e noti o ly_. So Jon� as t11� de w� o to t e11 � sl1 ni pu of e op sc law . d esirable to extend t l1e c is umscrip tion of cir th , aim its in �. tiv b1:1 tri re the w as purely deterrent or d ay, wl,en courts l, t e11 �s pr e tl1 At d. f1e st1 1� s ap rh J)e ave offence of attempt was f o r a broad_er_ m�asure t� sa e b_ to c� mu 1s e er tl1 n, of wide powers of pr obatio 1 of n 1tt m 1? m nt tt co 1n ng d e fix a crime, e th tl1 wi t1e d o t ac ,y Ai . ity l responsibi y be it ma m e ot fro n1 re the _crime, r e _ ev 1ow l it, r fo n o ti ara ep pr of y ai,d by wa l c o urse � ould be to catch �nt end a ion rat e Th l. n� mi cri as d ate tre be ll might we d set bout curing t�em of their evi l an , ble ssi o p as n o so as ers eiid ing off � " 1r t �l1e s _tl1_a act nd �u gt are mere the n o 11e alo m the ve lea t no es: nci ,de ter preparatio n. It must be said, l1owever, tliat this OJJin1on 1s not generally l1eld in tlie legal pr ofession. 28 Tl1e King v. Barker }.Jew Zeala,1d Court of Appeal, 1924· N. Z. L. R. 865 New Zealand

• I

l ' l

. "

i I

f I I·

l I'

111 tl1e abse11ce of express aL1tl1ority tl1e true i1ature of tl1e distinction i T1 c1L1estion (betwee11 attem1Jt a11cl prerJarati o11) car, be ascertai11ed only by refere11cc to tl1e pur1Jose of tlie la\v i11 maki11g it. Havi11g regard t o tl1is pur1)ose, I tl1i1il< tl1at tl1e pri11ci 1)le 1nay be t l1us forn1ulated: An act do11e witl, i11te1it to co1111nit a cri1ne is not a cri1i1i11al atte111pt unless it is of suc l1 a 11ature as to 'Je i11 itsel f sL1fficie11t evide11ce of tl1e cri1ni11al i11te11t witl1 \X1 l1icl1 it is do n e. P, crin1i11al attemJJt is a11 act wl1icl1 sl1 ows crimi11a l inte11t 011 the f ace of it. The case must be one i11 whicl1 res_ ipsa loq,,itur. A11 act, on tl1e otl1er l1a11d, \X1l1icl1 is in its 0\'<:11 11atL1re a11d 011 tl1e face of it i1111ocent is not a cri1ni11al atte1npt. It can11ot be brougl1t withi11 the scope of crimi11al attempt by evidence aliu,1de as to tl1e crimi11al pLtrpose ,x,itl1 w l1ich it is d one. A cri1ninal atten1pt is crimi11al i11te11t 1nacle ma11ifest by tlie very natt1re ari d circL1n1sta11ces of some act done i11 pursL1ance of tliat intent. T l1e law does 1iot pt111isl1 men for their guilt>' inte11tio11s or reso lL1tio11s i11 tl1emselves. Nor does it co1nmo11l }' punish t l1e1n even for tl1e expressio11, decl aration, or co11fession o f suc11 i11tentio11s or resolL1tio11s. Tl1at a 1na11's t111fL1lfilled cri1ni11al JJLirJJ oses sl1ould be fJU11isl1able they mt�s_t be ma11ifested_ not by \1is words 111erely, or by acts \Xtl1ich are in �h� m �el ves or 111nocent or an1b1guous sigr1ifica11ce, bL1t by overt acts w l1icl 1 are s11ff1c1ent In themsel_ves to declare a11d jJroclain1 tl1e gL1ilty IJUrpose witl1 \�l1ich tliey are d on�. Until lie l1a s so fa� con1r11iltecl I1imself to l1is criminal d esig11 as t� 11.ave �anifested a11d d�cl ar_ed 1t by l1is acts lie has 11ot passed beyond tl1e line of 1r11i oc�nt preparation 111t_o· tl:e regio11 of crimi11al attempt, ai1d l1e still �reserves for li1mself a locus _poen_iter1ttae. The reasor1 for tllLIS lio lding a man 1r11�ocen t wl10 _ d?es an ac� w1tl1 111te11t t o . co1nmit a crime is tl,e danger i11v�l ve� 1n th: admission �f ev1de11ce upo11 wl11cli l1e may be ptinislied for acts \x,l1Ich in them selves arid I11 a1Jpeara1ice are 1Jerfectl y innocent. a nin bur g · · · !o bLty a box of matches witl1 i11te11t to use tl1em in earanc5� ha),�tack 15 11ot ar, attenitJt t o commit arson, for it is in itself a11d i� app tcl1 e. a m tng btt}' r .an I1111oce11t act, tl,ere beI11g ma11y other reas ons that, arson fo nt The act �oes 11ot speak for itself of a11y guilty d esign. Tl,e criminal i11teta� e _ who not manifested by any overt act sufficient f or tl1at purpose. But he n o<li g fi on 1 ut o it matcl1es to a l1a) stack ancl there ligl,ts 011e of tl,em and blows

28. Willian1s, Criminal Law 632.

-·

ATTEMPT

109

that he .is.observed, has done an act which spea k 5 for itself, a11d he is guilty of a cr1m111al attempt accordi i,gly. As already indicated, an ac t wl1ich is 011 the faCe O f I· t llln · ocent or ambtw . guous cannot b e t ra11sfor m ed 1nto a crimi11al attetn Pt bY evi· dei,ce a./1,.inde as to . the criminal i 11tent \'<'ith wliicl, it is d otie. Tl1e IJL1rcl1aser of matcl,es v,ould not be gt.11.1 t}, of attempted arson ev en if lie declared to ti1e ve11dor or t o any . �ther pers O I 1 ti,e g11·t ity purpose ,v1_tl1 _,vl1icl1 l1e bot1gl1t tl1em. Such evide11ce !S reI eva_n t f0 t1 ie_ P�trpose of sat1sf_y111g tl1e jt1ry ll1at tl1e reqtlisite criminal � tntent existed, ttt tt !s 11ot releva1�t 111 deter1nir1i11g tl1e J)rior question of la\Y/ ) act c I iar_ged amot111ts 111 law to a11 attemp whetl1er t 1e t or is too rc1note for tl1at Pll:rpose. for lliis · IJtl�[Jose tl1e 011ly evider1ce of cri11 1 i11al i11tc11l is to be found 1n tl1e nal u re a 11 d c, rct1n1s tances of tl1e act itself. Altstin, Tl1e Purpose of tl1e Act Reqt1iren1e1 1t i 11 Crimi11al Attem JJt29 ...AttemJJts are evide11ce of tl1e (Jarly's ir1te 11tio11 '· arid, consiclerecl in that ligl1t, are, stj:led i11 tl1e Er1glisl1 Law, ''o-vert acts''. W _ l1er� a crimi11al i11te11li�11. is eyide11�ecl lJy a11 atte1npt, tl1e party is punished 1n_ res1Ject of tl1e c!·1m111al 111te 11 t1011. S0111eti111es 11c is J)Lir1isl1etl ;is sever�ly as tf l1e l1ad acco1npl1sl1ed tl1e object. Bt1t 111ore co1nr11c)11ly, \x.:itl1 less

severity.

Wl1y tl,e party sl1ot1ld be pt1nisl1ed i11 resJJect of a 111ere i11te11 lit111, I \:vi I I try to ex JJ I ai11. . . . The reaso11 for reqt1iri11g an atterript. is IJrobably tl1e cla11ger of adrnitii11g a mere confession. \Vl1e11 cot1plecl \Vitl1 a11 overt act, tl1e C<)11fessio11 is illt1strated and supported b}' tl1e latter.Wl1en 11ot, it may IJroceed fron1 i11sa11ity or may be inve11ted by tl1e witr1ess to it. •

•

I l1ave a11y l<nO\Xlledge, a mere l1 \vl1ic of . . em syst tive JJOsi y 111 . ever . intention to forbear in il1e ft1ture is in11oce11t. A11d an i11te11tion to act in tl1e ft1tt1re is not imp,,ted to tl1e JJa rt}', ttnless it be fol I o,ved by an act; t1r1 less it be followed by a11 act wl1icl1 accomplisl1es l1 is ttltimate pt1rpose1 or by a11 act �hich is a11 attempt or endeavour to aeco1n1�lisl1 _il1 at. 11lti1nate p�rJ)ose. In e1tl1er case, the party is g1ti!ty, becat1se tl1e 111te11t1or1 1s COLl[)_lecl with an act: a11d witl1 a11 act fron1 wl1 icl1 lie is obliged to forbear or absta111. for, tl1ougl1 he is not obliged to forbear fro 1n tl1e inte11tion, l1e is obliged to forbear f�om endea-vours to accomrlisl1 tl1at inte11tio11, as \veil as from st1cl1 acts as 1n1gl1t accomplisl 1 his inte11tio11 directly. Without, the.n, stayi11g to inqt1ire, wl1etl1er we migl1t be o_bliged to f�rbear fro1n naked itilention I asstime fo r tl1e preser1t, tl1e follo\v1 11 g co11clt1s1on: a conclusion wl1icl1 acc�rds with general or u11iversa! practice. cl1 ea br g; or on wr elf .its t of no is s, es l1n ras or s Inte11tion, neglige11 ce1 lieedless11es of �uty or obligation; 11 or does it 01· itself place ll1e JJarty 111 lJ1e r?red1came 1 1t _of guilt or imputability. Jn or de r t l1 at tl1e party may be placed 1n tl1at fJred1c ame11t, l11.s intention, negligetice, Jieedle�s11e�s or rasl1ness, 111ust be referred to an act, forbea ra11ce, or omissio11, of wl11cl1 1t was tl1e ca,,se. 29·

Austin on

Jurispr11dence

120- I 2 J,

146-147

(2d ed.,

1863).

r •

i' r '

I, :

.r.. .

ll ' ' l

:;., I '.;

,:'. . ·, '. ' .

r. . I ',;........' .,. �., ' -!

' I ,�

1· i ,

• �

THE CRIMINAL ACT

110

Questions 1.

th cJ3sses ?f atttmpt er bo u� le ab sh � ni pu .) .E C P. 3 38 . rt (A y Is forger t�1 of n ri 1o pe s1t Su po or e th is t l1a W Court ? 27 � t. Ar in _ e,iumerated t? _Why was in po is th 1 _01 -7' la' . tt1e iss Sw e th to t in Zurich witli res,Jec n1 m1 tted acts con� he co t fac tn 1f se ca ch 1ri ZL e tl1 i11 ed itt qu ac defendant stituting an incon11Jlete attem1Jt? ' se' an e11 t Linder Art. off mi ?m c _ to in eg ''b to d sai be 11e ieo son y ma n Wlie e a,1 ens i11 off ate c1p rt1 pa or ge11erally ate tig ins to 1pt e11 att a11 is hy W 27? 11ot a11 offense itself? Ca,, you jL1stify a fi11ding of �ttem1Jt i� the Wickihalder case whil� only a fir1di11g of preparatory acts 111 tl1e Miller case supra? Is the reason111g of the court i11 Wickil1 alder convincing? In what sense does tl1e Court use the ter1ns ''objective'' arid ''subjective''? Do )'OU agree \Vi t i, the Cot1rt's application of a sta11dard? Would you co11,1ict Wickihalder for attempt u11der Art. 27? Wl,at are tl1e reasons give11 by A11stin and tl1e Court i11 tl1e case of The J{ing v. Barker (Note 2) for req Ltiring a stro11g rule of proximity? \X'l1at is tl1e JJrescribed pu11isl1n1e11t for attem1Jts? Consult Arts. 27, 31, 184, a11d a11y SJJecial Part article in ans\vering tl1is question. Problems

CarefL1lly a11alyze tl1e following problem i11 ligl1t of tl1e above readings a11d tl1e releva11t articles of tl1e P.C.E. Orga11ize your tl1ougl1ts with care and support ;'OL1r concl1;1sions \Y1itl1 sound reasons. Several years ago, i11 tl1e year 1958 to be exact, there lived or1 a \rast stretcl1 of la11d in tl1e mytl1ical provi11ce of Sharar i11 Etl1iopia a widely renow11ed but disliked man named Ato Habtamu. J11 those san1e days, quite nearby, dwelled two scoL1ndrels of tl1e na111es Ato Ke t afi and Ato Washo. A11yo11e wl10 migl1t l1ave beer1 passi11g tl1e house of Ketafi and Wasl10 on a certai11 nigl1t in tl1at year !)robably' \VOuld l1ave overt 1card tl1ese a11gry \vords pass betwee11 tl1em: Ketafi: ''Agreed, we. must fi11isl1 I-labtamL1 but )'OUi pla11 will 11ot sL1cceed."

I , II

:I ,

. ' 'I' I I

I ' I

I '

' I

' I I

Wasl10: ''0. K., tl1er1, if you \VOr1't work witl1 me, I'll do it n1y own way!" Tl1e fest of tl,e story is well kno\xr11 to citizens far ar1d wide i11 the Provi11ce of Sl1arar: Ato Ketafi, i11 1Jurst1it of l1is own plan, lay in wait alongside a JJat h that _ liabtarr�u ofte11 took 011 after110011 \valks. Wl1e11 I-Iabtarnu \'<,as -s1g ht_ed ap�roxima�ely 100 yards do\X,n tl1e JJatl1, Ketafi raised his club \vttl1 wl11cl1 lie 111tended to l1i_t Habtamu, b Ltt imn,ediately tIIJOn 11otici ng that H_abtamu wa� accom1Jan1ed by a11otl1er person, lowered tl1e clt1b aoct disappeared into tl1e woods. Ato Was/10, on tl1e otl1er l1a11d purcl1ased a small amot111t of dea� J ): {JOiSOtl and gave 1t to Ato Fetlo w ho was I-labtamu's cook telling h 1111 •

•

J '::' '

,JI

ATTEMPT

111

· tl1at it was _a rare an d deliciot1s spice. fetto ,vit11ou t. ex an1 1 11 1n · g the supposed s J1ce, d1·01Jped it

1 i 11to t he bubblinocr' wat ' t be111 g prepared for H�btamu '5 ct·tnne�. M ost f or t t111ately, 110\vever, tlabta1nu re tt1rned l1ome ,v1tl1011t an appetite a 11d so reJ11secl tl1e dead.ly watt. .. The quest ion whicl1 came befo �e tl1e I1igliest cottrt of S1,arar arld wllicll ' t o car eft ask tlly ed are an alyze 1s as follo\vs: you Co 1 1sideri11g. eacl1 case separate})', 11as Ato Ketafi, Ato Wasl,o, or Ato fetto com1n1tted a 1 1 atte1n1Jt uncler Etl1io1Jia11 1Je11al law?

-------

Asst1rni 1 1g tl1at yo11 are 1 10,v a j t1cl�e 011 tl1e l1igl1est cottrt of Sl1arar, 110,,, \'v'Ottld yo11 decide eacl1 of tl1e cases g1ve11 below u11 de 1· tl1e followi11g tests

of proximity: 1. Art. 27? 2. 3.

Tl1e S,x·iss (Co11ti 11 e 11tal) test of ''co 111n1e11ce1nent of tl1 e exec11tio11'' (Note 1 )?

Tl1e test of tl1e ''0 1 1ly reaso 11 able i11fere11ce'' st1ggested in tl1e RIJoclesia ttnd

Tl1e America11 La\v l11stitute Model Pe11 al Code test of ''substa11tial step''

(Not e l)?

Nyasa/and Lt:iw ]01,r11al (Note 1 )? a. A, standing next to a l1aystacl(, ligl1ts a 1natcl1 a11d tl,en blo\vs it out t1po11 d iscoveri11g tl1at lie is observed. b. B places explosives at tl1e side of X's drive\vay desig 1 1ed to explode wl1en X's car trips a ,vire i11 tl,e drive\vay. )( does 11ot return l1ome tl1at eveni11g, and wl1ile 1-en1ovi11g tl1 e ex1Jlosi ve, B accide 11tally tri})S tl1e mecl1a 1 1ism a11 d is l1in1self i11 j11red. c. C, after taking out a policy of fire inst1rance, i 1 1tentio11 ally b11rns do,�vn 11is ow·n bar11, but is arrested before a11y claim is made to the i 11surance company. d. D • purchases dies wl1ich are 11orn1ally 11sed for tl1e mal<i11 g of counterfeit coin. e. E, \Vl1ile in battle, sl1 oots witl1 inte11t to kill l1is superior officer, but, in fact, hits an ene1ny soldier. f. Tl1e facts in tl1e Wickil1alder case.

g in go e re tl1 fo of 1 cl ea g, lin ac re e id ts ou om fr As you may have discovered _ cases was, in substai,ce, acttially decided by a cotrr�; in_ tl1e cases of A, B, D and E the court s held tl,ere t o be a11 attempt, wl11le 1n the case of C1 no attemp t was found. : at tl, el fe u yo do s 1 o1 si ci de Witl1 respect to these judicial ? ll fa y 1e tl o t d p t em at f o s as cl l1 ic h w - B and E are similar cases? Utider

- C can be reconciled with D? - C ca11 be disti11guisl1ed from f? s 1e cl at f m o x o b · · · a f o g n yi u b 1e tl · - tt 1s possible to d1· st1· 11gu1· sh D from l ie t tn A if at h t ed d ce n in the l1aystack case? It is commonly co

.. I'. ,,I

i.I

r: I '.' I'

,, I

r ' '., . '

' I.

J I

•

.I :• . ·

II ' . '

' .

-'·'�.·' '·

·, : 1 ' .' '' . '·•.. i..,".: I '.

TliE CRIMIN AL ACT

112

of es a tcl1 box ma t gh bou even witli tli e JJly :'im ad i l e cas haystaclc uld he wo t ck, 11o sta 11ay be tl1e fire guilt y of to eiit iiit d avo\ve attem 1Jt.) er etl1 l1 tog wit ity the xim pro o of harm s test s iou nizing var e i tl g · 11 · r1 ·ct e 1 Co11s h d e se w 5 ca _er , o ng u o1 yo eg or f tl · k the e 1 ti 11n in s Jle i i11c JJr 1g l1i1 1is 1 1gL and disti1 or 1 ote y em tor s act ara ep pr d an 011gl1t to be pt em att of e 11 i cri e i tl een line bet\v drawn? s tor ee fac thr put forwar d by the nt ot1 acc o int e tak to li wis y You ma liolmes: 1. tl1e 11ear11ess of the danger; 2. tl1e great11ess of tl1e harm; 3. tl1e degree of ap1Jrel1er.sio 1 1 felt. Recommended Readings

Mi11 istere P,,b/ic d1£ Cariton d'.r1rgovie, RO 80 IV 173, JT IV 84 (1955) (earlier S\xriss jL1ris1)rL1cie 11ce co11cer11i 1 1g atten1pt t1pon wl1icl1 tl1e Wickihalder deci sior1 i$ based). Wecl1sler Jo11 es a11d Korn, Tl1e Treatment of Incl1oate Crimes i11 tl1e Model Pe 11al Code of tl1e American La\v Institt1te: Atten1pt, Solicitation and Co11s1Jir a.C}'·, 61 Colun1bia L. Rev. 571-614 (1961) (a11 excelle 11t co11sideration of tl1e basic jJroblems of cri111i11al atten1JJt; n. b. Sects. D-0). 1

Willia 1ns1 Cri1ni11al Law 614-663 (thoro11 gl1 exa111ination of attempt i11 English law). frejaville a11d So}rer, Droit Cri,ninel 29-35 (sl1ort disc11ssion of attempt in French law).

! II I I ' '

1 ' ''

'''

: I I

Bot1zat, Droit Penal 207-214 (sl1ort treatn1ent of attempt i 1 1 fre11cl1 {Je11al law). Brett. and Waller, Crimi11al Law 372-401 (co11sideratio11 of criminal attempt in l1gl1t of the At1stralia11 a 1 1d E11glisl1 ca se s 011 the st1bject). Hall, _General �ri7: ciples of Crirriinal Law 558-586 (historical a11d analytical disctis s1011 of cr 1 m111al atten11Jt i11 the co1111non la\v). Paul�en an d Kadisl1, Cri111i11al La w 438-466 (statuto a11d case la\'v' of attemp t ry 1n tl1e co111mo11 law). Smitli , �\xro �robl�ins in Crimi11al Attem ) 95 7 (l 44 8 42 pt . 2s, R H 70 e L ar . va rd v !article disc�ssin� tl1e JJossibility of -neglige11t attempt and mistak e of f ac t ln atte1npt s1tt1at1 ons). if 0our, IV_ The P�nal Law of l1i dia e nsiv reh e (co mp 9 273 5-5 1 63) (7t 1 h ed. , practically or1e11ted co11sideration of the law of attempt i11 India). Reye i . f!e1:al Code of the Pl,ili in s 79-91 (1 ti n v a de s coi, o i ( � r 9 an11otated e �f e pf111 1p111e 63) p law o f attempt).

I 1

IMPOSSIBILITY

113

SECTION D. IMPOSSIBILITY: A DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL ATTEMPT? PENAL CODE OF ETI-IIOPIA Art. 29. - Offence impossible of completion.

\Vl1e11. an offe11der 11as atten,pted l9 co1111nit a11 offe11ce by 111ea11s or against �n obJ�ct of Sttcl1 nat11re tl1at tl,e co1111nissio11 of tl1e offe11ce was absolutely 1mposs1ble, tl1e co11rt may, \Vitl1011t restrictio11, redttce tl,e pt111ishment. (Art. 185). N? pt111isl1me�t sl1_al_l be i1111Jose� ,vl1e11 tl1e offender, from surJerstition ?r owing to tl�e s1n11Jl1c1ty <?f 111s 111111d acted by usi11g n1ea11s or f)rocesses 1n themselves 1nnoc11011s wl11cl1 co11Id i11 no case J1ave a l1armf11l effect.

ABSOLUTE30 ... Positive; certain; . . . free from lin1it, restrictio,1 or qt1alificatio11 ... not depe11de11t or relative; ultimate.

Absoli,te:

TliE SOURCES Of TliE LA�r I m1Jerial Codificatio11 Commission of Etl1io1)ia Art. 29. - Infraction inipossible.

Lorsqtte l'at1tet1r a te11te de commettre tine i11fractio11 JJar t111 rnoyer1 ou contre un objet tels qt1e l'acco1n1Jlisse111e11t cle cette i11fractior1 etait absoR I ttment impossible, le juge pot1rra atte11uer libre111e11t la f)ei11e (1\rt. 185.) •

•

Art. 23. - Delit Impossibl f· Le juge pourra atte11uer libre�ent la J Jei11e _(� rt. 66) a l'egard de celtti qui aura tente de commettre 11n crime 011 tin del1t par un moye11 ou centre t111 objet de natttre telle qt1e la per1Jetratio11 de cette i11fraction etait absol11me11t impossible. .

B.A:VARD c. TRIBUNAL CANTONAL VALAISAN --

RO 78 JV 145, JT 11,; 105 ( 1952) Switzerland

[After initial discussion of the facts involving an insufficient dose of poison, the court states at p. 108); Article 23 of the Swiss Penal Code dema11ds tl1e t1se of totally unst1itable JO. Wtbstu's New Collegi4tr Dictionary (1 �51 ed).

.r I I

Code Pe11al Suisse

! i I

l I_

. .'

.. I .

.[,::... .' , I : ·. I'··...., ., : '··,. :i,

;... : ;. � : :,

l 14

THE CRIMINAL ACT

. . to le ain sib obt pos itn the tely olu abs ir des is e it d icl, wh resu1t . · th WI 1 s 1 . ea m a 1near1s o s� f . an t��1v 1d11al fai . au ec b _ so e ar t en rc1 eff 1 i1 ly ive lat re lin Means' wl1icl1 are 3: cttOil tnsuff1c1ently , 1g l11 nd }1a er op pr im e., (i. violen r I· TIJJroper use i to le dt tf tl1e case means the . not are is Such absolute1,y ' ) · e a · · a s o . 1· en t d c · · · 1 11su ff1c tt p ct· I m t 1g e_ 1 1 a 1 to 11 r 1 t o l kil fl t� o L� p _ m 0 so 1 l w e 1e 1 3: o s, ne u l1 T . le b u11st1ita t t b ts l a or lt s� , e ut su I re d y im at� c1p 1t1 1 a e th possible l1 ac Jro ap 1 e1 e\1 t 1 does 11o 1 en abl� to be p�111 she_d l_ess seve tl 1s r de 11 e off e tl1 s; ai, ine rely to kill by this 11 tted 1f 1t was bl� qt Sst ac ? P d 1 a1_ .) P.S C. 1 ra. fJa 23 sim. rt. by the judge (A 1 te a d 1�f �re11t _case, however , wh ts It qt1 ) . . _ S P. C. 2 ra. a p_ 23 rt. en fJlicit)' of mind �A: 1 n thi s case, tl1e off en th, dea t u o_ ab ng bri to n iso po i,t der one tises insufftcte 1_as been �topped lialf w l t bt� , n1� cri tl1e of nts . n1e ele the e. ay liz rea to n gu be 1,as 1 ent to l11s end exactly 1c uff 1ns a11s me d 1:1se l1e as e_ crim tl,e as ti11g ple com to .. . . e rc fo tle lit o to 1 tl 1 w r l1e ot 1 a1 ts l1i 10 wl 011e Cour de Cassatio11 sitting as a Cotirt of Pttblic Law-MM.Nageli, Fassler , Logoz, Ar11old a11d Tscl1op(J. .

If,

IMPOSSIBLE OffENSES31 Patt! Logoz lnipossi!J le o(Je 11 ses dr,e to 1neans used; Absolr"'te impossibility: A wa11ti11g to

sl1oot 13. ai111s l1is g1.111 a11d pt1lls tl1e trigger, but tl1e gt11 1 l1ad already been discharged \vitl1ot1 t l1is 1<110\v-ledge. Or A tries to kill B tl1rougl1 means of sorcery. Relative i mpossibility: Tl1e l10L1sebreaker does not realize tl1at the jimmy

that_ lie is usi11g is i11capable of breal<i11 g tl,e mone;r box, the co11 tents of \Xlhich he 1s after.Or tl1e clefendant \v-ho, wanting to kill, ad111inisters too small a dose of poiso11 to l1is victin1. [See RO 78 IV 145, JT IV 105 (1953) sitpra].

I I

Impossible offenses due to object of the offe,zse; Absolute impossibility: The

J)ersor: wl101n the offencler believes is sleeping and wl1on1 he stabs, is, in fact, already dead.Or tl1e wo1na11 \vl1on1 a doctor attempts to abort, is, in fact, 11ot eve11 1)reg11a11 t. [See RO 76 IV 153, JT IV 74 ( 1950) ] . Relative impossibility: Wantina to l<ill B A n1al<es him take poiso11, \xt J1ich

altho_ugh tl1e dose given is ust 1ally e11ot1gl1 to kill, ... has 110 effect on B.Or A tries to rape B wl10 resists a11d forces A a\vay.

ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITV 32 Franrois Clerc

I: '

I ''

hin !�possibility is said to be ''absolute'' wi � ed pla c 1 al, in div . \ vh id1 e11 an y e v tl�e c1_1:ct�msta11 ce_ s i11 _ wl1icl1 tl1e hie ac off e11 de r ac ted \xro , uld 1 1ot be able to �11s c11 1:n !1 1 � l d�s1g1: e1 tl1er beca11se of the object itself or tl1e mea ns e1n p lo�be f� mposs1 b1 l1 ty s1 said to b e ''rel t· ,, . sst o imp 1s · 1 _ a t 1ve shme1 1 \Y/ 1 Jl 1 e11 tl1e acco1n 1 , d-er simply because of fortt1·tous n ffe tl1e c1r �u but � m sta 11ce : loa ded the { gtt is n _ is stopJ)ed bef�re e P u 1s the o ne h 1 c l? 1 w urch trigge r; 1 cl � tl a 1 e of poor box believes is full, in act, l1as b�e 1 1 empt. ied so m e time before.

31. Logoz, Commentaire d11 Code Pe'••• ..,,.• l .Jr-Uts • se 89-90 J 2· C l ere, Introduction a . l'Etude du COde Pe,na l 5uiss

r:: Partie General 62 (1942).

IMPOSSIBILITY

115

Questions

Why is Art.. 29 considered a partial defense to the cri 1ne .of atten1 pt? Must tl1e prosecution prove attempt before defe11se evide11ce as to impossibility becomes relevant? 2. Is it important to ?isti11gt1sl1 �et\vee11 011e wl10 JJulls tl,e trigger of a11 tt� loaded gun wl11cl1 !1e belteves: to be loacled a11d one \vl10 p11lls the _ trigger of. an tt11loaded gt1n \vl11c l1 lie 1<110\x,s is u11loaded? 1s tl1e state of mind of the offet1der dealt \Vit]1 i11 Art. 29? 3. From tl1e above readir1gs, 110\v \VOt1 ld )'OU co11str11e tl1e word ''absolt1te,, in Art. 29?_ I-low· \VOttld )'Ott jt1slify yo11r refere11ce to S\xriss _jurispr11der1ce·? Do the Swiss con1n1e11tators agree as to wl1ere to dra\v tl1e lii1e bet,r1ee11 ''absol11te'' a11d ''relative''? Waibli11ger states tl1at ''tl1e dislir1ctioi1 i)et-v1ee11 absol t1te a11d relative irn IJOssibility is al\Va)'S u11certai11 a11d vagt '-' ie a11d depends 011 aleatory ele111e11ts.''33 4. Ho\V wot1ld pt111isl1111e11t differ if a11 offe11se is said to be ''absoltttelv'' impossible or if it is l1eld to be 011i)1 ''relatively'' i1111Jossible? I.

Problems

After consideri 11g tl1e above questio11s, a11d examir1 ir1g f\rts. 27, 29, 77, 532 and 594 P. C. E. address yourself to tl1e solt1tio11 to f;acl1 of ti1e follo,v·i11r·-· problems: a. A man sl1oots at a tree stt1n11J tl1i11l{i11g it to be a tJerson. b. A doctor attempts to procure a11 abortion ttpon a -..:r1orr1a11 ·1;vho is Il()t pregna11t. c. A man attempts tl1e tl1eft of l1is O\Vtl t1111brella tl1i11l<i11g it is somec,r1e else's. d. A pickfJOcket reacl1es i11to a11 e111pty IJOCl<et. e. A man poiso11s a drink witl1 too sn1all a dose to k:ill l1is i!1tended victi1n. f. A man I1as sext1al relatio11s witl1 a sixteen year old girl \x,110111 l1e believes to be fourteen )'ears old. l1es a blis a11d es esta rais e raJJ of d use acc 11 ma old r n yea eve ty-s A six g. defense of impotency.

·�

I III

1, I

I',.I '

I I.

' '

! " ;

'. I 4

' ' : .. I '' .

,,.�"1...

I � -. I '

I· .

NOT ES Note 1:

Apparent Impossibility

It is important to distinguisl1 those instan�es _ i11 �hi�� a Special . Part article calls fo r certain, specific eleme11ts for cr1m1nal l1ab1l1t_,: and ord1n_ ary

�ituations of impossibility. If a mate�ial. � letnent under a S�e�1al Part article 1s missing, there is, of course, no I1ab1l1ty un_der tl1at prov1s1on. Art. 38� (a) requires a ''falsely executed instrtitnent'' and tl11s ?ffense :�ay not be �stabl1sl1�d by proof that an individtial thougJ1t t1iat he was t1s1ng a� . 111strum<:11t wl1en, 1n fact, he was not. To llave actually ttsed an ''i11strument 1s a material eleme11t of

5 7). 19 ( 01 12 o. ts, N iss tS Su iq1' rid tI J11 ch Fj 2 ) ble ssi po Im ' aa · 'bl" e 1 w 'W7 33 i 1nger, La 1ientat1ve (TIT, Le D 11· c

I. ..i

'' '

:! • �Jl :· · �

'. 1

.�·:. -�.i'•·l ' .: ,..I I • ••

� -i

·I

-�•••

.... l&<

THE CRIMINAL ACT

116

tllis provision under liability w·itl 1out such no be n ca re 1e t l d Art. 383 (a) an use. Note 2: The Comparati\·e Treatment of Impossibility Criminal Code of Yugoslavia (1951 ) 34 Art. 17. - Inappropriate Attempt. If t11e mea11s whereby tl1 e offe11der attempted to comi_t [_sic] a criminal offence or tl1e object against wl1icl1 l1e attempted t�e com_m1ss1on w·ere such tl1at a crimir1al offence could not have been committed w1tl1 sucl1 means or agai1 1 st sucl1 an object, tl1 e Court n1ay remit tl1e punishment.

Pe11 al Code of Italy ( 1930)35 '' '

Art. 49. - Ofje1ice Err0Jieoi1s/y Pres1,1med and Impossible Offence. A perso11 ·..x,110 co1nmits a11 act which does 11 ot constitute an offence, tinder tt1e erro11eous irnpression that it does constitute a11 offe11 ce, is 11 ot punisl1able. Liability to punishme11t is lil{ewise excluded \'v'l1 e11 , O\'(!i11g to the unst1it abilil;,' of the act or the no11-exister1ce of tl1e object tl1ereof, the injurious or da11g·erous occL1rrence is irnr)ossible. If in tl1e cases contemplated in tl1e precedi11g provisions tl1e act comprises

the constitutive elements of a differe11t offence, the punishment prescribed for tl1e offence actually committed sl1all apJJly. In tl1e case specifie� in the second paragraph, the judge may order that an accused J)erson who 1s acquitted be subjected to police measures Art. 215. - Description.

I•

I '

' I '

e. v ti 11 te e -d 1 1 o n d 1 1 a e v 11 ti te i to e Perso11a1 po I ice meas trres a re clivided 11 d Dete11 tive J)Olice measL1res are(1) Assigi1 111e11t to an agricL1ltt1ral settlement or labot1r establish ment. ('2) Co,1fi11 e111e11t in a11 establisl·1me11t for treattnent and ct1stod)'· (3) C 011 t· ·�11e111e11t i11 a cri1ni11al lt111atic asylt1n1 . t4) Co11f111en1ent in a crimi11al reformatory. No11-dete11tive pol·ice measures are(1) Liberty t1 11 der sLipervision. (2) Prol1_ibitio11 to res1·cte 1·11 one or more comn1unes, or 1· 11 o11e or more JJrov111ces.

34 · As translated in 1 Q The New y osIav Lau: 13, Nos. 3-4 ( l 959) . 3 5. A s translated in M.ic l1ae I an d Wug ecl1sler, Crin;ina l Law 628, 631.

IMPOSSIBILITY

117

. (3) Prol1ibitio!1 to frequent i1 1ns an d public establ15 11ments for the sale of alcol1ol1c beverages. (4) Expulsion of a foreig11er f ram the State. Whe11 tl1e law prescibes a J)olice 1neasu ·ti t l� · d t· t 1ng · ·its d scription, the j�clge sl1all order liberty t111der su1)ervis��:�1�f:!s' 111 ��e case oi a person . _ convicted of crime, l1e tl1 i1 1J<s fit to order 1.e1 egatiot l to atl agr1ct1ltt1ra1 set� tletnent or labot1r establisJ1111e1,t. Crin1inal Code of Ca11ada (1954) Art. 24. - Atte11,pts. (1) Every one_ ,vl10, l1avi11g a11 i11te11t to commit an offei,ce does or . to do a11ytl11ng f?r tl1e pt1r1Jose of carryi11g out his intei,tioi� is guilty on11ts of_ a11 atte1npt to co11 1n1_1t tl1e o!fe11ce wl1etl1er or 11ot it was IJossible ui,der the c1rcumsta11ces to con1111 1t tl1e offe11ce. e qt1_ e stio (2) Tl 11 0 1 nissio11 by a perso11 \vl1o l1 as a11 vhetl1er_ an ac or � � � .111te11t to co 1 111111t a11 01fe11ce 1 s or 1s not 1nere fJreparatio11 to co111111it tlie offe1 1�e, at}d too remote to co11stitutct ar1 atte111JJt to c:or11mit the of fer1c(�, is a quest1011 ot la\v. Questions

\Vl1.ic� of tl1e Note 2 code JJrovisions carries tl1e follo\v·iy1g sei1tirnei1t of \Va1bl1nger (also apJ) Iicable lo tl1e P. C.E.) to its logical cor1clusio11: Accardir1g to tl1e s11bjective conception \XJ h ich holds S\vay i11 S\xritzerla11d, tl1e absolutely impossible offense is also f)Unishable, as it is eqttally tl1e expressio11 of a crin1i11ally dangerot1s will \Vl1icl1, if it is 11ot subdued, \Vill be tra11slated i11to l1armful action. 36 �t 111o 1 1 icl l \V st? ise 7 \, tl1e is l fee U )'O o j . s o11 isi ov Wl1icl1 of tl1e code pr ct 11early approximates Art. 29 P.C.E.? Wl1at is your position witl1 res1)e 1e11t to tl1e defense of inlf)Ossibility? Do you feel \'(1itl1 tl1e Canadia11 Parli,111sla \;s go Yu e tl1 th \x.·i sh \xri t1 yo do l; 1ec isl ol ab be tld ot tl1at 1J1e defense sJ1 ia� o1J l1i of Et ns io sit 1Jo e cl! id in e 1 tl er ·ef J)1 tt yo clo to retain it i,1 tolo or e tl1 of cl1 e ea rli de tin cl1 l1i r ,x s ie lic fJO e tl1 e ar t l1a S,vitzcria11d arid Ital),·? W above provisior1s? Recommended Readings

diq11es S,,isses, 1ri }1 es cl1 Fi ), le sib os 1p I11 it el D Le aib \V ling-er La Tentative (Ill 1 1 1 f)Ossibilit)'). 1 1 i or on ti si po ss vi S, 1e tl of ,t er em No. 120 l (195 7) ( excelJe11t stat ) 61 ( 19 86 IV JT 6, I IV 87 O R , !Joss c. Ministere Public du Canton du LrJcerne (1nost rece11t Swiss jt1risprude11ce co1 1cer11ing itnpossibiJity). el . od fv\ i tl i n es m ri C e at ho � 11c J o! 11t . \Vec]1$]er, Jones and Kor11, T11e Treat111e _ c1t 1d a1 1 1 10 at I1 S0 t, p em tt A e: t1t 1t st _ sc11ss1_ 011 of fJe11aI Code of tl,e An,erica11 La,v In cl1 r,t lle ce ( ex 1) 96 I ( 5 58 857 J. e7 R ConspiraC}', 61 Colr,mbia L.

36· Waiblinger, Ibid. at p. 5.

'1 �

'i I',

.' ,r,

'•

' i

,,.,

lIi

' '

.. ..

I' • ·:' '

' .

': ....I

#• • •

I ••• I

. .I .. '.

l: ·,

THE CRIMINAL ACT

118

in m h s li ic te e a h w e th , 1 .0 5 t. c e e S ef d , n io s n is v ro e p e d o C l a n e P l e d the Mo · · l A ttempts, 78 U of i111 possibility). 1na m s r1 nn C Pe on yl'U . ty · an ili ib ss po l1n f t f Ef on of ti era impossibili id , , n St ra11rn !�e cons ty broad . d O (go (1930) 962 8 R., PP· 966·969)· of the common discussion law od cases go ( 653 635 w a L l a Willia1ns, Crimin . . . . . on imtJossibility). . . s f o o p y n 1t 1m o 1l b s1 s1 1s ct 1s d in e e is th at re (t 4 9 -4 9 8 4 aw Perkiiis, Criminal L com1no11 law). ard L. Rev. 4�5148 v ar H s, ?� pt em t� A al in m ri C 1 i1 . Smit11, Two Problems e ns a fe as to de ty 1l1 1b ss in im po cr 1m al of ce an pt ce ac d an n io ss (l 957) (discu attern1Jt). an ic er m se -A ca lo e law ng (th A of 6 48 746 w la al 1i i im Cr , sl1 di I(a d Paulsen ari in1possibility). n de ru d isp ry an eo jur ce th of e tl1 of 11 sio us isc (cl 65 0-1 16 l na Pe oit Dr fv\erle cl1 to . o11 s) en ati fr rce cit sou e siv ten ex i11g lt1d i11c law cl1 er1 fr 1 1 i i�11Jossibilit)r the o11 ian ssi of cu Ind dis ( 63) 19 ., ed l1 (7t 46 4527 a : I,1d 1 of c iw L al· OoLt r, IV Pen law of i1n1Jossibilit>').

_gg °

StClllON IE. �IENlUNCRA110N AND ACTIVE REPENTENCE

PEI'JAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA I I I

Art. 28. - Renunciation an.d Active Repente1lce. (1) If _a1'. offencl_e� of l1is own f ree will re11ot111ces the pursuit of his c_r11�1111al ac�1v1ty tl1e cot1rt sl1all reduce tl1e fJt111isl11ne11t witl1in the l1m1ts prov_1de? by law (Art. 184) or may reduce it witl1out restriction ��rt. 185) 1f �1 r�111nstances so justify. No p11nisl11ne11t shall be in1JJ?sed if tl1e re1111nc1at1on \Vas pro111rJted b)' reason of hor1esty or l1igl1 motives. (2) If a11 ?ffencler, having co�pleted l1is cri111i11al activity, of l1is own free will JJreve11t�, or co11tr1butes to IJrevent the co11sequent re5 ult, 185) . (Art t. tl,e court may w1tl1ot1t restrictio11 reduce tl1e pt111ishmen . r e nplic (3) Tl1is Article sl7 all als? a1Jply to a11 instigator or a11 accor (Ahis!. 35. a�d 36) _w!10 of 111s O\v11 free \Viii renou11ced the pursuit of to m 7 i l crtn1111al activity or has do11e everytl1i11a incumbe11t upon 0 preve11t tl1e com1nissio11 of tl,e offence.

TI-lE NEW KOREAN CRIMINAL CODE: WITHDRAWAL FROM CRIME AND SELF DENUNCIATION37 • •

• •

Paul Kichyun Ry1-:,

· to Wl1ile ge11erally tendi tlg t ap . . s a o . . nal sanctions sparingly, � ome safeguard a maxitTILlm o f . ct· vo_ rJ 1y1ng cr11n1 5 1 d rJl· l � ua law o ed 1 n fre ica r e m, the An o 1gl A1 t t ti insta11ces admits punisl,men \Vhere i 5 1 rar tl1e co11tinental Euro1Jean law g 37.

Ryu, The New Korean C riminal Code 292-293 (lY57J.

O ctob er 3, 1953, 48

· Crim. L. Crim.

J(i, Pol. .-nd "

1 •

RENUNCIATION AND ACTIVE REPENTENCE

119

mtinity or _a reductio� of penalty. S11cl1 exte11sive aJJplicatio11 of crimi i ,al sanc tions in t�1s �ou1 1try �s tl,e res11 ! t of tl1e j11 ris1Jr11de11tial vie\,q tl,at critninal law has an obJect1ve qual1t�, or, as 1s sometitnes said, tl1at tl1e law is parainount. Tl1e objective ':'iew of criminal la\,q is expressed i11 tl1e no1 1-recoa11itio1 1 of withdrawal from. crime a11d sel'f-d �n1111ciatio11 as a 1nitigati11g factor, �1 tl,e 01 ,e I1a11d, a11d of crime upo11 com plaint, 011 tl1e otl1er. Volu1 1tary desi�te11 ce frof!, cri1n� is liOt a grot111d for 111itigatir1g IJLttiishment l l1t1�, '1 f a 111a11 resolves t)1 1 a cri1ni11al e1 1ter1Jrise, in tl1e A11glo-Amer1ca_11 li:l\v. _ a11d proceeds so far 111 1t tl1at 111c; �let a111 ot1 11ts to a1? i11dictable atteinpt, it does not cease to be s11cl1, tl1ot1gl1 lie vol11r1tarily aba1 1do11 s tile evil pur pose.''(1�2> Of cot1rse, a 1nore liberal te11cle11c>' 1nay be reflectecl in se11tei1ci1 1g policies. By co1 1trast, tl1 e Oei"111a_11 !a \V �oregoes JJt11 1isl11 ne1 1t of atte1111)t entirely in cases of abando11 n1ent of a cr1 11 111 1al t11 te11tio1 1 a1 1d fJreve11tio11 of tl1e i1 1jt1 rious res11lt (Sect. 46 of Germa11 Pe11al Code). Tl1e Korea11 Code adopts a11 i11tern1 ediary solt1tio11 i11 fJroviclir1g for 111itigatio11 or remissio11 of pL1 11isl1111 e11 t i11 cases of desiste11ce frqm ,1 cri1 11 i11 al conduct or of preve11tion of its co1nJJletio11 (J\rt. 26.) Witl1 regarcl to self denu11ciation, tl1e Code adofJts a1 1 extren1ely flexible attitt1de. It provicles ir1 Article 52: (1) Whe11 self-denu11 ciatio11 is made to com1Jete11t at1 thorities \v'l1icJ1 h::1.,;e the respoI1sibility to i1 1vestigate tl1e coin1nissio11 of cri n1 e, tl1e JJt111isl11ne11t 1nay be mitigated or re111itted. (2) Tl1e (Jreceding sectio11 sl1 all aJJply \•1l1en \1oll111tary CfJnfessio11 is rnacle to tl,e injtrred fJarty i11 cases of cri11 1es wl1icl-i ca1 111 ot be [Jrost-�ctite(l over tl1e objection of tl 1e victin1. In addition, \Viti, regard to certai1 1 s1Jecific cri!11es, tl1e c;octe f)ro,1icl�s _for mandatory m itigatio11 or remissio11 of pu11 isl1n1e11 t 1 11 cases or sel1-der1 ur1c1at1or1 or volu11tary co11 fession.

I ' I 'I

I ,.

,,L· I ,I

I ,I ,;

I I (.

'I.

·'

.i:

•

.' 'I1I

,.; '·I

' I

WUST c. lv1INISTERE PUBLIC DU CANTON DE LUCERNE RO 83 JV 1, JT JV 70 (1957) Switzerla11cl

011 Jai,uary 51 1956, Elizabeth W11st a11no1111ced to S11va tl1at she �1 ad been the victim of an accidetit. Q11 Ja1 111ary 19, sl1e de111� ncled }Jayn1ent of 111 st1ra1 1ce for the period until Jantiary 14. I-Iowever, sl1e craftily co1 1cealed the fact that two days after tl,e accidei,t slie recovered tl1e value of l1er work else\vhere. On tl1 e mornii,g of Janttary' 20, a represe1 1tative _ of Suva went to see tl1e ne\v employer. l11 the after11oon of tl1e same day, El1zabetl1 _Wtist wro�e to Suva, witl1out 11aving been encotii·aged, tl1at sl1 e \Vas renou�c111g _ lier �lat�. She l1 ad 11ot yet sent tl1 e accident carcl withottt tl1e JJresentat1011 of wl11cl1 110 one can be compensated. atl it qu a 1 Y 1?� e dg Ju tl ie , . S. P C. 2 . ra !Ja . 21 le n1m Su tic Ar y ar of Reasoning : U1 1der _ . _ individual when of l1is ow n i11itiative, l1e re11ounces �11�. crin, _ inal actt�ity b �f 9re

comple ti1 1g that activity. An actor desists of liis ow 11 1r11t1al1ve wl1e11 111s dec1s1on (lOl) GlO'Ver v. Commonwealt/1, 86 Va. 382, 10 S. E. 420 (1889) at 386·

. .::

. .

: . . ..

\· I ·l

I, I'

_,... -' '

'' ·.).., '

120

THE CRIMINAL ACT

i s ow n free w il l not to attain his on � d de un fo s i ity tiv d en not to conti11t1e l1is ac d, �e can11ot � _ 1 ng . On the ! l1 � l1a o d �o f o _ e l �b_ cap ite f be when, i11 fact, he is qu ca�e w h er e ! 1s �c1s1on 1s determin t h � 1n ve 1 t t1a 1 n 1 �,n 0 ed s aid to renoun ce of liis d wh ( ch , 1n fact_ o� appe ara a� ill w is h _ of t en nd pe de in nce, by extenlal circumstances nc � nu nd ht re hi 1 at1o n �re im be . e� v 1_ ot m 1e Tl 1. a1 pl e th of n prevent executio s of �·� own free :VI11 . wa n 1o 1at nc u n_ re er eth wh ion Yet cis de material to the t o de c1 d 1ng upon 1)un1sliment. t ec sp re tl1 w1 nt ou c ac o itit en tak motive ca11 be e, v ti_ tia ini for � s11e had rea5011 ow r he of c e n ot� re� t no id d nt ella The app claration. This blo cked her way to de r he 1 11g n o t1 s e qu s wa va Su t to think tlia d 1te ve1 her by d_iscovering pre v� Su , ect eff In ty. ivi act 11al mi cri r he realizatio11 of her deceit in mal<ing false statements and even tf the appellant w1sl1ed, s11e could not tl1en attain tl1e goal tl1at she had wante d . In this l ight, it is not possible to exempt tl1 e appellant from punisl1m en ·t. Cour d e Cassatio11 - MM. Fassler, Muhein1, Bachtler, Perri 11 a11 d Grisel. Questions ·\ 1. 2. 3.

\Xfr1at is tl1e di ffere11ce between ''renunciation'' a11cl ''active repentence"? W itl1 i11 wl1at time periods i11 tl1e cr ime of attempt may pu11isl11nent be reduced for re11 u11ciatio 11 an d for active repe11te11ce? l\1ust !1arn 1, i11 fact, be prevented before punishme11t ca11 be re duced under Art. 28 ( 1) or (2)? May an offe11der actively repe11t tl1e crime of l\1aterial forgery (Art. 383)? Note that tl1 e fren cl1 text of tl1e P.C.E. and tl1e C.P.S. botl1 use the words de son propre 1nouvemer1.t. Wl1at is tl1e positio11 of tl1e Wust case witl1 respect to tl1e m_ea11 ing. of . tl1ese. \vor ds? Can you tl1i11k of reaso11s that 1night lead us 111 Eth1op1a to interpret ''of l1is own free \Vil l'' differently from tl1e way it is in S\vitzerlan d? What purposes lie bel1i11 d Art. 28? Recommended Readings

' '

I .' '

I ' •1

I I I i

· Perl<i11s, Crimir1al Law 510 -512 (d1sc ' t1ss1on o f locus penitentiae in tl1e comm o n l aw). Willi�ms! Cri'!1inal Law 620-621 (sl1ort statement co11cernir1g repentence , n. b. c1tat1on s 111 fo ot11otes 8-9). Weclisler, ,Jones and K�rn, Tl1e Treatment of l 1c l en el a P M od tl1 e ho in 1 ate Crimes , od e t f he Arnencan Law Institute: A ira c ; tte � mp So t, li citation and Consp yl 1 Co "bb,a !-· Rev. 614-621 ( 196t) (con en de! P a M the of si o dera tion Code su -section concerning re11uncia tion). 1 Bouzat Dr · P'enal 214 -21 7 (sh ort I nc re f in ce dis esisten cuss ion of d 1 u ntary vo pe�al !�w ). Reyes, Re'Vised Penal c de Of h . ine . ilip . Ph the h . of e l.,, ( ° t . P ilzpines ion 88-91 discus s Penal Co de' Art · 6, concerning inter alia ''spontaneou s desisten ce"). Gour, IV Penal Law of Tl dia · Jn · In dia t ' 274 011 case law can cerning renun c. 8. (7th ed., 1963) (paragra1Jt1 setti11g 1at1on).

CAUSATION

121

SECTION f. CAUSATION: THE RELATIONSHIP BETVvEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND RESULTAN·r HARM

a. The Causal For,nula PENAL CODE OF ETJ-IIOPIA Art. 24.-Relationship of Ca1Jse a,1d Ejject.

ca �es wl,ere tl,e commissio11 of a11 offe11ce reqtti res tl1e achieveme11t committed tl1e rest1lt fe11ce <:>f bee11 ve l1a to deemed be sl1all 0 a given _ _ , o � l ) tf t l,e resttlt acl11eved 1s tl,e co11seqt1e11ce of tl1e act or omission _ 1 with \� l11cl1 tl1e acct1sed perso11 is cl1arged.

(1)

Tl1e relatio11sl1i J? �f cat1�e . a11d effect sl1all be l)resttined to exist , e 11 tl1 e act or om1ss1�11 w1tl1111 tl1e provisio11s of tl1e 1�:i.w \V1ot1ld, in wh the normal cottrse of tl1111gs, proclttce tl1e resttlt cl1arged•. e

•

POOR RICI-IARD'S ALlv\ANf\C38

for \'Va11 t of a 11 ail t l1e s 11 oe is lost for ,va11t of a sl1oe tl1 e l1orse is lost, for want of a J1orse tl1e rider is lost. for want of a rider tl1e n1essage is lost, for \Vant of a n1essage tl1e battle is Jost tl1e war is lost - tl1e fatl1erla11d is lost. 1

CAUSATION IN TI-IE PENAL LA \Y/ OF SWITZERLft.ND

'' I ',.. ,·' I

,r 39

Paul Log oz

•

·II ,J. ., ,,

•

t' '

for an offense to exist, tl1e law 1nost ofte11 reqttires that tl1e offender produce a certain l1arm. . . Sometimes also, but less often, certai11 activity of a11 offender constitutes a crime by itself. . . . But if tl1e offense (of commission or omissio11) implies a certain l1arm, there mt1st be between tl1e unlawft1I act a11d tl1e l1arm, a relationsl1ip of cause and effect. This relatio11sl1ip can be quite complex. It may be tl1at between tl1e act of tl1e defendant and the criminal }1arm, otl1er acts, hu1na11 or of nature, have contributed to tl1e bringing abottt of tl1e l1arm. When does a legal relationship of cause and effect exist between act and harm? The Swiss Code does not respond to this question and it must, therefore, be resolved by reference to the cases and practice. •

•

JS. Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanac (1757), as quoted in Mueller, WAYS in Crimintel Scienc e l69 (1961).' 39· logoz, ComTMntaire du Code Penal Suisse 32-34.

I:',

' !

1 ...

.' '

I'° I': .:' : I •• • •

. .-

,.' ..' ' ,:·

I '... ' '

l .,

' '

II';,,-�;'.'

THE CRIMINAL ACT

122

uei11g tl1e . ,:t:gal ca�se of a cert as act _ 11 1na }1t1 a r de nsi co a in In order to say: out to w1tl1 able this JS act 011e 1at l t the 11 arm gl1 etlOU t o n 1s ·t . I1ar111 1 ' uc h n a s no . f · qu e ) sin o a 1_ 1 o_ ine \Vould i�i c�r nd do (co d rre ctt oc ve l1a t 11o \xrould ly. r ad f? bro _ mp too ex� le 1ty b1l 11s1 po 1f res B decided nal n,i cri of a are t d the i s ra l ed, 1t wot1ld be wa de in tra e tl1 d an A to te dt iii tra goi 1 ��l<e a trip by � n 1 l at of de B e 10 tl1 wl ed us ca � li ris t pe y) all ed l eg i ( s 1,a A at tli y sa too far to crasl1. ion cis h e; pre t 1 _ tl_ wi e eat li11 �io de no 11 o f lega l to ary ess 11ec , ore ref tlie It is, e 11� 1 1n fra t? gt1 t1n sed d1s po IJ�o sh bet\veen e11 be l1as it so, do o n catisatio . T s _a1d, 1s an eve11t or a fac t e11 be s l1a it 11 tio 1di 1 co A 1 1. io1 dit cause aiid con an nt �e IS eve ca� ed; o� duc a fact which pro be to 11t eve r tlie ano s ow l al \xrhicli t 1on an� l�at which f ollo\vs it, d1t con tl1e n wee Bet lf. itse g l1in 11et 501 es duc pro l1at w l11ch 1t produces, ther e is t and se ca�1 1e l t n \xree bet it>'; l sibi fJOs a is e tlier inore: there is a relatio11sl1ip of t1ecess1ty. In a1 1 a11alogous sense, but witl1 more preciSf?D,. tl1e theory termed ''acleqt1ate caL1se'' . . . c�11siders a l 1t1ma1: act as _be111g the legal cause of a certai 1 1 l1ar1n 01 1 l y ,x,11e11 1t aJJ[Jears that, 1n t l1e c1rcu1nsta11ces of each case, tl1e act woL1 l d 11ormally jJrodt1ce t l 1at result. Tl1is is tl1e concept of caL1sality wl1ich l1as bee11 adopted by tl1e federal Tribu11al 1Jarticular l y i11 civil cases tl1e princi[Jles of \xrl1icl1 are also capabl e of be i 11 g a p p1 ieci to IJe 11al law .

�i

I 1

''·

•

Tl1e tl1eory of adeq11ate cat1se allo\xrS satisfactory resolution of tl1e problen1disct1ssed before - of causal relationsl1ip \vitl1 respect to commissions by omissio11. It is c l ear tl1at fro111 tl1e poi11t of view of pl1ysical law a11 on1ission is not cat1sal: ex ni/Jilo 11il1il fit. for exampl e i11 tl1e case of i11fa11ticide through l acl< of care, it is 11ot - from tl1e poi11t of vie\v of 11at11ral caL1satio11 - the omissio1 1 of care wl1icl1 caused tl1e deat l1 of tl1e cl1ild· it is deatl1 from col d or l1u11ger. But law l1as fJLtrposes otl1er tl1a11 tl1ose of 11�tt1ral science To achieve . tl1ose pur1Joses1 la\xr is able to use a 11otion of cattsality in quite a different sense fro1n tl1at attributed to 1 1atL1 ral la\VS. It considers inactio11 as "causal" from_ its point o! view wl1er1 t l 1at i11action fJreci1Jitated the deve lo1Jme11t of certa111 events wl 11cl1 then1selves \Vere tl1e natural cause of t]1e cri1ni11al harm. In appl_yi11g t l1e _tl1eory of adequate cause, 011e would say tl1at inaction is causal wh�11 . tn tl1e c1rct1n1sta11ces of tl1e case one is forced to admit cl 1at the omission - and tl1e individL1a l l1avi110· t l 1e leaal oblio·ation to act - wou ld norma�ly_ have - tl1at is according to all probability - pr�ve11ted (if carried out) the cr1m1nal l1ar1n wl11cl1 in fact was fJroduced. '

' I

'I I ' ,

11 ! '

' ' '+

' '\ ' ' ! !' I

' '

I '

•

THE RISE Of ADEQUATE CAUSE THEORY IN CONTINEN TAL LAW40 H. L. A. Hart and A. M. Honore 1 Tl,e t),eory of adequate cause a1Jpeared to r f 1 ,;· atio 1 o t just ific aI a h <l offe bo r nts . ore pre cis e eve fo: mu lat ioi , of of von Bar's refere11ce to tl1e ''regular course �w e reib r?" physio!ogist von Kries wh o first advanced this th e o 6� f i � g � li the 8 . ob l(r s . w s interested In tl1e matl1ema p of y o the · r tical � n ; tio atld also i;, t�� 5 ta��tst teat aspect o e t . k ·)' tl1a t s of ed soc con iolo sid gy er and . . 0f probab1 1ity could be aJJJJlied to th e law also. Objective probability (Moglzc/J eit 40. Han and Honore , Caus(Jtt.on in .

the La w 412-� 17 ( 19 59).

i I •

·,

CAUSATION

123

11e arg�ed! must be d_i�ti11�t1isl1ed f ro1n subj ective probability ( Wahrscl,ei nt· hkeit. ) for obJect1ve probab1l1ty 1s a relatio11ship between events indeper1 dent oif ou r kr1 o\'(lledge. V o11 Kries af)fJears to t1se ''ob _ je ct ive'' to make at least tl1ree different poii,ts: . tl1 a state1ne11t of tl1e rel a tive fre9t1e1 1cies of classes (i) at of ev en _ _ ts is iii de k1 ou 1o r wl of ed t ge or exp_ectat1?11 1�1,tts if a clie sl,atJed as a re pe11de1_ 1 ul ar : lar a ge �n tl1 n r ttm o ber of ti n1es 1t 1s fot111d tl1at a six turr,s U[J app� cube 1s ox i 01 1eof th s1x . e total 11 t11�1 her of tl1ro\vs; l1e11 ce t11e relative freqt th mat�ly ien cy tl1 ro ws_ 1s about 011e-s1 xtl1. 011 tl1e _ �asis of a kriowl edge of of sixes to tl,i s e 1 freq_uency 011 1n ght . ass�rt !l1at tl1e [Jrobab1l1ty of a particular tl1 row being , ab 011 ot1 1 e-s xtl t wa 1, s six tl 1 a � s \X'<)ttld be to a1J1Jly to a particttlar case a state111ent of regt1!ar freq_L1enc1es a1�d so Lo aJ)[)ly an objective relatio11 between classes of e�e11ts 111 . mak1_11� a fJarl1ct1lar _ jJ1:obctbility stat e n1e11t. 01 1e irnportant sort of �art1_ct1lar_ pr obab1l1ty state1 11 �i1l 1s tr�de�d a stateme1 1t aJJplyi11g relative fr�qt�enc1es 11 1 tl11s wa)r a�d vo! 1 Kr1es s ]JOI r1t 1s tl1erefore of i m 1Jorta11ce; but tl11� 1s 11ot tl1e 011ly wa}' 111 wl11cl1 tl1e probability of a tJartict1lar occt1rrence is est1n1 ated. 1

It is_ irnporta11t to realize tl1at frequer1cy ge11e ralizatior1s, tl1ot1gl1 1'objective'', are relative to tl1e class of eve11ts c1 1ose 11 for co1111Jariso11 a11d to tl1e clescrip tion of tl1e class. Tl1us, tl1ot1gl1 01 1e 1 11igl1t loosely SJJeal< of tl,e ''freque11cy of deatl1s from tt1berct1losis'', in order to esti111ate probabilities 'Xie mttst l<nO\Yi the frequency as a fJroportion of some otl1e r class, e.g. deaths fron1 all cat1ses i11 Great Britai11 in a give11 year.Tl1is proportio11 \Viii clearly r1ot be tl1e sar11e as the relative freqt1e11cy of deatl1s from tuberculosis to tl1e totai 11t1mber of perso11s i11 Great Britain i11 a give1 1 year. Tl1 ere is 11otl1ing i11 the state111er1t tl-1at tl1e relative frequency of ordi11ary tl 1 rows of a die a11d sixes is abot1t 011e-si:;.cth inconsiste 11t \vith tl1e [)Ossibility tl1at [-l macl1 i11e 111igl1t be cot1structe d which would alw·ays or nearly always tl1row a six. Tl1e relative fre<.1ue11cy of t!Jro'l.i'Js witlJ th e mac/Ji1ie a1 1d sixes would differ fron1 tl1e relative freqt1e11cy of orct i r1ary thrO\VS a11d sixes. Hence \'<'ll ile state1ne1 1ts of relative frequ e11cy are trt1e \i·l1atever ot1r knowledge and expeclatioi1, stateme11ts applyii1g sL1cl1 freq uenci_es alone to determine tl1e probability of a partic ular eve11t are al \Y1ays based 01 1 1r1complete information since tl1e perso11 making tl1e estimate l< 11ows only tl1at tl1ere l1as been or wil l be �11 event of 011e class a11d is t1si11g tl1e relative freq ue11cies to determine the probability that this also was or \Vill be a11 eve11_t of a11otl1er class. If the perso11 making tl1e estimate k1 1ew more abo1;1t t11e circumstances he would not need t o rely me rely 0 11 tl1e relative frequencies of tl 1e two classes of events. Von Kries's poin t is a good one; but the difficulty of ascertaini11g relative freguencies and of settling the description of tl1e classes of events bet\veer1 wh1cl1 tl1e frequencies hold is very great.. . 1

• •

•

ticular event r pa a at tl1 y sa \VC 1 1e1 wl at 1 tl ize al .. .. It is important ... t o re B 1s more or less probable gi ve n anotlier event _A we are not always merely �nd applying our knowledge of tl,e relative freqt1e11c1 es o� eve21ts of classes B. We may instead be drawing a tentative concluston from a ge�1eral1zat! o1 1 for wl1ich the evidence is inco11clusive, as wl1en we say tl1at X wl1 ? 15 suffering from a certain disease will probably become blind, because lliere 15 strong but not concl11sive evidence for the ge11 er alization t l1at �veryoiie :<'t,o suffers from the �isease becomes blind. Common to botl1 tl1ese !nsta�ces 1s tl1e fact tl1at � particular probability stateme11t is m ad e on tl1e basis of 1rtcoznplete_ kn ?wled g�, but th.e knowledge m ay b.e incomplete eitl1er because the best gerreral1zat1on avail-

I�� l I1 •

, ':'

/I: : I,"

. II

....l, ,,

I',

1' .II

1 ,1

I 'It I'· .· . 1 . I

. .

I •

· .r ;.. ...

...

·-:

• .. ..

·'

I •• '

.; . ;' � .. '

, ,.

I �·',, :·

;t,

'.' I ..,! ': '... •·

',�•

124

�

-�

_j' j

,, I ,

I ''

' I'

. statement of frequencies or because the evidence, either for a part· 1 bl s a l s : . c ve nc �� a oba p s i n rt la i P icu ti r u , r � al 11 i ?, r: ne ge iz� . l ; tcf � r f ar a universa 1 i e s ns s se K r1e so n va f 111 ar e as t1v ec b1 ''o tliey mere1y d lle ca be y . ma ts en statem . s. 11 0 t1 za l1 ra e n e g cy n e u q e fr apply ob)ective proba�ility as � constitu of t cep c�n tlie lies app s Krie Von ent en A _ . giv 1n� war lo� fol the cont1_ng n i _ _ ency will s e11t tem sta sal cau element of ,1e� 1sf sat o 1t tw tf Iy_ � o_ d conditions: (i) it an 1f m har of se cau e uat be the adeq m ha 1n us cr ve t e� se 1t (1! d ) th e m har _ the of , objective non e qua si a n be . st mu t. oun Tl1e tde� of incr easing am 1t ca1 n1f1 s1g a by m har the of probability'' objective probability may perhaps_ be ma de clear by the follo":1ng example: a certain j)roportion of l1uma11_ . be111gs suffer fro_m , tubercu�os1s; from this is inferred the objective probab1l1ty of a human being s suffer1ng from tubercu losis . A J1 igher proportion of min_ers s_ uffer from t�berculosis and the objective probability of a miner's. so su_ffenng JS correspon_d_1nglyr gr:eater. H_ence a man's becoming a mi11er is said to increase the probab1l1ty or his catching tubercu losis a1 1d, if he v ;ould not l1ave caught it but for becoming a miner, to be the adequate cat1se of his catchi�1� tl1� disease. The bare re�atio11ship signified by sirJ.e qua non or necessary cond1t1011 1s treated 1by von Kr1es as a causal rela tio11sl1ip disti11gt1isl1ed from adequate cattse as '11on-adequate'' or 11 coincidental": this non-adequate relation ca11 be established, sa)'S von Kries, b): attending solely to tl1e particular case witl1out applying generalizations. V011 Kries ft1rther claims that tl1e results reacl1ed by a.pplying l1is notion of adequacy are very similar to tl1ose wl1icl1 a layman, and still more a lawyer witl1 a trai 11ed sense of j L1stice would reacl1 by aj)peal ing to the teachings of experience ancl the regular course of events, and offers l1is theory as a ratio nal reconstr11ction of these more intuitive 11otio 1 1s. Indeed tl1e adequacy theOT)' itself is sorneti111es stated not in the strict forin given above but in the loose form tl1at a co�dition is tl1e ·adeqt1ate cause of a co.nsequence if it has a tendency, according to l1uman ex1Jerie11ce and in tl1e ordinary cot1rse of events, to be followed by a consequence of that sort. Tl1e res_ults obtair1ed by tl1e tw·o approaches will indeed often conve rge. Thus becoming_ a mirier is the adequate cause of catching tuberculosis because of. the substantially greater freqL1ency witl1 \Vhich miners catch it than hum_an be�ngs as a whole. It is also trt1e tha t the conditions which together wilh beitig a 111 a11, etc., suffice to pro du ce tuberculosis e.g. prolonged exp?� ure , to coal-dust, are st1ch as mii:ers ar e frequently exposed to. Such conditions may . �e called_ 11ormal for n11ners. Hence it wil often be true that, when a l e· c coDctition !1as increased tl1e objective probabilit ons the , enc e consequ a of y c ts 1:1en e eve will be f r fou n? o h n to ave occurred in the ordina y cour�e � 1thout . the intervention of any abnormal contingency. There wil l, however,

THE CRIMINAL ACT

. '

er b reat � erg enc e g if a is consequence of the class of which there q � fp�o;a bl l y occurs, but only owing to the intervention of an abnormal cor in ee-s

gency, �- g. a man takes a job as 1!1 he e wh er a tow miner in a certain . n a and marries a �· ing m a-i rl from wh om 1 1e co e b Here . cont ract tube s rcul osis t o miner ·1 h adeq �te cause n s dise of t catchi ng u the a e has � b t he : diseas c e oc urre n \·he or� tnary cours e o f events (for a miner). a of Von Kries gives as ari . e as c e h t ex am pl e io n of no ca us nat ad eq ua . t te on coachman wlio · fr es a� re_ a cl, devi of duty coach falls asleep so t11at the the agreed rout�� j r g struck 1 the enger : course pass i i of Here the the dev ation i by lightning W:h·1 c � e 0 r rect would co not have the ''falling asleep'' as r f� crease been on 0 pposed .t o ''keepin . g a wak e '' does not s ignificant 1Y · _

t l

I '

CAUSATION

125

4 . ab <:>f pa i_ l ' ity ss �n ge r pr ob be in g the struck bY 1 · gl1tning,, The_ chances of being · struck by l1gl1tn1ng are tn fact small whether .t; 1e c?ach m �1 1 _ as 1s le ep aw or ak e, pas sen ger the is in if fac t and struck bY lightn111g tl11s \Vtll ordi11arily be . some tl1ing as out ribed of the desc ord1 ourse of eve_ nts, a11d tl1e fact that lig�t11ing �truck at tl1�t particttlar spot �:i�1 � e treated from a common-se11se point of v iew as a coincidence. Here a ct·i verg� i,ce _bet\�ee� tl1e two 1netl1ods of approach is avoided 0 11Iy bec'aus� the ltgl1 t111ng 1s 111cor1)orated in tl1e descri ption of the consequence. Hence, tl1ougl1 there is 11ot a c0 1 1 ete corresponclence bet\veer1 vo_11 Kries's tl1eory and von Bar's aIJJJeal to t t ormal course of events, ll1ere 1s . often a converge11ce. Von Kries in deed tlliiik 5, that tlie ttse of tl1e 11ot1011 of tl1e . normal course of events 11as been \\7 e11 . 115 IJtre� atid. he admits tl1at l1is stricter notion of increased probabilit)' � a11110 t � e applied \Vttl1 n1atl1e111atical accuracy; there is no clear line betwee11 ad eqt1ate and 11on·adeqt1ate cat1ses.

�f

• • •

•

NOT ES I

Note l:

Further Theories Concerning Causal ReiationsY1 ip

A. The T/Jeor:.') of �o,zditio,i: Tl1e tl1eory of co11ditio11 \Y/cts forr,1t1la.tc�cl a-11cl a�v��ated by the At1str1a11 Glaser and tl1e Oern1ar1 \ro11 Br.1ri . it corresj::or1c1s iii all s.1gn1f1ca!1t respects to �the] _A11glo-A111eric�n si11e qttcf. ,1o,z t}1eor:,r: every C()Jl(1!·· t1on \V�tch cann ot be 1 ma�1_11ed abse11 t \,,1tl·1out a cc rres[)o11cii11g fctil 1.1re of tl1e result, 1s a necessary cond1t1011 or cause for tl1e production of tl1e l1arri1.. .. Tl1is tl1eory l1as bee11 tl1e favorite of tl1e Oern1"l11 Stt[}re111e Cotirt i11 cri!11i11�1.l rna!ter�. The Spa11isl1 SttfJren1e Cotirt l1as follo�<ted st1it. Steadfastly it l1as ma1n!a.1ned t�at the causal 11ex1:-s is not i1npaired or altereci by any 1)re-e1(�siii1g cond1t1ons, like the patholog1cal co11dition of tl1e victi111; predisposi tio11s, or the physical constitt1tion of tl1e victi1n; 11or is it affected b)' a11y co11comitar1 t or related subsequen t events, s ucl1 as lack of n1edical treatrnent, st1p,�rvet1ing causes like tetanus, pneumonia, or gangrene. •

•

• •

Science 189-191 ( 1961 ) • Al in rim C in 41- Mueller, s say Es r, Causing Criminal furrn, in Muelle

.,...

f It'

. ' '' 1 _,:

,. ,,

I, ,I

'' .... I , ,.

' I, .

I •

I 7I ' i II ' l.' ,

'i •' •,

'. ,.' '1

I'I ,.

,.._ .

I(':I

·r

,.'

•

The condition theory, tl1 ougl1 widely acce1Jted in various j urisdictio11s, l1as been subjected to mucl1 criticism. Its major defect lies in the exten sio11 of causal imputatio11 '1.d i,,finitum, flowing from tl1e very 11att1re of pl1enomenal n ce. It is the ue seq d ite lim un an i11 er oth an i e dit con ons which succeed on ts en on op tl1e pr for lem ob pr jor ma tl1e s ate cre h establis ment of a limit which , ns tio _ p ce re ex r� tl1 wi , pt ce ac to ry eo tl1 is th ?f this theory. The reft1sal of n 1o 11t of ve er y 1nt ar 11t lu vo e th l1 t1g ro th r he eit interruptions of the causal chain a third party or through th e occurrenc_e of a�no�mal or incidental �v �nts, or . . . . 1d ly r1g ab on as re t1n n _1o at !c pl ap its ed of grossly negligent acts, has render . l1 _ c 1 h1 B o1 w t1p ow bl a _ ed ct fl1 1n A at th To demonstrate the point, suppose . caused him serious injttries. B is t ake11 t? the ho�pttal. Whtie there, a �ire n 1o at oc e 1ff th st of or 1th at e th ed er id ns co breaks out in whicl, B suffocates. A is death, for if A had not injured B, tl1e latter would n_ ot l1ave bee11 brougl1t to the hospital in which he died. Binding redt1ced tl11s theory ad absz,rd,,m by ar� ing the necessity of punishing fo r adultery not only the man who sle�p s with the woman an d the woman, but also the carpenter who .made the bed. •

' ''

· 1'

l ' ''

•' '

;'.'' .

:...' '

I. .. ' I : > . '

.·,.-�..

' ' '

. :;.

126

Tf;E CRIMINAL ACT

of ion s s_ �u sal dis cau e l1 ati rel T : on use Ca te ma [in the oxi Pr of eor Th e T/J y B. _ to �1m1ted cause er1 e b_ as has � P?t�t matter of _ this to ... la\v] common

I ,1

I I

'I ' I

a e as us ca of 1on rat a �de �s co e giv l ca 1d1 n result ur e eiv rec ll wi 1 ct a fact. No e us a ca as be a ay m 1 t t bu tte ma f, r of fact �o r e_ th e us ca a t fac in is t unless i � all n ges anotl1 er to 1e cl1 If 01 . �h su as on 1t1 n og c re al mee t leg . without receiviiig �le � t, wh an ey th gh tf1 f1s are t1l wf 1la u1 there for an r fo ot sp d ide clt se a llim in , 1ng of htn tl1e l1g e ok law str a by does not led kil is 1er otl the e os riJ this pu t tl1e cl1alleng·e n? d Ha 1. atl de of e us ca tl1e as r been ge len recognize t11e clial e e tim tl1 d_ a� a11 re e �e 11c w l1e e_ �ls en be _ ve l1� would uld wo d ase ce de the made 1 tl1e w atl vie de 111 cal 1d1 l1 1ur suc tl1e a case l11n t w1 t bu ; led kil e11 be ve ha not t from the act of tl1e party." Tl1e illustra no and e enc vid Pro of ion itat vis is ''by trem e for m. If t l1e cl1allenger l1app ene d ex re mo i11 de ma be ily eas 1ld cot tio11 t be mentio11ed tl1at without the gl1 mi it cl< dlo we of out 11 bor e 11 be e hav to unlawful act of two otl1er people l1e \vould not l1ave been born, a11d l1ence tl1ere wot1ld have bee11 110 cl1alle n ge, no journey to that secluded spot, and no deatl1. Obviously tl1e l egal eye c annot, a11d sl1011ld 11ot , see so far. Tl1is found expressio11 i11 tl1e 111axi1n: ''in jure non remota causa sed proxir,za spectatur" (i11 law 11ot tl1e remote cause bL1t the proximate cause is regarded). A11d for centuries judges, la\vyers a11d writers l1ave used tl1e phrase ''1Jroximate cause'' to indica te a caL1se of wl1icl1 tl1e la\:if -..y;ill take 11otice. • •

•

111e foL1r ''tests" or ''clues'' of 1Jroximate cause i11 a crimi11al case are {1) expedie ncy, (2) isolatio11 (3) foreseeability and (4) intentio11. Of tl1ese (1) and (2) are tests of exclusio11 wl1ile (3) and (4) are tests of inclusio11 - tl1at is, either {3) or (4) may bri 11g into the area of proximate cause wl1at otl1er\-qise would be exclud ed by (1) or (2). Neither (3) nor (4) is 11eeded for any otl1er jJt1rpose. Tl1e starti11g point is tl1at except for tl1e rule that under certain circum st�nces tl1e act of 011e may be imputed by law to anotl1er, a11d the rule that the failure �f a legally-required performance (negat ive act) is by law reg arded a� tl1e equ1vale11t of a positive act, no one is l1eld to be tl,e proxim·ate cause ot l1arm, so far as c ri1ninal law is co11cer11ed1 u11less l1is act \Vas in fact a cal1se tl1ereof. lf !,is act \xras in fact a cause of the l1arm it is also tl1e (Jroxin 1ate caLise tl1ereof 11nless excluded by ( 1) expedie11cy or (2) isolatio11. lf l1is act, altl�ot1gh a11 actual cause of tl1e l1arn1 was from the first too trivial to be entitl�� to 11otice, or althougl1 11ot so t ;ivial at the start l1ad come to rest in a position of a_fJparent safety, it \Vill nor1nally be regarded as re1note because it :Vas �ot a SLtbstantial factor of tl1e rest1lt. A1-1d even if it was a substa11tial factor in bring ing about tl,e result, l1is act _will normally be regard ed as remote if betwe �n it a�? tl1e_ liarm �l,ere was a11 1 n depe11dent intervening force, or a11 ''equivalent.11' whicl, was itse!f the im111ediate (not merely con tributory) cause ther� 0 f: If was � subStanttal factor a11d brougl1t about tl1e result directly, . . · it 15 t he proxi ate cause of the harm even if the harm was neither foreseeable n� r 111te11.gied. On the other ha11d a foreseeable or ir1tended co11sequence I$ proximate regardless o f circ11msta11ces.42 1

" I'

•

I' I

\ i

• •

I •

•

The 7:"heory of Rele vance: •.. The theory of adequacy seeks a 1 i0 1it �tii;:; of th�· s e c 0 the l co ce

genera { theor y the of cond ition in � e! � h t adequac; ��:�;mtnediY aws of t on ce, relevan nature. The theory of e_ enal }1and co�siders e h t s

t? such la�s as unnecessary, claiming that . s /t ion laws' themselves ' j� �\ d i cot e in i ng the various crimes, give a clue to \t'l1a t · 42. Perkins, Criminal" Lii w 601, 648.

.I .·

CAUSATION

127

should b� �eeme� ''relevant'' as ''cattses''. Nor need ''ca11se'', i11 the sense of tl1at c?ndtlton. wl1icl1 a stat�te determines to be relevant as ''cat1se'', be tl1e same 1� all _crimes. What 1 s relevan� . as 1 'cat1se'' i11 a f)artict1lar situation is dete m111 d Itld�pei1de!1tly by t �1e s1Je�rf1c. !Jrov isio11 wl1icl1 governs. Tl1is tl1eory, �o � . parttcti!arl� . by lv\ezger, 1s be11�g 111vol<ed i11 Ger111a1 1y in atten11)ts deve p_� at n!odt ying the Judi_c1 ally acce1)ted doctr11 1e of co11ditio11s i11 cases i11volvino part1cular types of cr1 1ne. . . :13 b

Note 2: Other Codified Formulations of Causal Relationship Pe11al Cocle of Italy ( J 930)4·1 Art. 40. - Reltition of C,zrtse

d11d

Effect.

No orte ma1, be J)t!11i�l1ecl iil res1Ject of a11 act dee111ed by tl1c la\xr to be a11 of[e11ce, tf tl1e 111Jttr1otts or da11gerot1s eve11t t11Jo11 \xr]1icl1 tl1e existei1ce of tl1e offe11ce depe11ds is 11 ot tl1e co11seqt1e11ce of I1is act or omissio11 . IJrevent, is Not to preven_ t eve11t, ,vl1icl1 it is a11 legally obligatory to _ . equ1vale11t to caus111g 1t.

Art. 41. - Co,;cttrrei-ice of

Careses.

Tl1e co11curre11ce of pre-exisli11g or si1nt1lta11eot1s or sttfJerve11ir1g cattses, eve11 tl1ot1gl1 i11depe11de11t of tl1e act or omissio11 of tl1e g·t1ilt)' 1Jersor1 1 dc,e '.� not exclude tl1e relatio11 of ca11sality bet\v1ee11 il1e act or 01nissio11 a11d. !.Iii: occurre11ce. Superve11i11g cattses exclttde tl1e relalio11 of ca11sality 011ly \v}·1e11 tl1ey 11ave bee,, by tl1en1selves st1fficie11t to deter1ni11e tl1e occurre11ce. 111 tr1is case, if tl1e act or omissio11 f)revio11sly co111111itted co11slit11tes of itself an offe11ce, tl1e pt111isl1n1e11t prescribed i11 respect of it s11all be a1Jf)liecl. Tl1e 1Jrecedi11g provisi<111s sl1all also aJJiJly wl1e11 tl1e 1Jre-existi11g or simulta11eous or st11Jerve11i11g cause co11sists of tl1e u11la\1c?f11l act of a11otl1er

f I I' ''

', I" ', I I'0 I

, , ,:

. ,; ,:

/ I:.

I ',

j''

I\ , ,

' I '' I I ' t 1:, '

I''

'iI H.,: .

�

,} I,,

person. Arnerican Law Institt1te, lvlodel Penal Code (1962) 45 e11 we Bet e enc erg Div 1ilt; Res and ,ct ndr Co en we Bet ip nsh atio Rel l usa Ca Sect. 2.03.en li! t we or bab sr,l Bet Pro Re l t11a .-4c and ed lai mp 11te Co or ned si De R es1-i lt g a11d Actual Resr,lt.

(l) Co11duct is tl1e cause of a result \vl1en; n d u1 tio es i11 \vo lt qt1 s11 re e tl1 ch hi w r fo ttt b _ 11t de ce te a11 an (a) it is

. . no t have occurred; and s 1y f1e ad a1 t s t1s til re sa d t a11 uc 11d co e tl1 n ee tw be i p l1 (b) th e relatio11s \v e de by la or tl1 Co e tl1 by d se po im ts en m ire qu re ditional causal defining tl1e offense.

). 58 (19 3 79 'V. Rt L nia va syl nn Pe U. 6 10 -43. Ryu, Causation in Criminal Law 3-1294;. see also footnotes of Nino Levi 44. As translated in Michael and \'{fechslcr, Criminal Law 129 . e,n ,d r, lc lis ec _W ,l an l ae ich M , de Co n lia . concerning causation in tJ1e Ica .. . s 5) of thi pro,,1s1on 1n 45. Proposed Official Draft; sec also Comments on Tenc�t1vc Draft No. 4 ( 195 Paulsen and Kadi,h. Crimin.al Law 310-312 . •

...".

! '• ' ' '

I•

'' '

•

128

TliE CRIMINAL ACT

(2) Wlien purposely or knowingly causing � parti�ular result is an el�ment of an offense, the element is not esta�l1shed 1f the actual result 1s not \Vithin the purpose or the co 1 1templat1on of the actor unless: (a) the actual result differs from that designed or_ contemplated, as the case may be, only in the respect that a dtffer�n_t person or different property is injured or affected or that the 1n�ury or harm designed or co11templated would l1ave been more serious or more exte11sive tl1an tl1at caused; or (b) tl1e actual result involves tl1e same kind of injury or harm as that designed or conte1nJJlated . and is n�t too remote or , ac�id��tal in its occurrence to l1ave a [Just] bearing 011 tl1e actor s l1ab1l1ty or on tl1e gravity of l1is offense. (3) Wl1e11 recklessly or 11egligently causing a JJarticular result is an element of an offense, tl1e eleme11t is ...11ot establisl1ed if the actual result is not withi11 the risk of whicl1 tl1e actor is aware or, in the case of negli gence, of \Yhich l1e sl1ould be aware i111less: (a) tl1e act11al result differs from the probable result only in tl1e respect tl1at a different JJerson or different property is injured or affec.ted or that tl1e probable injury or harm wot1ld l1ave been more serious or 1nore exte11sive than that caused; or (b) tl1e actual result involves tl1e sa1 11e kind of i11jury or l1arm as the probable result a11d is 1 1ot too remote or accidental in its occur rence to l1ave a Oust] beari11g on the actor's liability or on the gravity of l1is offer1se.

I I I

(4) Wl1en causing a fJarticular result is a material element of a11 offense for wl1ich absolute I iability is imposed by law, the eleme11t is not established u11less the actL1al resL1lt is a probable consequenc� of the actor's condt1ct. Questions I•

Wl1at relationsl1ip must exist between ''act'' a11d 1arm'' to constitute criminal liability in Etl1iopia? Under Art. 24 mt1st a prosecutor i11 Ethiopia prove causation to convict for forgery (Art. 383)? Ho� would you disti11guisl1 ''cat1se'' from ''conditioti''? Is the existence of a window the cause or co11dition of there bei11g Iigl1t i 1 1 the room? Coul� tl1e l1orsema11 wl10 l1ad failed to inspect the lioofs of liis n1are in the little poem from Poor Ricl;ard's Almanac which led to tl1e loss of the fatherland be said to l1ave caused tl1e loss of the fatherland? Was the loss of tl1e fatl1erland ''tl1e co 1 1sequence of his act or omission'' (Art. 24)? Is it enoug� t_ o prove tliat ''the result acl1ieved is the co11sequence of tl1e act or 0�1ss1on'' . for legal causation under Art. 24? What is Logoz' position on this question? What is the t�� of legal causation in Ethiopia? Can you give meanin r, to the words in �he. �ormal course of tl1ings''? Doe the term ''presume d s have procedural s1gn1f1cance? Logoz stat�s that the theory of ''adequate the by ed ad op t Federal Tribunal of Switzerla11d Has M. cause'' has been tl1e tl1eory o f J. Graven used 11

2. 3.

4. '.Ii

}

- ---------------·-· -··-- CAUSATION

129

:'adequ��e cause'' in th� P.C.E.? W�at do you understand to be the mean _ qu ate ing of a de ca u� e ? Do es 1t differ substantially from other theories _ o! causation set out in Note 1? Is it possible to quantify the verbalization ''tp the normal course of things''? 6. Jl1e_ sel_ect�on fro� Hart and Honore is co11cer11ed primarly with an , O�Jecttv� theor_1 of adeq�1acr. lv\any co1nme11tators l1ave interpreted vo11 Kries to tncorpc>rate a sub1ect1ve eleme11t of fattlt or foreseeability in his theory o! adequate cause.46 Do you tl1inl< it would be wise to allow intent and negligence to enter t11e questio,1 of \vl1etl1er certai11 activity would ''i11 the normal course of tl1i11g·s'' produce a certain result? 7. May a defe11da11t be cri1ni11ally liable for a chai11 of causation that reacl1es beyond that \X l1ich he ir1tended? See Art. 58 (3) P.C.E. 1

Problem

Would the defenda11 t, Heigl10, in tl1e follo\ving case be considered to l1ave cat1sed tl1e deatl1 of the motl1er-in-law if tl1ese events had tal<en place in Ethiopia? ...According to the eviderice, petitioner, armed ,v1itl1 a pistol and accompanied by 011e Miller, went to tl1e l1ome of one Barton to question tl1e latter about remarks w11icl1 l1e "\;qas supposed to t1B.\1e made derogatory to petitioner's cl1aracter. Petitioner raI1g Barto11's door� bell. Barton \ve11t to tl1e door a11d, as l1e was about to oper1 it, tl1e clece::Isecl, Barton's motl1er-i11-la\v, who \"(las tl1en 11ear l1im, e)cclaimed, ''()h, l1e has a gun." Barton opened tl1e dooi· and went on tl1e porch. After 11e l1a.ci denied that l1e had said anytl1ing about petitioner that 'X1as t1ntrue or not common talk, petitioner struck him in tl1e face \Vitl1 llis fist. Barto11 staggered and fell i11to the screer1 door. Wher1 l1e a.rose, petitioner siruck him again and they clinched. Barto11's wife separated tl1en1 and ordered petitioner and A1iller off the premises.The deceased \vas il1en at tl1e door crying, ' He will kill you." Barto11 and his \vife ,vent to Iler.She ,vas then on her knees, apparently u11able to rise. Sl1e began spitti11g_ bloo�. (\. physician was called, but was unable to help l1er, and sl1e died w1th1n 30 minutes from the time that petitioner appeared on the scene. The physician who performed the post mortem testit_ied that she ha� an aneurism of the ascending aorta, which had ruptured into tl1e superior ven� c�va, causing her death· and that excite1nent was one of the three pr1nc1pal causes of such a 'result.At no time did petitioner attack or threaten the deceasecl. In re Heigho, 18 Idaho 566 ( 1910), United States. Would your answer be different under t)1e stattttory formulations in Note 2? 1

b. Intervening Cause PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA Art. 24. - Relationship of Cause and Effect· . "

. .

(2) Where there are concurrent causes or in the case of an intervening

-f6. See Mueller, Causing Criminal Harm, in Mueller, Essays in Cri"1i11al Scitnc� 193-196 (1961); Ryu, (1958). 93 1-7 79 . Rt-v L. ma t vs syl nn Pt U. 6 10 ti usa w, Ca on in Criminal La

' ''

I ' I

I" '. 4... '

'1.•

r ';,.

,.,1. P• '.

1 / ',

I I ; h'

I I

I:,.: ,,i.· If

• I�

1,,1

I!.,

. .

•. ... .. .... . '

. ·. . :.

130

•

THE CRIMINAL ACT

or rty to a natural or pa ird th a of t ac e t11 to tie d er th he _ se u ct ca ffe l e al d sh an e t s 11o u ca apply of p hi s 11 tio la re s i tJ1 e nt ev s \'!:t t forttil to�. en ci to ffi u su od f pr el its ce the in as w e s ti ca us eo n ' e extra when t. result. d e se th l1 cu 1ic ac wl th wi rso pe 1 1 io iss om n is or t ac e tl1 e s ca a h -. s If In e bl to the punish lia be l al sl1 he e 1 1c fe of an s te itu ns co f, el its r 1 i 1 c{ arge sucl1 an offe11c e . r fo ed ifi ec i me.11t Sr:

PEOPLE v. LEWIS

Califorrzia, 124 Cal. 5 51 ( 1899) of ttrt Co e rem :up .. United States

I I'

! I

..il

[Lewis atid l1is brotl1er-in-Iaw Farrell be came invo�ved in an arg�1n1ent, during wl1icl, t1,·eats were excl1a11�ecl. Sub�1e quently_ Lewis sl11 �t F arrell 1n the abdon,er,, inflictl1g a \vou11_d des c_r1 bed as ne cessar1lJ' mortal by tl� e Su preme Court Farrell {as tal<e11 into l11s l1ot1se , \vl1ere he JJrocured a k11 1fe a11 d cttt J1 is 0� 1 1 throat, infli�ti 1:1 g a wot111�l fro1n tl1e _effe ct ?f \vl1icl1 doc_tors testified lie must llave dL=d w1 tl1 1_11 a fe\v mi11utes. Medical ev1de 11ce w�s g1ver1 tl1at the wouiid iiiflicted by Lewis wot1ld l1ave caused Farrell s deatl1 1n an l1our, an d tliat sue!, a w0.1 1 1d would prodt1c e intense pain. Lewis was convicted of ma11s1augliter a11 1 t1 11 successfully af)pealed.) TEMPLE .: . . . Now, it is co1 1tende d tl1at tl1is is a case wl1ere one languisl,ing f;orl a mortal wot11 1d is l<illed by a11 i11terve11ing cat1se, an d therefore deceas rd was not l<illed by Le\-qis. To co11stitute ma11slat1gl1ter, the defenda, 1 t 111List :1ave l<ille d so�e one, and if, tl1ougl1 mortally \x,ounded by the s e, Lewis, l cau actt1ally 1g died fron 1 an i 1 1d ir1terveni 1 e pei1der 1 t defendai,t Farre at tl,e ni�st, coL!d _ 0 1 1ly be gt1ilty of a fe loniot1s atte111pt. He was as effectually side th e a 1 )ll l1e 11g a tt1rned s would l 1 ave if bee11 l1ad so1n e obstacl e pre vented fro in 1 1at tl tend ,ourse, 1 and l co1 e ft f arrell t1Il\ 1 11ded. And tl1ey VOL bullet fro1n its Farrell of tct was tl 1 e life cat1s e of , the deatl 1 if it sl 1 orte 11 ed tl1e i11terv e ning n eral ge 1e tl ,v1liatev e r. The attorney-general co11trovert do es not for any J)eriod t�e by co 11 inflicted _ t e1ided for, bt1t argt1e s tl1at tl 1 e \vound pro1Jositio11 l1 ere defendant was t 1e . dire ct cat1se of tl1 e tl1roat-cutti11 g, a11d tl,e refore defe 11dan� 1s criminally respo1stble for tl1e cleatl1. He illustrates his position by s upposing a case of 011e �111 gerously \VOL1ncled, a11d wl1os e wounds l1ad been bandaged by a surgeo1 1. I e �ays, sttl)(JOse, tl1rot�gl1 tl1e fever and }Jain conseque11t tip on the wot1 nd, tl1 e IJ�t 1 e1 1t becon 1es fre11 z1ed, and tears away tl1e bandage, an d a for 11 1 s owi, deatl 1 ponsible , \X'Ould 11ot s tl1e de fe 11dant be re thus . a_ccelerates hom1c1de ? U11dcubteclly l1e \VOt1 ld be, for i11 the case s tipposed tl,e deceased the of \VOttiid, s aggravated, s e it is trt1e by tl,e restlessn died fron1 tl1e r e h liet 11 tl e 111d i1 1flict�? by tl1 e defe�dai1t produc e d death. W . a , W?l deceas_ed, bt1 t st mit ad to lier e is eems tl 1 e quest 1 01 1. l�l,e attor11ey-ge1 1eral s sucl1 ts the caf ll ar e 1 0t F coi,cede, tl1at tl1e gu11sl1ot wou11d was 11ot wl1en rted fact wl1ich I do ! n ra \var ;�rectly were contributing to tl1e death. I think tlie jury died, the11 itse lf e th of ct it . \Va s Bt1t, if tl1e deceased did die from the effe in findi11g that _ t the de fe11dant \vould be respo11sible, if it ,,qa! knife \x.1ou11d alc11e , 110 doub th at th a id , th e r 1ce, Jury could have found from the evide1 rriade to ap1Jea1 h in knife ,x,ound w1s catised by tl1 e wound i1 1flicted by tl1 e defendant, 1t_ 1� � ond eve1 1ts. ed If the r ½f a wour1d i, 0 e c natural course latio1 1 was c usal a d the us e ca her wa s not a11ot rne re ly tl,e occasion �po,, ,vhich of tl1e deceasel 1

131

CAUSATJON

intervened, not produced by the first wound or related to it in other tl1an a ca��al way, then defendant is g1:1ilty of a l1 omicide. But, if ll1 e wounded cond1t 1on 011Iy afforded an ?PPOrtt1111ty f �r . a11otl1er t111co11nected person to kill, defendant ,vould not be guilty of 3. l101n1c1de eve11 tl1ot1gl1 l�e had inflicted a mortal wound. 1 11 sue}� �ase, I tl1i11k, it \VOuld L1e trtte tl1at tl,e defenda11t was tl1us prevented from k1ll111 g. •

•

· hY is it tl1at. one ,vl10 inflicts a wound 11ot tnortal is guilty of a \'Y : : homtctde, if t!1rot1gh m�sco11d�ct of the_ pa�ient or u11sl<ilful treat11 1e11t ga11grene or fever sets tn, J)rodt1c_11�g a iatal ter1n111at1011, wl1 e11, if it ca11 be clearly mad.e to appear tl1at tl1e med1c111e, ,t11d not tl1e ,vo1111d was tl1e cat1se of tl1 e death he is not guilty of a l1omicide? 111 eacl1 case, if tl1e wot111d l1ad not been th� treatment wo uld not l1ave beer1, arid tl1e ma11 \Vould 11ot tl1en l1ave died. In each case tl1e \VOt111cl occasio11ed tl1e t reat1ne11t \Vl1icl1 caused or contributed to the death. Tl1e reasor1, I tl1ir1k, is fot1nd ir, tl1e \Vords advisedly tised in tl1e last sentence. In the 011e case tl1e treat1ne11t cat1sed tl1e deatl1 a11d i11 tl1e ot lier it merely co11tributed to it. l11 011e case tl1e treatme11t aggravated the wot111d, but tl1e �ound thus aggravated_ prodt1ced �eatl1. 111 tl1e otl,er the \vound, tl1ough the occa� s100 of tl1e tre� tme.nt, did 11ot co11tr1bute to tl1e deatl1, wl1icl1 occurred ,qitl1out any present contr1but1on to tl1e 11atural effect of tl1e medici11 e from tl1e ·wollnc\. Take, for insta11ce, tl1e givi11g of a dose of 111or1Jl1 i11e, by rnistake, st1fficie11t t.o end life at once. In s11cl1 case it is as obvious tl1at ll1e treatment fJrodL\ced deatl1 as it \vould l1ave bee11 l1ad tl1 e 1Jl1ysician · ct1t off his JJatiei1t's iiead. Btit see People v. Cook, 39 lv1icl1 . 236. l11 tl1 is case it afJJJears tl1at deferldant 11acl inflicted a dangerot1s wouncl, but it \X as co11 te11decl by tl1e ciefense tr1at cleath was caused by an overdose of mor1)l1i11e. Defe11da11 t asl{ed a11 i11strur.:tio11 �s follo\vs: ''If the jur)' believe tl1at tl1e i11jury i11flicted by tl1e priso11 er �,ottlc; have bee11 fatal, bttt if deatl1 was actually JJrodt1ced by morpl1i11e jJOisoi1ing: they must acquit." Tl1 e instructio11 \Vas refttsed, bt1t tl1e jury were 1olcl tl1at. if the wour1d was not in itself n1ortal, a11d deatl1 was catisecl solely by tl1e moi.·� phine, tl1ey· must acquit. The action of tl1e trial court \v;as st1slai11ed 011 ll1e ground tl1at a mortal wot1nd l1ad bee11 give11, wl1icl1 11ecessitated medical treatn1enl; that the pl1ysicians \Vere co1npete11t, a11cl acte� i11 good faitl1; and that it was 11ot made clearly to appear that the morpl11ne solely prodLtced death, and tl1at the \VOU11d did 11ot at all co11tribute to tl1e deatl1 at tl1at tin1e. Under the authorities tl1 is was equivalent to a fi11di11g tl1at tl1 e \X'Ottnd did 11ot contribute to the dea tl1. Tl1is case differs from tl1at in this: that l1ere the interven . ing cause, which it is alleged haste11ed deatl1, was 11ot medical treatment, designed to be helpful and wl1icl1 tl1e deceased \'(las compelled to procure because of the wou11d,' but was an act i11tended to produce deatl1, and did not result from tl1 e first wottnd in the 11 atural course of evei1ts. But we have reached the conclttsion by a cour�e of argu me11t 111111ecessarily prolix, except from a desire to ftilly co11sider tl1e earnest a11d able argument of tl1e defendant, that the test is-or at least 011e test-whetl1er 1 when the deati, occ11rred, the wound inflicted by the defe�da11t did_ contrib11te lo tl1e eve�t. If it did, althougl1 other indepet,dent causes also contr1buted1 tl1e causal relation between the tt n lawful act of the defendar1t a11d ti1e deatl1 has been 1nade out. J-lere, wJ1en the tl1roat was cut Farrell was 11ot rnerely languishing from a mortal wound; he was actually dying· and after tl,e throat was cut l1e continued to la11guisl1 from both wounds. Drop by drop the life current went out fro� b?tl1 wounds, and at the very instar,t of death the gunshot wound was contr1but_1ng to tl1e eve11t. If the throat-cutting had bee11 by a third pers011, un�onnect.ed \v1tl1 the defend �nt, �e might be guilty; for, although a man ca11not be killed tw1c7, two person� �ct1ng 1n depe11dently, may contribute to his death, and eacl1 be guilty of a }1om1c1de. A 1

I II

I ' ' I ''

I'•

. ',

• l •'

'•�

\ t ,I :

H':. ''

Io, I

ll)" ' a,. . ,, I

! :

'-· I ,

I ,�

i ,;' . '.. l :. ' ... !' '

'' : ·.;.. ••.:-= . '' . ! ',

,: ,·

: �

! .•. •!

. ,. , ' )•;

·:

THE CRIMINAL ACT

132

· is he if g i11 t; dy bu d; o fr lle ki m be ay a m d · an e lif ·n 1 1 t , t·1 s ts ng d y1 on pers ve t n 1a o l co t 'b ·ct r1 t u sa e t b ed ly er op to pr ay m th bo r, he ot an by n ve gi nd wou l1is death.... Henshaw a11d Mcfarland, JJ ., concurred.

GERMAN FEDERAL SUPREME COURT 1st Criminal Senate Decision of 1-7-1927 JD 679/26; 58 ]. W. 904 (1921,) 41

• I ' ' II I •

1• :

I I

·,

I .

•

n thi the realm of wi lie st mu ain cl1 l tsa cat tl1e of ls tai de I1 The unkno\V common experience. [Tl1e facts witl1in tl1e opinion disclose tl1at the defe11dan t \x,as tl1e construction ma11ager.] ... According to the facts . a� found by the tri�l coui:t, as a resu�t ?f. the collapse of a smol<:e stack tl1e v1ct1m R suffered a dislocation ?f tl1e hip:Joints. for purposes of re-setting the joints he had to be anestl1et1z�d. D�r1ng or after the anesthesia parts of tl1e stomacl1 or mouth contents got into his lungs wl1ich there caused a distt1rbai1ce, \Y1l1icl1 turned into a pulmonary inflamation and resulted in tl1e deatl1 of R. (So-called aspiration pneumonia.) Accordir1g to tl1e positions tak:er1 in a line of. decisions of tl1e Supreme Court, the concrete, riot the abstract cot1rse 111t1st be viewed in ai1y consideration of tl1e causal chain and its predictability. Of course, the predictability of every one of the details of tl1e concrete coltrse of events is unimportant. It suffices tl1at even tl1e u11predicted details of the causal cl1ain are \vithin tl1e realm of common experience....Viewed in the lig11t of tl1e Supreme Court decisions, tl1e reasoning of tl1e trial court on the matter of predictability is unassailable. The trial court does not restrict itself to making a common-place statement tl1at the collapse of a s1noke stacl< always may har1n a l1uma11 beina 0 so severely that his death is an easily predictable result.Sucl1 reasoni11g \vould 11ot suffice, as \'('e l1ave intimated. Rather, the trial cot1rt reasoned that by common experience the occurrence of an aspiratio11 pneumonia1 as a result of a11estl1esia is not an event far outside any co11necti�n witl1 tl1e original cause, tl1e coll;pse of t�e smoke stack. And the responsible constr11ction manager must realize that 1n !he _case of sloppy con�truction an accident with the consequences here discus sed ts likely to occur. �1th_ ?uch reaso11ing the predictabilty of the concrete consequences �as �een Juridical!Y _I)roperly determined.If tl1e appellant seeks to need y nobod that aspiration asse�t that · pneumonia 1s such a rare occurre11ce . consider .such _a haJ)pen-stance, it merely opposes a fact determined by the trial court which binds the appellate tribunal.

Questions

Wo�ld it be. , roper �nder Art. 24, to conside Farre s act of throat ll' r. r cutting as an p.intervening cause'' p pl tte it ma Does a L ';) r wh� ther an intervening cause is c�nsider:d v� o nt ge neg li nt: ��i�nal ;: s '{ acct dental act ? Ho w would the L . . e th . r e d n u f � c d 1 d b C.E.? How would y�u deal with ��re ��re�e :i�i:�ions of a simil ar ype sueh as the following;

r·

117. Translation, Mueller, Comparative Criminal L.w 84-85 ( l 960).

CAUSATION

133

The defendant in the nighttime fought with his wife, and beat her seve�ely. She left to go to the home of her father. When she reached a point a�out tw o hundred yards from her father's house, she for some reason, did no� want to go in the house until morning, laid down on a bed cover, which she had wrapped about her, till daylight. The weather was cold an d the next morning she could not walk nor make herself �nown. Sl1e afterwards died. . . . State v. Preslar ' 48 'North Carolina 421 ( l 85c�, United States.

Would the defendar1t i11 tl1e above Oerma11 case be l1eld to }1ave caused death u nder Art. 24? Do tl1e words ''in itself sttfficient'' exclt1de any consideration of the original wottnd or offe11se? Jf A wounded B and B was 90% dead whe11 C added tl1e extra 10% to cattse death, could C' s wou11d be said to be ''i11 itself sufficie11t to p rodt1ce tl1 e result''? 3. Assttming that tl1e origi11al wot111d \vould l1ave caused death, is it \vise to excuse the origii1al offender fron1 liabi)ity for l1omicide becattse a second wound was inflicted wl1icl1 l1astened deatl1? If the court had I,eld differen� tly in the Lewis case, findi11g interve11i11 g cause, 'Y1ould it cl1ange the usefulness of pu11 isl1 i11 g Le\vis for 11omicide? Wl1at is the correct disposi tion under tl1 e P .C.E. of a11 original offe11der \vho "W1ould ha·ve caused death if an extraneous cause J1ad not interveried?

1•r' ,I

•

' �••t' ! I •, '. •! I ' I I''

1 , \ '. l :.

'I'

�. II

Decide each the followi11g cases under the tests of Art. 24-: a. An adult gives a loaded gu11 to a six ye,1r old cl-iild \ql10 IJL1lls tr1e trigger killing a bystande1·. b. A man is shot a11d killed by two bttllets entering vital a p rts of his body at the same in�ta11t. c. X wounds Y, the normal .course of s�1ch \vound usually �roduc�11 g death. y is taken to the nearest hos1J1tal wl1�re a �octor _ treats the wound negligently allo\vi1,g i11 fectio11 to set 1n, ;1h1ch brings abottt death s ooner than it would have occurred from X s wot1nd. d. A man is injured by two wounds 11eitl1er by i tself capabl� of p rodttcing death. The effect of both togetl1er however does resu 1 t 1n death s on rs ll pe A e. u� l1� e th rn bu to nt te in e. D set fire to T's tukul with as tld w ch a ng v1 11e be y nl ke ta is m an m e ' · · · · escaped f rom th e tuku1 , bu t on h he c 1' wh om r f rtes tnJu d e iv ce re d an e us left behind, re-entered th e ho later died.

' 1 ,, . ' I ' i .,, ' 1 '• ' 4

I ••

•

I 1' r. ·''i i ,

r•:I:

.l :;,,

,,1I I

l ''II

i� I

I . '' • i, '·

• I

l..'. .. '

. ' ·< ...

' .'

• ' .. I

, . . comprehe11sive, scholarly ( 9) 95 (1 4 36 2_ 29 H art an d Honore, Causation in t.he .L aw material on causation in cr1m1nal law). n io at us ca of 1t e1 . tm . ea tr nt . le el . xc (e 6 H a11 , General Principles of Crzminal Law 247_29 and its case law). 8) 95 (1 s ao 3. 77 R L a n l y ns ?1 Pe Ryu, Causation in Criminal Law, _106 .u. � �� ots of the con� � e� he t · of s scu d (excellent philosophical and hi5iorica I � '' og l theo ry'' at ica o l tel e fer red e pr 5 cept of causation in penal law; n. b . R yu p. 796 ff.).

• . ,., ... ,·,.. (..: .. .• ' I .. ·.: '

Recommended Readings

· .. -�

134

THE CRIMINAL ACT

al in m e ri nc C in s ie ay Sc ss E r, le el u 9_ M 15 in 4 21 , m ar H al in m ri C g n si au C Mueller 1 e tl o th b m in co n o ti sa n u o m ca f o n a io n ct ss cu is d h ug ro o th d oo (g 1) 96 (1 t " a p. 200 ff.). ry o e c th ti is al in "f d e rr fe re p s r' e civil law; n.b. Muell w la of e th t sa u u o ca g i11 n tt tio se · r te ap 111 ch rt o h (s 8 7 -1 66 1 al en P it Merle, Dro e ). at u se u eq ca f ad o 11 io ss cu is d a g in d u cl in French criminal law, s d se g an ca i11 st re te te no (in s 8 14 412 n co w La al in rim C r, le hs ec W d an el Micha cerning causation). 11 io ct le ol 3) (c 96 of (1 2 . Pt an ric 9, Af -6 58 e ur ed oc Pr d an w La al in im Cr Seidman, cases on causation). ry eo e of th th im of ox g pr lin nd ha ate e tis ea (tr 50 6-6 59 w La l ina im Cr s, in rlc Pe cause in the common law).

l I

.I l

' I I

1•

•

' '

. . .

.-:

•

CHAPTER 8

Criminal Guilt: The Mental Element SECTION A. CRIMINAL INTENT

a. Direct Intention PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA Art. 58. - Cri1ninal. Intention.

I 1 tI

(1) A person inte11tionallv commits a11 offe11ce v1l1e11 l1e performs an unlawful and punisl1ab1e act \'Vitl1 full lc110\v1Iedge and i11te11t. •

•

• •

. .,.' .. �: ; ·,'

I • I .' I " ,:

" I • L.'· ' � .., ' .'

.. ,

JI:

TI-IE SOURCES Of TJ-IE LA\'V./

'I ' \ ' I

l • I �

Imperial Codification Con1111issiort of Etl1iopia

•

.f; ,,

' • 1 �, ;

Art. 58. - Culpabilite i,itentionnelle. (1) Commet intentionnclleme11t u11e i11fractio11 celtti qtti agit avec la conscience et la volo11 te d' acco1n1)lir tln acte illicite et pt111issable et d'e11 obtenir le resultat.

,' i

' ,. . '. . � ,'' . I,, ;I :i I .• ..·. . : I ,

' .

Code Pe11a:l Suisse

Art. 18. - Intention et ne gligence.

Sauf disposition expresse et contraire de la Ioi, est seul punissable celuit 011 un delit. Celui�Ia comme me cri un t e11 em eII 1111 tio en et ui int mm co q intentionnellement un crime ou un delit, qui le commet avec conscience et volonte. Pe11al Code of Switzerland1 Art. 18. - Intent and Negli gence. le is ab ish ?n 1n rs pt , J?e a ise rw l1e ot id ov pr tly ici pl ex � If the law does not er . ev nt te ho in W tlh \V r no ea em isd m or ny lo fe a only if he commits 1•

Translation, Friedlander and Goldberg, 30 J. Crim. L. Crim. •

And

Pol. Sci., Supp. (1939) .

•.'.

. .. i : "' .. •

••

.''1 · "'.. '

.. '

......

\: .' . ._:;

' '.,,.,

4'.

CRIMINAL GUILT

136

commits an act knowingly and willi n gly commits a felo11y or misd e mea nor with intent. DIRECT INTENTION IN SWISS PENAL LAW2 Paul Logoz

: nts me e e!e o 011 tw of i ent ir1t d ose �p co is onally 11 tio n te n i by ilt Gu ... ce en et ci e" ns nt co c lo ve vo . ''a .. it . its m m co lie n he w e ns fe of an commits n clu de �ot only the criminal i st mu '' ce en sci n o ''c . .. e em sch Withi t i this le c�b be JJl1 to ap o als tl1e st mu t bu result of r, de n e off tl1e of s ion iss om acts or lity 1sa _ een ry cat tw e ssa b_ ce 11e _ the act the to o als y ntl ue seq n co d (an ty ivi the act n result or harm - inJLtry or placing tai cer a e, cas the en oft is as if, ) ult res and . se fen of e th s of nt me ele e tl1 of e n o is er ng da in The same 1nay be said for ''volo n te'' in that o n e must will not 011ly the criminal activity, but tl1e result as well. • • • •

1•

I, I

It must be remembered, tl1erefore, tl1at in each case, it is the exact defini tio11 of tl1e offense in the Special Part of the Code whicl1 determines the nature ar1d object of tl1e inten tion. To constitute guilt by i11te11tiot1, it is not necessary tl1at the actor be aware tr1at he is comn1itting a pt1nisl1able act, n or .... tl1at he be aware of the rele vant penal provision. Ig11oran ce in this regard is ... irrelevant. •

•

• •

•

Intention also exists '\<'hen the actor believes the result certai11 and con sciously accepts it as a 11ecessary conseque11ce of l1is act. Thus if 011 a street, A thro\vs a stone at B's wi11dow i11 order to hit B wl10_ is_ ir:i tl1e roon1� tl1e t\vo resulting damages - that to the property and bodily 1n1ury - are 1nte11tional.

! "

BANOVITCii v. COMMONWEALTH

'..

S1,pre1ne Co1,rt oj Virginia, 196 Va. 210 (1954)

•

United States

BUCI-IANAN, J....An i_11dict1nent u11der the maiming statute, Sect.1�·70 of th_e Code, was rett1rned against tl1e defendant, Joseph E. Banovitch, charging hat 1n July, I 952, l_ie uiJlawfully made a11 assault on Lucy L. Hazlew oo�. aoci t � t,ie us� of certa111 s�lves and medici11 es u11lawfully caused her bodily 1n1u ry , with the _intent to maim and disfigure her.On I,is trial to a jury he wa,� �und �uilty of . urilawfu� woun ding ''as charged in the within indictment, � is pu!11sl1ment f1x�d at five years in the penitentiary and l1e was senten�ed c0rd! gly. On th1s ap_p�al lie alleges tl,at err ol h in .. d . or wa s committe ding f�e ev1�ence to be su ff1c1ent to sustai11 th e verdict ... . a e d n cla im t � ed � to be sed a � me t dical doctor but wa s n ot licen � �1 p; � tice n 1e cte, rn ot adv erti g sed n amo a n sold d , t �� ;;0�er . � medicine f�� -e · t;e�t��t O; can . ark cer und er trad e a reg iste red -� No 2 . . remedy consisted o f tliree sa1ves which he called Black Devil N o. 1 1

Logoz, Commtntaire du Codt P enal Suisse 62-65.

:;.....;.... :,,.

•

INTENT

137

· Green and No. 3 Brown. An advertise1ne 11 t 01- label was ·Introduced s1 10,v1ng · g tl1e co11te11 ts of · ture of def e11dant, stat1n a pic · · tlie salves a11d g1v1ng ct·treet·1011s .

· use. Tl1e JJr·111 ted ct·1rect1011s were tl,ese· ''P ti t ca11cer o·in tme11t (No. for the1r . .· · of piece ba,1dage a 1 on /4 o f an 111cl1 tl11ck, siz 1) e to cover tl1e cancer. Leave . 011 for 24 hours. Remove a11d apply Gree11 Sa' lve (No. 2) 111 1t · ti1e same 1nanner eve�y 24 hours llnt·1 1 t I ie cancer starts to rt111, tl1 e11 ap[Jly 3 or 4 ti1nes a day ttntil t_he cancer drops ot1t. Now a IJfJly I I- eali11g Salve {No. 3) or1 ba11dage 3 or,, 4 times a da y.Tl1e ofter1er yot1 dress 11,-e sor e tl1e q111c · I<er . 1·t w1 . ·11 l,ea I. . . . In .February or lv\arcl,, 1952, Miss I-lazlewood visited tl1e defe11dant a11d to!d h1n1 he I,ad ca11cer ....A bo�1t tl1e last of J t1r1e or first of July, 1952, � , ood \v..�11 t to clefenda11t s 1101ne a11d told l1in1, accordi11g to l1is l\\1ss I-Iazlew st_ateme�t to t11e_ officers, tl,at sl,e l1acl ca11cer of tl,e 11ose . . . . J-Iis 111etliod of �1a�nos1s, l1e said, \vas to apply tl1e Blacl< Devil No. 1 salve and if tl1at cattsed 1tc�1ng tl1�11 cancer ,vas presetJt. ·r11is treatn1e11t lasted five or six \Xreel<s, during \Vhtch fJei:1od �lie defendant l1vecl for tl1e most IJart i11 tl,e I-Iazle\voocl l10111 e and was 1n lv11ss Hazle\v·ood's roor11 oftei1, alo11g \YJitl1 me1nbers of her family. Some tl1ree weeks after t11e treatme11 ts bega11 tl1e defe11da1i t a11d Ivliss I-Iazle\'<,ood became enga_ged to be 111arried. He gave l1er a,, t11gagei11e11t ri11g. . .. lv\iss Hazlewood died on 1\-\a)' 19, 1953, a'fter tl,e i11dict111 e11t but before tl1e irial, froi11 a cause not s110,vn i11 tl1e record. Defendant's descriptio11 of tl1e treatr11e11t, as 1r1ade to tlie officers, \:Vas t11ai �e first put tl1e Black Devil No. 1 saIve 011 l\tliss r!ctzle\vood' s i1ose a11 cl icer)t 1t on for eigl1t l1ours; tl1e11 l1e fJUt 011 tl1e No.2 Oree11 salve a11d \Vl1er1 tlic cancer came out l1e put tl1e No. 3 Bro\v11 sal\re 011, anci \�'lien it l1ea!ecl [)clrt of lier 11ose \X'as 1nissing. rler sister saicl 11er r1ose v1as jJractically gor1e..... An a11alysis of the salves used by tl1e clefe11da11 t 011 l\r1iss I iazle\' v·ol)Cl sl1()\v1ec: tl,at Black Devil No. I co11tai11ed a large amott11t of zir1c cl1loride, a stror,g corrosive chemical ''that \VOL1ld eat tiss11e1 f1esl1 or e\re11 rr1etal." I ts co1111no11 ttse is as a flux to clea11 metal prior to solclcrir1g. No. 2 Oree11 cor1sistecl of a11irnal fat a11d wax. No. 3 Bro\v11 co11lai11ed carbolic acid, also a corrosive when in fJLt re form. .. . Tl1e medical testi111011y was tl1at tl1e diag11osis of cancer by the use of this salve was i1n J)Ossible a11d tl1e treatn1ent of cancer by the appl icatiort of tl1ese salves \Vas 11ot apJ)roved or recog11ized i11 tl,e medical profession. On November 13 1952 tl1e defenda11t prese11ted to tl1e Bank of Lune11burg and casl1ed a cl1eck d�a w11 by /v1iss Hazlewood a11d payable to hi1n i11 the sum of $3 384.6 3 wl1icl1 wa s all the money sl1e had i11 lier checki11g accot1nt at that time.' There was no explanation of this check in tl1e evidence.... od wo zle iss se of Jv\ Ha 11o e tl1 . m fro en tak e su tis of Microscopic examination after lier death disclosed no evidence of a11y mal1gna11cy.... At tl1e co11clu sion of the evidence the court instructed tl1e jtt ry \Vitl1_out objectio11 tl1at �f il ev 1pt d rrt an co a tl1 w1 od wo zle Ha iss M h to ! e defendant applied the sa lve 1� tent of maiming or disfiguring he r perma11ently, and_ 11ot as a cure for _so!Ile disease he may have thought sh e had, tl1en he was gt11lty of u11la\vful ma1m1ng as cha rged in the indictment. TI,e jury were also told that the Commo11\vealtl1 must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that.tl1e defe11da�t made an assault upo!1 Miss Hazlewood ''witll the particular intent to maim �r perma11ently �1sf1g ure her before he can be found guilty of u11lawful wounding as cl1arged

•n the indictment.''

,o I '

I I

� t•.

•

.. I'".: : I ••

. ,.

; !

1t r

r ,- "

'., •

' ',,

' ,,.•

I'·'

I H ·: I lo

. '·'

' I .•

. . I .. i

.•. ..'.' : ' "'' '

'. .. .',: '

.. ,(, ' �· ··: \ '

I.·..

;;

•. ,'I

r ,j� �. •

i: i)J

�•._ I

tL . : I

138

•11

II•

,. '·

•

, 'r '

"�

CRfMlr..JAL GUILT

d ey th an t se is ca ns co 1e tl of th w wi la e th e tli e m ca be ,,s io ct ru st in Tliese 7 76 V 7 . h, 4 lt 7 13 ea w n o a m m o C . v r , ke ac l1 T 0, in s law of tlie laiid [sic). 1·11u 114 S. E. 504, 505, it is said: of ist a11 t ns ac co to m co e . s 11_ fe of 1 bined a! es ak 1n te tti sta a ,, lie ''W y ar ss ce to e as be nr st � 1u ov \Jr rs nt 1 1te d. as 1 at tl1 , nt te 1 i1 lar cti rti pa witl, a re ct fo fa be or _a r te at nv m co a as iction 1d u1 fo be ist rnt d an elf its tlie act on Jt1 al 1n1 leg esu , pr re me f dif ering or law i11 nt 1te 1 i 1 0 1 d 'an d· lia ca,1 be e ce th . J)la of ly the JJp SU to ed te lat ow ali r " be 1 1 ca t, fac i11 t e11 itit e tli froni at es tl1 id if ov pr )' te, an tu 7 sta ing person aim m e tl1 , de Co e tl1 of 0 Sectio,1 18, 1er ' or o�l d _b) a�, �11 any means wo or t cu b, sta t, oo 1 sl ly ful law t111 or 1 naliciously , ure f1g ble isa d1s d _ , 111! or kill ma to e11t i11t tl1e l1 \Vit ry, 1 i 1ju y dil bo cause him rris Ha v. I11 s. ibe scr pre e Com111on tt1t sta the as ed isl1 pun be ll sha lie liirn e l1e tru ''T : purpose and said is , it 355 , 354 E. S. 142 , 585 , 580 Va. 1 150 , ltl \xrea 1nea11 i 11 g of tl1e statute was doubtless co11 cei ved to be _to defi11e . and punish as felo11ies tl1ose acts wl1 icl1 had theretofore b.een considered 1n1sdeme anors only i11 tl1ose cases wl1ere it also ap1Jeared tl1at tl1ere \vas tl1e felo11 ious intent to rnai n1, disfigt1 re, disable, or l<il I."

Proof of tl1e specific inte11t is 1 1ecessary to a convictio11 under the statute. ... Tl1e SJ)ecific i11te11t may, lilze any otl1er fact, be sl1ow11 by circumstances. I11te11t is a state of 1ni 1 1d \vl1 icl1 ca11 be evide11ced 0111), by tl1e word or conduct of tl1e per so 11 \X,ho is clai1ned to l1 ave entertai11ed it. Tl1us '.):r]1e11 a person \Vitl1ot1t a11 y 1Jrovocation stril<es a11otl1er witl1 a deadly weapon or throws a corrosive acid i11 l1 is face a11d thereby maims or disfigures l1im, !1e is r,resumed to l1ave i 11 tencled to 111aim or disfigt1re because tl1at was tl·1e natural and JJrobable co 1 1seque11ce of !·1is act. Iio\vever, an i 11 tent to mai1n or disfigure can11 ot be 1Jrest1med fro111 a 11 act \vl1icl1 does not naturally bespeak such intent. ''!he. color of tl1e act cletermi11 es tt1e complexion of tl1e intent 011ly in those situat1011 s where com1non ex1Jerie11ce l1as fou11cl a reliable correlation bet\veen a particular act and a corres1Jo11di11g i11tent. Iit1bbard v. U 1 1ited States (9th Cir.), 79 f. (2d) 850, 853 .... It is argt1 ed for tl1e Comn1011\vealtt1 that tl1e motive of tl1e defendant for C?�mitting the cri1ne cl1arged agai11st l1in1 \Vas to obtai11 rnoney fro m his \'1ct1m. To co11 cede tl1 at tl1e evide11ce establishes sucl1 a n1otive is 11ot to sa y tl1a� it _cllso p�oves i11te 1 1t. lv\otive is tl1e moving Cflttse wliich indt1ces ac�i� n, \vli,le 1 11 te11 t is the (Jt1r1Jose to use a JJarticular 1nea1 1s to effect a definite re�tilt. The evide1 1ce does sho\v tl1at tl1e defenda11t obtained money f�om iV\.1ss I-lazle\vood, bLtt it doe? 11ot sliow wliy it \Vas given. At that t,me . 1 ! 1ey \�ere e,,g�ged to be 1�1 arr1ed arid r1e l1ad bot1gl1t pro1Jerty in . tl1e_ county 111 wliich slie_ lived. If a11 y 111fere 1 1ce can be drawn from tl1is transaction it woul� be more logical to suppose tl1at tl1e money wa s to l1elp (Jay for the propert) · It \VOttld ,be raiil< spec�1lation to conclude tha t it proves a plan or purp ose on defe11da11t s J)art to n1a1n1 or disfigt1re Miss Hazlew ood. ei �� rec t dan defen he treatments the had been over when for four months l ied marr be t1,e c eek: He aiid Miss liazlewood were then e110aJJd h· r to "' aged � II :/1 e vidence shows that engagement continued until it was ended by r lie � ea 1· 5_ even_ mo,,tlis after tl1e treatments were co11cluded he went with or t a hosp tal 1� North C�rolina and stayed with her during the two week\n ern a ii ' i e n:iore 5 ,e wa;:i tliere. Wl11le sl1e was in the hospital she gave the g the g to . k ba� r. e �1�� to lier 11�otlier bttt it is not shown tl1at it was ever given h d 5ite vi he al iidai,t. It is SllO\'Vll ll1at after sl1e rett1rned from tl1e l1ospit 1 '

I ,: . d l

I I . I

-·�� .,. ....... ._--�

_..'

� ., '

't : , ; ...,

� ...,.,�

139

INTENT

ii, her home and their relations to each other apparently di no d ch t an ge up of lier time death. to the The evidence in tl1is case does no t furnish proof t ti ti f d e d �e s s� to l th th e person of . Miss Hazlewood· �ith ;�1e s�:ciffc fnt!�! applie9 e to maim or disfigure her, nor does 1t present facts from whicl1 such intent may _pr_operly be presumed. for the absence of tl1at proof the judgment of conv1ct1on of unlawful wound111g must be reversed.... for tl,e reasons _stated tl1e judgme11t below is reversed and the case is remanded for a n_ew trial 011 cl1arges of assault and battery' if the Commonwealth be so ad vised. Reversed and remanded. NOT ES Note 1: The Ethiopian Concept ot Intent in Historical Perspective fetha Nagast, Homicide and Its CoriJoral and Spiritual Punisl11nentJ

II '

Part IX: Co11cerni ng one wl10 l1as no i11tentio11 to l<ill 11or to l,eat anoll1er· his intention, i11 fact, being directed to tl1e l<illi11g of a wild ar1imal or tl1e beat� ing of a beast. If st1cl1 an ind ividt1al l1appens to l<ill ,l l1u111an beir10· tl1e consideration of his case falls into t\Y/O IJarts. Tl1e first fJart concer11s tl1e'=' lciller wl10 knows tl1at a11 accide11t may occur ... as ·�l1e11 011e sl1oots ar1 arro,x, al cl bird or a wild animal tl1at l1as rttn amo11g people i11 tl1e 111iclclle of a l:o�ii'ri. This ma11, since l1is mai11 inte11tio11 was 11ot to lciil a 1Jerso11, ...sl1,1ll lJe judged as one \Vl10 killed involu11tarily . .. a11cl l1is guilt is less ll1an or,e v1l10 murders anotl1er. Similar cases are tl1ose i11\1olvit1g topfJlir1g \Valls, ill-11att1recl slaves, beasts which kill, mules a11d camels whicl1 kicl<: and 01cen \'{l'l1icl1 'Y1ou11ci people by use of horns wl1en tl1e ow11 er does not talcc dtte care 11or l)rovide proper warning. The Mosaic law at tl1e e11cl of tl1e Cl1apter correspo11di11g to Abtelis 38 fu rtl1er provides a similar pu11isl11nent for tl1ose wl10 dig a \YJell in the street without covering it or who make steps for external 11se witl1out building a railing. The second part co11cerns peo1)le wl10 do 11ot know tl1at they can cause deatl1 1as one who, \Vith intentio11 to beai a beast, beats a man accidentally whom he did not see .or sl1oots in � desert. or lets � wall fall upon someo11e tl1inking tl1at 1t was stro11g. 1 he pu111sl_1ment 01 the ma n wl10 beats or shoots is to be exiled; tl1e ma n who had no ill-natured slave nor dangerous beasts nor was tl1e _\v_ell in tl1e street nor tl1e steps delapi dated has no respo11sibility beyond g1v1ng tl1e servant or the beast to to tl1e relatives of the injured 1Jerson. 1

Penal Code of Ethtopia ( 1930) 4

Art. 14 Among the people of the prese11t day, . tl1e men wl10 do \xrro1_1g u�int entio1ially are more in nttmber than tJ1e m en wl10. do wro11g 111te11t1011N ally, a,1d so it is our purpose that a sevei:e JJt1n1sl�me11t s�all �ot �e given to a man who has done wrong unintent1011ally w1tl1out est1111at1ng 111s 3 • Chap. XLVII. 4 • Preface.

,•,

' 1•...

• d .; : I

•

• " t•

.' I

I J I·

"• , 1 . ! ' •.

.. .''1

' •'

I • • ,, ,. •,t · l l•

Ir ': " J

I� '.

• �I 1' -'

' ,. 'J!

I f ' ..

I . /, ' . '' •

I •

l ' f;

. �

;

i.: , . L

. ,•

.. :, '' ... . ':

·'

: : ·. •

i�: ' .:�t. . . ..,.,: ' . ,,

. ·.

CRIMINAL GUILT

140

sl1 gui e11 ti11 we dis bet .l 111 g. .-,�}so it to a e jJOs jJUr 1 wh0 ma1 our is · t 1 1c . · Linclers ·a t \X,·1f t 1 u 11 y, and ac d 110 · �o s o� t d1s 10 /!· ( \' 11 . a 11:g 111_ r . l1� ot an h uis 1d 1 a acts wilfully . .e11t1011a�ly and) an 1nJu1y wl,ic 111 (? 11e 00 1s h is � bet\'feei, ai, iiijury \�l,icl, J ut e 1o 1t os w l<, trp or pL , w of by sud den e dl 1d 111 e tl1 1n lly i,a io i,t doi,e Lttiii,te accident a11d by fo rgetfLtl11ess. Art. 15. s 10 ow wl l<11 l1e t ch tl1a 111u shall be el sJJ Oo tl1e i11 d sai 1,as rd Lo r Ou puiiisl,ed 111Licl, bu t J1· e \Vl10 !{11ows little sl1all be JJUnisl1ed little. (St. LtiI<e, 1 2, 47 .) Note 2:

''Mens Rea''

T!1 e ter 111 n1e11 s rea'' is ofte11 foL111d i11 tl1e literatLtre co11cer11i11g crin1inal gL1ilt. Altl10L1gl1 it is i1111Jc)rta11t to Lt11dersta11d tl1e 1nea11i11g: o�. tl1is maxim, its Lise is c7L1ite detri1ne11tal to tl1e develOJJrne11t of a sc1ent1f1c 1101nencla tL1re \X'l1icl1 fits 1T1oc!er 11 social a1 1d legal realities. Tl1e \vords ''111ens rea" co1111ote a L1 11ifor 1 11, guilty 111i11d a11d in11Jly, as \Vas \videly tl1ougl1t in the tl1at 111e 1 1 freely \xrill tl1eir crirnes. Nioder11 sociological 1 1i 11eteer1tl1 ce11tttr)' evicle11ce is raJ)idl>' clisprovi11g tl1is co11te11tion a11d reqL1ires 11ew ter111i11ology· tl1at accL1rately e>z1Jresses tt1 e exact me11tal state i11 qt1estio11. Eacl1 crime in ihe S JJecial Part of tl1e Pe11al Code defi11es tl1e t) r pe of i11te11t JJroscribecl and it is to tl1is 1Jrecise i11 te11t tl1at refere11ce sl·10L1ld be 111ade a11d 11ot to the all i11clusiv e l) legal 1 11c�xi111 j'n1e 11s rea . Co11sicl1:r -111e fcillo\vi11 g state111e11t 1nade sevent)r-five )'ears ago by one of E 11gIa11 cl' s 111 ost fan1o LIs j LId ges: 11

I 11' '

' •

I I

.. I '!

... Tl1ottgl1 tl1 is jJl1· rase (,zori esl rer,s, J1isi rr1e1is s£t rea) is i11 co111mon 11 se, I tl1i1�l< it tnost 1111fortL111ate, a11ci 11ot on!;' lil<.el) to 1nislead, but . actually r111slead111g, 011 tl1e follo\vi11g g1:0L111cls. It 11aturallv sL1ggests that, a1Jart fron1 all JJarticL1lar clefi11itio11s of cri111es st1cl1 a tlii11rr as a b exists '.' 111e11s 1�ca_", or ''g11ilty _11�i1_1ci' \v]·1i�l1 is alYvays �X JJressl)' or b y in1J)lication 1 11volveo 111 ever)' cl�f_1 n1t1011. l 111s is obviot.1sly 11ot tl1e case, for tl! e rne11tal elen1e11ts of d1ffe:ent crirnes ditfer \videl)'· ''l\l\ens rea" 11:eansJ_ 111 tl1e case of n1t1 rder, n1al1ce aforetl1011 0-l1t· i11 tl1e case of tl1eft a11 1ntent,on to_ steal; in tl1e case of raJJe, an i11te11tio11 to l1ave forcibie connection \X'ttl1 a \XTOrr1a11 \Vitl10L1t lier cor1se11t; a11d i1 1 tl1e case of recei\rin g stolen goods l<iio\vl_edge tl1at tl1e goods \xrere stole11 . In sorne cases it denotes !nere 1'. 11atte11t1 011 . Fo!· i11sta1 1ce, ir1 tl1e case of rna1 1s!a11gl1ter b)' ne lig ence g it 111a)' �1e�11. forg lt11 1�· to 11 o�ice a sig11al. It apJJears conft1si11g to. c�ll 5� � !11a 11)' diss11n1la� sta tes of rr1111 d b)r 011e 11ar11e. It see111s co r1trad ic t?�) lty in�eecl �o describe a 111ere absence of n1ind gui or , rea '' e11 s a as 1 _ a n mii,cl 1 1� ex1_ Jressio11 agair1 is lil<ely to o T ad . misle clo a11 es of d te1 1 : �11 1l�gal n,1 11� it Sltggests tl1�t by tl1e la\v of Engla11d 110 act is a c�i111e \X'h 1 t 15 oo�e f�_0111 latidable 111ot 1ves i11 ot ent ess 1s lit}' l1e r i111 wo 111o rd ra tl1 s at to c r1111e.

1 ,

I 1 •

' d

...'I . .I

' I I( '

'I I

· Ii '

Questions '

! I' '' '

�1�

EvalLtale tlie follo\'(/ing co11clt1sior1s dra\x,11 from Arts. 57 a11d 58: Stcpl1en,

J.,

Queen v. Tolson, 23 Q. B. D . 185-186 (1889).

•

INTENT

141

A crin1�11al �ct . {Art._ 2 � !f.) plus gt1_ilt (Art. 57 ff.) (assL1n1i11g causation) restilts 1 1 1 _crini 111 al I tab1 l 1 _ty .��ce1�t 111 tl1 ose cases \'(rl1ere irrespo11sibility (A1 _ ts. 48-::>8) or legal J ust1f1cat 1011 or excuse (Arts. 04-78) aJJplies. Crimi 11 al gtiilt eqttals cri111ir1(tl i11 te11l io1 1 or cri111 i 11 ai 11e}:cr) lic0re11 ce (a11d tl,erefore exclt1cles f<.)rce r11ajet1re or acci de,it). I-Io,�· i� cri111i11 ctl i11te1 1t defi11ecl i11 Art 58? Usi11 g tl1e fi rs (le t 11 itio11, are fi 1 botl1 ''tt1ll <110,vledge'' a11d ''i11lc11t'' rcqt1ireLl for liabi lity?

Tl1e -�·orcls ft1ll l<Il ?\xrledge a11d i11te11t'' i11 1\rt. 58 (1) ,vere tra11slated fro111 tl1e l.. re11cl_1 l�i cu,1sc1e,1ce et l.:i 'L'olo,11e \X'l1icl1 aJ)JJears i11 botl1 tl1e Etl1iOJJia11 r\\:J11l-1)r<lJel _ �l1 1cl� tl 1e r::, e11 �tl _ Coc!e of S\,.•itzerl,tr1d. J- Ias Art. 58 JJro1)erly tra11slatccl tl11s f re11cl1 ter11111 1olog}r? J:-Io,v clid friedla11cler a1 1d Oolclberg re11cler tl1ese terr11s? 1-\rc tl1ere otl1er discre1)ar1cies belweer1 tl1e r-=rer1cl1 arid E11glisl1 versic)11s of 1\rt. 58 (I)?

\'\i l 1at t)· 11e of 'jl{110,x·Iedge'' is reqt1ired b)' 1-\rt 58? lv\t1st l\110\vleclgc extend be}·o11 d acts to tl1e rest1lts <.)f acti\rity? lv\t1st or1e I·1ave k1 1C)\vledge tl,at l1is acts are illegal? I s tl 1e ft1ll l(tlO\vlec.lge'' reqt1ire1ner1t ,t11otl1er \'Va}' of stat ing Art. 76?

Wl1at is tl1e n1ea11i11g of tl1e \vord i1 1te11t'' or ''\villi11gl) as otl1er translatio11s re11der it? i\\ust i11 ter1t'' or '\vill'' exte11d to tl1e res11lt? Sl10Ltl(l tl1e crir 11i11al Ia,x· tal(e rlotice of st1bco11sciot1s i11te11tio11? 11

6. 7.

1 ''

ls i11te11t'' s�· r1or1)·n1ot1s \Villi ''111otive''? Jv\a}' r11 otivatiot1 thro\v ligl1i ttjJt,11 i11te11t? At \\'l1ai JJOir1t ir1 tl1e Etl-iioJ)iar1 cri111i11al r,roct�ss is n1ot.i,1ati<J11 Clf co11s ide ra bIe i 1n fJO rt ,111ce? 11

s01neo11e be co11\ricted of i11te11ti<.111al l101r1icicl� l10, cleSJ)_it� tl1� fact tl1 at deatl 1 occt1rs, fJleads a11d JJroves tl 1 Jt lie 011ly 1r1te11clecJ to 1 1:Jt1re� J\11ay sticl, a 1 Jerso11 be co11\ricled of 11cglige11t l1<.1111 iciclc? Is tl1e rcqt11red 1r1te11t ll1e sa111e for eacl1 o i fe11sc ciefir1ed ir1 tl1c.: S1)ecial F> art? \X1

L\\�t)'

Problem

Asstimi 11 t l,at �\iss I-Iazlewoocl s11ffered lier ir1dig11ities in E� �1io1Jia, could Banovitcl, beh cor1victed of grave \X'ilft1l i1 1jt1 r),.. t111der Art. 538 P.C.E.? (T

Careftill}' consider tl,e evicleiice tl1at ca1 1 be brot1gl1t for,X'ard to JJrove tl1e requisite intent. b. !11£/irect Intention ( Do/1,ts Eve11tualis) fJENAL CODE Of ETI-IIOPIA Art. 58.-C'ri1ni,1al l12tentiot1. (1)

· · ·. · : at tl1 his are a\v i11g l1e r · · 1de 1 fe of e tl1 1 1 1e wl 1 so a Cr, m ,nal 1nte11t1�11 ex 1sts . tl1e act its n1n coi s, 1ce ttei seq oti c e bl 1a 1 1s 1 11 pt act may cat1se illegal a11d regardless tl·iat suci, consequei,ces nla)' follo,v. •

•

•I '

. 1:

• (1 •:

I ,,

' ': . .; ' \..

, 11 .- I

! I

, ,I

' 'i

.' '',,

. 1.

I •• ,: I

.·1 '.,

I r ' i' I N •

' • { I I ' � 'I

.. •

·.

�

I 11

.' '

.•. .;I •1

. I .'

,.•'

.'.. . . ,; . \ .; '. ... ' I, • : . ., .' .

.......

. .�. =-·:. ...,'� •·,a . .:1, ,. ' ·

CRIMINAL GUILT

•

142

THE SOURCES Of THE LAW6

Imperial Codification Commission of Ethiopia Art.58. - Culpabilite intentionnelle. (I) . . . .

r, e _ !' eu qu ut a rs lo ssi sach�nt que a e se ali re t es _ � e ell tu lic de _ L'intention et �� n1s�ables, , son acte peut entrai11er des co11sequenc_es 1ll1c�tes l'accomplit nea11moins en acceptant celles-c1 po ur l eventual1te ou elles se produiraient. •

•

• •

INDIRECT INTENTION IN SWISS PENAL LA W7 Paul Logoz

,, '

" '

•

I"' ' I,

M.ore diffict1lt is the qt1estion of the actor who simply foresees the harm as possible. It is 1:ot the possib_le l1arm, ho�ey�r, wl1ich affec_ts l1is decision !o act; .... but \Y11thout excluding the poss1b1l1ty, he accepts 1t ...because 1n spite of the risk, l1e does 11ot wisl1 to renounce his activity.Tl1e classical ex ample is that of tl1 e hunter who does not \van t to lose a clear sl1ot despite the fact that tl1ere is a person sta11ding 11ear the game. Tl,ere are otl1er conceivable cases also such as the syphilitic wl10 has sexual relations with a \xroman and contaminates her; before the act, he had foreseen the result as possible and had accepted the possibility should it event11ate [by continui11g �1 itl1 tl1e act]. • •

• •

Indirect intentior1 le doL e7Jentr-taL and recklessness la negligence consciente both have 011e tl1ing in common. In both, the offender acts despite the fact that he foresees the possibility of a crimi11al harm resulting from his act. But tl1ere is also a difference in the two forms of guilt which becomes apparent \vhen one asks tl1e question: why i11 011e case or tl1e otl1er does foresight of tl1e possible co11seque11ces not prevent the offender from 'acting? A different answ·er 1nust be give11 depending \'Vl1ether it is a case i11volving indirect i11tention or recklessness . . In tl1e case of direct i11tentio11, tl1e inl1ibiting, 11egative value of the harm envisaged by tl1e ?ffender ...is ,veaker tl,an the positive value that he attaches_ to accompl1s_l1ment of t�1e act. In choosing between two disagreea�le a!te�nat,ves (re!1ot111c1ng the desired activity or accomplishing tl1e act while r1sk1ng a certain 1,a�m) the offender cl,ooses the second. for him, the harm broug�t .about by l,is act. is, in short, tl1e lesser of two evils. One is thus a�le to �ef1111tely_ say _tl1at, in tl1e case of indirect intentio11, it is selfishness which motivates his action despite tl1e consequences . e _or 1 0 ss . On !11e otl,er hand, !11 tl1e case of recklessness, it is thoughtlessne s lz� real than selfisl,ness that motivates the actions of the offet1der altl1ough he e, 11 cas � this In the unfortu11ate _result tl1at will be brought about by l,is act. d n of[e effect, the t1�g_at1ve value of the possible l1 arn1 is stronger for the wou ,J tl1an the pos1t1ve value attacl1ed to accomplishment of the act. If he

. . · .. .:-'· . .. � ···..· /.

INTENT

143

g�

ttave thought that the harm wou ld really com� bou , w ot 1l� l1a ve w it hout : _ his unc acti ed vity . But reno ! in fact he di� doubt, t tn k of it. H ts Ju dg me t n tho ugh cer t tain l y He tha r. t poo the nt harm wou l� not �oine about_ s o l1a was � whi he ch had at ght firs t fore \vas si clea rl the l l 1nf e 1ce }11s 1n1nd. 1 u 1 t; b �r si f t ac u v di s JlOl Thus it is said that this in id al fi 1 Y � u t 1 ou gl1tlessly; he l1as not reflected carefully enough.

A s one must here uncover.wl1at l1as passed tl,rotigl, tl,e mii,d of tl,e . . rson who foresaw, the · ques· tion of knowiiig wli etl1er a case of 1nd e P 1re ct · or neg 1 1ge · nce exists 1s practically qttite difficttlt to resolve If ti 1 - d inten!ton. u aft do er ub car t efttl exa111i11�tic•n of tlie n,ei,tal J)rocess · of �1Je remains tn fende r, he 1:1ust resol_ve suc _ l1 dot1bt 111 co11formit)' wit11 tl,e pri i,cir)le i,i di,bio pro reo, tl1at 1s, to decide 1n favor of 11egl ige11ce rather tlian itlteiitioil ....

�i

CRETENOUD c. PROCUREUR GENERAL DU CANTOl\I DE VAUD •

RO 86 !l7 12, JT IV 74 (1960) Switzerlanli

from August 1, 1957 to Attgust 25, 1958, Crelenottd l1ad bee11 e1111)l<)yecl by Schmidt-Agence S. A., of Oe11ev2., as tl1e 111anager of a sr11al l store 011 Nestle Avenue in lv\on treux. His job was to sell 111ercl1a11dise provi dee.I by l1is employer (newspape rs, tobacco, chocolates) a11cl to give tl1e J)rofits to saici employer. His salary \Xi'as abot1t 650 fr. l)er 111011 tI-1.

tltities from the start, Cretenoud proved 11egligent a11d laZ)' i 11 ft1l fi llir1g assigned him by his employer. J-Ie dicl 11ot 01)e11 at t11e set ti111e iri ti1e mornings, frequently taking coffee or simfJly s1)orti11g. I-le lefi ll1e siore soi11e times in the han ds of cl1ildre11, accou11ted 11eglige11tly a11d rett1rr1ecl t111solcl newspapers to his em plo yer too late for rei111b11rse111ent. Tl1c situatio11 lleterior ated ra1)idly and, by tl1 e mo11tl1 of febrt1ar}1, 1958, Crete11ot1d \vas 110 lor1,g-er keeping accounts. He wa s u11able to account for 7,826.50 Fr. 011 _Augt1st 25, tl1e day when he left his position. ted ic 11v co y ve Ve of l 1a t11 ib Tr e ic l Po l na tio ec On Sept. 2, I 959, the Corr 8 a11d sentenced l1in1 to six 1no11ll1s 11t 11e e1 n 1ag Crete oud for Unfaithful Ma1 tl1 1�

imprisonment.

l ea Jp a1 l1e T . . . 1t. e1 gm t1d j t 1a tl om fr l Cretenoud is here bringing aJJpea is rejected.

te it st n co to 1t e1 ci fi u 1f st t o n is ty u d ce o f en g li . eg N Summary o.r R 5 · . · · · easoning. e d 11s 1 ca ve ,a I t us ,n er d r1 fe f o l1e T . .S .P C unfaithful management under A rt . 159 damage intentionally. t, an M e p p 1e a tl f o t ar JJ 1e tl n o n io 1t The cantonal judgment did not fiild irite1 , . at s l1e e o ces of ano1:l1cr person cntrttstcd to 8. A'rt. is9. Unfaithful Manttge mtnL· '<Whoever dissip � t l r i u� dcr acted from selfisl1 1notives, him. Y law or contract shall be confined in th e prison . f t 1e ffen d U f ithful managem ent to a d fine n an ca s hh s �ll be confi d in t d on petition o t o ver fiv e y r n for secute s i i b prison ro ne he l e l p a l t � l f e ( sa e ) am y h of l 9 39). r ( be a pp. m e Su m tag a . .:5 dvan e of a relative or i Sc Pol. t and • · Crim L n:i rJm. 0 / • 0n y. Transla t 3G rg, ion, Friedlander and Goldbe

1·

.. •.

t1 .,,

,, I, ,,

�· • I

"1 ..,·.

,. ,,' :I

.: 'I

,. , ,I

! l ., . ,, '

,, ...

I° • '

It •J ., I

,. ,,

: r•.", l

•

I'·\ ..i'l Jj

I t 11

, , ,i�·

:t . ,1 :1 ir1 J i

l� ,PI

• ,1'

.• •

I r

-I ;

I' . .. .. ' .

I(••; .I f :

i. ' .

......

' :. '

.. ' . . .'

! .'t;

lL.·.�t '":

144

CRIMINAL OUILT

ud no at te th re C d ed at h� s! b it n as e_e . n, io 11t e t in . ct re i id i t nd fi d di but it re to pe rform his duties u il fa 11s 1 at tl, s e _ nc ue eq r,s co aware ot tlie damaging _ l fu th ai e nf . U ag . an r . m . e oy pl t em en m s hi of es un ri fo e tli on e v woulcl lia e r �Y whom :you are oy pl e 1n _ 1e tl of ts s re te in . consists in i tifidelity to tl1e y gl 1n 1ll w d 1�s an a1 ly ag i 11g 1 _ w 1o k1 e th· d te ac ve ha t us 111 r e nd fe of ,e Tl . d. engage . 1:1 ust be. guilty �f h<; ; m l11 1n _ ed 1d 11f co l10 \X1 e 1 01 e tl1 pecuniar�>' ii,terests of er � 11,te r ests ... . _ It is oy pl em s 111 of al �y r t_ lJe of rt so disloyalty, in soine se 1n 1t ca . of a e1 es pr ple be im _ s n ca s on 1t1 nd co cl1 su at th e se to lt difficu n scious of th e duties he· co t ac e tl1 its m m co l1e ,en wl en ev indirect 1 11te11tio11 e11t cau�es da1nage ?1 ge 11a ma nt ge gli ne by 10, wl r ge 11a ma i� has assumed.Tl s s 1n the str1c� sen�e of lne u thf fai Lt� of ilty gu t , 11o is it, ng 1,ti \vitliout realIJ wa eqtt ence s of his attitu de. ns co e ibl s s po the es ag vis en he 1e11 \vl n the term eve l s era itie s�v hor , aut r tte feel 1:1a s tl1i on r1 itio JJos an rn, Oe tl1e i11 Tl1is is \Vl1y tl1at i 11ciirect i11te11tio11 is 11ot st1fficie11t to co11st1tute u11faltl1ful management.

J1:.

' 1•!

,11 I

p h

i ' '

' II l' III "

•.·

, ,'' I '

' I

6. Ir1direct i11te11tio11 111ust, l1owever, be clearly and narro\1rly interpreted to avoid its bei11g· co11ft1sed witl·1 recl<:less11ess .... Tl,e Oerma11 doctri11e and jttrispruder1c e is q·uite i11siste11t 011 this point (Sect. 266 German Pe11al Code) . ...Orie te11ds to fi11cl indire�t i11te11tio11, as is generally done, as soo11 as an offe11der l1as accom1nodated l111nself to tl,e possible result of his act. One· who acts \xritl1 recl<less11ess also realizes tl,at tl1e objectiv e elements of the offense may be 1)rodt1ced a11d acco111mo.dates l1i1nself to sucl1 a re·sult in tl1e cas·e where lie i11 fact ()roduces it. As tl1is Cot1rt l1as l1eld i11 tl1e case of Elsasser on May 21, 1943 ('RO 69 IV 7_9;_ J: 194_ 3 IV 7? ff) 1 tl1e o!fe11der mt1st 11ot 011ly l1ave take11 seriously the pos?1b1!1ty of _(JrodL1c!ng � certa111 rest1lt, bttt irr add'itiorr must 1,ave co11sented to its l1a1Jpen1ng.It 1s tl11s last JJ0int \vhicf1 catches t11e d ecisive d"ifference· I · ua event e fh· wl1ere recl<le_ s s11ess tl1e offende f ro111 to r, far from co,,sentir,g , _ 1esult of 1�1s ac �s, on tl,e co11trary refttses to believe tl,at it, in fact, will come abot1t .. Tl11s reft1sal or �onsent of tl,e offetider raises a question of f�ct; accord111g to tl1e case cited above, 011e is not able to fii,d itidirect fntent1orr. from tl1e pr�of tl1at �lie actor k�e\v that a certain 1,arm might be produceds Oi,e �3111� 0 t. tel� on_ tl,is a\x,are11es-s 111 order to fi11d indirect i1:itention; this createt tha e r requi d a Ltnt �uely _ s?bJect1ve ele1ne11t of the off ense.It must, at lea5t, be 1 o at s . e tl1e tl1� pi obab1l1ty of rest1lt occttrrii,g be so clear that tlie offend r s t engf avi as h than 111111d wotild tiot reasoi,ably b e able to be i11terpreted otl1er co11se11ted·.

•

Ne\rertl1eless, tl1e most widely 11eld opi11ion is tl1at i11direct intention is st1fficie11t ....ActLtall}', 1Jractical co11siderati·o11s \Viti out over the more tl1eoretical difficL1lties raised witl1 resrJect to u11faitl1ful rnanagement. In the case of direct i11te11tio11, tl1e move111ent of the offende r l1imself is 11ot necessary to ca11se da1nage.It 'follo,xrs tl1at tl1e criminal wilful11ess is 11ot too different fro1n tl1at \Vr1icl1 exists \X1!1e11 tl1e same damage is created by indirect intention. Tl1e clifference is very little to distinguisl1 punisl1ing t·he first case and not the second. It is e,1e11 less j11stified in t11at it occL1rs n1ore freq,11ent1y tl1an direct inte11tion a11d creates a 111ore considerable 11eed for pe11al protecti·on.

e Accordir1g to tl1e jt1d&'n1ent in tl1e lower co a ellant h d t� ap p ur th t e h1S a�aren ess that, l1e was �aus1ng damage to tt1e y. b ._ er . i rite rests of J:ris em,pJoy : n. fa1It1re to fulfill 111s dt1t1es.Tlie court went ent 1� int ct dir e as d . fa fi t · fY Rut ! lie �o.urt of .C ssalion o.f Vaud did not v!!n r, eve how � o Jfd s� f:r ft d tl1e first Ju.dge's f111d111g that Cretenoud at e vi ol ¥ bad k.n!wi11g]y �d deliberatel

...

145

INTENT

l1is duties \Vitl1ol1� bei11g rn istake11 as to tl1e conseqttences ,vl1icl1 sucl1 a violation would have for 111s e1nployer.He had ft1rtl1er ad1nitted tl1at 11e 11ad bee11 made aware of tl1es� co11seque11ces, but l1ad not so n1t1cl1 as modified l1is attitude arid l1ad co 11sc1otis1 )' _acce_1Jt e� tl1e. resLt1t.U JJ011 evide11ce of tl1e 11igl1est probative val Lt�, we cart l1ere f1r1d 111d1rect 111te11tio11 eve11 accordi11g to a strict definition. As 1s ap1Jare11t fro111 tl1e cottrt of first i11sta11ce Crete11oud l1acl been 1nade aware_ of t�e co11seq uer1ces of l1is failirigs b )' l1is frie11d, ''A'', l1erself a 1n.ar1ager of a kiosk 111 N\011tret1x. Sl1e 11ad reJJeatecll}' \var11ed l1i111, begin11ing soon after l1e st,trted \VOrk, bt1 t l1e r�s1)011d�d b)' lat1gl1i11g at lier. Tl1us tl1e damageable �esult� of t11e 1�egle�t of l11s clt1l1es ...11ad bee11 qt1ite early brougl1t to l1is 111ten�1011 _b)' 111s fr1c11d; lie l1ad,. tl1rot1gl1 cleliberate desig11, 11eglected tl1ese \Varn1ngs 1n st1cl1 a \Xia)' as to 111a111fest l1is co11se11t to tl1e l1ar111 wl·1icl1 rest11ted. His extre_111e blitl1e11ess \Vas der11011strated by l1is JJersiste11ce in l1is attilt1de after a st1borcl11�ate _ ...l1acl_ st�l)l)ed \VOrl, clLte to l1is r1egliger1ce. Tl1e ele111e11ts, as mt1cl1 SLtbJect1,,c as obJect1ve, i11 t111faitl1ft1l 111a11agen1er1t t1r1der Art. 15�) C.P.S. arc tl1erefore ft1lfillecl i11 tl1is case. Cour de Cassatio11 - l'v1i\\. Fassler, Mul1eir11, Bacl1tler, F>erri11 arid Grisel. Note b;1 Cl.

Bo1111.1rd

to tl1e itbove cc1se: It 111aj' see111 at first gla11ce, tl1c1t tl1e

preceding case is a lL1r11ing poi11t i11 tl1e case law of tl1e fecierGtl Tribt111al ,·ritl1 resrJect to tl1e 11otio11 of i11clirect i11te11tio11. After tlic decisio11 RO 69 IV 79-80; JT 1943 l\/ 76�77, a11 (>ffe11cler actec� witl1 ir1direct i11ter1tioI1 ,v·l1e11 lie seriot1sly f()resa\v tl1e 1Jossil)ilit} <)f tl1e l1ar1r1 and wisl1e,i it to come abottt.Tl1is ctefi11itio11 ,vas retai11ed u11til 1955. _ .. Tl1·� decision RO 73 IV 102-103; JT 1948 IV 20 clid !1ot say tl1at tl1e offer1cler i1111st wa12t tl1e liarm i,1 tl1e case \'vl1ere I1e 1Jrod11cecl it, bt1t tl1at lie rnt1st be i11 accord \Vitl1 tl1e eve11tualil 1 of its bei11g realized ..•. Iio,ve,;er, tl1e t\'<:ro ex1)rc2s sions are m ucl1 tl1e same. ... Tl1e \viii re111ai11ed 111t1cl1 t11e sar11e as i 11 ti 1e case of direct i11te11 tio,1. Tl1at \vl1icl1 cl1a11ged was 0111)' tl1e 111a1111er i11 \vl1icl·1 the actor saw it, l-:11ew it or 1·e1Jrese11ted it (RO 86 IV 11; JT 1960 IV 66).'fl1L1s t1ntil 1955, tl1e federal Tribu11al J-1eld a 11arrow vie\V of i11clirect ir1tc11li<.>11, requiring tl1at tl1e offe11cler 111t1st \va11t tl1e l1ar1n i11 tl1e case i11 \�'l1icl1 it actLtally resttlted. In a case of Ju11e 17, 1�55 (R'} 81 JV 20;_ J.� 1957 _IV_25) �lie �ederal Tribu11al seemed to favor a sl1gl1tly broader deft 111t1011 of 111cl I rect 111te11t1011. It held tl1at indirect i11te11tio11 exists \Vl1e11 1 ,vitl1ot1t being certair1 tl1at ll1e objective eleme11ts of the offense will be realized by his act or c.1nissio11, tl1e offe11der seriously believes tl1e l1arn1 JJossi� Le a11d acco1nn1odates l1i1nself i11 \Vardl.y to tl1e result. It is1 tl1erefore 110t necessary tl1at tl1e offe11der l1acl wa11ted the l1arn1. It is sufficient tl1at l1e a�com1nodates l1in1self to it ....This 11ew defi11itio11 is Jess narrow. One can say in �ny c�se tl1at tl1e jttdge i� all?w �d tn�re fl�xi bility with the evide11ce co11cern111g w1]ful11ess a11cl ca11 f111d 1ncl1rect 111te11t1011 in a larger nt1mber of cases. The instant case 1narks a certain retur11 to tl1e former fJOsition wl1e11 it re·affirms tha! indirect inter1tion mttst be ''clearly a11d 11arrowly interpreted'' and one mus.t not find indirect i11te11tion when ''tl1e offe11der is si1n1Jly accommodating l1imself to tl1e possi!:: le rest1ll of I1is act," bt1t 0111}' \vl1e11 tl1e offender ]1 as ''coi,sented'' to tl1e result i11 t)1e case wl1ere i11 fact it is brot1gl1t about. The decision RO 86 IV 11; JT I 960 IV 66 co11firms tl1is restrictive tendency in stating that in indirect i11te11tio11, tlte offender must want ll1e restilt that is actually brought about by l1is actio11.... 1

...'·, . •! '·

•\

'r'' I 1

''I ,,,

h: I

o: I

. II . I. ..

1- • .I!.. ,. ••• I .. . I

I I. .· ..: . . . ·. . . .. !...' '.1? '... . .' ...,.... . . .,. I •

• I • • I

••

: ..: ;

-· t)I

CRIMINAL GUILT

146

NOTES

Note 1:

· Codification of Indirect Intention The Comparative 9 ) 1 7 8 (1 y n Penal Code of Oer1na

Sect. 16. -

Intention.

y, gl i� _ ill d w _ or an at �st y le gl in w 1o kr deems ed de e th s te tia ct fe ef Wliosoever s ts ac 1t, sk 1 ri nt y te gl 1n in ov pr y ap all t on bu . le ib ss po ly on n tio tl,e effecltta 10 0) 95 (1 lic 1b pt s Re le op Pe 11 ia Pei1al Code of tl1e Iiu11gar

Sect. 16. -

lnten.tiort.

Wlioever sl1all co1111nit a cri1ni11al act wisl1ing the co11s equences of his con duct or acquiesci11g ir1 tl1ese co11sequences .;l1all be deemed to have com tnitted tl1e cri111e \vilft1lly.

Pe11al Code of Greece (1950)11

' ii �

Art. 27. -

( 1) \Vl1osoever \Villingly effectuates tl1ose facts \Vl1icl1 according to statutory defi11itio11 are the eleme11ts of tl1e crime, or \Vl1os oever realizes that by

l1is co11duct he may effectt1ate tl1em and, in tl1at case, would app rove tl1ereof, acts i11tentionally. (2) Wl1e11ever the statttte requires tl1e knowled ere of a definitive factual element, a conditio11al inte11tion does 11ot stiff�e·1 wl1en tl1e law requires tl1at tl1e act be com1nitted for the effectuation of a certain l1arm, the perpetrator mt1 st l1ave i11tended to cat1se tl1is harn1.

'' j,

Intention.

Note 2: The Concept of Intent in tl1e Comn1on Law

!he corr�n1� 11 la�, t1nlike most conti11e11tal systems does 11ot specifical�Y provi�e_ for 111�1rect 111te11tio11. Witl1i11 intentior1 itself, ' is i11cluded the i! or de5rgn to ?r1�1g a1?out a result. Kno\vledge ot s11rrounding fact is a11 essentia elem�n_t 0_! criinii,al 111!entio11 as it is on t}1e Continent and in Ethiopia. Co� mo� te l w intei,tion ftirtl,er !nclt1des tl1ose situations in not � wl 1ere the actor does � t e result but �1l1ere its l1appening is a virtu ce '!' cto r do � tl1 e i.e . rta al in ity e :e no es tl!e lieart from a patient but d1 1n � � do es no l t int � tha 1 e shoul d die. en t ; d n en 10� 111 oinmon law would fall n m o m co within ''recklessness'' Tl1e � �s n_o ma� e aof It u s a r di5tinction betwee11 adverta11t neglige11t c�r1duct the � th� � w h r nd that t _ e re�ult of _which is rejected. Both woul� f all��};eeJ1 � 1� �: abf �� :�� ca o c e sn ss w tich 1s a l gl 1n g t hr eeIy nce lige neg ree deg of 1 11 _ � direct intention and stnlple negl1ge11c e. The common law l1as, there f ore,

�J

9. 10. 11 ·

As translated in Muelle r, C Translarion P. Lamberg ( o,np� rative Criminal La�v 116. C orv1na Press) As translaced ' in Muelle r, Con1parat1. ·. . ve Cri 1n1nal uw 119.

•

..----� 147

INTENT

d 7gree� of c_rimi 1�al _me 11ta_lity; t_l,e conti11ental systems a1 1d Ethiopia have fottr: direct 111tent10�, indirect 111tent1011, adverta11t 11eglige11ce (recl<less11ess) and in advertant negligence. The following fJe 1 1al provisio11s of Tanza11ia are typical of the common law approacl1 to tl,e 1ne11tal elen1e11t i11 crimii,al la\v: Art. l 0. �ttbject to tl1e exp_re�s provisions of tl1is Code relali11g to neg lige11t acts �rid o�,1�s1011s, a perso 11 is 11ot crimi11ally responsible fo r �n a�t or on,tss1011 \v11icl1 occurs i11depe11de11tlv or tl1e exercis� • l)f 111S Will. . . . Art. 233. A11y J)erso11 \v·l10 in a 111ar111er so rasl, or 11eglige11 t as to eI1danger l1t1n1a11 life <.)r to be 1il<el)' to cat1se l1ar111 Lo a11y 0'..· her iJ:.:rsor, [does tl1e folll)\vir1g]: I'

•

°'

is gt1il ty of 111isde111eanor. Qt1estions • 11,

2. 3.

Are tl1e E11glisl1 a11cl fre11cl1 versio11s of f\rt. 58 (1) 2nd par.a.. icle11tic!,1l? Do yot1 tl1ink ihe drafter i11 te11ded tl1is provisio11 to incorJJorace the ccricept of ''i11direct intentior1''? \Vl1at \vould be t)1e cle,trest \--:,orc'iii1g cf t.l,e co11cept? See Note 1 i11fra. Of wl1at mt1st 011e be a\xrare to co11stilt1te 11i11clirect i11tentio11'''r1 Ks tl1r:r<:: rt si 111 ila r reqt1iren1e11 t t111 der ''direct i11tention''? Co1..1lcl Crete11 ou cl �Je c:or1 ·vi<.:: l ,::�J tinder the a '>?are11ess require 1 11e11t of Art. 58 P.C.E. (i11direct i11�ei1.tior;)? \Vl1at cio )rou u11derstand to be tl1e 111eani11g of 'i11direct 111ie,itio1-i''1 � ;,o', - '"l is it differe11t from wl1at is terrned ' cecl<less11ess''? �711ere is · 1 ;·�cl{l.tss;,·1.,=:s�/: 1? '. fottnd in tl1e Pe11al Code? Wl1at distii1gt1isl1e£ 'i11dire12l i11i.'2!·1tior frort: ''direct inte11tio11''? Does ''direct i 11tention'' receive a. l1ea 11ie:· rJer1ait:1r 111,i:·1 ''indirect intention'' u11der tl1e Code? :.

..... • 1

•. I

"' ,I•,,,·'

II o

l• '

I '

., '

Iii i••

Wl1y \-Vas Crete11oud 1 1ot co11victed for clirectly i11tendi11g· to 111ism.111a.ge tinder Art. 159 C. P.S.? \Vl1at evide11r.e tended to flrove ''i11c!irecl i11te11tior1'' i11 the Cretenoud case? I-Jo\v certai11 must such proof be? Coi1sider tl1e: following statement from tl1e Swiss j11risprt1dence: The jttdge must believe tl1at . tl,e <_Jffe11der foresa\v t!1e J)Ossibilit) of the harm as so probable tl1at 111s act1011s could 11ot be interpreted other \v1se tl1an having accepted tl1e res11lt. Fle11rier Watcl, Co. S. .4. c. Beurat, RO 84 IV 127, JT IV 1 I 5 (1958); see also tl1e Cretenottd case srtpra. 1

Wl1at is tl1e t1seful11ess of the �oncept of ''indirect intentio11r,? Do }'OLI feel that it is preferable to the co1nmo11 law f)Os1tio 11 give11 i11 Note 2? Whicl1 system is easier to administer?

Should the post-I 957 jurisprude11c� o_f Switzerland be co11sider:d i11 i11terpreting tl1e Pe 11al Code of Etl11op1a? Sl1ot1ld 011e cor1cer11 himself more in tl,e case of ''indirect i11tention'' with t1'1e pre-1955 - po5t-1960 positio11 of the federal Tribunal or tl1e period of 1955-1960, within \vl1icl1 the P.C.E. was promulgated?

What is the pt1rpose of including Art. 58 (3) in tl1e Pe11al Code?

I'j

lt,

IJj I•.

,,! ,, I

• I •' ' I

• i I • ' I • '

i-·

i •,

I... . . . . . i . ;

" '

148

CRIMINAL GUILT

Problem

ive to g arr in sl1 at his girl wi t bu , ne yo a11 e ur inj to ng nti . Ato X, 110t wa . es 100 etr at om kil zza Pia an hour tl1e ' gh ou thr s ive dr e, tim frieiid s house on causing the deatl1 of a child. n ctio co ,v! tl1e to t n ev rel be ! uld wo ce � den evi of t _ of �to X for What sor _. intentioiial homicide u11der the Art. 58 def1n1t10� of cr1m1nal 1ntent1on. State briefly yotir reaso11s for tl1e releva11cy of the ev1de11ce brot1ght forward. Recommended Readings

/11eierhofer c. Mi11istere Pitblic di, . Canton d� Z1-,ricl�, RO 80 IV 1_1�' J� I\f 54

! It

ith

j•' I I

p r , 11 II

I'\

,, '

I! I

'I '

'Ii I

I I

. I, \

.i . �I

( I 955) (ar1 i1nportant case 1n the Swiss J ur1sprudence def1n1ng 1nd1rect inter1tion i11 insta 11ces of 1nal ici ot1s prosecution). Mi,zistere P11-blic du Canton de Bale-ville c. Zimrnerman11, RO 86 IV 10, JT IV 66 (1960) (recei1t case distinguishing direct from ir1direct i11tention). Legros, L'Ele111ent Moral DaJ1s Les /71fractions 89-151 (1952) (compre]1er1sive treat rne11t of inte11t i11 tl1e JJe11al la\v1 of fra.nce). Merle, Droit Pe,1al 223-236 (sl1ort cliscL1ssio· n of botl1 direct a11d indirect inten tion i11 Frencl1 {Je11al la\v). An1ericar1 Lav; I11stitute, Model Penal Code, Sect. 2.02, Proposed Official Draft (1962); see also, con11nents to Sect. 2.02, Te11t. Draft No. 4 (1955) in Paulsen a11d Kadisl1, Criminul Law 233-237 (careft1l discussion of a ne\'<' legislative proposal on criminal me11tality tl1at lies between tl1e common law and conti11ental systems). Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 70-145 (excelle11t discussion of criminal i11tent). Williams, Criminal Law 30-100 ( thorougl1 treatment of i11 tentio11 and reckless11ess in tl1e commo11 law). Von Bemmelen, Intro., The Federal . Cri,ni_nal Law of tlJe Soviet U11 io11, 3 Law in Eastern Europe 12-13 ( 1959) (d1scuss1on of tl1e eleme11 ts of inte11t in the Soviet Penal Code of 1958). feldbrugge, Soviet Cri,ninal Law, 9 Law in Easterri £,,rope 172-175 (1964) (sl1ort stateme11t co11cer11ing tl1e Soviet la,v of inte11t). SECTION B. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

a. Advertent and Inadvertent Negl£gence PENAL CODE OF ETHIOPIA -

. '

Art. 59. - Criminal Neglige11ce. - =�--(l) A. p�rson is guilty o� a crimi al e, _by a - - -· w ne he gl r ig � en ce ac ] t c [ s i crim _ inal . lac� of foresight or 1mprudence he acts withou t consideia·_::..:·_ t1011 or in disregard of tl1e possible consequences of l1 is act. - �:_=-_ : • • • • w ......

-·

W '!lli' •;.._,;71.....,..,...,, .

. .

- ---�'.

.__,,

------- NEGLIGENCE

NEGLIGENCE IN SWISS PENAL LAw 12

149

Andre P,inchaud

. U1_1der Article � 8 par�. 3 C.P.S._ tl1ere are two types of negligence set out: F1�st, inadvertent (z,zconsczente) negl1g�nce co11cerning one wl10 acts without be1n� a ware of tl1e_ co11seL1ue11ces of 111s act; tl1e second, advertent (�conscien te) negl1ge11ce concer11111g 011e wl10 acts i11 disregard of the co11seque11ces of his act. ATO lv1AKONNEN \VOLDEVES v. TI-IE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR S11pre1ne l111peri.,l Co1,rt, Cri11JiJ1ltl Appeal No. 335/ 54 (1962 G. C.) Et/Jiopia Oenbot 6, 19_52 E. C .. (J\1ay 13, 1960 0. C.); Justices: Afenegus Taddesse Mengesl1a, Dr. \V. Bul1ag1ar,. Ato Taddesse Tekle Oiorgis; - Tl1e apfJella.nt was char�ed before tl1e 1!1g·J1 _ CoLtrt with tl1e offe11ce of homicide by negli ger1c� JJL1r11sl1able tt11der Article �26 of tl,e Pe11al Code; l1e ,vas fottnd gltilty convicted and sente11ced to the maxirnt1m JJeriod of imprisonme11t of five years under tl1e seco11d JJaragrapJ1 of Article 526, u11der wl1icl1 the offe11ce of J 1omicide b}' negIigence is aggravated \vhere tl1e ho111 icide is ca.usec.l by a perso11 \vl10 l1as a SfJecial professio11al ctuty to safegt1ard life. Tl1is is �.11 apr)eal from tl1e jt1dgment of tl1e I:-Iigl1 Cot1rt. 1

Tl1e grounds of appeal are (a) tl1at tl1ere was 110 st1fficiei1t ev·icler1r�� on wl1icl1 t1'1e J-ligl1 CoLtrt could co11vict, (b) tl1at tl1e Higl1 Cot1rt ,('as ,r:ro11g iri law i11 co11victing tl1e ap1Jella11t t111der paragraJJl1 (2) of ft�rticle 526 ,x.-I-11::11 tl1e cl1arge referred only to Article 526, and (c) tl1at tl1e seco11d 1Jarag·rar)l1 of 1:\.r� ticle 526 is 11ot applicable to tl1e apJJellant (a driver of a bus) bt1t is a1)1)licable only to doctors, nurses etc. \v}10 carry ot1t tl1eir duties i11 a neglige11l wa)'·

The facts as found by tl1e J Jigl1 Court are as follo\vs: tl1e a1)fJellai1t is Lt bus driver by professio11; 011 Nel1asse 11, 1953, tl1e aJ)J)ella11t was clrivi11g Bt1s No. AA 6135 and at tl1e l 26t11 kn1. 011 tl1e road fron1 Alaba Kt1li te to Ad.dis Ababa, at about 15 mi11t1tes after midday, l1e ca111e i11to collision \xrit�1 a car Volkswagon No. 9956 con1i11g from tl1e op1Josite direction; a11d as a result of this collision tl1e tl1ree passengers in t)1·e Voll<S\X'agon were killed. There were no fatal accidents a1nongst the JJassengers i11 tl1e bus driven by tl1e appellant. The appellant \Vas drivi11g l1is bus behind a11otl1er motor-vehicle, whicl1 was some distance in front a11d which \X as cat1si11g lots of dust renderi11g visibility yery poor. Tl1e appella11t was tryi11g to o�ertake the otl1er motor-vel1i _ �le, and of tl1e road; .at tl11s_ t1me the in doing so, went partly on the \vro11g side _ Volks\'<,agon, whicl1 was on tl1e pro1Jer side of the roa�, co_II1ded \'qi th tl1e bt1s driven by the apJ:>el)an t. The allegation of the prosect1t1�n ts tl1at tl1e a�p_el_I� 11t was negligent in trying to overtake the other motor-vel11cle wl1en tl1e v1s1b1l1t}' 1

12.

Panchaud, Code

Penal

C�l�i:la commet

Suisse Annote 19 (2d ed., 1962).

Arc.

18 C.P.S. reads in pare as follov:s:

un crime ou un delit par n�gli�ence, qui, par une impr6voyancc coupablc, agit sans sc rendre compte ou sans cenir compte des consequences de son acce.... An. 59 of M. Jean Graven's Avanc-projct, clearly modeled on the Swiss provision, states: Commec une infraction par n�gli0Cl ence celui qui, • par une imprcvoy'ance ou une imprudence coupable, agic sa11 s se rendre compce ou sans ten1r compte des consequences <. I e son actc.

. .

I' ·

II.

.'' ..·,,'

I\!

I.•

.. .

I •O

"''

',.'

,;-,

1� ! I''·I .

1.I

I ...,

·1·'1

"I1!

111,

I I • •

' I

''.

;

'. .... " . I' ''

,. '' . ' . ' ..

.. .. ..

'.. :.'; ....,. . I.

CRIMINAL GUILT

150

se of c au de e tl1 of. the th ee th � t ha t _ d an s t, � r dL 1e tl of lt su re a '(/ s \ as Poor a t ly to the appellan t s ne glige nce . ec dir e du s 1 11 . ' go wa lks Vo 1e ti 1n rs e 1g 1 e p ass ,. . . en t and clea c1 r rf1 su s ide wa ev e 1er nce t l t 0n ur Co . · iis · l t f o r1 o 1 . 11 1 IJ o e I 11 tl1 · · t d d n Th o _1 s1 . e I l u er ne i s 110 contraco 1e tl to e m co d l u co t L1r o C h ig J-l l1e t 1 w.hicl d. te 1t re m he 1b . T sL 1t ar ll n ca pe ap 1e tl be as no es ss iie t i· w · ' e th ct1ct1on amon gst o v o e ry t rt e t . k a t o r a 1 1other car e iv r d a r fo t n e g li g e n . uestioil tli at it is very e to fic du af e tr g tl1 in m d co on ust. The of ut -o ok lo er op JJr a q 11 h has not l1e a[JJJella11t was neglig e nt. t at th 1 1g i 1d fi1 in t gh ri e, f C�urt was, tliere or �i as \xrrong in convicting w t ur Co 11 ig li e th at th ed itt Tlle appellar,t subm agrapl1 _of �rticl� ?26 � 1Ja nd co se � th of s ct on isi ov pr e tl1 tl,e appellant u11 er l e 526. It 1s essenti al 111 cr�m,nal tic Ar to lly a r 11e ge d re er f re . \Xrli ei , tl,e cl,arge t cl1arge he is �sked to 1n�et; _,n the a wh w 1o 1 k ld ou sl1 ed us cc a cases tli at the e p_ ll a nt was� at tl1e time of e ap tl1 ,at l t_ e leg l a 1 t :o es do e g ar_ ch tl1e 1)rese11t case first_ �1 1d second e . T� 1ty ac �ap al 1on f ess o f)r _ al eci sp a 111 1g 1 i act t\1e offe11ce, 1 c1_de b y _n eg m 11o 1s, t ce tha en orf e sam th� h wit al de 526 le tic Ar ! paragra pl1s of lige11ce, bL1t the second 1)ar agrapl1 conta 111s an aggravating eleme1 1t wh1cl1 s u bj e cts the offe1 1der to a l1igl1er pL1nishrnent. Tl1e accused shoL1ld know wl1ether the prosecL1tion is cl1argii1g l1im \vitl1 the aggravation and when tl1e prosecution i11ter1ds to do so, rner1tio 11 thereof should be made i11 the cl1arge. 111 this res1)ect tl1e ch arge is defecti,;e, bt1t for reasons \vl1icl1 will be given later the def ective charge l1 as not i11 tl,e present case led to a misc arriage of justice. The appella11t sub1nitted as a11otl1er groL111d of aJJj)eal that the second paragrapl1 of J\rticle 526 applies to doctors and nurses \xrl10 c arr)' out their duties in a neglige11t 1na1 1ner a1 1d does not apply to tl 1 e ap1Jella11t, tl1e driver of a bus. The second 1Jara grapl1 of Article 526 pro\,ides for a l1igher fJUnis h· men! wl1ere th_e 1 1eglige11t l1on1icide 11as been caused b)' a perso1 1 \v'l10 has a special prof_es� 1 011al duty to safe�11ard life. On reading tl1is J)aragraph, the p er sons 'X1)10 first come to 011e s mi11d as havi11g a special [Jrofessional dt1ty to safe g_u�r� life are doctors a11d nurses; but tl1e said {Jaragrapl1 does not limit the respon s1b1l1ty t? doctors a ri d 1 1t1 rse�; tl1e \'(!Ord 'prof essional' is used in tl1e \vide sens e and applies to per so11s wl1ose job reqL1ires SJ)ecial care to safeauard the life of p er S?ns �l1ose_ physica l i1 1tegri_ty is te11�1)orarily u11der t l1eir care�Tl1e \-vrord ''.p rofes sion al apJJ_l1 es to_ persons like the ptlot of a1 1 air1)la11e, bllS drivers and drivers of ot�er p�1 bl1c vehicles. Tl1e duty of SL1ch J)ersons is not, liowever, to,,qa rds any peisoi, in the world ; the dL1ty of sucl1 JJ rofessional persons is sr)ecially t�wafd5 th0se perso,:s !or wl,01n tl1ey are res1)011sible, sucl1 as J)assenge rs i11 an_a,rJJlane or p�ssenge1s 11� a bL1s; sL1cl1 professio11a l persons do not owe a special du�y tow�r ds pede5tr1a1 s; tli e dL1ty to jJede�tria 1 1s or otl1 er persons not in tlie publ tc vehicle .is a gei,er�al d�ity, 11ot a special duty. Tl1t1s in the fJrese�t cas e th� . app lant O\-vred a special 11rofess10 1 1al dL1ty to tl1e passe11aers in 111 s bu s, bU� w °; 1 a general duty towa rds otl1er s outside tl1e bus, 0sucl1 as the pe rson; �1 .f1,e 0�1<sw agon. for tliese reaso11s tl1e appella11t sl1ot1ld l1ave been fo�n eb_ Y l1er gu1 ltr of. an offe11ce t111der Article 526(1) of s i tl 1 e Pe 11al Code arid he S tht convicted Ltnder th at I) 10� l at t · ers · 1 51on. A s t cor1s1d c !1sh ent_ __,, se11tence, t 11is Court . is a ver ser._oL s offe. 1 1ce \'(1 1tl1 ser1o_ u11. p 1 u s · im u co 11s eq ue tna nc 1 e r,d es x tl a n Tia nr � tinder {he / trs\ p�ragi. a111 1 of Article 526 nd the a p.p& eal -4 a inf s11 ou lic ted ld be - i l·s sentenced to simple · apP he . im t e, I J rison1nent for three years 111 tl11 s sens , ·ts a11owed a11d tl1 � -�� e judgn1e11t of the I-ligl1 Court is �aried accordi11gly. : ·J ___.,___ -··-·· : - -. .-�· · . ·"1 Questions -.. . ':l � --"--�� :::__:;i :. =u ish.�� - - ---· "'" · 1. After re-readii1g tl1e sel ec tst1-ng . 1 t10 · 1 1 from Logoz supra at p. 14·2, \Vi1a1 - ·- . -

;ri

. •• Ii . " ,,, I:: I ,, . : : I

' .' '.'

"' H I

Ii ... .

<o I

1'I I, '

' '

I .,I ,. E'.

•

...

•I

·1 I

- �==ff. '

'�

. ·• --�--

- ..�

...----- 151

NEGLIGENCE

''advertent neglige�ce�' (Art. 59) from ''indirect i 11te11 tio111 (Art. 58)? Which ,vords �f Art. 59 111 d1 c�te tl1 at both ad verte11 t and i11 advertent 11egligence are pL1n1 shable? Wl1 at 1s the relatio11ship bet\Vee11 tl1 e first JJaragraph of Art. ?9( I) a,1;ct . the_ seco11 d? I-lo\v 1nt1cl1 lacl< of foresight or imprudence constitutes cr1m11 1al lack of foresigl1 t or i1n1Jrudence''? '

W�s Ato �ako11nen gt1ilty of adverle11t or i11adverle11t neglige11ce? What evidence_ m 1gl1t _ be brougl1t forwarcl to SUJJIJOrt your co11clttsio11? Wl1 at is the �elat1 �1_1sl11 P bet\vee11 Art. 526 a11d Art. 59? Do you agree \v1ill1 the hold11 1gs 111 tl1c 1vl.iko11ne11 case?

l,. Tl1e Test of Negligence PENAL CODE OF ETHIOPIA Art. 59. (1)

•

Crin1inal ]\/eglige11ce. •

•

A person is g11 ilty of cri111 i11 al neglige11ce \Vl1e11 he fails to tal<e sL1cl1 precaL1tio11s as 1nigl1t reaso11ably be e)CJJected in tl1e circ1.1msta11 ces of the case a11 cl l1avi 11 g regard to l1is age, experie11 ce, edttcation, occLt!)a tion a1 1d rank. •

•

,-1J1dre

situation, etc.

..,\I .

l I;

;

.' ...' .

1· ;

.. 1

J' '· . ,·,l;·r , ' l ,'

I A\ . :

1·

C0l\i\Iv10NWEAL Tli v. PIERCE Sr,preme Co,,rt of MassaclJ11sets, 138 Mass. 165 (1884) United States

•

'1 I•

fJa,1.cf)ttlfd

Tl1e duty to tal<e care \'v'l1icl1 is 11t::cessitatec! by e;�ler11al circt1ITtsta11ces constitutes tl1e objective elei11e11t of i1eglige,1ce; . . . tl1c1.t necessi.tc1.tec! b�/ tl1r:: perso11al sitt1atio11 of tl1 e defe11da11t co11stitutes tl1e s11bjective eie,nerit� \:tlic1,, respect to the latter, a j11clge 1n11st tal{e i11to accot111t tl1e u11 clerst211 clir1g of the actor togetl1 er \vitl1 l1is [Jersonality develo1)111e11t a11d I1is social a11d eco11ornie:

•

. , 'I •f·,·,

NEOLIOE1'J CE IN S-\VISS PENAJ_ Ll\.'}{/ 13

•

; I

•

Per Holmes , J .: - So far as civil liability is co11cerned, at least, it_ is very clear that ,vhat we t1ave called tl1e external star1dard \vould be applied, a11d tl1 at if a man' s co11duct is s11cl1 as wotild be reckless i11 a ma11 of ordir1ary prudence it is reckless in him. Unless J1e cart bri11g himself \Vi tl1in some broadly defined exception to general r11 les, ll1e law deliberately leaves l1is 13. Panchaud ' Code Penal S1,isse Annote 20 (2d ed, 1962). Art. 18 C.P.S.: ' ' dcs precautions com� n a actc I I' cc use pas ceur l'au l quanc ble coupa est ance revoy ... L'imp _ . 11 pcrsonncllc. at10 mandees par Jes circonstances ec par sa s1tu An. 59 Avant�project, also modeled upon tl1e Swiss provision, reads: Son attitude est coupable lorsque l'auc �ur n'a pas pris Jes prc�auti?ns quc l'on pouvait iaiso11� nablemenc exiger de Iui, du fait des c,rco? stanccs . cc de sa s1tuat1<;>11 pcrsonn\!llc, notamn1ent de son ilgc et de son exp erience, de son 1nstrucc1on, de sa profession 01.1 son r ang.

I,.

I .; I. . .' I

•

. '1' : •.

: -··�.,

! :: • I. . ·' '

;

,·.. .' II ' ..•..'

.. .. . ...... I

152

CRIMINAL GUILT

s he ha at th . as much . . es m su as ily or pt em er nd a P t, oun acc 1d1osyncras1es out of nary ordi of e man prud a as nce ces . ue ns e c ee or es to d ca1Jacity to j�1dge ari ! _ � tf �anguage of Tindal, C.J., ''Instead, 1 t�\��10 1 \VOL1 ld have 11 th� sa : \ { 7ty I�r negligence should be coex tensive �f ; 1 bil th_erefore, _o say1ng 1a e bl as ria va be as ld ou w the h ic wh l t1a id iv ind h ' eac f o \Vtth tl1e JU d0ament 1 ere to the ru 1 e adl t O th er 1 ra it t� Ot e w 1 al, d1 vi di le1 1gtl1 of tl1· e fo·ot of eacl1 i11 f an o m or a ct· as 1 ry e 1na su 11 10 t1t ca to rd aa re a \V 11�cli req111res 111 aII cases 1 C S 1 5; 47 8, 46 . .C N . 11g . Bi . 3 , ve 1lo e1 M v 11 l1a 1g at V '' . e . v ser o ld b wot1 d pru ence 4 Scott, 244. If tliis is the rule adopted i1 1 regard to . tl1 e redistribution of losses, which !o ar so� cle r�a a of ce en abs tl1e 11 1 l fal y tl1e e ier wl t res to sound j)Olicy allo\Y/S tl,e contrary, tl1 ere \VOttld seem to be at l�ast eq�al reason for adopting_ 1t 111 tlie crimii,al la\v, whic�1 !,as for its i1nmed_1ate ?b�ect and task to establish a general standard, or at least ge11eral 11egat1ve l1n1 1ts, of conduct for tl1e com� n1 1111ity, in tl1e ir1terest of tl1e safety of all.

1li1 h

.• 'I

JI I I

j! I C.

·1dq:

" ' .'

�fl-IE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. ATO TERFU ALEMOU Supreme lnlperial Co1trt, Criminal Appeal JYo. 251/53 ( 1961 G. C.)

I 'I '

Ethiopia

I 11 i •1 •

lir...

II f ' ••• .,, L,i

111 •

I,I 1

I. I' I .,'

•I

•I'

I I•

·1 :

! Ij, I

; jI' •

·I , '\

I <ii I : .. 1

;

I-I an1 I e 12, 1 95 3 E. C. ( J Ll ly I 9, I 961 0.C.); Justices: Ato Aberje DebaI k, Dr. V/. B11 l1aaiar, Ato Kassa Beyene: - Tl1is is a11 a1Jpeal fro1n a jt1dgme11t of tl1e Iiigl1 Co�rt acq11itti11 g tl1e respondent on a cl1arge of l1on1 icide by neglige11ce u11der Article 526 of tl1e Penal Code.

·j

�r,,e facts are tl1at on I-Ia111le 20, 1952, a cl1ild of 20 montl1s was take11 to

the filowaha J-Iospital \vl1ere, by virtue of a11 order give11 by Dr. Rigsbi, the respondent gave tl1ree injections of pe11icilli11 to tl1e said cl1ild. Tl1e respondent is a nurse in tl1e said l1ospital wl1ere l1e l1as served for a period of 27 years; according to tl1e evidence given by PW/1 he is efficie11t in his work. Tl1e evidence regarding tl1e autopsy sl1ows that tl1e cause of death was the pe11etratio11, into tl1e blood cells of the l1eart, of tl1e medicine admi11 istere d by the i11 jectio11s, that is, penicilli11 . Three i11 jections were i11 fact give11; after tl1e first two, tl1e cl1ild was well, but became weak after tl1e tl1ird injectio n. The respondent tl1en to�I< tl1e cl1il� to tl1 e doctor (PW/ 1 ), but tl1e cl1ild _d!ed soon afterwards. Accord1 11 g to medical evide1 1ce, tl1 e reaso11 for tl1 e med1c1ne reacl1 i11 g tl1e l1e�rt was tl·1�t tl1e _directio11 of tl1 e injecting needle \vas oblique ratl1er tha11 upr1gl1 t. Medical evidence, l1owever also showed that tl1is 1nay ha1J1Jen �n . the _case . of � �hild who is_ moving with tlie result that at the time tl1e med1 c1 ne 1s being 1n1ected tl1� d1r�ction of the needle may cl1ange as a result of tl1e· move1nent of tl·1e child. This evidence also sl,owect tl1at in cases sucl1 as tl1e prese11_t _tl1 e _deal� is du� !110re to accident that, to the r1egli�e�ce of tl1 e person ad1n1n1ster1ng t11 e med1c1ne. (See evidence of Dr. Cadeleonc1n1 PW/2). Also Dr. Robert Rigsby (PW/I) stated tliat sucl, ar1 accide nt may happen to a�y doctor, even tl1 e most qualified. Under these circ11mstance s, it ca11not be said tl1 at tl1 ere has been criminal negligence within the meaning of Article 59 of the Penal Code. for tl1e above reasons the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the Hig\1 Court confirmed.

•

I i 1 I

]

�

NELIGENCE

153

NOT ES The Degree of Negligence Required by the Common Law

Note 1:

Altho�gh �oth continental and commo11 law systems pt111isJ1 negligence as an except1011, 1 .the common l�w generally adds tl1e requireme11t tl1at botl1 adve_rtant and 1 �advertant. t1egl1ge11ce mttst be ''gross''.T11 e l1igl1 degree of bf virtue . of the cldj ective ''gross'' n1ea11s tl1at tl1e 11eg �egl1gence required l1gent conduct mt1st diverge widely frotn tl1at wl1icl1 would }1ave occttrred if a reasonable man had acted in the same circumsta11ces. The following are two l1ead11otes take11 fro1n cases decided ,vitl1i 11 co111n1011 law inspired penal systems: The effect of the provision in section 217 of the Cri1ni11al Code Ordinance, 1936, tl1at ''a11 t111la\-qft1l omissio11 is a11 omissio11 a111ott 1 1li 1 1g to culpable negligence to discl1arge a duty (of care) ... is tl1at a 1Jerso11 can be convicted of the offence of manslat1 ghter [negligent l1omicicleJ, defined in section 212 as 1 'causing the deatl1 of a11ot]1er person by a11 unlawful act or omissio11' 011ly \vl1ere it is proved: a.that the lack of care on tl1e JJart of tl1e acc11sed amo1111ted tci ''gross neglige11ce'', tl1at is to s,1y, \'Uas a serious divergence fro111 the standard of reasonble care. Shmuel Deutsch 'V. Tl1e Attor11ey-Ge11,eral, Su1Jreme Cott rt, Cr. 1\. i / 52 ( 1954) Israel, I l Selected J1,dgn1ents of the S1,pre,ne Co1-!rl of Israel 92. 1

•

Comparative Statements of the Test of Negligence 16 0) 95 (1 e ec re G of Per,al Code

Art. 28.- Negligence. r se d de rci u11 t111 t� bo exe is l1e h 1ic \Vl e car t tha ise erc ex r ve to fails Whose the circumstances and wliich l1e can be expected �o exercise, a11d for. lllat l1 or t1g l1e s, l1o 111s act alt of s e nc ue eq ns co the e ese for son rea do es not _ le to follo\v, trusts tl,at tl1ey might consider such consequences as possib will not follow, acts negligently. S A 59 (l). �nd th e In clex, p C E for the few crimes thlt can be comn1ictcd by negligence. ses, sec Art. 697 P.C.E. fen of tty pe to ct pe I res th wi . ie; .pi 1 erent ap 4. Aeed"ffn pr1 nc1p e, h owever, . s ).2 AJI E11 g. Rep. 522 A drew p p D f 1944 { 83n s�-3 1'1;s 3.16 ' sk sc a 1ng Jead the see ce den ; l l S. For the English juris�ru 1v talth v. we an ;), (19.37); for th e American, Commonw · crimz l 6. & translated in Mueller, Comparittl'l-" · ·naJ Law 120 e

; f• • ·1·

• •

''"' · '

11L1 ' "t

The accused on a wet day drove a van at s11cl1 s1Jeed t l1at ii: \v;as not possible for l1im to pull up wl1e11 l1e tool< a t11r�1i11g. Tl�e rest1l.i. :'\! as , that the van got out of his co11trol a11d ever1tually l11t a11a l<tllecl. a pc,1 ice man on duty. HELD: Tl1e conditio11 of tl1e road at tl1e partict1 lar ti11�e _must be �a!<en into consideration and altl1ougl1 srJeecl is a releva11t factor 1t 1s 11ot clec1s 1 ,1t. A very high degree of negligence must be jJroved to grou11d tl1e offe11ce of manslaughter. Regina 'V. Joseph Akinyemi, High Co� rt, LA/15C/1959, fecleral Territor}' of Lagos, 1959 Lagos Law Reports 70.1

Note 2:

" '' ,.

I, j P

••

1 �I

I . I

.. :� i... ! ' .. 'i . �5 i.' : ..I

.. I ,.:...-,. ;� · ·

'< '

' '. 'I ; l'.JI

:;.;;' �'\1'"1 lI,-� ,.,-f .. �

• • ••• :

';� I �

.!. �

CRIMINAL GUILT

154

Criminal Code of tlie Hungarian Peoples Republic (195Q)I7

Sect. 17. - Neglig e1ice. A. crime is due to 11eglige11ce if tl1_e perpetrator forese_es tl1e consequences of liis coi,duct bttt is recklessly co11fident t)1at they will not ensu e or if lie fails to foresee st1cl1 cor�seque11ces becat1se of lack of reasonably expectable care or circt1mspectio11.

•

America11 La\V Institttte, Model Penal Code (1962) 18 ,

Sect. 2.02. - General Req11irements of Culpability. ( 1) Minimu1n Requirements of Ct,lpability. Except as provided in Section_ 2.05, a perso11 is not guilty of a11 offense unless l1e act_ed pu_rposely, knowingly, recklessly or 11egligently, as the law may require, with respect to each n1aterial element of the offense. (2) l(i11ds of Cr,{,lpability DefiJzed. . .. . . ( c) Recklessly.

I.; . I ,I! '·;1 1�:: I J! i • 1

I ! • I'

•

A person acts recl<lessly witl1 respect to a material element of an offe11se \vl1e11 lie co11sciot1sly clisregards a substantial and unjust ifiable risk tl1at tl·1e material eleme11t exists or will result from l1is co11duct. Tl1e risl< must be of s11cl1 a nature and degree that, co11sideri11g tl1e nature and purpose of tl1e actor's conduct and tl1e circumsta11ces l<11own to l1im, its disregard ir1volves a gross deviation from tl1e standard of conduct that a law-abiding person \xrould observe in the actor's situation.

II ( : :

l1 I

' S: ' ; '

• I' 1 lq

lII

.· '

I I I, '

! f'

{ d) Negligently. A perso11 acts neglige11tly \vith respect to a n1aterial element of an

I •

t l 1 I

I I I

I l•

I1 _. .

•

I •

l ,. I;

of.fe11se \X1l1en l1e sl1ot1ld be a\vare of a substa11tial and unjust ifiable risl< tl1at tl1e 1nc1terial eleme11t exists or will result from his condttc t. Tl1e risk n1ust be of sucl1 a 11att1re and degree that the acto�'s failt1re to perceive it, considering tl1e natt1re and purpose of l11s co11dt1ct a11d tl1e circ11msta11tes k110\vn to l1im involves a gross deviatio11 fron1 the sta11dard of car e tl1at a rea�onable per soi, would observe i11 tl1e actor's situation. •

Williams, Wl1y Pt111isl1 Negligencet9

I, '. II

; I

�'

I I

.I .1

I ' I

•

Note 3: The Purpose of Punishing Neglige nce

• •

-·--

-= . he _use of . tl1e crin1inal la w to JJUn d. ; ng e le ch al ish negligence has been An Jmer1can writer expressed tl1e obje - -; ction as follows: ''If tile defendaiit, being mistaken as is e to material facts, is to b P�- �•· ·'*'h-'"'-- -· ·-l� .-.:.. '

17. Translation, P. Lamberg (Corv ina Press) 18. Proposed Official Draft. 19. Williams, Criminal Law 122-12 4_

. ..

1� ·.

':" .

� -.. - . T�i ��.. r: :-�"' . -__,__ -:��

.. � � ---· -� --

-...-- .....=-:: --= :�-��- ·._.,.:�-� - -

. __ -��-.

7-::_ ___�7,:g-

= · ·- - - -

NEGLIGENCE

155

ed because hi s mistake is one which an average a 1 wouId not m a ke, . 1 punishment will sometimes be inflicted when th e cr1m1na 1:1 ! l mind does not · ex1st. suc h a resu 1t ·1s contrary to fundament al pr1nc1p · · I es, a11 d 1s · 1y p1 a1n · unjust for a man 5 h ou Id not be held criminal because of lacl<: of inteliigence.''(1)

The retributive tlieory of pt111isl1ment is open to many objections, which are o_f e_ ven greater force \Vhen afJplied to i11adverte11t 11eglicrence tl1an in crimes req�irin� mens ref!'· So� e people are bor11 recl<less, cluinsy, tlioughtless, inat tentive, trre�po_nsible, wit1, a bad metnory a11d a slow ''reaction ti1ne''. Witl1 the _best w�ll In tl,e :world, we all of tts at s01ne ti1nes i ii ottr lives make negligent mt�takes.. It 1s l1ard to see 110\v jt1stice (as distinct from some 11tilitarian reason) requires mistakes to be pt111islied. A�a�n, tl1e d_eterrent t�1eory \vl1i:h is norn1ally acceJJted as a justificatior1 1 f?r cr1m1nal JJt1r11shn1ent, find s itself 111 some difficulty wlien applied to neg ligence. At best tl1e deterre11_t . effect of tl,e legal sa.nctio11 is a 1natter of faitl1 ra�hei: tl,an o! proved scient1f1c fact; but tl1ere is 110 department i11 \vliich this fa1th is les� firmly �rou11ded . than �li�t of 11eglige1ice. I-Iardly any motorist but does not firmly b�lteve tl1at tf he is i11volvecl i11 a11 accide11t it will be tl,e otl1e� fellow's fault. It 1;1ay see1n, tlierefore, tl1at the tlireat of pu11 isl1me11 t for negligence m11st pass l11m by, because lie does 1iot realise tl1at it is acld ressed to him. Even if a person ad t11its tl,at lie occasio11ally mal<es a i1eglige11t 1nistal(e, how, in the na ture of tl1ings, cati pt1nish111ent for i11advertence serve to cieter?

(Jne may go even furtl1er and say tliat tl1e doubts atter1cta11t 11po11 tl1e punishment of negligence apply also, i1i son1e degree, to tl1e JJtt11ish111e11t of recklessness.

Superficially it may appear to be more j11st to pt11iisl1 reck:lessr1ess tl1ar1 to punish inadvertent neglige11ce. Yet the trutl1 is tl1at tl1is clisli11ctio11 may 111ere I}' involve a discrii11i1iatio1i bet\x,ee11 JJerso11s sufferi11g fiot11 etnotional i11stalJili l 1• or lack of wisdom and perso11s s11fferi11g· from IJOor i11telligence. 1\11 t111i11 tel ligent person ma}· fail to foresee a conseq11ence, a11d so be acc1t1itted of recl< lessness. An intellige1i t perso11 1nay foresee ll1e co11seq11e11ce, or at least tl1e possibility of the consequence, and yet, owi11g to Iacl{ of judgme11 t, believe that he can so act as to avert it. His ''fa11lt'' 1r1ay co11sist in a11 ini1Jet11osity which prevents him from restrai11ing l1imself ai1d \xraiting till tl1e danger is past. This impetuosity is just as mucl1 a const1tt1tio11al deficie11cy as lack of foresigi1t_ r �le _fo ssi is. po it as t jus t, tha is t e11 J1m nis pt1 of r ou The argument in fav punishment to cause a perso1i to exercise greate_r co11trol ove: 111s acts 111 vie\v of the known dangers, so it is possible for pt111!shment to bring. a�out g_reater foresight, by causiiig the subject to stop an d tl1111k before comm1tt1ng himself to a course of conduct. t ec of sp i11 r re . te �e a� m t en im isl tn pt at tli is A supporting consider ation . some subsidiary rule of prttdence the breach . of \vl1icl1 1s 111t_e1itio11al. Altl1ot1gl1 !1 a11 element te e of er tli ts , ed �d te 1n t no is g in iv h dr ! e harmful result of careless tn the careless driving tliat is intended, (e.g., _pull1ng out �n a blind corner), e es tl1 of nc ta ns u1 rc e :• t�1 of 11 10 ct lle co re a � an the punishment, coupled wit� 1 e1 ay e� m d �, aii ak 1st m s 111 at pe re to t no ci er ac dent, may ''condition'' the driv . so al ay 1m m y 1t bl a iv ce on C . ts ec sp re r l1e us ca e him to be more careful in ot (1)

Keedy in 22 Harvard L. Rev. 84.

• ' '!

• :P

� '1 ' ''' t .• '· ·. f ,:1, '.'

' '

I ·� �

J ·' ..

•' .. I '

; ·' ) '

• ·f. '

..'

• .j'' ',1'

•• I ')

I•�

I ,, \ J I ·'

II ' '

' '

•I •

j I ' •

!..' ; _. :

I' •• '. .. '

' r �:

I• •

. . : ".'. · ;:: ·.

' ' . '' ' '

: ·?

'. � . '...... · . :.. 1'. ... :' • .I .t.=.• .: '

CRIMINAL GUil T

156

rove the cond uct of otliers who come to k�ow of the mistake that was mad e. nishment u p of y ma_ reat 1 not tl the be gh u altho fn the same way, able to make me remember something that I have already forgotten, 1t may cause me so to i1npress a fact on my mind that I do not fo rget. e t es nc no d? te er go dv v na i _ ery far , of t en m sh 11i p� lie t r_ fo n 1·11is justificatio l. n� 1o pt t e11 wh�re ce Ev en ex m sh ni pu 1 cl su . g 1n ak 1n n 1 y el is w and tlie law acts g in at n e, er as fi a op a of r� �rn fo w e ing h t_ s ke ta st be it d, se po im is nt ,e punisJ1n r _ th e past. Loss of liberty fo t en m sh ni u p ial nt ta bs u s a as n a tl1 r he for tlie future ra t ly nt rte ve ad If m n _ I . r _ ha e e_ th us ca o of w� e os tl1 r fo re su ea m y ar ss ce a ne is not 1 1s present occ�pat1o_n, l 1n er r1� _da l cia so a _ be to as nt e t pe fei,der is so incom ds o cti tho of rre me co r lde n fail) �I f 1 ( t b1:1 �1m �e e:a arc i11c t to the remedy is no . er ng da a S I he h 11c \Vl 1n ity t1v ac e th 1n to exclude l1i 1 n fro •

•

Questions

1. •• '

;, .

J1 �· 11 r ':

II '

•I I

•

• I•' I

•

,., ,,,

ll ..i . :1

Ii I

' ' I

•

I I

' I lj,1 . '

' 1·

Is it useful a11d proper to paraphrase the Art. 59 test of negligence as follO\VS:

Did tl1e defenda11t, having a certain age, experience, educa tion, occupa tion a11d ra11!-.:, fail to t al<e sucl1 precautio11s as might reaso11ably be expected of sL1ch a 1na11 in the circu1ns ta11ces of tl1e case? . 2 Wl1at does Pancl1aud mean by the objective and su bjective eleme nts of negligence? See s11.pra at pp. 6-7 for preferred termi nology. Which standard is incorpora ted \xritl1i11 Art. 59? What objections can you see to appl)ring an exclusively external or an exclL1sivel)' individ ual standard? Which st and ard best upholds t he Ar t. 1 pu rpose of ensurino- ''order, peace and tl1e l security of state... ''? Wl,at is Justice Holmes' concern witl1 the applica tion of an individual standard? l 3. Assume in tl1e case of Ato Terfu that tl1e t\xro doctors' testimony was as f O11 O\X'S: '.'Incident� such as tl1 at in tl1e instant case happen very rarely in med ical pract ice; tl1ey 1nay occur l1owever1 if a doctor does not carefully l1old l1 is patie nt, thereby cau;ing oblique injection." ' -Shou!d }\to Terfu be convicte d of negligent homicide under Art. 526 P.C.E., �1ve 11 tl�e _above tes ti1nony? Was the court in the Makonnen case correct 1n conv1c t 1 1 1g for 11eglige11t l'lon1icide? 4. Does Art. 59 reqt�ire a l1igl1 degree of ne gligence? See Note t for the � com�?n law .re q uirement of ''gross'' negligence. Wl1at is the purpose of --J re� uiring a higl1 degree of negligence? Did Ato Makonnen comm it wha t 1 m1gl1t be called ''gross'' negligence? d nt 5. What purp?se is served.by punishi11g Ato Mak me h pun is J Wl1at onn en? sl,oul<l �e tmp�sed on him under tt1e pri11 ciples set o ut in tl1e P:C.E? i ou_ l t be rq!!! s er a_ s sugge_sted i n Not� 3, nen f on lv1ak to ove Ato rem � s oJ i tas a b\vu1s dr vI er r . o 1 nv al1da t e h1 s driving license? _ ] -_ d 6. �an one be_ co,,vic e rat_ ted of negligence with respect to any crime enume 1 d· �si 111 th� Sp ctal ?�rt? Sl,oul_ d .t l.1 e negligence of co _j _ i11j ured party be the =-: s ere? 1n. � ete_r1:11111ng the . liab1 l1ty of the defend i eed o r p cri min c al ant in n� ...... as 1t I s 1 n c1v1l proceed1 1 1gs? ..� 0

•

,,,_:��-�- =..

·-�l

·-

•

-:i rl -zJ

--�

-,--_

NEGLIGENCE

157

Problems

Determine in each o f th e following cas · · es whet_her the acto _ r is guilty of int ention, indirect intent.Ion , ad erten direct n� gl 1g en ce or inadvertent 11eg � ! 9 ligence under Arts. 58 and 5 P . C · E . if he 1s either: 1. a responsible adult living in Addis Ababa, o r 2. a raiher poor farmer of sixty ycar5 \vho l1a s re ce co 11l ly 111 e to Addis A ba ba from tlie mot11 1tai11s 11ortl1 of Oo1 1da1· to visit l1is s011's family. a. A , whi_le JJla)'ir1g \Villi a gu1_1 ll1at l1e thi 11ks is u11loaded, fJoi 11 ts it at a friend a11d f)ttlls tl1e trigger causing l1i fr s ie11d's deatl1. b. B, avenging an insult to l1 is son, sl1oots tl1e 1na 11 w l 1 0 uttered tl1e instill. c.

C, a ht1n�e r, sigl1ts a �io1� bt1t also notices another h1111ter nearby; not want11 1g to lose 111s 11011, lie sl1oots a11y\x,ay l<illi r1cr tl1e otl1er 0 '

hunter. d.

e. f.

D ligl1ts candles i11 l1 is l1orne a11d, beir1g callecI a\vay, leaves tl1e111 b11rning, ca11si11g a fire \Vl1icl1 bt1 r11s dow 1 1 J1is 11eigl1bor's l1 ot1se.

E sl1oots i11lo a tej bet1 i11 te11ding to frigl1te11 tt1e ocCLipa11ts, bt1t

, •f ' ,

' 1 '.

. ,.

I ·I I

.., ., .:, :. ."

i11 fact kills a custo1ner.

f, believi11g tl1at lie is a goocl driver and will i1ot l111rt ;1i1yc)11c, drives tl1rough tl1 e Piazzct at 90 l{ilc)t11etres a11 l1011r :111cl !<ill$ ;t pedestrian.

' I '' •. t

Set out exactly l1 ow yotr wo11Id proJJose a� Pt1blic Prosec11tor to best prove a case agair1 st Ato A 11nder Art. 526 P.C.E. C_are f11lly relate, wl1� rever relevant, the facts to tl1 e law. Remember tl1 at ''caL1sat1on may be esse1 1t1al to the proof of your case. 11

Recommended Readings

Schonbrod c. Procureur Gen era l J,, C'ar1tor, de Berne, Rq 88. IV 4, JT IV 39 ( ! 962) (recent S1iX,iss jurisJ) rudence not allowing probat1011 1 1 1 tl1e case of r1egl1genf

.' ' '

Yott are a Pt1blic Prosect1tor witl1i11 a cerlair1 jt1risclictic) 11 i11 I:tl1i c)1)ia. Several relatives of a certair1 old 1na11 co111 e to )'OL1r office �tt1ll reI,tte tl1e f<)l lowing sad facts: Ato A, a respo 11sible official i11 a gover 11111e11t 111i11istr)', \Vas c1t1ite 1�1te to an aJJpointment \X'itl1 a foreig 1 1 diJJlomat. f\ l1ailed a taxi ar1cl, LI!)<)Il re�tcl1ing his destination, rapidly Of)e11ed tl1e door of l1is taxi \vitl1ot1t Iool(it1g to the rea r. An automobile a1JJJroacl1 i11g fro 1 n bel1incl at a 11or 1 11al dista11ce a11d speed, i 11 order to a void hitti11g Ato A, l1ad to S\verve to tl1 e sicle of tl1 e road where t1nfortu11ately an old 1na11 \\fas sta11ding. The old 1na11 \Vas knocked down and seriousl)' i 1 1jt1red. Several perso11s sta11cli11g 11earby cal led a JJoliceman wl10 rusl1ed to tl1e site of tl1e accide1 1t. 1 11 l1is atternJJt to help the old man, wl10 was tl1e11 co11scio11sr tl1e JJolice111� 11 lifted_l1 i111 LIJJ to carry him toward a ·hOSJJital. lie l1ad 11ot, l1owever, gr1JJIJed 1111n fir1nly and the old man agai 1 1 fell to tl1e gro1111d wl1icl1 aggravated l1is co11ditio11 and led to his death soon tl1ereafter.

'\�

I ,t

� I �·• '-

I! I< I rl II • I ,I . I :I�

rip

It I t'

I• '

• ,, r I •Ji

11,I (

' .

. '

! .. : '' . . '

.. ..."

158

CRIMINAL GUILT

driving due to ii1 toxication; n. b. comprehensive note by Heim following case). Baumann c. Ench et Procureur Genera� du Can�on de Berne, RO 85 IV 24, JT IV t negl1ge maltreatment concern111g of an ani mal 107 (1959) (Swiss case :1 _ which also briefly discusses ad\1ertent and inadvertent negligence). Ryu, The New Korean Criminal_ Co�e of 9ctober �, ! 953, 48 .J. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 280 (1957) (brief d1scuss1on of cr1m1nal negligence in Korean ' German and Anglo-American law).

Williams, Criminal law 53-67, 100-124 (clear statement of the law of negligence i11 the common la\v). I-Iall, General Principles of Criminal Law 105-146 (tl1oughtful discussion of the tl1eory a11d case la\v of criminal negligence). J\1erle, Droit Penal 243-252 (sl1ort discttssion of negligence in French penal law). feldbrugge, .5oviet Crimi11al Law, 9 Law in Eastern Et,rope 175-180 (1964) (short statement on negligence in Soviet criminal law). l I ft f I•

I l\ ' I

1i, 4 ' ·: ,. II f; \

,, "' " [.

'• I

I� ' '

u 'li I• •• '

••

'' 'J

I: ' ,, L, I II I

1 1 ,

! ,!

I ·' t

·11

I II " I 'n " \ I ·

' '\

l II

'4 • "

l , l

.. '

•

,I •i

---

, '.1 I

'..... 'it, -

I ,I '

- ·-

I .

-��

- .: � ---= +

' I

i :

-- - -- :,-, 1 �·�'.'�:::�__,-_ J - -·-

.,_,,� _ - --·-· --.....:. ---.--·--- --:;

. �-.--

CHAPTER 9

Criminal Responsibility SECTION A. ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBJLITY AND THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY

a. Tl1e JJrese,1t Law and its Origir1s PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA Art. 48. - Crimir1al Responsibility and Irresponsibility. l10 is res1Jo 1 1sible for l1is acts is alo11e liable to ( l) The_ offe11der JJL1111sl11ne 1 1t 111 1der tl1e provisio11s of crin1i 11 al Ia \V. A (Jerso� is 11ol reSJJ011sible fo_r l1i� acts u11der tl1e law �1l1e11, o,x,ing t� age, 1ll 1 1ess, ab11or1nal dela)' 111 111s developn1e11t or cleterioratio11 of 111s mental facttlties, l1e \Vas i11ca1Jable at tl1e tin1e o, l1 is act of 11ricler standi11 g the n�tt1re or co11 seq11e11ces of l1is act, or of reg�1lati11g l1is co11duct according to st1cl1 1111dersta11di 1 1g. (2) Tl1e Cot1rt 111ay orcler i 1 1 res1Ject of an irresJJOr1sible fJersor1 st1ci1 suitable meas11res of treatme11t or protectior1 as are fJrovicle[l b)' I,1v:r. (Art. 133-135).

., ' I ,., 'I

\l:7

•t I. • I:

•

•I I .I \

...:

•rt '

)

'. ''

I •

:I '

�I i

, r ·,

ATO OETATCHEW OIZAW v. TI-IE ADVOCATE GENERAL Supren1e Imperial Cortrt, Cri1ninal Aj,peal No. 9 5/ 51 ( 19 5 9 G. C.) I]. EtlJ. L. 11 (1964) EtlJiopia Vekatit 3, 1951 E. C. (february l 1, 1959 O.C.); J trstices: Afe11egus Tal,elle \Volde I-Jawariat, Dr. W. Bt1l1agiar, Blatta Bakele I-Iabte Micl1ael: - Tl1is is an appeal against tl1e judgment of the J f- igh Co11rt, \Vl1icl1 fot111d tl1e aJJpellant guilty of homicide i11 tl1e first clegree arid by 111ajority se11ten_ced tl1e �PJJeliant to dea tl1; �ccording to tl1e mi11ority j t1dgme11t a sen_tence of _ r1gorot1s_ 1mpr1sonment for life was considered a more suitable pu111sl1ment 1n the circumstances of the case. The facts in this case are not contested by tl1 e appella11t; indeed tl1ere can be no doubt w}1 atsoever that tl1e appella 11t killed Lietttenant Tsigeh Oeta11eh by shooti11 g him in tl1e back. Tl1e 011ly defe11� e i11 tl1e Higl, Court was, broadly speaking, one of itisa11ity, a11d _ eXJJert w1t11esses were called by t11e defe� ce to SUfJfJOrt tliis plea. Tl,e evidence of Dr: N.1ck A. �apotas, tl e � Medi cal Director of tl,e Ema1 1uel State Mental Hospital at Addts Ababa, 1s the relevant atid material evidence on tl1e point. !lie cone Iusion of tl1is . rnedical expert, wl,o t1ad the appellant under observat1011, ts tl,at the appella11t

t.t I

. ,.•

rl \1

'.d I

i ''

;

•

l . .... I

I' , ! • • 'i ,...

:: .·.....r·

i .�

I :· ' (

I ·.� ir

'._' ',: . . I"�.li:; .i .

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

160

1 e fu ll final OfJi11io 1 of tl1e expe t} e ot qu To ''. t)1 pa lio yc ps rt is a ''constittitioi,al up of gro _ the the to 1 ,gs loi emotionally b� y all eci J es1 __ e or 1 1 ' t 1 1 lla (Je tl,e a1J e re th tu _111 na cts fe de _or by d ze r �t e co t a� ar cl1 rol of , i�s lit na rso pe l ica patl,olog . e y are 1m�ulsive ,_ tl1 l1ty 11a �so pe the of 1on 1ct fu1 ive and the emotional or affect 1 ys1cal, psychological, profes (pl ain str d a11 ess str of nt ou 11 a1 l ua us e Th excitable. d 1ormal ind�vidual 1 le_ cal or so� e ag r e_ av tl�e in 1, 1icl \vl e') lir, cip s, ctis ry ita sional, ' i nil 1s, for t! 1 1s kind of co11 st1 tutional , 1 1 0_ 1 ct r�a al 1orm abr a1,y it elic would not sed rea inc �l1e to r stre11gth ?f their tl1e 1 e g 1 11 0� �, 1 a1 , ong str too l,y, psycl,opat l 1d restrai n them tro 1 con a_ ely r1at fOJJ J a(Jf to ty 1 1 l b 1na e tl1 to or es driv ual instinct _ inay bri11g about a11 t11!t1sually pronot111ced tende 1cy to yiel� to i1npulses of viole 11ce witl1ot1t restraint a11d tl1us become da11gerous to society. Tl1e grot111ds of apJJeal are st1 bstan tiall1·: (a) tl1at tl1e J-Iigl1 Co11rt \vrongly inter1Jre t ed tl1e provisions of Articles 48 ancl 49 i11 tl1at it co11fi11ed itself to tl1e consideratio11 a11d i11te rpretation of tl1e 1nedico-legal pl1rase ''me1 1tal disease'' , a11 exJJression wl1ich does not a1JJ1 ear i11 tl1ose articles; (b) tl1at tl1e I I- igl1 Co11rt failed to distir1gt1 isl1 bet\veen abnorrnalitie s of the cog11itio11 from tl1ose of affectivity, a n1ate rial element wl1 icl1 is warranted by botl1 tl1e said Articles 48 a11d 49; 1

ll•Jllli

1I,, i'

. . ' '' .

,,,..,�

\I• t... II

' i " ." . ll l ' ,', '" ' I \ I l'O

• I • II

<•

. II

• '

I I I

i-1 j

'"' I l 1

I•

•

•; I • I

'\ I

•I

I .'

II II I

I •

I •• 'i

� t �'

i-,j : tt I

tt I

(c) tl1at tl1e Higl·1 Co11rt base d its decisio11 on tl1e sta11dards of a norrnal person, \x1 l1ich is co11 trary to Article 51 and also ig11ored tl1e fi11ding of tl1e e xpert \Y1itne ss anci overlooked tl1e definite fi11ding tl,at tl,e appel lar1t is a ''co11sti t11ti 011al JJsycho path''.

Now 11r1der Article 48 of the Pe nal Code a pe rso11 is not re sponsible for his acts a11d tl1e re fore 11ot JJu11isl1able if: (i) at tl1e time of tl1e �ct l1e \Vas incapable of understandi11 g tl1e 11ature or co11seqL1ence s o! l11s act or of regulati1 1g· l1is condLtct according to such 1111derstand111g, a11d (ii) sucl1 sta_te i� dt1e to_ age, ill11e ss, ab11ormal delay i11 his de velop1 nent or de ter1orat1 0 1 1 of his me11tal facL1lties. Simil�rl� t�iider Article 49, a JJe rso11 is 11 ot liable to tl1e ft1ll punishment1 becat1se or l1m1ted res1)onsibility, if: (i) at t l1_e tin·ie of tl1e act, lie \'Vas not fully ca1Jable of understa11di11 g the nattii e ai,d conse qt1e 11 ces there of or reg11 lating l1 is co11duct according to st1cl1 t111derstandi11g, and (ii) sue}, stat_ e was dtie to a dera11 gement of his mind or u,1derstan��ng, ' or an ari ested menta l deve lop nen t or an abnormal or deficient condition. j r . The a?vocate for the appellant correctly pointed ut that neither o o f these A-out-r.c:____ .::.::.....;.., Jc 1e e ntioi,s ��ntal diseases''; .t-}L sib ili 11 und _ e r ti 1 irre spo ese tw o the Article s par_fiaT res_ p�ns1h1 Iity _of the <?ffe1 1der is ba o? ps yc tli e se d on tw o criteria, tl1at is, lo ! al cr e 10 11 affect111 g tl1 e tntel I igen t af n 1 t er io ce a cr 1d it ps e l al yc 1 hologic f@cr th JJl�::::::: vo1I t1011. � ��t1 ,e r tl1ese two _criteria ine ur1de : for m me dic par t of of the bra nch e 1 e 11 of mei� ta ! disease l1 tl se t ? s s to e r not i too tech11ical a poi11t �1�� ;� l; �� · t �j�-.�.- 0 be r111 e -, · · a; 11 : t _o 1e y n1a I 1a . f11 e l so t ion r 11t att 1 of tl m e l � �� : however that these � w�g c1 n l s 1 it e r1a eg 1 l av e been introduced in moder11 I _ � ·� - r..f.:--:_,__-. : mode rn 'ined1·co-Jr.:,.._gal sc1e11ce h ,.. . . 1 \..--:-: �-- J 3 1 r1nc a · s p .. f ct Ott1 e 1 1· t n�ce ssary to adm1_ t th " :; : � · .,, l)artial responsibilit·y ctLI e tO h . -c ,i ': 1 d _ : ; :. :· . e.. c erta1n factors 111 the 11t1 n1a 11 n1111d arrd bo · y .: \V =: ---- -- � - ...,.,_ 1

I I

+ '

! I

11 •

_._

�·· "' :-···:.;::::=l ;:,�_. :--:--- · - -�..� ..- ._.,--, -_·:.�:i� - -. "

ABSOLUTE

IRRESPONSIBILITY

161

r duce a state or c �nditi on 11ot a1not111ting to i11sa11 i ty, bt1t \Xiii icl1 form a de �te branch of me dtc�l J)Sfcl,ology. lv\oder11 scie11ce l1as made progress in tl1e � f1n1 study of _the huma!1 mtnd, 1ts l)?\v e rs a_11c! _,veal<r1esses, a1 1d disti1 1guisl1es bet\'(lee1 1 abno�ma li�y of mii,d, mei,tal • es1)ons1b1l 1ty, e1 11olio11 al i11stability, gross f)er so�al1ty disorder, an d so f?r_tl1 . Tl1e . ter1n psycl1 01)atl1'' as usecl i11 moder11 science has not really � def1111te n1ea1 11ng \Vl1icl1 i11dicates exactly ll1e state of mind or the p�yc�iological s�t-Ltf) ()f a partict1lar 1Jersor1; it is still a vagt1e term and does not �ndicate_ a 1Jart1ct1l�r state of n1i11cl or co11clitio11. 111 tl1is 1Jartict1lar case exp.er� ev_1dence ts to tl1e effect tl1 at ll1e a1)fJella11t is 111ore i1 1cli11ecl to give way to 111s 1nst1ncts tha11 a11otl1er JJe rso11 wl10 is 11or11 1ally referrecl to as '11 or111al''. He fully u11�ers!a� ds tl �e 11ature ar1 cl co11seq11e11ces of l1is acts; l1 e is 1 1ot st1l1j cct to act on an 1rres1st1ble 1m1Jt1lse; l1e is simJJl)' i1 1cli1 1ed to t1se less resista1 1ce tl1a11 anotl, e r person_ to clo \Vl1 at lie l<110\x1 s is \Vro11g eve11 l<1 10\vi1 1g tl1e co11 seq11e11ces of l1 i s acts. It ts also clear tl1at tl1 is stale or co11clitio11 is 11ot dt1e to a�e, <lr illness, or ab11orn1al delay i11 l1is develo1Jn1e11t or cleterioratio11 of l1is 1ne11tal faculties; tl1 e appella11t ca.11 not, tl1erefore, rely 011 absolttte irres1)011sil1ility t111der Arti cle 48 botl1 becat1se tl1at Article does 11ot cover tl1 e cat1ses of 11is slate or co11dition an d also beca11se l1e ca111 1ot be saicl to be ,tl;s0!1tte l1· i11 c�1Ja!Jlc c)f cc>r1 trolling l1is acts or regt1 latir1g l1is co1 1clt1ct accordi11g to l1is 1 1r1clersta11cli11g. i'-lor is there ttnde r Article '"19 a dera11ge11 1e11t of 111i 11 cl or t111clersla11cli11g or arrl;stecl mental development; ancl tl1e 011ly 1natter to be co11siclerecl is ,xr!1etl1 er ti1cre is an abnormal or def i cie11t co11ditio11 \vitl1ir1 tl1 e i11ec1.11i11 g of tl1at 1\rticlc. l�l1c medi cal expert statecl tl,at tl1e tJ:JJe of co11 slitt1tio11rll J)S)'Cl1to i1Jatl1 to \'{·l1icl1 tl1e appellant belongs is ir1clined, i11 certain circL1i11 sta11ces, to yielcl to i1r11J_t1l_scs of violenc e \Vitl1ot1t restrai11t \vl1ile st1cl1 circ11111star1ces v:rc•1.1 lcl 11ot el1c1t ,1.11.Y' abnormal reaction i1 1 tl1e c�se of tl1e so-callecl J'11or111al'' i11cli\ icl11�tl. -r11 is state or con dition may arise ottt of \rariot1s cat1ses; . tl1t1s _a �ers?r1 \x,110 is irtclrall�/ perverted is more or less i11 capable of co11�roll111g· 111s 111st,111cts, l111t i� i� _L1111 _ >11�� versally acknowledged tl1at s11cl1_ a [Jer�o11 1s 11 ot JJrotectec1 b)' ll1e 1 1c v1_s1 � : : oI of Article 48 or 49. Article 49 1s 11ot 111te11clecl to cover a case ()f_ '-:_..:· eal-.11ess character wl1 i cl1, having regard to a 11or111,1l i11cliviclt1al, 111,i)r be sa1(l _t? be '';:1.11 abnormal or deficie11 t co11ditio11." Tl1e cat1se of tl1 e ab11or111al or clef1�1e11t c:(}Jt _ dition within the n1ea,,ing of Article ,19 111l1st be clL1e l? _so11 1e b1olog1cal f�1clc)r and n ot such factors as 11pbri11gi11g or al1nos1)l1ere of llv1 11g. N e1·ther A·r t·tcI e 48 or Arti cl e 49 cover tl1e prese11t c;;1se; tl1e a 1�1Jella�·1t 1 cl tl,e I-Iigl1 Co11rt ,,,,1s r1gl1t 111 a1 e ibl m11st be cons1 ct ere d t o �e fttlly respo11s . . . · 1 cleoc:r re:.e. 1 f irs fin ding him guilty· of i11te11tio11al l101111c1de 1n tie e es r tl1 id fo o� cie (Jr Co l 11a Pe e tl1 of 2 52 e l c ti Ar e W'Lh nc J regard t O sente senten ce of deatl1 or tl1 e sei iteiice ' . ,. 0f rigoro115 i 111JJri 5011 n1e11t for I1fe. Tl1e facts d se 1is sn re di efo , er tl, 5 , 1· al e Jp e , ar Tl 1 1 1 eat d ·1n th·1s case 1ust1 · ·f y t l1e s ent e11c e of · h Cott rt are co11fir111 ed. .l l1 e i-i ig at1d the conviction and the s e ntenc e of 1 tl· e ,vi �1c la c 1� co i11 ac y st aje M l ria Je 1 111 lis I 1 (Sentence of death confirmed by the Revised Constitution of Ethiopi,t, Ar t. 59, aiid tlie Code of Cr1111111al Procedure, Art. 204. - ed.). 11

.,,

"ft I � \: . ,. •

... .. .'' 1

' , .I r ,,, F

., I I

E S A C 'S N E T H O A M'N ) 3 4 8 1 ( 0 0 2 . F d n a l. C House of Lords, 10 Eng land , c.1 re r1 c o 11 se 11 11 ru D rd a v \-d E f o [The defendant was indicted for the murder

a'•

,, I •

·'

' I,, ,,, .. :

"j;

\ 1! I

•

, ,, (•

...

' ' '

. '

.'. '

,·

I' •I.. '

�': :. '

,:' • " •' ' ', . :

...

CRIMINAL

162

RESPONSIBILITY

. def_ence led_ eviden�e of e Th el Pe t . r be Ro �· Si , er ist ac . tary to tl,e Pritiie N\iri d rbi n mo ta1 �er � l1 t del 1 s1on s. The w_ 11 �10 ses ob l11s rly ula tic par cused's iiisaiiit)', ge to ar he t _ _ch s hi 1n r Ju al, nd Ti � e c _ st ate d sti Ju f_ iie Cl rd Lo e, dg jtt g iii id es iJr t tl1e t1m� th e �ct 1n q�est1 on was a er eth wh IS d ne 1111 ter de be ''Tlie qtiestioii to derstand1ng, so as to s u� of hi e us the _ t no d ha or d !1a 1er 1 iso JJr comi,,itted, tlie t . I� the Jurors s�ould . be of ac ed ck �1 or g on \vr a ing do s l<nO\xr tl,at lie wa t l1 e tim e he committed 1t, _that at le, 1s1b seI 1ot 1 as 1 \X 1er so1 pri opii,ioi, tliat tlie lie \xras violatirio- tlie la,xrs both of Ood and man, then he would be entitled to a verclict iii bhis favot1r; bttt if, on the co11trary, they :Vere of opinion that ,vli e11 lie co111111itt.ed tl1 e act l1 e \xras i11 a sound state of mind, then their verdict ot guilty, on the t 111ust be acrai11st l1iI11." Tl1 e jury rett1rned a ver dic of ''N grot111cl of i11 s� 11it)1. Tl·1e case attracted co11siderable att_e11tio!1 and the verdict as \\:,ell as tl1e cre11eral JJroble111 of tl1e defe11ce of legal 1nsan1ty was debate d in tl1e J-Iotise of Lorcls. f\s a resL1 lt tl1e La\v' Lords were invited to attend the of Lords for tl1e 1Jur1Jose of delivering a11swers to certain questions 1 Iot1se 1Jro1Jol111ded to tl1 e111. T:1c fainous ''lv\'Nagl1ten rule'' is found in t he answer tc1 tl1e secor1cl a11cl tl1ircl qt1estio11s delivered by Lord Chief Jus tice Tindal].1

'1 1 " ·

'Los

1•

�,, i:. ' ·:

.I' L; \ :

l) I

I:'

I "

r ,•

t· .••'

YoL1 r Lordsl1 i1Js are jJleased to i11quire of tis, secondly, ''What are the pro1Jer c1t1estio11s to be st1b111itted to tl1e jt1ry, \vhere a person alleged to be afflict ed \Villi i11sa11e delL1 sio11 res1Jecti11g 01 1e or 111ore partict1lar subjects or per sons, is cl1arged ,x.ritl1 tl1e com 1 11issio11 of a crime (mt1rder, for example), a11d insanity is set t11J as a defe1 1ce?'' A11d, tl1 irdly, ''l11 wl1at terms ought tl1 e qu estion to be left to tl1e jL1r�/ as to tl1 e 1Jriso11er' s state of mi11d at tl1e time 1 \Vl1e11 tl1e act ,vas co111111itted? And as tl1ese two questions appear to us to be 1nore co11venie11tly a11s\verecl togetl1er, we l1ave to submit our opinion to lJe, tl1 at tl1e jt1 rors ot1 gl1t to be told i11 all cases tl1at every man is to be 1JresL1111ed to be sane, a11d to jJOssess a sufficient degree of reason to . be !·es 1Jo1 1sible for l1is crimes, u11til tl1 e co11trary be proved to tl1 eir sat1sfact1011; a11d tl1at to establisl1 a defe11ce 011 tl1e grou11d of i11sanity, it must be clear!)' jJroved tl1at, at tl1e ti111e of tl1e comn1itti110- of the act the party acct1sed was laboL1ri11g t111 cler sL1 cl1 a defect of reaso� from dis�ase of the 11 1i11d_1 as 11ot �o 1<11 0,v tl1 e r1att1re a1 1cl qt1ality of tl1e a�t lie was doing; or, if lie d1cl _ l<nO\XI 1t, tl,at l1e dicl 11ot 1<1 10\x, lie \Vas doi11g \vl1 at \Vas wrong. Tl1e mode of l):,t�tt111g tl1 e latter r)art of tl·1e qL1 estio11 to tl1e jL1ry on tl1 ese occasio11s has g�11e1 a 11 >' lJee11, \vl1etl1er tl1e acct1secl at tl1e tirne of d oing the act knew the d1ffere1 1ce bet\veer� rigl1t a11d \x,rong: \x1]1icl1 111ode tl,ouo-li rarely if ever lead ing to ar,_)' 1111. s ak� ,xr1 tl1 tl1 e jLtry, is 11ot, as, \Ve co�ceive,I:::, so acc�rate when put ge e 1 ally __a1�1cl 111 l:l1e abstr�ct, as \Xtl1e1 1 J)Ut \Xlitl, referer,ce to tlie par�y' s J<nowl ed�t:,e of I igl�t aiid ,xrr_011 g 1n res1Ject of tl1e very act \vitl1 whicl1 l1e 1 s charged . 1 f tlie. qtiestio_1 1 \\:,ere to be jJttt as to tl1e l(tlO\x,ledge of tl1 e accused solely and excl�1s1_vely \VI!l1 re_fere11ce to tl1e la,xr of tl,e lan , it migl, tei,d to conf o und d t tlie JLtI Y, by 111dtic111g �l1e11: to believe tl1at kno\vledge of th e Iaw, ac an tt1 al ?f tlie .1�11 cl \xras esse11t1al 1n orcler to lead to co a th e w . er e l 11v ict a io \v n· 1 P 3 ! IS acl111:111ste1�ed U)J01 1 tl1 e pri11ciple tl1 at ever) e s1v ' clu co n ak ' en o11e must be t ly. to l\tlO\V it, witl,oLtt JJroof tl1at lie do co n s wa ed es ac k11ow it. If t he cus sc10L1s tl1 at. tl1e act w s o11 e \xrl1icl1 he ot at s wa ac t tl1 1g e l1t t1o if t a1 do to 1d , � tl1e sa1ne t1111e co11 tra1 y to tlie la" \xr of tl al . usu . tl1e d an ,e I e; 1 d a bl a11 , ,e IS punt s h cottrse tl1erefore 11�5. b eei7 to leave tl1e arty p e tl r i e j que wl1e stio tl1 11 to ury , tl1e t cc· 1sed I,ad a st1 ff1c1e11t clegree of reas n a on t o k11ow tl1at he was doing :, ,a t ,x,as \vror g i : and tliis cot1rs e we tl1i11l{ is correct, accon1 Ja11ied wi h s ach l ue 1 '

, II

" I1

''< I '-

I �·I Ii " .

·1

,, l ••

I I

I ''

I ••

iI (� . .. t:

I I I

J I

II II ,,' I I

'I <

1, I I

I ;

I I

Paulsen and Kadish., Crimi11al L,iu; 312.

J J l 1'

j l

ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY

163

observati� n s a n d expla11atio11s as tl1e circu1nstances of eacl1 JJartic11lar case may require. THE INABILIT·y TO REGULATE CONDUCT: TI-IE IRRESISTIBLE Ilv\PULSE2 Rolli11 Perki11s . .. A \X'Ord witl1 refere11ce to tl1e 111ea11i11rr of tl1e ter111 ''irresistible in1pulse'' 111ay serve a 11sef�1l p11r1Jose.... Do;s ''irresistible imt)ttlse'' inea11 one tl,_at cottlli 11ot be res1�ted 1111�er atl)' circt1111sta11ces, or 011e tl1at ca11not be resisted tinder tl1e JJl rtICLt lar ct rc111nsta11ces? If tl1ere is 111edical evide11ce i1-1 a larce11y _case. l� tl1e_ l'.tfect tl1at tl1e cl_cfc11cla11t tool<: tl1e proJJerty as tl1e res11!t of a11 1rres1st1ble 1111J)ttlse, ,�011ld it be fair to ask tl,e expert: ''Cot1ld tl1e If!l pttls� to tal(e tl,_e 1Jro1Jerty I·1ave bee11 resisted if tl1ere had L,ee11 a IJOlicer1e�rby?'' If tl1at is 11ot a fair qtteslio11, tl1e11 certai11ly 1na11 111 un1forn1 sta11d111g _ tl1e cour� wa� �orrect 111 Sa}·111g·: ''B11t if a11 i11fl11e11ce be so pO\'verfLtl as to be termed 1rres1st1ble, so 1n11cl1 ll1e 111ore reaso11 is tl1ere \v}1y we sl1011ld 11ot withcl ra\V an)' of tl1e sa fegt1ard s te11ct i11g to co1111teract it." In ot l1er \VO rds some coLtrts l1ave refttsecl to recog11ize irresistible imJJt1Ise as a defe11se to a crimir1al charge beca11se tl1ey �'ere 11ot co11vinced tl1at tl1ese inlf)ltlsive 11rges cannot be i11hibi ted. ... Wl1at seems to be tl1e earliest clear�c11t recog11ition of irresistible ir11pulse as a possible grot111d of defe11se 011 tl1e IJart pf 011e \vho l<11ew ,vl1at l1e \Vas doing ar1d 11nderstood tl1at it \vas \vro11g, is fo1111d iri a11 ir1str11cti011 give11 by Cl1ief J 11s tice Gibso11 to a Pe1111sylva11ia jLtry in 18£16. f-Ie said: ''But tl1ere is a n1oral or l1on1icid,1l i11sa11it)', co11sisti11g of a11 irresistible inclination to kill, or to com 111it s01ne ot l1er JJarticttlar offense. Tl1ere m<!y be an t111see11 liga1ne11t 1)ressi11g 011 tl1e 111i11d1 drawi,,g it to co11seL1t1e11ces \vhich it sees but car111ot avoid, a11d 1Jlaci11g it t111der a coercion, \Vl1icl1 \vl1ilc its results are clearly perceived, is i11capable of resista11ce.''( 14 > A few years later tl1e matter \X!as fJttl i11 tl1is langttage by Cl,ief J ttstice Dillon, of Iowa: ''B11t if from tl1e observation a11d co11c11rre11t testimony of medical n1en who' m�ke tlie study of i11sa11ity a speciall):,. it sl1all be d�fi11itely esta�Iishe? to be tru e that tl1ere is ar1 ttnsou11d co11d1t1011 of tl1e mind, - tl,at 1s, a di seased co�dition of the mi11d, in wl1icl1, tl1ougl1 a perso11 abstractly l<nows that a given act is w�ong, lie_ is yet, b:y a11 _in�ane impl!lse, that is, an �mpulse proceeding from a diseased intellect ! 1rres1st1bly dr�ven to commit 1t,. the law must modify its a11cie11t doctr1n�s and recognize.the _trutl1, and give to this condition, wl1en it is satisfactorily sl1own to exist, its exculpatory effect.''( 15) r d, ve as ize ne 1as be�n 1Jl be em it let � t, tes _ lse pu im le ib ist es The insane irr viewed as a substitute fo r M'Naghten but only as an add1t1011al defense 1n cases of mental disorder. 2. Perkins, Criminal law 758-760. ( 14) Commonwealth 'V. Mosler, 4 Pennsylvania 267 (1846). (15) State v. Filter# 25 Iowa 82-83 (1868).

· •1

t '•

• •

'". ':. 1, ; " ' II

t1 I '

rl I, •

....

,, ,,. ,'. ,

.. ,

., ,'

•I ••t I

'" .,,,., ,

�

,.I •

· ·, 1 '

"" . ,,. r

.' .

;I. �.

'' . '

. ' . .,

.-�.

·1

i. :·

!, ' '

!' ' ..

' .' .'

. .r· . '':1I :. ·., ··• ·wt:·1 ...·: ' ,'·. ti t' l..� .

I., ...,:\�.

.. "

164

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

NOT E S

t es T en ht ag 'N M e th f o s er nn Note I: The Foreru 3 I, d ar w d E s, ll o R Calendar of Close 7 Edw. I 518 (1278) England

n of isy de M gh �1 Hu yto �e er_ liv de to er rd O m. ha 11g tti No of ff eri sh e _ To th , u ter 1n da gh hts ly, l ce bai Ci o! 1 atl de the for 11] 1a1 g[l ti11 No at d rie so _ (sic), imJJri ore ve him h bef to the er 1np ma ll s11a o wh � ty � un co t tha of n me e to twelv a o , ll wh d him sha t ins aga al{ spe to h s \vi. � e on any if t 1 l rig to nd sta to king rns g lea as tl1e Kin by e, o11 any ure inj r t eaf her 11ot ll sl1a lie t tha ern inp ma � _ g ged t Hu han tha l gao ] am g[h t1n � No r ive del to s tice jt1s the by en tal< n itio uis inq his daughter whilst suffering madness, and not by felony or of malice aforetl1ought. 1

'L.

I I\ I ,

u+i:.'

r.: : :: 1 ,,;,,,, ,, I I'I !

1{' ,, ••

lit..' ,, I, I T\ I

"' i I.

lJI ,, ,, !

tj,

!1 I II•

1 \,

! I , ,,: '

h• f l II II1

\ I , "' II<

111 ; hi

ll I'

Kingston Assizes, 16 How. St. Tr. 695, 764 (1724). England

•

Trial of Edward Arnold

JUSTICE TRACY, cl1argi11g the jL1ry: ... If a man be deprived of l1is reaso11, and consequently of his i11tention, he cannot be guilty; ... punishment is inte11ded for example, and to deter other persons from wicked designs; but tl1 e pu11ishme11t of a n1 adman, a fJerso11 that hath no design, can l1ave no example. Tl1is is one side. On the otl1er side, \Ve must be very cautious; it is not every frantic a11d idle humour of a man, tl1at will exemJJt l1im from justice, and tl1e punishment of tl1e law. Wl1en a 111an is guilty of a great of fence, it must be very plain and clear, before a man is allowed such an exemption; therefore it is not every l<ind of frantic humot1r or sometl1ing unaccountable in a man's ac�;ons, tl1at poi11 ts l1im out to be sucl1 a madman as is to be exempted from pu11ish1nent: it must be a man that is totall)' de pri_ved of his t1nderstand �11g and memory, ai1d doth riot ki1ow what l1e !s doing, 110 more than an 111fa11t, tl1an a brt1te' or a wild beast1 such a one ts 11ever tl,e object of punishment. .. . Fitz Herbert, New . Natura Brtviutn (1794)4

And he who shall be said to be a sot and idiot from his birth, is such a. person who cannot accot1nt or number twenty pence, nor can tell wl10 \Vas l11s fatl1er or 1:1other, n.or how old }1e is, etc., so as it may appear that he hath no �nderstand1ng of reaso11 wl1�t shall be for his profit, or what for his loss: but if he hath sue� understanding, that he know and understan his t,ette r�, d and read by teaching or information of another man 15 e h th se em e it th en ' not a sot nor a natural idiot. .,_L.-=>I WWW.om=

3. The materials in this Note are taken from 4. 9th ed., p. 233.

Michael and WT r _,,,w · · / LA weeh sl er, Cr1rmn11

807·810. .

JWWW<=><-<>

-----------------:

. . ..,: .:. .

•

ABSOLUTE I RRESPONSIBILITV

165

Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown (1824)5 ilt of. offendin g against �ny law whatsoever, necessarily supposing The � . � wilful disobedience, �an !lever Justly be imputed to tl1 ose who are either incapable of understanding it, _or of co11 formi11g tl1emselves to it. Therefore, b�fore . I come to the several kt �ds of_ offences, I sl1 all sl1ew wl1at degrees of d1scret 1on �nd freed om are required 1n the commission of tl1em. For tl1e better �nderstanding wl�ereof, I shall consider wl1at offe11 ders are exct 1sable. - First, 1n respect to tl1e 1r want of reaso11 . - Seco11 clly, i11 respect of tl1eir subjection to the power of otl1ers. Sect. 1. As to. tl1e �irst Po_in!, it _is _ to be observed, tt1at tl1ose wl10 are _ under a natural d1s�b1l1t ):' of �1�t111gu1sl1111g betwee11 good and evil, as infants u�der_ tl1 e age of .d 1 scret1on1 1d1ots, a11d lu11 atics, are 11ot punishable by any cr1m1nal prosect1l1011 wl1atsoever....

Hale, Pleas of tl1e Crown (1847)6 d iffic �lt to define tl1e ind ivisible li11e that divides perfect and ve�y s i It _ . rest upon circt1msta11ces dttly to be weighed and part1 �l 1nsan1t}·; but 1t n1ust _ considered both by tl1e Jttdge a11d jury, lest on tl1e one side there be a l<i11d of ii1humanily toward tl1e defects of l1t1 111a11 nature, or on tl1e otl1er side too great an indulgence given to great crimes: tl1e best measure tl1at i can t11inl< of is this; such a person as labottring u11der 111ela11cl1oly diste1np-ers l1atl1 yet ordinarily as great understanding, as ordinarily a cl1ild of fottrteen years l1atl1, is such a person as may be guilty of treaso11 or felon)'·

. I , ..

., . . . I I.:,•

I j . II

•·t I ,I I

., .' I I

.., ' I )1· I '

··•

I I

Note 2: The Progeny of the M'Naghten Test . of Jea11 Grave11 and rojet Jv1 Avant-p It is clear from compariso11 of the . P C.E. ,,1as tl1 e 48 Art. sot1rce ·::>f direct Art. 10 of the C.P.S. that the 1nost Swiss Penal Code.Art. I 0, as numerotts otl1er similar articles in various cocles - a few of which are set out below to show tl1eir over\-q}1elming similarity despite wide geograJJhica.I distribution - stemmed in part fron1 the co11siderable i11 the M'Naghten case l1ad on influence that the House of Lords decision ... the Continent and eventually throughout mt1ch of the world. Germany (1871 ): Sect. 51 --: �n act does not co1� stitute an offense . if the actor at the time of the comm1ss1on of tl1e act was either unable to realize the forbidden nature of his act or unable to act in accordance with proper un d_erstanding because his consciousness was impaire� ?r 1?ec; use he has suffered either pathologi�al mental derangement or 1nental 1nf1rm1ty. Czechoslovakia (1951): Art. 11 - A _ person is not criminally responsible for his act if at the time of this act, being ment_ally deranged, l1e was not ab�e to discern that his act was dangerous to society or could not control his actions.1 5. Vol. 1, p. 4. 6· Vol. 1, p. 30. . . . . 7. As translated in Keedy Irresistible Impulse as a Defense in t�e Cr1m1nal law,. JOO U. P� ns;•lvA�t.a , L. Rt'V. 970, 971, 97--4 (1952); see this article also for a vanety of other nat1on.a.l pcov1s1ons with reJpcct to tire insanity defense.

... .. . .

" •• •

·· : . .1 '

., ('

·, ; !.

,, ( ' !

·• .

• : . I ! ., . .

,..:,t ! · j· i .-;;'� I . . ...; i .•..:� ' ·.•. .I I' :�·..·:q,:, '

;

,. ,. n

; .;.! ;�s, 1

,.. :..')!I ',,: .

CRIMINAL

166

RESPONSIBILITY

t en m sh ni n pu l1e om w fr pt ern �x is 1 al the 11e 0 22 t. Brazil (1940): Ar en ed � m r-d ta ta re lo v� de ?r r e_ rd o s d1 l ta 1 e1 pment, m of on as re by , 1g tii time of ac er of s ct 111 ra 1a cl n al tio 111 ac r1m e h t_ or to nd sta er 1d u1 _ to le a� tin ' el) ; tir 1,e was en act in accordance w1tl1 this t111dersta11d1ng. n perso a wl10, by �s a d te_ t i_ cor�1rn result Acts (1) 15 Art. : (1961) Japan to the o pr1ety8 of his p� as te 11� �1 �r1 d1s _ to ty aci cap l<s lac er, ord dis l nta o f me le t ab 11o e sl1 ar n1 n . pu t1o 11a n1 r11 sc d1 cl1 st1 to g in rd c ac o t ac to t or uc cond Note 3: The Psychopath Tl1 e ps>'cl101Jatl1 l1as prese11ted co11siderable proble1ns witl1 i:espect to tl1e scoJJe of tl1e defe11se of irrespo11sibi_lity. Psycl�o�athy, today, �s ust1all_y 11ot co11sidered a ''disease," as it is esse11t1ally a stat1st1cal abnormality ma111fested 011ly by behavioral 1Jatter11s. It is o fte11,_ l1ow_ever, allowed . as . a 1nitigating circt1msta11ce. 1-1 ,e follo\vi11g Swiss case 1s tyJJ1cal of mt1cl1 JLtr1sprudence on tl1e st1bject i11 substa11tial agree1ne11t \xritl1 tl1e Getatchew Gizaw case: I, ,.

B. rv. Ministere P1iblic du Canton de Lt1cerrie 9 RO 76 Ill 34, JT JV 60 (1950_)

' l , .,., . jl,.

1:it ' '•

I ,[' ,

' I

I•

Ji,

l' ,,

t; '"

\: :.

�i

'l " I1

·.

I II

! •. " .,r. '.'

' \

l; •

Switzerland

A. - I11 the prosecutio11 agair�st B for incest a11d for11ication with his sister, a girl below tl1e age of 16, tl1e cot1nty J)l1)'Sicia11 1 Dr. l\t\eyer, a11d one further expert, Dr. Naef, co11vinced tl1e1nselves tl1at tl1e 111ental a11d mo.-ral develo1Jment of tl1e defe11da11t was so deficie11t tl1at l1is ability to appreciate tl,e 11r1lawful11ess of l1is co11dL1ct a11d to act i11 accorda11ce \xritl1 st1cl1 an apJ)reciatio11 was reduc ed by 30 fJer cent. Tl1e cri1ni11al c ot1rt of the Cant on of Lucer11e, by j11dgment of Ju11e 24, 1949, granted tl1e defe11da11t a de1Jreciati o11 of l1is caJ)acil)' accord i11gly and mitigated l1is (Jt111isl1me11t drastically. It i tn IJOsed t\X! O years imprison1nent. �y �PfJeal B asl<ed for a f11rtl1er n1e11tal exami11ation, relyi11g 011 a priv a�e exa111111at1on made by Dr. Bla11l<arts, accordincbr t o \X1liicl1 tl1e defend ant 5 capac1't y \X:as re d Ltce d to a some\xrl1at greater exte11t." Tl1e a(J!Jellate court reJected tl1e reqt1est becat1se a rest1lt m o re be11eficial for tl,e defendant could not be expectrd. It co11victed B or1 Oct. 5, 1949, apJJlying Arts. 11, 66, 68, 191_. l a�d 2, a11d 213 Pe11al C ode, se11te11ci11oc· him to 011e ai1d o11e l1alf );ears of 1mpr1so11111ent. II

• • • •

Note 4: The Expert ,I

,·

I '

'1 1I I

I ..'

. ·1

Art. 51 P -�-E. provides tl1at in cases of do ub t of y ilit ns ib re sp o as tl1 to e ,, Tl is in confor�!he d�fenda11t, �lie Cot1rt sl1all o btaitl expert evidence iis · 1ty �1tl1 tl1e Swiss Penal Code a11d tl1e, leadin J l zc P_u / � R � ter e M ini g s ca se c. f bi ue de Bale-Campagne, RO 69. IV 51, JT IV t vir ''B y 68 (1 tl1 94 at : 3) w st l1i at cl es 1 d, f A_ r t 13 pa ra . se C. I P. S. , if cc th u er e is a doubt as to the responsibility of the � 1e JUd g e must l1ave 111s me11tal co11diti o11 ex amined by experts." --'-8. Draft P�nal Code of Japan, (American = =�:: Series of Fore.ign 9.

Penal Codes, 1964). Translation, Mueller, Comparati,z:e C ic_ail 1et A11 rimin al Law 182-182a; see also /vlodeJ Penal Coe, .d Law Institute, Scee. 4.0lt2) .

-�

-�--..,_. . _ _· -_..,.

_.;:

""!!

� . -•.. .- -.- .....

�

ABSOLUTE IRRESPONS IBILITY

167

Art. 51 (3) P.C.E. further binds the judge tO tl1e ''d · · ef 1n 1te sc ien tif fin ic di 11g s'' but 11ot exper to t J1is the ''app re c · t·1011 . Of 1a . . o f le g l a 1 · 11fere11ces to be drawn · Tl11s 1s to some extent a de Ja· rture therefrom." L ogo z states tl1at: . ''Tl1e report of tl,e ex )ert J 11ever !rom Swiss JJra' ctice wl1ere · binds the 1· Lt d ge, ' commentaire J , du Code Perza! Suisse 48; see also RO 75 IV 148, JT V 117 (1949), and RO 81 IV 1, JT IV 130 (1955).

Questions 1.

Wl,y �oes A rt . 48. penalize 0111)1 tl1ose said to be 1·es1Jo11sible fo tl1 r ei ac r ts ? What 15 tl,e fttn�ttor, of a t�st of cri1ni11al res1Jo11sibility; wl10 sl1ou be ld fJlaced on o,,e side of tl1e l111e a11d \�'110 011 tl,e otl,er? ivlt1st tl1e pltblic prosecutor 111ake a' s11 ow 1· 1 ,g of sa111·ty as an essent·1a1 e Iement of every cas� ll1at l1e brit gs to cottrt? Co11sicler tl1is statement from Logoz, Com111e11t.:l1re du Code PeJn(tl Sr,isse 37-38: I11 �rinciple, _tl1e prosect�tor does riot l1ave to {Jrove tl1at tl1e accused 1s res1Jo_11s1ble. Tl1e ex1ste11ce of res1Jo11sibility is i11 fact the normal c�se. It 1s prest1n1�d: _All dot1bt existi11g releva11t to tl1e [JO int of tl1e de_,endant s res1Jo11s1b1l1ty goes to,v'ard tl1e destructio11 of tl1is presumpt1on . . . . 1

What does tl1e Getatcl,ew Gizaw case tell tis mt1st be proved to mal<:e �ut a case for tl1e def:11se under Art. 48? Are factors otl1er tl1an ''d_ge, 1llness, abnormal delay 1n deve lopme11t or cleterioratio11 of . . . rr1e11tal faculties'' exclt1ded by Art. 48? Does tl1e O[Ji11io11 of tl1e Stipreme I 111 fJerial Court suggest a11 a11s\ver? Does ill11ess 1nea11 JJi1}1 sical ill11ess? j\ r:e sucl1 labels as the above accttrate 1nedical categories of causatio11 \vitl1i11 \v11ict1 a doctor can easily p lace a 1ne11tal patie11t? tl1e san·1e as ti1e so-callecl 4. Is the test set ot1t i11 Art. 48 st1bsta11tially 1 11 ''right and wrong'' or 'kno\vledge lest first [Jrotnttlgated in tl1e 11-1 NaglJteJ1 case? Wl1at is tl1e mea11i11g of tl1e verb ''to 1111dersta11d''? Does it ii1cor1Jc>rate emotional as well as i11tellectttal apprel1ensio11? Mtist the defe11da11t's lacl< of understandi11g go to botl1 tl1e 11ature a,1d conseqt1e11ces of l1is act or will either be suff�cie11t? Do tl1e ''natt1re or co11seqt1e11ces of l1is act'' include a11 u11derstandi11g of t111la ,vftfl11ess or \'vro11gft1l11ess? 5. Whe11 is 011e i11capable of ''re�l1Iati11g l1is co11duct acc?rcli11g to . : . u11derstanding''? Wl1at reasons 9 1d tl1e St11Jr�1ne. _l m1Jer1al Court give for excluding_ psychopaths fron1 _ tl11s defe11se of 111ab1l1ty 1 t<? re�1:1late c�n�ttct? te 1 11ab 1 l 1 ty to I egul ate Where d i d tl1 e Cot1rt der1ve tl1e ter1n absolu . 48? Does ''absolute'' also t Ar i11 ar pe ap t 11o conduct wh en tl,is word does refer to understai,ding th e natt1re or consequer1ces of 011e's act? 6. Do yo11 feel that tlie Art. 48 test of irrespo11si�ility . is better tl1a11 tl1e earlier tests e11urneratecl i11 Note 1? At \Vl1at t11ne 111 tl1e defendar1t's histo ry are we concerned witl1 his respo11sibility? See botl1 Art. 48 (1) para. 2 and Art. 51 (2) pa ra. 2. 7. What is the role to be played b)' tl1e ex1Jert i11 Etl1iopia i11 tl1ose cases t s ? m l1a 4) te e� W ''t No e (se d ise ra is ty ili ib ns where tl1e defense of irrespo of reference'' sl,all the cotirt set for tl1e expert? Is l1e tl1e pro1)er vehicle tl1ro ugh wl,ich tl,e crimitlal process is to. f�t . tl1e actual 1ne11tal state of tl1e offen der into the Jegal mold of irrespo11s1b1l1ty? 1

.. ' '

'' '

,.I I. .

. 'li

:1 • .. . . II

;•

'' t ! I

JI I II •

" ) '. '", II

.. (.

,, � I JI

:,I:

•( 11'

"I ..• ,, -

•t'' \r'

. .

I' �

I ! .. -·.·

' ;

! .

•• - � j

i •

... .

'' . .

;

'... .. . I : • '•

i'>... L

....

,.� ,, .. '-� .

168 8. 9.

Y IT IL IB S N O P S E R L A N \I CRilv

cy o� evidence? Is an v _ le e !e th ct fe af ty ili ib ns Jo si re Does tlie legal test of n 1o of sp at re 1n ir m er et b d si on 1e tl to ty ili ed it ? su l el w em st sy ry sa r ve ad e th l al be in to im cr ed y in m er ? �p et d _ re ir s n er nd fe of of on iti os sp di ie tl Wliat is nd �y ou rt _b t pe �r ex co e th in 1s op 6, n 13 io . rt A er nd U ? 48 . rt A r de sible un e em �n ng nf u1 co 1n nt nt co or to t at ec tre sp re ith w s tig di fin e tiv ra ist in or adtn st t ain ec e ag ot th pr to bl ssi ed po ish bl t� es e ds ar gu fe sa e er tl, re ment? A . 6 rt 13 A _ er ), are there nd (3 U �? en em 1n nf co '' ite in ef 1d ''ii of e us arbitrary e? es dg Do �u a at by oc rev n tio ca ion vo re y ar r t bi ar t en ev pr to ls ro nt any· co r d de un ine . nf rts co A ce 3 on 13 s ff. wa o wh n r so pe d se lea re y an to refer or 0 1 1ly to sub-art. (2) p robation? Problem

X l1 as come before your division of the Hig h Court whicl1 is sitting in

Addis Ababa. He is cha rged witl1 Aggravated Homicide under Art. 522 P.C.E. lJut seeks to de-fe11d himself by establisl1ing criminal irres ponsibility under Art. 48.

I " •

"' .

' If

• ,. t. ' . .,

JIII

�

I ' C I

" t.

'ti r· 1 1 · I:'.

I: : . ..

I I Io

.l �-I ".. I II

I "

I •

·--

T 11 e defendant s testimo11y disclosed the following: X, tl1 e defe11da11t, 011 tl1e 11igl1t of Hamle 7 in the year 1952 E. C. hit Y twice 011 tl1e l1ead witl1 a wooder1 stick whicl1 led to l1is death several days later. 0 11 the 11igl1t i11 qt1 estion X had come to tl1e village in w hich V, a distant relative, 'Y1as livir1g and asl<ed to stay the night in V's house. '! conse 1 1ted a11d offered X din11e r. Some time after dinner, X said tl1at lie wisl1ed to go ot1tside for awhile. It l1ad been raining and Y suggested that it was foolisl1 to go ot1t, bt1t X insisted and went anyway. After ar)proximately an hour, Y we 1 1t out to look for X finding him some_ 100 yards _from tl1 e house. Tl1e rain l1ad stopped and tl1e moon was Just appearing. X was qt1ite wet and Y told him to corne back to the l1ouse. X :efused and V took l1is ar1n a11d began to pull him. X r�acl1ed �or a _stick that l1appe11ed to be lying on tl1e grot1nd nearby a!,d hit Y_ t\v1ce w1tl1_ great force U(JOn tl1e l1ead. X remained at tl1e spot with Y ly1n� unco11sc1ous_ for abot1t t\xro l1ours and tl,en called a neighb or to l1elp with Y. Tl1e ne 1 gl1bor called tl1e police and X was taken into custody. The defendant's mother testified as follows: lher mo l1is X is about twent)'-seven years old a11d l1as al ways lived with e. ng stra a 11_d fatl1er (wl10 recently died). fram tlle earliest years x seemed aven, His fatl,er tised to tell_ l1im tl1at tl1e moon, as it was close to l,e crav· ":Vould help �o sootl,e 111111 a11d n1ake l1im feel better. X developed a. ent ia.l t e g for _ t lie moon a11d bec Sigl,t il me irritable and even v of would !r o t bu _ e or I not a!lo\ved to sit OL1t at nigl1t. I-le has l1it �everal peopl e bef never w1tl1 a dangerous object. nt The psycl1iatric evi�enc� based upon seve 1da 1 fe e d ral we ek s duri11g whict1 the was u11der observat1011 is as follows: m fering from scl!izophrenia. He is subject at ti�esa�� 2 :::e fhdig�f ;�� rns an<;1 se � u n del LlSI O�S wl1 . e He is capable, -.:His moody of acti 11 with conside r at1 h� 111e o ab le 1 pr ov v1 ol e 1ce lit tle up on c mental, cond itio; o s to have arise n in ea rly childhood a nd i el more se rious i 11 re�� years w. O n tl1e other hand, he functions qui.·t·: 1

- .

...�-

� -

...;

ABSOL UTE IRRESPONSIB ILITY

169

. . da li yfe to -d an ay d in his understand·t g and �pprec ia tt on of tl1e world about � th an e d re sp him onsibilities require Of 11.1 m ar e ne arly nor1nal at inost is difficult It times. to say whether e th tim � of tl1 e act he u11derstood or na tu co re nsequences of hit�in the � g y witl1 tl1e stick, but I tl1ink lie probably did. Assuming that you, as j11dge have be1· ev d an cl t ac ce pt ed tl1 e foregoi11g � ' pre sen ted nce by . the defense ;rite a11 evide l1e t n o j11 ee tl1r d ge court l r f tiio _ op . ' nt da 's irresp01151b 1] 1 tY tt11 der Art. 48. ruling upon the defen If you feel that additio11al evictence 15 · reqtiired state tl1e evide11ce tl1at you need and briefly w11 y it is necessary aiicl tl1e11 IJroceed as if tl1e 11eeded ev1'dence had bee n prese11ted and accepted during tl,e trial.

;I J

I •

I l ! '

I •

b. A Critique oJ the Prese1it Law WHAT IS WRONG WITJ-1 TI-IE LAw10 He11ry Wci!Jofe,1 bra11cl1 of tl1e . no cri1ni11al Ia,v l1as bee11 tl1e su1 �robably Jject of so Illlicli . cr1t1c1sm and �ont:over�}' as tl1e defense of i !1sai1ity. It is cl1aip;ed tl 1 at tl1e rtilcs ?f law governing tnsan 1 ty as a defe11se to cr11ne are vagtte a11cl coI1 fLlsed; iliat 1n so far as thes� rttles are clear, tl1e)' are clearl y L,�sou11d, i11 tl1at t'i1ey are . _ based upon notions of _mental d1so�der d 1screc(1led oy 111ocler11 scier1ce; ai1 cl !hat .t �e procedural machinery for try111g cases wl1ere tl,is defe11sc is raised is 1neff1c1ent and blundering in its restilts. Ambiguiry and Confi1sion of the Larr.v. Tl1at t]1e st1l)sta11tive rltles of cri111ii1Jl law governing insanity are ambigt1ous ar1d co11ft1sed is testifiect to by tl1 e C(jI1stant stream of cases in whicl1 these r1.1Ies are dis1Jt1terJ. \Vl1at, for exLlillJ)le, is

the_ law upon tl1at much-discussed subject, tl1e legal i'test'' of res1)011sibility? It �s upon this question that Englisl1 a11d A111erican cot1rts, legislators, a11cl legal writers have spent the greatest efforts to attai11 clarity a11d t111ifor111ity i11 tl1e law. As long ago as 1800, the brillia1 1t Lord Ersl{i11e, i11 l1is argtlr11er1t as counsel in the trial of 1-Iad field, tried to lay do\v11 a 1111 iversal test of responsibility in cases where the defenda11 t suffered from n1e11lal disease. Delusion, he said, in cases where tl1ere is 110 fre11zy or ravi,,g mad11ess, is tl1e true character of insanity. In I 843, followi11g tl1e se11satio 1 1al trial of Dar1iel M·Naghten for the assassination of the secretary lo Sir Robert Peel, tl1e I-I ouse of Lords resorted to the extraordinary expedient of aski11g the opinio11 of all the judges of England UJJ·on tl1e law r�lati11g to. i11sat1ity as a defense t? crime. In the famous Opinio11 o-f the Judges, it was said tl1at k11owledge of r1gl1t a11d wrong as to the act cfiarged wa s tl1e test to _be a1Jplied. At tl1e same time, two of the ablest of early America11 judge�, Cl11ef Jt1st1�� Sl1a \V of lv\assacl1uset_ts and Chief Justice Gibson of Pennsylvania, were \vr1t111g careful cl1arges, 111 which they attempted to Jay down the rules fo r t11e jt1ry to follo\v i11 �u_c� cases. T�ey also made knowledge of right and wro11g tl�e test of . resl?o11_ s1b1l_1ty, but by 1rres1st1ble IJTI.{Julse,

tried, in addition to deal with cases characterized ''homicidal mania,:, etc. . . . s e' ir1 . sk er as Er ev ed L1s nf co as t os m al 4) 95 [1 y da t Ve the subject remains to lO. Weihofen, MenlAl Di.Jordn- as a Criminal Defense 1-4 (1954).

·-

,, I

"...l ;!

I\ t I

,, ' II

•

I , .,

••

'> "" Il

' '

' ': . .. ' I • '. . I •• '

>\' •

. ::.''�'..

'. ·:

l.· ,·"

. '. I '. ',,

...

'' ' ' '

.� . '

{· .;'

M: •,•• ;. ..

170

Y IT IL IB S N O P S E R L A IN IM CR

ed ix se m el in r o n, te ith ot � rg fo d an . ed on 1d a1 ab dell1sion tl1eory ha s bee11 es follo wing dg e_ Ju th of s er sw an 1e tl ; es ri eo tl1 otl1 er 11 ot al\x,ays consiste11t , es ur at sl e gi ar le n ill w st do id la s st te y or ut . �t st e M'Nlgl1ten's Cas e, and th e b een :l'ritten, � ha s on s1 c1 de ?f . �s an us ho T . . . being interpreted by tli e cotirts. e t th is remains one y 1d a1 y, lit b1 s1 on sp e r of layiiig do\x,n tlie correct legal test of the most fertile fields for debate.... '' ts � es at th ''t Th ich wh er. rd iso D l ta en M of t ep nc Co l ga Discredited Bases of Le e ! end an t ts sane enough d a t 11o or er tl1 e 1 wl 11g ni ni i r e t e d . courts appl)' today iii eas t are n?t l at _ or: th, wi ct i l nf co ,_ ds ee sd mi his for e ibl ns to be Jield respo , c ge tr1 le� h1a o� yc is kn ps d an �l c 1_ Iog l10 yc ps rn de mo of, l1t apfJlied in tl1e lig e. Inde e d, tt _1s one t pu dis �o d �1e al1 qu t 11o e ar rs e vy 1 la\ icl wh o11 a cl1 arge up . e _nt } _disorder m f t cep con . 1f1c ent sc1 n der mo e th of dy stu y � 1 sor a 1 cur 1 \Y1l icl1 eve � , will force tl1em to ad111it as tr11 e. rrhe legal conception of 1nsan1ty 1s based tl1e mo st enlightened ll!)011 \re11erable precedents, decided at a tim e when eve n scl1olars knew co11 siderably less about the mind tl1an we d o now. American cases eve11 today still cite Blacl{sto11e on the subje�t, and Blackstone in turn cites as l1is aL1tl1ority Lord liale, who lived in the 1600's and who shared tl1e belief of l1is tin1 e tl1at lu11atics \xrere affected by changes in tl1e phases of tl1 e 111 0011.c1 > I-Iale's idea of ''lu11acy'' still plays a11 important role in the law, altl1ougl1 it was born of a day \vl1en medie val ideas of de1no11-posse ssion, of \vitcl1craft, a11d of sorcery were still in voglte; ,vhen priests and judg es were n1adly tryi11g to sta1np ot1t fiends and devils from those who were ''possessed" by recoL1rse to tort11re a11d tl1e stake; and \)'Jl1 en tl1e entire jurisprudence of i11sa11 it)' \vas obsct1red by tl1e popt1lar frenzy. Vet it is to the jurisprudence of that dismal, stlfJerstitious day tl1at our modern legal concepts can be traced. -r11e leading aL1tI1 ority today is not Hale or Blackstone but the Opinion of tl1e Judges followi 11g M'Nagl1te111 s Case. Tl1is opinion �as written at the com1)aratively recent date of 1843. But ev en that ,vas before the science of psycl1iatry was bor11. It _was a ti_me wl1en Francis Gall's fa11tastic theory of pl1renolog� \Vas_ at tl1e _I1e1gl1 t of its .pop�1lar_-ity. Accor ding to this doctrine, eacl1 fL1nct1on of the mind was local ized 1n its O\VTI corner of the brain and tl1 e pl 1renologist co11Id n1 eas11re a 1nan's ''ambition '' ''amativeness , , ''docility" or wl�at not, by mea�uri11g tl1 e respective bttm1) 01; tl1e skull.Tli�s, the theo;y co11ce1ve_d. of tl1e brain as a �11ndle of ft1nctions, eac!1 ,vorking independently. Tl1 e Op1n1on of tl1e J t11dges 1 eveals tl1at tl1ey acce pted a similar view for they refer co�sta11tl�, to a fJerso11 st1fferi11g from delusion, ''and not ' in other resJ)ects 111 sa11e. _We l{nO\xr today that no sucl1 J)erson exists. The mind is a wl1ol�, a11 d del11s1011s a1:e a sy1n1)to1n of the existence of som e more fundamen tal d1_stt1rba11 ce.Tl1ere 1s _no such thing as a man suffering from ''partial del11_s1ons o�ly i _a11d �ot 111 oth�r r�spects insai,e.'' Yet it is this discarded _ 111 -c1' 11ld of _an ecce11tr1c V1 fa11c1ful b1a en11ese physician of a hundred an d thirty )'ears a_g� _ tl1 at underlie s tl1e cor11erstone of our law gove the criminal rn g in respo11s1b1l1ty of tl1e me11tally 11nsotind. ,. Tl1e ·rltle that has tl1us· come dow11 to us 1·s psych"1at r1ca d, parunsoun · 11 y t_ 1cu1 a_r I y 1n 1 t· s over�mpI1as1s 011 the intellectual aspect of mental activity and its fa1_Iure to recog11 1ze the role played by volition the emotions and the un , conscious.

�r

'.!

I , ,' . , ,I1..

.,,t ',• '

I[' ' I

•

• •,

� I

�q

, n, I. '

11" 1 I L" ,

I "''' '' I I'

I JI I

'r.'

l -. . '� '

I l

[. ,

' ·II

�r

I ' '

. (1) "The moo_n," said Hale, "l1ath a great influence on a d . kin his t 11 d Jn iseases espec1 of . �lly _ the brain, · of dementia: such person, commonly in the full . an_d change of the moon, espec1aUy about the equinoxes and sumn,er solstice are usuall at h ees005 p e heigl such 1 t of their distempe.r.... But as l1ave their luci d intervals (�hich Ord'inYar.i 1Y th the 111 ��-) appens of between cl1ange the full an d in such intervals l1ave usually at least a competent use of reason.. . ." Pleas of tht Cr<Y.Wn, P·

.., '

ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBIE. ITY

DURHAM v. UNITED STAT ES

171

Court of Appeals ( District of Columbia Circuit), 214 F. 2d 862 (1951) United States

BAZELON1 Circuit J t1dge Monte D. ur11 am was cot1v1cted l1o of use -br eak ing Court sitting the District �-tl by. 1 1011t a Jttry. Tl1e only defe 1 1se asserted at the trial was that Durl1am was of 1111s0111 1d 1nii,d at tlie time of th ff en w are now t1rged to _ reyerse tl1e co1ivictio 1 1 ( 1) because tl,e trial �o�rt Ji� no� cor:ecttr apply existing rtiles �o':'er 1 ii11g tl1e bt1rdc11 of proof 011 the defense of 111san1ty, an d (2) because ex1st11 1g tests of cri1 ni11al respo11sibility are obsolete and should be superseded.

Durl1am lias a long l1is_tory of i111priso11ment and l1ospitalization. In 1945 1 of age 17, lie \x,as d1scl1arged fror11 tl1e Navy after a psycl1iatric exam�t t�e 1na!ton had s110\:n that_ l1e suffered ''f ro111 a profou11d persot1ality disorder '! h1cl1 re11der_s l11m 111 1f1t for Naval service." l11 1947 he pleaded guilty to viola ting tl1e National l\.1otor Tl1�ft_ 1-\ct a11d \Vas placed on probatio11 for 011 e to t�ree years. He atteme1Jtd st11c1de, \yas take1 1 to Oalli11ger H OS[Jital for obser,1a t1on, a11d was tra11sferred to St. El1zabetl1s 1Ios1J ital, from ,x,I1icl1 he \'v'as dis charged after two mo11tl1s. In J a11uar) of 1948 as a res11lt of a conviction in the District of Columbia 1\1t111icipal Cott rt for' passi11P" bad cl1ecl{s1 tt1e District Court revoked his probatio11 a11d l1e co1111ner1ced se; ,ice of l1is n1oto:r tl1eft �ent�nce: His cot1�t1_ct witl1in tl1e first_ fe'i, days i11 jail led to a lt!nacy 1 nqu1ry 1n the M11n1c1pal Court wl1ere a Jttry fottnd l1i111 to be of u11s011nd mi11c1. Upon commitment to St. Elizabetl1s, l1e \i:,as diag11osed as sufcerin P- fron1 ''psychosis with psychopathic fJerso11ality." .t\fter 15 mo11tt1s of treatment� l1e �1,�.s discharged in July 1949 as ''recovered'' and ,vas returr1ecl to jail to ser·ve il1e balance of his sentence. In June 1950 lie \vas C()t1ditiona.ll)' relcasecl. 1 f- e V10·· lated the co11ditio11s by leaving tlie District. WI1e11 he Iear11ed of a \'�arra11t for 1 Soutl1 and Mid\Y1est obtainii1g ' tl1e to fled lie his arrest as a parole violator1 money by passing a number of bad cliecl(s." After l1e ,vas fot111d and ret11rnecl to tl1e District, the Parole Board referred l1im to tl1e District Court for a lt1nacy inqttisition, wherein a jtrry again fot111d l1im to be of unsouncl mind. I-le was readmitted to St. Elizabetl1s i11 febrttary 195 I. Tl1is tin1e the diagnosis was ''witl1oul me11tal disorder, psycl1opatl1ic personality.'' He was discl1arged for the third ti me i11 May 195 I. Tlie. l1ot1se-breal(ing wl1icl1 is tl1e subject of the prese11t appeal took place t\vo n10 11 tl1s later1 011 July 131 1951. _ ed him in September According to his motlier an d psy_cl1iatri�t \Vho examin e 51 arg ay 19 his er ch M aft dis y tel d1a n1e 1m ns tio ina uc ll 1,a 1 195 l1e suffered from from' St. Elizabetl,s. fol towi 1 1g tl1e 1)re�e1 1t i11dictment1 i 1 1' Octobe� 19511 he was e ) 1tl of 44 ct. 18 _:u.s.�., , 4_ Se er 1d 111 s 11g d1 ee oc 1Jr 1 1 i d ge in adjud d of tinsound m ;r m � fro psycl1os1s with 11pon the affadavits of two psychiatrists t_l,at l1e suffere s th r e fo be tl1 th 1za ur . �l fo St _ lo ed 1tt 1nm co s ,va e 1 1l, ' psyc opathic personality.' time and given subshock insulin tl1erap)'. Tl11s con1m1tme11t lasted 16 �01�th�-: i J e dy 1ct th sto str o! ct1 a D1 l e tl1 to � se ea rel s until February 1953 _ wlien lie \va on the certificate of Dr. Silk 1 Acti11g St1per1ntende1 1t of St. El1zabet�s1 tl1at lie was ''mentally competent to st a11d trial an d . . . able to co,isult w1tl1 cot1nsel to properly assist i11 his own defe11se." 1

g s i11 i11 t st s� l1a te xi � e _ m t!1 1a 1rl i D r fo � el is t11 co . by d te It has been ably argt ly 1l1 1b i. e., tl1e so �1s � po es � 1a 111 11: cr g i11 i11 rm te the District of Coltimbia for de , st e e t te ls ar 11o le pu 1b 1m 1st es 1rr e tl1 by d 1te e1 em ed s pl all up rigltt-wrortg test c •

• •

•

1 . I I

1 '

, ' i'

•C

I :

'' .

I I j I I '

.• , II I I 1 :

'I 0

II •

': ) ••• .. ,. I:'

'I �•

) .

11 I

.. ' "

Ij S

J ;:

r � II 1

I (•

! .

I I I

•

: !

il ':· '. . ... .. �

172 y

l �. �; ' . l

'l.,

t •• I• '

: c..· :

Ir·• , ,

•

•l ' ' .f•

l i'

._ \ ' ' ' .._ I'

I I\ I, ,

y •. ' l'

'•

I• •

� I.

I' 1 ' t

I" '

t I' I I I ' ,'

tf I,

l- � '

, I

.. I

''' ''I ' '

CRIMINAL

RESPONSIBILITY

ty e · ili W e i� r a_ ns r-o s �e ge ur al in d im cr to g in in rm te de r fo a ri y ite or cr satisfact . se is 11s ca th Tl of e l nt ia co tr re e th ntion on d ie pl ap be to adopt a different test . rm fo re r fo n tio ita ag of ry 1tu ce 1 l1as behind it nearly a in n , io ?2 ict 18 d is_ 1:1r j w_as the is th n i_ �d oy p� ap t, tes ng ro A. The right-\v a bi m lu of Co _ ict str until _19'29 Di e th 1n y l1t 1 s1b on sp re al i 11 irn exclusive test of cr y t_ tar en tes 1n lem pp su a �s Sm ithy. t tes lse pu im le ib ist es irr e tli when we approved t s tes ha its g on wr htroots 1n rig e_ Th )]. 29 (19 8 54 2d f. [36 United States use �n �cc � Y! t _ cen l1 ent escaped l1te e1g the o! r rt� qu� t firs the ? by : , England. There , 11 if e., l, 11� ,f· evi d dotl1 not a d goo JJUnisl1ment if he could not d1st1ngu1sl1 � er, 1n the same Lat st. bea d wil a . 1 .. 1 tha re mo no nodoi is he w kno what century, the ''wild beb;st'' test \Vas aba11do11ed and '.'rigl1t and wron_ g'' was substituted for ''good a11d evil." And to\vard the middle of tl1e n111eteenth century, the Hot1se of L?rds in th�, famot�s M'Naghte11 _case rest�ted what had become the accepted ''right-wrong test 1n a _for� �h1�h . has since been �al lowed, not 011ly in E11gland but i11 most American 1urisd1ct 1 ons as an exclusive test of crimi11al responsibility. As early as 1838, Isaac Ray, one of tl1e fou1 1ders of the American Psychiatric Association, in his r10\v1 classic Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity, called knowl edge of rigl1t and \X!rong a ''fallaciotts'' test of crimii1al respo11sibility. This vie,v has long since bee11 st1bstantiated by ei1ormous developme11ts in knowledge of mental life. In 1928 Jv'ir. JL1stice Cardozo said to tl1e Ne\v York Academy of Medicine: ''Everyone concedes that tl1e present (legal) defi11ition of insanity has little relation to tl1e truths of n1ental life." Medical-legal writers in large nt1mbers, The Report of tl1e Royal Commission on Capital Pu11ish1nent 1949-1953, and Tl1e Preliminary Re1Jort by tl1e Commit tee on forensic Psycl1iatry of the Oroltp for tl1e Adva11cement of Psychiatry present convincing evide11ce tl1at the right-wrong test is ''based 011 an entirely ob solete and misleading co11ception of the nature of insanity.'' The science of psychiatf):' no_w recognizes that a man is an integrated personality and tl1�t reason, _\vl11cl1 1s only on� eleme11t in tl1at JJerso11ality, is not the sole determinant of h1� conduct. Tl1e �·1gl1t-wro11g test, \vhich considers knowledge or reaso11 alone, 1s therefore an 111adequate guide to mer,tal responsibility for criminal bel1avior. As Professor Sheldo1 1 Glueck of tl,e Harvard Law School points out in discussi11g tl1 e rigl1t-wrong test, wh ich li e calls tl1e k11owledge test: ''It is evident t11at tl1e l<11owledge tests u11scier,tifically abstract out of _tl1e �e�t�l make-up but o�e pl1ase or ele1ner1t of inental life, the cog11itive, which, 1n .his_ era of dy11arn 1 c . psycl1ology, is beginning to be regarded as not the t_ s most important factor 11: co 1 1duc� and its disorders. In brief, tliese tes1n proce�d upon the following questionable assumptions of an outworn era act psycl11�try; (1) tl1at . lack of knowledge of tlie ' ri ature or quality' of an. t h (assuming the_ mea111ng of such terms to be clear) or incapacity to know r1g_ dis al mer1t 1s the sole or evei: the most important symptom of from wrong, r o t _ i1d order, (2) that sue� knowledge 1s the sole instigator ai,d guide of co uc , th� at least_ th� most 1mport�n� .element therein, and consequeiitly should be th sole �r1ter1on of. resp?n_s1b1l1ty wh.en insanity is involved; and (3) that ti. n: od �apac1ty of knowing right from wrong can be completely iritact and func re 1n� perfectly even tl1ougl1 a defendant is otlierwise demoi,strably of disorde mind.'' oe s Nine _years ago we_ said: ''The modern scie d · · . � og y ps nc yc e of l1o l _ _ ed not co1 1ce1ve tl1at there 1s a separate little man ca ll ad he in. the top of one's '

---- --� ,,..- ·· -� - -:. . �-

.. _.

...

·-· f· .. .. .

··'f; ·.:::-,-..

•

ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY

173

reaso!' whos� functio� it is to guide another unruly little man called instinct emoti on, or impulse 1n the wa y he shotild go ,, By ·ts �·tsIeact·ing ernphasts on · ' the cognitive, the rigl1t-wrong test requires c�urt an•d Jury to rely upon wl1a t ·1s �cte 1 ·�caII y t 5pe�k"_ 1ng, ·t�adequate, and most ofte11, invalid and irrelevant , · nt·t . testimony 1n d e erm1n1ng cr1m1nal responsibility.

The fundamental objection to the right-wrong test 1 owev r, ·s not tl al � _ criminal ir responsibility is made to res t ttp on an i atl 11 eq1ua e, t 111vat l 1d or �1n . . dete!minable symptom or man1_festat1011 b_ut tl�at it. is made to rest upo11 a,ry particular symptom. In attempting to def111e 1nsa111ty i11 terms of a symptom the courts h�ve assumed a11 impossible role 11ot merely 011e for whicl1 tl1ey , mission e1npl1asizes, it is da11ger have ,�o special comp�tence. As tl1e Royal Com _ s, a11d ous to 3:bstract part_1cular me11tal facultie to lay it dowr1 tl1at u11less these particular fact1lt1es ar� destroyed o_ r gravely impaired, an accused persor1, whatev�r the n�!ure o� ht� n1er1tal dtsea�e, must be held to be crirnir1ally responsible. : · . l� this f1�ld of la\X' as 111 otl1ers, the fact fir1der sl1ould be free to consider all 1nformat1on adva11ced by relevant scie11tific disciplines. Despit� demands i11 the name of scientific adva11ce, tl1is court reft1sed to alter. the r1�ht-wrong test a�, tl1e turn of tl�e ��11tttry. But in 1929, -..y;e re �ons!d�red �n respo11 se to tl1e cry of sc1ent1f1c experts'' a11d aclded tl1e 1rresisl1?l�. 1mpul_se test a_s � sttpfJle111e11tary test for deter111i11i11g cri111i11al respons1b1l1ty. W1tl1ol1t hes1tat1011 we declared, i11 S1nitl1 v. United States, 'ii: is to be the law o·f this District tl1at, in cases \\'1l1ere insa11ity is interJJOsed as �t defense, and tl1e facts are sufficie11t to call for the apJJlicat.ion of tl1e rLtie of irresistible impulse, tl,e jury should be so cl1arged.'r 'Xie said: '' ... The modern doctri11e is that tl1e degree of i11sa11ity wl1icl1 v1ili relieve the accused of the conseqlte11ces of a cri1ni11al act m11st be s1i.cl1 as lo create in his m i11d an unco11 trollable i1n pulse to co111mit tl1e offe11se cl1arriect. This impulse must be sucl1 as to override tl1e reason a11d jt1dgme11t a11d obliterate the sense of right and wro11g to tl1e exte11t tl1at tJ1e ,1.cc11secl is deprived of the power to cl1oose betwee11 rigl1t a11d wrong. Tl1e tnere a�i!ity to distinguish rigl1t from wrong is 11� lon�er . tl�e correct test eitl1er. i11 c1v1I or criminal cases, wl1ere tl1e defe11se of 1nsan1ty 1s interposed. Tl1e accej Jt· :! rule in this day and age, with the great advancement in medical scit:11ce as a11 enlightening influence on this subject, is tJ,at the accused 1nust be 11�capable, not only of distinguisl1ing bet\veen rigl1t and w_rong, but that he �as n_ot !mp�lled to do the act by an irresistible irrypulse, ,vh1ch means before tt will 1ust1fy _2. verdict of acquittal that his reasor11ng. pow:rs were so _ f ar dethroned �y l11s diseased mental condition as to deprive him of the will power to resist the 6 g." (3 on it to be wr g in ow kn gh ou th , ed de e th insane impulse to perpetrate f. 2d at 549). e t is tl1 rict. st in D e te tl1 en be 1ce si1 s ha is th d, te ca di As we have already in 1

e �� qu _ rigl1t-w�ong �e�t is inade e th on ri ite cr e iv us cl ex We find that as an in that (a) it does not take sufficient account of psychic real1t1es and s�1e.nt1f1c �y ,, ot l1d . va nn be so ca � n a_ m � pt m sy e on on up knowledge1 (b) it is based .1rres1st!ble impulse te�t 1s also applied in all circumstances. We find that the ed 1z er by ct ss �a 1a ne cl ill l ta en m to n tio ni og ec r ad in equate in that it gives no ss e to 11e ch th 1ll su by ed us ca ts ac s te ga le re so brooding and reflection a11d application of the inadequate right-w rong test. We conclude tl1at a broader test should be adopted. •

• • •

.' . '

I! I

I ', I , ' ' I. . .

' '• I ' ' I ', ''

I I

'' ' ' , I; 0 )I

� )i ' 11: I •

' ti :

; ·.. '-

I W

I' ' I

(''

I �I

.'. I

' , "•

I ! . ' �. !

I. . . I

•

i. . ..: : .. . I

��

. ,·

'' .

ITY CRIMINAL RESPONSIBIL

174

s st f te o f o i n ? cr ti la u in rm m fo al e th a , i b m lu o C f o B. In the District , st ew a n te e w ng t1 vo p o in a� in ke , d an ts ur co e th to d responsibility is entruste . y el v ti ec sp ro p e g an ch our inl1erent power to m ak e tl1e th e retrfal o f this c ase and in on d ie pl a e b t us p Tl1e rule we now hold m re hi t ps ur am co H ew nc N si e th e by ed \v l1o fo at th e lik un future c ase s is 11ot e s bl if l1i si on wf la sp un re ly al ul in im cr t no is d se cu . ac an t a 1870 It is simply tl1 t. ec ef d l ta en m r o e as se di l act \Vas the product of menta ed er id c ns is apable co ch hi w on iti nd co a of e ns se e We use ''disease'' i11 th ' e e ns th in se ' t of ec ef a ''d e us e W . 1g 1 i t ra rio te de or g in ov pr r of eithe im v in g or deterioratin g o pr im r he eit of e bl JJa ca ed er id ns co co11ditio11 \vhich is not e l th , or ua ry sid ju re in of lt su re l1e t or l, ita e11 ng co r l1e and wl1icl1 may be eit effect of a pl1ysical or mental disease. •

I I

!I I I

Ii.,

' I If ' :

•,

Ir'

! "' 1 I j

n� I' ' 'i't.. '

, . i r. . I

I •

\ '

I '' lI . ,. 11 • •

. l: '' l I

II .

•

e that those uir req rld wo rn ste we the of s ion dit tra ral mo a11d al leg e Th wl10, of tl1eir ow11 free \Vill and witl1 evil intent (sometimes called mens rea) co1n1nit acts \vl1icl1 violate tl1e la\xr, sl1all be criminally responsible for thos� acts. Ot1r traditior1s also require tl1at \Vl1ere s11ch acts stem from and are the product of a n1ental disease or defect as those ter1ns are used herein, mor al ty. The blame sl1all n�t att�cl1 , �n? l1�11ce t�ere will not be criminal responsibili . [citations ents irem requ hese t t mee to 1 1ed des1g 1s 111011 1 op tl11s 1r1 state we rL1le omitted]. Reversed and remanded for a 11ew trial. NOTES Note 1: The Aftermath of Durham

l h

�

i. . ,.

I: I \ f!

The f?u_ rham rule l1as itself bee11 st1bject to considerable criticism. Judge 1ng o� tl1e same _cot1rt tl1at l1ad decided Durham had this to say Burger, s1 tt _ ' a seve11 yea1 s later 111 conct1 rr111g opitiioi1:

..Tl,e rtile we. ador�ted in 1954 is ba sed on tl1e p remise that tl1e e 1s wl1etl1er the defer,dai1t h as a ,,m enta I ct1se cr1 t1cal tl1resl1old· 1sst1 · ase or . . cI e· fect .,, · 0t1r 01J111 1011 did 11o t def ine tl1e that the se ter ms say e x t t cep o . . ,, · 11 wl11cl1 1s considered r_apa_ cond·1 t10 a former 1& bl.e of e·1t �er 1mp · r? v1ng or deterioratir1g'' while . . tlie latter was f"1xed a nd subject neither to 1mprovem_e 1 1t i1or de.te_r1 orat_1 on. This inerely distinguisl1es ''disease'' from ''defect" . . . . f e 111 1 11 t d g e � 1 er 1 o 1 l t t l 1 t w erin. N Ot bein,g 11 d1� 1all_y defined, these terms � witnesses 1nea11 111 any give11 case wliatever the � xpe1t say they mean. . k11ow also tl1at 1Jsycl1iatrists are !11 disagreem�n t on what is a ''ment� disease," and eve11 wl,etlier tlier e x � ts such a defina ble and classifi a ble condtf tio11. So disti 11guisl ied an au �,ori�Y as Dr. Pl1ilip Q. Roche, autho� 0 TlJ e Criminal Mind whicl, rece i_ ved tl,e Isaac Ray Award from tl1e Americ an Psycl1iatric Associ�tion, said as recently a s 1958: .. • • I will say tl1ere is neitller sue1 1 a thi�g as g thin a nor ''insanity'' ''m e11tal disease.'' These �� ms df ot iden as ara td sep ing hav t ify entities !l � e xistence tliemselves enta tlln�ss'', a medical term, borrow e from the 1nec1 1anisti� ��n�e pts 0 clas 1cal t s o r fe re � l , se s ea � is ic ys � p _ _ d a11 �ltered interii al status of the �. or �l w indiv1du � extern al v1s a v1s his as interpreted by others I a way t�e t e inc , i h: s te�m s11omer is a m me11tal ill11ess is 110t act�al�Y so1netl11ng . l1m1ted to a place called t

;

ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBIL ITY

175

''f!lind''! but rather it is a changed inte rr el at io ns hip of the individual h with ts fellow �reatures. . . . To tl1e p sy ch ia tr . ha can ve a meaning only tn the sense of wha ist the mental iilness t in th e future will be done to or with the patient to relieve l1i . m an d th ar os ot e 1n hi d m Symposium on . Crimina� Responsib ility a11d Jv\er1tal Disease, 19th Annual Law Institute, Univ. of Ten11. 1958 in 26 T e1 1n R L ev. 221 . . ' 240--41 (1959). ' The literature on tl1e subject since 1954 abottnds witl sim 1 ila r comme11ts. This is 11ot to suggest we ca1111ot rely on so u1 1ce an rta in ''infant s�ience'' as psycl1iatry bttt ratl1er to sttggest tl,at 110 rule of law can possibly. b� s_ound or \vorkable wl1icl1 is deJ)e11de11t tlf)011 tl1e terins of another d1sc1pl1ne \vl1ose members are i11 profound disagree1nent abottl what those terms mea11.... Tl1is is 11ot si111ply a 1natter of exJJerts dis agreeing on opi11io11s or 011 diag11osis, wl1icl1 ofte11 occurs, but disagree ment at the tl1resl1old 011 \X'l1at tl1eir ow11 critical terms 1nea11. The fallacy of judicial relia11ce 011 ter111s st1cl1 as ''disease'' or ''dis order'' is furtl1er illustrated by a series of cases 111 tl1is court, i11cl ti cling the first trial a11d appeal of tl1is ap fJella11t. lr1 Blocker's first trial tl1 ree psycl1iatrists \X'ho testified said l1e l1ad 110. ''1ne11tal . di?ease''. I a111 11?'� satisfied that ot1r reversal of Blocl{er's first co11v1ct1oi1 Oil ll1e staLeu grounds without 1:1ore, was a� error (a1!d 011e in \x1l1icl1 I fJarticijJ�tecl. a_t the time). In l1old111g as \,,e dtd, \Ve tacitly co11ceded t11e }JO\v;er of St. Eltza beths Hospital Staff to alter drastically. tl1e SCOJJ� of f iule ? r l�:-7 lJy. a ''weekend'' char,ae in 1101net1clatt1re \Vl11cl1 \Vas ,v11tl10L1i. a11y sc1er1t1f 1c b:1s1s, so far as we l1a;e a11y record or i11for1natio11 .... Bloc/;;er v. U1iitet:l .�tales, 288 f. 2d 853 (District of Colt1n1bia Ci1�cuit, 1961 ). 1

�

Note 2: Tests Similar to the Durham Rttle Aside from New Hampsl1ire \'{!l1icl1 adoJJ_ted_ a. rt�le 11o_t �111like prtr/1,tg� ir1 1870 (State v. Pike, 49 N. H. 399) very Je\xr Jt1r1scl1ct1011s in �l1e U111tec.l ::>tat�s 11ave been persuaded by tl1 e Di,r/1a,n case. See, 110\vever, .l\1a111e Rev. Stat. ....... 149, Sect. 38-A.

Art.64 of tl1e French Penal Code states: If tl,e p erson cl,arged witl1 tl1e co1nmissio11 of a felo11y or11 m i sdemeanor wa s ti 1en 1· nsa,1 e · · · 110 offe11se l1as bee11 comm1ttecl. . · , cl1 64 is wl1i 1er . ratl Art t1t abo say to tliis e I 1av Fre1av1lle r and Soy� .. s1m1lar to the Durh am est ai,d was i11cor1Jorated \Vitl1i11 tl1e frei1ch Code at its inception (18 l O} long before the M'Naghte11 case \vas decided i11 E11crbland: · · � n aIte�at ·1 on ii, tl,e me11tal faculty in s11cl1 a ma11ner tl1at _ Insanity 1� 1 is acts. The determi11ation I of e awar er lon 15 the insane 1nd1vtd�a � . te tl1e istra for 1nag tion qttes a is i,e '1,,sa J� . is l a IVI as to �heth�r an in , ver e, we ges ho ctic j11d pra 11 1 e. cas li eac in al pe to decide w1tho_ut ap 111d bot riot by y the are but s tor doc t p e ca�l for _the tesllf!l O �Y °f n u11der interdiction eve l a i du � indi ; ie: e san 1 this testimony. Stm�la� Y t he w11 tl1a sl1o com is it if ' . ible ons p res 1f Y na may be declared cr1m1 . 1 · a rv te in d ci lu a g n ri u d n o ti ac d mitte a n infr lJ.

. des, 1960). Co l na Pe gn or ei F f 0 5 Ser1e The Frmc.h Penal CO<k (American

; ;

' I

I j I '

I ' • •

' •

.. .

•

••• r ,

, .,.

' ' ,:. ' ,. \

I �

;

. -

I :

, · ,' �. . ·. ' 1

i '.' .

!· ' '. I' . '

, I� ; . :,. I • :: ' '

...

176

Y IT IL lB S N O P S E R . l A CR°IMlN

le of 1 tic 1 Ar tio ica pl 64 ap is e th . th wi distinlty cu ffi di le · The p rin µ r ct� e os s th te om sta fr ty ni sa r in bo of . on ing . 11111g · all ��tu. al conditi gui� l ta en e m th ty of ul fac n . tio ra rio te de ll 1 wi e uc od . or pr . · t • ch · hi w y 1 n a . • on 111s m b 1 n1 u na 1s m so , r ia to 1n e st hy 1 t ca y xi ps 1I� ep ion �, pl am ex r fo : . emotions . y 1t n sa 1n 1m se f o s se a c and all e th h, re exist a number a!t he �t� pl m co d an ity n sa n i e et pl m co B�t��er, re such states to 1�r A a�1 11s 1-1 m se ?f s te sta e th , es tat s · of iiitermediate ? ty e 1l1 Th s1b on l sp na re Pe al zn im cr g n Code i oy str de as ed er id ns be co y ll_ s r� h rt ne ou ge c _ l in l1e T ch su n. d io at ? tu si is th r fo ed id ov pr t no lias g t1n as ga ed 1t1 m er id ns rcumci co e b to e ar tes sta e es tl, at th cases . 12 t . n e m h s n1 pu f o . 11 io stances goi11g to the reduct 1

Questions

,,,, .. ' J

r:· :

. II. ' , ..

IJ· I

-, -

I• • 11 I I

,' �

I ') r.

i• I r· • ' I\

I! ll . 1, I

tI J• ,, h•

;

' II

I I II, �1 \I • \t

..,

I \' 111

' ,. r \

l" r

Wl1y are D r . Weil1ofen and J Lidge Baz·elon in the_ Dif rham c�se so crU_ical of tests like that i11 Art. 48 P.C.E.? Many psych1atr1sts bel1 eve that such tests do 11ot include '\vithin their scope tl1e recog11ized psychotic conditions of para11oia and 1nanic-depressive JJsychosis. Would this be true of Art. 48? Wl1at are tl1e strengtl1s a11d \Y1eaknesses of t l 1e Durham test (see Note l)? Must tl1e defe11dant t111der Durham prove tl1at tl1e mental disease or defect caused the prol1ibited co11duct? A test of criminal r esponsibility must fit a variety of actual n1e11tal states into a legal mold which classifies certain JJersons as re-spo11sible and certain as irresponsible . Does y0ur conception of tl1e fu11ctio11s of pt111is.l1ment affect the drafting of such a test? What test \X10t1ld you recommend? Does tl1e concept of criminal responsibility assume tl1at men are capable of freely willing tl1eir acts? Is this consistent wit\1 the findings of modern social_ science? \Yhat implicatio ns migl1t your answer to th e foregoing question s have W1tl1 respect to the organization of the criminal trial proc ess? Consider tl1is co11t ent-ion: It is t111jt1st_ to exe!11�t tl1e insa11e wl1il e not exempting the sane perso n :<1l1o commits � cr1�111�l act due to adve rse upbringing and surro u�d111gs. 011e a11�1-soc!al 1i1dividual is primarily the product of heredity; tlie otlier, _en:'1ronn1ent. Wl1y should so radical a distinction be made by_ t�e criniin�l la\Y1 i11 favor of heredit)r? See contra Hall, General Principles of Crzminal Law 415 and footnote l � Problem

ou le re a member of a Parli a sib po am s en tar rin y g e co co mm n · sid itt ee me1� e 1en�s to �he Pe11al Code. A colleague f 1 !1 e ;ollowing 1mpass1 o yours rises and mak s th oned comments: es To con side r Art. 4s· o r in fact the d_ o rul e M 'N a hten or Durham al not real_ly_ �elp us ve ry much. It is mi n cri cle ar ncept of tha co the 1 r�sponsibilitx 110 loi,ger: has a place ceP co � J th e e li in It, cr law im in . al k rea, is an _arcl1a1c remnant of a da y wh en we really bel1ev�d � ia�ens n 1e n freely willed tl1 eir crimes. Today we k11ow better. We shoU 12.

Frejaville and Soycr, Droit C riminel 116-117.

'' I I

- ; : ..

ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY

177

build a system of trial i11 tw o pa ts·. the t·•_rst wo uld det erm ine wh · ether . de fe nd � an the t Iiad engaged in t e proh1b1ted cond uc wi t, th re ou ga t rd sta his te of to mind· the secon d would determine the dispos iti to on . ma de of the con' . c e defendant, plac ng tl1e be a n io cis s de re to tu na i 1 � � � � h gt d len of treat n 111 t l1e 1ands of a board of ex1Jert an s. You are asked to state yottr views on l1is remarks considering carefully the validity of his assun1ptio11s an d tl1e wisdotn of llis proposition. Recommended Readings

Weihofen, Mental_ J?isorder as a Crin1inal Defe11se (1954) (an excellent bool<; n.b. Cha�. 2 outl1111ng type� of 111e11tal disorder wl1icl1 is 11ecessary backgroui1d reading for ttnderstand111g tl1is section of tl1e materials). Lindman and lv1cln tyr�, . Th_e. 1:fe11ta/�y D {sabled a11d the Law 330-335 (1961) (good �tat_e1ne11t \v1tl1. cr1t!c1sm of various tests of criminal res1Jo11sibility and their 1mplen1et1tat1011 111 tl1e trial process}. Hall, General Principles of Cri111i11al Law 449-529 (careful discussion of tl1e issues and tests i11'v"Olvecl i11 establisl1ing irrespo11sibility). Ehrenzweig, A Psycl1oa11alysis of tile I i1sanity PJea . . ., 73 y·,ile L. J. 1.125-�14: l ( l 964J (an excelle11 t state111ent 011 i11sat1ity relati11f! ti1e defe11se to tl1e purposes of pt1nishme11t). Williams, Crii:•Jinal Law 428-559 (coin fJrel1ensive treat1ne11t o'f me11ial disorcler in the criminal law of Engla11d}. Donnelly, et. al., Cri1nir1al Law 733··847 (i11teresti11g colie•:t.io11 of 111ateriJ_ls co11sideri11g tl1e defense of i11sar1ity fro1n variol1s fJer;!Jecii1-1es). Krash, The Durham Rule and Judicial Adini11istration of tl1c Ir1sa11ity Defei1se in the District of Colt11nbia, 70 Yale L. ]. 905-952 (1961) (liiscttssio11 Of the Durham rule's effect on tl1e crimi11al trial process i11 \X/asl1inglo11, D.C.). Hall, Psychiatry a11d Cri111inal Respo11sibility, 65 Yale L. ]. 761-785 (1956) 1 lega. tl1e tests o'f to l1i1) io11s relat ry's l1iat psyc of n atio (careful consider criminal responsibility). Silving, The Criminal Law of Meptal Incapacity, �3 ]. Crim. L. Crirn. a,zd Pol. Sci. 129-163 ( 1962) (consideration of tl1e practical application of tl1e legal tests of responsibility). Graham, What to do with the Psycl1opath, 53 ]. Crim. L. Crim. a,id Pol. Sci. 446-452 (1962). Bouzat, Droit Penal 238-252 (sl1ort stateme11t concerning the defense of insanity in French criminal law). Vidal, Droit Criminel 306-320 (1947) (history and development of Art. 64, french Penal Code). Feldbrugge, Soviet Criminal Law, 9 Law in Eastern Europe 180-186 (I 964) (Soviet criminal law of insanity). nt le se el ca x� (e 1_ ]. · .1:da Su 8) 5 9_ (1 , da ag Su n Government v Mousa Adam /sh r_i n ee 1 tw lie cl be h1 w ty 1l1 1b 11s po es 1rr al in im cr stating the Sudanese tests of the knowledge test of Ethiopia and the Durham rule). . Rex v. Sunday Omoni, XII West Africa11 Ct. App. � 11 _(1949) (the leading case r A e to os t. 48 cl e it 1s qu ch hi w w la n ia er ig N on the defense of insanity j11 "2

P.C.E.).

' '. '

. I , . . . .· :' l' ' ' I

' l. '

' I I

; I

)

, . • • '

,, •

• • •• '

�.::

'" ,. I '., ;' ' 'I

'' l''

'' .

I j•

...

I ,

I: • :I

. .'

.. : I I

'·I ..• •• '

'' ' 1 :,_' . .' '

}.-

CR1MINAL RESPONSIBILITY

178

2) ort 96 (sh {l -14 10 statement ia ger Ni of w L_a l n imi C Hedges, Introduction to the : �

on tl1e law of insanity 1n N1ger1a). Seidman, Insanity as a Defense under the Cri�ina_l Code, 1 G�ana L. ]. 42 ( 1960) (short statement concerning the appl1cat1on of the M Naghten rule in Ghana). Morris, The Defense of Insanity in Australia, in Mueller, Essays in Criminal Science 273 · 298 (1961).

. I I

SECTION 8. LIMITED RESPONSIBILITY AND THE DEFENSE OF INTOXICATION

a. Limited Responsibility PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA

. I

'.." . ; J' I • , I

''1

I --4

',,

•

Pl I

j .. ' I- 'jI

Art. 49. - Limited Respo.·isibility. ( 1) lie \v.rho owing to a dera11gen1e11t of l1is mind or understanding, an arrested mental development or an abnormal or · deficient condition was not at tl1e time of his act, fL1lly capable of understanding the 11ature �nd co11sequences tl1ereof or regulating his conduct according to sucl1 u11derstanding shall not be liable in full to the punishment specified for tl1e offence committed. The Court shall without restriction reduce the punishment. (Art. 185).

•

\.II.;

(2) In addition to a penalty the Court rnay order sucl1 appropriate meas ures of treatment, correction or protection as are provided by law. (Art. 133-135).

·11111. l•

U''. 1 ' II II

I I" ,

I qJ'L .. !

'II'

�

d, • ;

I !,

·'11·..: �

13 IN THE PENAL LAW Of SWITZERLAND LIMITED RESPONSIBILITY

Paul Logoz

I' '

�fI

I l I

.. : Between the do�ain of complete abnormality which renders one . ir responsible and the domain of the normal, there is an intermediate zone which concerns mental health a11d IJerception and i11cludes so-called ''defectives '' for ' whom treatment must differ from persons co11sidered ''normal.'' . . But a bio�o ��cal cause must ...exist for a judge to be able to find l1m1ted respons1b1l1ty. _It would not be a case of limited responsibility simply because tl1e accused 1s a morally perverted individual or that he is more or less incapable of controlling l1is instincts. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL v. HAILEAB TEDLA Supreme Imperial Court, Criminal Appeal No. 8 / 51 ( J 958 G. C.) Ethiopia

Miazia 5, 1951 E. C. (April 13, 1958 0. C.); Justices: Blatta Haile Wolde 13,

Logoz, Commentairt du Code

Penal Suisst 42, 44. The source of Art. 49 is Art. l l C�P.S. (Appendix),

LIN,ITED RESPONSIBILIT Y

179

Kidar1e, Dr. W. Bul1agiar, Ato Mulat Besl, a. Tlie res1)011dent ,vas c_l1arged i11 tl1e High CoLt rt wit l1 murder of 011e Ato .A-a1e\v Degaga �11d ,v1tl1 attempted inurder of Mr. Frederic Piffard ai,cl 0f J - 11 111as eylrff. Tl1e efence <? f _d R � , 1 as t i sa w 11 en 1d i y o1 1it by reaso 0f 1 1c 1 �e was 11ot respo11s1ble for 111s the res1J act. l'J1e Hig h Court by majority fotttld tfia1 it \V�s 110t ab!e to say tl1at tl1e responcle11t \Vas respo11sible for tlie ofr-et . co�n1111tted ai,d, 111 accordance will1 the provisio11s of Article 48 of . ti1.e ��llOJJlai, Penal Code, sente11ced tl1e res1Jo11dent to t\vo ye;lrs ineclical t e 1 et, t a t. E11111: a11 Ltel I-Iospital, at tl1e encl of \Vl1icl1 [Jeriod a 111eclica l .e; )or� �� ; to �; th t1 r 5 minor\ty judgm�nt found the respondent partl� ,'.:��si��e ;�r �l�: �ffe':i�: co1111n1tted a_i d, 111 accorda11ce \x1 1tl1 tlie })rovisioi,s of Article 49 of tl,e Pe i,al � )Otldeii t \'<'as se 11 Code, �lie I eS[ t_er1ced lo te11 years i111 J)riso11111e11 t witl1 tl1e st tSJJe11s1011 of tl1e se1 1tc11ce 1)e11d111g'-' tl1e ctit·e of t l1e 1es1)011 t ti 1e mentaI d e11 t a 1 11 1• recov e_ry, �l1cl1 JJeriocl at tl1e 110s[Jital to be dedtlcted fr om I1osp1·ta.l L111t·1 5 tl1e 1Jer1od of te11 years 111 11Jr1so 11 n1e11t. J!1e Advocate-Oer1er�l a1)1Je_alecl fr<?111 lite judgmer1t of tl1e I Iigl1 Cot1rt or1 tl1e . 6 1 ou11 d tl1at tl1e 111ed1cal e\11de11ce 111 tl1e J I-1'gl1 Court d oes 110 t \X.1arl- a.11. t tilC f111cl'�r1g tl,at t} 1e. resrJ011de11t \Vas 1 1ot res1Jo11sible for l1is acts Or \xras 011Iy 1Jart1all)' respo11s1ble but tl1at 011 st1cl1 evicie11ce tl1e I l-icrl1 Cot1rt sl1ot1lcl 1,ave fot111cl tl1at � l- 1e respo11de11t �011111,itted tl1e offe11ce ir1l��1tio11allj' a11d tl1at tl1e respo11de11 t \vas full)' reS[J011s1ble for tl1e offe11ce co111111itted. fro1n tl1e evicle 11ce _ add_t1ceci before tl1e I-Iigl1 CoL1rt, tl1ere car1 be r10 cic>tibl t_I,at tl1e res1Jo11de11_t dtd lc1ll,_ by sl1o�ti11�, tl1e saicl �Ato 1\yale,x1 _f�e§aga arid wotln_ded1 by sl1ool1�1g, tl1e. said Fr ederic Pt�farcl ar1cl fl1c)111as Re>;l1ft. fl1e or1l�,r qt1est1011. t<? be co11s1dered _1s tl,e_ s tate of 111111cl of tl1c res1)011cle11t a . t tl1e ti111e of tl!c l{1ll11!g a11d \VOL111 d111g. l l1 e a11s\x;er to tl1is c1t1esti(111 c.ieJJe11cls 011 t!1c CoLtrt �.11d 011 oll1er circ1.1111st;i11ces me �1cal ev1de11ce gi\ e11 before tl1e I Iigl1 wl11cl1 ter1d to shO\V tl1e state of 111i11ci of tl1e res1Jo11de11t at tl1e relev�t11t ti111e ' Tl1e n1edical evide11ce \vas give11 by f)r. Niel< R. CarJolas \x·l10 liaci tl1e respo11dent t111der obse rvatio11 a t E1n111a11t1el J -Iost)ilal for a JJeric}d of sixtee11 days, tl,at is, fro1n lv\a)' 29 to J1111e 14, 1958 (Or. C al.). Dr. C(t[) Olas ac:c1t1irecl during tl1is fJeriod fragn1e ntary i11forrnalio11 regarcli11g tl1e life l1istory of tl1e respo11del1t fro111 tl1e respo11de11t's 111oll1er a11d sister a11d fro111 tl1e brotl1er of tl1e deceased. fro1n st1cl1 i11f0r111,llio11 a11 d fro1n tl1e bel1aviot1r of tl1e respo11dent, Dr. Capot as st1sr)ected s0111e for1n of e1)ilerJsy, a11d 011 st1cl1 st1s1Jicio11, t\vo epilepsy tests were carried ot1t 011 lv\a}' 7, 1958 and 011 1\1\ ay 14, 1958. Botl1 these tests were positive for e1Jile1Jsy. Fro111 l1is_ observatio11 a11 d fro1n tl1e tests carried ot1t Dr. C apotas ca111 e to tl,e cor1clt1s1011 t l1at t l1 e respo11de11t was st1ffering from ep ileptic eq11ivale11ts \vl1icl1 imply st1dde n sl1ifts of mood, unpredictable psyclio-motor attacks a11d t\xriligl1 t states (report by Dr. Capotas taneous _ maj�r on �t sp tl1 rt po re is tl1 in d se es r st �ated June 19 1958). It \vas ng di In lu . nc h1s 1n co l11 by d e rv se ob r no im 1 l ftts had not bee11 reported to t the above mentioned 1 u1 co ac to n g i n ki ta , at th said report Dr. Capotas stated e t� tement of tl1 s 1d a1 d 1 l a1 1 1e 1 0 e tl1 1 01 11s io at ic psycl1osis with its clinical i mpl f _ e tl1 dent, at t l1e_ time o 1 o1 sp_ re e tl1 t a tl1 ct ffe e e PW I who gave ev idence to tl1 i no\vadays 1s considered 1 cl l11 (\v k :no a 111 rL d ]1a sho_oting was acting like on e wlio � ded tl,at the cl _ ex be t �,o d_ 11l co it ), es at st as identi cal w itli epileptic twiligl1t t 1011 w1tl1 d1sturbe� co11d1 1 1 co _ al rm o n_ ab re�pondent was ac ti ng 1111cter an r. Ca1Jotas re1Jl 1ed t o D , rt po re s hi ng d1 lt1 1c o1 sc1ousness, aggressiveness, etc. C the quest ions put to hin1 b y the Court as follows: cts p f l1o� icide a� d a e� g le al 1e tl it m m (a) The respondent di d 110 t co t, e., w1tl1 capacity i. en 1t 11 d n a e g d le w o n k ll atte mpted homicide witl1 fu

I • I •

, I '' •

I I

I ' '

I J

I ' I '

<' '

•• '

• J I

I • •

I •

' , •: 4 I:

l :�

I \I

I j,

• !

", :·'.. I'

.. . ' : ' '

;

··.·.

r;' : '

I.' .:..., -. , '. .. ·; :

'•

..•.•r•. ;

p ,� I ..

�t. .

l'\J I

•

CRIMINAL

180

I,' , ,, · ..' " I

•I

•

If I',.

Ii1 i • •

li.1 1,,··

'• ,1.r "'"

I 1\,. " I . ll

't : :. t

I t+ ' I. 1 � f

�

i ll'"

\, I •11

\'' I'". '

'' I I\.,

!II•,

' 1

.1t:::

'�'

RESPONSIBILITY

; the m lin g co ntr ol of nd a cts of underst anding his a e al od C en P e ld th u f co o 48 t no le ic rt A be er nd u y it il b si on sp re ir l ta (b} to t was compl e t ely or partially en 1d o1 sp re e t11 r e 1 th e.xc uded but wl1e t· ur Co e th o t s a t , c JO a( r. O y b ft le as w irrespo11sible b si on sp re lly , ir ia le rt pa he or lly fu was as w nt de on sp re e (c) whether th dangerot1s to society. tas in his report po c;a . Or y b_ _at ed riv ar s on i us l c n co T he remarks ai,d en before the � i gh v gi ce �n 1d ev _ his n i d fie i pl am re we dated Ju ne 19, I 958, nce Dr. � apotas ex�la1n�d e id ev s t �1 _ n I . 58 19 I 8, ne 1 t J of Court at the hearing t hat 1s (a) m aJo� fit , s! _ rm l fo _ 1ca 1� l c e 1re l t o t in d de i div that epileiJsy can be d, 1oo _ 1 f t 1 ng of n sh a_ 1s u1t � a � ich wh t l en iva qu e i c t e1J l i ep (c) fit, d a11 all . (b) sm s1 bl e �ause; it also 1_mpl1 es v1 nal ter �x . an t1t l1o wit 11d i m of e 11g clia den sud psyclio-motor attacks and so called t\x,1l 1gl1t of the co11sc1 e11c�;_ ac t � of v.1ole�ce in t l1i s state are f)Ossible. The respor1de11t wa s t o be_ classified 1n t he tl 1ird group, tl1at is, e1)i le1)tic eq1iivalen_ts_. A _fi t may occur 1eitl1e� freq\1ently or even 011ce 011\y; it is t11 1predic t able; s111c1de 1s n? t a 11 sual man1festatio� 1n_ such a state but a agressive11ess towards o t hers IS 11s11al . I n cross-exam1nat1on, tl1e expert wit1�ess, Dr. Capotas, stated tl1a t a fi t of t his sort may last from 1ninu tes to l1ot1rs v/itl1 subseque11t l oss - par tial o r total - of memory of th e events. Dr. CaiJota�. we11t 011 to say tl1at a fJerson actin g under a fit does no t lose his personality; he is 11ot 1)reclt1ded fro1n t l1e c a pacit y of distinguishing and ide11tifyi11g perscins; l1is activ ity is, however, at1toma tic. Dr. Capotas was prepared to admit lhat tl1e respo11de11t, at t l1e releva11t time, u11derst ood tl1e nature ar1d conseqttences of l1is a.cts b11 t that lie l1ad no co 1 1 t rol of his acts. finall y i n replyi11g to c1t1 estions to tl1e Cottrt, Dr. Capo t as st a ted t hat tl1e fact tha t the responde11 t l1ad bee11 acti11g i11 a sta te of epile1Jtic a tt ack implies insa11it y as he was not able t o control l1is acts . I can11ot therefore' exclude total irresr)onsibility 11or ca11 I excl 11de par tial irres1)onsibi'lit y. Now the re s�lt of tl1e �XjJert evide nce is tl1at the respondent, at the tim e of the_ acts commi tted by l11m, \'Vas st1ffering from a 1n ental illness as a result of \V�1cl1, altl1011 gl1 he ':x,as capable of t1r1dersta11di ng t he 1,at tire a11d con seque11ces of h1s act�, ·he \X as 1 nca1)able of regulating l 1is co11ctuct according to such 11nd�rst�nd1ng.. Tl1e expert wa s 11?t, 110\vever, defini te i11 excludi11g total ?r part1 a_l 1n�apac1 t �. _ No�v, t11 1der Ar ticle 51 (3) of the Pei,al Code, t l1e Court 111 reacl11ng t�s �ec1s 101 1 1s bo11 11d solel y 'by defii,it e sciei, tific fi11ctiiigs and not b)' the apprec1at1on of tl1e expert as to t l1e legal ii1ferences to be draw n t herefrom . Tl,e appeal of tl1e Advocate-Oe11eral is based on tl1e f act tl1at1 as th e respond_e11t :"as _able to selec t l1i s victims, he sl,ould be 11eld to be fully respo nsible for l1is acts. Tl1e expert evidei1ce clearly show that in a fit such s a s the re s1)011de11t was �ufferi11g from t11 e victim does no t loose 1,is perso nality but_ he may_ lo�e ca rJacity to co11 t rol 11is co11duct . ert xp e tl1 e of i s a O s l1e b n t evidence tl11 s Court_ canno t but find tha t tile re m fro rin g e su ff sp ot w ident as - der a11gement of mind wl1ich precluded him ing ul at g e r fro m at l pa ea st rtially �1s conduct. The a JJpeal of tl,e Advoca'" ar f s o ' in d e G e ' r 1 t be ct· s' · s as SU �h appeal a�ks tl1is Court to find th;t ib le ons resp ; r��l tl�: wa� r:sp :�� ent I or f 11s acts. T l1e nex t question to be exam1· s wa . dei 1t n 11ed 1s wl1ether tl1e respo · "g fully irrespo nsibl e fo h . r 11�. s act5 as found by the major 1 H e 1 tl of gment court o r only par t1a]ly Irresponsible as found by theitymi1jud 1ority judgment. l In determi11ing tl1is p oint the C al n t·o I nd� era ou� ns ·ct mus ca t take into t relevant evidetice immediat e 1Y b,efore, dt1r1ng and after the acts of the respo 1

LIMITE D RESPONSIBILITY

181

ent. This evidence sl1ows that before f"tr · g a_t P k e nd po e th res nt as ed 1 W �� _ '' . J C a is u BB �o of s1 y? •Jwl1icl1 after oottng at hr� and wound ing him he asked him to stoJJ rt t r11iii,g rotttid a t. ree a� d pro1n1sed not to fire any morej tl 1e responde11t was able to select 11 15 vt.ctims after !he wounding and ; o ay 1 a n w on ra fr lie e tl1 scene f the Offence_ by stopping a car and went l,illi11g, to Ji1nma. from all sttc}1 evide tice th Cott�t find? tl1 at the respondent was � � 0111}' 1Jartiall�, t1r1able to reattla te Ji is on �tct ? r this reason tl1e Court l1olds t l1at t l1ere \Vas limited respoi,sibUit)' tti id A t 1 1 as of Code, Penal the fot111d by tl1e miqority jtidgment of tl,e I-��11 � iu�t.49

Tl1is Court, tl1 erefore, co11 fir111s t l,e �,ii r · t · d tne11t of tl1� li1�h Court � JU r i �� n j1 t e ic 1c fl e1 i11 ed i 11 tl1at 1dg1 e ' h at ts 10 years 1mpr1sonment a11d tl1e se11t ,vit l 1 a susJJe11sion of the se, 1 teiice I)ei,di � l,e c_ur of tl1e respo11dent i11 at me11tal l1os1Jita l , a11y JJeriod for cure i il st��1 ,iosJJlta f to be deducted from the period of i111 JJriso11111 ent. Questions

I•

What are tl1 e di ffe re11ces betwee11 Arts. _48 ai,d 49? Is Logoz' stateinent tl 1at ''a biological cat1se 111t1st exist for a Jticlge to be able to fir,d Iin,ited. resrJ011sibility'' valid i11 Et l1iopia? 011 wl1at basis did tl1e Su1Jrerr1e Imperial Court declare A'-c H ·1 . b !eclla to. be p�rtially irres1Jo11sible t.1nder 1:\rt. 49? Wliy ,x,as I,� 11 �ta•ri�y 1rres1Jo11s1ble? Were tl1 e jt1dges bott11cl by all of tl1e expert testirr1 ony of r Cap_ot_ as? Wl1at w�s tl1e 1\dvocaf.e�Oe11eral's positio11? \)f/as tl1t fin.al di.s pos1t1011 of tl1 e dere11dant pro1)er u11der Art. 49?

o· .

I I

I '

'} ' .

' .

•

'. I 'l ' _,

; )' .

. .'

•' • •• •' I ,,

•

Tlie Defense of Into�-.:icatio11

1 ·1 IA OP HI ET OF DE CO L NA PE

Art. 50. - J,1tentional or C11/p,tble lrrespo11sibilil.J'· nt 1 all me ish sl to pun y ilit liab 11g t1ci red or i11g lud exc 1s io1 vis e (1) Th pro 11ot aJJf)ly to tl1 e perso11 wl10 i11 order to commit an offence i11ten d y ite of or ilit lim sib on esp irr of 11 itio r1d co a o i11t f sel t l1im lly JJU tio11a . er ans y oth by an me or s t1g dr or ol oh alc of s a11 1ne l ibi by respo11s ity . se ch ca su in e a bl ica pl ap e ar de Co is tli of s on isi ov Tl1e general pr (2) If an offender by l1 is ow11 fault l1as pt1t l1imse1f into a condition of 1 ile he was aware, or l w y lit bi 1si o1 s1J re d ite lim of ty or ir respo11sibili lf, g se i11 sin m hi po s ex \Va he at th e, ar aw en be ve ha could and sl1ot1ld l be al e, he sh nc fe an of g in itt 1n m co of k ris e tl1 to sucl1 a conditio11, 11s governing neglige.nce io is ov pr ry na di or e th r de un tried and punishe d }. . . 5 rt ge (A ar a ch ch su on e bl ha is 1n pt s i d te 9 if the offence commit 11d r ed te at no in pl em nt co r he it ne as w h ic 1 (3) In tl1 e case of an offe11ce wf ty ili to ib in 1s o1 sp e re et ir pl m co of e at st ed and w as con1 mitted in a e th of 5 le 48 ic rt A t, ul fa n ow s hi y b lf whici1 th e offe11der p u t )1imse 1 4·

(�) ar� not codified in d an ) (2 50 t. Ar . x} i d_ en pp (A S. P. lh_c source of Art. 50 (I) is Art. 12 C. adings 111/111. re d.eel en m m co re 1n t ou t se 'Wu:zerland; see, however, Swiss jurisprudence

.. '

· I�

p ••'

, i •.

I \1: • 4.'

. .'

;

I .., l -• •

I · .: I

. '

.I .· '

;

.,."

...

182

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

st n · ai es ag ic 11c bl fe Pu of to g tin la Safety re le oc C is Special Part of tli shall apply.

DRUNKENNESS 15 Fetha Nagast

1 , ' \+

·t ' . .'

So also, tl1e drllill<, as l1e is to b� considered as n_ot l1av_ing the _lISe of reaso11, sl,all not be l<illed; tl1e dru11l<, indeed, l1as lost l11s :eason by_ 111s O\x,n will· whereas in tl1e case of tl1e den1er1ted a11d the feeble-1n111ded, tl1e1r reason jJeri'slies witl,out tl1eir \Vill. ·r11e pt111isl1n1e11t of tl1e for!11er [tl1� drt111k] sl1all 11ot be tl,e sa1ne as tl,at of tl1e latter. Reaso,1 tells tl1at 1f 011e IS acct1stomed to drunl<en11ess and if one is ft1rioL1s, 011e's pu11isl1rnent sl1all 11ot be the same as tl1e JJL111i�h111e11t of tl1e deme11ted a11d feeb!e-mi11ded, 1nore so i11 tl,e case wl1ere tl1e dru11l< l1as l<illed before irr a state of drt111ke1111ess, a11d \Vl1en, be t\vee11 l1i1n a11d tl·,e victi1n tl1ere was a qttarrel before.But if tl1ere is 110 l<nO\'l ing tl1at l1e is ft1riot1s or tl1ere \Vas no qttarrel bet\veen tl1en1, l1e sl1all be JJUnisl1ed accordi11g· to tl1e pt111isl11ne11t of drt111l<s; l1is pt111isl1n1e11t sl1all be as tl1e punisl1n1e11t of one \vl10 l<ills i11volt1r1tarily.

I i; ' •

' I 'I I

'I'

ft I

INTOXICATION IN TI-IE PENAL LAW Of fRANCE 16

:•

t ' Ii I•

I .Il

• I

Pierre Boi,zat

t. \ ...

Different TJ1pes of J,itoxication ... Intoxicatio11 rest1lti11g fro1n the absorption

of alcoholic beverages (tl1is comn1on for1n of intoxication is conti11t1i11g to expa11d despite tl1e effort made by tl1e legislatt1re to combat it); i11toxication resulti11g from tl1e Lise of drt1gs (mor1Jl1i11e, cocai11e, l1asl1isl1). Alcoholic lrttoxicatiorz ...It is tl1is forn1 of i11toxication whicl1 raises tl1e

more i111porta11t a11d difficult 1)roble1ns. It is L1seft1l to disti11gtiish a1no11g sev, eral l1ypotheses: A. ·w11e11 alcol1olic intoxication actually falls witl1in tl,e area of i11sanity (alcol1olic i11sanity, delirit11n tre111e11s), it is a trt1e i 11sanit); renderi11g one irresponsible witl1i11 tl1e mea11i11g of Art. 64 of tl,e Petial Code.11

B. Tl1e second l1ypotl1esi � cat1ses 1nuch 1nore diffictilty.It coi,cerns tl,e drt111k ard _ wl10 only loses l11s reason for a sl1ort l)eriod \'v'llile uiider tl,e influe11ce of_ l1qt1_01: a11d tl1e11, wl !e11_ d�u�1l<, co1nmits a 11 offeiise (ofte11 hotnicide or wilful 1nJt1ry).Must tl11s 111d1v1dt1al be considered responsible? a.

There are two cases for which the solutions are certain: 1.

If the.individu�l drank_ �pecifically to give himself tl,e courage to C?tnmtt th� crime, this Intoxication .does not re11der hi1n irres1Jon s1_ble. but, 1n fac�, i � co11sidered an aggravating circumstance in-. d1cating premed1tat1011.

15. Chap. XLVJI. J 6. Bouzat, Droit Penal 252-254. Tl1e French law is quite cJ ose to . area. r .. s r e ·t hi 1op1an h Eh" · · 1n 17. For Art. 64, French Pen al Code, see p. 175 supra.

183

LIMITED RESPONSIBILITY

If, o_n th� c_ontrary, tl1e individual dri11 ks witl1 ot1 t bei11 g aware of tl,e 1 nebriat 1_11g q ttal ities of tl1e alcol1ol wl1icl1 lie co11 sumes, l1e is n?t respon51ble for acts wl1icl1 he com1nits i11 tl1is state of ac cidental drt1 r1 ke11r1ess.

b. T�e. oth�r cases ar� less clear, a11 cl it is tl,ese w11 icl1 cat1 se n1ost of tl1e

d�ff1cultie�, a11 d \vl11 <:;l1 , u11 fortt1 11 ately, are tl1e 1 11 ost freq11e11t. A11 i11di v1 dttal. dr111 ks_, l{11_ 0\v111g f11ll \Veil tl1 e i11 ebriati11 g effeet of Iiqttor a11 d commits! wI11I e 1 11 a state (!f con1 JJlete drt111 l\e1111ess, a cri1ne wl1 icl1 l1e _ l1 ad 11? 1 nte11t1011 to con1 m1t a11 d \Vl1icl1 l1 e l;ertainly \V011ld 11 ot l1 ave comn11 tted \vl1 en sober.

Tl1e rttles 1 l1 ave lor,g IJre,railed l1 old tl1at a dr111 1l<ard \vl10 is 11 ot wl1icl _ aware of 111s acts ca1111ot con11 11 it a11 i11le11 tio11 al crin1e s1tcl1 as I1ornicide or r co1n111 it art u11i11 te11tio11 al cri1;,e as for i1 1sta1 1ce 11 eg 1l) 1 0 11 ca l1e ry; 11 j 1 i1 wilfttl ligent homicide or 11egl ige11t i1 1jt1 r)r. Today, wl1 en ,ve desire inore arid 111 ore to cornbat alcol1 olic i11toxication stricter rules are te11 di11g to prevail. l11 fra11 ce as i11 otl,er cot11 1tries it seem� i1 1creasi 11 gly 11ece�sary to [Jt1 11isl1 011 e, wl10 t11/ot1 gl1 l1 is O\v11 fault ' becomes dru11 I<, eqt1ally w1ll1 tl1 e sober 111 a11 . S0111e believe tl1 at tl1e act of beco111i11c, drt111k sl1 ould be regarded as tl1 e begi1111i11g of tl1e exect1tio11 of tl1e offe1 1s� wl1ich is coin 111 itted after\vards, bt1t tl1is \Vo1.1ld IJe too great a11 ex 1Ja11 sior1 of tl1e bou11 daries at tl1e begi111 1i11 g of a11 offer1se. Otl1ers, ,xritl1 111 ore reaso11 . . . belie,,e that tl1e individttal wl1 0 tl1rot1gl1 l1is o,v11 fat1lt beco111 es clr1111 l< sl1ot1 lcl l1ave beer, able to foresee tl1at he was lil<el}' to co111111it a cri11 1e i11 st1cl1 a state a11cl, tl1ere fore, sl1ould be co11 sidered as 11a,,i11g co1111 nilted tl1 e cri111 e �-itl1 CLllpabilit�, even tl1ougl1 it was not co1111nitted \villi ex1Jress cleliberalior1. SI-IOULD DRUNKENNESS EXEiv\PT FROJ\;\ Gl"111vi!le lf/i!li,1111s

PUNISI-Ii'v\Ei\iT? 18

•

• I

. ) I

• l' • ,

, I'

' ' 1111

�·1 .'

I .•

It is 110\v accepted that drt111 l(e1111ess is 11ot ge11 erally a11 aggravatio11 of c:rime, ar1 d ma)' 01Jerate to recl11 ce I)Ur1isl1111 e1 1t. Larce11y by a clr111 1l<ard does 11ot ,vear qt1 ite tl1e sa111e coin JJlexio1 1 as larce1 1y . by a sober 1Jerso11, a11d 011e who co1 nn1i ts a brutal assattlt i11 a clrt1 11l<e11 rag·e 1 s 11ot 11 1orally so lo\v as 011 e who bel1aves tl1e sa1ne way i11 colcl blood a11d \Vitl1 full 1<110\v'ledge of ,<rl1at l1 e is doing. The f11ri 11 er q Lt es tion is \XI 11 et 11 er cl rtt11 l<e1 111ess s11 ot1 ld 11ot i 11 . ap1Jro1Jri� te circu1nsta11 ces rule otit JJLir,isl1 n1 e11t alto_getl1 er! eve11 tl1 ot1 gl_1 a tecl1111 c�I co11v1 c tion is proper I y registered. If a n1 a11 1s JJtt111 s1·1eel ro!. do111 g so!11 etl1111 _g \V11 11 � _ drunk tl1 at J1e \VOt.tld 11 0t }1 ave dor1e \vl1 e11 sob� 1 , 1 s l1_e 1 1?t 1 11 pla_111 trt_ 1 tl1 punisl1ed for getting drtinl(? Marl<by, a11 s\veri11g tl11s qt1 est1 011 11� tl1 e aff1 r111 at1ve, _ cr_iticised the law on tlie grotiricl t!1at rt r11 al<es clrt111l<e1111 ess i tself a11 offe11 c�, with pt1 nishmeiit var)'ii ig \Viti, tl1e co11 seqt1e11 ces of tl1e ac_� �one. Blacl<stone_ s explanation_ tl,at one crime sl,ot1ld r1ot be allowed to _IJI tvtlege �11 otl1 er - 1 s no lo11ger ap,Josite since drttiil<en11 e�s is 1_1ot 110\v a cr1 n1e; a11 d rt begs tl1 e questio11 whetl1er the dru11 l<ard's act 1 s a cr1rne. 1 11 missio11 er s ,va.s tl1 at, o x' C a: al ir1 r ri C � e � Tl1e explanatior, given by tl� 11de a genc:i ex to ry sa es 1 ec 1 1s 1t , lly ca l11 op os w ho ever tlle matter may staiid pliil 18- Williams, Criminal Law 564·568.

(;; J

' ( I.

' I I

'' ' I • '

•

' I ,. .

I I

• •''. ' .

. . � : ' .'t :

.. ' ... '..... ... .... . ., . ...

: �

184

r�

,1.

1r.

•'

I I •I ,!

t •' . I• "

!t ,, ,. \,"

• ,1 1

' ...

• ! '' 4.

\ f l "" t 11 •

l'I."•J

CRIMINAL

RESPONSIBILITY

eral JJlea of drt i nkeni,ess because of t}1e possibility of abuse. Were such a plea admitted, ''the .pretence would be co11sta_ntl� resor!ed to as _a cloak for com init ting tlie inost liorrible outrages witl1 impunity; what ts worse, the re�lity would be incurred 1 ,ot only to �11s�re safe�y t� _ t l1� m?st 1 1otor1ous offenders but for ei1abling them to inflict atrocious tnJuries with the greater confiden�e; ai,d the very excessive brutality of an outrage _ w ould afford sucli evidence of tl1e total abse11ce of . reason �n� hu��ne feeling as would tend to tl1e acquittal of the most heinous criminals. <) The eloque11ce of tl1e Co1n1nissione�s seems in this i_nstanc� to have run away \Vitl1 tl1e1n, for tl1ey almost certa1r1ly overstate their case. The fear of subterfuge expressed at tl1e begi_n�i_11g of tl1e pa_ssag� does not rest 011 c?nvin ci11 g grounds, becat1 se tl1e 1Jossibil1 ty of deception ts one . that every tr i bunal lias to face 011 an;' isst1e.<4) Tl1e fear that a person who intended to co mmit a crime wot1ld actt1all;' get dru11l< before com1nitting it, if drunken11ess were a.11 excttse, is also greatly exaggerated. No 011e s11ggests that slight inebriation sl1ould affect guilt or punisl11ne11t: the questio11 arises only for one wl10 is very dru1 1 k. It seerr 1s t111lil<ely tl1at a criminal wottld choose to get drunk before a cri1ne, becat1se {a) l1is drunl<e1111ess may lead l1im to forget his purpose; (b) it \Vill re11der l1im more clu111sy i11 carryi11g 011t his purpose, and thus increase tl·1e risl< tl1at l1is i11tei1tio11 n1iscarries; (c) it will increase the risk of being found ot1t. Altl1ot1gl1 dru11kenness is freqt1e11tly regarded as a ground for n1itigation of punishn·1e11t, there is 110 evide11ce that criminals get drunl< before tl1e crime in order to tal<e adva11tage of tl1is mitigation. Tl1ey do frequently dri11k before con1n1itting a crin1e, bt1t tl1e JJLtrpose is to dam1Je11 inhibitio11. The effect of dri11l<i11g is also to reduce intellige11ce, and in many cases a criminal who has tal<e11 a.lcol1ol mal<es Ii ttle or 110 attern pt to hide his guilt. As a matter of l1istory tl1e trtte reaso11 way drunkenness \Vas disregarded was tl1at it. was tl1o �gl1t tlJat dru11l<enness being a voluntary act, and bein�, moreover, 1m111oral If 11ot 1llegal, ot1 ght not to be an excuse. It was on this pri�ciple tl 1 at i11volu11tary_ drunl<enness was regarded as excusing. Yet insanity, wh1 cl1 exct1 ses fr?:11 pu111sl1rnent,. m�y so_metimes be quasi-voluntary. It is well k _nown that sy_1)!11l1s may res11lt 1n Insanity (general paresis), a11d tl1e contrac tion of syph1 l1s rnay be tl�e rest�lt of a co11scious r,unning of risk; but the sufferer from ge11eral paresis receive� tl1e same exernption as a11y otl1er _ insane person. J-lowever, tl1e causal co11nect1on between sexual i i,tercourse \v1tl1 an tn�ect_ed person a11d ge11eral JJaresis is tnore prolonged tlian tliat between dr1nl<111g and drunl<er1ness. Tl1e _ sweepi11 g rule tl1at volu11tary dru11kenness is no excuse overlooks tile com1Jlex1ty. of t�e JJroblem. A nu 1nber of cases may be put in whic}1 it would be clearly 1r1eqt11table to n1ete out pu11isl,ment to the drui,kard in the san1e w �y a_s to a sober perso11. Suppose tl1at a man wli en in drink commits some m1scl11 ef that (1) he would not have done wli en sober (2) lie did not desire to _do wl1en !1e b�carne drunk, (3) he did not know lli�self to be capable of doing wl1en 1 n dr1nl<. Ev�n _ttnd�r tl,e Ia\v as it stands, [in England] proof. of these facts would be adm1ss1ble In mitigation of punishment, and the probative (3) �r.iminal_ Law �on1r� ., �th Rep. ( 1843) Parl. Pap. xix 23. (4) S1mulat1on of 1nrox1cat1on co avoid liability for · hisrrio.n1c a crime 1genc e, presu ppose 11. s 1nte 1g . h h. c 1 i y and care fu1 ca Icu lac1o ab'l" · n._ Even _superficial survey f al �: r br ted in th o th a how s t e e epo 1 a � r s cas es ff d h o en ers ave th e ve ry opposite ualities . _ they are weak, unp . abn orIIl · q J . s1ve, and frequenclY u Hall, General Principles of Criminal !.Aw 531 _

LIMITED

RESPONSJBILITY

185

difficulty (tl1e ris� o f a c o�cocted .def_en ce) is tl1erefore 11ot superable. Wl1at 15 tlie 0?Ject of 111fl1ct11_ �g a11y p11nisl1 me11t regarded a s i11 at all? It cannot th o u b g tl e l, ,e t y ri sk o us l of_ st1cl1 pu111�l1 me11 t will deter seri _ p eo JJ le i 11 ge11eral d rt tn n k T g . li g e et m t o s it � c from an � do 1s to deter tl1 e JJarticular offend er from getting dru11k a11otl1er t1m� .. Yet for tl1is JJurpose it 1nigl1t b e eq11ally efficacious to have a. 1·ule_ co11f1111 11g JJunisl1n1e11 t lo a 1 nan w l 1 0 con11nits a wl1en misdeed 1n dr111k. second .

These problen1s arise 0 11ly 011 a J)ttrely deterre11t or JJU 11i ti ve ap pr oa ch If . co m se m ri ou its 1n s a1 1 is cl 1ief wl1 e11 i11 dri11l<, society 11 1 t1st take step a m agai 11st s t11 01 tl1 1g os h e ev st en e[ JS 1nerely i11vol\1 e JJL1tti11 g 11i111 011 [Jrobatioi1 \vitl1 11im a ta ke tr to ea tio tm n er 1t for alcol1ol is111. But tl1e ct t lprit ca1111ot be placed condi on probat ion ttnless l1e is deemed to l1a\1e co1n 1 nitted a crime. Questions

1. 2.

Sl1ot1ld a distir1ction be 1nacle \'v'it11 1-esJJect to pt111isl11ner1t bet\vee11 011 e man wl1 0 commits art offe11se \v'l1 ile dru11k a 1 1d anotl1er wl1ile . i11sa11e? ls _ sucl1 a distiJ1ctior1 based or1 tl'1e tl1eory tl1at me11 car1 freely \•1111 to dr1nl(, but not to become i11sa11e?

Wliat distinguisl1 es eacl1 of t]1e st1b-seclio11s \Vill1i11 Art. 50? ,;v11at coi1sequences result frorn placi11 g a11 i11di vidttal wit11in one or a11otl1er of t J-1ese sub-sectio11s?

Offender -·---Sub-sect. ( 1)

Complete or

limited

responsib ilit1'

Sub-seer.

(2)

Sub-seer. (3)

Complete or limited ir responsibility

Complete irresponsibilicy

State Induced By Own fault (intent)

Own fault (intent or negligence)

Own fault

(intent or negligence)

Negligently (aware or sl1ould l1ave been aware cl1ar state of irresponsibility n1igl1t lead co commission of offense) Accidentally (neirl1er con templated nor intended)

•

)

: ..

•

;

' '! J•

•••

Offen5e Commiit1!d lntentionally

Is the following a correct re11deri11g of Art. 50: State of

Applica"t:ion of ger1eral Code • • prov1s1ons except Ans 48 a11d 49. Application of . . prov1s1ons governing negli gence if offen se committed allows for such. Arts. 4 8 and 49 provide no defense. Application of

Art. 485.

. . Arts 48 and g edin prec t]ie and 50 t A n wee bet Wl1at relationship exists es all 49 cas in a11d 48 ts. Ar of n tio li�� 49? Does Art .. 50 �xcl:1de the e let ly mp on ''co ns tio 11 me (3) 50 t. Ar t �a ap t e Not of volunta ry 111tox1cat1on? irresponsibility''. . .: .E .C P e th r e d 11 u n · to t en t ls the following a valid co11 . . n ay e u d m b 1o se at 1c x to in h ic h w in s ay w e re There are essentially th as a defense:

••

' .11 .

.••. ,

to I

�·';' \'

,,,'

i ; '

... i· '. '

I . i ••

I •: • I , ;

. ,. I;' '... . ,:· . ! ·� :. ;�. . .' ' ..' .. ·., •• • '. '; >• ••

I, . , 1'

t:. •

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

186 a.

If it 11egales tl1e iiite11t requi_red �y that article of tl1e Special Part ti11der \x,l1icl1 tl1e defendant 1s be111g cl1arged.

If t11e state of iiitoxicatio11 fJrodt1ces ��li_riu111 tre1ne11s wl1ich fulfills tlie jJrereqt1isites of absolLtte irrespo11s1b1l1ty u11der Art. 48.

If tl1e state of intoxicatio11 prodt1ces limited respo11sibility under the reqt1ire111e11ts of Art. 49.

Wl1at is t!1e dispositio11 of a ma11 wl10 falls. witl1i11 A!·t. 50(2) but l1as committed a11 offe11se wl1icl1 ca11not be committed 11egl1gently (e. g. Art. 5441 Assat1lt)? I-lo\v does Art. 50(3) relate _to Art. 4?5? yv'l1at purpose lies beliitid Art. 485? I-lo\'v \VOLtld you cieal \v1tl1 tl1e s1tuat1011 \vhere a 111a11 voltintarily drinl<s bt1t cloes 11ot realize tl1at tl1e. al�ol1ol \xri�l. have an i 11ebriati 11g effect, as lie is overtired or l1as a co11st1tut1011al def1c1e11cy?

MiaJ1t tl1e roots of Art. 50 be i11 tl1e fetl1a Nagast? Are tl1e French legal co1�ceJ)ts i11 tl1is area as set out in B011zat co11siste11t__\vith. tl1ose of Etl 1 ioiJia? Do �/OU SlllJl)Ort tl1e fre11cl1 or co1nmo11 la\v pos1t1011 \v1tl1 reSJ)ect to tl1e defe11se of i11 toxicatio11? Problem

. I[,... . ·�,···...

\i'"' '

• e

q .�.:

+ l tJ ••

Yot1r Iv1i11ister is concer11ed witl1 tl1e proble111 of drt111l<enness a11d l1as rece11tly reacl \Xiilliams' cl1aJ)ter 011 tl1e st1bject. I-Ie aslcs )'OU for a sl1ort 111e111ora r1 d LI 111 sLl J) j)O rti11 g or ref Ltti11g t 11e fo11o \Vi11g assertio11 of Wi 11ia1ns i11 I i g11t of its p res e11 t 1ega1 positio11 a11d t11e dev elop,ne 11 t of cri1ni1 1a1 Ia\V in Etl1iOJ)i,1: . .. ''If a 111a11 is p1111isl1ed for doi11g son1etl1ir1g \vl1e11 dru11l< tl1at lie \voulcl 11ot l1ave do11e wl1e11 sober, is lie not i11 !)lai11 trutl1 fJU11isl1ed for g·etti11g drunl<?" Reco1nmended Readings

. c Sc/1011bro�l Proc1,treitr Ge111ral c/1,1, c_a11ton cle Ber11e, RO 88 IV 4, JT IV 39 ( 1962) (Swiss case co11cer111r1g 11egl1ge11ce dt1e to ir1toxicatio 11 follo,xred by a11 setti 11g· OL1t tl1e Swiss la\xr of i1 1toxicatio11). excelle11t 11ote by W.IIei111 . ud c _ /l�i11it� ere Public drt �a11ton de Ge11eve, RO 85 IV 1, JT IV 7 (19?9) Gero (S \vtss J Ll r 1sl) rt1cle 11 ce 11oId I r 1 g· tl1a t a driver \V 110 co115 u 111es alco 11ol 1<11O\xrtng tl1at _ lie \v�ll l1aye_ to drive co111r11its 11egligent 11oinicide ,vl,en l1e kills _a cyclist \xrl11 lc dr1v111g l1ori1e.Tl1e sa111e restilt \xrould be reacl1ect ii1 Etl1io1J1a t111der /\rt. 50 (2) P.C.E.). K. c . Miriistere Pr,t!�li� fr,r, Carzt?Ji de Lr-tcerrze, RO 75 IV 145, JT IV 115 (1949) an� W. c .iVJi1�1,s�r� e P1t1blic cLit Cc:11-tori de Lucerrie, RO 78 IV 50, JT I_V 72 : iss JL1 11s Jrt1de11ce l1old111g (19::>2) (Sw 1 tliat 11eit11er llotnosextiality 1 1or s11 nple \Xteal<11ess of cl1aracter ge11erally \X:ill co11stittite limite resfJOnsibility . d J Directo� of Pr,tblci Prosec1,r,�ior1: . v_. Beard, 1920 A (Jp. Cas. 4791 also fot111d . itl 1 l1sl 11 g 1 t1 M1cl1ael a11d _We�l1sle1_, C�·11nir1alLaw 903-911 (good slatetlleiit of e E law co11cer11111g 1ntox1cat1011). ttie of v . Derlg ent Goverr1n1_ e 12t /11a � ig1 , t e n 1 (statem S1-1dan ?61 . Su 1an L. J 17 ? tJositio11 of tl1e defe11se of 111tox1cat1011 111 Stidanese law).

RESPONSIBILITY

LIMITED

187

· Kadisl1, and Criminal en Law Pauls 353-362 ( tnate rials on tl1 e 11. 1tox.1 cat1. 011 defense i1 1 the co1nn1on law includ irig tiie M O de1 Penal Code proposal on the subject}. Perki1 1s, Criminal Law 777-795 (con11 J 1 151ve statement co11cerning tl1e defense of i 11 toxicatiot1 i 11 the cominoil ��) � · · a,i L. Rev. 769-772 (1952) Mic/Jigan L.1w Re'View, N eglige11t I-lo1n icid . ef · 50 Michzg (common law l1a11 dli11g of fac ' tuaI 511 Lta 101 1 tl1 at \VOt1 ld fall witl1in Art. 50(2) P.C.E.). · I De fei,se, 55 Col11111bia L. Rev. as a Clllll Col1embia Law Review, lntoxicatio11 · .· lita :> (a d'isctissiotl, w1 tl1 reco111n1c11ctalio11s of i11toxicatio11 as a 1210 12rJ1 (19-5) ' 1 1se 1e 1 1 defe1- -. tl con1n1011 la\v). feldbrugge, .)oviet Crirnin,:l. l,-zw, 9 Law i,1 Easter12 E11rope 186-189 (1964) (sl1ort statement on tl1e f)OSltton of drt11 1ke1111ess i11 Soviet cri inii,al law). c:

I :.: I

•

I :' ' '

SECTION C. THE DEFENSE OF IMMATURITY

a. Tl1e Legal Setting PENAL CODE OF ETliIOPIP,. Art. 52. - l1if.,i11cy: E�-co11eratio11 fro111 Crin1i,1al JJrovisio11s.

Tl1e provisio_ns of tl1 is Code. s1,all 1 1ot af)J)ly to i11 fa1 1ts ilOt Ji.a \rir1_g attaineci tl1e age of 1 1t11e years. Sucl1 1 nfa11 ts are 11ot deemed to be res1)011si1J{e for tl1eir acts u11der tl1 e Ia \V. Wl1 ere a11 offe11ce is com1nitted b)' a11 i11fa11 t, appropriate steiJS 1nay be tal<e11 by the family, scl1ool or gt1ardia1 1sl1iJJ at1tl1orit)'. Art. 53. - Speci..il Prorvisio11s Applicable to Yor,ng Pe1·s012s. (I) Where an offence is cornmilted by a yot111g perso11 bet\veen tl1e ages of 1 1ine a1 1cl fiftee11 the pe11alties arid 1neas11res to be im1 Josed by tl1e Court shall be tl1ose provided i11 Book I I Cl1a1Jter IV of tl1is Code (Art. 161-173). ap s tie l na pe ary din or tl1e to ct bje su be t 11o all sh Young persons ult tl1 ad wi dy sto cu in pt l<e be y the all sl1 r 11o ts ttl ad to ble ica fJl offe11 ders. (2) No order m ay be m ad e u1 1der Art. I 62-173 of tl1is Code tt11less the offe11der is convicted. Art. 56. - Ojfe11ders 0'Ver the Age of Fiftee11. .. r de tt ttn bt en te fif er ov as w er nd fe of e tl1 e nc fe (1) If at the time of tl1e of ns io is ov ry JJr na di or e tl, er 11d 1 t d ie tr be ll 1a sl eightee11 years of age lie of this Code. um �·c e_ ci tl1 1t u1 co ac to 11 i ke ta e, 1c 1 e nt se g in (2) Tl1e Cot1rt may, in assess 11der, _111s 1 11cor fe of 1� tl of e ag 1e tl ar ul ic . stances o f the case, in part n, r1 o f_ s re }11 f. o d oo 1 l1} <e l1l e tl1 �d at 11 io it os . r�gible or dangerous disp _ 1 r1ary 1 n1 t1 gad or g 111 rd ga re 1s 1 10 1s ov pr either by applying the general

I' '

•

'·

J•

, "

.,,•

•••

., ..•. ,, �'.,. ,, �

• �

.,...,t

I '

' ' ·

.,· I .,

I .: • '

' ' '

l• '

' '

. . I! " '

: • i,

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

188

e th of ial ec sp 1e 01 g yin penalties pl ap by or 4) 18 rt. (A es lti tla pe tion of specified for yot111g persons. (Arts. 170-173). IMPERIAL CODIFICATION COMMISSION Of ETHIOPI.P, . les na pe ns itio pos dis s de n sio clu ex ce: fan En . 52 Art.

s ble aux enfants lica app pas 1t so1 ne e cod 1t se1 pre dtt o11s siti po Les dis , n'aya11t pas atteint l'age de 11euf a11s revolus.... · des dispositions speciales aux adolescents. ,ti/ica Art . 53 . - APr · t zon . lus ... revo ans ze quin a f 11eu de ents lesc ado et et1rs ( 1) Les mi11 •

-l . .

'i I

!,,., ·� '

•

' I' •

THE OFFENSE

I U 1••1 1,1·• . !ll'l j''

. ,,

'1( ,..

Tl1e Vag·rancy a11d Vagabondage Procla111atior1

" �

I[ , 1

1 \'

� l.: ,1L.:r

I \!"'' l'.&Jto

11"l�t·, 1·•·--1 '•

1,r

No. 89 of 1939 E.C. (1947 G.C.)

' I •' •'

I'.1 ,�·

lo-J

, I,. u;, '

•

Art. 56. - Periode intermedii:iire· jusqtt'd la majortie civile. (1) Si all 1110111e11t OU il a comtnis l'i11fractio11, l'autettr etait age de ]) 1 �1 s ct e q Lti11ze a11 s 111ais de moi11s de dix-11u it a11s revo1us. . ..

I 1{ ,,I ..,

•

Art. 8. (i) A jt1venile four1d wa11deri11g abroad \Vitl1011t being i11 regular e111ploy n1ent arid 11ot resident \vitl1 l1is f)are11t or parents or la\xrful guardia11 or guardians sl1all be take 1 1 before tl1e Court \vhich may issue an order for l1is returr1 to tl1e custodJ' of l1is pare 1 1ts or guardia11s. (ii) I f suc11 j uve 11ile is aga i 1 1 f o LI 1 1d \Va11de ri11 g wit11o LI t emf)1 o yment l1avi 1 1g left SL1 cl1 ct1stody, l1e shall be co111mitted to a reformatory scl1ool t1 11til he attai11s the age of 18 years or until sucl1 earlier date as tl1e Cot1rt may order. (iii) If tl1e juvenile is an or1)l1a11 tl1e Cot1rt may send l1im to a11 or1)l1a11age. ...

Pe1 1al Code of Etl1ior)ia

Art. 471. - Dar1gerous Vagra11CJ'· (1) \Yl:osoever, l1avi1 1g 110 fixed abode or occt1pation a11d 11 0 regular or visible 111ea11s of st1p_port, and being able-bodied, }1abitually a11d_ of set p�1rpo�e leads a life of_ vagrancy or disorderly be11aviour, or live s by. l1is wi�s or by 111end1c�11cy1 refusing to take J1onest, paid \vork wl11 cl1 lie 1s capable of do111g,, tl1ereby constitutir1g a tl1reat to Jaw ' and order is pu11isl1able witl� co111:r)t1lsorr lab?t1r witl1 restrictio11 of personal libe rty (Art. 103) or w1tl1 s1mJ)le 11n1)r1sonment no t exceeding six mo 1 1ths. (2) �l1ere tl1e o_ffe 1 1der is found i11 possession of weapons or i,1stru1ne nts fitted by �l1eir n_atur� to tl1e commission of an offei1ce, the punisl1rne�t sl1all be si1nple 1mpr1sonment not exceeding tl,ree_ years, without preJ1

•

IMMATURITY

189

· · udice to the application of the provisi · ons co11cern1ng concurrence where tl1 e offender l1as used threats or co e rcion or has committed or has attempted to commit violence or assault ag �inst individuals. (3) Tl1 e preventive measures of restrictio11 of liberty (Arts to . 14 8 153) may be ord�re �, to acco1npa11y tl1e penal se11tenc e, wl1erever the cir cumstances 1nd1cate t)1at tl1ey are approi)riate . (4) Wl1ere tl,e offender has already been co11victed a number of times, wl,etlier for dangerous vagra11cy or for anotl1e r inte11tional offence, tl1e Court sl1all order J1is i 11te r11me11t (Art. 128). '

HIGH COURT - JUVENILE DIVISION

I I '

Crimir,al File No. 522/53 (1961 G.C.)

Ethiopia

�,licl1 ael [Exact date ur1k110\x1 11 ]; Jttdges: Dr. W. Bul1agiar, Ato Bakele J JalJte Ato lv\ako �nen Getal1t111:- Tl1e six jt1ve11iles were charged w·itl1 an offe11cc under A rticle 471 of tl1e Pe11al Cocle a11d uncler Proclamaiio11 f\Jo. 89 ii1 tl1at tl1ey have bee11 found wa11de ri11g about tl1e t0\"< 11 o'f J-\.dclis Ababa la.te ;it i1igi1t. All tl1e accused fJleaded 11ot gt1ilty. 011e witness was called by tl1e prosect1tio11 whose evidence i11 effect \x,as tl1at tl1e six jt1ve11iles l1acl beer, see11 ,;r.iar1deri11g about lat e at nigl1t i11 ce11tral places in Adclis AlJaba s11ci1 as tl1e Piazza and around cine 1nas a11d tl1at tl1ey l1ave asl{ed for rnoney frc)n1. O\"/i1ers of rr1otor cars wl1icl1 had been left JJarl{ed \x1}1ile tl1e O\Vl1ers Viere i11 tl1e ci11tr11a. ·r1 1 ert were otl1er wit11esses bt1t il1e fJrosecutor i11for111ecJ t11e Court tl1al tl1cir eviclcr,ce would 11ot add anytl1ing to \,;,}1at tl1e "l:viii1ess 11f::ard l1acl staicd. 1·11e accl,s�ci had 11othing to say i11 tl1eir clefe11ce a11d i1ad 110 \vit11esses. 1

It should be stated tl1at all tl1e acct1scd }1ave pare11ts or relatives i11 or nea r Addis Ababa; accused No. 3 ad1nitted a JJreviot1s co11vi�tion for vagra11cy and accused No. 5 admitted tl1 ree previous co11victions for vagra11cy. Now as regards t]1e offe11ce tt11cier }\rticle L!71 of tl,e Per1al Code there are various ingred ier1ts \vl1icl1 tl1e fJ rosect1t101� m 11st fJrove before a perso11 ca11 be found guilty of a11 offe11ce t111de r tl1at article; tl1ese are: (a} tl1at a perso11 }1as no fixed abode or occt1patioi1; (b) tl1at a perso11 l1as 110 regLtla r or visible means of support; (c) that a person is able-bodied; , cy e f a11 a lif ds gr lea va s po 1 pt t se of ? d an y r all ttt � bi (d) that a person }1a e11d1cancy; 1n by or ts wi s hi by es liv or r, 1 ot vi or disqrde rly be11a rk wl1icl1 l1e is capable wo id pa st, 11e l10 <e tal to (e) that a pe rso11 refuses of doing; and (f) that as a result of all the above, tl1at person constitutes a tl1reat to law and order. s pl e ce in fir th t; e!1 es pr � e ar s � 11t e di re g in e es th l al n I the pres ent case no t _ pare nts o r relatives �nd constder ng ! tl1e accused have a fixed abode with their their ages they are not persons who are supposed to have a fixed occupat1011 except attendin school. Boys of the ag e of the accused are depe11dent fo r their support fn their parents an d are not people wl10 can be expected to

)• 1

•1

•'

.... I .

.I I ,. I

., , 1 lII • I ,j ' . •

•

. ·. I . .

: , • ·., I

'· • •

I . . I�; ! ' .,

.. 1 ·'. ••.. . ;J . .'' ., ' '.-

190

. •I I l

, , II·o.i 1

)... .'

. I ,a '. , ' .

(

I• •• .. ' '

,.,

u,.-. ,

101�

Ir ( uut

., ..

I["'" , \,' ,, '

J ,r ' '11.� '

,,,.� :

CRIMINAL

RESPONSIBILITY

d �se are acc the ile Wh able-bodied t. fJOr sup of a11s 1ne ible vis and r ula reg e hav d pai w�rk as t�ere is est hon e tak to sed refu e hav y tl1e t tha said be not it can no evidence that any work l1as been offered to tl1em. Nor can it b� said tl1at tl1e ingredient mentioned in paragr�ph (d) has been proved; acc�rd1ng t? the evidence before the Court the accused are persons who, not being subJected to any discipline in their homes, go out _ at 1:ight to collect so_me money whicl1 is used not so much for their regular livelihood but for their pocket money. It may be true that such a life may lead eventually to a threat to law and order but it cannot be said that the charge under 471 of the Penal Code has been proved. A.s regards the provisio11s of Article 8 of Proclamation No. 89, the Court may u11der this Article order tl1at tl1e juvenile be returned to the custody of his parent or guardian if such juvenile is found wandering abroad without being in regular e1nploy1nent and J1 0t resident with l1is parents or la\vful g1.1ardian. furtr1er, the Court 1nay order that a juvenile be committed to a reformi3.torj, sci1ool whe11 the j1.1ve11ile is fou11d wandering having left the custody of hEs pare11ts or guardian as ordered on a previous occasion by the Court.. Now, except ·for accused No. 3 and No. 5, none of the accused have beer, brougl1t before a Court for vagra11cy under Article 47 l of the Penal Code; accused No. 3 a11d No. 5 \xrere convicted on this charge. Sucl1 a convic tior1 ma)' be considered the equivalent to an order under Article 8 of Proclamation I\Jo. 89. 1-=--or tl1e above reasons the Court acquits accused No. 1, No. 2, No. 4 and f\Jo. 6 a11d in respect of accused No. 3 and No. 5 tl1e Court orders, under Article 8 of Proclarr1ation No. 89 tl1at they be committed to the Reformatory School for a period of foL1r years fro1n today, tl1at is, Maskaram 18, 1954, by whic!1 tirne they \Y1ill be about 18 years old. Tl1e Co11rt considers tl1at a resume of this judgment sl1ould be sent to His . Excellency, the Min_ister of l11terior and His Excellency, the Minister of Just1ce, t�r?ug� the _Pres1d�nt of the I-Iig:h Court, togetl1er with explanations of the d1ff1c11lt1es with which the Juventle Court is faced i11 deali11g witl1 juveniles under the existing legislation. THE DISPOSITION Penal Code of Etl1iopia (Arts. 54-55, 161-182)

•

, 'I :

HIGH COURT - JUVENILE DIVISION Criminal File No. 550/53 (1961 G.C.) Ethiopia

' :

( .

Maskaram 18, 19�4 E.C. (September 29, 1961 O.C.); Judges: Dr. w. Buha giar, A�o Bakele I-labte M1_chael, Ato Makonnen Oetahun:- The accused is cl1 arge d with t�eft under Article ?30 of tl1e Penal Code in tl,at he has taken, against the will of t�e owner, his master, the sum of E$800 while the master \�as away from his house. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. as hi the pl�a own Cour! finds the accused guilty and convicts m On his . e tl se 1 becau op1n1on the _ o f this_ In Court, tliis case is quite grave charged. d se abu has st: o len ts money considerable; of furtliermore, the accused amount d use acc 1n l11m as a servant the placed of the trust aggrieved party who had the

IMMATURITY

191

in his employ fo� several years. for this reason this Court considers that in view of the grav1ty ?f the case, the offence is punishable witl1 rigorous im� prisonment for a period not exceeding five years as laid down in Article 630 of the Penal Code. On the o ther ha11d it is to be taken into consideration that the accused is j11st below the age' of eigl1teen years: he being born on Tekemt 13, 19 36 _ �.C. and t hat this is l1 is first offence. Under these circum stances, the _ prov1s1ons of Article 181 of tl1e Pe11al Code apply and there sl1ould be a reduction of tl1e pe11alty to be . in,posed. Tl,e Court tl1erefore applying the provisions of Article 184(d) of ti1e Penal Code se11t�11ces the �ccused to simple impriso11ment for a period of six montl1s. The Court, after taking i11to co11sideratio 1 1 tl1e degree of individual guilt of tl1e accused, who fra11kly ad111itted to tl1e Co11rt tl1e theft with which l1e is charged, and after taki11g i11to accot111t tl1at tl1e acc11sed is not of a dangerous disposition, and considering that tl1e accused is u11der tl1e age of eigl1tee11 and tl1at to commit him to priso11 for tl,e J)eriod above 1nentio11ed wl1en tl1ere is not in the ordinary prison tl1e segregation 1 1ecessary to ensure tl1at tl1e accused 11ot be contaminated by ideas of l1ar dened crin1inals and also tl1at this is the first of fence of tl1e accused , is of OJJi11ion tl1at the sentence of six rr1ontl1s in1prisonment should be st1 spended for a period of proba.tio11 under Article 196 of the Penal Co de. U11der tl1ese circumstances tl,e Cot1rt is satisfied tl,at tl1e suspen sion of tl1e sentence will prodttce good rest1lts and for tl1ese reasons tl1e Court orders tl1e st1spensio11 of tl1e se11te11ce for _a period of probat.1011 of. t,wo y _ ea.rs from this d ay, Maskaram 19 , 1954, subject to_ the accJ1s�d. ente�inf;' 1n�.o �t formal undertaking to be of good co11duct \�11tl1 a secur1ty consisting Ii1 a personal bond for E$200 given by a gt1ar;1i1tor. The articles acquired by tl1e stole11 n-io 1 1e)' a11d all rno11ey recovere(l ar·�: to be delivered to the private com JJlai11a11t from ,�11om il1e mo11ey \V�.s stoler1. NOT ES Note 1:

The Juvenile Court

Before 1961 o. c., young offe11 ders \v·e.re tal<e11 before ?rdi11ary adult courts _ rtance tl1�n the where the offense committed \Y/as of co11s1derably n1ore 1mp o weIfare of the ch'ld 1 • In 1961 , a special tribu11al of three I-l1gl1 Court J udges · l . e r ce a e n1n 1 r r1_ h c · · I p dt Code 11ew t er t111d es cas le ? e11i juv r hea d ute to was constit le urt was eni c1al Co s1Je Juv a th.1s court fu11c t·tone d unt1·1 Deceinber 1. Q62 wl1e11 . · a wee Ic 1n · twice ' · Add1s Ababa. · J m p erial Ma1esty to sit · hed by order. of H is establ1� The Director of Soc1� I Defe,,se in the Mi11istry of Natio11al Community Developeda Cotirt J·tidge for purposes of hearing cases ment has been appointed W or a ..... . ·in the Juven1·1 e Lour inces you1,g offenders are still l1eard before ov 1 pr e t ·. In ti adult courts. for special rules o f proce dure in cases concerning young persons see the Criminal Procedure Code o f l 96 l , Arts · 171-180

Note 2: The Treatment of Young Offenders

1 the rehabilitation of juvenile l wit · ed err1 . onc c . · ia iop The o�ly 1ns . t1tut!. 0!1 tn Eth isl1ed in 1942 in abl est tne Ho iid ma Re d a offe�ders 1s the '!ra1n1ng Scl1ool 1 11ected with the Prison co1 ely clos � was ol O sc Addi� f\baba. Until May1_9�4, the the g h win wit gro ent sist con but ior t I of A�m1n1stration of th� M1n1stry . ed to err nsf the tra 4, 6 19 in s, wa ' it �f � on � t tl b P�tl?�ophy of education an� reha � ' ty pt111i elo mm Dev Co al ioti Nat M of try tnis D1v1s1on of Social Welfare 1n the

'' '

•

.,, .1 '

• ' '•

,, .' "·1

4' "'

' . ' l I

'i'

I'.' I I.

.1, .

l .

i : !

I' '

. ; '

192

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

ment. T.l1e institution provides .accommodatio� !or one hundred boys either committed or on remand wt1ose ages upon adm1ss1on . range _ from 9 to 18 years. The school is staffed by a superintendant, t. wo probation o� ice�s . and a number of .teachers who pro·vide elementary education through tl1 ... Ministry of Educa tion. Aside fr.om some acade.mic training and a small amount of therapy and case work provided by the two probation officers,. the boys do not r: ecei� e any guid·a11ce a11d counselling due to a lack o_f. !rained pe: son� e�. Housing ! S provided in·· old Italian barracks and. otl1e� fac1lit1es are qt11te limited. _There ts little after care or follow-up of tl1e 1uve11ile offe11ders. A comprel1ens1ve reor ganization and development pl�11 for the Scho_?l has recently been pr�pared. by J. Riley in tl1e Ministry of National Community Development, see Riley, Final Report ..., Chap. II infra. Note 3: The Ptrewemtion olf juvenile Crime 1

!('' '

Il . .,·.. I <

JC', ..1

I I

IC., ,. ht:ir••

I,, ',!..,

', . [! 'I·•

I[ . ,\ .. ' ' •'· • •' 1 .. :.! "I I . . I•

·u ·

•• •"I'

11 S:._,

'I I"t.1"

l Ur.a,'

,,,• . If]

.11,.�

1.�·

I I '

Etl1iopia is no\v corning to tl1e realization t11at the prevention of juvenile deli11quer.1cy is an important fu11ctio 1 1 of government. The Second five Year Development Plan ( 1955-59 E. C., 1963-67 0.C.) sets as one of its goals: The rel1abilitatio11 of youtl1 so that delinquency and vagrancy among teen-agers is controlled a11d such youths are l1elpe.d to become useful mer11bers of society (p. 301). S01ne worl, l1as been beg·un . Tl1e JJolice force has opened a S(Jecial department for juveniles. The Municipality of Ad · dis Ababa, a11d sucl1 organizations as the ·v.M.C.A. and Scouts have begun to fortn community centers, clubs and other facilities to provide activity and traini11g for youtl1s. A new, comprehensive Cl1ild Welfare Act'' is now badly needed not only to give autl1ority a11d guidance to the figl1t agai11st increasing juvenile delinquency, but to s=t out tl1e pri11ciples gover11i11g tl1e care a11d rel1abilitatio11 of yot1ng offenders. for a statement on comparative legislation of tl1is natttre, see 7-8 ·Jnt. Rev. of Crim. Policy 3() (1955). '

Questions

Wl1at are tl1e importa 11t age categories wl1icl1 determine whetl1er an in dividual is _an infant, a young person, an offe11der between tl1 e ages of 15-18 or a mat�1�e offe11der? Do the fre11cl1 a11d Amharic texts agree with respect to s1Jec1f1c ages? At wl1at time is age detern1i1 1ed? What co11sequen ces attach to placement withi11 eacl1 category? 2. Must a young person be co11victed t111der tl1e ordinary provisions of the �o ?e before Arts. 53-55 and 161- l_ 73 � �on:ie into play? Ui,der wl1at pro v1s1ons :were tl1e you11g offenders 111 Cr1m1nal · file No. 522/53 charged? Is _ E.C. �t1l Ethiopia? Why P:oc. No. 89/39 Art. � of l good law is tl1ere no in . _ prov1s1on 111 tl1e -Penal Code_ s1m1lar to Art. 8? Is it possible that provisions easily abused? If Art. s were non-existant ,vl1at sucl1 as Ar�. 8 c�11 be _ would tl1� Jt1ve111le Judge do witl1 youngsters who did not fall under Art. 471 P.C.E.. 3. �hy .does. the Code make_ special provisior1 for juveniles? What is the special pur1)ose to be acl11eved (Art. 54 ') ' referred to in Art. 161? r hea to ed ecial court a s witl1 establish has different procedure been 4. Why p . n.ile Juve the Juveniles to of (Note 1)? cases What available the remedies are Court? 1.

\ I

•

,•.

"•

. : .' ·. . . '•.f�:�-:, ·�: . :

IMMATURITY

193

5. What are the principles to be take� ;. nt_o !�coui� t 111 s_entenci11g juveniles? Is such se11tence to be considered r mtna · Is it poss1bl� to apply several _ rds est m�asures to a youthful offetlder· ar afegtta abl 1sl1 ed t o prevent w � Art s. of suc misuse l1 as 168 or l '?O? e 11 may a cou rt app ly tl1 e more ; pen alti es s enumerated itl Art�· 17 • 1 73 to youtl1ful offend seriou ers? . _ _ 6. Do you fe el th at tl1e dispositioil f . t lle offe . tider 111 . C�1. m111al file No. 550/53 E.C. w as proper? What disc�etioi1 11as tl1e court In senlenci11g offenders between the ages of lS-lS? . . . 7. 1� tl1e treat1nent of juveiiiles ii, Etllio f). (Note 2) co11s1ste n t w1 tl1 tl1e prtnciples set out in tl1e Perl al Code? \Vl1 alf type of lJelp do you tl1i11k woul d � . be best fo r young O ffe11cters;:, · · 1_1 w car1 Sltcl1 treat1ne11t be developed? Problem

Tl1e followi11g are actt1a · · boys, Ato l-\ and · l· case records� of t\V,o Ell ltopian Ato 8. · AJ)pl},ing ti 1e [Jr111_ct1JIes elaborated i11 Arts. 54 ar1d 161 to botl1 J\ a11d B, atte 1:1pt to 9 et e_rm1r1e a JJro1Jer se11te11ce u11cter Arts. 162-18 '"> . I< 5 �l1ould be g1ve11 to J t1�t1 f_y eacl1 disiJ?si_tio_n. If ;>'Ott feel tliat n1ore inf or�;1�� 1s neede d , s tate _what 1t 1s a11d \-X1l1y 1t 1s 1 1 11porta11t, tI1e11 adopt reasotiable facts a11d proceed as if tl1ese facts l1ad beer1 JJrese11ted i 11 accorda11ce '\:viti1 /\rt. ss: Tl1e Case of Ato ''P').''

Ato J:.. is now tl1irtee11 )'ears old a11d l1as bee11 brot1gl1t before tl1e cotirt and convicted 011 _a cl1arge of va�ra11cy. Betwee11 tl1e ages of 11ii1e a11(l LI-1irlce11,

�to _A l1ad com1n1tted several m111or offe11ses, bee11 IJi,2l<ed tl[J a 111.1.-11ber of t1n1es for vagrancy, a11d l1ad escapecl fron1 c11stody 011 tliree separate o<�casio11s. cl{. dlo 'Y!e al leg of t ot1 r11 bo s \Va a11d 6, of )' nil 1 fa a 1 1 i ild cl1 d A is the secon d 1ce ie1 Jei t e1c1 11o d l1a e l1 a, ab Ab dis Ad 1g cli1 t1n rro LI s s v11 �or� in one of tl1e to\ \1J 11e tl1c l{ lo too l1e e, cam e l1 11 e l1 W . old s ar ye 8 s lt!e 1r1 Addis u11til ]1e wa al, ed rm em 11o ng se l1i yt er ev 1 1 e tl1 il 11t U . m ias t1s tl1 en k nd of life with zest a11d s di s In 11l ;\d re s pa hi tl1 \vi 1ip 1sl 1 ! io lat re s l1i . d an 1g 1 i lk l11 s age of walking a1 1d ta em a a11d tI1ereby meeting 11 ci e tl1 to 11g i go 1d a1 ol l1o he started trt1a11ti11g from sc e til te la m un l1o om fr ay aw ·ed a} st lie es im et m So . st other boys of tl1e same i11tere d m ed an l1i sh l10 la w er tl1 fa s l1i by ly al ic et tl1 1Ja 1 rr sy at night. This \Vas 1 1ot take1 1 a� ted to 11se corporal punst er tl, fa is li y. bo e tl1 �ccep ted no explanation frotn n lly co ua 11s as ,v It d. 11l cl e tl1 1 1 i 1d 1 u fo 11e 1 �l1me11t for an y kiiid of fa ul t ee n fatl1er and tw be ls re �r qu nt ta s 11 co sidered cruel b y his m o t I, er, ca us i11g e. rc o iv d l 1c a1 tp -t ak re b t en mother wl1icl1 r e sult ed in fJerman . Tl1e se m � o o I, ro o tw d 1e sl 1i 1 Ir f1 y rl o o p � reviously tl,e family lived in a sleepI1 1g facilities were 11early st1bl1111na11. � th r o d m 's an A , er th fa !s l1 l1 it w e v li o After the break-UfJ, A was made t ts d t f d t u o A 11 o se as w d 1l l1 c t s _ e l� o e l1 �f wen� ''away'' with tlie youngest cliild .. 1 ange� but t�1e cl _ t o n l ac h s 11 1? 1t d _ 11 o c _ to l ive with his a u n t. The fa th er's IivI11g . ts d ea In d ar A s u o ri to o n a 1� mother's had. Sl,e went to live (and still IS) 1t11tes a11d la�less d: u11kards. st ro p 11 o m m o c s it e Th surrounding is knowii for r ie d 1s e tl l1 b o ri m sc e d e h r fo d te c e A seems to have realized t11 is earlier than exp e rarely w�nt to l� er a11d most as a ''bad woman'' of whom h e is ''asl1an1ed'' H r r 1e o tl Is r l1 fa e l1 1t e to o g n a 1 tl r e of the time he wanted to stay out rath

'i . i

;

,·'

'l .

·• I I

••

.: } ': l i' . ,,'I: f I

.: ; I I ''

.C I •

I I I .: '

' '

. , ' __

I' . .. '; I

'·;

. .. .

l.' ' . . ' '.

' I' .,: ' .' .

194

111 I '

I '

�

la"1•,.·'l .

II a,J+ I ... · ,1· 1·ft • •• I1 ••I ,

1(''" ' ' I

11··1-· · ,, .., I ,.

�it:! -, ..,.

'I''., ..

� ' \,·1�· :, u. , I,..,..,,

ti. .. )

l 1 1 ·--�. ' I

I 1r'"

,,J. .. .

j �

,.I •" II ' l.

+ t,..

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

motlier. He left school whe1i liis paren�s divorced and has had no op1Jortunity to go back. Hetice he watidered m�re 1n the streets and cam e to t�e co11stant _ thing. he liad view of the police wlio arrested l1 im !or vagra11cy ·. The 0111y _obtained from liome was fear of authority; seve�al times lie made �l11s clear by absconding frotn the Trai11ing Scl1 ool, to which the court se11t him, when ever tlie effect of discipli11e 011 l1i1n seemed fJronounced. Both parents excuse tl1 e1nselves by s�1nply describing him as ''diffic ult" or ''iinpossible''. The fatl1 er lias never sli1elded or protected A, but the mother has witl1 the result that A disappeared witli sonie of her property and sold it. Now sl1e tries to liide from l1im and also seems afraid of l1 im. The father is openly indignant a11d l1 ostile, a fact lo1ig k11own by A. Th�re also seems to be a kind of jealousy between the fatl1 er and A. Tl1e father ts perhaps, more than the motlier, emotionally u11 stable. The pilfering a11d wa11dering habits of A soon led him to many frie11ds \vl10 lived tl1at 'J.Jay. Wl1e11ever lie escaped from ct1stody, he joined tl1em. I-ie11 ce l1 e had already beco1ne a niember of a loosely organized ga1ig. A is reserved but can be ratl1er domineering. He is ht1mourless, easily irritable and quickly bored. I-le is a SU(Jerior yot1tl1 but witl1 u11 solved desires - edL1catio1ial attainme11t in tlie sl1 ort time tl1 at he l1as a11d 1ner1tal conflict. I Iis been at scl1ool is remarkable. 8L1t his intelligence, u1ifortt1natel)', l1 as bee11 used for evil JJLtrposes. lie has created two selves and can 1nake anyo11 e believe tl1at l1e is a most ge11tle yoL111g n1an. Tl1is decept_ive nature is tactfully used for acquiri11g trL1st wl1icl1 is Ltsually ill kept by l1im. A is of a nor1nal physiqt1e anci altl1ougl1 lie l1as several times been sick (typlius), etc., tl1ere are 11 0 aJJparent after- effects. In a ease like tl1at of A, tl1e prese1ice of mt1ltiJJle factors tliat l1ave shaped his cl1ildhood 1nal<e it imfJOssible to pin-point the cause of liis a1iti-social bel1aviour if sucl1 causes are ever ca1Jable of being pin-pointed; There lias be e11 w�nt �material �s well as emotio1ial), overcro\vding, defective family relation sl1 1p, 1neffectual1ty of one pare11t (the motlier \Vl10 l1as always been passive and excessively indulge1it), jealousy 011 tl1 e 'part of tl1e fatlier defectiv e discipli11e and co11flicting values of parents. It also seenis tl1at tli� 1niaratio11 of the family i11to tow11 l1 as l1elped to bri11g A's difficLtlties to ligl1t. Tl�ere is no doubt tl1at, althoL1gli . A was attrac�ed by tl1e citiema a11 d otlier peO(Jle �f the t0\'(111 (wl10 were l<111der tl1an li1s fatl1er), lie \Vas runnitig away from hts fatl1er. One W?11 ders :wiiy lie_ did 11ot join liis mo,ther wlien sl1 e we11t to live by �crself_. Tl11s l1e tried t111t1l he realized tl1 at there also meti came. lie tt1r11ed aga11ist l1 1s motlier witl1 co1!sider�ble viole1ice wliicli }1e says tl,at l1e does not . ncl an exct1se 1n say11ig reg1_ et. I-le fo� that sl1e was a prostitute (wl1icl1 sl1e was, but abot1t wli1cl1 A seemed to be jealous). In view of sucl1 liabilities! one may wonder if tliere is aiiy cl1ance !or !he r�form of A. Tl1� a1iswer 1s yes. He is a difficult case and his sufJeriore 1ntell1gence 1nakes li1m more difficult to deal witli but with the knowledgce � tl1at _we liave abottt , l1uman beliaviour (liowever limited), there is a fair chaw1tl 1 work o� his reform. In A s case the results are clear after three years of htm; he may tal<e a11otlier two or three years. The Case of Ato ''B'' 5l fir the Ato 8 is fifteeti years old and has come before the court for

. ·' . .· · . . .

IMMATURITY

195

time. The judge l1as found l1 i1n gL1ilty of petty tl1eft ttnder Ar 8 t. 0 6 of tl1 e . Code Penal

. . � was born_ i11 Adclis Ababa of ,vealtl1f f)a. t_ei,ts. I-I1s b 1rtl1 a 11d ages of talk11 1 g \vere and 1 1 or 1 11a1 Not ��ll lt�11 _15 l<tiowi, abot walk11�g tl l 1 is early bel1 av 110\vevcr, l<110\v11 t is, tliat l is 1 iottr. It 1e1 \Vas 01 11)' 17 \-vrl1e11 lie \vas bor11 � and tl1at l1 er l1 t1 sba11d l1ad deserted I,er \V1iei, B \Vas t\�o. B \vas se11t to live \X1itl1 l1is fatl1er a11d l1is 11e\xr ''\vife'' • It seetns tl1at B's JJare11ts \X'Cre tnarriec.l l. eacl, 0ll . 1er 11 ot lo salts! .>' tl'1eir � . ..." iils, \X7l7 o LIJJ. 011 see.111 g B s fal O\X'tl 11 eeds �tit tl1ose of B's J)aleriial g)·r a,ic . l I-1at l1er _ l1ave t\VO cl11lclre11 fro1n a11 irregtilar ll 11 aitcl l � l \V tl1 a \X!Otna11 \'v' l10 dicl l · i t � ' �� L c not be lo11 g to tl1eir faitl, or lerecl l1i11 , . i�iarr)' a girl of tl1eir aJJjJroval. I -le did . d l_ 1 · s fortner ' , ll ..,fte:.i· l] 1,:.... 111 (t I rIaa e I, e c O 11 Jl e,.te 1 J· 01· 11e a11d B• \Vas bor11. 1-\VO• }'�ars Y _ _ �J .,, ! 7 r B} ' ll · ,x,. )IJ it tJL _ e ca11 1cl e ra ar te 1 1Ja se as g ra le . col1ab 5 l ),11 e 11 15. t el1 g1 0 1 1, a cl1\ 01c 8 · . _ 1 1 11 arrted to B's fatl1er a11d 15 ct is �till 11ever be grat1ted. B's 1 11 otlier co � 11s 1 et eu . . . . • . . . . not . a llO\'i:·:e_cl t o 111arr) aga111. B s fatl1er tlO\V 1,as 6 cl 11-1c1.rei, fro 111 11 1s col1ab1 tee; B lived w1tl1 tl1e111.

'' ' '

" I

i' ''

Prio _ r to B's C<)t11i11g to LIS, lie 11ad tl1e reJJtitatio,1 of t1ei iirr O a \Vaiiclerer aiid a l1ab1lt 1al trt1 a 1 1t. J-Ie also stole a1t)'ll1i11<1 lie f c>tltld willi e111JJl,as1· s be111g o11 · his fatl1er's 111 01,e,,1 ar1cl a \X'atcl1. I-Ie I1ac,t bb_ ee11 to 6 scl1ools, 4 of \\'Jl1icl1 \vere boardi11g. l-Ie absco11deci fror11 all of tl1et11.

J-Iis scl1ool recorcl i,s v·ery JJOOr . No cl1ro11ological accoL111t of I·iis sclic)olirt(r l1�s l)ee11 lieJJt btit tl1e ract tl1at lie cl1a11ged scl1ools SC) rna11y ti 111 es sll(J\\i'S tl1 ,J his JJr�gress ,,:ras 1�oor. Tl1e re��o 11� _,vl�y lie cl1a11g·ed scl1ools so freq11tr1 l ly are not clea1._ Altl1ot1gl1 11ot ll1e off1c1nl rcaso11s f<)r l1is clislt1issa.l, i11 all tlie schools l1e l1ad bee11 to, tl1ere l1 as al\Va:)'S bee11 a11 ir1cicler1t of steali11g. 1

otttsta11cli 1 1g cl1aracteristics excerJt l1is desire to be I1ear(i. A!tl1ot1gh JJl1 ys1 call}' above a\1 erage, 111e11tally lie is aboLtl 13 ye;1rs olcl. J -Iis fr1_e11ds have al\X-"a)'S been olcler a11 d IJOorer tl1a11 lie �t11d ti, is l1as createc.1 trot1l)le. J-I1s_ teacl1ers also over-assessed l1in1 a11d \Vere disa1)J)Oi 11tccl ,vl1t11 B dicl 11ot ft1If1ll tl1eir reqt1 i r e1 11 e11ts a11cl ex1Jectatio11s. \Vl1e11 \X1 e can,e to 1<110\,r l1 i111 (al 15) lie l1ad 110 e111J)lO)'tne11t a11d \vas 11ot atte11di11 g scl1ool. J Iis - fatl1er sai(l lie ''l1 ad triecl l1is best to IJt111isl1 l1iI11'' bt1t tl1�t B ,vas i 11corrigible. I-Ie also n1c 11tio 1 1ed 110\V ridict1lot1s it \Vas tl1al ''l1is s011 \vt_th everytl1i11g i 11 tl1e \\'Or iel, tl1 a11l< Goel, cot1lcl be so bad." A ren1 ark, ''every tl11ng?' ' made l1in1 a11 crry a11ci lie clicl 11ot Sa)' 1nt1cl1 011 tl1at clay. B's motlier \'<'as �·itl1 tl1e fatl,er; sit e lc,ol..:ed a11d bel1avecl 1nore lil\e a sister tl1a11 a n1 oll1er. She is \Vorki11g ar,cl ear11i11g ''qt1ile e11ot1gl1''. 11. e io I-l rt se 1 by e de 11 l10 1 1 {e ol br a of ct 1 t od JJr a B \"Uas assessed to be e iv ct ct of fe l�1 ?e oc 1)r a so al is e I J . lly ia er at C?m_es. from a l1ot1 se of 11ler1ty 111 e ov is ab B 1t. gl 1 1g 1 ro r \v ) er ev ' \e 1 al n to JJ disc11)l1ne as B's fatl1er ttsed tl1e \Vlti 1 e 11ever loved l rl gi a to cl ie rr na 1 as \V all a l)rod uct o f tl,e fact tl,at l1is fatl1er as 1 11 ade clear w s 1,i 1� . ts 1 1 re JJa tl1 bo by ancl B is tl1e resLtlt J-le \Vas t111war1leci dl1ri11g interview s \;itli tlleni. A s all cl1ilclre11 , B se11sed tl1 is rejectio11 and started to react. His first reactiori \v'as self l1 ate. J-Ic sec1ns to believe tl1at if . lie was t s 1o ie "1 tr Ie I o . ag 11g 10 r l,e ot 1 c] e n ot b?r11 l1 is parer,ts cottld 1,ave forgo _tt�11 � _ _ o f ten es ag e th 1 1 ee w et B . gs ra 1 11 g 1 lo exist'' by selli ,,g 11 is clotlies a11cl I1v11 _ es and stole11 J) 1 o ertr fro1n : �� and fifteen 1,e 1,as sold 1,is clotl,es abot1l 10 t11n _ te l1a 1s I . I_ 1t 1 l ab g 11 l<1 1 o sn a ve a l1 t�e l1ot1se 6 times. Tl,e reasotl 1,e g,tve: ''I _ 1 at 111s fatl1er ll y r 1g a1 s ap l1 er p 1s Was maitily directed towarcls )lis fa tl,er. He I.--Ie l1as

11?

• . ,• ,,

••

:1 :) '

., I

,' I

(* •

I . -..,'. ;

: . :.l '• I •

I' . . :

'' .• I '

i ,', l:

'......

;

'\:.

• ', l

,,...

,, � -� '·� _',

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBIJ_ITY

196

n tio ac 1s re is en H se . er to th fa s hi y e sa av le t 11o d t1l co 11e te l1i w er l ot 1 m s left lli 1t a1 rt o t B po im a11 e th or m s i tl1e em se r m hi of 11 io ct je re 1 ts' i re pa s B' '. ''I catl' rejection of eacl1 otl1er.

b. The Causation of Juvenile Crime AN EVALUATION Of MALE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN ETHIOPIA19 ]. Riley

1s n io1 upo vat a ser teri ob ma in l ma the )' efl bri is ry ma sum ing low fol e Th and ool Sch ng i11i Remand Tra tl1e at ed ain obt s ure fig of is lys a11a m [fro ed gather Iiorne, Addis Ababa]: a. tl1e largest JJroportion of 1nale jtivenile delinquents come from the age group 12 years- 16 years;

I .. ,

,, ,., 'I

i I •

+ {I ••

S JI" •• �

• . , f I .: . \,•

l '� ,

l :I:!

,, l !

1•, s,.�

tl1eft is res1Jo11sible for a st1bsta11tial part of jt1ve11ile deli11q11ency in Ethiopia vagrar1cy is 11ot 110w bei11g JJt1rs11ed by tl1e autl1orities very actively;

it is probable tl1a.t tl1ere is a small but growing incidence of tl1e more serious a11d positive forms of juve11ile deli11qt1ency, e.g., damage to property ... etc.; tl1e ho1ne bacl<grou11d of jt1ve11ile delinque11ts is revealed to be that a substa11tial 11u1nber are livi11g in a11 incomplete or defective fa1nil}' situa tio11; sligl1tly fewer, tl1ougl1 still substa11tial 1111mbers, are living ot1tside of family influe11ce; only 18% of jt1ve11ile deli11quent cases exami11ed lived witl1 both parents;

' ..

e. tl1e first 3 n1onths of separation from tl1e fan1ily \xras see11 to be important in deter1ni11i11g whetl1er a boy becomes deli11qt1e11t or not; after 18 months of separatio11 from tl1e family tl1e cha11ces of delinquency rise considerably;

I I I II I I

,, I

I '

'I : I ' II .I

f. juve11ile deli1:quency is _sl1ow11 as largely an t1rba11 [Jroble111; tl1e greater _ nt1mber of 1uve111le de\111qt1e11ts oriainate fro1n tl1e urban districts; bt1t 0 many juver.ile deli11que11ts are to be found i11 the situation of rural migra tio11 to tl1e city; g. eco11omic ur1der privilege [sic] is seer, to be associated ,vitl1 juve11ile delin· quency as far as a boy's ear11i11gs are co11cer11ed-110 i11formation upon tamily incon1es; 11. illiteracy or low g·rade edt1catio11 is associated with juvenile delinquency; un�mployment and lack of gainftil occt1JJatio11 is associated with juve11ile 1. del1nque11cy ...; •

•

,.I

. r . 1

,.: I '! '

• •

•

comparatively few hO}'S re-offended after first appearance at court; the existence .of continual direct: family influence was favou r�ble to ! chances of gainful occt1pat1o n (and tl,erefore delinquency preventtUil) 50 far as boys under 14 years were co11cerned· it mattered less for boys over · 1 that age; •

onal 19. Riley, United Nations Consulrant on So Nati of r,.,, cial D e fense, p,zna .,..'h e Minist .,, T, o , · epor l t R , . / Community De-ve o'Pment, Imptrz.a I Ethiopian Go1 :ernment 23-25 (196 5).

'! !

IMMATURITY

197

. m. there is a possibility of the ju v enile del iti · qtteticy 1nc1.dence i11creasi11g; tl1e trend 1nay already be showirig; . n. tl1e abse nc e of seriot1s offences such as ''robbery wt·tt1 v10 1 enc e''1 ''breaki11g'' e e nt a11d and r ''gai,gsterisin'' 15 noled· ing . o. is respect for autl1ority dwi11dling? tl,e JJ be s 1g11s tl1at it is b eginning to do so, tliougl, 1 ,o t to ·a siz;:bf� ��re�� . . p. tl1ere is a comparatively l1eavy ttse of tl, e J Lt'-, ei,i· le sou rt 111 Ad dis aba, A � _ of tl1e Trainir,g Scl1ool, ni ttch less ttse f a 11 robati 1 service tl1a11 1s to ?� some expected; f)eri o ds of co111n11·tta 1 to tlie Training Scl1ool may be be . · · · ered Ion ge r than 1s tts11all\' reqttireel for re 11a b'l consict 1 1·tat1o · r1 a11d tra1n1ng; . . q. 111 th� provinces,. tl1 e _jtive 11 i!e deli11qt1e11c)1 i11cide11ce is ligl1t t liottgl, i,1creas111g - som e J uve111le. clel1qt1 e11c y is tttidetected O r 11 ot pursue d - one . . or two areas of l1eav)' J ttve111le del 111qt1er1cy iricide11ce is riot ed; r. JJetty theft of a v ariet}' of ki11ds is tl1e 111ai11 forrn of· t1 e111·1 e de 1·lt19 t1e11c) ' i11 tl1e provi 11ces - s01ne jt1veniles 110\v vi sit prost1·tt1tJe sv- a c1 1a11g111g a tt·tt ttcte tO\X,ards _alt tl1or1ty · 1s · 110\'<' emergi11g JJarticularly an1o11 0a scliool bo},5 (these observations also aJJpl)' to Addis AlJab a); s. juvenile. offenders are mai11ly dea l t \Vitl1 t111officiall;' by t11e {Jolice 1 fe\v are dealt w1tl1 by the court :-- very fe\v �en t to priso11 - us11ally 110 facilities of separate acco1nmodat1011 are JJrov1d e cl for bO}'S i11 l l1 e JJriso11; t. tl1e stre et boy sitttation - tl1e lacl( of boardi11g facilitiess for scl1or�l fJoys from _ rural a reas - tl1e lac\{ of occtrJJatio11al op J)Oriu11i tie {both leisltre-t 1111e purst 11ts and emplO)'tnent) - tl1e eco1101�-iic sjttialior1 of tl1c u11clerjJri,rt!eged . -:- tl,e lack. of adult lea dersl11p a11d fa 1111ly co11tact - all r11c11tior1ecl &.s fJOS stble contributory cattses to jt1ve 11ile delinq11e11cy; u. the i 11fluence of tradition a11d tl,e cl1urcl1, tl1e lacl< of SO[ Jl1isticatio11 11a111e(l j as responsible to so1ne co11siderable deg; ree for tl1e existi11g lo\v L1ve11ile ,i delinque11cy rate, in a social siluatio11 \xrl1icl1 m igl1t be ex1Jected to JJroclL1ce a heavy i11cidence - tl,is situatio11 is beg i1111i 11g to cl1a11ge. l

, . ' . '

...

• •• ·'

'•

.' .' 'I. ' •I .' ' .

• ,

., I

,1 I

(1 •

THE CAUSES AND COl'ITRIBUTING fACTORS TO THE MAKINO Of JUVENILE DELINQUENTS IN ETliIOPIA20 Yeweinshet Besliah- Woztred

The Backgrou11d: In former times (a 11d in rural co1nmt111ities of present day soc�ety) there was a strong bo1,d created by.� common religio11 and a commo11 nat1�nal heritage of folk-lore, songs and trad1t1011s tl,at bot11_1� togetl1er peofJ� e of d ifferent social status. families or groups of related fam1l_1es co-operated _ 111 working for the material i,eeds of their comn1u11ity. Tl1e fa1n1ly a11d comn1u111ty Provided for the hazards of deatl1, des titt1tion, sick11ess a11d old age. ed by g n ra re ar e w es ag ri ar m y _ et ci so p n In the traditio nal pattern of Ethio ia parents and elders. T he marriageable age was 8-14 for. tl1e girl and_ 14-18 for � 1vorce . w as 1, cl 1r 1t cl 1n d e n r1 ? rf e . the boy. Unless the marriage rit es were p 1rtl1s e b at 1m 1t g le Il . g n ro st ed n ai m re es ti common ut y it n u m m co d

family an

20· Woz.. ., the yeweinshe t Beshah-Woured, Some 01 l•vmilt Dtli11q11ents and Prosti/Jltts 2-5 (1964).

c,..,

e ,t,Jaking of tli to rs to ac F g in ut ib tr on C d an ..,,.5es

I. . ·. ..

�

'i .

I' . ·. ,

.. .

!; !. . ... .

. '. ..... . .. ' ..' ·., . ,. ·::�; ..·.I

.. .. ... ·r J.• . . •,. '1 .

' ..' . , . l ·\�;

1.�· t �

198

if ,,

ll '., ' I 1

tfI

lf;J

'�

' 1•1t "' ',,

I 1tL.,.,., :

it \" IM

t"'

LI� • ·

•I.! ��

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

a m no ig as · st w e cl ta er at th t bu 1ed of rd ea il1 ttt ly al ic ct ra e p before marr1a� e �er_ . ee rc vo a di 1e as Tl w e sh rth bi if � . l1e ot 1n s l1i or 1 • , 1 11· cl I:! te to e1·t11er tl 1e 1l l eg1t1111a • d t . h e gir r ag an ar ca m · 1 � t to n e nc ra 11d I11 a t no ill st is _ d of a11 illegiti1nate cl 1il l l11s d 1ct not h appen f t . se el ne eo m so or d ,tl l marry e1·11 1er ti 1e fatl1er of lier c , , t se g t ar a tn ld s 11· ''t u wo e 11 e s 1 1 r, he t �r )l) _ SlI to le 1ab u1 l a11d her J)are11ts were or ''tej'' and so start a life of prost1tut1011. of !ng . liv rn d tte an pa tl1e d _ �e lis tab es e tl1 o int ted tia ini re g we e ur, Th yo . l cia r So on de cti or l san na t1o s d1 tra e tl1 pt ce ac to ed rii lea l or gir ing y bo gro\v s e d cc �rd )te a _ nd the sta to of rm 11fo co 1 t no did io wl se tho ist i ai ive ag ect re eff we behaviour ai,d it \Vas 011 \y as a very l ast resort tl1at a girl _started a life of prostitt1tio11 \vl1ic l1 ofte11 111ade l1er leave l1ome for a11otl1er village. Social Charzge: Tl1e old orcle1� is cl1a11gin� ar:id. tl1is cl1.�nge l1as fa: reacl1i1�g restilts wl1icl, affect ti 1 e com111t1111ty a11d the 1ncl1v1d�al. Tl1e 1"!1ost serious. r�su l t is tl,e uprooti11g of 1Jeople fro1n tl 1�ir cttltural l1er1tage; soc1�l cl1ange brings about disi11tegratio11; if tl1e cl1a11ge 1s slo\� tl1e 1:e\xr el<tments 1!1 the cultu r e �an be easily absorbed, bt1t ofte11 the cl1a11ge 1s rapid a11d results 1n mucl1 conflict. A society is able to \vitl1sta11d tl,e disintegrati11g fJOwer of . cl1ange (1) if it can be certair1 of its core of values (2) if it is able to transmit a suff1c1e11tly stable core of attitL1des a11d valL1es to tl1e comi11g generatio11. Tl1ese co11ditions are 11ot easily fulfilled a11d tl·1e old orcler cl1anges only t0 give way to a c l1oice of values as 110 col1ere11t set of valt1es is prese11ted to reJJlace tl1e old. Tl1e family as tl1e nuclet1s of all otl1er social organizations, a11d not tl1e individt1al, is the real unit of society. Perso11al va-lues are learr1ed a11d tl1e mea11ing of perso11a l living t111derstood witl1ir1 its context. It is tl1rougl1 tl1is fu11dame11tal u11it tl1at the traditions of society are upl1eld. 111 the past, the economic system made for tl,e stability of t h e family but ne\v ecor1omic a11d social forces are inflt1enci11g tl1e fatnily wl1ich is losing co11trol over its members. Tht1s the cultural foundations of tl1e traditio11al famil )' are being u11dermined. Tl1e im1)rovement of roads a11d co1nrnt1r1ications a11d tl1e in1J)act of moder11 educatio11 l1ave give11 villag� JJeople a11 alter11ative to tl1eir 111eager existe11ce. Me11 a11d \von1en are leav111g l·101ne for better Oj)j)Ortti11ities i11 tow11s a11d cities a11d tl1e very S)1ste1n of edt1catio11 l1as bee11 a factor i11 tl1e breal<i11a UJJ of tl1e fa1nily by re1novi11g yoL111g boys and girls frorn tl1eir l101ne e11viron;;',e11t. 01� so.cial relations l 1i1Js based on 11eigl1bot1rli11ess are destroyed. Jv\utual soc!al ob11gat1ons are 110 longer respected and self-i11terest a11d denial of social responsibility have become tl1e guidi11g JJrinciples of tlie individual. Disinte gra_tion, distress a11d slum condi_tio11s are tl1e l1all marl< of rapid cliange - from wl11cl1 follow ttr1e1111Jloy1ne11t, cr1n1e a11d disease. In tl1e sl1al<y fr�1:7e\x,orl<. of a cl1angi11g society tl,e adolescent is i11 the most vt1l11erable pos1t1011. It 1s l1e or sl1e \'v'ho feels tl,e strai t , of n1odern livi11g r_ nost. Tor11 betwee11 lo)ral�y to l1is JJarer1 ts atid desire to be ''tip-to-date" tl1e_ cl11ld doe� 11?t _ t111dersta11� l11s J)ro1)er role in tl,e community. His JJerso11al cla11ns_ ma l<e it d1ff1ct1lt for 111�1 to res1Ject the claiins of tl,e comtnunity. The c hanging metl1�ds of prodL1ct10�1 pOJJulation inovemei,ts atid the imiJact of m ?dern edu�at10�1 . ha�e created insecurity. The family, ur,stable as it is,. can neither fJrov1de affection nor apply proper discipline. Parents are sometime s too far away or � re prevented from taking active ii,terest in tt,eir cl1ildren �e�ause of eco11om1c pressures or are overwl,elmed by tlie deinatids of modern 11v1ng. The Impact of Modern Educatio,i: With the iricreasiti tl g ttmber of cl1ildren

IMMATURITY

199

attending a school not otily are _new ideas p en etratin g some of tl 1e re m otest d th es b e ir u fo t e r g es ed u ca tion has raised the 1narriageab villa le ag e r bot)1 fo . ls ir g 1d a1 boys M'Oder n educati� n h as weake11ed th e family b y reati 11 g a wide ct1ltural c ge r at �e ee 10,,s. The �cl1ool sta nd s apart f rom ga1J· betw n tl 1e co m mu11ity wl1icl1 ne it st tl he a1 1 r 1d e s r te ac e l11 n g con tents 11 or tl1e und )U rp os e of tl1e scl100I. l ts r e pa n ar e u�abl� to assess_ tl1e progress tl1 ei Jg11o ra11t r cl 1il d is m akir,g at to al � re ! an ad ily_ give ttp tl1e1r res1)0 11sibility for ed school d uc at io n an di d sci cl 11l 111 tt1 d rn 1s asl1�n1ed to ack11owledge fJOOr and ig pline. The no ra pa nt re nt s. an s1, po ortage d or qual 1 ty of available teacl1ers l1as so far Tl1e 11o all t ow ed r to eff b id ge tl1e ga p betwee11 school a1 1d· comn111nity, orts any a11 1 ool d sc l lef ar ve t e r}' m t1cl1 to tl1emselves (eve11 \Vhen living -with children 1 eir tl r e t11 a 1_certai 11 of tl1e role tl1a t is ex1)ected of tl1 e1n. No comm pare11ts) a11d o1 1 be l1a v1our are expected of cl1ildre1 1 as some parents are sta11da rds of r ov e indulgent a1 1d per1nissive a1 1d otl1ers over�strict a11cl at 1 tl1oritative.

Cl1ildre11 at scl,ool are co11fro11ted \vitl1 tl1e problem of ''keeping 111) \x,ith tl1e J 011eses' an d i11dulge i 1 1 st1cl1 seen, i1 1gly l1 arn1less co1 1tests as \vl1 0 brir1gs the most mo1 1ey to s cl1ool? Wl1ose family l1as a car or c11a11ffet1 rr- Whicl1 children dress better? A11d so 011. Tl1e scl,ool tal(es little notice of Stlch tl1i11gs and most parents do 11ot seem to realize l10Yv l1armft1l tl1 is is for tl1eir cl1ildren and tl1at sucl1 co11tests ca11 be tl1e ca11se of lyi11g, IJilferi 1 1g a11d otl1er undesir able behaviour. 1

It is often a cattse fo r wo11der \V1l1y i11 spite of l1avi11g receivecl a11 ecltica tion you11gsters fall i11to delinquent bel1avi?t1r, bt1 t here \Ve �e11d to c�1�ft1se mere literacy with a real edt1catio11. Edt1cat10� _n,ust be edt1cal1or1 for ci_t1zer1ship. It must teacl1 tl1e cl1ild: (a) t� ear11 a_ �1v1ng (b},. to clev�loJJ m �!-a!. 1�leals (c) to become a usef u � a n � well adJ usted_ c1t1ze11. �� Jeffreys IIJ a ti. eat1se � 1 1 , p_eopJe 11�' 'd the purpose of eclucatron 1n. modern society �ays, . 111 a11y _soc1ea.y , tl1 ree things: _ a job by wl11cl1 t11e)' ear11 �l1e1r datly bread1 a . v�c... �lton, '\;�}11c �1 is a mea11s of sel f-ft1 Ifillme11 t tl1rougl1 service to tl�e community, a 11d le1st1re, in which tl,ey cat, relax the special tensio11s of tl1e1r worl� a 1 1d re-�reate tl1�m selves''. In particular tl1 e edu cato r sl1ould never_ lose s1gl1t of_ tl1e m� a�1 111g a ct · rt n e f the family and special e1n1Jl1as1s should be laid 011 rel1g1ot1s e�uc�� a� J egucation for �arriage a11d fan1ily relationships. 21 A RIC Y AF IN NC QU IN � RAPID SOCIAL CHANGE AND JUVENILE DE�

s ion at N d ite Un a, ric Af r fo n io iss m om C Eco12omic

1 t io1 en sat q11 cau lin of de s rie eo Tl1 cy: ,,en n · / D e ·t e Factors Contributing to Juveni are. 110� generally consicter:ed to be soz ctCf.o 1 ical or economic or medico-psycl10.

�i l of tl,ese factors offers a better tio t b logical 1n nature. Some believe tl1 a� a c 0 ur knowledge 1,as 11ot adva11ced explanatio n. The po s ition today 15 tf� 1� , f ·tivenile delinquency. At best we sufficie11tly far to determ ine _the ''cattse� olved, r 1 e�e are 50 many variabitlesis inv may only speak of ''cont r1. �ut1�1g fact?rs ·. �� difficult and the complexity of their interaction 15 50 bewildering, tliat to arrive at the real aetiology. . a. . ric CN Af E/ in y nc c . qu lin De e nil ve Ju d an e 21· Economic ang Commission for Africa, Rapid Social C h 14/SODE/4, pp. 22�31 (1964).

•

•'

••

., ,, ')•

;

,• l '

'l I

., I ,1

c: '

I''

I l

;' '

' ' '

�. 'I '._ .' :. ' . ' .. ·•

200

•

' I

11 · ,,,., "

'\'

:.1

' ,1:� "

.. .• " �

� l"i;:

II 11•...I I I,..., ,,.. I\ '"1 ,,l. II � t'_,

�

"I.,'i

Ii-· "

' 'I

I I' ''

CRilv\lNAL RESPONSIBILITY

cy en a qu s being tJ1e lin · de · · le ni ve ju ew vi to g n di w ten 1 n on s Ex�ert r s . Delinque11t cto of fa t se ed ct e l se a of as ll uc m earn�·1ng i ric�ss as res uIt o a . 1°P n 1 t i al itl n w de a b e a t m o nn ca r 1d ne a1 on n e . om n e · ph d te � · la 1 o s n a t t . 110 ur s av1o beh . sei,ts 1 ts ? Wn TJ� rt1cular re p y nc e u 1q l11 e d _ ile en v unrelated to t he social mat rix. Ju a ric r Af �e e?:ton has T y. ,tr ui co ch ea 111 n e ev or on gi characteri stics in eacl1 re nd de_l1_,1quen cy a e i m cr of t en tm ea tr 1d a1 dy tu 11ot advanced very much ir, its s h er _pol1t1cal and ot of r be m 11u a th wi n tio rJa cu oc epr partly because of its t he ba sic d�ta from of h uc _ m _ k s lac it e s u ca e b y rt) pa d aii ns ler ic ob m pr no eco t e11 of pm lo its social ve de e tl1 1 fo ed ed 11e e ar l1 11c wt s tlie otlier social scietice e,1 ted belo�, t l1erefore, es pr s or t _ fac 11g ti bt1 tri n co tl1e of defe11ce. Tl1e a11alysis o summa�1se th� ob_ser t s JJt em att 1t s s ele rth ve 11e t bu , o11 ati suffers from tl,is Ii init vatioti and exiJeriences of tl1ose most qt1alified to speak on tl1e Afr1ca11 s1tt�at10�. Prac tical measures for preve11tion a11d treatme11t can11o1t, ho\vever, a,va_ 1t sc_1\X l1at k11owledge 1s a\,a1le ntific precisio11, a11d adrninistratio11 mt1st pro cee d 011 able of the cont ribut i11g factor s. Tl1e first major observatio11 tl1at n1ay be made is t!1at tl1 e _en1 erge11_ce and increase of juvenile deli11qt1ency (and crime. gL:nerally� 1 s a_ssoc1a t ed \X11tl1 tl1e rapid social cha.11ges tl1at are taki11g place s1d_e by s 1d_ e \X,1t� the _ a_ccelerated pace of political a11d economic developme11t 111 _tl1e Africa r eg·1?11. S1m1lar t rends in crime a11d deli11qt1er1cy l1ave bee11 observed 1n tl1e econ om1cally less devel opecl regions of Asia and Lati11 America \Vhicl1 are also u11dergoi11g rapid so cial a11d eco11omic t ra11sfo rn1atio11. Tl1e underlyi11g facto rs are to a great extent differe11t fror11 tl1ose ct1rre11tly co11tribL1ting to an i11crea s e of jt1ve11ile delin quency i11 the econon1ically more advanced countrie s. European color1isatio11 of Africa, tl1e rise of African 11ationali sm, and the achievernent of national indepe11dence by most cou11tries i11 the regio11 witl1in the last decade, have all set into motion powerful forces maki11g for far-reach ing economic, political, cultt1 ral and social chan ge. for exan1J)le, tl1e tradition al subsi stence economy around wl1ich tl1e village social s tructure and tribal tradi tions we re built has bee 11 forced to give way to a market a11d money econ omy. Tl1is cl1ange is by �o means complete and, i11d eed, is likely to be delib erately speeded 11p to br111g about greater economic arow t l1. Tl1e 11ew pattern of economic activity l1�s i11d uced mass migration (in t;r11al as well as i11ter-ter ritorial), tl1e conce11trat1on of porJulation in town s and citie s tl1e e stablisl1ment of _1n_oder11 forms o_f com1ne!·cial e,1ter!)rise a11d i11dustrial productio11, and t�e tra1!11ng of la�ot1r 111 11e:-v l<1!1d s of sl<tlls and habits of work. Overlayir1g tl11s basic �conom1c revolt1t1011 1s tl1e eqt1ally itTIIJOrta11t intellecttial at1d s1Jiritt1a l r evol\1t1011 _ bro_t1gl1t abot1t by. tl1e 1)roselytizi11g activities of Cliri stian rnissionaries, the d1ssem111at1011 of new sl<1lls of lear11i11g, and 11ew ideas and ways of tl1ougl1t througl1 a networl< of schools, college s a11d oth er mass media of communication. _wa s.inevitable �l1at all . tl1 ese dey�lopnie n ts would bring about cha nges It . 111 fa1:11Iy life and social rel�t1011s. Pol1t1��, economics an d religio n I1ave thus combined to sl1ake up a11d 1 e-sl1ape traditional African society. Larg e masses of the people h_ave bee11 affe�t e_d by these con dition s bu t they tiave yet, to �d�quately �dJust to and ass1m1late th_e new elemetits of living African o e_t . s �t y 1s 1n tl_1e mi dst of _ a cultural, economic an d political transitio n . It is a flutdLC, dy n�m1c and creati ve pl1ase �ut 11on etl1eless unsettled and un settli ng, an d c n duc1ve to tl1e_ emerge11ce or 111crease of differ ent types of criminality a11d del1�n qt1ent bel1av1our.

It �l1ould be 11oted, l1oweve�, tl,at crim inality ati d delinque ,,cy_ are no� · 11ecessar1ly a con seque11ce of vel social

cliange5 accompar,ying economic d e

IMMAT URITY

201

g cl 1 an es and eco11omic developm Soc ial t. 1 mer op e:� t5 are _both inevitab l e and proper nder u _ and, conditions Ina , me o c l e w co r�t �i b ut e to a de cr ea se as far 1r.-sr, 1al 1 crimi ity, l � a 1 i1 tendencks a11 iil crim l1ave_ been stimu ct y vit i � . , , al ted by tl1e lack ·Jf certai11 basic ecor omic i ecess tes at�d s�c1al am� ies . nit i ; t l ec of cia g asp a11 so 1 cl l ! cia wl cru i l e , c appears O be associat ed with TI1e th e 1 que 1 deli 1 t 1 beh avi our of lies in the growth 1n er a,, ct_ ra te of . cl1a11ge . tl1e Sec of ond gs UN Coi,gress 011 The findin nt 1 n of Cr1m_e a11d e � the Treatme�t of Offenders are that cultt1ral i 11sta �fi�_Y, fhe '!' eaken111g of primary social controls and the expo&ure to confl"i cting . ?o c1 a l standar�s are related to crimi11ality, and tl1ese feature�- are t_ n t ens1f te d �,l1en social · · ct·tsorderIY, when the degree o.f social cl�a11 e is Iii 11 a11d wl1e n cha11ge IS g g th br n e_ be ea t_ kd w e� o of n gaJ . old social i11st itt1t io11s and t l1 e creatio 1 1 the J. 8� of 11ew 1nst1tt1l1ons 1s great.< ) Social cl1a11ge is sttbJ·ect to a certa1n · de g ree o f co11troI a11 d s h ou Id b e a matt er f· o r 11at .1 01 1al JJ1a1111ing. . E�onon1ic dey eI C!pme11t is acc o 111panied by �nigrati?11_ (especially i i,ternal rn1grat1011 )1 t1rba111zat101 1 a11d ge11erally also by 1 11dustrial i zatio11. These tl,ree asp�cts l! a\,.e o!te11 been erro11e?t1�]y _assun,ed to be direct co,,tributive factors to_ 1uv�111le del111qt1e11cy (a 11d cr11n1!1 al 1 ty). Tl1e ,,ie\vpoint today is tl,at it is 110t �1gra �1?11, per se, tl1a_t 1s con�uc1ve to crirninalit)', bui f)eri,aJ)S tl,e culttiral 1n.st�b1l1ty, tl1e \X eaken1ng o_f JJr1n1ary _social co11trols a11d tl1e expost1.re to co1, !11ctt�&" sta11_dards. of bel1aVi_our associated \vi tl1 mig ratior1 \Y1l1 icl1 are to be 1dent1�1ed_ \'vttl1 cr1 �e caus_at1_011._ Tl1e san1e co11clusion is also to be ,lp[.1liecl to urban1zat1011 af!d 1ndt1str1al1zat1011. The breaJ{dO\xr11 of social i i1sti i�1tior1s a 11tl methods O! soc1�l contr�I (sucl1 as tl1at exercised by tl1e family arid tl1e tribe), a11d the failure to establ1sl1 eqt 1 ally effe ctive 1neasw res ir11mecljr1ti::ly· 'i11ere 'Yil1 at mattered. The re med)' indicated was pla1111 i 1 1g for 1,1 rba11izatio11 a.11(! incltistraliz�i.� tion accompa11ied by migratio11 bttt \Vitl1011t social ·brealrdo"1J?r1 clll(i crirni r1 alilj'. The unfavourable results wl1icl1 ma)' acco mp2.i1y rafJid n1igra_tiot1 lo ttrlJart centres ma}' be atneliorated by providi11g tl1e rurai areas ·\x it]1 tl1e social 8.11d economic advantage i11 searcl1 of wl1icl1 tl1e rttral i11]1abita11t leaves tf1e l a11cl fr)r !he city. The social integrit}' of tl1e rural 1nigra11t i11to a11 urba11 area is assailed immediat ely by the unfamiliarity of tl1e urba11 setti11g a11d its \vay of livir�g. It has been noted that tl1e bt1lk of tl1e crilni 11al prosecutio11s i11 certai n Africa n (and Asian) commu11ities were for no11-complia11ce \'v'it11 regulatio11s peculiar to urban living, a11d little u11d erstood by the people rece11tly arrived from rtrral settings. It has bee11 recom1ne11 de d that rt1ral 1 nig·ra 11ts might be prepared for this expe rience and tl1at the urba11 commu11ity itself sl1ould also be prepared t? receive t11em. Th is is a task i n wl1ic]1 tl1e com mt111ity developme11t organi�a tion and s e rvices coulcl pl ay an important ro_Ie. Urb� n pre_pared�ess \vould 1n vo]ve tl1e provisio t1 of reception an d orien tat 1 0 11 _services, tnclu? tng temporary s_helter; town planning, including hotis)ng; educat1_011al and vocat10!1al opportt1n1ties for the new population; and family and child _welf ar� services. Tl1e ttn l)repared11ess of rtiral juveniles for th e urban experience t� ever! greater a�d t�e . res ulting cultural shock upsets the social �11d moral 111tegr 1 ty of the in dividu al more readily, and makes l1im tnore del111que11cy prone. er d s n u re o m al ry io it ad tr f o 11 w _The conflict o f cultures and th e breakdo e t1pth n O JJ U 1s 1 l t f o the impact of t c e ff e · t n e u q e . s n o c e th d an west ern1sat·10n br·tn� . !n ti en Y u q re f e i ·t u q d . � it n ee ing and de,,elopment of children I1 as b _ � tr1 w , le p am ex r fo �tud1es of ve �, am I1 1I � y1b R . n io g re e th in cy ju en e u il q n in el d m te n o f c o e c n 1ng on e e u fl in e th il a et d th situation in Ghana describes in some

•ri�;

'' I' !

(KJ )

para. 4. 3, . ct p Se , 62 . 0, /2 17 F, N O UN Rep ort on p. cit., A/C o c. et g , ss re on C ld or Second W

' ' '

'' "

;j I

.. I ' . '' ' '

l ' '

_; '

I .. '

. :,_l

l •

I ' • I· •' ·'

',<

''.,;:- J �

,.A ' ..

''1 I ·: I•. I

I,, '

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

202

•i_

I II

ii*'!

IJ t

• I

. •

11 •,I 11 I ' •

' 1:11�·

If 1'\•,� .

I .,.. ,

,.....

11 ,� "

,,,\� ... "' �

'� •:,

I;.... "'

I I

I ,,.. .. lljL ..' uI •

,,.. .,' I :J :· I ,, r• I

...

., •I

porary western-oriented scl1ool education and the conflict �f -values and codes of conduct as between tne older and the younger _ �eneration and makes the following observation: ''Tl1e _child him�elf, �y acquiring new systems of values and 'tl1 e magic key' of E11gl1sh ed·ucat1on finds l�1mself naturally cut away from the spirit and personal influe11ce o� tl1 e h<?me, w1tl1 a great deal more f�eedom tl1an can be socially co11trolled. Hts role 1n the l1ome bec?mes uncertain and lie naturally develops co11flicting loyal�ies''-'93� Evelyn . P1erra, J .. P. Flamand and H. Collomb, in their study of juvenile delinquency 1n Dakar(94> also stress tl1e conflict of cultures caused by western education, and what. they . term as the consequent ''social maladjustment''. They prefer to regard Juvenile delin quency more as ''social maladaptation'' due_ to the ''potentiallr traumatic en counter with western civilization''. They believe that the maladjustment of the young Africa11s is dt1e to their difficulty in fully assimilating norms and de mands cultL1rally foreign to them, and conclude that the problem is primarily one of education. Lil<e Riby-Willia1ns they state tl1at the intrusion of western civilization l1as disrupted the traditional tribal system of education which was for tl1 e needs of tl1e group. S. P. Tscl1ot111gt1i and 1Pierra Zumbacl1 in their study of juver1ile deli11quency in tl1e Camerot�:· ,'' ·> and Abdellatif El Bacha in r1is stt1dy of ju\reni]e delinqL1ency in Morocco<96> also stress the same cultural faciors as contrib11ting to tl1e emergence of the problem in the Africa region. The weal<ness and instability of family life as a major factor contributive to juvenile delinqt1ency l1as also been cited in recent studies. Abdellatif El Bacha, for example, has this to say of the situation in Morocco:

l I I j

'Anotl1er disquieting phenomenon is the collapse of the traditional family structures, the transformation of tl1e tribal family into tl1e family of t\vo. Tl1e l1�terogeneity of tl1e present is replacing the homogeneity of tl1e past. Tl1e importance of one's fa1nily decreases as the implications of the i11evitable 'incide11tals of modern life' become more pronounced: the �choo�,. the factory, tl�e trade .union, tl�e political party, a11d so forth. The 1nstab1l1ty of the family remains a serious problem in the new Morocco. The mo_st readily ap�arent_ and the gravest consequence of these various factors 1s the 11011-sat1sfact1on of emotional needs. What the maladjusted young Moroccan often needs above all is more affection. The parents are no lo11ger able to cope; frequently their reaction is to take the line of least resistance and to abdicate their responsibilities for dealing with their children's problems.''(97> •

•

With the we�ket1!ng of t�1e faf!1ily ai1d kinsl1ip ties and ·co 1 1trols, a youth . 1n the urban setting 1s es1)ec1ally 111flue11ced by the values and codes of his contemporary ''peer'' gro11p In tl1e disorganized setti11g of urban slums , the _. peer group very often fun�t1011s as a g�n�, committing petty crimes, orga�1.1zed vandalism, and even serv111g as the w1ll1ng agents of professional crimi nals . Such peer groups may also be used as carriers of socially approved values and goals.

(95) Ibid., pp. 45-46 (English Summary). (96) Ibid., pp. 22-23 (English Summary). (97) Ibid., p. 23.

;

•)

�·j·.

.�I •.

'17., a 1 ..

r.r::.-

The lack of educational facilities and opportunities ma y also contribute to (93) . In�national Review of Criminal Policy, No. 6, 1954, pp. 2-3. (94) Ibid., No. 20, 1962, pp. 33-34. (English Summary).

1 �:

.. -; a '•.r·•.· . ,.

'' .'. ' .. {

i ,; I •

. .'' I

IMMATURITY

203

. del inq ue nc y. Bu nil t e tl1e re is juve a direction in · wl1 ich · education actually seems to contribute to juverii]e d elinqttency. Educated yotttl·i from tl1e r11ral areas drift to the towns and seaport s in s a h of noii -m arittal or ''wl1ite collar'' j obs. These jobs are eitl1er scarce or tlie �10�c-se eke:s do 11ot l1ave an adequate educationat background to ualif for tl1em (l1av111g l eft scl100I too early). Cons eqtiently they tend to diift fiom IJI ac e ot place or live i11 co 1npa1·a1·1ve "dl eness, 1 . . and sooner or later are driven to co mmtt d _ eltn9uerit _ acts, sucli as tl1efts. W. Clifford reports that eve11 after s eve ral PJr1ods 111 pr1s011 tl1e yo1111g pris o11ers . l til d ie e e rv er te w in d l1a s w he 11ot ��e1�� r� !� !c �fpt w o rk wJ11cl1 tl1ey regarded as l1aving no status. T l1 ey pref err re e at,d t0 keep u P apJJearances • ices. ratlier t1ian t? ac�ept tl1e level i11 society wl1ich wottld otl1erb}:' 1·1tegal pract· w1se be tl1e1r lot (i.e., by e11gag1ng 1n ttriskilled laboi.t rers' jobs).CI04J Thus in the sho rt_ rt111. b _ ecause the edt�cational .systems are i11complete . that they are n�t !11 d1vers1f1ed _ er1ot1gl1 curr1cult11n-w1se a11d 11ot adapted to . 111dustr1a], commerc1al · and developme11t , ai,d , also b ecat1s e enoL1g I1 · agr1ct1ltukral . em�I oyment O!Jporlt1n1t1es of tl1e . 111d sougl1t after by African youth are not availabl e at this stage of econo1n 1c . gro\vtl1, . w e l1ave a situation ii, ,y}iicl, th e �rmy of ttnemployed school-leave�s 1s growi11g. This also is a strong contribut ing factor to tl1e emergence and increase of juve11ile de_Iinque11cy. s f urlJa11 occttpational OfJportlt 11 has ade n 1 �ell be tl1at point A re in o JJect _ . 7 . n1t1es for _ youth a�d which 1� directly related to deli11que11cy pro11e11ess, is tl1at youth 1s sl1unted 1_n to pr�car1ous en1pl?yme,r1t, ofter1 on t11e fringe of legality,. and very oft en, tn settings of co11s1deraole in oral }1a.zarci. �( ot1th is also fre quently economically ex1Jloited a11d gravitates to\1<1ards jc1bs in street tracles or cafe ba r service, or as tools ir1 orga11 ized crirr1e. A clirect c,)11 tribtri i<)n t'.J the prevention of urba11 youtl1ful cri1ni11ality \vo11Id be: to ir1crease c,JJportt1r1 iii�s for youth employment i11 socially desirabl e enterJ)rises, vocational prepa.rtl.tion , me11 t , c111J)lo il1e of ol co11tr a11d e p illa11c surve full tl1e a11d ent loym em for such of youth. Tl1e educational a11d emp loyme11t f actors conlribt1ti11g to j uver1ile deli11· quency are matte rs whicl1 would l1ave to be dealt \vitl1 i11 a comJ)reher1sive ma nner under a national economic a11d social development plan. Tl1e demo graphic structure complicat es tl1e solt1tio11 for tl1e African popt1l,ttion is a ears of age. The gap y 15 r e u11d are 1t ce1 er p 45 ut abo '' on ful lati pu uth po 'yo between population g rowth a11d economic gro\vtl1 is large. e s of family ess as str cl1 su s on iti 11d co al 11t e m on r vi en r he ot o e als er Th are poverty, poor housing, and lack of recreatio11al facilities which _c?ntrs ibute to J�venile delinquency. It is more tha11 fJr?ba_bl_e t l1at sttch �ond1t1on I1ave a . r, o ve tw we l1 ty Ho na rso pe l ua v1d d1 1n � tl1 _ of t en t . pm lo _ e v e de ?Ir c bea1 ing on the t nvestigatorsltos) are convinced that tl1e 1uve111l e d elinquent, 1n the Camerou11 s ce an r equiring rb stu r di ou vi l1a e b d an er ct ra 1a cl at least does no t suffer from l ca gi I� al l10 ic yc ed � l1 ps 1n t1g ro l1o d an d ize al du vi di costly ;ehabilitation an d v ery in lly 1ca 1n no co e a!1d tl1e e J o1 ur 1� ys _ da E -aw no r fc) treatment su ch as that p rovided n ou er 111 m en dr Ca 11l cl 11t ue 1q l11 e d , em tl1 to more affluent countries. Accordi11g n � , ca ey be ed tl1 at uc e ed ar ey th _ ce on d an d e _ are merely uneducated and not ill-br ! al d 1c an l1o og )�c ps of ld e f1_ e tl1 . , �r ev ow J-1 . come extremely valuable citizens. y el tiv ill la st 1s re on � gi re a 1c fr 1e l t 111 _ y q 11: t� L psych iatric aspects of juvenile de _lin _ unexplored and a waits careful sc1ent1f1c 111vest1gat1011. 1

(104) �108)

ion (c) .. �rticle by W. Clifford. ct Se . 24 p. , 64 19 , 21 o. N lnltrnationaL Rroiew of Criminal Policy, 6. -4 . 45 pp t. . cz op n, ou cr am C of y ud st r ei S. P. Tschoungui and Pierre Zumbach in th

,. !

. '

II I. '

' i '

,, ,,

'''l'

·'..

'''

' 'l '

,,. i

I I

I�

•

i :.. ' ,•

I· .

I. • • ; 1·

'.: . I'..... ..·"

.... ... ·� ::.r ..�-. .

�

> : ''

CRIMINAL

204

•

RESPONSIBILITY

Questions

Do ou fe el tliat at, understanding of �l1e causes or motivation for _a cl1 'ldr� r· 11 e ·1 necessary to dete rmine hts sentenc e and/or to effect his re � b t·fa;!ion? �s an understanding of th e causation of juvenile crime on a . . ] � tt l t soc1e a evel 1mpor tant to the initiation of programs for its prevention? nt s rta ng po di im fin re o _ m � unth r fo nt ou cc ac k in 2. What factors do you tl, · Rt'ley's report?· Whicl1 of. th ese findings seem to be related to covered in · · ? D? �ou agree w1·th . 1op_ 1 a. Eth· tn e n1 1 _ cr le n� ve ju th e actual cat1sation of 1a 1?p Eth 111 ? _Wh�t otl1er 1on s�t cau e m cri e il en juv of sis aly t's ai, he ins we Ye . l c1a it i,.so mm ant co to acts? ild ch a d lea l1t nig 1 y iet soc n pia ,io Etl s in tor fac 3. Ar e tl,ese causes of jL1ve11ile crime �11ique . to Ethiopia? Are tl1e facto rs coi,tributing to juve11ile delinquency 1n �fri_ca as a \vhole, as set out i11 E.C.A.'s re1Jort, equally applicable to Eth1op1a? 4. Is crime basically a reflectio11 of stresses . \vithin I?artic�Iar �ociet_ ies or are its roots and causes universal? Do you think that Juve 111le crime 1n Ethiopia is likely to l1ave one o r numerous causes? 5. How woL1ld you propose to t1ndertal<e tl1� pr�ve11tion of ju� enil� c rime i11 Etl1ioJJia (Note 3 supra)? Wl1at type of leg1slat1on do you tl1ink 1s contem plated by tl1e last paragrapl1 of tl1e Higl1 Court's opi11ior1 i11 Crimi11al file

,, ....

I. ' I 4

11 * '1

1r. '

' '" I r tl• ,' I

t au.. IL

•

1 '1

,, ,

·ir "

',1: "�

• • I'•

•

I ' ,I! I11

II 1.

No. 522/53?

Problem

One tl1eory concerning juve11ile crime in America is briefly as follows: Lower class children, who commit most c rimes, a re required to attend schools wl1e re tl1eir teacl1ers a re f rom the middle class and tl1erefore instill middle class values st1cl1 as a good job, home, wife a11d cl1ildren, furtl1 er education, progress, etc., i11 tl1ese cl1ildren. Tl1ere are barriers in the society whicl1 prev ent tl1ese lower class childr e11 fron1 attaining tl1e goals set for tl1em 1?Y tl1eir leacl1e rs. fr�stratio11, guilt a11d rese11tme11t are produced a11d the cl11ld re11 attemJJt to st rike bacl< at both tl1e basic values and at those wl10 keeJJ tl1em from attai11ing tl�ese values. Tl1is may partially expl�in why young people band together 1n gangs and, commit crimes from which they d�rive no perso11al gai11 sucl1 as attacking people on streets and dest roy111g property. �nt, velopm in the Ministry man'' of e e as D National ''id Community �n As consid er whell1er tl1e stresses placed . u�on Etl1iopian soci ety by the intrusion of western culture may not create s1m1lar frustration and resentme11t. If so, how might crime, pa:tially caus ed by such factors be prevented and how would you proceed with tl1e rel1abilitation of these young offenders?

Recommended Readings

Riley, Final Report to the Ministry. of National_ Community Dervelopment, _Imperil�al Ethiopian Government (1965) (the only semi-compr ehensive study of Ju ven e crime in Ethiopia). Imperial Ethiopian Government, Stat em ent Submitted to the Social D efence

j �

IMMATURITY

205

��elin g H �ld . i11 Monrovia,_ Liberia (Attg., 1964) (ten JJage stateme11t summa r1z1;-ig tl1e 111c1dence, causat1011 a11d preve11lion of juve11ile crime in Etl1io1Jia). Logoz, Commerltaire d,� Code Pe11al 51,isse 329-385 (a good disct1ssio11 of Arts. 82-100 C.P.S. wh1cl1 served as mod els for the Penal Code of Ethiopia). Zurcher, Co�e P_enal �uisse, Expose des Motifs de l'Avant-Projet 27-39 (sets 011t tl1e leg1slat1ve l11story bel1i11d codificatio11 of Ll1e Swiss JJrovisions on }'OU11g offend ers). Remy, Vers Un_ Droit Penal Sr,[sse f!11s Ratio1111el (1960) (a co1npre)1e11sive critique of the Swiss la\v co 1 1cer 1 1111g Jtl\ e 1 1iles). Jean11eret, Mi11et1rs Deli 1 1qt1ants (II a11d III, E 11 -far1ts a11d Adolescents), fi c/1es ]11ridiq1,es Suisses, Nos. 342-::343 (1942) (good stateme11t of tl1e Swiss law witl1 respect to yot1tl1ful offenders). Eco11omic Co111 n1issio 1 1 for Africa, First Africa,i Tra in i11g Co1,trse o,i 111stitz�tiona l Treatme11t of J1,ve1iile Offenders (196,1) (a series of sixteen pa111pl1lets ,�v-ritte11 i11 Cairo prin1arily b}' Egy1Jtia11 scl1olars 011 a variety of subjects related to tl1e t realm e11 t of j Lt \re11 i I es). U11ited Natior1s, Tl1e Preve11tio11 of Ju\re11ile Deli11 que 1 1cy, 7-8 Int. Rev. of Crin,. Policy (1955) {see otl1er isst1es of tl1is sa111e revie\Yi a11c1 also the i,1dices of the ]. Crim. L. Cri,n. arid Pol. Sci. for furtl1er articles i11 tl1is field). Cohen, Delinqreent Boys (1955) (a t111iqt1e a11d tl1ottghtf11l i11terpretalion or tl1e causation of juve11ile cri1ne i11 n1oder11 A111erica.) Rubin, Cri,ne a,zd J11'Ve11ile Deli11q1,e1jcy (1958) {a caref11i a11alysis of problc111s related to j uveni)e delinqt1e11cy). Abral1amsen, Tl1e Psyc/10/ogJ' of Crinie 56-90 (1960) (goo(l state1ne11t concerr11ng causative factors of juve11ile crime i11 t11e \Vest). Okonkwo and Naish Crimir1al Law of Nigeria 119-123 (196,t) (sl1ort siaierJ1ent on the position 'of juveniles i11 tl1e Crimi11al la\v of I\Jigeria). feldbrugge, Soviet Cri111inal Law, 9 Law in Ea_sterrt E1tYO/Je 18� -l 9t1: (196LJ) (statement concerning tl1e Soviet JJe11al law \X11t l1 respect to m1r1ors).

j �.. ,,

' '

I' '

' ' '

••

I ., I' .

. ;,'

''1

. ' ! . ',..r • :

'I . !

' '

i .. ·,

L' ..i. :· i' ..

I'. ' ... 1' ..[ ' •. 1' '. :•

.•

•, :- ' . .... '

.: '

'- 1.. ;

,-•� . .,

�

• •

I•

•

Cl-IAPTER 10

•

The Affirmative Defenses SECTION A. THE DEFENSE Of SUPERIOR ORDERS

a. The Defense in Ethiopia t

PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA

·1,JI•\

I • •

I1*" '

. I 1 ,,�:•• ...... I

·;, . 1_,,l ""' ..,

11 •• .,

' ,:,�,, 1 1111 1 1

,, l

••

,,. 1.::;: ..

"" .., ......

1'"'r ,.

, , .,

'C, �:••

·1 "· ... ...

,,. ' I J .., "' . ,, ., 1.� •t :

,. '•

'I n:

Art. 69. - Responsibility of Person Givir1g an Order. In the case of an offence u11der this Code committed on the express order of a IJerson of l1igl1er rank whether administrative or military to a subordi nate, tl1e pers ? 11 wl10 g�ve _tl1e order is_ responsible for the act perf?rmed , by l1is subord1r1ate and 1s ltab_l� to punisl1ment so far as the subordinate s act did not exceed tl1e order given (Art. 58 (3) ). Art. 70. - Responsibility of tl1e Subordinate. (1) The subordinate wl10 l1as carried out a11 order to commit an offence under this Code sl1all be liable to punisl1ment if he was aware of the illegal nature of tl1e order or knew tl1at the order was · give11 without autl1ority or k11ew the criminal nature of the act ordered, such as in cases of homicide, arson or any otl1er grave offence against persons or property, essential pttblic interests or international law. The Court 1nay, witl1ot1t restriction , reduce tl1e penalty (Art. 185) wl1en the perso11 \vho performed the act ordered was moved by a sense of duty dictateq by discipline or obedience; the Court shall take into account tl1e con1pelling 11ature of tl1e duty. (2) �he Court may im_pose n_? }JU11isl1me11t wl1ere l1aving regard to all tl1e c1��t1mstan_ce� �11d 111 particular to tl1e stringe11t exigencies of State or military d1sctJJline, tl1e IJerson concer11ed could not discuss the order received and act otl1erwise tl1a11 l1e did. (3) l11 the event of an �rder bei11g intentionally exceeded tl1e person who exceeded the order is alone responsible for the excess. THE SOURCES OF THE LAW

Fetha Nagastt Whosoever is cotnpelled by force to kill has no responsibility, if he who l.

Chap. XLVII.

•

SUPERIOR ORDERS

207

compelled hi m is master (e.g., a slave). If ano�ller g.1yes ord ers and has autl1orwh him o is ove r ord ere d the pun hm t 15 to l11m wl10 ity ord if ers; he l1ad no authority over him nor the latter f�ars 1� . hm 11 m, tl1e pu111s e11t is to l1im wl10 obeyed. Penal Code of Etl,iopia (1930)2

Art. 146. Except i11 the case of taking eqttivalent to the taking of who has received an order Art. 147.

. . lif e at id gr� at crtrnes wh1cl1 are recko11ed as . . 1 f e, there 15 110 pun1sl1me11t for a crimi11al . /rom 1 11s master a11d carried out tl1e order.

. . '' ' .

Even if the order were an impro P er one, .1f tl,e perso11 rece1.. v111g tl1e order honestly t l,ougl,t that I·t was necessary a11d proper for hitn to obey

Art. 148.

his master, tl,ere shall be . 110 pt1r1isl 1me11t for him · Never ti1eJ ess It 1s 11ecessary that a pers.Of! receiv· ing an_ order sl1ould 11onestly exami11e it a11d be aware whether 1t 1s proper or improper. ·L

•

Art. 149. If a pers �n receiving ai:i order goes beyond w!1at is aJ!o\YJed h in1 a11ct ordered h1m and commits .a cr1·me, ti 1e orct er gLve11 hiin a11d tl1e e,<tent · to which he exceeded it hav111g been weig11ed, }1e sl1aII be f)ui,islied, btit with a reduced sentence. Military Penal Code of S\"(iitzerland

Art. 18. - Superior Orders. 1. If the execution of an order to act constitutes a felony or misde111ea11or, the superior who gave tl1e order is p t111isl1able as tl1e autl1or of t11e of fense; 2. The subordinate is also pu11ishable if 11e \vas aware i11 executi11g tl1e order that he was parti'cipati11g in the commissio11 of a felo11y or mis demeanor; in tl1is case, however, tl1e judge 1nay freely 1nitigate tl1e punishment, or eve11 acquit the subordinat e. The judge shall consider eacl1 particular case ( the l1ierarchy and military discipline) in which the offending subordinate found hi1nself.

} •

i �·. '

t' : '

ATO TAMRAT SEVOUM v. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Ftderal Supreme Imperial Court, Criminal Appeal No. 9/ 53 (1961 G. C.) Ethiopia

Tekempt 21, 1954 E.C. (t�ovember 1, 1961 O.C.); Justices: �fe11egt1s Taddesse Mengesha, Dr. w. Buhagiar, Ato Bereket-ab_ Habte Sellass1e. The af?r�ellant was at the relevant time performing tl1e duties of acco11nta11t and cashier of the Asmara Civil Aviation and was charged with the following offences, viz: 2•

cl1 of _wlucJ1 See � lso Art. 34, Proc. No. 68/44 G.C. and Reg. 71(2), Leg. Not. No. 269/62 G :C· bo 1n tl1e drafc,ng of require lawfulness for obedience by a subordinate and may have been consulted

Ari. 70 P.C.E.

I' '·.

. .' r .

I .. :.. '. ...

•;

'.· \.·'

•

.: . ;,. · ·;

' '

':. : . '�.

I'·.,..,;_ .

•' •:.,

[... r. '

208

S E S N E F E D E IV T r\ M IR f f A Tl·IE

1 2, s d 64 42 le an ic rt A er 642 d n u st u tr f o 1 ct ea br d · n a 1011 t· · (a) n11sa · ppro pr1a . a 1 , 1952, wh'l eg d b't M O i st an 95 � , 1le an l I11 ee tw be of tl1e ·Penal Code. i 11 tl1at , of 26 m su E$ 60 7. 66 e tl1 ed at r1 op 1Jr ap is m 11e s , e · I duti· per for111111g I11s · off 1c1a . . the ex.ecut·10 11 0f h'IS dut·tes,. and from money wl1icl1 l1ad bee11 entrusted to him 1n e of 7 tl1 d 3� an l 3 na P� 38 s_ le tic Ar r de tin ts 1 e1 m cu do ic bl {b) forgery of pu y cit d e_ pa Ii� ca e1v rec d ne 1o 11t n1e e ov ab s l1i in 2, 95 I , r 30 Code i11 tl1at 011 Heda i�g ert to nv , co .88 �7 bis 8 4, E$ of 111 st1 e t11 e rc fo r Ai tes fro111 tl1e U11ited Sta d he ue m_ iss su h_ a 11c w1 t s 1_ ai1 ag , .88 57 2,4 E$ of ce lan 1Jerso11al t1se tl1e ba 1al s01 r pe u�e tl1e J:11s to g 1 t11 ver n co y cb }1er t 0, 37 2 E$ l recei fJt No. 55 88 for ed to err in ref the 6 7.6 60 26, E$ of 1 sun tl1e i11 ded clu 88 (ir1 57. balance of E$2,4 first cl1arge) . Tlie Iiigl1 Court of Asinara acqt1itted tl1 e appellant on the second c11arge a11d fou 11 d hi111 guilty o.n tl1e first cl1arge to the extent of E$20,000 under Articles 641 (b) a1 1d 642 (b) of tl1e Penal Code. Tl1e defe11ce of tl1e aJJpellant 011 the said amount of E$20,oqo was t�at l1is superior officer, tl1 e Director of Civil Aviation, _ l1ad order. e� him _to give ot1t of tl1 e safe of tl1e Departme11 t tl1e said sum 1n loan to l111n wl11ch loan \X'as to be re1Jaid \vitl1in a fe\x, da)'S. It was 11ot denied by the defen�e tl1at tl1 e sum of E$20,000 which belo11ged to tl1e De1Jartment had been paid out to t}1e Director, bt1t it \vas st1brnitted that tl1e appellant could not comply \vitl1 tl1e orders of t1is su1Jerior officer. The lower co.urt imposed a sentence of 011e year's irnpriso111nent. 1

•

'1.fl"\ ' , I

,1• • 'II ( ''I •

'1(...� '

:117' " "' f

I ' • .ir

i:-1'1

;i , ...

11,. '

Tl1e grou11d of apJJeal is tl1at the appellant \Vas acquitted of the principal cl1arges, tl1at is, misappropriatio 11 (JJresumably tinder Article 422 of the Penal Code) and forgery and tl1erefore lie cot1ld 11ot be co11victed of tl1e accessory offe11ce of breacl1 of trust (under Article 641 ). Tl1ere is no foundation for this grot1nd of appeal. It is true that tl1e appellant as a public servant could have bee11 found gt1ilty of ''appropriation and misappropriation in tl1e discl1arge of I1is duties'' 11nder Article 422, but tl1 e fact tl1at tl1e Cot1rt did not fi11d him guilty u11der tl1at sectio11 does not mean tl1at l1e could not be convicted for breach of trust u11 der Article 641; tl1ere is no questio11 of principal and accessory offences betwee11 Articles 422 and 641. '

I' .

Tl1e appellant also fJrays for mitigation of se11te11ce. Under Article 70 of tl1e Pe11al Code, a subordinate wl10 l1as carried out ,a11 order to commit an offe11ce sl1all be liable to JJU11isl11ne11t if l1e \°1/'as aware of tlie illegal nature of tl1� �rder or l<11ew tl1 at tl1e order was give11 witl1out autliority or knew the cr11n1r:al nature of tl1 e act ordered. �O\v, tl1e�·e is 110 q-uestio11 in this case th�t tl1 e ap1Jel!a11t k11ew tl1at tl1_e order given to him by his superior was illegal; 1n fact l1e did 11ot \va11t to g_rve oi1t tl1 e E$20,000 as he kriew tl1 at it was illegal to g�ve loans of st1cl1 a _big a1nou1 1t to individuals for tli eir private use out of public fu�ds. U 11d_er Article 70, !l1erefore, the appellant is punisliable but that same Article provides for reduct1011 of punisl1ment in cases wl1ere the person w_ho_ p�rfor1ned tl1� act ordere� was moved by a sense of duty dictated by d1sc1pl111e or obed1e11ce. Tl1ere 1s another matter which is to be taken into con sideratio11; i_t is difficult to understand, and the prosecution gave this Court no explanat10 1 1, why tl1e pres�11t appell_an�, a young man of 24 years, was s_in gled out for tl1e cl1arge of m1sapJJropr1at1on of E$20 000 when he had a receipt sig11ed by the Director, wl10 gave tl1e appellant the �rder for the said amount. Tl1e lower Cour_t accept�d tl1e evide11_ce give11 by the appellant that he gave_ tl1e mo11ey to l11s superior wl10 required the said amount as a private loan; if

SUPERIOR ORDERS

209

this. receipt �as not a genuine one, the _ prosecution had the opportunity of

call1ng tile Dire ctor as a wit1,ess but d!d not do so; tl1e only i11ference tl,at can be drawn from this is tl,at the recetfJt was a ge11uine one and was signed by

the Director.

This �ourt, tl1erefore, taking into co11sideration tl1e fact tl1at tl1e offe11ce was committed by th� �JJJ)ellat1� in l1is official caJ)acity a11d also, 011 tl1e otl1er hand, � he fact that tl1!s 1s tJ1e _first offence a11d tl1at Article 70 JJrovides for reduction of pe nalty 111 cases like tl1e prese11t 011e a11cl i11e fact tl1at tl1e blame has . been placed solely 011 tl1e aJJf)ellar1t wl1ile 110 actio11 l1as so far bec11 take 11 against t!1e _pe rs ? 11 wl10 g�ve tl1e illegal order, I1 0Icls tl1at tl1e put1ish 111 e11t of one year s 1mpr1sor1 r11e11t 1s excessive. Tl, is Co :1rt co 11f i r111s t11e co11 vi cti 011 t111 cler Articles 641 a11d 642(b) a11d alters the se ntence to four mor1tl1s in1 priso111ne11t.

. ', .•

•

I I

I '

Questions 1.

Is . t_he more likely s011rce of Arts. 69�70 Etl1iopia11 legal t.raclitior1 or S\v1iss military penal la\�'? Do tl1e provisio11s 'l1itl1 respect to stt/Jerior orc.iers i11 the Fetl1a Nagast, Pe11al Cocle of 1930 a11 d. tl-1e 1)rese11t Per1al Cocle re flect changes in Ethiopia11 society? Under Art. 69, to \vl1at exte11t is a SlljJerior cri11 1i11 a]ly 1iaJJle for ai1 orc!er given to a subordi11ate? U11der J\rt. 70, 'i1I1e11 is a s1.1bordir1ate crir11i110.lly liable for carryi11g out I1is Sllf)erior's order? Do tl1e tl i ree prereq11isites f ()r tl1e liability of a st1bordi11ate t11 1cler Art. 70(1} req11ire act11aI a,;'l,1re11e'._;s (}r would tl1e a'X;are ness of a 1·easo 1 1able r11ai1 be strfficier1t? /-\re t,otl1 st1perior and subordinate to be pt1 11is heel for tlie com1nissio11 of Oi1e crin-ie? Does Art. 70(2) destroy tl,e JJri11ciple laid do\v;n i11 Art. 70(.l )? \]Vas tl-ie court correct in the Tamrat case in mitigatir1g tl1e defer1da 1 1t's f�Ltr1isl1rrient under Art. 70(2)? Sl1ould tl1e court l1ave t2.l<e11 i11to accot111 t tl1e fact tl1at tl1e Director had sign ed a receirJt a11d l1ad l1i1µself 1�ot_ bee11 J)_rosecttted? \Y/ ?t1Icl . rts \ 1le er liab u11d ly ir1al cr1m e b ted, secu pro n bee the Director, if he had

641 and 642(b)? rt. of 1g fti1 dra 1d tl1e l1i1 be lie � , 11I{ tl1i tt yo do s , 1 io1 rat e n id s co y at lic Wh po

or \v er1 s11p allo 699 t. Ar s e do es, e11s off tty JJe to ect sp e r h wit y, 70? Wh orders as a complete defe11se?

b. A Dramatic Use of the Defense: The Trial of Fritz Fisc!:Jer, Nuremberg Military Tribunals THE RELEVANT LAW3 Control Council Law No. 10 (I945) acts

is recognized as a crime:

Art. II (1) Each· of the following · · · · sons or property er p t ns ai ag s se n e f of r o · s 1 1e (b) War Crimes: Atroc·t J. Donnelly n. al., CriminAl Lt.w 62-63 .

. '.

I I

' l'

J J'

'I I ,.

I. --'

I •

. ' · . '

I.. ::,..'· ;. I

:..

·:�. '

.. .. '·..).' '� .'": , ...

·,' , . .: .; . ,,.

1.. �� •

210

THE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

ncluding but not limited i r, wa of s m t o s cu r o s law e th constituti1 1g violations of o r 3:ny other pur f or r ou lab e _ lav s o t n o ti rta fJO e d to murder, ill-treatm e 1 1t or . er or ill-treatment of rd mu y, or rit ter d e pi cu oc m fro pose, of civilian po pulatio11 priso11ers of war or perso ns 011 tl1e s eas, killing of l1os tage �,. plu nder of public �r private property, wanto11 destruction of cities , town s or villag es, or devastation not justified by military 11 ecessity. cities and o_fferise s, i_ ncludi11g but not ro At y: nit ma Hu st (c) es ain im Ag Cr . . l 1 1111t ed to murder, exter m inatio11, e11slaveme11t, d eportat1011, 1mpr1 sonment torture rape or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, o; persecutions 011 JJolitical, racial or religiot1s grou 1 1ds wh ethe r o r 11ot in violation of tl1e domestic laws of th e cot111try where p erpe trat ed. 1

•

• •

(3) A 1 1y person fot111d guilty of a11y of the crimes ab o ve mentioned may

upo11 conviction be punisl1ed as sl1all be det ermi11ed by the tribunal to be just. Sucl1 pL111isl1me11t rnay co11sist of one or more of tl1e following: (a) Deatl1. (b) Im1Jrisonment for life or a ter1n of years, \Vith or without hard labour. (c) fi11e, and i1npriso111ne 1 1t with or without hard labour, in lieu tl1ereof. (d) forfeiture of property. (e) Restitution of property wrong'fully acquire d. (f) D eprivatio11 of some or all civil rigl1ts . .,. " ," 1i"' V ..

II ''

, I

•

• •

•

(4) . The o_ff_icia! position o f any p erson, whetl1er as H ead of State or as a respons�b!e. off1c1al 1n _ a Oovern�ent . D epartme11t, does n o t free him from respo11s1b1l1ty for a crime o r entitle l11m to 1nitigatio1 1 of punishment. •

(b) Tl1e fact �l1at any person acted pursuant to tl, e order of his Oov ernme11t or of a st1per1or doe· s. not. free l1im fron1 r espons 1·b·1 · e , 1 ·t 1 y for a cr1m · · b ut may be canstct ere d 1n m1t1gat1011.

TI-IE INDICTMENT4 Cou11ts Two and Three: War Crimes

d C ·

Agains� · f!.umanzty: The. sec-

ond and third counts of the indictrn e11t �harg:'f . ;: _com1:11ss1on o f war crimes and cri mes against l1umanity. Tl1e count. s are identical 1n co11tent except for the fact tl1at i 1 1 count two the acts whic,h, .a� - made tl1e basis f or tl1e cl1arges are alleged to liave be et, committed 1 fians an_d men 1ber s of the arme 3v _d 1 1 , e erman Reich [* )� *] in tl1e exercise forces [of nations] then at war w"tl of belliaere11t control'' wliereas ·\ n count t 1.1ree · ·nal acts are a11 eged . the cr1m1 . to l1ave been con1mitted against ''0 m 1 1 iviltans an_ d nationals of other coun tries." Witl1 this distinction ob serve�' ;0thc counts will be treated as one and discussed together. Counts two and three all ege, in substance tl1at b etwee Sept ember 1939 n ,

�r

•

II Trials of the War CriminAls 174-180.

! l I l

SUPERIOR ORDERS

211

a11d A pril 1945 al l of t�e def e11d� 11 ts ''were pr incipals i11 , accessories to, ordered, abetted? took_ a conse !1t1ng part. 1n, and were con11ected with plans and enter prises 1nvolv1ng _medical �xper1me 11ts witl1o ut tl1e subjects' con se11t • • * in the course of wl11 ch e xperiments tl1e defe nda11ts committed murders brutalities cruelties, tor �ures, a trocities, and otl1e r i11l1uma11 acts." I t is averre d tl1at ''sucl� experiments includ ed, but w er e not limited to'' the following: II

•

'l .

•

( E) Sulfa11ilamide �xperi'!1ents: from abot1t July 1942 to about Septemb er 1943 e xper1men ts to 111ves t1gate tl1e effective11ess of sulfa11ilam ide were co11ducted at t11e Rave 11sbrueck co11ce1 1tr atio11 camp for tl1e be11efit of tl1e Oe-rma11 Armed fo!'ces. W 01!11ds deliberate ly i 1 1flicted 0 11 tl1e experi 1ne11tal s ubjects were infected w1tl1 bacteria s11cl1 as stre1J tococct1s, gas gangre11e, and teta1111s. Circula tion of blood \vas ir1t errt11Jted by tyi11 g off blood vessels at botl1 e11 ds of tl1e \vound to create a co11ditio11 si n1ilar to tl1at of a battlefield \vou1 1d. I11fectioi1 was aggravated by forci11g \X'Ood sl1avi11gs a 11d grou11d glass i11to the wot111ds. Tl1e i11fectio11 was treated \x,itl1 st1lfa11 iJamide a11d otl1er drttgs to detei1ni1 1e tl1eir effective ne s s. Som e subjects died as a resu)t of tl 1 ese experi me11ts and otl1er s suffered s e rious injury a d i11tense ago11y. Tl1 e defe11clants Karl Brandt, n Handloser, Restock, Scl1roeder, Oe11zke11, Oebl1arclt, Blome, Rt1dolf Branclt, Mrugowsky, Poppe11dick, Becl(er-Freyseng, Oberl1euser, a11d fiscl1er are cl1arged witl1 srJecial respo11sibility for a11d participation i11 tl1ese cri 111es. (F) Bone, Muscle, ,z,zd Nerve Regenerat.io,i a11d Bo 11e Tra11spla11 tatioi: E.'tperir;1ents: from abo ut Se ptember 1942 to abo ut December 1943 exJJer1n1e11ts \·..::ere conducted at the Ravensbrue ck co11ce11tratio11 carnp, for tl1e benefit of tl1e German Artn e d forces to stucly bo11e, m11scle, a!1d 11er,1c reger1er3.tio11 �1r1cl bone transplantat ion fro m o n e person to ar1ot]1er. Sections of bones, r11t.i:)_cle·3, and nerves wer e re moved fr om tl1e s11bjects. As a res11It of tl1ese op�.rai.:0_1,.1s, many victim s s uffer ed inte11se agoi1y, 1n11tilatio11, a111 JJ�rt11ar1e11t cI1s��1i1:->'· _ The defendants Karl Brandt, lia11 clloser, Rostocl<, Oeol1a ,_ d�,. Rt1clolf B1 a 11clt, Oberheuse r, and Fischer are cl1arged witl1 s 1Jecial respo11s!b1 l1ty for a11d par ticipatio n in these crime s.

' . I

I ; I I'

Counts t\vo and three of tl1e i11dictme11t co 11clude witl1 _tl1 e av�rm� 11t t11at tl1e crimes and atrocities wl1ich l1ave been deli11eated ''co11st1tLrte v1olat1011s of international co1·1v e·ntions * • 4'' tl1 e la\vs a11d CLtst ?m_s of ,var, tl1e �e_n _eral 1l1zed c1v all vs of la\ pr1nc1p · · Ies o f crtmtna1 I 1 a'X' as derived fr om .tl1e .cr1m1nal · . nations, til e int e rnal penal Ia\'<'S of the _cou1!tries 1n wl11ch crimes were co1nmitted, and of Article I I of Co11trol Cou11c1I La\v No. 10. THE DEFENSE OF SUPERIOR ORDERSs .

r a11dt also pleads B f ol 1d Rt n: tio ecu os Pr h e f t E_xtracts from t_he Cl?�zng :Statement O _ superior orders 1_n m1t �gat1o n. Tl�ere 1� n evidence that Himmler ordered ere is no . Th y. ull llf wi so d di �t n r . Br�n dt to part1c1pate tn �ny cr�me . � �v1de n ce that Brandt reta111e d hts posit;o n ou t of fe ar. He flourisl1ed in it. Nothing would have been easter or him than to be replaced by e. re9ue st o feigned inefficiency. Brandt n t a soldie r on the field of battl . �_ 1 es. He li1 t on e fr th of Hs n io s u nf �o ; e . .• act1v1t1es were far r emoved from e to consider tim ll fu d lla e h . n, io . ss f d pa di not act in the spo n tan eous heat o

5· I Trials oj tht War Crimiruls 958-970.

I I

•I

•

i I I

' . .

' r

I , .

.I�. .·'. . ri . •,.' ' . .. I

' ...,: I ..

......... ', •"

.. .

. , I. ...

;-�:·, ; ;·-f .

' ·. ·'·

•

212

' (1'1

' 'JI .. .

� :\1

I; t

"l J Il ,-�

•

'i1 1,. ,. I i,,,.� )

. 1t'"' ,.,

ir· . •,ti

\' " I ; f ,..

,,,. ' L'"' ·•

1I II

r;j

.-.,

I, I II

I .

.�........

I I

•

l!'

THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

d in his fJOsiti� n from 1933 ue in nt co e H n. io ct a of and reflect upo11 l1is cot1rse s. ar is ye Th 12 an t th fac ss e l alon.e no , 45 19 n i s lie Al . the until his arrest by a�suming t�at �randt was ordere_d r, ve eo or M �tio a tig tni r fo removes any basis t of this tr ial, when tl1ere 1s 1ec ub s e th e ar l1 11c wl cts a l ina to commit the crim ents a _voluntary pa rticipa es pr re e 1c ie1 d e �b e , nc die e b iso d LlO fear of repris al for y all the d�ctr1ne fin n dt. a _ Br �f. do Ru th wi e cas e tl1 is cl1 tion i n the crime. Su of superior orders ca11 not be consid er�d in 1n1t1gat1on wl1 ere such . malignant a nd numerous crimes l1ave been conti nuously and ruthlessly committed over a period of many years. Wliat lias been said witl1 res1Ject to .Bra11dt applies equal_ly to tl1e defendant fiscl1er who also pleads super ior orders . I�e kne\v _at the time he pe rform�d these experiments tl1at he 'X' as comm1tt1ng a �rime: He k�ew tl1e . p�1n, disfiguremc11t, disab. ility, and risl< of deatl1 to wh1�h. 111s e�per1mental �1ct1ms would be subjected He could hav e ref\tsed to pa�t1c11Ja�e tn _tl1e ;,xper 1 ments without any fear of conseque�ces.. This he a d mitted . 1n say111g, . It was not fear of a deatl1 se11te11ce or a11ytl1111g l1l<e that, but the chb1ce confronting me was to be obedie11t o r disobedie11t d11ri1 1g war, and the reby se t an example, an exa111ple of disobedie11 ce." (Tr. p. 4374). Sucl1 a11 admission removes a11y basis for mitigatio11. A soldier is al\vays faced with the alternative of obe)ring or disobeying an order. If l1e knows t l1e ord er is c rimin al, it is surely a hollo\v; excLise to say it n111st be obeyed for the sake of obedie11ce alone.

Extracts froni tl;e Final Plea for Defendant Fischer: The

defe11 dant fiscl1er p artici1Jated i11 the experime11ts for testing t he effe ct of sulfa n il amide upon orders of l1is medical a11d military superior Karl Oebl1 ardt. It is recognized ir1 tl1e pe11al codes of all civilized natio11s tl1at actio11 i1po11 o rders represents a reason for exe1nption from gt1ilt, eve11 if the order itself is co ntrary to law , but bindi11g. fo� tl1e s11bordi1 1ate. l11 exami11ing this legal que stion, one proceeds from t�e pr1nc 1 ple �hat tl1e court disregards the reaso11s of justification and

exemption from guilt pL1t forward by me in tl1e case of the defe11da nt Karl Geb hardt and . considers tl1at both th� order given to tl1e defendant Karl Oebl1 ardt l11mself, as also the pass111 g on of tl1is or der to tl1e defendant fritz fiscl1er, are co11trary to la\v. The adheren ce to � bindin g orde r, e_ven tl1oi1gh it be cont rary to law, 011 , o rcl1nate creates for l�tm tl1e part of the s�b a reason of exemptiori from guilt a11d, �herefore, renders /Jim al;o exempt fro1!1' pu11ishment. Tl1is question is disputed 011ly 1nsofa �. as. �o�,e consider tl1e . act_1on of tl1_e si1bor�i11ate 110t only excused but even 1ust1f1ed.. further exam1:1at1on . of this qtiestion at issue seems, l1owever, not necess ary 111 tl1ese proceed1r1gs, s111ce t11e re sult is tlie sa me ii1 botl1 cases namely, the perpetrator's exemptici11 fron1 pu ni shn1ent. The d;;isive ,1uestion in tl1e �ase. on hand therefore is wlletl1er and to wh at exte11� th� order for tl1e sulf a111la m1 de experiments was . e persons th to r d. zn b in g carrying 1 t out. _111 view of the fact that! in princi ple, the la w in force at the time is appli:abl�, as the defendants l1ved_under this la w e th th em an fo d r i , w t bi as nd in g question 1s,. t_ l1erefore, to be examined within tl ie framework of Article 47 of th e German M1l1tary Penal Cod. e· According to th· · · o w te h ct· 1na a su b ts prov1s1o n , or · b e ,,pun�shed as an ac o beys ·1s_ 1·1able to e th th ce at ss or y if hi m it is kn to own order .given by the sup�r1or concerned an ac t w h ic h has fo r its purp ose to commit a ge11eral or m1l1tary crime or offe ,, nse. However, it is 11ot correct, as it is sometimes accepted, tl1at Article 47 .

l •

!')

:,1

. ., 1

SUPERIOR ORDERS

213

. . of the Germ�n Mili�ar� Code itself sett} es tJ,� q_t1est10 11 1n ho w far n1i lita ry e1tl 1er b1n d1n g are or 110t bitld:tiig. Tli i s 15 a qt1estio11 of IJU orders bli a11 c cl e law. But inistr it ativ mttst alwa s co 11 11 atl ''or� e r regarcli11g servic adm e m atte rs,'' the same as in ot1,er tnili taiy r,c 1 1011s, tl,at. 1s to say,_ s0111e_tl1i11g � whicl1 ''pertai_ ns to military se rvice.'' e e a t m 11s y t10 tel e l1a ar l ) 1ec 111 111 j : , f ci o K se prese1 1t both 1n the ca of tl1e e e11d l ebl,ardt a11d !.n tl1at of tl1e defendant _fritz fiscl1er. Botl, \X'ere 1,,ectf;:1 0 •� ei s of tl e Waf 1e11 SS, tl1ere . ? of the Oer unit ma1 1 a w fore el,rrr i acl t 1 11 11 esrJec1ally _tl1e �)ri11cirJle of _ d i ti r ly fJ ng ro as st w ro e nc o ie i t ce ob ed ( ,a, clt w�s fr1tz F1scl1er's i1n . �ei_ to as 5 ist \Yi1tl1 _ .i cal medi�te superior ; i11 rr1atters of (lttl�; 11�� ? Ic tlie me d exper1ments to be t111dertal,e11 ,vas ·a' b'111d 111g ore1 er for tl1e yot111g meclical officer Fiscl1er.

f.��

fr� _

I �; 0 �f

• •

· . . effect1\ T he �vide11ce has sl10,,;,11 tl1at tl1e order f 01· t e5 iing · 1 e,1es . s ()! -. : tl1e _ . ema11ated fror, 1 tl,e 1de lti(-rli e 5 t atitl,ority, 11a 1 11ely fro111 tl1e Co111111a11cler sulfan1lam . of tl1e fJrob>vv e l1r1nac l1t fJerso11all}'· TJ1e reas ons Or JlIStt · ch·t e f o f tl1e ,v, 1n · ·r·1cat1011 · . e111erge11C}' ai1d tl1e of the ,. ,x,arti able acceptance _ ine stat s of � bal<t11ci11 0(r of • . interests, as ct·1sct1ssed rttlly. alread )' 111 tl1 e itivestigatiot, of tl,e c,ise of t!J(' _ defendant K arl qebl1�rd t, gai n 1111 fJorla11ce i1_ 1dei)ei,dei,tly first i,1 tlle f)erso,, (> f the d_ efen�ant fr itz F1scl1�r. Bttt _tl1ey l,av 11,flttei,ce, of ccitirse, 011 tile lei-.(;llit\' � _ , of tl,e order. Tl1e 111vest1gat1 ?11 of tl1is qttesliori 1,as sll<J\"1/J1·· tl i ;Lt e gal1t} or 1ll _ the given order as SL1;l1 was leg"'�· Eve11 1f one \X'Otild 110 t ,vaiit tc> ttli<e 'ill is . for granted, ho\�ever, ror a st1bord111ate eve11 a11 iile(ral orrler 0 ir ., lJ,. �.-,1 :...ii, .J·· g 11 d, t i.1 I.l.:.. is of moment. b

I • I I

1::, (

.....

•

Art!cle 47 of the Oern1an_ i'11ilitary Pe11al C<)cie, fts alreaci}' ol)ser1 ecI, Jet·;) 11 the pUntShment Of the �t lbOrdtnate S1Jlld, if ''il Yv'aS !{110'\Vl} iO tilt iatt�r tJ 1 ;1_t the o�der of the SU[Je�I?r ''coi�cerr1ed a!, act \v1l1icl1 l1,1c.l for i'l�; !)t!i" )<)st tc) 1 , I 11 ctl l otl1er cr:ls1.�s tl'!e 1,L, 11 j�;li orfe11se commit a ge11eral or m 1l1tary cr11ne o,· men l tot1ches only the con1n1a11dir1g SLIJJerior. 1

•

• •

•

Then! in regard to tl1e p artict1Iar positio11 of tl1e clefe11dar1t Frit% Fisclier , the meaning of an order of tl1e i11in1edi,tte 1;2ilitczr; s11perior is to be i11vestirratcd. At tl1e beginning of the experi1ne11 ts, tl1e defe11cla11t fritz fiscl1er l1ad tl1e ra, 1 !( of a first lieute11a11t. J-Ie took part in tl1e experi111e11ts at tl1e clirect co111111and _ of r : ,:, al. Tr, vie 1er of ge1 1k ra1 tl1e d 11el 0 \vl1 or eri SU[ of his al dic ) y me itar and mil the surpassing authority of tl1e defe11dar1t Karl Oebl1ardt, as sttrgeo11 a11cl Cl,ief of the f-lohenly che11 Clinic a11d in vie\v of l1is l1igl1 military positio111 a reft1sal was completely ottt of tl1e question. 1

e. ac ok pl to is tl1 all h 1ic wl i11 k or ew rn fra ial ec sp . In addition, there was the �r1tz Fische r had been released from tl1e combat ttnit on accou11t o f seriot1s e r tl1 de ttn as ,v e J-l . ic in Cl 11 l1e yc l en oh H ll e th ! ness and had been ordered to imm ediate impression of ha rd experience at tl1e fro11t. In J-lol1e11lycl-1e11 he found himse lf it1 a clinic w hi ch operatecl i1 1 peacetime conditio11s t111der tl1e e_n_ ergetic direction of a man extraordinarily gifted in orga11izational an d scie11tific matters. Every buildii,g , ev e r y i11sta)lation of this recogr1ized n1odel i11stitt 1te, the numerous clinical innovations and m o de rn metl1ods o f treat1ner1t, e\-ery 011e p y o tt b !� ut l ab ar p se in as y 1 \V e1 of_ the many successful treatments of Hol1enl ch Wtth th� name of tlle chief physiciai1 K arl O e1:1ha�dt �nd g�ve t1n:ond1t1011al and unlimited value to his word an d }iis au thority 1n 111s entire env1ro11me11t. t ub o d o ad n l1 e av l1 ]d u co er ch is F For all these reasons the defendant fritz al ic ed m 1e tl m o fr as w im h en at alt b ut that iv g the perfor�ance of the order • •

•

.'I

' ''

I '. I I - .

' . ·:.

.. . . I........ ;

I• '

... .. .:·:r: <

'' ..: ; ! · ·, . ..

l':..' .

�: l

.. ,.

. fo �

•

TI-IE AFFIRMATIVE

214

en l,e t _ op y el yi is rr ec ca Pr . e r ng s� ea m ar w le ib iss rm pe 1d a1 te nt isi oi qu a re standp n io y of er us cl ev ex _ e tl1 ty du 1 itl w s, re su ea m l 1ta e1 . rim 1)e ex al t du ou of tl1e indivi ed 1d s ov wa p� 1 for 1cl wh i11 lts su re e th of rt po re e th as ll )' of secreC as we h e highest m_ilitary t_ of m ru fo l ca iti cr a re fo be ad\,ance a�d also executed t e us r _of th st_ d1 y i an tif Jus d bu e tl1 in p 11i to d ite su lly cia pe es s pl1ysicia11 1 were r. z he r1t sc Fi nt f da fen de e th of d in m tl1e i11 ts en rim pe e ex cation of thes

•

. I '

•

l!'' ' lI ''I , I'' . =r..

:jl·l!•:�i

r· -�

I ,.. " ·I b

l·

1, O!.•t,

'JJ

I �

Ipt '""

::;, I ,,� .• II ' , . , ! ,� .. '

..lIJ •• .' ''" "' ., ;l.IJ, ,, ' ' 1I I .,,� ' 1111

I 'I

DEFENSES

,11,,,

I .,,. •

·1: { · ·< ':

� I·

•

... Tl1e special co11ditions of public law wl1icl1 existed i� Ge rmany at the tirne of the actioi1 ot1gl1t to be mentioned. Tl1ey w�re expl�t�ed by � rofess?r _ unal 1n Jal1rreiss in his opening speecl1 before tl1e In ter11at1011al M1l1tary Trib tl1e proceedings against lierma1 111 Ooeri11g and otl1ers.professor Jahrre1ss thereby re1Jreser1ted tl1e followi11g poi11t of view: ''State orders, wl1etl1er tl1ey lay dO\XIIl rt1les or decide individual cases1 ca11 al\Xlays be meast1red against the existing writte11 and unwritten law1 bt1t also agai 1 1st tl1e rules of i11ternational law1 morals, and religion. Some011e, eve11 if 011 tl1e co11science of tl1e perso11 givi 1 1g tl1e orders, is always asl<i11g: Has tl1e perso11 givi11g the order ordered some thing wl1ich he had 110 rigl1t to order? Or l1as l1e fortned and publisl1ed his order by an in ad111issible procedt1 re? But a11 t1 11avoidable problem .for all governme11tal syste111s lies ir1 tl1is: Sl1ould or ca11 it grant tl1e members of its hierarchy1 its officials and officers, tl1e rigl1t - or even impose 011 them the duty to exan1i11e at a11y tin1e a11y order \X1l1icl1 demands obedie11ce from them 1 to determi11e \vl1etl1er it is la \"{(ful, a11d to decide accordingly whether to obey. or reft1se� No. governmental sy�tem v.1hicl1 has appeared in l1istory to date hCf s gz.ven an affir1native a1zswer to tl1is qttestion. Only certain members of the l1 1 era�ch_y wer� ever granted tl1is right; and tl1ey \'v'ere not granted it witl1ot1t l�m1ts. T� 1 s . was also tl1e case, for instance 1 under tl1e extremely dem ?crat1c co11st1tution of tl1e German Reich duri11g tl1e Weimar Republic and 1s so today tinder tl1e occupatio11 r11le of tl1e four great powers over Oerrnan y. . In as far as such a right of examinatio11 is not granted to members of the

hierarchy, the order has legal force for them. • •

•

I repeat: An order of the Fuehrer'� was bindi11g - and indeed legally bind . �ng - �n the person to whom .it was given, even if the directive was contrary to inter11atio11al law or to other traditional values.'' .. So 1nu�h for tl1e stateme11ts of Professor Jal1rreiss before the I n terriational M1l1tary Tr1bt1nal. The develop1nent pre_sented here seems to be particularly relevant f?r tl1e c_ ase _of the defendant fisclier, since he himself in the witness box describ. ed his attitude to.war ds tl1 e. fuehrer's command 1n · a way wh'1ch1 be .. . cause of h1s yery youtl1, �1s 1deal1st1c conception of life an d duty and ftis manly confession, was ()articularly convincing. •

•

• •

At.the time of their actions the. defendants· w ere . law erman su t t Jee b G o accord1 1 1g to w· h'1c 11 th e .degree of their responsi· bI·1I·ty was . ned and, ev en eter m� d · today, !11ust justly be referred back to ihat moment. Th e follow1ng shou_l� be5 emphas1zed1 ho\'<,ever, in case the Tribunal sl1ould n s 1o prov1 ot apply legal th e i 1 1 force at tl1e time of the act1 but should base � . No. 1 O Law its on Judgm e nt of tl1e Control Council t1,ough 1·t represents a rop e th of ife an n m io st lat vio 11ibition of retroactive ;pplicati·o n of penal laws. "' Even from tl1e above-named prov1·51·0 n o f the L a w of the Control c ounc1 1,

•"

•

' ;

". i ., ,!

"' ' ;

SUPERIOR ORDERS

215

t11e principle cannot be derived that .every commarid of sup eri or should, � of t aspec the penal law be u11der l an , t•nder all ctrcumstances. Thi s e e � zrr al so applies to the problem of tlie e xe tro f o resf? onsibility and exemp tio11 fron1 1Jenalty. The JJrovisiot, Otlly s 7�es �l1a� t�e ex1�t� cc of sucl1 a com mand i,1 itself does 11ot exempt one fr� m t l1e . respo11s1b1_�r1ty f r a crime; it ? does not, l1owever, precl ude by an meatis l llat 111 coi,nect1on w1t oth l1 fac er ts relev a11t for this proble� as we . it may be 11 • • • • · · · Reinl 1ard t Fra11k, the great Gert a crin t og I , o_ st itl 1 regard to the w s 11a , it :� J problem of t l1e so -called coiiflict o f u tes e5la � lisl,ed tl,e n1axi1n, ''111 as far as tl1e conflic t of dttties }1 as 110 t been e. �press Y regulate� tl1e 1naxim should pre1 tl-1e more 1n1porta11t dt1ty is to be vail tl,at the higher' tlie inore 5ig · i11 f ica1 1t, . · · f1l fu) 1ed at tl1e expense of t 11e I ess 11 igl, 011 e ai1d t I iat , tiiere fore, om1ss1011 to ful'fill tl1e latter o11e is not coii trary to la \v.''

.. . I

i I

\Vit_l1 good. reas?� it I1a� alwa)'S bee11 e1npl1asized that in st1ch a sit11ation of conflict of d1vers1f1ed dt1t1es tl. 1 e decisio11 is, 1·11 tl,e end , 11 ot t o be fot111d 111· pos1· t·Ive Ia \V, bu t It · o f a11 etl11cal · 1s . 11ature. T l1at 1·s ,v, · s u Cll a s·l t ll at·1 0 n a 11 1 111 �v i.y . . ] ee\v>ay n1ust be Ieft to tl1e JJerso11a] certa111 ' co11sct'e11ce·,· 1·t 1· 5 1 10 t JJOSSJ"ble here · · ,e a t everyt 11111g tl1 rot1gl1 tl1e coarse 1nea11s of an otitward pei,al i)rot� _arrti v1s1011. . . I

N? f11rt�er argu_me11 t sl1011 ld be needed for de111 011strati11g tl1at just fron1 an etl11cal point of view zneasuring of sucl1 perso11al decisio11s by sta;1dards of pe11al law 1s out of tl1e qttestio11. •

•

THE JUDOMENT6 The Case of Fritz Fisc/1er: T l1e defe11dant Fiscl1er is cl1arged 1-111cler cott11ts

two and three witl1 S11lfa11ila111ide a11d B011e, l\l\.Ltsclt· ancl l\ferve Rege11ero.tioi1 and B011e Transpla11 tatio1 1 Ex1Jeri1 ne11 ts. 1 e SS i11 febrtrary 1934 a1 1d tl1e 1'ISDAP i1 e1ne Allg tl1e z ed Frit her join Fisc . 111 1939. In tl1e latter year lie joi11ed tl1 e Waffe11 SS a11d \xras assig1 1ecl to tl1e SS u11it i11 the Hol1e11lycl1e11 I-Ios1Jital as a fJl1ysicia11 sL1bordi11 ated to tl1e de�e11dant Oeb l1ardt. In J 1111e 1940 l1e was transferred to tl1e SS regiment Le1bstandarte ''Adol f J-Iitl er'', and 1·et11rr1ed tl1e satne year to J-Iol1e11lycl1e1 1 as assistant l)l'I}'Sicia11 to Gebhardt, where l1e remai11ed 1111til May 1943. rie the11 served as a sL1rgeon on botl1 t l 1e easter11 a11d ,vestern fro11ts and, after . having . l 11t 11 t1e fJa a . as 11 1 �1e ! lyc l1e Ho �o ck ba e 1n ca been wou11ded in ALtgust 1944, 1 11, but rett1rn rl Be 1n l 1ta sJJ Ho 1ty ar 1 CI e tl1 December 1944 l1e was assig11 ed to ed agai11 to Hol1 enlycl1en as Oebhardt's assista11t !n April 1945. l 11 t l 1e Waffen SS l1e attai11ed tl1e rank of Stt1rmba1111ft1el1rer (maJor). , �t ne g1 1d 1is l t .Jt . i11 re l1e � �e el !l \V 10 s1 as �ulfan ilamide Experiments: Oeb l 1ardt,_ z it 1t Fr a1 st s s1 111 �s by l_cl fte 1� tl1 1 1 1 11e do w_as 1n personal cI,arge of tl,e worl< be111g 1scher. That the latter perfo1·rned n1osl of t]1e sulfan1.la11:1de exper1me11tal \VOrl{ i <. re fe e of 11s fe de l 1e T 1t. 1ts !11 ad ly ee 5 fr ! n?t de11ied by llim; 01 1 the contrary l1e tn 111s bel1al f is two fold: tl,at t}ie experin1e11tal subJect.s were to l1ave �lleged l 1e t 111 re ve se ss le 1g 11 h ei 1n s0 to deatl1 sentences, tl,etl impeiidii1g, cornmuted

6 - II Tiria · /s ., o1 the W.ar Cri,ninals 296-297.

.. l . ', I :. ' '' ' < • I • • •

;··

I •

l :.

THE AFfIRMA TIVE DEFENSES

216

•

\IP' 1· I I I

' ,

. 1" �

1(,1

11'' ' .•

\111• :,

', "..' �

. l 'I

I II

event they survived tlie experiments; and tl1at defenda11t Fischer was acting under military orders from his superior officer, Gebhardt. Tl�es� defenses l1ave been �onsidered an.d separately rejected in otl1er parts of this Judgment. It is true, 1,owever, t11at paragrapl1 4 (b) of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10 reads: Tl1e fact that a11y perso11 acted pur�uant to the orde_r _o_f l1is gov_ern ment, or of a st1perior, does 11ot free l1im from respo11s1bil1ty for crime, but may be considered in mitigation. It is unnecessary to t�ke up and a11 swer �II the argun:1:nts _ that migl1t be presented u1Jo11 whetl1er or 11ot fiscl1er is e�t1tled to a m 1 '.\f;°at1?11 of sente11 ce due to the circumstances claimed as tl1e basis of sucl1 m1t1gat1on. He acted with most complete knowledge tl1at what l1e was doing w�s fu11dame11tall)' crimi r 1al, eve11 tl1ougl1 directed by a sLlfJerior. U11der �he c1rcumsta11ces his defense must be rejected, and l1e must be l1eld to be guilty as cl1arged. Bone, Mt{scle and Nerve Regeneraiion and Bone Transplantation: These experi ments have bee11 disct1ssed in con11 ection witl1 tl1e case of tl1e defendant Oeb l1ardt, who was assisted therei11 by tl1e defendant fiscl1er. Testimony and exhibits no\v constituting parts of the record in tl1is' case reveal that fiscl1er has offered no sL1bsta11tial defense to tl1e charge. Indeed, criminal connectio11 witl1 these experin1ents is ad1nitted1 and the admission includes tl1e defenda11t's ow,n testimony that he personally performed at least some of the operations. K� only ren1ai11s for tl1e Tribunal to hold that on the specification above-men tioned tl1e defe11da11t fiscl1er is gL1ilty. To tl1e extent that the crimes committed by defendant fiscl1er were not war crimes they were crimes agai11st l1u111anity. Membership in Criminal Organization: Under cou11t four of the indictment fritz Fischer is charged with being a member of an oraanizatio11 declared cri1n inal by_ tl1e judgment of th� lnt_ernational Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence sl1ows that fritz f1scl1er became a n1e1nber of tl1e SS in 1934 and remained in tl1is orga11ization u11til the end of tl1e war. As a member of the _ SS l1e was �riminally implicated in tl1e commission of war crimes and crimes against l1uman1ty, as charged u11der cou11ts two and tl1ree of the i11dictment. . Con:lusion_: Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges tl1at tl1e defendant fritz f1scl1er 1s guilty under cot111ts two, three, and four of tl,e indictme11t. [signed] WALTER B. BEALS Presiding Judge . HAROLD L. SEBRING Judge. JOHNSON T. CRAWFORD Judge. THE SENTENCE1 uilty g you Military FISCHER, Tribunal adjudged Fritz I has found and 7.

Ibid.

at p.

300.

., . . .

SUPERIOR ORDERS

217

of war crimes, crimes against l1timanit;h and me�bershtp . i_n an organization declared criminal by the judgment of I t ern�t1011al M1l1tary Tribu11al, as charged under tl1e indictme11t heretofore 1·iI e� �gai,ist _y_oti. for. your said cri1nes on wl1icl1 you have been and now stand n i ted Military Tr�bu11al I se11tences you, fritz Fischer, to imprisonme nt for t�� . ru t term and period �f your nat ural life, to be served at sttch prison or prisor, s, or otl1e� apJJropr1ate place of confineme11t, as shall be deterinir,ed by compe tent a11thor1ty. NOTES

Note I: The Comparative Law of Superior Orders ..

Duri11g tl1e tw re lias ' bee11 a fa·1 r arnou11 t of agreement . entieth ce11tt1ry t)1e . bet\X,een 1_ega I syst ems that Stl()er1or orders to comtnit unlawful acts does not co�st1tute a to�al defe11se. Tl1e positio11 in France as set out i11 Bouzat, . Droit Penal 266-267 1s as follo\vs:

. Tl1e problen1 [of SU[Jerior 01-ders] subject to several scl1ools of tl1 otiglit.

i11

the case of tl1 e inilitary l1as ·fJee·1·1

A. Pa_ssi7.J� Obedie_,1ce: Tl1e 1'!1ilitary never q Ltestio11s regula.r orders recei,1ect

from the1_� l11_e:arcl11c�l st1per1ors; by tl1e same to!(e11, if tliey are obeyed, they . are J ust1f1ed. Tl11s scl1ool 1s da11gerot1s becatise it creates auto,natic obed!en_ce betwee!,. superior a11cl suborcli,1ate. It is cor11t'11only co11ceclecl tl1at it ts not suff1c1er1t tl1at a11 order 11as i1eer1 giver1; it rnt1st also J1a,1c been legal. B. Tl1e Scl,ool of tl1e ''l11telligent J,1fantry'': Contrar)' to ''A'' abo\re, tl1is scho�l of thougl1t l10Ids tl1at suborcli11ates l1ave tl1e rigl1t a11d clttt}r to quest1011 tl1e legality of orders -..:vl1icl1 tl1ey receive a11cl i11 co11sec1t1e11ce �re not justified, unless the)' l1ave bee11 subject to genui11e moral coercio11, 1n executing an illegal order. Tl1is scl1ool also 111t1st be set aside as it weakens military discipline. C. A third scl1ool lying betwee11 tl1e ot]1er t,vo seems tl1e ,visest. It would distinguisl1 betwe�11 manifest illegality a11d no,1-1na11ifest illegality; a11 t o be obeyed ve ha uld wo r rio pe su a by en giv al eg er ill rd tly t es no manif ? in good faith by a subordi11ate. • •

•

r de rs ie un ld so by ed itt m m co ts ac l fu w la un When tl1e question of re t fo gh be ou br en be s l1a ns io at tt1 si al ic lit po order!l from superiors i 1 1 no nt s. Th ey J1_ave ac 1 cl su ify t s_ ju !o 1t a1 ct lu re the courts, they have been very . on ci er al co or m r de un d te 1t 1n 111 co ts ac e os tl1 only occasio nally justified ev en ce an rd co n i_ ac e� id ec d ve h ts ur � . With respect to civilian officials, l'.:o ts that ac aI 1n 1m r cr fo _ le b si on sp re n ai m re with the general rule, that they they commit under illegal orders from their superiors. Although coi,flicting precedents exist, the rules of Jaw extracted from E11glish cas es are: , ty ri o th f au o e am n e th i� em th g n . (a) that persons carrying a r m s and usi r. e rd u m f o ty il u g e b , w •f they kill, may nevertheless in English la a f o rs e rd o a u q t, o n e r a e r fi (b) that th e orders of a superior to

i l I'

,I .. I'

..,

' ..

'l .. •. I

'••

218 •

, I

SES TI-IE AffIRM ATIVE DEFEN

e , but that lawf ul or rg 1a cl e th t bu re o t o ti ca fi superior, a stifficient jus ti _ � 1ent. ders of a superior are so suff1c e 11ds on the legality of de rs de r o � 1e tl of 1 y lit . (c) tliat, since t 1e lega 11ly. relevant to tl1e 0 15 r i� er p su a by s d e� r tl1e firi 11g, tl1e givi11g ?f .o e rw is e be C? nstdered competent th o t no t 1 gl 1 m 1 g in fir n extent tl,at t 1e perso e r t o fire an d th e Defence rd O e Th n, ar e H . . .. 11 o to decide tl,e questi . 2) 96 (1 59 ]. L. d an a/ as Ny d an a Su1Jerior O rders, 2 Rhodesi 11d i:n o st of the British a a, ric Af h ut So , tes Sta d ite . Tli e IJosition of tl1e Un _ p. . 1e 58 at_ _d. Tl zbz n, ar He 1. pre 1sl 1gl E1 e tl1 f o at tl1 to r ila sim l1 is alt 1 1 we 1nm o Co ed 1 n tl1e German i od mb e s wa t jec ub s e tl1 1 0 1 xr Ia, World War II Oer1na11 e nal Code (Leipzig, P ary lit Mi 's try u11 co t tl1a f o 1 1 io tat e Jr er1 's i11t urt Co e m Su1Jre 1921 ): ...Tl1e Court was tryi 11g two lieute 11a11t s , pa rt of the ship's company of a Oerma.11 U-boat wl1icl1, dt1ri11g tl1e period of hostilities, had sun k tl1e Llandovery Castle, a British l10SfJital sl1i1J. 111 accor dance :X'it� tl1e o�ders of tl1e submari11e's Com 1nande r to leave n o trace, the two Junior officers gave orders to fire on tl1e l1ospital sl1ip's lifeboats. Tl1e Court...stated i11 its jt1dgment tl1at the Co mma11der's order to leave 11 0 trace did 11ot free the acct1sed frotn guilt.A subordinate wl10 obeyed tl 1e order of l1is st1perior o ffice r was liable to punisl1me11t if it \)'Jere l<11ow1 1 to l 1 im tl1at sucl 1 orde r i 11volved a contravention of the law, i11 tl1 is case i11ternatio11al law. Tl1 is ap[Jlied to the two accus ed, tl1e judg me 11t co1 1ti11tted, thot 1gl1 it sl1ot1ld be urged i 11 fav o ur of military subor d i11ates tl1at tl1ey ar e u11der 11 0 obligatio11 to question the order of a superior officer a11d theJ' can cot111t on its l e gality, but no sucl1 confide11ce car1 be held to exist if sucl1 a11 order is t111iv ersally kno\v111 to everybody, inc!u.di 11g tl1e acct1s�d, to be \vitl 1o ut any doubt \xrl1atever against the law. Tl11s hap1Jen s only �n rare a11d exceptional cases, but this case is precisely 011e of tl1e1n, . f�r 1n tl1e prese11t insta nce it was (J erfectly clear to �he accused tl1at l<1ll111g defe nceless people i11 tl1e life boats could be noth11 1g else but a breacl1 of tl1e law. 111 esti111ati 11g tl1e 1Ju11isl1111ent it shot1ld be borne in 1ni11d tl1at the pri11cipal guilt rests witl1 tl1 e submari11e's Comn1ai1der under whose orders tl1e_ acct1sed acted.Tl1 �y sl1ould c_ertai 11ly l1ave r eft 1se d to obey the � rde �. This would l1�ve r_ �qu1red a S[Jectally l11gh d egree of r esolutio11, ana this fact �l1�refore Jt1st1!1es tl1e recog11itio11 of mitigati 11g circumstances in de t ern11n111g tl1e [JU11 1sl 11ne11t tind er the State Penal Code. A seve re sente11ce 1nust, l1owever, be passed. Lord Russell The Trial of Adolf Eichmann 310-312 (1962). (nte restingly, a1:1011g the 011ly exceptions to tl,e d omii1a11t positio11 with respect t_o sttJJer1or orders w�re tl1e Britis11 and America11 Military Manual s of l 914 wl11cl1 stated t\1at su� er1or orders was a defens e to illegal military act s. �l1ese .m �11uals stood de�JJ!t� tl1e follo\xrii1g statemetlt by the 1919 International ..;omm1ss 1011 .011 Resp ons1b1l1t.1es: We desire � 0. �ay tl,at civil a11d military authoriti cannot be reliev es ve ed from re �ponstbtlity by tl1e mere ·fact that a higl h t � m ig h er authority 1 e been convict ed of tl1e s � me offe11ce. It will b e id de c e Court to tl1 fo r wf hetlier a pl�a. �f supe rior o rders is su fficient to acquit· the person char ged rom respo1 1s1b1l1ty. l1t Botl1 tl1e Britisl1 and American Manuals g ro u b were amende d in 1944 and I

• > '

-"�

�

SUPERIOR ORDERS

219

int� li�e with .accepted doctri11e wJ,icl, gave rise to cl,arges of ex post facto leg1slat1on dur111g the Nuretnberg Trials.

[,. t·r.· 'l.J.:..

Note 2: The Defense of Superior Orders in the Eichmann Trial (1961) Tl1e defense of superior orders w s ra1· cI a a1·11 r ce 1_ 1tly i11 tl1e trial of � � � ; t, i D ; 111 a1 el in ra 11m Is ic 5trict Cour of Adolf E . 1 llsalen,, Cr11n111al Case No. 40/61. 1 Tl1e court rejected tl1e defei,se 1· 11 tl,e fo11owing words: 21 ? · Tl,e accttsed's p�·ir,ciJJal defe11ce is ll1at all 1,e did \vas i11 accorda11ce w11 h ord ers f ron1 111s s11perio 1·s.. Tl1 ·1 5 I,e . r_egar9s as 'full j11stification for all his deeds I-le . ex1J 1 � 111s · t1,at. 111s S� training i11c11lcated in him the idea tl1at blind. �be dte_i,ce 1s of_ IJr:11nary 11n JJorta11ce, obedien ce based 011 bo�tndless cor1f1dence 111 tl1e \vtse J�tdgn1�11 t of tile leadersllip, wl,icli will always know . wl1at tl1e good of tl1 e Ret cli detnaiids, and wi·11 00· t·t s orders accord111gly. i.:

. ..

r , I • •,

I •

! ,

1 ve

•

· · · The attemrJ t to turr1 a11 order for tl1e exter111i11atio11 of 1nillio11s _ . a political. a�� JJeOJJle 11�to. 1n11oc�11t e ai111 of tl1us exe111r1ting

of \vitl1 tl1 fron.1 tl1e1r personal cr1m111al res1Jo11s1b1l1ty tl1ose \Vl10 gave, a11d tl1os \vl·io carried out the order, is of 110 avail . ... e

•

... ..�cc�rding to tl,e JJositive la\vs of tl1e Stale of Israel tl1ere is ilO such Jttsl1!!cat1or1, to exc11se tl1e_ acct1sed fro1n res1Jo11sibiJity for tl1e <�ri111es l1e COf'!1!71ltted, althot1gh co1n1111tted at tl1e cor11rna11cl of 011e of tl,e State author1t1es. 9

•

rejectio11 of tl1e defer1ce of ''sttfJetl1e tries, cot111 sed 220 .. In civili .. . r1or orders'' as exe1nJJtir1g comJJletely fro111 cri111i11al res1Jo11sibi1ity, l1as 110\xr b ecome general. This was also acl<110\vledged by tl1e Oe11 ral Asse111 bly of tl,e U11ited Natio11s, bei11g 011e of tl1e J)ri11ci1Jles of tl1e Lo11dor1 Cl1arter a11d of the Judg1nent in tl1e cas e agai11st tl1e Major War Crimi11als (ResoltI· tion of tl1e Plenary Session, No. 55, dated 11.12.46). Per1,aJ)S it is r1ot a vai11 hope tl1at the 'more tl1 is co11victio11 beco111es rooted i11 tl1e n1i11cls of men, tl1e mo re will tl,ey refrai11 fror11 followi11g criminal leaders, a11d tl,e Rule of La ,v an d order i11 tl1e relatior1s between 11atior1s \Vill be stre11gtl1e11ed accordingl y. d l1 ic 1ir e Tl Re tl1 of ts ris ju e tl1 1 e1 ev at tl1 , re l1e t ou It is to be pointed e . ov all �s ab . m rs co �� or to ce ien ed ob at tl1 r fJe d di 11ot dare to put 011 pa , al de ,1� 1� Co Cr ry ta 1l1 � an m er G e tl1 of � (2 47 11 Th�y did 11ot repeal Sectio , al w 1,1 La 1m e Cr th t 11s a1 ag e 11c fe of 1 a1 ts 1 1n in co which states that whoever e ic l p_ 1. n, a1 as c? e ac bl 1a sl 11i Jtt is r, de or 1 's or ri pe through obedience to a su to a criminal act if he k11 e,v that the orcler concerned a11 act wl11ch 1s!or1a is 1i? o� r Tl p_ . w La :y ta ili lv1 l ra 11e ge 1e tl to crime or an offe�ce accordi11 g 11 10 ct f J d1 o s 1s w ur la r 1 1e tl to g in rd co w�s applicable also to SS m e 11, ac (v1de ex hibit T / 1402/ a, p. 15, 21-22). si_cal y 1e l1 tl JJ r fo er rd o e ih at th ' e\'I: kn l el w 1 111g 221.Of course, the accused ) rr ca y b t 1a tl d an l, fu w la 11 u extern:iination of the Jew s wa� man!fe�tly . . e . al s . u sc o rm o 1 en at 11 0 ts ac out ting cr1m111al e

this order h e was commit •

•

• •

.. .' I

rI, :· 1 .

i : '. ...,. . •

•

, I •

.. ,.., :-

...... .. ;,·- �. ..- '....i • · -; ·

,-:.;J�

! �-�; , ;

•,. �•

I., !, •

220

S E S N E F E D E IV T A M IR f f THE A

es f m o_ es ri ri c co se le ho itt w m a m t bu ed e, im cr le g 1 i si a t no as \v s Thi e to tim 1 gl id ns ou co en er �n th e s or hi m d l1a d se i ct ac l,e T s. ar ye e er tl,

ov e tim ; as 1t op e1 st w t no 1 cl or d1 lie lie t Bu . em tli n i o fr st si de to d actions an even increased l1is activity. • • • • 1 1ly . ie1 01 �t ed h t_ ob us ce _ ce in to nv co to d ie tr d se 1 ct ac 228. Btit tlie i s act1v1t1e�, that �11ly blind h l al in m hi ed tid gt 1d a1 orders motivated e 1s th t ), 11� a� h1 rs ho � c 1i_ ge �l er av ad (K e nc e i_ ed ob '' ke -li er av ad e, ''c nc ie ed ob i mself as an 1ns1gn1fi" h d· te en es pr lie y· wh 1s at Th e. nc silenced l1is conscie h th 1ic wi rs wl te he l1ad at m all i11 11 ow s hi of n io i11 op cant official witl1 110 to deal, a11ct as lacl<i11g i11 all initiative in his w or k. We l1ave already · cliscussed tl1is allegatio11 in a different context, wl1e11 e,,aluating the accttsed's actt1al doings. Now �e repeat that_ a], so regarding l1is i1111er attitttde to l1is worl<, tl1e _pictt1re which he has tried to draw for us is e11tirely distorted. It is true 'll1at tl1e accused gave such ob,edience as was dema11ded from a good Natio11al-Socialist and as an SS ma11 in wl1om bli11cl obedie11ce \xras dee1Jly i11culcated. Bt1t that does not mea11 tl1at l1e fulfilled 11is task only becat1se lie \Vas ordered to do so. 011 tl1e contrary, lie carried it out, at every stage, als0 becat1se of an in11er convictio111 wl1olel1eartedly and \villingly ....

, ,,� I

t,r"J • I

' '

I I

,, .

''IC;_,, • 'p1!

The court \vent 011 pai11stal<ingly to document eacl1 of its conclusio11s.for the releva11t Israeli legislation see, Sect. 19, Criminal Code Ordi11a11ce (1936) a11d Sect. 8, Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Pu11isl1me11t) Law (1950).

l'I

l) d

l,i1 W n

iiL- -· ,!

. . [ ''

-�

,. ' Lr.! ,,, ' ., .. I

� "

It,;I

!Il l

I....

1Jllt r� ;,

,11,.1""'LI'• "''

J 'I

,,,, t.. ,1 'J"' .• \I p r'- '. I"' ·t ,' I

Questions

�'

,, )

Is C_o11trol �o-�ncil La\X, No. 10 as adoJJted by t.l1e four n1ajor allied po\V ers 1_11. Berlin 1n 1945 ex post facto legislatio11 (see Note 2}? U11der what provis1011(s) of- tl1e . Penal C�de o-r Constitt1tio11 of Ethiopia migl1t it be attacked? . Sl1ould f1scl1er be Jt1d-b o-ed t111der Oer1na11 law at tl1e tin1e wl1en his ex1Jer1ments were accomplisl1ed? Were tl1ere otl1er alternatives to tl1e e11act1ne11t of Control Council Law No. 1 O i11 1945? 2. Are tl1e basic provisi�11s ?f Control Col111cil Law No. 1o i i ,corporated witl1_in tl:e Penal Cod� of Etl11?pi a? Cot1l� Etl1iopia assu1ne jLi risdictio 11 a11d try fritz Flscl1er for crii:ne� aga111st l1�1na111ty a11d civilia11 poptilatio iis if fiscl1er \vere to_ be fot111d w i tl1i11 _ tl1� territory of Etliio(Jia? Does Art. 17 P.C.E.co11fo rm w1tl1 the ge11eral pr111c1p-les of cri1ni11al jti risdictioi, i i, interiiational law? 3. Is �rt. 7� better framed to reconcile difficult and coiiflicting polic)' cons1dera_t1on� tl1an C?1�trol Cou11cil La\v No.10, Art. II (4) (b) or tl1e other comparat i ve legal pos1t1ons as set out in Note 2? 4. Are you per5ua�ed by tl1e argu1nen,t for tl1e defe11se of fritz f�scl1er ,vitll respect t_o superior orders? �ould a�ceptance of this, defense 1-ogica-lly lead to_ excusing- a�I b�t Adolf Htt!er for Germ an atrocities? On the other }1a� d? might not extens1011 o_f tl1� prosecution argLtments lead to universal gu ilt. Does Art: 1q solve tl11s _ di len1ma? Do )'OU agree witll the positio11 ta.ken by the D1str1ct Court of Jerusa·lem in the Eichmaiin trial (Note 2)? 5. In your_ o.p·inio�, was the judgment an d sentence of tl1e Nuremberg -Mili tary Tr i bunals 111 the case of fritz Fischer JUS · t?

SUPERIOR ORDERS

221

Problem

WI1at are tl,e best argt1mer1ts wl1icl1 cotrld l1 av e be en pt ' f o tt r\ va Lt rd 1 1der 11 m g· (a it i ss l t1 ac l 70 ex Art. istecl at tl1e ti111e) for botl1 tl1e pros .! ec ttl a1 ic 1d n of fa a e sc i� cle t fe n� co l� 11e � \vl10 l1acl co1111nittecl atrocities 011 or the der of l1is nd1ng ge11er,ll I r1 coin 1na

Etl11op1a clttri r1g Llie occt1 f)atioi,? 11ecomn1encled Readi 11 gs

J-Iear11 , Tl1e Order to Fi1�e a11cl tl,e Defe11 se of SttJ)erior Orders, 2 Rl1o desi1-t a,id N7asala,1,i L. J. �3-7'::> ( I 96�) (a g�ocl, altl1ot1gl1 11611-1Jrofessio11al, statelne11t f the c9�1 �Jaralt \1 e �a\xr ot s�tJJer1or lJrcf ers \\'1itl1 resr:iect to ai1 order to � fire 011 c1v1l1a11s ca11s11 1 g J)ttbl1c dist1rrba11ce). U11ited States, I a11cl _I I Tri.ifs of tl e \f/,lr Cri1i1iil,-1-ls Before th e N1ireniberg 1l1ilitary Trib,,,zals (exte11s1\,e tra11scr11)ts of tl1e tl1edical cases). \Voetzel, Tl1e 1Y11re111berg Tri,zls i,1 l?1terJic1tioiial Law ( 1962) (a co r11 J)rel1ei1si,1e treai1ne11t of tl1e N lt reinberg trials tt11cler tl1c J)ri11 ci jJ]es of i 11 ter11atio,1al la.,x1). Donnelly et. al., Cri111i11,1,/ L,:rw 62-71 (1naterials 011 tl1e 111edical \'�·ar cri111es trials at N t1r e1nb erg). Lord Rttssell, Tl1e Tri:i! of A(.lolf Eic/1,r1.:r11,i 3 I 0-3 l ,1 ( 1963) (�t s11or� 11 isto!·ical treatme11t of tl1e defe11se of StIJJerior orcfers). Pear] r11an, Tl1e C,.ipt11re a11d ]rial of Adolf .Eicl1n1.,1il11 ( "J 963) (a ver)' reaclable clC cou11t of tl1e e11tire dra111a of tl1e Eicl1111 a1111 tria.l). Oerma11 foreign Office, 1l1tl111tt:1! of Ger1na,1 Law 81 (195 2) (sl1 ort: s !aler11 eri i of Oerman)''s fJrese11t J)Ositio 11 \Vitl1 reSJJect to tlie defer1se of Sll!Jerio:· orders). feldbrugge, Soviet Cri1ni11,1l La1.v, 9 La·w i,1. Ectsler11 E11rope 122-124 ( l 90L1) (sll !Je ri or orders in Sov·iet cri111i11al la\v).

I •

'·

SECTION B. lEGITIMA TE DEFENSE

a. Defe12se of Self, Anotl1e-r· or P1·ope1·ty PENAL CODE OF ETliIOPIA Art. 74. - SelfDefe11ce.

�:i��, ��

� pt rn isl if 1ab be le no t sli al l otect 1 directed aga 1 11st a legally P f,ave bee� otlier\vise averted and if tl1e tl1e assattl t or t hreat_ could no t n particular to the i , se ca t ile of d ne e li defence was proport1011a te to t � � lo 11ging to be e tl, of e nc ta or lp ill I 1 e an t 1 danger a11d gravity of tl1e assau be defended.

W A L E H T f O S E C R U O S TI-IE

ia p o 1i t1 E f o n io s is m m o C Imperial Codification

:: ·

•

i' . ·'.

! '.,

l .. I -:-:.. ' -.... I :I ... I

;

An act done u11der t!1e neces5 ity Of self-defence or tl1e defe11ce of anotl1er aul t or a tlireat of a11 assattlt 1 fJ� rson agai!1st a11 i111111i11 en t_ ai id 11 1

I ' '

Art. 74. - Legitime defense. . ... e em m re 11d s0 e1 ef d e d 1 te si es ec n la . da n S N est pas pu11issable l'acte comm1s

I .

I....... .. . '· .� -,

I • :·\

THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

222

e }mminente et con traire aq at d e c na me e ! n : d'u 1:1 ou e qu tta a n e d'u ui utr ou a ege , s1 I attaque ou .sa 1;1enace ot pr t en m ue iq rid ju n e bi u n e r nt t co oi dr au est proport1o� n; e aux se f de la s et nt e m e ! utr a e �� rte eca e etr p , . ne eut ue et a 1 imporaq att de 1 ite av gr la a et er ng a d u a nt me tam , no ces circonstan tance du bien attaque.

Code Pe11al Suiss e '' '

Art. 33. - Legitime defense. Celui qui est attaque sa11s droit .ou m enace sans droit d'une a� taq�e imn1i11ente a le droit de repousser l'attaqu e par des moye11s proport1011nes aux circo11sta11ces; l e me1ne droit ap(J artient aux tiers. •

•

Pe11al Code of Switzerland8 Art. 33. - Self-Defer1,se. If a JJerson is assaulte d witl1out cause or is presently tl1reate11ed witl1 an assat1lt, tl1e assaulted JJerson a1 1d e veryone else (arou11d hi1n) are autl1orized to resist tl1e assat1lt by suitable 1nea11s .... LEGITIMATE DEFENSE IN S\VISS PENAL LAW9 Pait! Logoz

Legitimate defense under Art. 33 exists wl1en a legal right i s atta cked (i.e., property, sexual l1011or, liberty as \vell as life or lin1b) ....The defense of a11otl1er, in cases wl1ere it is legitimate, is 11ot obligatory.011 e who witnesses an unjust attack directed against a tl1ird party is not bo11nd to i11tervene but he has the rigl1t to do so.If l1e intervenes to r epulse tl1e attack l1is act is as ' lawful as if l1e we re defe1 1cling l1imself. Legitimate defense is a defense. It presuppos es, tl1erefore 1 a11 attack and - as an act of privat e justice - a11 immediate attack, tha t is eitt1 er actt1al or at least, in1�i11ent....As soon as the danger has f)asse d, legitima te defe1 1se 1 10 lo1 1ger exists.If, therefore, tl1e aggressor has finished l1is attack (if for example tl1e .rape is co11s� mmated), tl1e victi1n who then st rikes tl1e aggr essor commits an illegal act; tl11s would b e a11 act no longer .o f d efens e but of v engeance. •

•

'•

•

b. The Duty to Retreat BROWN v. UNITED STATES Supreme Court, 256 U. S. 335 (1921)

·', ·,

United States

i i

mes, Hol r e p for murd conviction gree]; e r a in d e the second ing [Revers 8. 9.

Translat ion, Fried Ian der an d G? ldberg , 30 ]. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci., Supp. 1939). _ ( _ Logoz, C ommenta,re d u C o d e Penal Suisse 133-134. · ·

.-1

�

·, ..·, ·! .

�

.. ;.:;. ':''t· .... -.;� ; , . . ' ., � . ' .. :-; · . . .-� ....

·• .

.. '

..:.

LEGITIMA-rE DEFENSE

223

J: .... The other qt1estio1 1 concerns tl1e instructio11s at the trial. Tl1ere l1ad been trouble betwee11 Herme� a11d the defenda1 1t for a long time: Tl1ere was evidence tl1at Hermes. had twice assat1lted tl1e defencla1 1t wit11 a k11ife and. had made threats c_ommun1 cated to tl1e clefenda11t tl1at tl1e 11 ext .time, 011e of t l1em would go off 1n a b�ack box.On tl1e day i1 1 qt1estio1 1 tl1e defe11 da11 t was at tl1e place above , ment1011ed Sttperi11 te11di11 g excavation work for a postoffice.In view of Hermes s threats l1e hacl tal,e11 a l)istol witl1 l1i1n a1 1d had laid it 011 l1is coat Uf)On a du1np. I-lertne_s \vas drive11 ttlJ by a witness, in a cart to be loaded, a1 1d tl1e defe1 1da1 1t sa1cl tl1 at certai11 eartl1 was 1 1ot to be re1noved wl1ereUf)On Hermes ca1 ne to\vard _]1in1, tl1 e clefe1 1da11 t says, \Vith a l{nife. Tl1� defendant retreated some t\ve11t)1 -f 1ve or tl1 irty feet to w l 1ere l1is coat was and got his pist� l . I-Ier1n�s \vas .stril,i11g at l1in1 a11 d tl1e clefe11 da1 1t 'fired four sl1 ots and killed h11 n.T l1 e Jtld�e 111str_t1 cted . tl1e jt1ry a11101 1g otl1er tl1i11gs that ''it is necessary to re11 1etnber, tn co11s1 cler111g tl1e qt1estio1 1 of sel f-defense, tl,at a J)arty assaulted is al\vays t11 1der tl1e obligatior1 to retreat, so 1011g as retreat is OJJe11 to l1i1n, provided tl1at l1e ca11 do so \Vitl1out subjecti11g l1i111self to t l 1e da11 ger of death or seriot1s bodil}' l1arm. Tl1e i1 1strttction was reinforced by t l1e ft1rtl1er i11ti1natio1 1 t l1 at t111less ''retreat \VOttld l1 ave appeared to a man of reasor1 ab l e prude1 1ce, i11 tl1e position of tl1 e defe11da11t, as involvi11g da1 1ger of deatl1 or serious bodily harm'' tl1e defe1 1da11t \xras 11ot e11titled to sta11d l1is grottr1d . A1 1 instructio11 to the effect tl1at if tl1e defe11dar1t l1ad reaso11ab l e grot!i1ds of apprel1ensio11 tl1at l1 e ,vas i11 da11ger of losi11g his life or of st1fferir1g seriot1s bodily l1arm from Her111es l1 e \x,as 11ot bottnd to retreat ,1:;as refused.... •

•

I' I

•

... Tl1e failttre to retreat is a circt11nsta11 ce to be consiclerect 'v'1itl1 all tl·1e others in order to cletermi1 1e ,v l1 etl1er tl1e defer1dar1t \ve11 t f,trll1er tl1 ar1 lie \Vas justified in doing; 1 1ot a categorical IJroof of gti_-ilt. Tl 1e Ja,y;_ l1 as gr()\v111 1 ai�cl even if historical mistakes l1ave co11tribttted to its grCJ\,qtl1 ! t 11as ter1de�l 11 1 the direction of rules co11siste11t witl1 11 111 11a11 11alure. i\1ar1)' res1)ectable "':v-r1ters agree that if a man reaso1 1ably b_ e lieves_ tl1 at J1 e is ir1 i111me i_ate a1 1ger of d:atl1 or grievous bodily l1arm from 111 s assa1la1 1 t l1e 111 ay sta11 d �!1 1s gt�ot11 1d a!1 d t l1at if l 1e kills J1im he has 1 1ot exceeded t l1 e bot111 ds of la\vft1l self-cl�fel1se..... Detacl 1ed reflection can11ot be den1a11ded i1 1 t11e fJr��e11ce of_ a11 t1 1� l1 fted l<n1 fe. Tl1erefore i1 1 tl,is Court at least, it is 11 ot a co11cl1t1011 of 11 111 11un1ty l_ l1 at 011 e in t}1at situation sl,ould patise to co11 sider \Vl1etl1 er a reason_able n1a11 m1 g l1 t 11 ot think it possible to fl:x witli safety or to disable l1is assailant rather tl1a11 to kill l1im.... LAUBE c. KURER RO 86 JV 1, ]T JV 144 (1960) Switzerland ·th Laube Kttrer was driving off in his After h_aving had some trottble car when hrs adversary came forwar;�1,d . furio�sly grabbed tl1e ha11dle of tl1 e door intending to begin a fight. In 50 .d oing, Latibe's glove a11ct hand beca1ne and be dragged by tl1e car ca�ght in t�e han_dle _which forced 111m t� which kept 1ncreas1ng its speed.After abou l¥t�ei, meters 11 e fell 011 tl1e edge of the sidewalk and was injured. 11al of tl1 e ibu Tr the y, jur 1 ir ly di bo or f . �aube. having preferred a charge . D1str1ct of Zurich sentenced Kurer for vio1 at·1 0n of Art. 125, para. 1 of tl1e Penal Code. On appeal, the condemned ma11 was acq11 itted by tl1e Ca1 1tonal Tribunal, which applied Art. 33, para. 1 of tl1e Pe1 1al Code.

. .'

;

I , '. i.

. . ' . . ,. O

' l....

' ''. ' . ••.•• I I '.. :

. l . ':

.. -. i'\. r .,� =�. .. .......' -.....

I' ! ,.

!.: •. •, .

I ' '�-

;. ',A

!, . •

224

TI-I E AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

l1e r of t _ fe 1s a1 se tr ca e tl1 to , on si ci de is th of al rs ve re r d fo le e ea a Laub i)p g tin e an of damtl1 gr d an d se cu ac e tl1 of g cin er1 the Ca11to1 1al Tribttnal for se11t ages to tl1e plai11tiff. Tl1e appeal is rejected.

e o th isi at ov tl1 pr 11 on on ini OfJ tl1e _ of is 1t 1 lla 1Je ap 1e Tl Srtmmary of Reasoni,ig: d. d He states fle 11a r�r Ku t tl1a 1 n 11 tio t1a sit s tl1i to self-defe1 1se does 11ot a1JIJly that self-defe11se can be bu t a11 act of defe11se a11d 11ot fl1ght1 for he wl10 flees r�fuses to defe11d l1imself (RO 79 IV 152, JT 1954 IV 37). l1t in tl1e face flig l1, st1c as t, tl1a s 11it ad1 it as far as t rec cor 1 is a so 1 This rea 11i of ar1 attacl( does bnot co11stitt1te an op1Josition to the legally protected i1 1terests of tl1e assaila11t a11d tl1at, to tl1is extent, it can11ot be a defe11se accordi11g to tl1e sense of Art. 33, ]Jara. l of tl1e Pe11al Code. Ho\x,ever, flight arid defense are 11ot necessarily i11co1 iipatible. -r11e JJerso11 wli o is attacl<ed or directly tl1reat e1ied witl1 a11 ag·gression and wl10 does not ir1tend to prepare liimself for a figl1t but ratl1er to back Ollt Of it by f}eei1ig, must tiot 1ieCeSSarily forego all resista11ce. I-le n1ay ru11 away a11d �let defe11cl l1imself by rnerely coveri11g l1is esca1Je b)' a11 act clirected ag·ai1ist l1is assaila11t to jJrevent l1im from attacl(i11g or frorl1 carryir1g 011 l1is attacl(. Ever1 li e \Vl10 defe1 1ds I1imself 011Iy fo.r tl1at pur1Jose re1Jt1lses tl1 e attacl( i11 t!1e se1ise of Art. 33, JJara. 1 of tl1e Pe11al Code ar1d1 if tl1e other co11ditions are fL1lfilled, ca11 invol<e self-defense. T\1is is a case wl1ere flight a11d an act of defense tool< !J1ace si1nt1lta11eous ly. Kurer, w\10 \vas slo\vly drivir1g ot i t of t\1e yard, did 11ot stOJJ \Vl1en tl1e a�1Jella11t 1notio11ecl !1ir11 �o do so becaL1se lie \vanted to avoicl co1 11ir1g to gri1Js \v1tli a mar1 \Vl1 ose jJl1ys1cal strer1gtl1 \xras SL1perior to l1is. '\Xfl1e11 LaLtbe, in a rage, thre�xr 11i1i1self urJ0 11 tl1e rig·l1t hand door of tlie car a11d tried to 01Jen it by force _ 1 n order to 111a�e KL1rer g�t out, tl1e latter i11creased I1is speed to p�otect l11_mself by preve11t11 1g tl1e assa1la1it from carryi11g ot1t I1is I Jlan. He used li1s car, s1111t1ltar1eoL1sly, as a r11 earis of escape a11d of defe11se. Cour de Cassatio11. - MM. fassler, Mul1eim, Bacl1tler1 Perri11 atid Oris el 1

c. T!Je Requirement of Pr·opo1·tionality I

KOLLER c. MINISTEI{E PUBLIC DU CANTON DE SAINT-GALL RO 79 IV 148, JT IV 34 (1954) Switzerland

�11 t11e 26tl1 of October, 1951, after 1O IJ.ITI., Otliman Le1irnai,n, a butclier born 1n 19�0, arid lia1is Sole11tlialer, caretal<er of a schoOl b rn · 1917 botli u1ider tlie 1nflue11 ce of alcol1ol, met t_\Xi'O fifteen year old boy� , Aif.-ect S�laorr,i a1·1 d Karl Sclilt11n1Jf, wl1 0 were retur111 ng from a bo,,i 5cout meet·111g Lehmann1 · state111e11ts to Sole11tl1aler, was at tl·1at accor ct·111g t o I 11s · n1on 1en t ''loud11ng ''·, I 1e t I 1e1i foIIowed tlie boys a11d took tlie b.1cyc 1e of S a1 aorr11. ... moutl. [After tl1e b.1cycIe \Vas ta I(e11], tl1e bo. ys' who d i"d not k110w e1·ti 1er of the dru11 k men, went to f.1 11d t l1e1r· scout cl11ef' Walter Koller, an 1nsura11ce · 1oyee emp · 1925, a11 d as l(ect 111· m for l1elp Koller Jttt a Ioad d W 11 pisto1 1·n born 111 · I e er 1 a t ·. o or d er · 1n ct e t f e11d tl1en1 .1f 1t was tiecessary a1 id h.1s pocket tl 1ey left to try to find the bic,1cle . t11e company f t1ie two b0 5 he ; · After a few lioti rs a11d 111 Y an 1 So d Le le " � k" 1 l1n 1tl1 1a1 ale 11 r met wl10 were leavi· ii g a new dr1n 1 11g esta bl1s 1,ment

,, •

•.

LEGJl·IMA TE DEFFNSE

225

and beginning to walk along tl1e I- Ieimatstrasse wl,.i le_ J)Ltsl,!ng tl1e stole11 bicycle. Karl Scl1lttmpf politely asked tlie 1;0 11 ei, to g i ve 111111 tl1e bicycle. But Lehmann and Sole11tl1aler began to botlier. t� ,e two boys, 011e of \Vl1om received a blo\v. Wl1en Koller asked cal iii ly a i ,d i a ve_ry IJro Jer lo11e for tl1e ret 11r1 1 1 tl1e reft bicy y cle, sed . t Koller 'order�cl 11e ? f tlie boys_ to )l1?11e to_ tl1e of the poli�e, bu� 11� \Vas u11able to as Ile cottlcl 1 ot t ,d a l\v�11ty . cel 11t1111e l)I�ce. �� . l Dt1ri 11g tl11s t11ne, Sole11tl1aler bccai ,,e f tiriot i s, 5 "eari iig viole11tly a11cl excited Lehma11n to '-:.l,.cl1 a11 exte i1 t tliat lie t1 eg-a t rtls� 1 lll)_?�1 l(o]l r. I�o]ler bacJ_ <ed away and took tl1e pistol fror ,1 l i is l)ocl<�t �11cl ·. · _· f i ed a__ �x,ar11i11g s1'1ot i11to � � _ tl1e ground. Lel1n1a1111 l1aving· seized l i i ii , b , t 1 " 111� o�t, ie e l a 11d i 111e co se t e f11 l . ; 1 l int� tl1e grot111d. l11 tl1e cotirse of lle erlst i i , igli! \vl11 !e tl�e co111ba_ta11ts \vere �oll11}g on th� grou11d,_ Ko l ler, \X!li o llacl lleld l l ie f)1.st?l 111 _111s l1a11d, i11vol1-t11tar1ly fired a tl11rcl sl1ot trito tile cliesl of LeI1111 a11 11 1 <111111 g 11 1 111. . · · Tl1e Ca11to11al Tr1L1t111al of SJi11t-Oall co11victecl I(oller f OI. 11 eo0-1·i ger1_ . t I101111c1de. . · .111 j)arc tl1at ll1e qt1estior1 of self [The Cot1rt of Cassatio, 1 re\rersecl . , sta t111g _. . . Sttbs ._ i 1(!1a b e111g )·· to J)Oltce. [Jrt)cess , 111ti st b-'e sef) a I.ate cl c1 ro 111 tl1 e tisc o f defense, · actt i al sel t-cle fe11se "Jicl te n1ea11s 111 · propor t1011a ,v,lie 'l \� 11 011e I::1a1 a11cec1 11ot 011lv . _ .· tl1e · f attacl, o 11ess tI1e se11ot1s o·- f ti1 e i.·I erl1t ,cl ll a C I( e CI, 1·J ll L Ll · . . a11cl tl1e IIT1fJort'l11ce ;::,_ r,.1 t s 111 also tI1e 1mporta11ce of tl,e rig]1t · cl a11J.2:er, · . . c)efe11s� e 1·e()f" ..',c.ai-cl··1zes 01 - tl1at Ll1e ) I(oller 1111cler tl1e c1rct1111sta11ces iri tist be co11s1 .- · • -·ct,., ti1e 1nea11s t1sec I b, , 1 fJI(JJJore1ec. tiotiate.J

' '

East

lv\1\R\VA S/0 ROBI v. RE)·Z 6 ,{4'"1T"• ,;I • C• .11. ·· 6-o .,, ;;, ...: i. 9,o '1' 'J .1-lhoe,zls, '-.I' ic,1,1 Co11rt or 1

Tl1e follo\ving jt1dg·1ne11t \Vas read 1Jy clirectio11 of tl1e cotirt:Tl1e appell�nt \Vas co11victed of 1-i1t1rcler bJ' tl1e S t11Jre111e Cottrt ()f J(eil�/a - l1as a1JJJealed to tl1is cotl1 ·l 011 lv\ay 12, l 9:J9, and \Vas se11te11ced to cleatl1. I Ie 011 two grou11ds: first, tl1at tl1e lear11ecl trial j t1clge 1nisdi rected l1i111sel f as to the law applicable to cases of l101nicicle ir1 de fe11ce of JJrOJJerty; arid, seco11clly; f!1at tl1e Iear11ed jt1dge erred i11 fi11di11g· tl1at tl1ere \'7as 11ot st1fficie11l [Jrovoca t1oi1 to red11ce tl1e offe11ce to 111a11slat1gl1ter. Tl1e facts are at abot1 t 1 p.n,. 011 Nove111ber 15, 1958, tl1e deceased left tl1e boma of 011e Chacl1a s/o Ngoso a11d ,ver1t to\vards il1e bo111a of tl1e aJ)pella11t, \'<'lio was his fatl1er-ii1-law. Tl1e afJjJella11t's bo1na was abot1t 1/4 tnile clista11t frotn tl1at of Chacl1a. Sl1ortly after ll1e cleceasecl left, Cl1acl1a l1eard a sl1011t frotn tl1e direction of tl1e appella11t's bo111a, a11d, 011 goir1g i i 1 tl1at directio11, met the deceased w l10 ,x,as st1fferi11g fron1 a spear \VOt111d tl1rot1gl1 l1is rigl1t t ipper arm into J1is cliest. Tl1e c)eceased walked \xritl1 Cl1acl1a for so i11e clistar1ce towards tl1e l�tter's bo111a tl1e11 collaJJsed, lost co11sciot1s11ess a11d died. 011 [Jost }l lortem exam inatior1 th e deceased w as fo1111d to l1ave a11 i11cised wot111cl six 1 Ot 11d \V ab sl a nd _a n1 ar l1t rig e tl1 n l1es lo g . of . e cl t� tl1rough tl,e sk iii ar1ct 1nus ! c into the right side of th e cl,cst abotit seve11 111ches lo11g go1 i 1g bet,vee11 tl1e r i bs and enteri11g the middle arid lower lobes of tl1e rigl1t Ju11g. Tl1e cat1se of deatl1 was haemorrl1age froin tli e wottiids ir1 tl1e 1·igl1t ar1n a11d rigl1t cl1est. Tl1e t\VO wounds aJJJJeared to Jiav e been caused b y a single blow of a lo11g sl1afted 1e d tl se ea ec d 1e tl f o er d 1r 1L 11 1e tt � p ti ea i on suc!1 as a SJJear. When ct1arged \V : 11 s0 1y 11 d re ea sp t I 1a tl . e lan t sa y sa to l1 1s w ''I e: rg ,a cl 1e tl to er , ii id sw an l 11 PP u 1 a1 e ad m t n la el p ap 1e tl ,n-Iaw Gati s/o trial 1e tl t A . '' th ea d a to g n ,a Mal sworn state mer1t in the course of wl1icl1 li e said:

:I .

·:; !· . .

' -- 1 .

·'

226

THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

e ke th le ta tt to ca g i11 �y forc e go as w lie id sa id ai e m ca ''Tlie deceased rs de ld e el to th t l1a w htm and ey ob t no ld ou w ed as ce from me...Tlie de e rc d fo e by an ttl ca e tl1 that is ke ta to d te ar st id at he came to my boma when I killed l1in1." g in us ca the wound s , ed as ce de e th d re ea sp 11t lla It is clear tl1at tl1e apJJe ar o cle is als It d. t un tha fo so the ge jud ed r11 lea the d an d n1 die l1 fro wl1ic he nt lla the pe ap een tw and tl1e be te pu dis the a of ult res a� d the rre ng cu speari oc s nt' lla pe ap the to boma to ne go l1ad sed cea de tl1e en wl1 , tle sed cat over decea get cattle wl1icl1 tl1e deceased clai1ned....

to s. 18 of tl1e . Penal Code, wl1ich Ti,� iearned jLtdge correctly referredtl1e use of f?rc� 111 defence o_f person

provides tl1at criminal responsibility for or property sl1all be deter1ni11ed according to tl1e pr111c11Jles of Engl1sl1 commo11 law, a11d proceeded: ''Wl1ilst 11ot attem1Jti11g to set out a com1Jrehe11sive statement of the law, tl1e broad outline of tl1e Englisl1 common law is that it is a good defe11ce tl1at tl1e battery was co111mitted by tl1e priso11er in defence of his l)Ossessio111 force 1nay be opposed by force, but 0111)' sucl1 force is just ified as is necessary for tl1e clefe11ce of tl1e property, tl1at is, it must not be excessive. See Archbold, 33rd ed. JJ. 998....Tl1e assessors \x1ere una11i111ot1s in tl1eir 01Ji11ion tl1at Oati did not receive l1is i11juries u11der circt1msta11ces \X1l1icl1 establisl1 ... defence of l1is JJropert)' a11d I agree witl1 tl1eir opinio11 and so fi11d."

r, ..• t u '• _;

lv: 1�,, 1.- ,. ' '1 ••..., ,1; t . J p �.

J '

I" ·{ :

I I

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

...Altl1ougl1 ...it 1n11st assumed i11 tl1e a1Jpella11t1 s favour tl1at the deceased had 110 legitimate clairn to tl1e cattle, yet it is clear on tl1e evide11ce that tl1e deceased believed l1e l1ad a claim of rigl1t to tl1e cattle. Tl1e dispute \Vas 11ot a ne\v one and tl1e deceased did not act i11 a steal tl1y ma11ner. He we11t openly to tl1e ap1Jellant's botna to exercise a rio·I1t to wl1icl1 l1e obviously be_lieyed l1e was entitled.In tl1ese circu1nsta11ces lie ,:011ld not be gt1ilty of any cr11n111al offe11ce: Pe11al Code, s.9.Nevertl1eless l1is act a111ou11ted to a serious trespass, a1_1d we tl1ink tl1e ap1Jella11t was er1titled to tal<e reasonable steps to preserve �11s !)fO!)ert�. Tl1e cases relati11_g to tl1e steps \vliicl1 1 nay be take11 to preve11t t! espass, so far as tl1ey �re available to tis, iiidicate tl,at only so much !�rce as 1s reaso,1ably 11ecessary 111 order to tL1r11 a trespasser out will be just1f 1 ed.... ... No dot1bt i11 drivi11g off tl1e cattle tl,e deceased was comn1itting a trespass, bt1t tl1e 1nea11s ado1Jted by tl1e aJJ(Jellant to resist tlie taking of the cattle s_eems to u_s to l_1ave bee11 11tterly ot 1 t of JJroportion to tl,e tort whic h was be111g com1111tted....

d. A n Objectirve or Subjective Sta ndard? "

SUDA� GOVERNMENT v.ISM AIL BUSHARA Ma;or Cor,trt Confirmation, A C-CP-1.40-1956 1961 Sridan L.J. 22

S1,t.dan

. M.A .ABU RANNAT C.J. Jttly 15 1956· f o ar¥ Tl1e St1mm facts 111 tl1e . Salient facts are proved beyond reasoi7a b'1e do t1bt. The accused pleads tl1e rig·h:_ t

l '

. •1 ' •

LEGITIMATE DEFEN SE

227

of private defence. Tl1e facts are shortly tl1 ese: Jn the early hours of tl1e 1nor�i11g, wl1il� the acctised and l1is people were asleefJ, the deceased and tl1ree ?f 111s compan1011s raided tl1 eir herd and took by force cattl� and a mare be1011g1ng to tl1e accused. Tl1e tl,ree companions drove the cattle 1n front of the 1:1 a11d . we11t. Tl1e cleceased- we11t to the grass hut where the accused a11d l11s \Vtfe were fast asleep. I Ie was carrying a broad bladed sl1arp spear and startecl to plt111ge it i11to tl,e grass l1t1t t111til l1e cat1sed slight i11jt1ry to tl1_e acct1sed's l1ead. J-1� also i11st1lted tl1e accused by cursing Jiim in a loud voice a11d cl1alle11ged 111111 to come out. Tl1e accused took his knife and went out of tl1e 11tit. J-Ie 111et tl1e de< \!ased i11 tl1e dark a11d stabbed him several times tt11til tl1e deceased died or1 tlie SJJot. Tl1 e accused's life \X as then at great risk. I tl1ink tl,e accused acted \,;,itl1i11 l1is rig]1t of private defe11ce u11der Suda,, Pe11al Code, s. 55. 10 Tl1e decec1sed a,,ct l1is co1111Ja11io11s were robbers. Tl1e ac cused was e11 titled to cat1se deatl1 becattse tl1e act to be re1Jelled was a11 attack wl1ich cat1sed reaso11able aJJfJrel1e11sio11 of cleatl1 or ,grievot1s l1urt. Admittedly tl1e accused stabbed tl1e deceased i11discrin1i11ately, bttt ai1y j)erson wl1 0 \Vas ir1 his position cot1ld 11ot do otl1er,vise. I l1ave therefore, reft1sed tl1e confir111atio11 of tl1e fi11di11g of gttilty 1111cler Sudan Pen�l Code, s. 253, a11d direct tl1at tl1e acct1sed be set at liberty fortl1witl1. ·rt,e case was well tried. 1

I. .. '

I I

•

! ' '

MISTAKEN LEOITilv1ATE DEPEl'1SE11 Par!l Logoz

If a11y individt1al believes b� tnistal<e tl1al !1e �s t111la,�ft�ll attacl<ed _ or t111lawfully tl1reater,ed with a 11 im m111e11 t attacl( a11d l{tlls or 111J t11�es _tl�e n11�lal(e11 agg;essor, he falls uiider Art. 19 C.P.S. [/V\istalce ?! fact]. Tl1e illJLt_ry 1s riot itiflicted i11 a state of leg1t11nate self-defe11se, 110\vever, ·lawful as it has ·not bee11 · tl l1as 11ot bee11 111te11t1011aII y catrse ct a11· d tl1e o·ffe11cler tl1 erefore, 011 ly be . mav . J, IJUnisl1ed for 11egligence if tl1e circt11nsta11ces so Jt1st1fy.

REX v. KAJUNA S/0 MBAKE East African Court of Appeals, 1945 E.A.C.A. 104 Tangany £ka

ERIDAN C.J.) - Tl1e accused SH H EP JOS JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR . was convicted .of the murder of hi� fatlier Mbake atid se;,tenced to death. He h�s aJJpealed to this Court. Tl1ere is no d bt wl,atever tl1at he deliberately . killed l1is father, havtng set o_u � Otl a long ��ttrr,e for tlie ptirpose of doi11g so. The conviction i11 our op i nion was � ori�e t J faVOltr of tl1e accused tl,e . learned trial Judge stated; ''In my op1111on i� · tl,is case tl,e acct1sed l1ad a11

lO. Arts. 55 and 58, Sudan Penal Code read: _ th e Iaw fuI exercise of the rigl1t of private defence. 55 , N o act is an of fence wh.1ch .is d one in • • 1s it · t I J1an 1arm e mor of g ictin infl e ri l to 5B , The right s d n te ex se of private d cf ence 1n no ca . . for the purpose of de fence. necess ary to inflict I I. logoz, Comm,,uaire du Code Penal Sujsse 136·

I:.

·. I

.. •. I •

;

� 1

. I''.�. .•."...

S 1· liE AfflRMATIVE DEFENSE

228

d lle s ki hi he e he fat tim e th r that a� f lie be en c1k ist 111 t ub 1 qo l1011est1 tl1ougl1 110 l ra at� ns rn ea pe m su as SLt!ely by 11d cl1 s i h_ 1g 1 li kil t 1 1 1e o11 � rr tl1e _ latter was at tl1�i e 1. Th o1 st ap Ea we l l1a let Africa,, a g 1n t1s of t ac e th as 1f he had seen him 1n , is int !h po ed id c _ ug de tl1o y, o\ kn h it I as far so er ev 1 1 s l1a al t of pe ur Ap Co y, tor rri tl1e inl1abitants Te s tl11 1n ses ca ny ma i11 er oth arises in 011e fortn or ar1 ed bu im d an witl1 a firm aft 1cr tcl wi 1 i1 ed ak so of which over large areas are belief i11 evil spirits. No doLtb t if tl1e point is fJUt up on appeal it will be de f i11 lie be l1is 's ed us acc fatl1er's the r l1e 1et wl 1 1 0 n tur to m see . uld ed \'{!o It cid ild h s c_ wa tl1e t no ure inj to o11Iy er ord i11 s rit spi l evi 11 of tio nt oca ole inv lev ma Is a primitive Afri ho11est but reaso11able, tal<i11g into account the fact that he , wl1icl1 I do not pro s sic l1y tap me on g rin rde bo ion can. Tl1at is a difficL1lt qL1est pose to discuss here. I sl1all merely make a finding tl1at s11cl1 a belief is not reasonable and leave it to tl1e Court of A1)peal to upset 111y decision if I am wrong.... 1

•

Tl1e ap1Jeal is dismissed. NOTES

I'r"

i,,, , I <

1 - ��: : � � r'\ I

'"'" t,..

I"• tt

l\Jote 1:

E.5tcess of legitimate Defer1se

A:t._ 75 go\1erns t l·1e di�1Jositio11 of offe1 1 ders \vho l1ave exceeded tl1 e right of leg1t_ 11nate defens_e _ (tl1 e title and 11 se of tl1e tern1 ''self-defe11se'' is tl1 roual1out . efe�se''). !o fall witl1i1 1 Art. 75, li owever, a Iegiti tal<en to mea11 ''l_eg1t1111ate d rnate state of deJ-e11se n1ust exist \x,l11cl1 l1as tl1en bee11 exceeded. Waiblii,ger states in No. 1205, Ficl;es juridiques Sttisses 1O (1958): It is 11ot excess of legiti111ate defe11se whe11 tl1e co11ditio11s of legiti11:ate defei,se are not iJ�esent, for exa111ple, wl1e 11 one allegedly defe11ds l11mself after a11 attacl< IS alreacly completed .... i1 Art. 524 (a) is tl1e Special Par t arti cle tind er · w 11·ch a perso11 w I 10 h as exce e.-1t1ed . · 1eg1·t·1mate defen::i-e ·1n protecting ''the privac\,; of liis l1ot1se or out bu1·1ct·1ngs" 1s cl,arged.

Note 2:

Provocation Under the Penal Code

Tl1e borderline between legitimate defens� or its excess and a11_ offe11se committ e cl upon fJrovocation is 1 t _well defttied. Sl1ould the follo\vtng facts taken from tl1e Oli anaiai, case of }fegzna v. 0J.ojo, ! 9.59 Gl1a11a L.Rep. 208 be co11sidered excess of self defeiise Or provok ed !1om1c1d e: ,,I brought a wife from . . . . Niger.· a and a certain man from Toboas1 1s keeping lier as li is owr, liou e-wI � e. Whe n to er she sent I h conce ived Nigeria.... One Sttnda 1 : e t to tny th e in was cassa va and farm farm when the fellow ca�e bY ;lie footpath ta t! 11te d r nea a11d the cassav a me saying 'Tl1is fellow still h e w l7 o 1t� a � n ca n tio ot ec 1n or ve c _ ha t: woman.' lie furtl1er t old nie tliafr lien m Y wife was go111g, tl1ose ch1id1 en \V who accom 1Ja11ied belo,iged to 1 ocal tl1o s� Jeopl e an that d if see I didn' t cl1ildre11 were broLigli t hack I / l t se 1 I iy \X,'O uld farm be . los t tl1e in on him 'Will yo11 prove to me t�ios r� cl1ild wl 7 o , are tl1e tl1e fatl1ers of who111 I have se11 t to Nig e . � if m_ further_ e y w 11 wl1en told hi 1 tl1at was l1ere tl1at was liow lie 1;�;d-;-0 bel,ave 1n the same way by telling rne !

l l

f 1

LEGJTIMATE DEFEN SE

229

tried to tl1at her preg11ancy was riot by n1e. Wl1e11 I said ll1is t i f II fight 1� e .- He had � cutlass .and tried to use the cutla�� 11°%e, but 1 �as q� 1cker to kr,ock a way lits ct1tlass fro111 l1is l1a11 ds a11d I tl1e11 !{illed J111n w1tl1 my ct1tlass. Tl1a t s all I have to say .... " A11 offe11�e_ com111itted ir1 legititn�te def1�I1se is 110t pttiiisliable ; wlie 11 ii, excess � f leg1t1 °:1ate defe11se, tl1e IJll 111 s11111er1t 111ay b e reclticecl (Art. 75 ( 1)) or 11 . cltie to exct1sable fear, �urprise or excite no pt1111sl1men t 11;_1 p�sed \vl1e11 . rt . (7::J )). (� ov me11t . _.. · � r oc_a t1011, 011 tl1e ot l·1 er l1a11d, 1s co11sidered 011ly ,s a 1111t1gat11,g factor ui,cler � 1 �- 79, Oe1 1eral Exte1 1t1ati11g Ci rcu111sta11ces a11cl � rt . 524 (b), Ext_e�iuate� l-Io1111_c1de. Tl1e 011_ly available au tl1orilative i11terJJreta tio11 of tl;e pro� 1s1011s ·...,011cerr1111 g jJrovocat1011 \V�s clecided i11 C ri1ni11al 1-\JJpeal No. 291/:>1 (19:J9 O.C., b)' tl1 e St1JJre111e Irn1Jer1al Cot1rt. Tl1e Cot1rt l1eld it1 tl1e follo\vi11g \v·o rcls, t l_1at co,1flic ti1 1g evicle1 1ce ,vitl1 resrJect to a11 i11s11lt clid not a111ount to JJ rovocat1011 \Vl1er1 clefencla11t sl1ot a11otl1er \x,ith \vl101n he l1acl beer1 havi11g a dis1J11 te over lar1d: In cleali11g \x,itl1 ll1e q1.1estio11 of j)rovocatio11 the J-Iigl1 Co11rt came to tl1e co11cl11sio11 tl1at tl1e defe11ce \Vit11esses \Vere 11ot relialJle it1 statii1g tl1at tl1ere \Vas a11 arg·111ne11t bel\x1 ee11 tl1e ajJJJe]la11t a11d tl1e cieceasecl .1ncl tl1at tl1e deceased l1ad 11tterecl \X'O rds of i11st1 It lo tl1e a1J pella11t; tl1e f-I ittl1 Court gave reaso11s for co111i11g t o tl1is co11cl11sio11 a11d tl1is CoL1rt fi11us ·10 reasor1 fo r 11ot accerJti11g tl1e co11cl11sifi11 of tl,e J-Iig·l1 Court; fL1rtl1er n1ore , ll1e I-Iigl, Cot1rt added, tl1at i11 a cat1tious stater11er1t 111acle to tl 1 e JJolice clttring t l1e investigatio11 tl1e ar)pella11t l1acl saicl 11otl1ing c1bot1t t!1es,� alleged i11s11lts. Also, tl1e Higl1 Cot1rt acldecl that, ass11r11ir1 g for tl 1 e sctl,e tl1at s11cl1 inst1lts l1acl tal<e11 J))ace, the a1Jpellc1.11t l,ept calm 1ne11t u of arcr b at tt,e time; lie did 11ot react a t all. It \\'Jas 01 1ly wl1e1 1 tl1 e l)LIS rf:acl·1 ccl Nazareil1 tl1at tl1e apJ)ella11t lost l1is ternper a11cl sl1ot tl1e deceased; t1r1clet sucl1 circumsta11ces i t c a1111ot be said t]1at tl1e aJJJJella11t actecl t!11cler tl1e inflt1ence of a }1eat of biood iesulti11g froi11 tl1e fJ rovocative ,:,;,�rcls. It is also clear fro m tl1e evidence t11at tl1e a1Jpella11t l1ad for son1e t1r11e past, tl1e idea of cloing so111etl1i11g serious; i11 co11ve rsa tio11 \vitl1 people. \Yil1<Jrn tl1e appella11t a1Jproacl1ed witl1 a view lo re:1cl1i11g a �etll.e111et1t \xrttl1 _tl1� 1cl lc11 a e b_ t1ld \VO s tl11 1at l i. cl ke ar rem he te, 1J11 dis sed 1d e decea over tl1 la1 of blood if a settleme111 was 11 ot reacl1ed. 011 tl1ese grounds tl11s. Co Lt rt 11 ca l1 11c wl es nc sta m cu cir 110 e _ ar re e tl1 at tli rt s ii agree \Vith tl,e J-1 igl1 Co _ amot1nt to provocation as a11 extenuat111g c1rcu111sta11ce. •

•

Note 3: Self Defense in the Legal Histor}' ot Ethiopia 12 en lim is n tt P t l tta it ir p S 1d a1 l ra o rp o C ts I e 1d e a1 id a ic F th Nagast, Hom

e 1n 0 J1 is l1 o 1t i1 s e tn co o li w l � l 5. a t nat No guilt ... fa11s U[Jo11 � n � w I10 k'l is l1 g in d en ef d f o . . se o rp tt p f ,e ti at night for the purpose of 111J ury, as it 1s 01 own life. Art. 145.

) 0 3 9 1 ( ia 1J io th E f o e d The Penal Co

. endi11g f e d in e im r c a s it . me11t for t he 1nan wl10 con1m There is 110 pu111sJ1

J2. Chap. XLV JI.

I•• •

.I .

• 1• • •

. .•

•

• '

: '

•

i�. • ..

.I .

. . ,. .·..•.. .'.

,•.. 1. .

230

�SES E F E D E IV T A M IR f f A TliE

g in d d ar is an u e g h t 1a n tl vi sa s � g 11 1i tl e l1 if , an m g i1 ro st llimself agaiilst a . y il m fa d an ey n o m is h l1is life and honottr, •

Questions 1. 2.

I if' ., ,..

I/1

I '\" �

u! ,., �

·� "' .,,.

GC>

lt' au d ss ' or ed ''a w e us th as Is ? 74 . rt A r fo le tit er op pr Is ''self-defei1se' ' a a term of art? See Art. 544 P.C.E. . ty nd er fe de op pr e _ om on fr ay M '? g' ir1 11g lo be d te ec ot IJr w1 1at is a ''legally se ch ra 1n en ph g Fr e 111 th nd po es rr co e tl1 is t l1a W ? se 1ra jJl attack under this r 33 de t. ty un Ar er p op of e 11s fe de it rm pe r iss S\v e tl1 Avaiit-JJrojet? Do C.P.S.? l a fu lt ass law or ttn d a11 nt 11e u 1ni ''im an 1st ai1 ag be lf se of Must defe11se d g'' cte gin ote lon jJr be lly ga ''le a st ain ag eat tl1r 1 a st Mu t"? at1 tl1reat of a11 ass d t rea 11o 74 t. es Ar do l1y W ? 74 . t Ar r de t111 '' ful law t111 d a11 e11t be ''irn1ni 11 as follo\vs: An act do11e t111der tl1e 11ecessity of self-defe11se, tl1e defense of anotl1er or tl1e defer1se of a legally [Jrotected belo11gi11g against an imminent a,1d t1r1]a\vft1l assault or tl1reat of an assat1lt sl1all 11ot be punisl1able... ? Wl1at is tl·1e exte11t of tl1e period within wl1icl1 011e n1ay legitimately defe11d l1i1nself u11der Art. 74? Why is Art. 74 restricted to acts of defense? Does Art. 64 (c) provide a broader defe11se to the defe11dant? See also Art. 1148 C.C.E. Is tl1ere an obligatio11 to retreat u11der Art. 74? Does tl1is actually mea11 that if a f)erson finds himself in danger and l1as an ave11ue of retreat, he l1as a legal duty to be a co\vard at pain of pe11al sa11ction for 11ot so being? Wl1at does tl1e Koller case n1ea11 \vl1en it states tl1at ''self-defe11se [is] subsidiary to police process''? Wl1at does tl1e fa111ous fJl1rase ''detacl1ed reflectio11 cai111ot be de111a11ded i11 tl1e presence of an LtfJlifted knife'' n1ean? Would you reacl1 tl1e same de cision tinder Art. 74 as I-loli11es reacl1ed i11 tl1e B rowrl case? Wl1at does the case of Laube v. Kurer add to ot1r u11derstandii1g of tlie dtti}' to retreat? was Wl1at tnust be bala11ced i11 order to decide wl1etl1er leo· e defei1 s i tirnat e O proportional? _Is tl1e ''ass��l�'' as t1sed witl1 resrJect to JJroportio11ality in Art. 7� referr111g to tl1e 1nit1al attacl< or tl1.e defeiisive response? Did the court 111 tl1e Koller case balance tl1e rights of the victim and defendant properlr _if s�1cl1 case l1ad been go-verned by Art. 74? Do you agree with tl1e dec1s1on 1n the case? i ry M i11ju to the or respect case, n arwa l1ow does one value life Witl� ar h al physic perty? Is property to m P:O relation ever more valuable tlia11 e far rs to be111gs? Wl1at Marw reme leave dy :n �o l1t1ma11 does the decisioii a . 1n Kenya whose cattle are being take11 awa},? d dar stan D?es the case of !sn1.ail Bushara adopt an objective or subjective ;Vtth r_es 1)ect to private defe11se? Tliis case is tyJJical of most sys!ems at cit. p. o 1nclud111g the Swiss; �ee Logoz, op. cit. at p. 133 atid Waiblii,ger, e Do 3)? ; e p.7 . Wl1at_ stancla1:d 1� adoJJt :d by tl,e Penal Code of 1930 (Not 4. 7 rt. A in Art.75, be111g sub1ect1vely oriented, imJJly an objective standard

I I l

I 1 I j'' I 1

:1 I

LEGITIMATE DEFENSE

231

�d m t1a istakenly believes t11at lie is i i , dang l in di v an . If 10. er 1 a d f I c e e1 1 h d s 1m � 111g a11otl1 er, 1 kil . sl1oul d by lie self be co 1 1.�t�d 0f 111te11 1011al l101nicide � _ u11der the P.C.E.? May !1e be convicted 0 ; � � I, !ctd_e? W 011ld tl1e R"ajuna decisio11 be correct if it liad bee,, d:ci�eg�i, 111 �T t 11 op 1a ? J-lo\v would Kaj wit una l1 ttnd dea l er tl,e P.C.E.? you 11. Wl1at disti11guisl1es legiti1nate defe11se (f\rt. 74) Jro111 r,ecessity (Art. ?l)? Problems

Numerot1s problems of first i11sta11ce co1,1e befor�,._ tl,e pi·a, ct·1c11· 1g la\vyer or JU · d ge for so Iut·1011. A SSltme tl 1at t 1 �e follo\x,i11g novel J)Oir1ts i i, Etliio1)ia liave rott for resolt1t to ) prese11te d 1011 1111cler tl,e P.C.E.: bee11 Art. 74 \Vl1e11 lie 'Yas Iegitiinately clefer1cti r ,g a. �a11 Alo A rely 11 1011 : _ l111n�elf from a !tacl, by . ttse of a gt111, bLtt 111 sl1oot111g }1 e missed I1 is assa1lar1t a11d k1llecl a11 11111oce11t bysta11der? b. Does Art. 74 provicle a defe11se to ,:t cl1arge t111der Art. 653 \vl1 e11 Ato B sl1ot a dog \Vl1icl1 l1acl attacl{ed l1i1n 011 tl1e pt1blic road? c. Is Ato C protectecl by Art. 7t:1 ,i1l1er1 I1e defer1cfed a11otl1er 1Jerso11's prOJ)erty \vl1icl1 l1e cottld 11ot avoid doi11g a11d did \Yiit11 reaso11able force? d. Can Ato D defend f1 imself u11der /-\rt. 7t1 fro111 a cl1arge of Co111111011 Wilful l11jt1ry (Art. 539) \Vl1e11 I,e l1it a 111ar1 lie l<11e\v to l)e a l)Olice111ai1 who was pt1rsui11g l1im 011 a darlc 11igl1t to q11estior1 l1in1? e. S1 1ot1ld Ato E fall \Vitl1i11 Art. 524 (b) wl1e11 lie l(illecl a JJersor1 'lj/l1 0 l1ad i11sulted l1i1n (see Note 2 a11d Arts. 574 ff.)? Recommended

r I !

Readings

Waibli11ger, Act es Lici tes (II , La Legiti111e Defe11se) F_i�l1es ]11-ridiqt,es S,�isses J\! o. s 11s Sv 111 1se fe1 de e 1at t1n 1 leg of 11t 11e at1 re t e 1205 ( 1958) (a com fJrel1er1siv penal la \V). \v of Ia cl1 en Fr e tl1 ng ni er 11c co 11t ne e1 at st d Bouzat, Droit Peria! 252-255 (g oo legitimate defense). e at tim gi le of n sio tts sc di rt 1o (sl 4 12 112 Freja ville atid Sayer, Droit Criminel defense i11 french pe11al law). . . e defe11se 11. 1 A1ner1-. Perkins, Crzminal Law 883-920 (treatise 1,a11dli11g of Ieg1t11nat can Iaw). 11 o rs , J)e fe li of e 1s e1 ef cl 11 0 ls ia er at Paulsen and Kadisll, Criminal Law 378-418 (m and property i11 th e commo11 law). to se r1 fe e D o N l · lc e H t . ac f f o · e Unzve M l·stak · rsi ty o1 , w ie ev R ,r v arr. L ia n an en lv P e l{ ta sy is (m 3) 6 19 ( 9 0 _ -5 6 50 . ev Third Degree Assa11)t, 11 1 U. Pe11nsylva ni.a L · R fe11se of. a11otl.1er be11. 1g'1 e cl r, e k ta is m to se of fact lleld not to be a deferi ). nan atta ce1 poli cked thes nclo by plai . ta m d 11 a s se a c f 11 a c r1 (A Seidman, II Criminal Law and Procedure 84-119 (1963) erials on legitimate defense). e l, (t ) 4 6 . 9 (1 l8 -l IO l e f'e1db p o r 1, E n r te s a E n z w a · L c- zet .rugge, JOV · zrz,il Law, 9 Crim • · tr· ta l law) righ t to ''necessar}' defc11se'' i11 Soviet crtm

'� .

. '' ·

. Ii .•..' .= . ·• . .. '

I ' •

iI ·.· .. l·, . '·. . ..

·y i> '!·.' . .'; �.. ··

..I'. .';�.. . ·. >" � 1

1::o4C

.·.'

232

S E S N E F E D E IV T A M IR F F THE A

te iva pr of ht rig fen de e (th se ) 63 19 ., ed h (7t 94 1-4 42 .r d 1 . l Gour w la lth ea w on m d om an C l1 lis ng E of ve � Ilt�i;� representati w°hich on the subject). . 5 an di e, f. 1n od C L. l . st na In Pe 11 a d1 l11 e th i11 1se e1 ef D a n as io at , oc ar Prov Kelk 319-357 (1963). nd la sa . ya L f. N " _ 23 nd 5 ia e od 3 Rh , ia es od Rh 11 er tl1 or 1 i N 1 n � Scoble, Provocatio e d th an f e oo op pr pr of r . en rd bu e t ith w �1g ali de l� tic ar rt 26 (1963) (sl1o � . n) io at oc ov pr of s se ca 1n e 11c 1za gn al co sco1Je of judici

G':1

SECTION C. THE DEFENSE OF MISTAKE

a. Mistake of Fact (1) The law

n, .. •

�. I ,

�

'JitJ1' \�,,1 ,..,.

!.-

•

1.-:t ri

PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA13 Art. 76. - Mistake of Fact. (1) Wl,osoever co111mits an offence u11der a11 erro11eous appreciation of tl1e true facts of the sitL1atio11 sl1all be tried according to sucl1 appreciation. Wl1ere there is 110 cri1ninal ir1te11tio11 tl1e doer shall not be punisl1able. Where l1e couid l1a ,;e avoided tl1e n1istal<e by taking st1cl1 precautions as \Xrere commanded by l1is personal position a11d the circ11mstances of tl1e case (Art. 59), he shall be JJt1nisl1able for neglige1 1ce in cases where such negligence is penalized by law. (2) Mistal<e as to a fact wl1ich co11stitutes a specified offence shall not exclude the p11nisl1ment of tl1e doer for a11otl1er offe11ce co 1 1stituted by th� act lie performed. (3) The offence is committed wl1ere tl1ere is a mistal<e as to the ide11tity of tl1e victi1n or the object of tl1e offe11ce. TliOMAS ,,. TliE KING High Cor�rt, 59 C. L. R. 299-300 (1937) Australia

�er Dixon, J . . : . Wl1e11ever a legal standard of liability includes some exercise or ex1Jressio11 of _ tl1e will, some subsidiary rules of law must be adopted with res1Ject �o 1 n1sta_ke. States _of ':'olition are 11 ecessarily dependent upon states of fact, ar,d a mistaken belief 1n the existence of circumsta nces �ts. tl1e fr?m prom separat�d ma_ 1 1ifes_ t ation it be of the whicll 1not will ca 1 Whe�l1e_r. con�e11t, inte11�101:, or mot_1ve, IS the element wl,ich a legal criterio n m t s fac . 1111den1able 1nclt1des, t . i that t ay of a liability misapprehension of m1�d \vl11�h tl1ough apJJarently of the required de.?cription of state a roduce p Is yet really of an e11t1re_Ir dif_ferent quality. Thus, the assent involved in an e t specific thing co sell founded, 3: , iryu_ �.. to as is, the it n upoi a belief in agreeme11t rely enti thing, becomes, when tl1e so of t1 1 e belief proves mistaken, existence 13. Tl1e source of Arc. 76 P.C.E . is Art. 19 C.P.S. (Appendix).

�

.. ' . ..... -' .

.-·

'�

:• . .

•

' '

. -

.. .. .. . i . . .. ,. . . ,l.

•

-�.

� + 1

MIST AJ(E OF Fr\CT

233

not does operate in the formatiot1 ? f a it that nt ere diff c o n tr a c t o f sa le . If a a over n sutn of pay to money 1 tl tion at is 1 tO. 111 � est tlie payee witl1 tl 1·11 ten 1e Jro erty in the money, is fot1nded �pon a ,b e�i ef 111 a state of fa c ts w h ic . h payer liable tl1e to r make re11de tl,e a %Jd m iit, �11 d tt tur11s out tl1at the �o s f the 11ature n, of mistake th e i ,t i e titio� is �s f belie O a e ct ed tl1at tl1e payn1ent volt1 a11d ntar y nay r be recovered long e 1 o n is 11 ese are o r1ly exa 1Jl m es i · l · � 1 ion nit 1 og icl e rec wh J l 1 t era i Q'en tt g f e aw 1 s v o 1 t� · . t it l! tli � t . tl1� nature f vol ma itio y be n of a11 e1, tirely di fere�i t �1�_sci 11:t1011 if of ai1 a�t of It i_ s b as ed Tl1 � fac s t. tat of e of tak e fac ts ass1 ir11ecl 111 on mis o f_� en_ eiiler. 1r1�� tl1e deter1ni11at_ioi1 ?f . tl1e will.. It \VOttlcl be strarige . if .0.:ttr ci imi,,3.l 1a,v- dta not contain tl11s pr111c1ple a11d treat it as ftiiidatnental.

.. •.:,

l· ; " "!'.

II ...::.·... .. .:...: .

. •,.

ESSENTI1\L ERRQRl·i

•

' '' .

Pa,�! Logoz

We ar:e concerned [i11 . S\vitzerlar1d] \\1itl1 ''esser1tial'' error tl,at tJ1 t: jc1 cig::: must take t�to accout1t. \\'i'1tl1 respect to ''11011-esse11i.irti'' �rror, se,ieral c:as1:s may be e11v1saged. . . . a) Error with res[Ject,. to_ tl1e obje.ct_ - E;�ar11ple: beii�·vir;,g \Yflir.i.t ll': too!{ �a be. w1tl�ot1t great val t1_e_, X r t fJS_ rail or1g111al _rr1,�ster1Jiecf� L>elor1giil!!. tc; �i·1otlie::-.. This mistake does not excttse )·... fr orr1 co11 ,,1cttoi1 ror f:{t.rnf1;g·(� to IJrciJ::rt)r. • •

•

b) Error witl1 respec t to perso11 - Exarr1ple: JJ!. �Y1a11.:s r.o l{Ill ti lJtlt ]1 :�: s,1oots C instead mistaking l1im for B. Tl1is error of iclent1t�>1 is itrelev(1.r1£., f.n ce.i·t2.�11 cases, h_?wever, a mistal{e as to per�o!1 is 1·ele·11ant; i.e., \:�1l1en i_.;: ° rel;t�es iO a material elem ent of an offe11se 1vvl1icl1 r18.s bee11 objectiveiy coI·n, A1ittec1. (.for ex_ample: A corrU[Jts B, wl10 is a11 official1 bttt P':. tl1 011gl1t l1im no£ to iJe Oi1e}; mistake of fact is applicable (as 1-\ can11ot be co:n-victed for ;�1tentio11nlly corrupting an official). MINISTERE PUBLIC DU CANTON DE LUCERNE c. :-<: AND V RO 85 JV 76, jT IV 105 (1959) Switzerland

s er h� lig r fo ns io i ov pr es ak m ts ) Summa ry of Reasoning: 1. Art. 191 (3 penalty in th e ca se of one wJ10 lias acted believing by mistake tl1at tl1_e cl11ld e t� g rii tak by �r err t ha _ t 15 at least 16 e d d oi av years old but wl10 could l1ave necessa�y preca utions. The offender tl1erefore re�a1ns P.un1sl1 able wl1 e11 his wrong idea of the ag e of the victim is due to 11egl1gence 111 tlJ e setise of �rt. I�, para. 3 C.P.S. That is, wl1en tl1e possibility of an error did not o�cui to him which he would have realized l1ad l1 e take11 the tiecessary IJrecaut!ons o r When, although the idea did occur to l1i m , lie relied co11trary �o his. duty, Upon his acc uracy at estimati11g age. Conseq11e11tly, tl1e error i_s avotd��le g in r co ac if ), (3 9l l and the offender . rt A to g in rd co ac d he is un p t e b us m 14. Lo � 15 . A

Commtntaire du Code Penal Suisse 75-76.

se in en off e th ed itt m m co r e de th e off n f _ leas� ?1(3): "I b COS6.teen rears of age but if, by due ca�t1on, he _ in the prison.• Trans)ar1on, Friedlander an St'1e •1 Sunppntd . (19.39)•

. ... ·<,.:, .:�<,·,: ,:·..: . . .

at as w d il ch e l tl l at tl f ie el b h crron:��sd de shall he r ro er s i th id o av to I b ]. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. 30 G

cod °klb�fg.

. l .: ' . ,. . I �.·- . ... .

. i

•

I I

• o ::

� ,.

' •

234

"l 'I ,�: ,c;,, I I

l•(:

! )�:, . 1

\ac �,

.. ' { l J''"I It." •• .,. .,., \�

I '

THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

t d 11o ul co be he 11, tio i t1a rta sit ce al on rs pe n that s }1i d an es c aii 1st tin c c ir to tlie y, rar d nt ha e co tl1 _ on to t, b� , d ol_ take into ars ye 16 st lea at s wa tlie cl1itd al leg r de ote un pr be ction. It is 1t igl m ll sti e sl1 at tl1 ' I it) bil . ssi JJo 1e account t �le en ss1 be po ve l1a for him to uld wo t i_ r he 1et l w_ ow l<n to titiiinportant 1�g . rd e c� ag Ac al tu to Art. 191 ac �he y 111t rta ce th wi d a11 e tim . determiiie i,, e u1r o r int 1nq the fur t tl1e no did he age of 1se cat be t no le ab 1 l nis pti is lie (3( cl1 l1e ha d did not prevent him from i wl1 ts t1b do tl1e e aus bec t bti ld, clli the . cy en c de to ry ra nt co is at th t ac a11 1g 1 tti n1i m co 2. Tlie JJ11 ysical a1JIJearan ce, especially tl1e fac i_ a l expression of the young ''Z'', coLild by 110 111ea11s lead to a certain_ con clus1011 tl1at she_ was at le�st 16 years old. 1-Ier beari11g \X10t1ld l1ave at1thor1zed st1ch a deduction only 1f tl1e )'Ot111g girl l1ad ap1Jeared to be, beyond a dot1bt, over 16_ years . of age and tl1e possibility of lier being· )'Ot111ger was ot1t of the qt1estio11. '!'l11s condition 11ot l1avir1a bee11 fLtlfilled, tl1e acct1sed, aged 39, must have realized tl1at "Z"; \'Ql1 0 \xras � stra11aer to tl1en1, coL1ld 110t have reacl1ed tl1e age limit. (RO 84 IV I 04; JT IV 153 (1958). As i11 fact tl1ey l1ad doubts, tl1 1ey tl1ought it necessary to ex1Jlicitl)' asl< tl1e yoL111 g girl lier age. J-lo\x,ever, they sl1ould 11ot have relied 011 l1er sa)1i 11g tl1at sl1 e \xras 17 years old. Tl1ey l1ad e11ough experience of life to 1<110\xr tl1at yoL1r1g girls e11joy bei11g tal<en seriously and courted by c)lder 111e 11 a11d tl1at tl1ey ofte 11 have a te11dency to con ceal their youtl1 b)' claiming to be older tl1an tl1ey really are to l<eep tip tl1e interest wl1ic11 they l1ave aroused. Tl1e otl1er state1nents of ''Z'' \Vere b)r no means of a natLtre calcL1lated to ease the doL1bts they \xrere bot1nd to have as a result of the girl's aclolesce11t featt1res. Tl1e fact tl1at sl1e stated that she was an office \X'Orker was mL1cl1 too vague to draw from her professio11al situation a definite co 1 1clL1sio 1 1 as to her actt1al age. Her statement to tl1e effect t.I1at she had �lready lived witl1 a ma11 and tl1at sl1e l1ad a boy frie11d called for scrutiny; 1t could be \lt1derstood witl1ot1t ulterior motive, but, 011 the other hand, if it was _made w1tl1 tl1e intentio_11 of indicati11g sexual experiencf", it made it seem possible that tl1 e you11g girl \vanted co11sciot1sly to 1nake l1erself out to be older than sl1e really was. U11der tl1ese circt1n1stances the accused could not accept, in good faitl1, tl1e fact tl1at ' Z'' in SfJite of };er youtliful appearance \xras over 16. Cour de Cassatio11-MM. Fasler, Mt1l1ein1, Bacl1tler, Perri11 and Grisel. 1

I ' I

'II ' I I

(2) A Difficult Question: Mistake With Respect to the Existence of Spirits SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. ABDULLAH MUKHTAR NUR Nlajor Court, DC-Maj. Ct.-3-1957 1959 Sudan L. J. J Sudan

e · ftt:dgment: Tl1e accused is a you11g m an of illa g at . tw en t H e lived in Li V old , 1) 1ng 1n the sot 1 tl1ern area of uin I(addada . a11 wa s . ct · · " t 1s d r1c t . Y T ecea I se 1e d . n \voman .who Ii. ve:)d 111 5 · �no ther village in tl1e same dis tio rel a trict, a11d had no or previous 111tr0Jt1ct_io11 witl1 tl1e accu he ! t. de n se d in ci b ef or re e se th nt e c l a t� ��:�r �� Jr�°1 ]�i i5 �ot_7�r an d th_e villagers that ther� was a ghost (AjrJttJ) o g 1 WI a cert.a111 Mol1am ed Rahma (P.W. 2). e 011 the nigl1t o f 26th A p ri l 195 th ·n e 6 t a b S 1 ah oo pr r e tim · 26th tl1e I � ( �k g and 14tl1 nigl1t of the Holy mo11tl1 of Ram adan ) tl1e accused rode hts don Y

MISTAKE OF FACT

235

. in _ s earch of valley a tl1e missi ng . cow. to lie t w as wen 0�1 h is way to the v1l a figure met walkin g he n toward s llini d tn bl;1.ck and carryi11g Ia�e cwheT accused oke to he �p t figure, wliicll r�fi!!� to rep!Y· �e beca a ti k. hetook_ the figure !11 e . for the ghos� a,,d sta ·t d b ating it w1ll1 a. stick frighte11ed, e moti to onle the ss e grou nd. fell The it accu se� l t unti n went to the village . il b k tl1e 11e\vs to t11e villagers . They wen t w·tl1 ?� 11m to t J1e scene to find a d ro e that the ''gl1ost'' was none otl1er tl1an tl1e old w'on 1a,, N ur Z amal. Sl1e was dead. The accus ed \Vas cornmitted f 01· trial t111der sectior, 251 s da pe11al Co de er . He was fot111d not gt1illy of a11y offe11ce a11d dis� l1 a��e J� d ) ur (m 15tl1 Ja11uary 1957. Abd,,l Ral1i,n P.j• (Presideiit of tJ1e M aJo · r C ou rt) 111 . · case we believe tl1e state1ne1it of t]i e ac· 11 t 5 �1·ct · - I 11 t I115 · dgm� course of JU c�sed tl1at_ l1e n11s�ook the deceased for a gl1ost \vl1 icli J1e heard about in tl,e village. 1-11s allegat1011 w_as SlIJJported by P.\V.3 a11ct P.W.6. In tlie meantime it was proved . by t1 1e ev1d e11ce of P_. W.2 il1at ]1e saw a gliost Ji irnself aiid tal ked abot1t. t_t to P.W. l, tl1e Pres1de11t of tl1e Native Court, \Vlio corifirrned tl1e st1perst1tion about the gl1osts a11d tl1at !1e sa \v movi 11g fires i ii tl,e val leys. It was also pr�ved tl1at tl1er� was n_? relat10� wl1atsoever bet\v;eeri tli e parties before tl1e 1n c1de11t. Tl1e ev1de1ice 1s . clear Lliat a great a 111ot11it of crimiiial force was used. Tlie accused \Vas fr1glite11ed a11d i 111agi rt eel tl·1at lie }iad met !he ghost_ . 1!e was 110 dot1bt i11flue11ced by t11e tales l1e '"'i-1ea rel about tlie gliost 111 tl1e d1str1ct.. It was prove_d t}1at tl1e deceased ,:,:,as weari11g a blacl, clott1 a11d was carrying_ a _lo11g stick, a11d tl1at sl1e 'X'�S _w1all<i11g after inidnigl 1t t<J her house. Cons1der1ng tl1ese facts ,ve are sat1sf1ecl tl1at tl1e acct1sec1 liacl ,-, 1 t his grounds for believing he \Vas deali11g ,xrith a g·l1 ost. P�fter tl1 e fi(rf· behaviour was so simple that 11e \ve11t to t11e villa_ge ar1d pro11clly brol<e tlii: news of his victory. Fro n 1 tliis act \(Te i11fer tl1at tl,e accused acted ir1 g()ocl faith and in tl1e l1onest belief tl1at lie lcilled tl1e gliost \vitl1011t any ir1te11lio11 of killing a human bei11g. Tlie accttsed fot111d 11i111self in cia11ger a11d �&'a..s driven by the instinct of self-preservatio11 to act tl-1is \vay. J-Ie \Vas Iabo1-1rir1g d o11e r1ti me 249 p. at t1r Oo . ost gl1 a 11g liti fig s wa l1e at i tl ief bel the er und .l a11r er a tig be to 1 1· l1i1 1g vi1 lie be son l1is led kil a case in \Vl1icl1 a fatl1er the father was acquitted fro m a cl1arge of 1nt1rder (Cl1iranjee v. State). Therei ed 55 19 of tl1e 9 p. 24 at d 11e tio 11 n1e li ng Si is also tl1e case of \Varyam of e av e gr th to t gh ni at fe \vi liis 1 itl u1 nt we tion. In th is case tl1e accused l1 . S11.e was s a \�a ve l1a to 1,_ itl o1 m us io ev J)r her cl1ild, w ho J1 ad died tl1e r lie le hi e. W liv ld ou \v en dr 11l cl re tu fu r he under the belief tl1 at if sl1e did so a r ( fo ol to is 1n lie 1 cl hi w e trr fig a w sa lie husband was pouring water over her n io 11t te i1i d 110 l1a J1e as d te 1it qt ac as w d gl1ost, and beat it to deatli. Tlie husban of killi11g a human being. . At p. 148 of Ratatilal, Law of Crinie (1948 e�itioti), it is s!ated tl1at a !11Istake of fact. is a good defence. He mentioned tl11s ex�111ple: - 1f a man f�r tnst�nce inten ding to kill a tll ief iti his owti house, kills a member of 111s family by mistake, he will be guilty of no offerice. e c n e ff o n a t o n is d se u c c a 1e tl f Accordingly we are satisfied that the act o e. d o C al en P an d u S e 1 tl f o and he sl1ould be set a t liberty under section 44 s a \V ty il u g t o 11 f o g in d n fi 1e tl ) 7 5 9 P C C (A · R eference fior Con,1�,rmatzon confirm ed. . d e fi ti s t1 j is l a t it u q c a . 1e 9th February 1957. R. C. Soni].: - 1n m opinion t1 h in l11dia acqttittals There are cases q11oted by tl1e learned Prestydent 1·n whic

0� ·

•

I' I

' '

I' ·:... I

•7

•

I, .

•

I' .: ;'...

•

. ,..

S E S N E F E D E IV T A M lR f TI-IE Af

236

g n an li il m k a i� _h d an n , so ct fa f o in e k ta �s m a f ? cl r1 ti o r · g were made or1 the ad a h e 1la w m r s1 ea r t as L se ca c. et � , er g ti a g 11 1 et 1e n tl1e mistake11 belief of d. el s 1Jh a _11 w re al l1e 1 tt T u q is a e t� a d. an ) � o� . fr 1e n c it re lle \V � (I now forget al in . aw t 91 m L k ri o C o b s . a l1 1l � W le ; 1l y n la � O 1n l ta it u q , ac . commeiit 011 d by ie te tl to I q� . de si se re ca s . h nt g in ya ar W � 1s 12 17: te 1o 1 ot fo 1 _ i1 Tt1e case quoted . 1g 11 1 tt u q ac 1n t h g ri as \xr rt t1 I an1 of tl1e opi11ior1 that tl1e Co . ed rrn fi 11 co 1g i1 1d i1 f e. re ag I .: ] . C t na an R t bi A tvf. A. (Acquittal confirmed) 16 B E A N O U Q E I( E REGINA v . fv1ACH

) 97 18 ( 9 30 . ep R . 11t 0 28 io, ar nt O r fo ce I-iigl; Court of Justi Canada

of er a tribe n1b a me s wa er son fJri tl1e t tl1a 1ce 1 cle evi tl1e 1n fro It apJ)eared evil spirit clothed in l1un1a11 an of 11ce ste exi tl1e in ed iev bel 0 \X1!1 s ia11 I11d a11 of J)aa 0 1 1 ld eat a l1t 1 man being. wo icl1 \Vl1 igo nd We a led cal n 1 for 1an flesl1, or i11 l1L1n That it \vas reported tl1at a We,1digo l1ad been seen and it \vas supposed \Xtas i1 1 tl1e 1 1eig·l1boL1rl1ood of tl]eir can1fJ desiring to do them l1arrn. Tl1at a1no11g otl1er J)recat1tions to protect tl1e111selves, guards and se11tries, tl1e priso11er being 0 11e, were placed ot1t in pairs arrned with firearrns (t11e [Jri soner having a rifle); that tl1e prisoner saw \Y/l1at appeared to be a tall hu111a11 being rL111ni11g i11 tl1e distance, \xrl1icl1 he SllJJposed was tl1e We11digo; that l1e a11d a11otl1er Indian gave cl1ase, a11d after cl1allena0ina O tl1 ree times and receiving 110 answer firecl a11d s11ot tl1e object, \xrl1e11 it w as discovered to be l1is own foster fatl1er, \vho clied soon after\vard. The jury fou11d affirtnative a11swers to tl1e follo\vi11g questions: Are yoLt satisfied the prisoner did kill the India11? Did tl1e priso11er believe tl1e object l1e sl1ot at to be a We11digo or spirit? a Was it tl1e priso11er's belief tl1 at tl1e Weridiao by killed be cotil d e. bLtllet sl1ot fro111 a rifle? Did l1e believe tl1e SfJirit to be embodied iii huma11 flesl,? Was tlie IJrisoner sa,:e apart fron1 tl1e del t1 sio11 or belief in tl1e exi5f e11ce of a We11d1go? Tl1e Iear11ed trial jt1dge tl1e11 proceeded with hi s cliarge as follows: Assum!ng tl1ese facts to b� fotind by you, 1 think I must direct yo t1 as a mattei 0.f _la \V t�at tl,e�e 1_s no justification here for tl1e killing; an� cul1Jable l101n 1c1de without Justificatio 11 is manslaughter, so that uiiless you I

''6

:�:

. · t!1: , :1 ...'"' �'"' •

r·· I

'•

·o.,..,:;... J

.,1 \,, j ·\'I 'JI,,•• �I .,

] ;�c :i

·. l•rt" \ t ,

16.

•

"'.

. A listing of cases similar to the abov IS · •ven s, WiJt,hes · Spirit as follows in Vasdev, Ghosts, Evil and the I.aw of Homicide in the u de , r961 Suda n_ 1:,,J. 238 (footnote 4): . h South Africa: Redebe (1915) Al) 9:� 0na.be, 1: R._v. D'!lamz. n,. (1955) IS.A. 120; Canada: Mac ek�q t 194 :3) 28 0 11t. 309 {1894) [sic] E · Af·iica � ( · · . E rz.a Gll kowa (1951) EA Kuz da Bo , _1a: . •. d' n 175 I W'litb . . Patna 64; Warya,n Si nglJ, (1952) ; A. IR . n . V ed ·. 1 A•l •R • Nagpur 268; United Kingdom: Hamm Ghost Case, R. v. Sm ith (l 804) 4 Biackstone, Cornmentaries nir · : : ·: .. v . otema 201; United States: H Stales, 186 U.S. 413 (1901). . .-· .... . . • ·. ·� .,,.. .. ...... ·• •...-.. ••

'' ,;,; � "'..; . , '

' ' .

·:

'• ' I

'• ' ': J!"

- -\;, � -. .: . .-·.· J . ._ _ ·, -;,_ : ? f,,· �-, :.c-...;.�.-:- · •.,..� ' ... ; ._,......-....,�c,;,i., ,� . ,.... .,. . ,;, · .,..· .\,·-:� . ' · :.,.. �""

.. �

...

..i

MISTAI(E OF

fACT

237

can st1�g est to yoLtrselves son1et11i 1,g stated 11· 1 llie evide11ce, or dra w . ,, fr o tn \varra11t to ce a ev1de11 clifferei,t coi, tl1e C 1 lls I() I l' I tl1i11 I·� 1. t · \V 11 be your dttty I . d o 1c f t ver a n1a11slattglite ur11 t r y t 1n to re c o ,fer o11g a1n lves rrse yot i _ ��' � · e if tal\ t1 yo a11d , ase JJle )'OU t tl,a if vie ' 1 \XI 1 I ieserve a case for co . i, 5ider at1on by tl1e Cot1rt of .t-\ fJpeal 'as t0 \Vlietl,er l1 e was J)ro1Jer ly co11_ 1 tl1is der 11 evi ce. upo victed . . . . The jt 1ry fou11d tl1e priso11er g11illy rJf 111a,isl, 1 gl . . iie_i � ec?1n1ne11cl111g 1111n to � � mercy a_11d tl1e learr�ed J �1clge reserved a case fo 1 0 1151clerat1011 _,xrl1ell1er tt )o11 J C}tir.·st· 'l(> c v ' e 111 r) 1s\ tl1 ,11 JLi of er gs l1n 1 c f11 tl, · '-� 1011 1le 11ad sitlJ- tn 1tt· ·ed a. 11 d upon the . · ct·1rec t·10 1·1 to ti11.::1 . . ,. , , · 11 a11c I LifJ0 11 1 tt _ c e\'ICl ciice 111s lli.e fJt isoiiei \�·as JJrOj)erly fot111d gttilty of 111a11 slat 1gl1 ter. • •

•

. . Kerr, Q. C.� for tl1 e f)riso11er; Tl1e e\,icle,,ce. sI 10 \vS I(. . . ... . tlie I11cI1a!1 \ribe J paga , a r1(l bel1evecl i11 a 11 e\ril S!)irit clolliecl 1 l1t1111a11 f _1_11 \Y1}11cl1 Ll1ey 11s _ \XJere 1� at c ec �cl \e � 1 i i cl , }1i \,;r 1d cl a1 ta o, at ( l 1g e l 1d e1 l al 1 \V l ar :_. 11t1111� 1:. bci1_1gs. Tl1e 111a11 c ld a t <r , a sp11 it as 0 c 11 \Xr a be ) t<. t 1 l that \'<'as sl1ot ,x,as. tl1ot1g· i o cl1sl111gt1 1sl·1ed. . f··1 o111 a . · 1 l ts t rL1e ll1ere '\vas �l 111 is tal-�e btit tliere \Vas . I1un1a11 be111g. _' .1� . 1. 1�· tei1 � 1 ? 11 evei, li e evicll.., 11 ce s 1 10\VS r 1 , e i111stal,e \·1ilS T l�ill to har111 a l1t 1r11a11 bei11g· rr1 t1cl1 less to . . . · · . . . � . A ,;; , 1 11111 c o o l 11 a I a\,;, tI I e f. J11 o ·':,;; 1 1 1 c,a • O f a� 1--=e-1 r· };;- t· C.) ll s b c 1-I et· \Vo 1 1 1 c.1 1) c not u 11r 1.::.a�o 11 b e. . t .. . · I J liege .1 \vl0l1(r}\! cl1rectc· d 'l·11r� 1·11· f'111 a '1[ 1 e I) r 1 s r,. 11"'- 1·· a,1 excuse. 1' h e t r1a t L }' ·o J gu1· 1 ty. r l1ere shoLtld be a 11e\v trial at least. . . . I (�r\;(:( re� cas,� tlie !JOrl (J rt: c:011 l1e ( of t 11�11 1 t1clg· j tl1e_ v·erecl deli J. C: r, Ar1not1 . . 1f tl1ere was ey1�ence u1)011 \v;l11cl1 tl1e Jttf}' ccJt1ld f!�1d _t!1e !Jrisc.)Jler g-iiilty ()f ma11slaugl1te! it 1s 11ot OJJe11 lo tts lo re-..,trse tl1at t111Ll111(J ' .::. .1-<)i ·, -\,·.-,,.,_ °' a 11 cI tile LJtie,-, . \VI1etI1er t1 1ere ,x,-as st1ci1 e,;ide11ce. have to dec1de 1s . We tl1ink tl1ere \Vas, a11d tl1erefore clo riot see 1 10\v \\JC cai1 sa··,., t l1a t ti l (' prisoner was 11ot pro1Jerly co11victed of 111a11sla.ugl1ter.

' .

I ·.

<.;:

�

l.,

. . '

Questions Wl1y do all pe11 al S)'Ste1ns [Jermit t l1e defe11se of mistal<e of fact? I11 \x,l·1al ways may one defe11cl l1i111self if l1e l1as co1111nitlecl a crime will1ot1t ftill knowledge of fact? WI1at relalio11sl1 iJJ exists bet\vee11 Art. 76 a11d Art. 58? 2. lvlay a man without full k11owleclge of fact still be prosect1ted 11r1cler A rt. I1at does t11e \vord ''object'' 76? Is exceJJtion m ad e to Ar t. 76( I) para. 1? W ' 11011-esse11tial of e pl a1n ex z go Lo tl1 wi e mea11 i11 Art. 76(3)? Do you agre error co11cer11i11g ''object''? 3. How would tl1e case of tl1e Canto,i of L1,cer11e c. X and Y be solved under Art. be ey tl1 ttld co 1 E. C. P. 1) 5( 59 t. Ar r de un ?6? lf X and V had bee11 cI1ar0 aed 1.

co11victed?

•

I•-

i;r '' < '

J·.

r '•

4. �hat argt1m ents car, b e inarslialled fo r a11d agai11st t11e co11viction of n1e11 as w y J1 W e? ab n o t1 q <e el l1 ac M ln the IJositio n of Abdullai, Mukhtar Nur or Abdullah acquitted while Macl1ekeq11011abe was co11victed? f o g n ti o 1o sl te 1a i im cr is 5. Can a cultu lly 1d i1 _ ! e 1 tl it rm e p ty ie c so ic st li ra ra lu p re y 1e tl 1 t tl ef l1 � e � e 11 � k ta 1s ghosts and weridigos trpot, tile l-io11est but m n o 1_ 1t lt so l1 1c 1� W ? 11 1 0 t n e 1t i1 11armful? Y et, c a n it convict m e ,1 witllotit crimi11al l1 1c 1 l· W ? g 1 1r tt e s 1 r1 e st e -w 11 o better adapts western borrowed la w to a n ? e d o C l a n e P 1e tl f o r o m e completely fulfills tl1e p11rposes

II , • ' ·1. ; ' .•.

l' ;.:i. ' '

' .. ' : :..' . ' . ..''

I' . ·,.

. ..:.

I .

(

". '''

j '

',',.. : '

l :,,

I' • .. ,

238 6.

THE AfflRMATIVE DEFENSES

t en of ig gl <:1 h ne te ic omici de nv co be s t an nd fe de · e ov ab C ould e1 ti er of ti 1e s it proper under A rt. 76 a pi I hio ? Et in ed itt mm co · · · '' 1_f sueh ac,ts had been · s st .u !1reaso11a ble ''?. t r1 p s 1 or s o g 1 _ nd _ we in f lie e b t for a cot1 rt to decide tl1a If sue1 1 a c ase were t O take place in Eth1op1 a, w ould a d ec1 s1on? un der tl1e se disposition e an d u s or n ia ad an C e tl, to er os cl Penal C ode be · · ah be ch arged under if ll du Ab uld ho s rt a P a l eci Sp the f o a prov1s1on . t Wh . · uId hts pun1s · hhe were to kill l1i s ''ghost'' i11 Ethiopia? W h a t purpose wo d de fen . r de de be un be na uo Art eq ek cl1 a M or llah du Ab uld Co ve? nt me ser 74, Art. 71 or Art. 48?

b. Ignorance or Mistake of Law PENAL CODE Of ETliIOPIA17 • ,�i ' I ·4 I

� !'

1 1

't•

:�. I"

J ',,'P',',, \,"

lIll..II I

�. I �,I

I r." . . ,, 11I� i- • ...

c I ro )ii h .•

r.vi... l '

'r.I I,.• �P

' ·I· 1·· • i,; , .I

'I,, J •• � I

, . I1,,,,. ' ' .•

Art. 78. - Mistake of Law and Ignorance of Law. ( l) Ig11ora11ce of tl1e law is no defence. Tl1e Court sr1all \vitl1 o ut re striction, reduce the pu11ishment (A rt. 185) a[Jplicable to a person \vl10 in good faith believed _ h e h a� a rig11t to act a11d had defi11ite a11d adequate re asons for holding this erroneous belief. Tl1e Court sh all determine the penalty t aking into accou11t the circurn sta11ces of the case and, in p a rtict1l ar, tl1e circumstances that led to tl1e error. (2) In exceptional c ases of absolute a nd justifiable ignorance and good faith a11d wl, ere crin1in al i11te11t is not apparent, tl1e Cou rt m ay impose no pu11isl1me nt. (3) Tl1e person wl10 com1nitted tl1e bre acl1 of the law shall rem ai11 civilly liable for tl1e i11jt1ry c a11sed. ( 1) ''Fact'' Distinguisl1ed From ''La.w''

TliE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND LAW18 Glanville Williams

'I '

' ',I' I ''

The effect of igno�ance (i11cluding mist ake) of law is n ot necessarily the same as the effect of 1g11or ance of fact; an d at tl1e outset it is necess ary to distir1guisl1 . tl1em. qeneral�y sp�aki11g a fact is something perceptible by th e . , w hi l s a le w es t an idea 1_11 tl1e minds of men. The distinction may e sens b ref e t:a ren by ted ce to marriage and ownersl,ip. A mi st ake as to whetl1er a illus . ee h<;t b n s ge c e a rr l ebrated m ay be either a ma i f e m m ist ist ak a e of a fa or ct k o . m a is� s a ke i It of fa l aw . ct if no ceremony h as been performed· a ceremony is a f act, of wl�tch a c1nematograph picture could be t aken. But the mista� e is one of law 1f, thougl1 the ceremony has been performed there is m 4 , a 1s 17. The sourc e of Art. 78 P.C.E. is basically Art. 20 es lish est ab Cp s 78 (A pp end"ix) at Art a general principe l that ''ignorance of a l w is n o defen·s·e·� wh'1ch is _ ab I h �ug h . 2·0 C · p· sent 1n An S. 18. Wiliiarns Criminal Law 287. I l

' '

. i•

,..

I..,

IGNORANCE OF

LAW

239

rt t� 1le e of s of l a w gove!ning the va di ng st an de r un m lid it of tl,e eremony m is ta a as k y e , to a w o 11 . the sa e of co11veya11ce l1a w ersh1 p may be eitl1 er y a k� m is ta · I� as to w l1 e . s de be ed e 11 ex a · ec 11t ed · r · ' wl11· cl1 15 a q uestion o f f act or the · a mistake as t o th e Iaw o f pro1)erty 111 its tmp act o11 a particula r deed of � n� o 11ce. , . ·

ve)'a

Tlie . defi_nition o f a fact a s s0 1netl1i 11 g _perceiJtible by tl,e s ei,ses needs e 011 r s1 e e ct. 111 _ A 1 1 sta t10 te. of mi11ct 1s alsO a f·act' ti1 011 g qtlalifica_ : l 1 11 ot directly e ils 1 e I s b es _ f y t . _ bl · e 1-\ beli eves tl,at B l1as a certain 111te1 . JJercept1 1 1 t1011 wl1en in tl1ere is 1 1ot, a 1 nistal(e of fact. trutl1 lie l1as

'.l '

., .. ·

. .. . ' ..

FACT AND LAW DISTINOUISI-IED19 Jerome H.ill

II :

' ..

I • _. .

111 .cu�r e_nt dis �11ssio11s of �rimi11al la\v_ tl1eory, it is sometimes argtied th at ignorant1a 11,rls rzetn1,1e1r1 e.-:ccrts�tt 1s a1 1 arcl1a1sm tl1at sl1ot1ld be discarded. Tl,is doc_tri11e _seems to l1old n101:ally i1111�ce11t fJerso11s cri 111i11al1y liable, and to clo _ so 111 reliance u1Jo11 a11 obv1ot1s f1ct1on - tl1at everyo11e is presumed to !{tlO\V th e )a\v. Bttl if tl1e mea11i11g of ig11ora11tia j,,ris differs greatly fro111 tl1 at of i•Inora11tia facti, tl1ei r resJJecti ve ft111ctio11s sl1011ld also be very differe11t. Tl1e first step to\vard tl1e solutio11 of tl1is fJroblen1 is to elttcida.te tl1e ter111s tl1at distingt1isl1 tl1e t\vo doctri11es.

Certain differe11 ces be t,x ee 11 fact a11d la'>, are easiiy recog·nized. La,v is ex pressed in di s ti11cti ve propositio11s, \v]1 ereas facts are qt1alities or Eve11ts occL1rri11g at defi11ite IJlaces a11d times. Facts are JJartict1lars cli!-ectly sei1sed ir� JJerceJJtior1 and introspectio n . Legal rt1les are ge11eralizatic11s; tl1e)' are 11c)t se11secl, bltt are u nderstood i11 tl1e process of cog11 itio11. La°\:<' arid f,1ct are, of Cl)LI rse, closely interrelated - Ia,v is ''abot1t'' facts, it gives disti11r.:ti,,e 111ea11i11g to facts. f?r example, tl1at A kills B is a fact; tl1at tl1is is 111ttrder is signifiecl by certa111 legal pr opositio11s.

(2) The Policy Alternatives

THE CRO\v'N v. fAID iv\AliMOUD ABDEL KADER Federal High Coz1r t of Eritrea, Crimi11al Case No. 110/53 (1961 G.C. ) Etl1iopia

9·

o Al , as � b De . r . M : es dg 1 Jt ); C. O rlam le 15, 1953 E.C. (JL1ly 22, 1961 Teferra Wolde semait Cav Id ris Bey Ligiam: - Tl1e accused 1s �onv1cted of t 1 1 co ss d 11 co VO O\ ail s }1i of f10 ure to pay tl,e federal Salt T ax 011 tl1e basis 46/47 atid O f ��,e re era; �:ft Article 4 of tl1e f ederal Salt T a x Pr oc. No. I Tax Ame11d1nent Decree No. 38/52 . . s a11 i lie t 1a tl ct fa e i tl d se cc . C onsidering tl1e extreme jJove rty of �)l e a u 1 e was l at th lt sa f o 1 ·t t qt ��na oran t _shepherd, and particularly, the . mi�erab l e }��t fi, at tl,e co11fiscatio11 nsport111g, i e 16 sacks 011ly; co11sidering tl1e ' f is h g n ri e d si n o c d , e o the saIt shall s u e · c a 1e tl o t y lt a e11 p · I 1t1ona dd · mean a · a n ·, • . n t0 th e Cotirt a,,d tl1e six days fa ity responsibil ity, his immediate confesst? rn f o g in n e p o e th g in it a he use el ssly spent w a . ,omt, his from away 1 in Asmara 1

19 • Hall, Gtneral Principles of Crimi11al Law 37 6•

r '..

.... .

..·'.1 . t :· :

·-1

.'•••. '

II.,:-,:... II -�,•;,,;' '. •< •

... :�.;

THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

240

I I

d� to ci ly op �e t1s ad 1o 1in a1 t un a e w ni ; le es iti or tl, t en au nt te pe tli co e tll by e fil s lii m ne l11 fi . y tl1 1tl E e1 t1 eq ns 5. co $1 e w or 1d a1 in d; se cu ac e , rti ds ar w to de tu ti at y. � _ e da W rth to fu tn r ? rder the fro as nt 1e 11i:1 iso r p im ys da 7 t, en ym default of pa l r1a e pe Im 1 tl1 op of h1 Et r t1 an vo fa 111 lt sa Govt. of s ck sa 16 e tl, of n o i at confisc . 47 6/ 14 . o N c. ro P ax T t al S al under Article 4 of tl1e feder •

•

Jv\IST AKE Of LAW 20

I' '

OLZ:ver Wendell Hol1nes

,, I

�.-...

•p·\

I II

"1 I

... Igriorance of tl1e }av,:, is 110 excuse for breakiJ1:g it. Tl1is substant ive 1)ri 11cii)le is s0111etirnes jJUt i11 tl1e fortn of � rule of evidence, tl1at eve�y one is JJresu111ed to k11ow tl1e la\xr. It l1as accord1r1gl.)1_ be�n defen_ded by Aust111 and otl,ers 011 the grou11d of diffict1lty of proof. If 1ust1ce requires the fact to be ascert; i ned, tl1eiC> difficulty of doir1g so is 110 ground for reft1sing to try. But every 011e 11111st -feel tl1at ignorar1ce of the law .could never �e a�mitted as an excL1se, eve11 i f tl1e fact coL1ld be fJroved by stgl1t a11d l1ear111g 111 e\rer)' case. furtherrnore, 110\v tl1at jJarties ca11 test i fy, it n1ay be doubted wl1etl1er a man's l(nowledge of tl1e law is a11y l1arder to i11vestigate t11an man)' questior1s which are go11e into. Tl1e diffict.1It�>', SL1cl1 as it is, would be met by throwi11g tl1e bLI rden of !) rovi11g ig no rar1ce o r1 ti, e la \Xl-breake r. Tl1e princi r)le ca1111ot be ex1Jlai11ed by saying tl1at we are 11ot 011ly co1n ma11ded to abstai11 fro111 cerlai11 acts, but als-o to fi11d out tl,at we are commar1ded. for if there \k'/ere SLtcl, a second comma11d, it is very clear tl1at tl1e gu i lt of fail i ng to obey it would bear 110 jJroportion to tl1at of disobe)ri11g tl1e prir1cipal cornrna11d if kr1o'X111, yet t11e failure to l<now would receive tl1e same fJUnish rnent as the failure to obey the J)rir1cipal law. 1

The true expla11ation of t�1e rule is the sarne as tl1at wl1icl1 accounts for tl1e l�w's i �differe1!�e to a 11:ar1'_s _JJart i cL1lar temperame11t, fact1lties, a11d so forth. Public pol1c>' sacr1f1ces tl1e 111d1v1dt1al to tl1e ge11eral good.It is desirable that tl1e burde11 of all sl1ould be �qual, but it is still 1nore desirable to J)t1t a11 e� d to _ robbery �n� rnL1rder. It 1s 110 doubt trt1e tl1at tl1ere are n1ar1y cases 111 wh1cl1 t_l1e cr1m111al could not l1ave k110\'v tl tl1 at 1,e was breaki11g tl1e law, but to ad� 1t tl1e exct1_se at all \X!OL1ld be to e11cottrage ignorai,ce wl1ere tl1e _ la� �ake1 �as _dete, _ m111ed �o mal<c. n1en l<tiow and obey, and justice to tl1e 111d 1vidttal 15 rightly ot1twe1gl1ed by tl,e larger interests 01 1 tl1e otl1er side of the scales.

X c.MINISTERE PUBLIC DU CANTON D'AROOVIE RO 86 IV 212,. JT JV 82 (1961) Switzerland · Summ.ary if Rea,o_nu,g : _Correctty, tbe appefiant does not dispute tha� Jliora stranger (ltaliin) I offenses commitle�e i� ;u b-iect to th e provisions of the Swiss Penal Co ;ain· w1 zerland, ac�ording to Art. 3 (1) �- P.S.He a tains on tl1 e other h 11d that tl1 was l 1 1,. yea s f age, with_ wl1o m 1ebe y ou rtg gi , 15 rl r o s s having exual relation�' was af a i re d Y capable of col1tracting marriage as 5 2C. Holmes, The Common Li w 47-48.

IGNORANCE

OF LAW

241

n o ti ic sd ri ; that she was no longer ju n ia al It r unde a c h il d u n d e r 21 1 9 1 . (1 l ) that _ t �eref ore, of a�d l1 e l1 . a d . n o t le d a child astray according the C P S. to the meanii1g of tl11s prov1s1on. It is true t�at th e capacity o f a )'ou 11g girl to enter up . on a ma rri ag e to the acco rdin g Con ver1t io ract, n of cont 111e 1_1ag 1e of u1 e 1 , 902, is � 2_ ! governed by (l1er) 11ationa] law and tl1 at Art· 84 0ft tl1 e IJta l 1a n C 1v 1l Code · 4 a 8n4 '"; a �1 I 1 a a t er s h er ct la on st s1_ birtl1day as capable of co11tracting c ¥ 1 4?-4. ( 19 49) ). 1-lo\vever, it . ' J marrta� e ( R O is tl1e Swiss Pe11al Code which exclusively determ111es wl1at 1s to be t111derstood t1y (llie te r ) c 1 'Id · t 11 re_s ec t A 1 C. P. t}1 e S. of cc o 19 rd i11 A g rt. to L> tl1 e text a11d tl1e p11r p1�se oi; tl111:<1• t � s prov1s1o n, a11 of gi y rl an d le ss t l 1a1 1 16 )'e.ar; is j)rotected. T l1e.. aw does no any boy · t pr 1e s� tl �s xu er a ve 1 · t 111 eg r1 ty of sucl1 [)erso115 in seek to erely i i, cases where tl1 ey _are �t1 1 1 11�t pl1)'S1caII): ?:att1re, l�ttt also. \vliere tliey 1,ave already reaclied phys10 1 og1ca 1 sextta 1 ma t1r1t), a11d tl11s �1y v1rlt1e of experiei,ce \vliicl, sl,o\xrS tl1at adolesce,1 ts yot111ger 1 tl1a11 16 are. st1ll 11ot adeqt1 ately developed tnentally an� moral)), so as to �e eqt1a l to fac111g tl·1e boclily a11d fJsycliological attacl,s wh1cl1 tl1reaten_ th em 111 tl1e c_ase of prematttre sex11al i11terco 11rse. 1-\rt. 191 is thus _based, 11e1tl1er on t l 1e. arrival of sext1al r11at11rity, tl1e carJacity to co11tract marriage, 11or on t l1e fJh}'S1cal a11d n1oral clevelop1ne11t or tl1e cl1 aracler of tl1e victim (citations omitted]. 011 1)' tl1e li111iti11g· age of 16 is decisive for tl1e applicability of penal protection.

.. ,.,.. ·.

�: · � ,· , . ""

{

Iii

...

:��'

. ..

';· ;

... .<•

.;•.

' .·.:· I ':. ' '

Tl1e fact that, accordi11g to l1is natio11al la\'.;r, tl1e apj)ell,111t coLt!c.l l1ave married t l 1e young girl is co11seque11tly of 110 l1el JJ tc, l1iin. 1'-Ieitl1er t!1(� cajJaciiy of the young girl to co11tract marriag·c 1101· tl1e inte11t:io11 of tl1e. ,1r11JeltrJ.i:ll to marry lier ca11 alte r tl1e fact tl 1at t l 1e )'Ot111g girl, age cl 15 1 /2 , \'Yas stiiI � cl1ilcl according to Art. I 91 of tl1e C.P.S. arid t11at lhe apr)ella11t l11s co11-in1itiecl a11 indecent assault according to s-ub-sect. 1, JJara. I of tl1is prc1,1isio11 lJy l1avir1g se:zltal relations with her. Art. 191 of tl1e C.P.S. \\i'Oulcl 110 lo11ger a11ply <)ill;' if tl1e perpetrator l1ad married tl1e }'Ot111g girl before l1aving se1cual relations -:vith l1er, since in this c:ase the characteristic of i11decent assattlt, \xrl1icl] does n<)i exist between husband a11d \vife, \VOLtld be abse11t.

Wl1en t 1 1e ap1Jella11 t begar1 to l 1ave sext1al re l _atio11s \Vi tl1 tl1e yoL�ng girl, he knew that sl1e was 11nder 16 a11d tl1at i11 S\v1tzerla11d, st1cl1 relat1011s are forbidden and pttriishabl e . If, i11 SfJite of' all, he started . witl1 tl1e idea tl1at h,�. had tl1e right to act in tl1is way, sufficie11t reaso11s accord1�g to . f\rt. 20 C P.S.- �ere lackin g. His belief was base cl sol ely 11po11 the co11_s1derat1011 that .sexual intercourse with an Italian capable of contracting a marriage wa� 11ot P�111sl1able Under Itafian law. He his never claimed, Jio\veve1·, t l 1at he believed h11nself_ to be subject, as far as his behavior in Switzerla11d was concer11ed, _to th e Ital_ 1an Penal Code and not to th e Swiss Penal Code, arid 11otl1ir1g gave l 1_1m to believe that he could mai:itain that th e Swiss Penal Code would exceptionally leave unpunished sexual· intercourse with an Italian girl of_ 15 years 0� ag e ever, when ed the posr de 51 n the Partners tende co ly us rio se ve l1a in d to marry. He should e for ag of s ar ye en tC " . si} r de un . ild ch . 19_1. Im,,.or_aJi_ty with Children - ''. I . �hoevcr a b�cs pil, conpulation or similar act, shall btt co nf1ned 1n the penl [ enciaa r y · 1 f the child is cl1c student, pu · Mc l11·td, th e ward or th e foster cp st app" cntict, r o d cc ld, gran d �h1"I d 3 dop . domesti c v chi or che ant ser . d not less than three years. l

21. A .• � . '. '' ,-'.

•I

ch for r1 i e cn 11 0f the _offender, he shall be ned onf i ... !" p ;:r Supp. (1939). T�nslataon, c nd Friedlander aad Goldberg, 30 ]. crzm . L. a · . ' he a t believing he has legal 22. Ar 20 m1�s r com ·1 � . .. ETTOMOIIS Conctpt of tht law - If the offender c( A rt . 66) o r may refra in h f nt ' l pun1s inc · . . Ust1 1cat1 1e t e c · u d re f ay frarn .impon or it, t he court 1n its d1scret1on m osing sentence. Translation, Friedlander and Gold berg, l·atm.

I' ;

I . ;. I

I. '

!.'

I .- :

. . i ' : . . '.. ' ...' . ' ' I

I•

THE A.ffl-RMATLVE DEFENSES

242 '

I I

e so dd al bi or as f _ t ,� r1; ac e tl1 as , es 1c a 1 a st um rc ci matter . se ie tl r de un , at tli sibility n 1o nt te s to 1n 111 of ry _ ar w 1e 1 ct 1,a l10 k w r l1 ot m spe � 's rl i g. g un yo e til � of fact, er ct !a of l1a e c _ s bl hi 1a sl 1 li 11 be pu e tl1 io av 1 01 1 r as nt te at is 1 1 to it gl ou cifically br t ual firs 111s sex had e atio l rel 1 e oi: bef ns with 1 i1 aga n tlie and 7 195 far back as l 1e had the conscientious d ha ? an ing rn wa al oc uiv eq un the cl,ild. After tliis ld ou he sl1 !1s ve l1a ha Ita r11 at he t1t So s least las e-c dl id m f o s ct pe ex e : on ness er to 1d or m he w 111 w r l1e ed JJt om pr he ve l1a ld ou was w � at tl, ts ub do ed in rta eiite l 1 av e pr eve11ted him from be ld ou w 1d a1 _ 11s io lat re te 11a ti1 in jtistified i ii ·11aving As he s )). 1:a 59 (19 105 u IV b�o _ JT ; 7o ght IV 85 RO e (Se . did lie as having 1 1 law , l1e ca nn ot base his claim on 1 or err e th lt, fau 11 ow liis gl, ou thr about, Art. 20 of tl1e C.P.S. Cour de Cassation - MN\. Fassler, Bachtler, Perrin, Grisel and Reichlin. •

•

OEl{M.Ai\f FEDERAL SUPREME COURT 23

_[Jlen1.tm of the Seriate for Criminal Matters of 3-18-52 2 B.G.1Lf. St. 194, 5 N.j. if/. 593, 7 J.Z. 335 (1952)

(a) Tl1e 1Jositio11 of tl1e J{eichsgericht, accorcling to wl1ich a perpetrator need 11ot l1ave been a,v;are of tl1e 1111la\x,ft1 l11ess of l1is act, is l1ereby overruled.

(b) Ti1e exc11sable error abo11t tl1e penal law exclt1des tl1e gt1ilt of tl1e perpe trator; tl1e ct1lr)able error abo11t tl1e pe11al law may in all cases lead to mitigatior1 a11d l)Ltnisl1 1 nent for the attempted of1e11ce (Section 44, Penal Code).

(c) In tr1e case of sectio 1 1 240 of tl·1e Pe11al Code tl1e perpetrator must not 011ly l1ave l<11own the fact11al circ11msta11ces of tl1e definitio11 of section 240.1 of tl1e Pe11al Code - of \x,hicl1 the u11lawf11l1 1ess itself is 110 J)art - but he 1n�1st also l1ave l1ad the awareness, or by a 1Jro1Jer searcl1ing of his c?n· sc1e11ce sl1ould l1ave l1ad tl1 e aware11ess tl1at witl1 tl1e duress l1e was doing wro11g. [On pp. 194, 195 tl1e co11rt stated tl1e facts of tl1e case: A11 attor11ey had c?ntracted_ to co11dt1ct. tl1e defe11se of a clie11t a11d l1ad beg·un his work. I1nme d1ately prior to the trial ll1e attor11ey reft1sed to prese 1 1t tl1e client ttnless . she would 111ake a11 adva11ce 1)aJr111e11t of l1is fees. Wl1e11 tl1e clie1 1t af)peared W1th a small dow111Ja),111e11t, tl1e_ a_ttor11ey derna11ded tl1at sl1e sigr1 a 11ote to the am ount ?f DM 400.00, for re1 11a1n1 1 1g fees, tl1reate11i11g agai 1 1 to witl1draw from �l1 e ca�� if she wotilcl riot co 1n1Jly. 0 1 1 IJfJ. 195 to 199 tl1e cot1rt discttssed tl1e legi slator� use o_f tl,e. te 1:1n 1 �L1nlawft1lly'' in tl1e definitio11 of tl1e crime of duress ao<l coe_ rc,oii, ftiidi�,g it to _be 1 nerel)' descriptive of tl1e u1 1lawft1l 1 1ess whicl� _ ev ery cr,nle necessaril)' co11st1tt1tes, wl1etl1er tl1e tertn is contai1 1ed i1 1 tl1e defi111tio n not. 011 l)f). 199, 200 tl1e cot1rt revie\ved the l1istor of the maxim ''error 0 IJenal _law. does 110t exct!se,'' stati 11g that �l1e scie11cey crimi 1 1al law ha d a a of Jw Y! t be:. 11 111 dt�agr�eineiit w1tl1 tl1e cot1rts of tl1 \ve d �5 is JJO i 1 1t. Tl1e cot1rt revie ��1 us egiSla!Iv exceptions . se c 7, 1 19 to th e o f m ax im. The Error Decree dev t et, tie_ aw, sec. 71.2 of tl1e foreign Clt rre11c Excl1a 1 1ge Law, sec. �6a v of t�� Ecoi,omic p ei,al Law, an d sec. 12 of tl1 e Law of Violations.] e th Perlalty prest1Pl)Oses guilt. Guilt is bl 1 or an ew tl1i1 1ess. W ith tl1e blame

°�

23. Translation, Mueller, Co1npar ative Crin . iin . al Law l 66· 168a.

243

IGNORANCE OF LAW

perrJetrator is accused of not l1aving acted lawft1ll}', tl1at he chose unlawfulness altl1ougl1 l1e could I1ave acted lawfull}' J cottld l1ave chosen lawful11ess. Tl1e in ner i:e�s0?1 for tl1e attachmei1.t of blame lies i11 tl1is: that the l1t1man being is cond1t1oned for free, responsible and 1noral self-determi11at ioi, a11d tl,at1 tl1ere fore, he is ab!e to decide for rigl1t and agaii,st wrong, i.e., to adjt1st his be l1avior accor �1ng to tl1e 11orn1s of_ lawft1l ''ot1gl1t'', as soo11 as lie has reacl1ed m ?ral. matur1_ty, a11d as lor,g a� his predispositio11 for free moral self-deter1ni11at1011 is not im(Jeded temporarily or destroyed J)erpetually by one or tl1e mor bid disturba11ces recog11ized by seclio11 51 of tl1e Penal Code.... Bt 1t, tl1e awareness to do wro 11g can also be abse11t i11 a l1ealtl1y perso11, 11amely \vl1ere 1,e does 11ot know of the legal prol1ibitio11 or wl1ere he cloes 11ot k11ow it properly. I11 st1ch cases ... as \'(Tell, ll1e per1Jetrator is u11able to mal<e a deci sion ag,1i11s� ll1e wro11g. Bt1t r10L_ every error about a prol1ibitio11 exclt1des bla1newortl1111ess.... for ever)rtl1111g 11e is about to t111dertal<e, l1e l1as to 1nake an evaluation as to \Vl1et!1er_ or 11ot it is reco11cilable \X,itl1 legal ''ot1gl1 t' Doubts must be resolved by tl1111l,111g a11d by i11vestigatio11.for tl1is lie 1nt1st search l1is co11science, a11d tl1e n,easure of searcl1i11g is clepende11t on tl1e circt1msta11ces of eacl1 case, as \veil as 011 tl1e exrJerie11ce of life and tl1e professio11al statio11 of eacl1 i 11div·idt 1al.If desrJite st1cl1 a11 exJJected searcl1i11g of tl1e conscience lie is t111able to come to ll1e realizatio11 of tl1e t111 law ful11ess of l1is act, lhe11 tl,e error w·as i 11vincible, tl1e act t111avoidable. l11 st1cl1 a case 110 blame ca11 attacl1. If, }10\trever, \Viti, tl1e req LI ired an1ot111t of searcl1i11g tl1e co11scie11ce tl1e [)crr)e trator sl1ould l,ave realized tl1e ur1la·.x1fttl11ess of l1is act, tl1 e11 tl1e error as to tl1e prol1ibitio11 \vill 11ot exclttde gt1ilt.B11t tl1e 111easttre of l1laI11e \,;ill be !o\v1ered accordi11g to tl1e amot111t \Vl1icl1 tl1e fJerpelr,ttor f�ll s!1ort of sear ::1irig !1is consc1e11ce. Awa re,, ess of tinla \Vful11ess does 11ot 111 ea 11 l,11O\:(! ledge of IJer1a l'-:('0 ri.l1i rtess, i1or does it mean tl1e l{11owledge of tl1e rttle of la·,x, \\'1l1icl1 cor1tair1s ti"!{:: i Jf(J hibir.ion. On tl,e otl1er l1a11d, it does 11ot suffice tl1at tl1e fJerpetrator r11t'�tel_y is aw·are that his act is morally reprel1e11sible. Bt1i tl1e IJerpetro.tor 1n11st k110\,q1 or \Vith a requisite searcl1ing of l1is co11scie11ce ougl1t to 1<110\V; tl1at l1is act is t111lawful - 11ot by iegal-technical sta11dards, but at least b}' lay· sta11dards 011 tl1e level of l1is own tl1i11ki11g (p(J. 200-202). [On pp.202-204 ti1e cour! discussed_ tl�e rul� o! _tl1e old Reicl1esg�richt t111�er whicli it was possible to subject to cr1111111al liab1l1ty tl1ose wl10 violated Llle re11ess of the rules.l11 tl1e I?LJ-1 century the law througl1 an innoce11t u11a�a. 1) W!tl1 tl1e advance 1er) (Qt . ote re1n \xras s t1on v1c con 11t oce danger of such i1111 of economic regtilation by la \V the rt1le tl1,at �very body rs presumed . to know the law has become absurd. Tl1e co11fus1011 111 tl1e legal order was in 11al law and error pe of r rro een tw be on cti tin dis d t's ase cre � by tlie Reichsgerich of non-penal law. It is amazing that not more l1a1 m_ l1as resulted tl1rougl1 sttch an illogical distiiiction. Tl,e court f�u11d next tl�at tt l1as tl1e power to mod ify or abolish th e existi 11 g rule, since the l�g1slator l1ad purposely left sec tio11 59 of th e Penal Code vague for possible future development by the courts... •] 1

•

• •

•

l na ts io 1it en e_ . fii m tl1 de ele s ct fe ef ly ng lli wi d an ly The actor w ho kiiowing of the crime is gttilty if he knew the t1nlawful11es� of �ts act, _or, with a req uisite searching of his conscience, could l1aye _re�l1�ed it, and 1f, i,�v�i:theless, he freely decided to comm it tlie act. Tl1e 1nv1nc1�1e error of prol11b1t1on ex �ludes the guilt, the vincible error lowers the guilt but does not exclude the 1ntenti-0n. (p. 209) •

i _,.· � I

: ..

.. '... ''..'

',.' .;

·:;.. .

.r". . ,·,.;

. '· ·,. .

---------�� -- ----NSES E F E D E IV T A M IR F F A THE

244

NOT ES Note 1:

ry to is H n ia p io th E in w a Ignorance of L

e la'-': �as careft1lly set out tl1 of e nc ra 11o _ig , 30 19 Under the Penal everity. f s o es re eg d g in y ar v 1 as a mitigati11g circu1nstance 11 Code 0�

Art. 12. e la th g of in ow e t� kn � an r ng ve ni Go ar le r e n t af � s 11d fe of 1o wl an The m e pro_clamat1on with l1is own tl1 g in a: e l1 or V la\ e th g i11 ad re ment, and after t. en m sh ll 111 fu e pu iv ce re l al sh d an er nd e f earsI is a wilful of •

Art. 13. le to ep ab ke un on is e 10 \vl rem , til etf rg m fo d a11 al( we is 10 \vl n ma a r fo es witl1 l1is e),eS tl1e law of se l1e l1 .ug tl10 , law tl1e 1g vi1 ser ob and 1 1g i ber t l to es no fai do d be present a11 s ear l1is l1 wit it rs hea a11d e11t nm ver Oo tl1e 1 at the co11ris, one tenth of l1is punish1ne11t sl1all b e remitted. Art. 14. Tl1e country1no.11 \Vho does not live i11 to\vn, wl10 l1as 11ot seen \vitl1 his o\vn eyes ho\Y1 tl1e worl< is done a11d completed but only hears by report tl1e law a11d ordi11ance of the Oover11ment, shall have two te11ths remitted •

l':1

I ,' I ' '_,, •'LlI '

,,,' .

I I

I.,) ,I,

1-._, II

r·.

Art. 15. The rnonl{ \Y1l10 lives in a sanctt1arJ', and tl1e l1ermit, \xrl10 is far fro1n the la\v and ne\vs of the \YIO rld, sl1all 11ave tl1 ree te11tl1s ren1·itted. Art. 16. 1·11e poor ma� wl10 is ttnab]e to atte nd and hear wl1at goes on in any kind of court and 1s ur1able to l<11ow tl1e la\xr and ordinance of the Government by reason of his poverty a11d diff ere11t mode of living sl1all l1ave four te11ths reini tted. Art. 17. The stra11ger wl19 l1as con1e from a foreign cotintry, \Vllo 1,as 11ot l1eard tl1e law a11� ord1na11ce of tl1e Ooverri m e nt (for a fJeriod of six mo11ths), sl1all l1ave five te11lhs remitted. Art. 18. Tlie woman wlio li as not lear11ed tl1e law an d ordi11ances and does not go out to tl1e courts shall l1ave six te11tl1s remitte d. Art. 19. The man wl10 is unable to know proper the f o law ly th e edicts and r Government by reason of liis bei·ng . . o ss m entally def1c1ent through illne any otl1er cause shall 1,ave seven te nth s remitted. Art. 20. n�erses in t e language of his own country �� h . J::s c;itt�C: t� l�f c h O1 law lan gua I �e in and which the edicts aW Oovernme11t are made s�� 1 ha� l e eigh t t enth s remitted; this prese t ;e date however is only valid for a pe of its enactment; after three riod of three ):'ears beginning from -� e d �c· dect year s tl1 be e pun shal ishm l ent cording to law. n

,. ,

IGNORANCE OF

LAW

245

Art. 21. He w}1ose ag e is from 9 to 12 years shall l1ave 11ine tent l1s remitted.

?uc�

p�ovisi'?ns �ss_ume c onsiderable importance in the admin istration of penal

. 1n a !•n�titsticall y and �ult11rally (Jl ttralistic natio11 witl1 li1nited facilities s 1 ce u t 1 for commun1cat1o11 ar1d edt icat1on. Is Art. 78 P.C.E. ( I 957) better suited to meet i,1g sucl1 problems tl1a11 were Arts. 12-2 I P.C.E. ( 1930)? Note 2:

Legislative Diversity in the Treatment of the Defense of Ignorance of Law

Tl1e Pe11al Code of Ytigoslavia (1951 ) 2" Art. l 0. - Error i,1 Law.

Tl1e Cot1rt n1ay imJ)ose a redttcecl IJt111isl1n1e11t 011 tl1e fJerpetrator of a crimi11al offe11ce wlio for jt1stified reaso11s did 11ot k11 ow tl1at sttch a11 act was prol1ibited, arid it 111a) also re111 it tl1e punish1ne11 t.

Tl1e Pe11al Code of I<orea ( 1953)25 Art. 16. - A,Jistake of Law. \Vl1ere a fJerson cor11mits a crirne i11 tl1e belief t11at } 1 is co11ci 11 cl does r1oi co11stitute a crime t1r1der existing la\v, l1e sliall i1or. be JJl111isl1al) le Oi1ly wl1e11 11 is mistake is based 011 reaso11able grot111ds.

Tl1e Pe11al Code cf Ke11ya (1930) 26 Art, 7. - Ignorance of Law. Jgnora11ce of tl1e law does 11ot afford ail)' exctrse for a11y act 01· 011·1issior1 wl1ich wot1ld other\vise co11stitute a11 offe11ce t111Iess I,110\vledge of tl1e Ia�u by tl,e offender is expressly declared to be a11 ele1ne11t of tl1e offe11ce. Questions l.

What do you see as the difference bet\veen fact and_ law?_ Remember th�t in principle, mistake of fact is a good defense while m1stake of law 1s not. Do tl1e following concer11 fact or law: a. A trespa ssed on B's property, tl1inking that B l1as not yet signed the necessary deeds? b.

A married B in jurisidiction X, thiti½in� t�a � B's �ivorce from C i n juris diction y would be valid in Jurisd1ctron X .

A killed B? A committed homicide?

24· As transla ted in JO The Ntw Yugoslav Ltw 11, Nos. 3--4 (l959), . � en l _Codes, 1960). 25· Tht Kort11n Ptnal Cofh (American Series of Fore1g � � 26• Thia provision j5 typical of those in common law Junsdictions.

'' '

i . . :·'

I",-� '

i '..' '

· ' ·.. 1

• I ' ' .,,"

·'"

' ',

'T.

THE

246 ;

1! 'I

•

SES DEFEN . E MATIV AFFIR

nind? 1 of t e a st s e. A11 i11dividua l e nt''?. t n · l d an ge d e 1 1 110w k 1 u f '' 11dard a f. The st allowing the defense in y c e n i n le a ? r at e . tow t i il m s n o ti a r e l a w? of e k a Wh at policy consid mist g allowin r1ot inciple r p . of f act wl1 ile in n o ranc e'' be equated ig '' ld u o l1 S ? 8 7 t. r A f o e l u r l a r e 11 e l' a g ly ' ig le JJ l 1t? r '' ' im t' h ig r '' s 2. w11a t is t11e g e o D ? 8 7 . t er Ar d 11 u w la f o '' e l< ta witl1 ''mis te''? a u q e d a d 11 a e it n fi e d '' is t a 1 l w s e id c e d Who . provisions 1 m ea�? Woltld _01 1e h av e t o know the e c 11 ra o 11 ig '' s e o d t a e la w? Do you see li th W w o n 3. k to id a s e a to b 1 p o 1i tl E f o e d o C l a a lled malum in se c o f the Pen e b t l1 ig m t a 1 l w ee n tw e b t c Je s re 1 s 1i t l 1 i 1 . .E .C a differe 11ce P 0 0 7 t. r A e e S ? s e s n e ff o y r to a l u g e r , y tt e p d offe11ses a11 . ? r 8 rt e 7 d A 11 u r e p r o JJ d lt o m h a M id a f f o n o ti si o 1J is d s rt l1 o C t1g at ar l1 ? 11 W o ti 4 . Was tl 1e si o p is d s it t r o Jp l! e to Sl iv g rt l1 o C e t h id d s 11 e ns e ef 1e Wl1at reaso d tl d 11 a n io tt cl se r o p e th of f al eh b 1 1 0 1 l t o b e d a 1 1 1 e b t l, 1 11e11ts mig i 11 tl1e case of f'aid Mal1moud? 5. It is often said il1at tl1e cloctrine ''ig11orance of tl1e la\v is 110 defense" is based LljJOil tl1e fictior1 tl1at everyone is JJresl 1111ed to k11ow tl1e la\X'. Is tl·1 is acct1rate a11d if so is it \xrise? Wl1a t ra tio11ale \X'O u1d Ii olmes g i \1 e for tl1e fictio11? Is it jL1st, l10\xre,1er, to pe11alize m en like faid J\1al1moud? e ar se 11 fe de 10 1 is 7 \' la of e 11c ra r1o ig t 6. E x ceptio11s to tl-ie ge11eral rL1le tl1aexce1Jtio11s be allo\xred u11der Art. 78; ofte11 L1rged. WOLild tl-i e followi11g if not, sl1ould tl1ey be al lowed: a. A 11ew law? b. A11 i11defi11 ite or vague la \Xi'? c. Laws gover11i11g ''1Jublic welfare'' off enses (i.e., reg ulato ry offenses sL1cl1 as Arts. 781, 788 etc.)? d. A mistake concer11i11g a la\xr rec e11tly decla red u11constitt1tio11al by tl1e coL1rts or tl1e legisl ature? e. A mistal<e of law bas ed ll!J011 tl1 e advi ce of a lice11sed la\v)rer? e Jlai1 ' i ex1 uld it be a11d l,el JfL1l to ask :X o IJ d t l 1at la\x,s tblisl1ed gt1 be 1 arl) r e l l ' 7. one r fo law of e in IJop ular 11ews1Ja1Jers o r allow t l1e def e1 1s e of ig11 o ranc le ru al ge11er year after 1�ro1nulgat� o11? A re tl1ere otl,er w ays in whic\1 the ca11 be reta111ed yet its l1arsl111ess s o fte11e d? t n da defei i 8. :X'11Y did tl, e � ourt _11 ot at le ast redl1ce t he pu11isl1ment of tl1e on on ovisi tn_ tl1 e Canton d Argovie case under tl1e v ery l e11ie 11t Swiss pr of law? How �ould this ca se be decid ed under Art. 78? WhY ra sup e s ca ne t 11 s � ase tur11 . on m1stak_e of la w while tl1e Canton of Lucer was co11s,d ered mistake of f a ct? the · . a R · t l r e h ! a � be better n W it to all ol 1 ld o ti w g a 9. a � ce of _l a w in mitig o- i r e � ;i n ; o Art. 78(2) s olution? Woufd i wise to inco_rporate � prov1s1on. 110t t:>b.e ge11ce similar t o tl1at .in Art · 76 so tl1a t negligent mistake \vo uld as ti. 8, excused :;'I i ere�s n on-n egligent mistak e w o. llld be?. D oes Art. 7 . . now s tan s, arrive at esse11tially t l1is r esult? , of · · ·: ce . · 10. Wl1at is tl1e ratio1,ale be111·nd Germany's ne w aJJproach to ·ignorary . .. ;_ . . .. . 1

•

I I

. ,•••

;r-�ttf�

'·

IGNORANCE Of I-AW

247

,, taw? Tl1e disti11ction between ''vincible and. 1� · · vi nci· ble ig · norance 111 conis law tine11tal discussed in Hall Ge,zeraL Principles of Cr im inal law 368 ff. ' you recommend tile ne O Would 11 or any of tl1e otl,er approaches 3J h� set out in Note 2, for Ethiopiaf S Arts. l2-21 P.C.E. (19 30 (N ) ot 1) e re-enacted· Art be 700 · pc · E · 1 st para. reversed? ' · Problem

You are an a1 Jpellate judge i11 Et11·101J ·ta Tl,e foliow111g · I1ypoti ,et·1ca I case . · of Tihe At�orney General v. �to Gzdeleh �i- as bee11 apJJealed to your cottrt by the d_efe11dant-a�p_ellant, Ato <;}1del�l1. Wrt te a11 opii, iot, for tli e appellate court either susta1n1ng or revers111g (111 wl1ole or i11 part) tl,e judgmei,t of tlie court below. Be sure to address )'OL1_rself to tl1e JJ0_111ts of error raised by defetidant a�pell��t a11d t? any otl1er 1sst1es tl1at )'Oll tl1i11l( essential to the correct d1spos1t1on of tl11s case.

I I

•

]t,dgme11t of the Lower Court

The Attorney General v. Ato Oidelel1 Crimi11al File No. 11744/5 5 E. C. Tl1e facts in tl1is case are as follows; Ato Oidelel1 lives near Acldis /\b<11J;1 and _owns several gasl1as oi la11d i11 variot1s _IJarts of tl1e Emi)ire. I-le l1a.s rece11 tl_y· obtained a new plow anc! plan11ed to test 1t 011 a [Jlot of la11cl \,;}·1ich l1e J1as not seen for a number of years 11ear 1·�azaretl1. Ato Oiclele:11 tesiificcl tl1at 011 arrival at \vhat he believed to be l1is la11d, l1e 11oliced tl1e re1nr1a11ls cJf cJ.il <)1c1 building that may l1ave been a cl1t1rcl1 a11d a 11t1n1ber of slo11es lyir1�-· alJottt. He further testified that he did 11ot re111e111ber l1avir1g see11 tl1e olcl -:::,building and stones 011 his land before a11d thot1gl1t tl1eir 1Jrese11ce J)ecttliar, but ,x:er1t ahead with his plowi11g a11y\vay. I 11 actuality, tl1e lrL11d \xras riot ll1at of 1\to Gideleh, but an old burial grot111d witl1 eacl1 of tl1e stones n1arl(i11g a gra.ve ir1 what had once been tl1e cot1rtyard of a cl1t1rcl1. Ato Oidelel1 k11ockecl over a number of grave sto11es ,vith l1is J)low and t!11fortu11ately ttncovered a11d crumbled the remai11s of a l1u1nai1 skeleto11. Several perso11s ra11 fro1n nearby houses and }'elled for Ato Oidelel1 to stop l1is IJIO\V. He did, bt1t was reported to the police for despoiling tl1e graveyard and later charged with violatio11 of Art. 487 of the Penal Code. It is clear tl1at Alo Oideleh l1as violated Art. 487 (b) and (c) by ''viola ting the restir,g place of a dead person;'' ''degrading and defiling a funeral monument;'' ''profaning a11d m tttilating a dead perso11;'' a11d ''defili11g and striking a human corpse." ) t rt. fac (A of 7? ke st� of mi ses fen de tl1e th wi e Th difficult question arises _ an � _ignorance of Jaw (Art. 78) put forwar� by Ato 01delel1. This case 1s �ef1n1tely one of ignorance of law as Ato 01delel1 sl1ould have known tl1at tt was wr - 0 ng and illegal to defile a gr�v�yard and a dead pe:son. We would certainly exrJect men living in a Chr1st1an cou11try, . 11ear Addis Ahab�, and owning land to understand tl1is. Art. 78 stat�s tl1at 1gnor�r!ce of Iaw 1s no defense, and certainly in this case, it sl1ould not be._ �!o 01del�l1 dtd not have ''adequate reasons for holding his erro11eous_ belief, and_ tl11� was n ?t absolute an d justjfiable igi,ora11ce;'' therefore, ne1tJ1er tl1e amel1orat1ng prov1s-

, '

;

·-··

• ,

I .• 'I : ·,

;

:. ..

S E S N E F E D E IV T A M IR F THE AF

248

. se ca s 1i tl to ly JJ p a 8 7 . rt A ions of sub-article (I) or (2) of ld ou it , w el ct er fa f m o y ke be ta is m a a ed er id ns co e er w iis tl if 11 ve E ' e d th ' ns an fe , of )) e (3 76 . rt ld (A ou w e 11c fe of e tl1 of t ec bj mistake as to tl1e ''o ct ke of fa ta is ld m ou d \X, an d te it t m no m co 1 e1 be ve l,a o t ed em de e, be tl1erefor apply. ld . ne nt ou O w ge i _ gl ne pe ex as w ct 1 el �l id O to A t l1a t , er ev w ho r, ea cl is It d nk t o take t he ra an n tio pa cu oc n, to �t uc ed e, 11c rie 1Je ex a ma11 of l,is age, h e rc of u . tl1 s_ ch nt ing n� ild m bu re e _ th ed tic no d l1a l1e e 1c 01 s on 1ti aL ec y pr necessar e, or er t �, er 111 th tl1a 11d _f1 y m o At 1s It ). 59 rt. (A ld fie i11 ng s lyi 11e . sto e and tl1 d ne to ct sig ote de pr IS h the 11c \vl 7 48 t. Ar ed lat vio y 11tl ge gli ne s l1a Oidelel1 resti 11g places of our dead. t he pu11ishmen t prescribed th wi ce a11 ord acc i11 d an 11s so rea e ov ab tl1e r fo 1. lel de Oi o At 1 1 o t1p sed po im is 00 l,0 E$ of e fi11 a 7, t. 48 by Ar Sene 27, 1955 E.C.

II I I '

\,l

�; I ! !!!-,

'' 'I ,fl '")

��·

•

Memora11dttni of Appeal Respectfit L(y su.bmitted by Defendant.-Appellant, �-4.to Gideleh.

�fl1e lo\xrer co11rt in tl1e case of The Attorney General v. Ato Gideleh has erred i11 tl1e follo\v;ing particulars: 1. Tr1e proper defense is 011e of mistake of fact (Art. 76) rather tl1a11 ig11ora 11ce of law (Art. 78). 2. P..rticle 76(3) is i11apfJlicable i11 tl1is case. 3. There sl1ould be 110 pL1nisl1me11t in11Josed 1111der tl1e defe11se of mistake of fact. 4. If t)1e defe11cla11t is liable to any pu11isl1me11t, it is for negligence under Article 76 and not 1111der tl1e Special Part Article 487. I, tlier�fore, l1urnbly �eg tl,is court to reverse the judg111e11t of tl1e lower court and tmJJOse 110 JJU111sl1ment upo11 defe11dai,t-aJJpellaiit, Ato Oideleh. Ge11bot 15, 1956 E.C. s dres est t o ab tr ility o t d ttse a the affir1 na block t t ive defe a as 11ses · 1 • T ? Y yo11rsel f to th1s pro ble1n: �' ai� offici_al iii the DeJJart1nent of Defe11se in State X orders B, a ' . ma11 111 h1s sect1011 to ob.tai.11 at a.11 cost s a certain secret document fromd tl1e En,bass of · . Re_lat1011s betwee11 X and Z have b11rst into o�twa� l1ostilit se!eral 1 111 111 the _ last fe� mon!l1s. B obtai11s a job as janitor in the Erribassy of � 0 e evening while B is looking through a safe, C, a guard hap ens inio i1; ro ff!- .flees and C, realizing that B is a spy,_ p�Ils his g�n an� shoots tw\:e. � is itt, _but manages to _g�t out of !he � u1Id1ng an d locate a tele hone to c l� D,_ his doctor, expla1n1ng the s1tuatton 3 ,d . asking for help. t) fini5.hes �115 dinner and leaves about an hour after � 5. · call. B the time rr e , B lias lost so m11cl1 blood that perma�ent � a l injury �esults altl,.o�gt � IS b e to save B's life. . · . e . . tl1 A, B , C and D have been he arged g that ; d ..; Assumin with crimes. e ·Public Prosecutor can P.1 ove each charge, ·. arrn sel, you as defense coun . . . ·.

�

.. .

. . -. . . .. . . .

�

. .

•I-,

'•

•

IGNORANCE

LA \Y/

249

witl1 Arts. 64-78 P.C.E., are asked t 0 ptit fortli the best defen se possible 011 bel1alf of each defe11cla11 t. Recommended Readings Mistake of Facl and lgnorance or M1s ' la k e o ( Law

\Villiatns, Crinzi11al L.zw 140-214, 287-345 (excelleiit lre t·ise 11an� l111g of tl1e � comn1011 la\V posi tio1 1s \Xii iii respee t t t) 111. 15 . tal<e of fact a 11d 1gr1 o rail ce of la\'(,)_ L • " J-lall, Ge11er.t! Pri11cip!es of Cri111i11.il L,iw 360-"114 (excelle· 11 t c I� apLC i_ COi1s1_ d er1ng bot!1 t11istri.l\e of fact a11cl l,t\v' fro111 l11 l1istor:c",ll a 11ci po l icy v1ew1Jo111t). · Leg1 os, L Ele111eJJl 1i/or,,I ,/. r 11 s !cs l11fr-1clio11,; 49-8 I (195 2) ( t I 1 1-o! 1gl1 c r� stc e r _ t 1011 · I � � of tl1e effect of 111istal�f· of fac·t a11d ig11ora' 11ce of 1a\V. 111 B efg1an- F r e11 cl1 [Jenal la ,x,). Bouzat, Droit Pe,1,zl 191-195 (sl1ort state111e11t 011 botl1 111 istalce of fact ailcl la.,:·:r i11 fra11ce). R)'ll, Tl1e Ne\x1� !(��;ar� Cri 111 i��l Cod e of October 3, 1953, L18 ]. Crini ..L. Cri;,7, _ � SO-.:.. (19::> ,111d Po� Sci. (brief ) state111 e1'.t co11cer11i1�g illistal{e of fact � �� _ _ : � a11d la,x 111 tl1e Ko1 ca11 Cr1111111al Cocle a11d_ 111 co1111Jarati·ve I�_v:i-). "

i '.

. •

I ' '

,. ' ' I' '

M�stal-ce of !.=act

Vasdev, Gl�osts, Evil S[Jirits, \X1itcl1es arid tl1e La,x, of 1-Io111rciclr: ir1 ii,,� S11cL:1 i 1. 1961_ 5:t,i1. �t1 L. J. 238-2tl4 (a11 i11teresti11g: a11aJj1sis of cclr11r1arati 11e cr.1.sc;, d_ eal 111g \X'It l1 gl1 osls, etc., as tl1e objects of 111ista!(e of fact ; iJ..l}.; tlit� (:oriel Ll·· s1011s at p. 244 do 11ot dislir1gl1isl1 t]1e ca.ses of L,Jbc/1�/la/; /!i;�;&/;t,:.r j\ftir aricl Machekeq11011abe). Oko11kwo a11cl Naisl1 , Crimi,1,... l Ltiw i1i 1Yigeria 106-115 (1964) (staierr1er1t ()f tl1e la\x: of 1nistake of fact i11 Nigeria). felclbr11gge, So·�·iet Cri1ni11ti! Law, 9 Lti'lo i,z E,1ster1z. E1trope 19L1-196 ( 196l!) (sl1ort stateme11t co11cer11i11g 1nistal<e of fact i11 tl1e Soviet U11io11 ,vl1ere tl1ere is 110 codified [Je11al fJrovisio11). Ignorance or tvtistake of La\v

Logoz, Commentaire du Code Pe,zal .Suisse 17 (state1ne11t of tl1e s,�iss position

concer11i11g igr1ora11ce of law). J T IV IV 0, 17 78 RO , ne ag mp Ca leTl,om men c. Ministere Public du Canton di, Ba v la, ill w e of 11c ra no ig at th ia al ter i11 g in j ld l1o e ( nc de ru 9 isp ur 1 s 7 { 953) Swis s ou an 11e ro er ld ho to on as re 1t ie1 fic uf i11s is e 11ot rnitigate or excuse if ther belief). Legal, L'Evo]tition de la Jurisprucle11ce fran<;aise en rvtatiere d'Erreur de Dr?it, ne r1 1 ct c1 d� en 1e fr of tl ( 11 10 11t ) ol ev 1e tl _ 0 96 (1 77 Revue Penal Suisse 310-321 of ignorance of law from strict no11-exct1se toward a11 approacl1 s11n1lar to Art. 20 C.P .S.). Ryu and Si]ving' Error Juris: A Comparative Stt1dy, 24 U. Chicago L. Rev. 421 ( 1957). And�naes, Ignorantia Legis in Scandi11avian Crimi11al Law, i11 Mtteller, Essays in Criminal Science 217-231 (1961).

. .' .�· .. .- . : ·... :

I .

I .i

., . . ., • i.,.'

'l .'.;....... �.

I'.,.... ,

!·'....'.!'' I' . . .l

'.:.j. ',�..., �:-.�.

...·i·

250

THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

96 , dan L. ]. _9 8 rs � 0 he Su ot d an ed am oh M ab ah W el bd A Sudan Government v. g e l th 11n ga e1 le ft so e , d i Co ax m al en P · m an 1d S1 3, 19 . ct Se of ti io ct ru (const ignorantia legis non excusat). SECTION D. OTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES UNDER THE PENAL CODE

a. Acts Authorized by Law or Professional Duty

i : 'I

L.),•'

iJtll

'. 1

1 I I

I'.!'t••

It!:.._

F'"

P'!Lt

Acts wl1ich are a11thorized by public, state or military law, and tl1ose rea" sonably do11e in tl1e exercise of tl1e rigl1t of cor:rection or _disciJJli11e, in_ tl1e exercise of private rigl1ts recognized by_ law a11d 111 th� exerci se o_f professional duty in accordance \Xtitl1 accepted JJract1ce are not subject to punishment (Arts. 64, 65 P.C.E.; s 0L1rce, Art. 32 C.P.S.). Altl1ougl1 eacl1 of the material elements of a11 offense may be made out by tl1e prosecution, Arts. 64 and 65 provide a co111JJ!ete defe11se. One of tl1e most difficult problems wl1icl1 arises u11der tl1ese Articles is tl1e exter1t to wl1icl1, if a11y, a l1L1sba11d is capable of defending l1im self from a cl1arge of wilful i11jury after havi11g beaten l1is wife.Art.64(b) ex" cuses ''acts reasonably do11e in exercisi11g the right of correction or disciJJli.11e." Tl1e rigl1t of such correction or· discipli11e must be fou11d in tl1e Civil Code of Etl1iopia; see Art. 3347 C.C.E. Upon i11terpretatio11 of sL1cl1 pri11ci1Jles in the Civil Code as ' 1tl1e wife owes l1i1n [the l1usband] obedience ...'' (Art. 635) and ''tl1e spoL1ses owe eacl1 otl1er respect ..." (Art. 636) etc. ,vill tur11 tl1e de fense of lawfLtl acts under Art. 64(b) of tl1e Penal Code. Art. 64(c) similarl)' lool<s to a defi11ition of private rigl1ts in tl1e Civil Code, i.e., Art.1148 C.C. E. Art. 64 overlaps with several other affirmative defense s , n .. b., Art. 64(a) a11d Art. 70; Art. 64(c) and Art. 74.

b. Absolute Coercion Art.67 provides tl1at if a11 offense is con1mitted unde r ''absolute pl1ysical coercio_n'' tl1at �ot1ld not P<;>ssibly be resisted by the offender, lie is not liable to p�111sh_m�nt; 1f .the _coerc1011 was of a moral l<ir1d it mtist still be ''absolu te" and 1rres1st1ble, and e1tl1er 110 pt1nisl1n1e11t rnay be .imposed or JJLtiiislime11t n1a)' be re �uce?, unde: Art. 18�. (The A van t-projet uses tlie \vord ''shall'' ratl1er !l1an . i:nay ). If e1tl1er pl1ys1cal or moral coercio11 is de emed 110t to 11ave bee11 1rres1st1_ble, Art.68 gove�ns, a11d t!1e co11rt ma y r educe the penalty iii acco_rd �nce w1tl1 A�t. 185.P!1ys1cal �oerc1011 1nay be distinguished from moral coercion 1� tl1at pl1ys1cal coerc1011 entails an actual immediate tlireat of pliysical for ce directed at the coerced offender :"l1ile m�ral coercioi, is a more indirect, dis tant threat tl1at harm may occur tf a specified act is not performed. The a�jective ''absolute'' and th e plirase ''he could not possibly resist'' sev erely_ re_str1ct tl1e use _of coe rcion as a total d efense b re uir in that the co_ er ced 1n�1v�dual l1ave v1r:tually no. alternative before com� itti�g a c�erced offense. ds . A subJect1ve sta11dard ts ad. oJJted with respe ct to rests ,vor · the · t th a t 1n a11ce ,, ''h.e cou Id 110t posst·bly resist are used The s pec1·t·1c s1·tuat·10n of tl1e coerce d · ct·1v1·ctua - 1 ·• · l,.no longer must on· e be . tn n . . t:s crucia ma Ro · f o th e constantzssimus vir . law to benefit from tl,e d�fe� se of coerc1011. Tl1e co t er we ercion itself, h� y , mfe�t be actual and ''absolute';·, I t is not enough that ely ct1 v su b1e th e off e 11d er tl1at he was in danger. . .

LAWFUL ACTS, COERCION AND CONSENT

251

The individttal wl10 ''compels' or coerces a oti1ffr (�l,e sa�e :<'Ord contraint is used i11 the Frencl1 mas ter text) is a JJ rincip�l o e11 er a1 1 l1a b1e fo r the by ed the co mm itt co erc ed i 11dividt1al u11 dc er � rt. 32(c). Tl1e co crime erced rely on may tl1e al defe iise of absolute oe rc1on 1 o excuse even the individu .. e com111on la\v co11tra. taking of a third party's innocent life · Se · · As witl1 Art. 64, it is ·important to reinetnber tliat tl1ere 1s a c 1ose 1nte r· · we e en co e rc101 1 a11 cl a 1111 1nber of otlier· arr·. relat1ons I11p b ·t 11 ma 1·Ive e 1

f · e d 11s es pa rd 1 r s ior or er pe (A su rt y . 70 · ), 1Tecessity (Art · 71) ai,d l eg1·t·11n ate de r'e11 se t1ct1 1ar · es severaI of t l1ese defe11ses 111 ay be caiJable of apfJ · (Art_. 74),· at t tm · 1 1ca 1011 t· In a single case. Finally, it is im1Jorta11t to djs ti11 gL 1 isl1 carefully betwee11 coercio ii as a de-· fense under tl1e Code a11c1 coerc1 or1 as a st1bsta11tive cri i ne defi ii ed 1· 11 ti1 e specia 1 · Part (Arts. 552-556).

C. Consent of the Injrtred Party Ar�. ?6, stating tl1 at 1 'tl1 e co11 se 1 1t of tl1e i11jured party to tlie commissio11 ?f a cr1m1nal offe_11ce . ... d �es 11 ot relieve tl'1e offe 11der of cri111 i 1 1al Iiabilityri , 1s tl1e only 11 egat1ve art icle 111 tl1e catalogt1e of defe11ses. ·r11ere are certai11 implied excep tio11s to Art. 66. Lael< of co11se11t is a11 essential ele111e11t for several Special Part offe11 ses sucl1 as rape (Art. 589), tl1eft (JlA rt. 630), etc.; t11ere fore, consent, if freely give11, \Vill co11stitute a com1Jlete defe11se to t11e con1mission_ of these � r �mes. A 11t11nber of offe11ses �11ay be {Jrosect1tecl 0 1 1ly t11Jo11 complaint of t l1e 1 1 1Jttred party \vl-10 by co11ser1l111g t<.1 tl1e:ir co111111issi1)11, ca11 thereby p reve 1 1 t prosect1tio11 , see Arts. 216 ..222 P.C. E. a11d A�rt. 13 Cri in i11al Procedu re Code. Several JJrobletns arise dtte to tl1e t1 11cqt1i,1ocal \YJOrdi11g of Art. 66 witl1 respect to tl1e tecl111 ical co1111T1issior1 of certai11 of fe11ses. 1-\ 11 obviOLIS example migl1 t be the prosecL1tior1 of a barber 1111der '"\' rl. 539 (:�) (a) for tl1e offense of cu tti11g i1ai r. 111 inost JJe11al systen1s, co11ser1t '-:.YOLilcl lJe a defe11se to tl1is sort of tecl1 11ical i 1 1fractio11. Si111ilar q11estio11s arise \v1ill1 res1,ect to rough sports, aestl1 etic i 1 1ju1·ies sucl1 as tatooi11g or scarificatio11, a11d medical operations a11 d eXJJerin1e11ts. Pres11 1 nably eitl1er cor1se11t rnt1st be considered a defense o r Art. 539 1rtt1st be interpreted to exclttde s11cl1 tecl111ical infractions as the cutti11 g of l1 ai r i1 1 tl1a t �arlia111ent qt1ite clearly �id no� _i11tend to pe11 al ize st1cl1, activity. Et1tl1a11as1a, on tl,e otl1 er l1a11d, 1s 110�11�1.cle under tl1e Penal Code, as Art. 66 rttles .ottt a defe11se of co11se11t; sucl1 act1v1t1es as dueling a11 d figl1ti11g are specifically ot1tla\ved_ �y Arts. 519-551 P.C.E. See also Arts. 298 (2), 530 (2) a11 d 605(a) wl1icl1 s1)ec1f1cally me11t1 011 co11se1 1t. for materials conce rning the defe11se of 11ecessity (A�t: 71), see Pt. I., Chap. 1., The Examination arid I nterpreta tio11 of a Code P rov1s1011 supra at pp. 3-13. Recommended Readings nal Duty io ss fe o Pr r o w La y b d ze ri o Acts Auth

good ) (a 58 ( 19 4 20 � o. N . s, e s ,is Sr s r,e cli ,ri Jr i Waibl nger, Actes Licites (I) Fie/Jes q ,v). l la na pe s is w S 1 11 t y 1 dt l 1a o1 si es of pr disctrssion of la wfttl acts and ) 59 19 ( 99 IV _JT 5, 12 IV �5 RO , rtd Va Annen c. Mi,zistere Public d,, Canto11 de 1 ld ). 1 cl a f o g 1 t 11 a be 1e tl r fo . (conviction tinder Art. 123 c. P.S. 1iss case_ l1�!d111g tl1at 011 e \x (S 7) 94 (1 . Sutter c. Huno ld, RO 72 IV l 76, JT IV 51 . s1s lls 11 profe f1 1l ft e 11 0 , er l1 ac te a as 1 et li \'(/ cannot b e sued fo r defamatioi,

i '. ., �. r •

l·;.;�

fi �.'

i ,·

:; ;· -

; " ' '

. !

' '

'' '

i '

I l

•• '

. . '

i ._:'...

r :;]·! l' ':.�. I

•;

! .•. !. ;,'\,,,. •" I

:·'-.

,.. ,:

• � !"

�:": '

r•

TJ-IE AffIRMATIVE

252

DEFENSES

sio11al dt1ty by teacl1ing 111atters related to sex). Bouzat, Droit Penal 263-269 (the fre11cl1 IJOsition 011 the defense of lawful acts). Perl<ins, .Criminal Law 869-883 (discussio11 of tl1e defenses of pt1blic and domestic autl1ority in tl1e co1nn1on law). feldbrugge, Soviet Crimi11 al Law, 9 �aw �n !,astern Europe 122-124 (1964) (sl1ort stateme11t 011 legal duty i11 Soviet cr11n1nal law). Consent of the Injured Party

''' ,, ..r') II

·,

• 'III

Logoz, Comme11 taire d1i Code Pe11al Suisse 129-131 (the positio11 of co11se11t as a defe11se i11 S \Y1iss pe11al la \XI). Waibli11aer Actes Licites (IV1 Co11sente1ne11t dtI Lese), Fie/Jes JuridiqrJes Suisses, I b No. 1207 ( 1958) (good disci1ssio11 of tl1e defense of conse11t in Swiss penal law). Bouzat, Droit Pe11al 283-290 (tl1e defer1se of co11sent i11 f rench JJenaI law). Oer111ar1 foreig11 Office, lvfarzual of· German Law 81 (1952) (sl1o�t. stateme11t on Oerr11any's 111iddle JJositio11 \Y1itl1 respect to co11se11t of tl1e 111Jt1red party as a defe11se}. Willia111s, Crirnin,zl L,1:z.v "/70-774 (consideratio11 of the req11isites of co11sent a11d co11se11l to cri1nes ag·ai11st pro fJerty i11 E11glisl1 law). Perl<i11s, Criminal L11w 852-861 (a ge11eral discussion of tl1e injured party in tl1e commo11 la\Y1). Absolute Coercion

Clerc, l11troduction a /'E'tude d1,1, Code Peria! Suisse, Partie Ger1eral 78 (brief diSCLlSSion of coercio11 i11 Swiss pe11al law). United Scates Military Governme11t v. Berger, United States Ct. of ArJp., Allied High Com1na11d for Germany, 8 U.S. Cts. Oer1n. 425 ( 1950), also fou11d in Mueller, Comparative Cri,ninal Law 170 (an excelle11t case co111rJari11g t}1e defe11se of coercion in Oermar1, fre11cl1 a11d tl1e con1mon law). Bouzat, Droit Pe12al 256-262 (good discussio11 of coercio11 i11 f re11cl1 pe11al la\v) Merle, Droit Penal 256-262 (sl1ort staten1ent on tl1e defense of coercio11 in frencl1 IJenal law). Williams, Criminal Law 751-770 (tl1e defenses of duress and coercion in E11glish law). Hall, General Pri1zciples of Crin2inal Law 436-448 (a careful disci1ssion of the scope of a11d IJOlicies 1111derlyi11g ll1e defense of coercion). Brett and W�Iler, Crimi11.al Law 570-595 (com111on law materials on the defe11se of coerc1011). ,.

CHAPTER 11

Participation in an Offense SECTION A.

PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES

PEN;-\L CODE OF ETI-IIOPJAt

,..'' ....

Art. 32. - Pri11cipal Act: Ojfe,1der iind Co-offenders. (1) � perso11 sl1all_ be regarded as l1aving con1111itted an offe11ce a11d 1)u111sl1ed as st1cl1 if: (a) 11� actt1ally co1111nits tl1e off �11ce eit11er directly or i11clirectiy, for .c example by 1nea11s 01 a11 a111111al or a 11atural force; or (b) he wit _l1out JJerfor111i11g tl1e cri1ni11al act itself fttlly associci.tes l1i111self w1tl1 tl1e commissio 1 1 of tl1e offe11ce a11ci tlie i11iended res1rlt; or (c) he employs a me 11tally deficieI1t person for llie co1 nr11i.s��io11 of an offe11ce or l<110\x,i11g·Iy co1111Jels a11otl1er perso11 to con1rni': :J.ri offe11ce. (2) Wl1ere tl1e offence co 1 11n1itted goes beyor1d tl1e i11tentio11 of I.I1e of fe11der lie shall be triecl i11 accorda11ce \Vitl1 Article 58(3). (3) Wl1ere several co-offe 11ders are i11volved tl1ey sl1all be liable to 'il1e same 1Ju11isl1me11t as provided by la\v. The Court sl1alI take i11to accot111 t tl1e fJrovisio11s gover11ir1g tl1e effect of perso11al ci rct11nsta11ces (Arl. 40) and ll1ose governing tl1e a\vard of punishment according to tl1e degree of i11dividual guilt (Art. 86). Art. 36. - Accomplice. ( 1) An accomplice is a person wl10 l{11owi11gly assists a pri11cipal offender either before or duri1 1g tl1e carryi11g out of the criminal design, wl1etl1er by informatio11, advice, supJJly of tneans or material aid or assist ance of any ki11d whatsoever in tl1e comn1ission of a11 offence. (2) An accomplice in an intentional offence sl1all always be liable to pu11ishment. (3) The punishme11t to be imposed sl1all be the pt1nishment for tl1e of fence wl1etl1er attempted or completed i11sofar as sttch offence does not go beyond tl1e accomplice: s inte11tion (Art. 58(3)). The Court n1ay, taking into account tl1e c1rcumsta1 1ces of tl1e case, reduce the I. The sources of Aru. 32, 36 and 39 P.C.E. are basically Arts. 24-2� and Art: 305 C.P.S., although the Ethiopian provisions are more fully developed. Art. 40 P.C.E. 1s modeled upon Art. 26 C.P.S.

'' I

••

! .. '

I. ...: . I • •

•

. ,,..

I . '·.

.' ·-·1. ;. :. .· ,' . ... . ..

. <, . ...... )

1: 1: ,.

PARTI CIPATION

254

d y ie s if it ec m sp li b e th in l1 it w e ic l p m co ac an to punisl1111ent i11 respect law.(Art.184).

Fact. the f ter a. Accessory Art.39. -

�!fender either an �ssists tted commi been has ce offen y t n e m r h o ts n u r o y n t? t u c Whosoever after an e � s o r p e p a c s e o t n it h g in lp c e n a h e h d r r it o o w _ c c 1n a im e h h g 1s n in u id p h e b by l l_ � a h s e c n fe f o s i _ h f o s receiving the proceed Special Part o f this C o d e deahng with such acts. t h e provisions o f the ). 7 4 6 d 11 a 4 5 4 , 9 3 4 (Art.

T U C R E O S O R IC P L B U P E H T . v S R E H T O D N A U H A L E ) ATO ASHENAfl AD .C G 0 6 9 1 ( 2 /5 5 3 . o N l a e p p A al in m ri C t, r u o C l a ri e p m I e Suprem Ethiopia

••

\"" ,.,I ..1.,. '

e ld o le W ai H a tt la B s: e ic st u J ; ) . .C O 0 6 9 1 1, r e b 1n e c e (D . .C E st 11 ai ag al e p Hedar 21, 1953 ap 11 a is is l1 T 1 u: sl o O a 11 11 n e ss e T to A r, ia 1 e deatl1 of tl g I(idane, Dr.W.Bu\1ag n si u a c , is at 1 tl r, e rd u 1n f o e rg 1a c\ a 1 1 0 ce n te n se d 1 e three t\ d n u conviction ari fo y sl u o im n a n u rt 1 Cou l g li Ie l1 T . t1 is ef 11 te } A e ld a ap o tw t rs o:1e Tal<ele W fi 1e tl d ce 11 te n se , ty ri o aj 1n y b , cl an e rg 1a cl e 1 tl f o ty il e nc te 11 se e appella11ts gu th ; 1t e1 1 n 11 so ri p im s ar e y 15 to 1t a1 ll )e )J aJ rd 1i tl 1 e tl 1d a1 1 tl o tw t rs fi pellants to dea 1e tl r fo t en 1n 11 so ri 1) n i1 rs ea y 15 is 11 io n )i 01 ty ri o n 1i n 1e tl according to . 11t la el p ap rd 1i tl e th r fo t en 1n appella11ts a11d 10 years imJ)rison ng 11i or m y rl ea 1e tl in at th 10\VS clearly sl 11 io ut ec os pr e th r fo e 1c e1 id Tl1 e ev n ee tw be e fl ri a l1 it w ed m ar , en se e er \V s nt lla pe ap e re 1 tl 1e tl , 48 19 , 26 e th of Megabit r te la re he w d an d ar l1e e er w ts 1o 111 sl gt ee 1r tl re l1e w 1 on fr ot sp e th . them, 011 dy bo s hi i11 s 11d ou w e re th 1 i tl \V ad de 1d u1 fo as \V t1 fis 1e e1 yt A de ol W le <e al T id sa ap st fir e 1 tl by s wa ot sh Accordi11g to tl1 e 1)rosect1tio_r1 witnesses, the first of Tagezab, did so." The �enant who was heard boasting and saying: "I, so n pella11t wl10 again sl1ot at first a1)pella11t tl1 e11 ha11ded tl1� rifle to tl1 e seco11d ap di d so.'' I t is 11ot clear the deceased a11d boasted sa�111g: ''I, so11 of Adellaka, t tl1a 1 1 tai cer is it t bu whet\1�r tl1e otl1er shot was fired by tl1e tl1ird apr)ellant, tl1e tl1 1rd ap1)ella11t was witl1 tl1e first t\vo.... • • • d, cte vi con y htl rig l_n the opinion of this Court, the three appellants were d thir the and ed eas dec tlie at tel t i11i r 11g 1 s1,o clef av1 for l ts la11 Jel apJ two t firs ) tl1 e . ased e dec tlie a1)pella11t as a11 accon1 J)lice, eve11 if lie clid 11 0t fire any sliots at 1

I: -11

'.l,

(�)".

•

I' I

I C OM E PL ACC AND R N NDE FFE WEE BET CO-O ION INCT �fl-IE DIST

Paul Logoz

in act an M_tiSl we c?11sider. as co-offe11ders 011ly tl1ose \vl10 accotnJ)lish... can tona! executing the crnne?_Th1s-objective-conception was that of many of the an-Code codes before the Swiss Penal Code was enacted and also that of the Germo er ted co � who p " t 0 those d n ider woul as a One <; r e 187 fende hen only co-of l. �! . � cn[U · the of . 43 (1)) irectly 1_n. t_he execution (Code of Geneva, l874, Art. uish . ing dist to · 1 ra 11e ge Tl11s def 1 n1t1on l1as tl1 e adva 11 taae of {)ei·n11·tt1n g one 111 b .2.

Logoz, Com,nenta.ire du Code Penal Suisse 94-95. .·

255

PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES

e�sily betwee11 a co�offe11der an� _ a 11 accom1Jlice. Yet doubtful cases are pos �1ble ....furthermore,.a pa:t1c1pant who l1as take11 no part in the execution 1s no11etheless able, by l11s gt11lt a11d the danger whicl1 he represents to be not a seco11dary, bttt a pri11cipal offender. .1 It se_etn�, tl1erefore,_ JJreferable to em1Jl1asize the i11te11sity of the criminal \X 1lt (st1b1ect1ve co11cept1on) a11d to co11sider as a co-offender whoever - whether J,e l1as or l1as 11ot take11 part i11 tl-ie actttal exect1tio11 - associates l1imself with tl1e 1Jri11cipal by beirtg eitl1er fJart of tl1e decisio11 fron1 \vl1icl1 tl1e crime er1sL1ed_ or fJart of t_l1� exe�tttion of ll1e crime. Tl1e acco1nplice, 011 the otl1er J1a11d, 1s 11ot a JJa!·t1c11Ja11t 111 �1,e fJri111ary IJla11.Iiis participatio11 is seco11dary; lie \va11ts to provide only ass1sta11ce to tl1e offe11cler.... 1

STAUFFER c. N\INISTERE PUBLIC DU CANTON DE SOLEURE RO 78 IV 6, JT IV 134 (1952) Switzerla11d S111n1n,ir.;1 of Reaso11i11g: 011e is gttilty of complicity 1111der 1-\i-t. 25 C.P.S. wI1er1 011e ''i11ter1tio11ally assists i11 tl1e co111n1issio11 of a felony or 1nisdemea11or'', tl,at is, wl1e11 011e i11tenlio11ally l1elJJS tl1e commissio11 of a felony or mis demea11or. Tl1e acts i11 qt1estio11 of tl1e a1JJJella11t cor1stilt1te tl1e objective eletnents or co1n1)ticity; l'1e JJL1t jt1ditl1 Gerber i11 lot1cl1 will-: ll1e f)roc11rer, Ineicl1er1 1 'X:110 gave lier, duri11g tl1eir visit, tl1e address of tl1e abortior1ist Wyss, ancf ir1for1r1e<l \Vyss tl1at sl1e \VOttlc.l co111e to l1i111 a11cl recomme11clecl l1er to l1in1. \Vyss theil atletTIJ)ted tl1e abortio11. Tl1e act of tl1e defe11da11t is 011e of tl1e li11lcs i11 tl1e cl1ai11 wl1ich e11ded in atte1npted abortio11. It is of little imJJortar1ce that lie did 11ot give Jt1ditl1 Gerber tl1e acldress of tl1e aborlicJ11isl l1i11iself. It is ec1L1�_ l ly \vitl1ot1t i1n porta11ce tl1at J 11ditl1 Gerber al read)' k11ew I neicl1e11 ancl cot1ld l1a 11e located l1im ,vitl1ot1t the J1el J J of tl1e ap1)ellanl. Art. 25 does 11ot rf�quire tl1at tl1e orfense cotrld not l1ave bee11 committed witl1out tl1e aicl of t11e accomplice; it st1ffices tl1at tl1is aid, i11 tl1e circun1sta11ces of tl1e case, l1as l1el1Jed tl1t� commissio11 of the felo11y or 111isde1neanor. Tl1e questio11 of wl1etl1er tl,e assistance has an adequate causal relatio11sl1ip to the harm does not arise. Article 25 is applicabte \vhe11, in fact, a�sistance is in causal_ relation wit_h the l1ar1n and whe11 tl,e will of tl1e accompltce was to help bring about tl11s harm, even if, in tl1e ordinary course of things, the aid give11 was not really suited to the result obtai11ed.... •

•

i -

Cour de Cassatio11 - MM.Nageli, Fassler, Logoz, Arnold and Tscl1opp.

.•• '

THE KING v. RICHARDSON Old Bailey, 168 All Eng. Rep. 296 (1785) Eng land At tl1e Ol d Bailey in June Session 1785, Daniel Rich�rdson a11d Samuel Greenow we re indicted before M r.Justice Buller for a highway robbery on Joh11 Billings. It appeared in evidence, that the two prisot�ers �ccosted tl1e prosecutor as he was walking along tl1e street, by asking him, 1n a fJeremptory man11er,

' . i ... i

. •

II.

, '·

'_::j

· • · •I

•I

., . .'" 1 .-,.'• ;�i � � r�; '...

... ',·' ;.. ', .,

.! �;' .•.

PARTICIPATION

256

wl1at mo11ey l1e l1ad i11 his pocl<et. TI1at u1J?t1 his .replyrin� that he l 1ad o�}Y t\vo-pe11ce l1alf-1Je 1111y', 011 e of tl1e pr 1s o 11ers 11n n1 ed1ate�y s� td t o . tl1e ? tl1er, If lie. really l1as 110 more, do 11ot take that'' a11 d turned as tf \v1tl1 an 111ten� 1on to go a\x,ay; but tl1e otl1er prisoner sto1J1Jed the }Jr osecutor, a11d rob1?ed l11m of the two-JJe11ce l1alf-JJe11 11y, \X1l1icl1 w as a ll tl1e n1011ey 11e l1ad a bout l11m .. But the � ro secutor couid 11ot ascertai1 1 wl1icl1 of tl1em it \X1as tl1at l1ad t1sed tl11s expression, nor \vl1icl1 of tl1e 1n l1ad tal<e11 tl1e t\vo-pe11ce half-pe11ny from l1is pocket. THE COURT: Tl1e JJOi 11t of la\V goes to tl1e acq�ittal of both the prisoners; for if t\VO 1ne11 assat1lt a11other witl1 i11te11t to rob 111m, and one of tl1em, be fore any den1a11d of 1no11ey, or offer t o take it �e 111ade, repent of w�at l1e is doing, a11d desist fro1n tl1e JJrosect1tio11 of sucl1 111te11t, l1e c a11110L be 111volved in tl1e guilt of l1is co1111Ja11ion \xrl10 after\vards takes tl1e m o ney; f or li e cl1a11ged l1is evil i 11tentio 1 1 before tl1e act, \x,l1icl1 co1111Jletes tl1e offenc e, \V as comrnitted. Tl1at JJriso11er tl1erefore, \Vl1icl1ever of tl1e t\vO it \Vas \xrl10 tl1t1s desisted, ca 1111ot be gt1ilt�>' of tl1e prese11t cl1arge; a nd tl1e prosecutor ca1111ot ascertain v1l10 it v1as tl1at took: tl1e 1Jro1Jerty. 011e of tl1e111 is certai11ly guilty, but which of tl1e1n perso 11ally does not aJJpear. It is lil<e the lpswiclJ case, wl1ere five 1ne11 \Vere i 11dicted for n1L1rder; a11cl it ap1Jeared, 011 a s1Jeci al v er dict, tl1at it was n1L1rder in one, but not i11 tl'1e otl1er fot1r; bL1t it did 11ot appear whicl1 of the five l1acl give 11 tl1e blow wl1icl1 caL1sed tl1e deatl1, a11d tl1e Cot1rt theret1pon said, tl1at as tl1e 1nan coulcl 11ot be clearly arid JJositively ascertai11e d, all of them 111t1st be discl1arged. Tl1e two JJriso11ers were accordi11gly acqt1itte cl. N OTES Note 1:

Participation with Respect to Offenses Relating to Publications

. Arts. 41-47 �.C.E. are 111odeled �po11 Art.27 C.P.S. \xrl1ich, in turn, is deri ved fr� 111 Belg1a 11 a11d f re11cl� J)_rov1 s1ons of tl1e sa1ne 11a ture .These Articles � re exceptions to tl1e nor 1nal JJr111�1ples of participatio 11 \xritl1 tlie purpose of, 11 1 tl1e wo\?s_ of Art. 41, . "e11sur 1 �g �reed_orn of ex Jressi o11 wli ile preve11ting 1 �bt1se... : fl1e at1tl�o: of � 1�t�bl1cat1011 1s l1eld pri1 1cipa lly l iable but if he �11 110� ava1la?le, st1bs_1cl 1a�y l1�_b1l 1ty attacl,�s !O tl1e editor of a periodic al and, 1n tu_1�, to tl1e JJt1bl 1sl1e 1_, J)1 111ter at�d d1str1bt1!�r of a 11011-periodical. Tl1ese prov 1s 1 �1 1s_ l1ave bee11 subJect to_ co11s1derable cr 1t 1cis n1 on tlie Coiiti11e11 t i11 tl1at tl1ey pt �v 1de for [Jt1111sl1 1ne11t w1tl1out gt1ilt. Art. 43(2) P.C.E is quite differe11t fr on1 Ai t. 27 C.�.S. a1�� atte1�11Jts to a11s\ver st 1ch criticism, btit iii so doi11g, botl1 w�ake11s a1 1_cl c_onfl1cts w1tl1 A rt. 43(1 ). Al t\1ougl, Arts. 41-47 ticourage e . pt bl respo 11s1ble 1 1cat1011, tl1ey n1ay also lead to coi,servat·iv t·10 n ica bl e, a fe t l1ereby restricti11g t11e free discussiot1 of JJttbl·i c · rt•' issues . f 0 r a d�IS CUSS P� f A . 1 1 l O 0 . 27 C. P. S., see Log-oz, Comn1e1itazre die Code Pe/nal· sz,isse 10n s to · t· 111 , c1 a 118· f ·t or d . · · · S } t 1e w1ss 1ur1s1J1 Lt e11ce, see Pa11cl1aud ' Code p'eria l si1i· sse d., d (2 26 A nn 24 ot , e e 1962). r

Note 2: ''Partici1Jatio n'' in the Legal History of Ethiopia fetha Nagast, Homicide a11d its Corporal a 11 d s p1r1tua , · · 1 Punisl1men t3 . . . Deatl1 is tl1e fJe11 alty for 011e wlio sl,elter s tl,e murderers of the faith· 3.

Chap. XLVII

•

PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES

257

ful, a11d, for ?ne who is solicitot1s il1 l1elping tl1eir enemies, and reveals tl1eir work� a11d tl1e1r secrets, for 011e wl10 makes tl1e mea11s of war, lil<e sl1i1Js, for tl1e e11en11:s a11d \Vl10 sells weapo11s a11d sucl1 tl1i11gs to tl1em. Tl1ey 1nt1st be fJUn ished 111 tl1e same ma1111e: tl1at tl1ey l�ave si1111ed so tl,at i11 tl1em 1nay be a lesso11 to otl1ers ,vl10 desire to co1n1111t t11e same offe11se·' 111ay tl1is pt111isl1ment be a relief to tl1e ki11sma11 of tl1e mttrdered! . . .

, ... (;

I':.••'. ' ..

r:..:

'·

! '· • . •

·.

Pe11al Code of Etl,ioJJia ( 1930)

I •

•

Art. 35. Tl,e la\v concer11i11g tl1e co111111issio11 of 011e crime by ma11y JJerso11s. If co111111it a cri111e togetl1er, eacl1 011e sl1all be co11sid t\vO or 1nore f)ers�11s _ ere� to be a_ fJr1nc11Jal _offei1cler �s if l1e acted by himself, a11d l1e sl1all be p11n1sl1ecl \V1tl1 tl1e fJt1111sl1rne11t laid do\v11 for tl1is cri111e. (fit. Neg.). Art. 36. 1 of mea11i11g \VOrds the ''tl1ose \vl10 com1nit a cri1ne iogetl1er is as Tl1e fol lO\VS. Art. 37. 1st. Tl1ey are tl1ose \x1l10 say ''We will give yot1 1no11ey if yoti will co1n111it t11is cri1n e''. Art. 38. 211d. Tl1e}' are tl1ose wl10 ir1stigate e11courage a11cl ir1ti1niciate by tl1reats �,rici viole11ce, sayi11g, ''We will rui11 yot1 if }'Ol.1 do riot cc,rnrnit tl1is cri1nc' (fit. Neg.). '

1 •

Art. 39. 3rd. Tl1ey are tl1ose wl10 fire gu11s, dra\v S\vords or thro\v SJJears ifJJ�:el.l1er for tl1e comn1issio11 of a cri n1e. Art. 40. 4th. Tl1ey are tl1ose w·l10 afford a cause for a crii11e bei11g com111 i tted. Art. 41. 5th. Tl1ey are tl1ose w)10 sl1ow tl1e way to com111it tl?e cri111e or afford inforrnation a11d weaf)Ons tl1at tl1e cri111e 1nay be con1m1tted. •

Questions

Wl,at factors disti,,gtiisl1 tl1e major categories of fJarticiJ)ation: pri11cipals (co-offe11ders), accomplices a11d accessories after tl1e fact? 111 what ways ma y 011e beco1ne a pri11ci1Jal or �o�offe11der? Wl1y does the_ use of a ''mentally deficient perso11'' 11ot fall_ w1tl1111 A�t. 32 (1) (a)? Was 1t ()roper in the Ato Asl,enafi case to categorize tl1e tl11rd ap1Jellant as a11 accomplice? lv1ust 011e acttially participate in tl1e exect1tio1� of a crime ! O fall \Vithi11 ''full associatiotl''? I 5 ''fttll associatio11'' esse11�1ally eq11�l �o 111te11t? _Wl1e11 C hai,ds a weaJJOil to A, 110t war1ti11g � to die, bttt ,v1sl11ng to oblige A, wl,o has asked liim for tl,e weapon, 1s C a co-offe11cler? lv\ust all cooffe11ders be punisl1ed equally?

I -· . '

.•

II • .

•

•• •

.' ., ' .,. .'

' I'•

,,.

I; ·l;

:_. �. .

:i' ..

,. t:

258

4-.

I I.

10. 11.

PART I Cl PATION

te ic nv be co s � ng as di a ee oc pr co al ci di ju to y rt pa t a , 110 oi rs a pe ay M r1 1 ar a1 m ay un ed M o 6? rs 44 pe . rt A n r de un 1ry rjt pe of _ e im cr e tl1 er in 11d offe ly 34 . ial rt nt A se s es a e? I ap re r of an m \vo A _ y? in ga bi of ed ict be conv ? e. os rp pu 1ts IS t ha W ? 39 d an 36 , 32 s. t rt en A of statem � an et See Av oj ? pr 36 t. ing Ar us in 11 ea m '' ly ng wi no ''k rd wo e t th es Wha do l ng wi no ''k y es do s' t is_ w_ ass ' Ho . x) di en pp (A nt me lle ,ie ion ent rd inc French wo cer o J)r du o! the a ict nv film co u yo ld ot1 W _ ''? ion iat oc ass ll _ ''fu m differ fro me cri ted e pic th de it mm in co to ys bo l era sev ed lat mu sti 1 icl on crime \Vh 1 t? gl1 e esi for lud Can one inc ' ly' i11g ow kn ' es Do ce? pli orn acc tl1e film as an e? nc ge gli ne by r de fen -of co A e? 11c ge gli ne ce by pli be ar1 accom Must assistance under Art. 36 have causal relationship with the harm.? Are. words of advice enough or mt1st they be heeded by the princiJJal offende�? Note tl1e following statement with respect to tl1e C.P.S. by Prof. Scl1t1ltz 1n No. 1191, Fie/Jes Juridi·ques Sr,isses 2 (1957): Art. 25 requires tl1at tl1e accomplice lend assistance in the cui:nmission of a felony or misdemeanor.... The act of tl1e accomplice must l1ave forged a li11k in tl1e cl1ain of eve11ts leading to the principal act. See also Logoz, Con1me11 taire dit Code Penal Siiisse 104. Would it be wise for Etl1io1)ia to follow tl1e above Swiss doctri11e? Would )'OLl l1old a storekeeJ)er as an accomplice who, st1specting tl1e criminal purpose of his customer, sells him tools wl1icl1 are tl1emselves innoce11t, bt1t wl1ich ca11 be used for l1ousebreal<i11g? What are the competing policies militating for a11d agai11st co11viction? Would it matter if A sl1ared with B his advice to the effect tl1at B could easily rob the State Bank and several days later - 011e day before B actt1ally robbed the ba11k - told B lie really didn't tl1inl< it \Vas a good idea any n1ore? Does Art. 27 (2) prevent one from bei11g an accomplice to an attempt? What is the rationale bel1i11d Arts. 38 and 40? Wl1at is tl1� differe11ce_ b�tw�en an accom1Jlice a11d an accessory after the fact? Wl1y ts such a d1st111ct1on made a11d less pu11ish1nent generally given to tl1e. a�cessory? Is knowledge a prereqt1isite to conviction under Art. 39 as 1t 1s t1_nder Art. 36? Iv\ust tl1ere be a JJrincipal crime before one can be co11v!cted. as a11 accessory? Art. 305 C.P.S. provides, inter alia, that a cl?se relat1�nsl11p between . tl1e f)rincipal offender and accessory permits the Judge to itnpose no pun1sl1n1e11t. Is tl1ere a similar provision in the P.C.E.? Is such a defe11se to accessorysl1ip wise? d S h oul case? witl1 the agre� court's you soltttio11 Richardso,z in �o. the s1m1lar reaso11111g l1ave acqt1itted tl1e third appellant it, the Ato Ashenafi case? Are you in agreeme11t. �ith th� policies underlying Arts. 41-47 (see Note 1)? Ca11 such provisions be Implemented today in Ethiopia? Problem

each uld wo Under w�ich category of participation: Art.321 36 or 39 P.C.E. p1a: o Ethi l four i t _ defendants following fall if their acts had occurred of the Accused No. 3 and Accused No.4 stated ug s 1 N o. A cc used gested to tl1em and to Accused No. 2 to g that � o-i se ho u 0 Wl·th h'· lffi t 0 t11 e --

�

PRINCIPALS, ACCOMI-> LICES AND ACCESSORIES

259

his ex·mistres_s, Yondi Kassct, to beat deceased, wl10 replaced l1i111 i11 tl,e love of Y011d1 Kassa a11d wl101n I,e ex1)ected to fi11 d slee1)i11 g \xritl1 lier. Ac�ttsed No. 3 and Accused No. 4 said tl1ey dicl 11ot agree to tl1e suggest1011 of Accused No. 1, but Acct1sed No. 2 did. Accusecl Ne). 1 ar1d Acct1sed No. 2 accordingly we11t to tl1e ]1ouse of V C)t1d i Kassa ar111ecl witl1 ukkazes. They fou11d cieceased ir1side tIle l1ot1se. Accltsecl No. 1 challe11ge? deceas_ed to co1ne ottl wl1icl1 tl1e latter relucta11tly did. Deceased had a k111fe 011 111s flrrn. Acct1secl No. 1 ar1d deceased started to i11st1lt eacl1 other. Acct1sed No. 2, seei11 g deceased ,vas ar111ed witl1 a l<11ife a11cl wa s_ toucl1i 11g it as l1 e tall{ed t<> Acct1sed No. I, realisecl deceased \'/as rlol going to be a11 easy pre)'. So Accttsecl No. 2 left Accttsecl No. l a11d deceased Insulti11g �acl1 otl1er a11d \ver1t to P.W. 6, Bal<i Bri11gi, a11d aro11sed l11m from l1is slce11 a11d brot1gl1t l1 ir11 to tl1 e sce11e \v1itl1ot1l lelli 1 1g l1im \Vl1y lie \Vas wa11ted. P.W. 6 ca111e to tl1e sce11e u11ar111ecl. Tl1ey fcJt111ci Ac:used No. 1 ai1d deceasecl still excl1ar1gi11g l1ot i 11st1Itir1g \):rords. Deceasc(l seeing l1e was tl1e11 sta11cling agai11st tl1ree JJerso11s got excited ar1Ll �1 �ai1 1 started to put l1is l1a11d 011 l1is !(11ire. Acct1secl No. 2 atle1111)tecl to tal,:c awa)' tl1e k11ife from deceased's arin, \vl1eret11Jo11 cleceasccl clre,)7 l1is l<11ifc: arid stabbed Acc11secl No. 2 011 lite bacl( of l1is rigl1t leg, i11flicti111� ai1 i11jury 3 i11cl1es lo11g reacl1i11g tl1e 111t1scle. P·.\V. 6 'Y1l·10 '\r<lS 0111:)' J)lilj'i11,g the role of a I-Jaggaz \Va11tecl to tal-:e tl1 e l<1tife frr)t11 clece<1secl Jitcl i11 tl1:1t atten1pt tl1 e k11ife i11jt1red l1 is firlgcrs. I)eceasecl, tl1i11l,i11g I). --.::/.i. 6 \\'as helping Acctised No. I a.11d Accusecl No. 2 stal)becl \1ir11 011 tl1<:: bacl{. P.W. 6 fell to tl1e grou11cl. Tl1e11 J\ccttsed I\Jo. J ai1d 1:·'Lcct1s;:cl r"r1). 2 started to l1it tl1e deceased \vitl1 tl,eir t;:i.ll a1ld l1eav\' 11i<l<azes. l)��ceasecl was tl1en at a disadva11tage as l1 is l{11ife cot1lcl 11cJt re2cl1 l1is ass;1il;ir1is. J-\t that stage Accused No. 3 a11 d a11 cl t\cct1secl l\J 1. ll car11e rt111r1i11g ar1i1ecl witl1 ukkazes and joi11ed Accused No. 1 Rr1cl Acctise<:1 !'Ir;. 2 ir1 stril{iil�! deceased. Deceased collapsed to tl1e g·rot111d as a rcs11lt of tl1;lt j<1i11t beating. Then Accused f\Io. 3 a11d AccuseLl J\Jo. ,4 tieci decease(l's lla11c1s bel1ind l1is back and left l1im i11 tl1at state. Deceasecl 111ar1r1gecl tc) c.lra1� himself to tl1e n�arb,, l1 t1t of P.W. 4 \vl1ere l 1e sl1orlly died, ;:1f f cclecl b}' that hard beating. Sr,dan Go'Vert1me11t 'V..l-1.b,t R�,s Teir.ib .1.,ill OtfJers, 1061 Sudan L. J. 117-118.

. ...

Recommended Readings Brullmann c. Ministere PHblic du Canton de T/111:go'Vi�, RO 77 IV 8�, JT IV 22

( 1952} (Swiss case 11 olding the co1nmerc1al d1r�ctor of .a \Vt11e �ompa_11y a principal offerider, as altl1ough he dicl 11?t actu�lly mix _ tl1e w11!e \_ �1tl1 water in violation of canto11al law, lie associated l11mself \v'1tl1 the ctec1sio11 to do so). Schmid c. Ministere Public du Canton de Solezire, RO 85 �V 130, JT IV. 142 ( 1 ? 59) (Swiss case holding that one \,q}10 wa_s i� ot at a f_ire� but gav� 111st� ucl1or1s and inflammable materials is a pr1nc1pal, as it 1s m?re 1mpo1 ta,�t to consider intention than act�al f)articipation in tl1e exect1t1on of tl,e cr1111e). No'Ua""'Werke junker a,id Ferber c. Bra11denberger and Consorts! RO 80 IV 22, JT IV 82 { 1954) (Swiss ca�e }1o]di11g tl1at a11 accornpltce pres�pfJOSes tl1e

existence of a punishable princ_ ipal offe11der, but tl1e accompl1ce r:iay be punished even if tl1e principal ts not).

i I

•�

I . ..... ..

·1 ... . -•

·'

• . ..:.I .: ::' . .• ·

....'·· ; .1 ·-..'.,.. . '. ' :·, ·J

.::,·--. :. .' :

., ·'"

i}'. I �i:

,,:.·�. .,

PARTICIPATION

260

3 ) (Swiss c�se � 84 (19 IV JT , IV 69 RO ois, cern Lu c bli Pu tere c. rzis Mi tti are Piff .

ng ld1 lio , .S. tl1at a1d1ng P C: . 05 3 t. Ar t, fa� tl1e er aft co11cer11i11g accessory t. 3 05 whether the Ar 11 th1 w1 ls !al 1gs d11 cee pro 11al pe id r avo tl1e to a11o princi 1Jal defe11da11t is i11nocent or guilty) . 122 (1961) (Swiss IV 49, JT IV 87 RO , vie rgo d'A n nto Ca du lic Y c. A1inistere Pub jurisprude11ce co11strt1ing Art. 26 C. P.S., tl,e counterpart of Art. 40 P.C.E.) Ryt1, Tl1e New Korean Crimi11al Code . of qctober 3 , 1953 , 48 ]. Crim. L. Cri 1n. a11d Pol. Sci. 287-290 (1957) (co11s1derat1011 of the German, Anglo-Ameri� can a11d Korea11 law of participatio11). Reyes, TIJe Revised Penal Code of the Philippines 377-447_ (l 963� (c_onstruction of provisio11s on JJartici1Jation qt1ite similar to tl1ose 1n Eth1op1a).

Willia111s, Cri1ni1ial Law 346-427 (comJJrel1e11sive treatme11t of participation in t11e co 111n1o11 Ia \XI). Merle Droit Penal 181-219 (disc11ssion of participation in French pe11al law). 1

' I

l·:1

{. 'I ,II, I

,�.

ll'f •r)• I II

'jl.

'I '

feldbrugge, Soviet, Cri111 irial J..,aw, 9 Law in Eastern Europe 139-155 (1964) (discus sio11 of tl1e So,,iet crimi11al ia'Y, of participatio11).

Ol<o11l<\X'O a11d Naisl1, Criminal a11 offe11se i11 Nigeria).

Law of Nigeria

156-183 (1964) (the parties to

Bot1zat, Droit Penal 604-623 (particirJation in tl1e JJe11al law of France).

Oerma11 foreig11 Office, Man11.al of German Law 86-89 (1952) (the parties to an offe11se in Oer1nar1 law). SECTION 8. INCITEMENT

PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA4

' '

Art. 35. - Incite1ne11ts. (1) Wl10s_oever inte11tio11�lly indt1ces a11otl1er person wl,etl1er by persuasion, (Jro1n1ses, n1011ey, grfts, tl1reats, or otl1er,vise to co1nmit an offence sl1all be regarded as gLtilty of havi11g i11cited tl,e commission of the offe11ce. Tl1e jJerso11 ,vl10 i11cited tl1e com1nissio11 of a11 offence sl,all be liable to pL111isl1r11e11t jJrovided tl1e offer1ce was at least attempted. (2) Jl1e pt111isl11�1e11t to be imJJosed s1,all be that JJrovided by law for the !11te11de� offe11ce . It 111ay be redu�ed witl1i11 tl,e limits SJJecified by law . ct1n1sta11ces of tl1e case Justify sucl, a reduction. (Art. 184). c11 tl1e 1f (3) :X'l1e11 tl1e persor� ,v�10 con1mitted tl,e offence went beyond wl1at was 111tendecl by the 111s�tgator tl1e latter sliall be liable to ptinishment only for the offe11ce l1e 111te11ded or could foresee. (Art. 58 (3) ) . s . ou seri more The actual . offender shall alo11e be ai,swerable for the offe11ce wl11cl1 l1e committed. 4. The source of Art. 35 P.C,E. is Art. 24 C.P.S (A . 'res in· r d' . Code ppen ix) although th� Swiss e ducement to comn1i_t a felony wl1ile Art. 35 ha Fet all�w nd cement: to com m it any ? ff�nse. T1: kill ust t � Nagast: also deals with incitement in Cl1 aP· XL . stat:i ID ng t�1at, '' ... o ne who mc1tes to • be judged in tl1 e same 111anner as On e w 110 commits hom_1c1de . . . .,,

vi:

261

INCITEMENT

INSTIGATION5 Ha1zs Schultz of _th � i 1 1stigator is geared to the aim of Ieadi 11 g a11otl1er to _ _The inte11tio'l tl1e 111tent1onal _comm1ss1on of _an offe11_se.Tl1is inte11tio11 is qttite differe11t fro111 that of an or �1nary offe11der 1n tl1at 1t does 11ot ai 1n toward tl1e coin tnissio11 of a11 offense itself, but attempts to exercise a11 i11flt1ence over a11otl1er to coin 111it a crin1inal act. •

• •

•

' '

Tl1e instigator must convi11ce a11otl1er to co1111nit a11 offe11se. Co11vi11ce'' mea11s to provoke a de�isio11_ to act. Tl1e i 1 1sligator acts cri1ni11ally \xrl1e 11 lie clearly makes kno�11 l11s \,;,111 . to �_ 11flt1c1 1 ce. Oe11erally tl1 is is acco111JJlisl 1 ed throt1gl1 ?ral or wr1tte1 1 _ex press1011 111 clear la11gt1age. Excer)tio11ally, a gcstt1re may suffice.... Tl1e cr1n1111al act must alwa)'S be of co111111issio1 1· 011e is 11ot able to co11vi11ce tl1rougl1 0111 issio11. Contrary to fre11cl1 la\X' (Art. 60 JJara. 1, Pe11al <::ode), Oern1a11 la\v (Sect. 48, Penal Code) a11d At1stria11 la\v (Art. 21.1 para. 1, Pe11al Code) tl1ere is ilO ]i111iti11g catalogue of mear1s [t111cler Art. 24 C.P.S.J tl1rot1gl1 wl1icl1 ll1e i 11 stigalor 111L1st effect his influe11ce. The i11stigator must inte11lio11ally co11,,i11ce a11otl1er to co111111 it a s1Jecific crime. Furtl1er, lie mt1st alwa)'S address l1is i11stigatio11 to 011e or several SjJecific perso11s ....Oe11erally, tl1e offe11se \x,l1icl1 \vas co1111nitted t"I1t1st be tl1.1t \vl1 icf1 was urged ...and tl1e \1icti111 to be attacl{ed n1t1st be clesig11atecl b)' tl1e i11sli� gator....It would be e11ot1gl1, 110\vever, if tl1e i11stigator asl<ecl tl1c jJri11ci [Jrt1 offender to co111mit a cri111i11al act agai11st tl1e first fJerso11 tl1at lie fi11cls .... Instigation to participatio11 is also JJt1 11isl1able. One is not p1111isl1able for i11stigatio11 of a jJrir 1 ci1Jal offe11cler \x l10 ha�, already decided to conitnit tl1e offe11se.. . . Tl1is 'l:v'<)ulcl lJe a11 i111J)ossil)le instigation. The instigation is complete \vl1e11 tl1e fJri11 ci1Jal offe11cler co111111its tl,c c,f fense envisaged. Co1nmissio11 i11 tl1e se11se of Art. 24 C.P.S. is accor11r1lisl·1e(! wl1en tl1e offense is at least attetn fJted. 11

GERMAN FEDERAL SUPREME COURT6 District Court of Aacl1e11, Decisio,1 of 1-1-1955 2 St. R. 172/55; 8 N.J.1V. 1485 (1955)

•

• •

\Xl 1ile l1e 0. s. /v\r rob and y yla \va } to ed 1111 pla nt da fen de e the In this cas wanted to commit tlie robbery, lie did 11ot \visl1 to do so alo11e. T!1ere1ore . l1e asked C to participate. His solicitatior1 \vas tt1rned do\v11, but l_1e ��1cl_ n �t give uP h"15 P Ian. Rati,er, he turned to J-I a11cl lvl wl10 declared tl1e1r \v1ll111g11ess to .. s 1··ig I1 tl,/ co11v icted · 'ed tl1e· robbery. I-J e \�a participate. With tl,em l1e the11 attempl of this attempt.... ry ato ar i11 e1J rta 1Jr d ce te ec bj su s l1a or at isl leg 1 e By Sect. 49a, Penal Code7 t} ]11riclir1ues S11is-ses, No. 1190 (1957). · . . . , Law 18•t-l S:,. 1.11 c con l }1 1. An , body a rrc1n ptl n g t<> 1 nst 1g �t? anot 1c1. to

. . at1on i n) 1-4 , l:iches 5. Sh . t'o c u ltz, Part1c1p (II, l'Inst1ga .

7•

Com"narative Cri,nin,tl - · Sect. 49a. '"Solzcztatzon . Ion : to Comrntt· a Fe to tnl' 1�1 ons :.1pplicable v pro the h wir lCe ,11 <l, r ! co cl ac l . 111 !Y 1e , s • an act pun1s · ha bl e as a f cIony, shall be pun1 ., Forezgn pen,1 { o; s Scr,c rican Ame ( e CoJ I cna p an rm Ge e Tl1 attempted felony (Sects. 44, 45)"

Translation Mueller!

Coda, 196 t ).

' ' '

' '

! '.

1."·:

i '. ;, .' . ''' "

','

) A TION J I IC T R PA

262

In ch s su se s. ca es sn <:>u er e th ng da ir l1e t of se au c be 1t e1 l1m is 111 activities to fJL ed ss re to og t_ he at s pr l1a t 1 �e fo be d l1e is 111 fJL be to crimi11 al ir1tent is SUfJIJosed y or at n ar tio ep ac pr a to of 1n ed 11r at m s l1a it n l1e w is te 111p t stao-e1 tl1at l w la na pe de _ i e ns th r:o ut rs t. es B er t in d te c e ot pr lly ga le e' lesser da11ger to tl1 t er da 11g�rs to the inter ea gr to ad le ly t n ue eq bs su tl1is da 11ger only if it does 1 1ot d 9e n _ e te th 1n e f _o_ im n cr io et . pl m co 1 1 ?Y io at ol vi a to en ev es t by an attempt or , on 1s1 ov ry c l1a _pr re x1 ed au 1 a1 ly on 1s a 49 c t. Se , r1n fo t e11 Tl111s 1 eve 1 1 i11 its pres n. io et pl m co or pt em t at to r 1e rtl fu s ad le elf i11 g \Vl1e11 tl1e intent its • • t it no mm d r the di co ato ig t ins e tl1 y 1tl 1 ue eq bs su at tl1 t a11 c i It, is legally insig11if from t he very outset it had crime \vitl1 Cl. as 1Jla11ned, but witl1 o tl1er persons. bee11 l1is jJ!a11 to rob Mrs. 0. All of l1is actio11s were directed to tl1is one e 1 1d, his unsL1 ccessfL1l solicitatio 11 of Cl., l1is successf11lly contac ting H. and M., as well as tl1e st1bseqL1e11t actio11s committed witl1 tl1em, resulting in a criminal attempt. Tl1t1s according to !1is plan, all of his activities threatened one and the same legally protected i11terest. Tl1erefore, only a conviction of attempt, the strongest t11reat evidenced, is possible. A11otl1er consideratio11 leads to the same result. Si11c e I-1. and f..1. had respor1 ded to 11 is ir1stigatio11 to JJarticipate in co1nmit ting tl1e felony, he of COL1rs� �an11or t be co11victed of instigatio111 because lie himself is pu11ishable 'as a co-JJr111 cJrJal. r11e san1e woulcl hold trL1e if Cl. l1ad responded to the instigation. Tl1e old SL1fJre111e Cot1rt has properly poin ted out that it wo1 1 ld not be in acc_o�·d _\'{litl1 tl1e _me_aning of Sect. 49a, Penal Code if in case of a successful sol 1 �1t_at 1 011 tl1e pr111�1pal �erpetra_to� coL1ld 11ot be punished for ir1stigation to part1c1paie 1 bL1t, besides his co 1:v 1 ct1011 for the attempted or completed offense a_s a per 1J�trator, co11ld be pt1n1sl1ed tinder Sect. 49a for an i,11successful solicita tion (SL1p1eme Court [1906] J.W. 487 No. I; also 60 R.O. St. 88, 92). •

•

, I

CRIMINAL SOLICIT A TION8

Herbert Wechsler, William Jones, Harold Korn

Sect. 5.02. - Criminal Solicitation.

. ( 1 � De/iJiition of solicitation. A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a cr1 111e 1f w1tl1 tl1e IJL1r1Jose of pro111oti11g or fac·11 1· tat·ing 1·ts comm1ss1on · · he com· 111a1. 1ds, e11courages or reqttests another person to engage in spe c1·t·ic conduc t . 'X'hic\1 would co11 sti.tute such crime 01. an attempt to commit sucl1 crime or · · n · comm1ss1o \vl11c . 11 woL1 ld establ1s!1. tl1e comJJli. city of sucl, other person 1n · 1 ts . 1011. [ A1ner1 ca11 Law Institute, Model Penal Code]. or attem1Jted cor11. m1ss · There l1as been differe11ce of opinion as to .wl1e . I socia t ine her a gen u . . da11ger is JJrese11ted by solicitation to com it a crime. It has been � r�ued, �n tl1e 011e l1a11d, tl1 at sucli co,idtict is not d; ngerous beca use the res1st1ng will . of an i1 1depe11dent moral agent i5 ��t e p sed between the sol_ici�or and the com 1n_issio11 of the crime tl,at is l,is J c; i Y t�e sam� t ok�n 1t 1s _ urged th�t t�e solicitor, manifesting Iiis reluctanie t� �ommtt th� �rime himself, is not a s1gn1fica11t n1e11ace. Tl1e opposing vie 1. th t a solic1�atio1: is, if anything, m9re da 1 1gerou� tl_1an a direct attempt, �e �aus: .it may g1�e rise to tio coopera n tha t . na 1 rn among cr 1 ls wl1icli is a special 11azard · 5 ol1c1tat1on may, indee d, be though t 8.

Wechsler, Jones aI1d Korn Tl1 e Treat cnt Of lnchoate Crimes in the Model Pen.al Code of the ,Arne� rican Law Instinn:e: Attc�pt, Solie·itation, an d Co _ n spiracy, 6 l Columbia L. Rev. 62 l-622 (I9 6t).

INCITEMENT

263

of as a11 attempt to consJJ_ire. Moreover, tl1e solicitor, working his will tl1rough

one or more agents, manifests an apJJroacl1 to crime more intelligent a11d masterful tl1an tl1e efforts of l1is hireli1 1g. I11deed examrJ) es dra \Vn from tl,e contro� ersial fields of pol�tical �g;itation �11d_ labor trnrest suggest as a 11onco11les sor, tl,at the 1m1Jo_s1t1011 of l1ab11 ity for crin1i11al solicitation may trovers1al _ be an important mear1s by wl11ch tl1e leaclersl1ip of a 111oveme11t deemed cri miiial may be s11 ppressed. Tl1ere s_hould be 110 d?Libt_ 011 tliis . isstte. PLtrJJoseful solicitatio11 prese11ts dange�s. call111g for pr�v�nt1 ve 11�t�rve1 1t1011 a11 cl is sL1fficie1 1tly i11 dicative of a dispos1t1011 to\vards_ �r1n11 11al actt\'Il)' to call for liability. Moroever, tl,e forttiity tl1at the � ersor1 �ol1c1ted cloes 11ot �gree to co111111it or atte1111Jt to co1n111it tl1e i11cited crime pla111ly sl1011lcl 11ot relieve tl1e solicitor of liability, whe11 otl1erwise _ he \'fOUld be a co11SfJtrator or ar1 ,1cco1111.:ilice.

•

. ..

Questions

I. Wl1at t)1 pe of i11te11tio11 is reqL1irecl b}' 1\rt. 35? B)' \\7l1at ri1ea11s 111 c1.y i11cite me11t l)e effected t111cler 1-\rt. 35? Wl1at act is rc·qtiirecI for ii1cilen1e11t? May 011e be co11victeci t11 1cler Art.35 -for i11citir1ii a cro,·<'cf i11 g·e11 eral or for ii1citir1g a fJri1lci1Jal offe11cler \vl10 l1ad alreac{y decicled to COiTii11il tl1e offer1se? 2.

\Vl1at clisti11gt1isl1es Art. 35 fro111 Art. 36 (1'.\ccoi111Jlice) or /.\rt. 37 ((.= 011 sr1i racy)? \Vl1at'"' are tl1e differe11ces i11 1J"t1r1isl1111e11l aLla1:l1ecl tc) eacl1 cif tl1 e tl1ree offences?

Does tl1e crin1e of i11cite111e11 t dilL1te tl1 e ''aci' 1 reql1irei.11er1t ir1ore tl1a11 atte1n1J_t? Wl1icl1 is fL1rtl1er fro111 �11ti-social bel,avior�r Is it IJ_ossi_ble _ ll() v reconc1 le Arts. 269, 474 or 480 '-:vl tl1 Arts. 26 ar1cl 2 I? \)Yl1at 1s Ll1e re1;1tio11 sl1ip of Arts. 269, 474 a11d 480 to Arl. 35?

Cot1ld tl1e defenda11t i11 the Oer111a11 case be co11victed for atte1111Jtccl ir1cite ment of Cl. if his acts l1ad tal,e11 JJlace ir1 Et11ior)ia? U11der Art. 35, car1 one be punishab I e for botI1 i11 cite n1 eil t a 11 cl t J-1 e co1n !JI eled offe 11 se? Wl1at pt111isl1ment is provided for i11citeme11t? See f\rts. 269, 474, L180 a11d Decree No. ,:: 15 of I 96 I O.C.

Wliat is tl,e JJLtrpose of JJ1.1r1ishi11g i11cile111e11t? Wl1y reqLtire that tl1e JJri11cipal offense be at least attemJJted before jJt111isJ-1i11g tl1e i11cite111e11l? \Vl1at is a ''mere attemrJt to itistigate'' Art. 27(2}? Wl1y is it not pe11alized?

.' .

I· ,

·i j .• . I

-·.·.

' .

I · ...: ''. I' . . ... . ... . .' . I

;

Problem Incitemetit offenses have ofte 11 arisen ir1 labor situatio11 s i11 otl1er coL111tries. How would tl1e followi11g facts be dealt witl, ur1der tl,e P.C. E.?

... The acctlsed, intending t O endanger t_he p 1 i_ c fJea e �11d tf i11cite � � a11d procure the corn mission and perpetration ? . tvers f e�0111es a11c aggra _ vated crimes akin to felonies, did ti11lawft1lly sol1c1 t, urge, co1nma11c�, cou11sel and endeavor to incite, catis r and procure some or all of a Iar e 11umber of persons assembled, to tl,e State's Attorney unkr1own, to pei�IJetrate or

I. ...

·.''

r �' r• . .. . ' ' .... . .. -

...

264

PARTICIPATION

attempt to perpetrate tl1e crimes of murder, . ro�bery, aggravated assault witl1 deadly or dangerous weapons, �ssault w 1_th intent to murde: and �s sault with i11te11t to rob, tl1e sa111e being felonies or aggravated crimes akin to felonies, by oral address in la11 guage in substance as follows: ' You will never win tl1e strike \Viti, soft metl1ods. You you11g me 1 1 ougl1t to go out on tl1e bridge.Oo11't use eggs, t1se coal or indelible ink. Break foremen's windows at their homes. Watcl1 the scabs wl1en tl1ey come from work, lay for tl1em, es1Jecially on pay day.Take them in a dark alley. and hit them \vitl1 a lead pipe. Tl1at is tl1 e softest tl1ing you can use. Reimburse your selves for \Vl1at we have sacrificed for five months. Don't forget to bump off a fe\v 1 10w a11d then, so Mr.Pearso 1 1 will know that you are not get ti11 g cold feet. Yott car n1en k11ow l1ow to tal<e a brake-shoe off.Take tl1e bral<e-shoe a11d pttt it u11der soi11ethi11g tl1at will put tl1e cars off tl1e irons. A little sa11d or en1ery i1 1 tl1e journal boxes will help greatly. Don't be sat isfied \vitl1 trin1111i11g the engi11es. Pt1t some of the cars 011 tl1e bum.Also if co11ve11ie11t, pt1t something in 15et\vee11 tl1e frames and rods of engines 011 sidi1 1gs. Oet bt1 sy yot111g fellows, and trim tl1ese scabs. Tl1ings are run1 1i 1 1g too sn1ootl1 011 tl1e Ne\xr Have11 road, but let 1 11e l1ear from )'OU wl1ile I am l1ere. Oo al1ead a11 cl ri1) tl1i1 1gs and do11 't let tl1e in}u11ction stop you fro 1 11 trin1111i11g tl1ese scabs. D0' 11't forget to tie tl1em LtJJ \xritl1 derail 1ne11ts. Yott boys 011ght to cut tl1en1 all UJJ ... . State v. Schleifer, 99 Co 11 necticut 432 ( 1923), U r1 ited States. 1

)�

Ii�

.(\ It

�-

'·1,.

Recommended Readings Dubi c. ?roc_ttre.ur Ge,1eral d,t

c_a,110,2

de _Be�·11e 1 RO 72 IV 27, JT IV 3 (1947)

(S\�1ss .Jt1r 1.s1Jrt�de 1 1ce l1 ?ld!11 g tl1at 1t 1s 11ot possible for 011e to be guilty of 1 11 st 1 gat 1 or1 1 f the pr1nc 1 1Jal offe11der l1ad already decided to commit the offense). Eggler c. Mi'? ist?re Pttblic dit Ca�iton de ZuriclJ, RO 82 IV 129, JT IV 98 (1956) . (S\xr1ss J Lt r1spr�1d �nce l1old 1 ng _that an i 11stigator may be punished even tl1ougl1 tlie pr111c 1 pal offe11der 1s 11ot pu 1 1islied or 11o t ide1, tified ). Williams, Criminal Law 609-613 (sl1ort cl1a1Jter 011 i 1 1cite1ne11t i 11 E11alish law). American Law Reports, Solicitatio11 to_ C?mn1it Crime, 51 A.L.R.2d 953-962 (1957) (sl1ort state111ent of tl-1 e la\v of 111c 1 teme11t i11 tl1e U11iled States). SECTION C.

CONSPIRACY

a. The Law of Conspiracy £n Ethiopia PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA9 I

Art. 37.- Crimi11al Cons piracy.

\wJ

�r more persons enter into an agreement to achieve an �n.aw _u esign or to �ommit an offence tl1e provisio11s regarding par and aggravat�o11 of pui,isl,ment due to the above mentioned t1c11Jat1011 _ circumstances are a1JIJltcable. (Art.81 )d( ).

(l) W�er�

Conspiracy in Swiss penal law consists of the aggrava · . tion o f several Special Part offenses commission pursuant to crim·inal agreement.

for

their

CONSPIRACY

265

(2) Tl} e fo�egoirig proyisio11 sl1all, l�owever, not affect t l1e provisions con ta1r1ed 111 ! lie .SfJecial Part of t l11s Code relating to co pi 11s racies against _ " ' . es t l1e se11tia l . 111_tei ests of tl1e Stat� �11d its defe11ce tl1e form in , of g t1n . so as ci lawfu l_ _ at1011s an d tl1e fJart1c1pat1011 t l1erein, as well as to t l1e ga 111 za t10 r o 11 of gangs or associatio11s of wro11gdoers. (Art. 269 286 , , 313 a11d 472). Art. 472. - Co11spiracy. (1) \Vl1os � t�ver co11SfJire� :Vil l1 011e_ or 111ore fJerso11s for tl1e purfJOse of (J reJJar111g or co111mI tt111g ser1ot1s offer1ces ag ai11st IJL1blic secL1rity or l1e�l t l1, tl� e JJer�o11 or IJrorJerl)', or IJersuades a11otl1er to joi11 s t1c l1 con _ y 1 sp irac ,_ 1s �u111sl1able, 1Jrov1cled tl1at lite co11s1Jiracy materialises, \'7it l , simp le 11n1Jr1so11r11c11t for 11ot l ess tl1ar1 tl1ree 111(Jt1tl1s a11cl fi11e. for tl1e fJllfJ)ose of tl1is Articl e, ''serious offe11ces'' are offe11ces w l 1icl1 are f)t111isl1able \X1 ill1 rigl)rot1s i11111riso11111e11t for five years or more. (2) Wl1ere tl1e co11s1)i rators are r1t11nero11s, or \Vl1ere tl1ey are armed or possess i11strL1111e11ts or 111ea11s fitted by t l1eir 11at11re for the commissioi1 of a11 <.)ffe11ce, c,r \Vltere tl1e co11s1Jiralors are fot111cl to be carryi,1g \i·earJ011s, or st1cf1 i11strt1111e11ts or n1ea11s, tl1e jJt111isl1me11t shal l be si1n JJle in1JJrisor1r11e11t for six 111011tl1s or a fine of one tl1011s,t11d dollars at least. (3) Wl1ere t l1e da11gerot1s 11att.1re of tl 1e co11spirac)' l1as bec11 clen1011stratc(l by tl1e corn m issio11 of a serio11s of fe11ce, \q}1et l1er agai11st life or 1Jerso;1, p11blic safet)' or jJro1Jerl)', b)' t l1e con1t11issior1 cJf a series of crime�,, \i·l1etl1er or 11ot of tl1e sa111e l<i11d, or by acts sucl1 as traffic i11 ar111s, 11arcotic s11bstar1ces or fJerso11s, tl1e Cot1rt sl1al l j)f<)1101111ce tl1e i11a::ci m111n se11te11ce JJrovidecl b)' l aw, tal\ir1g i11to coi1Si(leratio11 t!1e [Jrovis io11s re latirig lo co11c11rre11ce (Art. 62 a11d 63).

I ..

I' '

•

ATO ZERYHUN MAKONNEN AND OTHERS v. TI-IE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Federal Sttpereme Imperial Court, Feder�1l Cri1ni,1al Appe,il No. 4l53 ( 1961 G. C.) 1 ]. Etl1. L. 195 {1964) Etl1iopia 1\1aska ram 13, 1954 E. C. (Septernber 24, 1962 O.C.); Justices:. �fe neg�s is . Th s1e l�s Sel dd bte Ha b t-a eke Ber Ato ar agi 1 a l· Bt1 . \Y./ , . e a Dr _ esl ess i ng lvte !1s , an apfJeaJ from convictio11 ar,cl se11te11ce under a_ J1_ 1�lgme11t delivered by the Federa l I-ligh CoLtrt ii, Eritrea ir1 its Adrniralt}' D1v1s1011. T l1e a1Jp ellants have not filed a fLill fvtemorai,dtitn of Appeal a11d t l1e grot111ds of app� _ al m�st be understood to be, as regards co11victio11, t l1at tl1ere was not st1ff1c1ent evidence on wl1ich the Court could convict a,,d, as regards sente11ce, tl1at tl1e sentence award e d by the trial Court was excessive. The charge agaitist tli e appellants consisted of tl1e fo l lo\vi11g courits: (a) coiispiracy to commit serio11s offences a�ai11st perso11 and pro1)erty contrary to Article 472 of the Pe11al Code, · le 538 of t l1e Penal (b) causing wilful bodi l y i11jury co11trary t o Art tc Code; and

I. I . I•

' ' " ' ' : .

' I

..''"

I ' •' t .: I .,

'I .' .' .:: :

'' " ... . :. ' ,. ,:, . »<

.-,·:

•

-�, '.• ...

" ..

PARTICIPATION

266

le ic to rt A ry 3 ra 65 nt d co an ty er op pr ti Ar to cle e ag m da ul ilf w g in us (c} ca 654 of tl1e Pe11al Code. l ra de l1 e. fe ig H �h of ur rd Co co re t e tl1 d 1e 1 and ni ai ex lly fu s 11a Tl1is Court 11g s as to facts. 1 d n t f1 ec rr co 1e tl at d ve ri ar is satisfied t\1at t\1at Court ed er s nt e _ nt t lla ge pe to ap �r fo r the e h� tl1 at tl1 ed ov pr tly en ci ffi su as w It 11 1g; th at tl1 e first appellant hit hin1 k or w s wa 1ed 11n 1 1a ol M in store \\'.,l,ere Ato Am r ee e he �r t _ tl1 ot at l tl1 pe ap 1e; 1 bo l sa na lants, e tl1 of e ur ct fra a m \ii and caused d ate c1p rt1 by pa i t, oc t1I ass sa �s cl1 sL1 ating 1 1 i t ar p _ e ti� ac an g zi11 tal t although 110 1 e as sa ul t o� Ato Teele Oabre tl ds t ga re as rly 1la S1m lt. aL1 ass e tli 1 tliemselves i1 , ns sio the first and ntu l co era sev is, t tl1a , ies jur i 11 t gl1 sli ed fer cristos who suf second ap1Jella11ts took a11 active part i11 �l1e ass�ult an? tl1e four_th_ appellant associated l1i1nself i 1 1 tl1e assaL1lt by 11ot directly 1nterfer1ng bL1t g1v111g moral sLt(Jport. The assaL1lt 011 Mr. El<rtol1 resulted i_n grave bodily harm, tl1at is, �n i11jt1ry to tl1e ey e; tl1e first apJJella11t was assisted by the other appellants 1 n tl1is assaLtlt. Tl1ere is also no doubt tl1at tl1e aprJellants caused damage to prop erty of tl1e firm Veidel<l<:e--Co; the cost of reJJairing SL1ch damage amou11ts to bet\Y1eer1 E$250 a11d E$300, bt1t as a resLtlt of such damage the work of the firrn was SL1s1)e 1 1cled for two days a11d the damage is calculated to be about E$5 000. P.i.s reg:1rds t!1e cl1arge of co11spiracy tl1ere is sL1fficie11t evidence fr o1n wl1icl-i tl1e f'ederal I-Iigl1 Court could i1 1fer tl1at tl1e aJJpellants had J)la1111ed botl1 tl1e assat1lts a11d tl1e damage to JJro1Jerty. The federal High Court very rigl1tly 11eld tl-iat tl1e co11srJiracy could 011ly _be in respect of the assault on Mr. El<rtol1 (\vl1icl1 rest1lted i1 1 gra,1e bodily i1 1jury J)Ut1isl1able under Article 538 of �l1e Per1al Code) a11d in respect of dan1age to property J)U11ish a�le. u11der Art1cl_e 654 of the Pe1 1al Code, tl1ese being tl1e seriot1s offences w1tl1111 th_e 1 nean1 ng of Article 472 of tl1e Penal Code. Tl1at bei1 1g so this Court po111ts 0L1t tl1at 011ce tl1e federal I-lio·\1 Court foL1nd tl1at tl1ere was con spiracy i11 tl1e commission of tl1ese offe11ce� it \Vas inco 11 siste1 1t witl1 co11viction under A_rticle. 472 to 110\d tl1at the seco 1 1d, third ar1cl fourth ap1Jella11ts w ere acco1 n1Jl1ces; 1 11 v1_ e\v of tl1e co11spiracy tl1e \Vere co-offe1 1ders. It sl1oulcl !"i11ally be 1ne11tio11ed tl1at, as there is n1aterial concurrence of offences cor1:m1tted b_y tl1 e_ appella11ts, tl1e Cottrts, i1 1 assessi11g se11tence should liave take11 into co11s1 derat1 on the provisions of Articles 82 a11d 189(c) of- the Pei,al Code! the _Court 1:1ay l1ave done so witl1out specifically malzi11g refere�1ce to Slt�h art_icles in tlie Jttclg1 ne11t. Tl1is CoL1rt, l1avir1g take11 i11to co11sideration nts ella app the �aid art_icles and other matters concerning the participation of the e th ts p acce tn t_ ,� va;1ous offences of which they ltave been found guilty l d er o 1_ mpnsonm�nt inflicted on each of the appellants by the fe ar fo e. siv exces tg 1 ourt, such penods_ of in1prisonment a-re by no means h ral ti 1ese reaso n _ s tl1e aJJJJeal ts dis1nissecl and the 1·uctgment of the fede Hig Court con f1rmed. 1

k�nf �

UNITED STATES v. FALCONE 10

U11ited States Court of Appea ls, 2d Circuit, 109 F.2d 519 (1940) Supreme Court, 311 U.S. 205 ( 1 940) United States

"� · [Defendants were co11vic . ne ted o f a conspiracy to operate illicit- stills.�e 10. From Paulsen and Kadish , Crz.min . aI La'tv 508-510.

. - - -=

.- - -

. -.

...--. _ ,. , ,., . .. -· - - .- � -�·:::; - _--, ,

�

CONSPIRACY

267

other supplied them group of defendants were actt1al distillers; tl1e and other _ distill�rs �1tll s11gar, yeast a,,d ca,1s, ot1t of wl1ich tl1e alcol1ol was distilled or in wl11cl1 1t was sold. Tl1e Court of A f)JJeals, in a11 QfJinion by Judge Learned Hand, reversed as to tl1e latter grot1p, stating:] ... (IJt is_ appare11t tl1at tl1e -first qt1estio11 is wl1etl1 er tl1e seller of goods, it1 tl1e1nselves_ 11111oce11t, beco111es a co11s1Jirator wit11 - or, wl,at is i1 1 stibsta,,ce tl1e sa111e tl11ng, an abettor of - t l1e b11yer beca11se lie l{11ows tl,at the buyer _ mea!,s t � ttse tl1e goods to co!111111t a crime. Tl1al ca111e tlfJ a 11t1111ber of times i11 c1rcL1tt co11rts of atJJ�cal \'Vl11�e tl1e Eigl1tee11tl1 A111e11d111e11t \'vas ii, force, a11ct tl,e a11S\X'er ,�,as 11ot e11t1rely t1111for111. �l�l1e first case we l1ave fo 1111 ct is Pattis v. United Stat_es, 17 f.2cl 562 (C.C.A. 9) ,vl1ere 1 alll·1ot1gl1 tl1e acc11sed aJJpears to l1ave bee11 111 fact 1nore c_losely co1111ectecl ,vitl1 tl1 e bttyer's cri1ne tl1a11 merely as a seller, tl1e. COttrt aff1r111ed a c}1arge . to tl1e jttry t}1at l1e \Vas gttilty if he t11e1el)' l1ad 11ot1c � o� tl1 e ft1tt1_re �lest11 1at1011 of tl1e goocls. That appears to be tl�e settled doctr11 1e 111 tl1 at c1rct1�t [a11cl or- tl1 e Seve11tl1 a11d tl1e Sixtl1]. The f1ftl1_ l1as, l1ow;ve �, l 1eld otl1er,v1se, tJ1011gl1 by a diviclcd cottrt, Vot1r1 g v. United States, ::, Cir., 48 F.2d 26. We are ottrselves con1111itted to tl1e vie\v of tl1e fiftl1 Circttit. U11itecl States v. Peor1i, 100 f.2d 401. I11 tl1at case we tried to trace dc>\i·11 tl1 e doctrir1e as to abetti11g a11cl co11sr)irac)', as it exists i11 ottr crimi11al la,v, a11 cl cor1 cluclecl tl·1at tl1e seller's k1 1owledge was 11ot alo11e er1ou bcrl1. 1 Civill)'1 a 1na11 s liabilit)' exle11ds to a11y it1jt1ries \X'l1 icl1 l·1e sl1 ot1lcl have ap1Jrel1e11ded to be likel)r to follO\X' fro1 11 l1is acts. If tl1e)' clo, l1e rnt1st exctise l1is co11clt1ct b)' sho\vi11g tl1at ll1e i11lerest \vl1icl1 lie \Vas pro1noti11g OLtlw�igl1t�cl tl1e dat1gers ,x·l1icl1 its fJrotectio11 in1J)osecl ttf)011 otl1ers; bt1t i1 1 civil cases tl1 ere l1as bee11 a loss, a11d tl1e 011ly qt1estio11 is ,vl1etl1er tl1e la\xr sI1all tra11sfer it frOiT! tl1e sufferer to a11otl1er. Tl1ere are i11cleecl ir�sta11ces of cri111ir1al lial)ility or tt1e same ki11d, \X'l1ere tl1e la\v illlJJoses JJ1111isl1111er1t 111erely becat1se tl1e acct1secl clicl not forbear to do tl1at fro111 \vl1icl1 tl1e xvro11g· \Vas likely to follo,v'; l1t1i. itl prosect1tior1s for co11 s1)iraC)' or abetti11g, l1is attitt1cle to\varcls tl1e forbic.lcicr1 u11dertal\i11g 1nt1st be 111ore }JOsiti\,e. It is 11ot e11 ougl 1 tl1at lie does not forego a normally la\X'fttl activity, of tl1e frt1its of wl1 icl1 lie k:110\v_s tl1at otl1 cr_ s '\'vill . make a11 l111l,\\'fft1l ttse· lie 11111st i11 s01ne ser1se J)ro111ote tl1e1r ve11lttre l1 1rnself, mal\e it l1is O\X'tl l1a�e a stal<e irt its ot1tco111e. Tl1 e clisti11ctio11 is esriecially im JJO rta11t today· {v- 1 1 e11 so ma 11y JJrosec11tors �ee I\'. t.o s,vee IJ ,vi l 11i 11 tl1 e d rag-r!e t of cons1JiraC)' all tl1ose wl10 l1ave bee11 associated 1 11 a11y deg·ree ,vl1atever \YJ1tl1 tl1e mai11 offe11ders. \Ve. rnay agree tl1at tnorall)' tl1e clefe11cia11ls at bar s11011\d l1ave refttsed to sell to illicit distillers; btit, botl1 111 orally ai1d legally, to do so was toto coelo cliffere11t from joi11i11g witl1 tl1e111 i11 run11ing ll1e stills. •

[Tl1 e SttfJreme Cottrt, in a11 OJ)i11io11 by .l\l\r. Jttstice Sto11e, affirmed, stati11g

1n JJarl:J

' ... .. ,.;

\-i:1 110 sells ma!erials e r on l1 1et ,vl is d or rec � s tl1i b)' d . e11decl fo r tt e or will be tised 1_ 11 tl1e pt ?duc . Tl1e qttestioi, prese,,te w1tl1 k11owledge tliat tl1ey ar e tr1t � _ t?r \Vttl1 a 1ra 11s as �. co-�0 p ecl tion of illicit distilled spirits 111 ay be conv _ 1ct _ tl1e SJJl r1ts 111 v1olat1on of tl1e distiller wlio conSfJired witli otliers to d1 st1ll reve11ue laws. t i pl i be i1n to e tn se l1 1ic wl t itJ po � � e tl1 e cr 1 }· te gL ar t The Ooverr,me,,t does 110 _ _ . . p1� 1n tl1 e questio,, raised by its J)etitior1 _for cert1orar�, tl1at �0_11��ct1? 11 _ of co ns 1 1 10 1: r, \X 1 lle st cl 1t l1c 1 a11 g 111 Jly ! acy ca11 rest 011 proof alor,e of l<tiow111 gly s 11 pJ ... " e , tl1 es ed 11c 1,t c0 11e 111 e ov G e tl1 as , se ca t 11o conspiring witlt ot I-1ers. 1 11 sttcl, a . port �11 ag1�ce 11 e11t o concei.t of act of surplyin g or some oilier fJroof n1t1st �1n �_ � _ e tl1 1t Bt e. 1 l l1e e11 es f)I t no ts J y cll 1 tte n1 ad l1 actio11 bet\vee11 bU}'er arid seller, ,v 1ic 1

. .•,,.,.

' ;

'I "' "

i - -·:.i I

...

. .

. ., "�·

'': ••'< ;•

-•J��

' '

. : .:

.''

268

PARTICIPATION

e �g le of ow kn a h �t n w co l10 w ir sp 1e o1 � 1a y tl ac 1d e1 11t co es do 1t e1 11m er Oov g_ 1n t_ w 1a r 1o tl to k1 ra ey pi tl1 ns co a ill to w _ ls ia er at be m . . lls se ts ri Ji Sf it ic ill ill to dist . It cy ts d ra ai s _ �1 ns _ co e at th th _ of y 1lt �e g� is, lf se m l11 is g, . ii, ill st di e tl, used ii, es m ak n hi m ti� ac s hi rti � pa 1 1tl w a d _ cip ne b1 1n co nt e dg le w io l<i s hi e us either beca e e m th sa g t 1s in ha th w or he , cy ra is a pi �1s co e tl1 is . ch l1i \v ,,t ,e en in tl,e agre ue ._ �t of ct vi Se ?Y r tto 2 be 33 _a of the or r de ai an as cy ra pi 11s co e pri,,ci?al in th W ho ev . s: er di de :e vi ct ro ly p _ h 1c h _ w co 0 m 55 . ct Se . .A C S. U 18 , de Co al in im Cr e th v o� la\ e� y n�t an U in 1ed fi1 te �e Sta s, se fen of a11 i11g i1t tit 11s co t ac y a11 mits is its es mm ur co oc pr n, or sio es t1c is a 1nd 1 s nd 1na m co ls, se un co , ets ab s, aid or pri11cipal.'' T11e argume11t, tl1e merits of whicl1 we do not co_nsid�r, overlooks the facts that the opi11ion below proceeded on the assumption that the evidence sl1owed only tl1at res1Jo11dents or some of tl1em knew that the materials sold would be used i11 tl1e distillatio11 of illicit spirits, and fell short of showing responde11ts ' IJartici JJation ir1 tl,e co11s1:tiracy or that tl1ey knew of it. We did not bri11g tl1e case l1ere to review the evide11ce, but we are satisfied that the evi dence on \vhicl1 tl1e Oover111nent relies does 11ot do more than show knowledge by resJJ011de11ts tl1at the n1a.terials woi1ld be used for illicit distilling if it does as 1nucl1 in tl1e case of some. Tl,e gist of the offense of cons IJiracy as defined by Sect. 37 of the Crim i11al Code, 18 U.S.C./-\. Sect. 88, is agreen1e11t among the conspirators to com mit an_ offe11se atte11ded.by a11 act of 011e or 1nore of the conspirators to effect the obJect of �lie co11s1J1racy. Tl1ose l1aving 110 k110\vledge of tl1e conspir acy �r� _11ot. c?nsp1_rators .. _. and or1e wl10 witl1ot1t more furnisl1es supplies to an 1Il1c1t d1st1ller _ is 11ot gt11lty �f conspiracy even tl1ougl1 l1is sale may have fur the!·ed the obJec_t of a co11sp1racy to wl1icl1 the distiller was a party but of \xrh1cl1 tl1e SLtpJJl1er had no l<nowledge. 011 tl1is record we have no occasion to decide any otl1er question. D IRECT SALES CO. v. UNITED STATES Supreme Co1,1.rt, 319 U.S. 703 (1943) United States

�r. Ji1stice R11t_ ledge deliver�d the opinion of the coL1rt: Petitioner, a cor poration, was co11v_1c_ted of co11sp1racy to violate the I-larrison Narcotic Act. It cl1allenges tl,e_ sL1ff1_c1e11cy. of tl1e evideiice to sustain tl,e conviction. Because of · asserted conflict with U 111ted States v. pa I co11e, cert1orar1 · was granted. · Pet� oner ! a register_ed drug ma11t1facturer and wl1olesaler. It co11ducts a 11 .ti 11w1�e_ matf-orde: bus111ess from Buffalo New York Tl1e evidence relates c � 1e11 y to its trar1sact!o11s witl, one Dr. Jolin' V. Ta te a�d his dealings with thers. He was _ a registered pl1ysicia11, practicing in Ca ar th So u C , falls lh ou n �t t uan 1 ottt 200 O persons. �e disper1sed illegally v� st q ��!' � �: �� y � _ ; �� ; t 0 su e pureh ased by mail from petitioner. The 1ndictmen ·· n char ed D a�� /�� ee others, Black, J<!hnson an_d_foster, t� f:i� thro�gh ��: {ite i�ie1!�fy ts r1 ut�d the o to g drugs, with consp1r1n �o ter Sects. I a11d 2 of the Act over a period . s d _ == 19 ext to end ing 193 ' 40 fro 3 m was granted a i r ne = =. � k ac ;a a 11d io tit pe o ns oh n d d de a11 ea y . pl ilt gu f D r. Tate were ��e:i��,· �irect S al esJ alo11e · our uit C Circ appe aled The . Appeals affirmed. · ·on Tl1� parties here are at odds conce d . · = �t as applied to tl,e facts proved 1·n this rning tl1e effect of tl1e Falcone �r�c ·1 · case. Tl1e salient facts are that -�

----.... ""

•

�- ... -.. - ·-.

�....,,.....,...__,,.,, � ,.

� "':::'��·.... ' -.. -

-,::--

CONSPIRACY

269

Sal es sold mor1Jllin� su_lpllate to Dr. Tate in such qt1a11tities, so freqt1e11tly and pe iod 1

t mu5t h�ve been k11ow11 l1e cot1ld 11ot dispe11se tl1e over so lotig .a � amounts rece ived 111 lawful . p rac�1ce a11d was therefore distribttting tl,e drug illegally. Not only so, bu t 1t actively stimttlated Tate's JJUrcliases. 011 tl1is evidenc�, the _Gover11mer1t i11sists tl1e case is in different JJosture fron1 tl1at preseiited 11� Uriited State� v. Falcone. IL t1 rges that the effort t!1P.re 'X1as to. connect tl,_e .1 es1Joi1de11ts �1tl1 a cor1s1Jiracy betweer1 tl1e distillers 011 tl1e basts of the �tdi11g ,t�d abett111g statute. Tl1e attempt failed because the Couit l1elcl_ tl1e evidence did 11ot establis11' tl1e respo11 cte,1 t5 knew of tJ1e distil !ers' co11s1)! racy ..Tliere was 110 _atlefJ? l)t to li11l< ll1e sttJJplier a11d .the distiller 111. a co11sp1ra�y 111t�: sese. �ti t 1n ti� 1s. case tl1at tyJJe. of _probletn is _prese11ted. D1�ect Sales w as trt�d_, a11cl its co11v1ct1011 l1as been susta111ed, accorct111g to the claim , 011 t�1e tl1eory it cottld be co11victed 011ly if it we re fou11d tliat it and Tate co11sp1red_ togetl1er to s11b\ ert tl1e order fortn provisions of tl,e I-Iarriso11 Act. ;-\s tl1e brief pttts tl1e O�ver111ne11t's vie,v, ''petitio11er's guilt \YJas 1,ot made to clepe11cl at all L1po11 a11Y: �t11lt of Dr. Tate gro,vi11g ottt of l1is relationsl1 ip to defe11da11ts otl1er tl1a11 pet1t1oner or u1Jon \vl1etl1er these otl1er defendaJ1ts ,vere li11ked will1 tl1e Tate-Di1·ect Sales co11s 1Jiracy." Ort tl1e otl1 �r l1�11d, fJet i tior1er asserts tl1is case falls sq11arely t.;rithin the facts and tl1e rt1l111g 1r1 tl1e falco11e case. It ii1sists tl1ere is i10 .,nore to sl10,x, co11Sf)iracy bet,v·ee11 itself a11d Tate tl1a11 tl1ere \v(ts to s11 0,x, cor,sI)iracy bet,::1et:�r1 tl1e respo11de11t sellers a11d tlie pt1rcl1 asi11g distillers tlrere. At 1110s!:, it ttrges, tl1ere \Vere 011ly legal sales by itself to Dr. Tate r acco1nJJai1it�ci by !�110·1.'.,;,l<:'clx;:: tie \Vas clistributir1g goods illegally. Bt1t tl1is, ii: conl.er1cls, ca1111ot �l.mo1.111t lo co11sJ)iracy 011 its fJart witl1 l1iin, si11ce i11 ti1e: Falco11e case t11e respor1cicr1f.s sold to tl1e distille rs, kr�O\Vii1g tl1ey \•i'Ottld Lise tl1e goocis i11 illcga.l distillati c)1,..

I.: ;, II ::I• '.: . '' I °•• ' I :: l I I I

••

.' .

Petitioner obviot1Sl\_.r 111isco11strt1es tl1e effect CJf tl1e r�aicc)11e cleci3i<)n i r1 011e respect. Tl1is is i11 regardi11g it as clecidi11g tl1at 011e \'<,]10 sells �o ariot]-,t-�r will1 k11ow)edge tl,at tl1e bt1yer \viii tJse tl1e article for ar1 ill,�g�.1 })1-1rros� ca11not, t111cler a11y circumsta11ces, be four1d gt1iliy of co11SJ)i racy y,:,ri tl1 tl1e buyer to furtl1er l1is illegal e11d. TI1e asst1111ptio11 see111s to be 'l!1at, t.111der tl1f� rt1li11g, so long as tl1e seller does 11ot k11ow tl1ere is a co11spiracy bet,veen tl,� bu);er and otl1ers, he ca1111ot be gt1ilty of co11sJJiri11� \X1it!1 tl1e btty�r, to furtl1er the latter's iilegal a11d kr1ow11 i11te11ded 11se, by sell111g goods to l1i1n. Tl1e falco11e case creates 110 st1cl1 s,x1eeJJi11g· i11sulation for sellers to l(no,1,n illicit users. That decisio11 con1es do,v11 1nerely to tl1is, tl1at 011e does noi becon1e a party to a co11SJJiracy by aiding a11d abetti�g it, tl1rough . s�les of supplie s or otl1er\vise ttnless lie l<110\X'S of tl1e cons1J1racy; and tl1e 1nterence of sttch k110'l'ledae c�1111ot be draw11 merely from l<nowledge tl1e buyer will use the goods illegally. Tt1e OoverI1t11e11t dicl 11ot co11tend,. in tl1ose circum stances as tl1e opinion points ou t tl1at tl1ere \Vas a conspiracy between tl1e bu}·er ;nd tt1e sel)er alone. It co�cecled tl1at 011 tl1e evidence 11eithe� the act of SLtfJplying itself 11or tl,e other JJroof \Vas of sucl1 a character as 1mpor�ed an agreement or concert of action between tl,e bttyer and tl1e seller amot1nt1ng to conspiracy. Tl,is was trtie, notwitl·1sta11ding some of tl1e responde1�ts .could be taken to kno\v tl1 eir customers would use the p11rcl1ased goods 10 illegal d istillati 011. . The scope of tl,e concession rn 11st be n1ea�ured ir1 tl1e light of tl1e ev idence witl1 reference to whicl, it was made. Tl11s related to both the vol11n1e e11ts o� the sales and to casual an d 11nexplained tneetings of some of tl1e r�S[)011d _ 1 ce e11 1d ev 11s d 1 t1n fo t ur Co e Th . rs with olJ1ers to ra pi ns ed as co

who were convict

I• ' I•

•

. .'

I '''

1· ':

PARTICIPATION

270

I, I

.l I,.

111,�,.1

' 11i111J1 1 ;� I •

' \I.I"' ' '1 1 ,11

,lfl

e r e �pondents knew ?f the th g _ ir1 1d fi1 a t or pp su to too vague and uncertain e insta� ces to � u�ta_1n one m so 1n e t ua eq ad i11 t 11o distillers' co-nspiracy, tl1ougl1 tl leg� l d1st1ll1n_g. It r fo s od go e th e s u d ul wo t hat th e seller knew tl1e bU)'er e same evtde11�e as 111suf tll ed �d ga e r t en m rn ve Go e tl1 at must be taken also tl1 e bu ye r, by sell111g to him th th wi y ctl re di d re pi ns co r ficient to sl1ow the selle \xrith knowledge of l1is inte11ded illegal use. Whetl,er or not it was consi stent in making th is concession and i11 regard ing the s ame evide11ce as suffici"ent to show_ t h at the selle�s l<new of _ a1 1d eed it be determined n r No al. eri t ma t no is g rin ing till dis s' tl, yer bu e ned joi ke now erta und not do to \Y/e cl1. mu too ded 1ce 1 co ent 11m ver Oo the er \vl1etl1 say what tl1e Cot1rt was 11ot asked and t h�refore declined to say _i11 t l1 e falco 1�e case, 1 1an1ely, that the evidence presented 1n tl1at cas e was SLtff_1 c1ent to sustain a fi1 1di11g of co1 1spiracy betwee11 tl1 e sel!er and tl1e buy er inter sese. for, regardless of tl,at, tl1e facts proved i1 1 t his c ase show muc\1 more than the evide11ce did tl1ere. Tl1e comn1odities sold tl1ere were articles of fr ee commerce, sugar, ca11s, etc. Tl1ey were 11ot restricted as to sale by order for1n, registration, or otl1er reqt1 iren1er1 ts. Wl1e11 they left tl1e seller's stock a11d passed to tl1e 1Jurcl1aser's l1a11ds, tl1ey were 11ot in tl1emselv es re stricted coinmodities, i11capable of ft1rtl1er legal use except by cornJJlia 1 1ce \vitl1 rigid regulations, sucl1 as apply to 1nor phir1e sul1Jl1ate. Tl1e difference is like that between toy pistols or l1t1ntir1g rifles a11d 111acl1i11e guns. All articles of co1nmerce may be JJLit to illegal ends. Bt1t all do 11ot have i11l1ere 1 1tly tl1e same st1sceptibility to l1armft1l a11d illegal use. Nor, by tl1e same tol<e11 do all e111body tl1e same carJacity, from tl1 eir very 11ature, tor giving tl1e seller notice the b11 yer will 11se tl1 em u11la\vft1lly. Oar1gsters, 11ot l-1unters or small boys, con1prise tl1e nor 1 nal l)rivate market for macl1ine gu11s. So drt1g acldicts fur11isl1 tl1e 11orrnal outlet for morpl1i11e whicl1 gets out side the restricted cl1a1111els of legitimate trade. 1

Tl1is differe11ce is i1111Jorta11t for t\VO pt1rpose s. One i s for 1nal<i11g certain tl1at tl1e seller l<11ow� tl1e bt1yer' s i 1 1te11ded illegal t1se. Tl1e otl1er is to sl1ow tl1at by. tl1e sale he 1nte11ds to f11rtl:1 er, j)ro111ote a11d coorJerate i11 it. Tl1is intent, :>1l1e11_ g1ve 1 1_ effect by overt act, 1s tl1e gist of co11spiracy. Wl1ile it is 11ot 1dent 1 cal w1t11 111 ere l<11o\VI edge tl1at a11ot\1er fJltr1Joses LI 11la \x,ft1l act i011 it is not 1111related to st1cl1 l<nO\Xlleclge. \Vitl1out tl1e l<tlO\vledo·e t\1e i11ter1t ca 11;1ot exist. � 1 1ited States. v. falco11e, 311 U.S. 205 ... . futher 1 nore, to establisl1 tl,e 111te11t, tl1e ev 1de11ce of l<_11owleclge 111t1st be clear, 11ot equivocal. Ibid. Tr1is, becat1s_e cl1arges of co11s_1J1r�cy are r�ot to be made out by piling i11fere11ce �po 11 111ferenc�, tl1t1s _ fasl11011111g wl1at, 111 tl1at case, \xras called a dragnet to draw 111 all substa1 1tive crimes. The difference belwee 1 1 sttgar, ca11 s, ai1d otli e r arti cles of i,ormal trade, 0�1 _the 0 1 1e l1a11d, a11d �1�rcotic drugs, and macliiiie gttns a11ct sue\, restricted commo dities, 011 tl1e ot\1 r, aris! 1 1 frotn tl1e latt_ers' itil,er�nt capacity for liarm and frotn_ the : � very fact tl1ey are restricted, inakes a dt!ferei�ce 111 tl,e quantity of proof re9� 1 red · to show k11owledge !l1at tl1e bt1�er \xrill utilize the article 1111\awfully. Add1t1o na !acts, st�cli. as qt1ant1ty sales; l11�l1-r)ress11re sale inetl,ods, abnornial i 1 1cre ases 111 tl1e size of tt1e buyer s purcl1_a�es , �tc., wl·ticl, would be· \'(/liolly in11ocuous or . r_ susp1c 1 011 111 relation to ui,restri 11?t 1nore th�n g1 _o_t1nd fo r fu y 1na , go : od s cte cl , 11 1 sl1 conclL1s1ve ev1d�11ce, 1n r�spect to restricted ·articles, t l,at tlie seller knO\tf:, t11e bt1rer has an illegal ob1ect a1,d enterprise. Kiiowled and al oc eq uiv . ge , u11certra1_ 11 as t� o�e, becomes sttre as to tlie otlier. So 1e tl is e 'le dg kn O\ ' v as fa r . fol1ndat 1on of 111tent, tl1e latter tl1ereby also hecomes . . :_. · t li e n,ore secure. 1

. · . ...

.�

CONSPIRACY

271

Tl1e differenc� in the commodities h�s a further bearing upon the existence and the proof of intent. T11ere may be c1rct1mstances in whicl1 tt1e evidence of knowledge is clear, yet the furthe_r step of finding t11 e required inte,,t cannot be taken. c;:onced_edly, �ot every 1nsta11 ce of sale of restricted goods, harmful as are opiate�, 1n wl11cl1 the se11er _1<110\VS tl1e buyer i11fends to use tllem unlawfully, will supper� a cl,arge of �011 spiracy. But tl1 is is 11ot to say tl1at a sel1er of l1armft1l restricted goo_ds has l1ce11se to sell i 1 1 unlimited quantities, to stimti�ate s�cl1 sales by all tl1e h1gl1 -p��sure 1netl1ods, legal if ,,ot always ap� propr iate, 1n tl1e sale of_ free co1nf!1od1ties; a11d tl1ereby bri 11 g abotit sttbversion of tlie order for!11s.! wl1 1cl1 otl1er,v1se ,x,ot1ld IJrotect l1 im, a11 ct violation of tile Act's otl1er restr1ct1011 s. \X�l1e11 �he evicle11�e . d iscloses _ st1cl1 a system, worl{i11g i 11 proloi,ged co OfJerat1011 \Vtlh _a _pl�y.s1c1a11 1s t1!1la\vft1l JJt1_rf)Ose to Stlf)ply J1irn witl, his stock in trade !or 11 1s ti l1c1 t e11terpr1se, tl1 er� 1s 110 legal obstacle to fii,ding tl,at the st1ppl1er 11ot or1ly k110,'<1 S a11 (i acqt11esces1 bttt joi11s botl1 mi11d a,,d J1a11ct witl1 l1in1 to make its acco1nJJlisl1111e11t f)Os �ible. Tl1e ste1J from knowledge to i11tent a11 d agreeme11t 111 a}' be takerr. Tl1 ere 1s 1nore tl1 a11 sttSfJicio11 inore tl1a11 k11owledge1 acqt1iesce11 ce, careless11ess, i11 cli ffere11ce, lac I{ of co11ce1:,,. Ti1 ere is informed and i11 terested coorJeratio11 , stimt1latio11, i11 stigatio11. Ai1d tl1 ere is also 11 a "stake i11 tl1e ve 1 1tt1re wl1 icl1, eve11 if it 111ay 11ot be esser1tial, is not irrele va1 1t to tl1e qt1estio11 of co11 s piracy. Petitior1 er's stal,e 11 ere was ir1 mal{i 11 g tl1 e profits -,vl1icl1 it k11e\V cotild co11 1e only frotn its encourage111ent of Tate's illicit operatior1s. 111 sucl1 a f)Osture tl1e case does 11ot fa][ doubtfttllv 0L1tside eitl1er tl1 e sl1adowy border betwee,1 la,vfttl cooperatio11 and cri m i11al associatio11 or tl,e no less elttsive li11e \v]1 icl1 serJarates co11 s1Jiracy frorr1 overlaJJf)i11g for111s of cri1n i11a1 · coope ratio 11 . Tl,is bei11g true, it ca11 mal<e 110 differe11 ce tl1c agreen1 ei1t \Y/as a tacit t111dersta11 di11g, created by a lo11g cottrse of co11clt1ct a11ci execttted i11 tl1e s.an1 e way. Not the form or ma1111er i11 wl1icl1 tl1e ttr1dersta11dir1g is n1ade, b11t tr1e fact of its existence and tl1 e furtl1er 011e of 111al<i11 g it effective by overt co11 duct are tl1e crucial matters. Tl1 e proof, by tl1e very 11alt1re of tl1e cri111e, r11L1st be circumstantia1 a11d tl1erefore, i11fere11tial to a11 exte11 t varyi11g witl1 tl1 e co11ditions under wl{ich tl1 e crime 1nay be committed. Bttt tl1is does 11 ot 111ea11 eitl,er that tl1 e evidence may be eqttivocal or . t11at petitio11 er is exe1npt from its effects wl1en it is not so, merely becatise 111 tl1e abse11ce of excesses sucl1 as were committed and in otl1er circun1sta11 ces tl1e order form wou1d have given it protection. It follows the 1nere ·fact that none of petition� r's rep rese�t atives ever met Dr. Tale face to face or l1eld perso11al com1n11111011 w1tl1 him is immateria1. Conspiracies, in sl1ort, can be co1nmitted by 1;1ail and by mail order houses This is true notwitl1 sta11di11g t11e overt acts consist solely of sa1es, which but f�r their volu�e, freqtte11cy and JJro,Ionge� re1Jetition, coupled with the seller's unlawful intent to furtl1er tl1e buyer s proJect, wou1d be wholly law ful transactions. Accordingly, the judgme11 t is affirmed.

.c; I

I .. . l' .... ' ' . '

. ''· 1 ·i t . I... !' 1 · : .

.' .'· ... � •I.. �'

. ·:. ..'. .'� · ·t1'.',. . ...•• . .� ' ·" �"' •

;

THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OVERT ACT11 Dr. H. S. Gour

The doing of an overt act, i11dependent of t11e agreeme11t, is a step further l I. Gour,

I Pa1al Law of Jndi" 569 (7th ed.,

1963).

.· I ,.

•

272

PARTICIPATION

in prosecL1tion of tl1e object of tl,e conspiracy an� stamps it as criminal within tl1e meani 1 1g of sectio11 [120A, Penal Code of l11d 1a]. This overt act here must be sometl1i11a disti1 1ct from tl,at te11ding to prove merely the agreement. The question is ;1,e of fact de1Je11de1 1t upon tl1e circumstances of each case. for instance, if A and B agree to 1nLtrder C, letters tl1at [Jass between tl:em as to to tl1e 1noveme11ts of C are overt acts in furtl1erance of the conspiracy.... OVERT ACT IN THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE'S MODEL PENAL CODE12 Herbert \Y/ echsler, Willian, Jones, Harold Korn •

• •

•

Tl1e precise significance of the overt act requirement and wl1ether it co11stitutes an elernent of tl1e crime of co 1 1spiracy l1as been the s11bject of some dispL1te i11 tl1e decisio11s. It is certain tl1at a cons1Jiracy ca1 1 rarely be established witl10L1t proof of son1e overt activity, a11cl overt acts serve an importa11t fL1r1ction i11 affording a basis for ve1 1L1e a11d jurisdiction and for ascertai1 1i1 1g tl1e duratio 1 1 of the co 1 1s1Jiracy.... 1 11 its 1nost rece1 1t exJJression 011 tl1e s11bject, in Yates v. United States, the [Sttpre 1 ne] Court said: The ft111ction of tl1e overt act in a conspiracy prosecution is simpl)' to ma11ifest ''tl1at the co 1 1spiracy is at \xrork'' ...and is 1 1eitl1er a project still resti11g solely in tl1e 111i11ds of tl1e co 1 1s1Jirators 1 1or a fully completed op eratio11 110 longer in existence. (195) .. . S11bsectio 1 1 (5) [of tl1e 1\/\.odel Penal Code] req11ires an overt act in the view, si111ilar to that of tl1e Yates decision, tl1at it affords at least a mi1 1imal added assurance, beyo11d tl1e bare agreeme11 t, that a socially dangerous combina tion exists, and \Xie believe tl1at this added assL 1 rance may be dispe11sed witl1 wl1e11 tl1e agreed-Lipan crime is grave enougl1 to be classified as a felo 1 1y of tl1e first or second degree a11d tl1e imJJorta1 1ce of prever1tive i11terve 1 1tion is pro tanto greater tl1an i11 deali11g witl1 less serious offe 1 1ses. . . . b . Co1ispiracy in Comparative Law

CONSPIRACY IN CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES 13 Wie1zczyslaw Wagner

It was revealed, at tl1e NL1remb�rg !!·ial, that tl1e approach to the problem of conspiracy i11 com1 non law a11d 111 c1v1l law co11ntries is differe11t .... The co11ce1Jt of co11s1Jiracy, J)Unisl1able even where no crin1e }1as been committed, in its broad· applicatio11 as l1istorically develo1Jed ir1 com1no11 law Wechsler, Jones a.nd Korn, The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of tl1e American Law _ 1 ?sfitute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspi�acy, 61 Columbia L. Rev. 100-102 (1961); , _ Sect. (5) reads. Overt Act. - :-- No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crim e, _ ot�er t�ao a felony of the first or second degree, uol_ess an overt act in pursuance of such con; .red. sp1racy 1s alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with wl1 om ·li e conspi · 5 ) s. 334 298, u. (19 7). 354 195 ( _ 13. Wagner, Conspiracy in Civil Law Countries, 42 J Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 17 I, 178-179, 182-lSJ �--= --�- · (1951). 12.

�--= -�� . --�-

-- .,_ , 7• ...... . -

-+-'----- -.=,. _, _ .-,_- ., -

--=- ----.. -·.-:; -

_.;.:�;;,.�� · - :·-

•

CONSPIRACY

273

count�!es, is_ not , , k11ow11 in � !1e tr�ditio11al_ civil law system. Historically, the wa s a�soc1_ted, 1n cont111e11 tal Etirope, ,villi some y r� co ns p1 m ter � po lit ica l co ns ca pi l Po ra cy l1t m 1 �y . be defi11ed as a ''secret combination of purposes persons for th e JJurpose o_f c�ang1ng tl1e form or perso1111e1 of governmei, t by violence or ? tl1er unconst1tu t1011al n1eai1s.'' I-lowever, some stattites enacted iti many countries . ma�e the concept_ of co11spiracy closer to tl,e cominon 1aw coi,cept, extend111g 1t beyo11d tl1e fiel d of f)Olilical plots. • • • •

/tali�11_ Law: Th e Italian Pt>11al Co de of 1930 is pet·iiaps the best reflection of the c1v1l la,v approacl1 to tl1 e proble111 of co11spiracy. Art. 115 reads ii, its first paragrapl1, as follows: ''Exce1)t ,vl1ere tl1e law provides otherwise,' wllen ever two or more . perso11s agree fo1 tl1e J}ttrr)ose of committi r,g a.11 offeiise and it is not -��mm1tt�d, 11011e r, f. tl1e m is (Jt111isl1ab�e �or the sole fact of mal<ing an �greement, tl1us, it_ lays do,v11 tl1� general �r111c1JJle tl1at co11si)iracy is not pt1111sl1abl e, but provides for except 1 011s to tl11s rt1le. Besides it allo\vs tl1e jttdge (in. its pa_ragrapl, 2) to ap1Jly . a_ fJOlice 1neast1re i11 a cas� of agreeme11t to commit a crime. Tl1e same prov1sro11s are a1JJJlicable ' i 11 the case of i 11 sti gation to commit an offe11se, if the i11stigatio11 l1as bee11 iavorabl y received1 bt1t the offense has 11ot been committed'' (paragrapl, 3, �.rt. 115}.

;

I . iI • i'

;

Accordi11g to the traditio11 al E1tropea11 aJJJJroac11, tl1e most i111J)oriant e1ccep tions relate to ''crimes against tl1e i11ter 11 ation::il perso11ality of tl1e state.�' 1-\rt. 302 of the Code deals witl1 instigatio11 to co1r1111it st1ci1 crimes (ei1u1nerated iI1 tl1e Code), and art. 364, e 11titled ''Political cons1)iracy by mea11s of an agree ment," pu11isl1es b}' imprisonme11t f1-0111 011e to six )'ears an agreen1ent co11clttde(l betwee11 ''several persons'' in order to commit a criine ind icaied i11 ari. 302, even if sucl1 crime is not perpetrated. Accordi11g to art. 305, t.I1e penalty is increased (five to twelve )'ears) for perso11s \Vl10 tool{ a11 active JJart i11 ll'Je orga11ization of a11 associatio11 nt1mbering tl1ree or more 111e1nbers 'Y1ith lJ1 e purpose of committi11g sucl1 crimes; tl1e fact itself of beir1g a 111 en1ber o.f sLJ(.:l1 association is pt111isl1ed by impriso11me11t fron1 t,vo to eight years. Art. 306 establisl,es penalties for formi11g a11cl J)articipati11g i11 arined bands, organized witl1 the pur1Jose of comn1itti11g s ucl1 cri111es; art. 307_ rnaites punishable assistance to conspirators a11d n1e111bers of the armed bands, a11d the 11ext two articles specify cases wl1ere me111bers of co11spiracy and armed bands shall be relieved from punisl1me11t. 1_inal eve11 tl10L1�l1 it ?oes 11_ot 1 cri1 de a 1n_ y An irac 1s1J ant co1 of ort e cas imp . , itle 1�volve the security of tl1e state is pr�v1ded for. 111 �rt._ 416, ent ? A.cssoc1a t1on for Pur1Jose of Deiinquen cy, '' wh1cl1 made 1t cr1m1�al to assoc1�te 1or the purpose of committi11g n1ore tha11 011e cri111e, a11? �stabl1shed penalties accord Ing to the degree of participatio11 in such assoc1at1oi1 . _These provisions ar e comJJarable to the article� �f the French Penal C�de dealing with armed bands a11d associations of cr11n1nals. Tl1ey ,vere applied mostly against tl1e Sicilian orga11izations of law-violators, promoted by the Mafia. _ n�l Besides, curiously enough, accordirig to th e wording of tl1e . Italian Pe �o�e, the basis of tl1e liabil i ty fo r an attemJ)t to give _or to receive a _ bribe 15 s1milar to tl1at i11 the case of co11spiracy; a rt. 322 pt1n1sl1es botl1 p�r�ies of . an agree'!1 ent to give and to receive a bribe in the �e!formance of offic_ta! duties, a of g in ib br a to r fe re en 1s 01 1s1 ov if pr the crime is not committed; similar � itness, expert or interpreter. (art. 377).

! •..

I .

I·

II '

· ,' '

. .

' I

,. '

" "

,. '. . I t' ::!. ..." '

'' .'' · .. , ' ,I '. ' :, ;:· -, . 1 .. ·.'' . ...

;' .''

.:;r ;

•

l "

274

PARTICIPATION

�: avating circumstanc e if ag an 1ly o1 be a� m cy the 111 otl1er cases, conspira according to th e prov 1s1on s of art. 112. , d te it rn in o c 11 e e b s a 1, e crim • • • • al leg al system, co11spiracy was ent tin n co 1al io1 dit tra · · Conelusi·0n.• In tl,e e. a os C 1 1·t· I te �p pu po 111 e_ m m _r1 so al in · ta at de to co . ed s �im it . i1 l,e w ly on le ab punish co n spire w1th1n the bo unds to s, te !r un co y n a m 111 e, 11n cr and statutes made it a d _ angerous to the society. ly ar ul ic rt a p s a ,. s _ al 1 i1 im cr of . ps of organized grou es y tri an un m d 1� co ne e de th oa br sc s on �s1 v e o op jJr d te 1ac e1 y 1tl 1 ce re re no 1 e in So e or ac 1c to e bl pe th JJu of m co ce a11 rb stu s d1 mi e tl1 to es lat re it 1 1e1 wl e im of cr app ea r to be rather exceptions r, ve we l1o s, se ca e th l Al s. me cri sioii of major tl1an tl1 e rule. asier for a public pro e it is t tha , ion sit po pro ral 11e ge as a d, sai be y 1na It n in common law tha law il civ ls in a 11 mi cri of on cti 1\1i co1 a 11 tai ob secutor to coL111 tries; tl1e court is not restricted by c1.ll the rigorous rules of evidence, and i11 1nost cou11tries \x,l1ici1 still retain tl1e jttry system, tl1e verdict reacl1ed by tl1e 111ajority of tl1 e jt1rors stiffices to obtai11 a co11viction. However, in the case of co11srJiracy, tl1e co1n111011 law systen 1 is muc h more stringe11t against tl1e cri1ni11 al tl1a11 tl1e civil law syste111. l11 civil law countries, tl1e crime of co11s1Jir acy - if recognized by law - is deemed to be committed only where there was a11 actLtal agree1ne11t bet\veen tl1e conspirators. Co11viction of co11spiracy i11 cases similar to Rex v. }\1eyrick and Rib1ejfi, 21 Cr. App. R. 94, 45 T.L.R. 421 [E 11 gla11d, 1929], \x,l1ere tl1e defendants bribed a police officer without being in direct co1n111L111icatior1 \vitl1 eacl1 otl1er and were l1eld gt1ilty - \vould be in conceivable in Europe; the co11 cept of a con1mo11 desig11 to accomplisl1 a co1n mo11 JJLtrpose is u11 l<now11 in civil la\v cot1 n tries. Ft1rtl1ermore a conspirator in the civil la\x, coL111 tries wl1 0 informs tl1 e authorities of tl1e existence of the con spiracJ' is usL1ally relieved from JJu11 isl1111e11t. Moreover, tl1e co11cept of the "un lawfL1l11ess'' of tl1 e act 11ever re1Jlaces, in Euro1Je, tl1at of tl1e ''criminal act'' .. · · •

•

.Tlius, ext�nsive afJJJlication of tl1e doctri11e of co11spiracy, given tl1e broad est 1 11terpretat1011, may be a co11venie11 t i11 strt1n1e11t i11 the ha11ds of the pros ec11.tor,_ bLtt seetn� l1 arcily to sqttare witl1 tl1 e JJri11ci1Jle of a fair administr:ation of Justice. As IJ_o111ted OLtt by Mr. Justice Jackso11,<31) tl1e crime of consp iracy, as �inders! 0 ?.? 11;, 1nocler11 commo11 la\v S)'Stems, ''is so vague th·at it_ almo St ?efies def11_ 1 !t,011 ! mar SUJJersede tl1e liability based 011 aiding and abett11,g, and 111tr.odLtces 1�11J_lted cr1111es. It is dot1btft1l \x,hetl1er sucl1 understa11ding of the 11 ot1on of cr1n1111al co11spiracy is desirable.t4

CONSPIRACY IN TI-IE COMMON LAW 15 Harvard Law Review

n kso . ;�e l1istory of . c_o11 spiracy [in tl1 e Jac com law] a s Mr. Justice mo11 the 01 e out, ex_e1nphfles the "tendency to f d itsel expa r-im� n of prin a to ciple _ n _ ;;.... 1 of its log1c.''(7) Origi11atir1g in c.=o ted a statute of 1305(8) whicl1 prohibi (31) Concurri11g opin·ion 1·0 Kru Iew il. ch v · Unz'ted s,tates, 336 U. S. 440 ( I 949) • F 14. or consideration of F•rencl1' 17 1.17 7, German and Polish conspiracy see Wagner, op. cit. at PP· 179-182. .. , I 5. Criminal Conspiracy 72 Ha;�:rd. L. Rev. 922-925 ( ,( 7) Krulewitch v. 19 CAft. D 0�0 59 ). . . Uniled .5tates . . . 4 ( U. S. 440, 445 19 9) (concurring op1n1on) (quoung . - ._ The Nature of tli e Jud,·c ' - - =�;;..�-· a i process 5 I ( 1 9-, 1 ) ) (8) 0rd in · ance l)f Conspirators, 13 05 , 33 Edw.... 1. .

_.,_ .

CONSPIRACY

275

federacies for the false a�d malicious JJrocurement of indictme,,ts conspirac _ mon-law cr1�e 011ly at t�1e begi11ning of tlie sevente�nth ceiitur became a com { Where.as . prior to tl1at time th_ e �r1 t of conspiracy would not lie unless tlie vict�m l1ad actually been 111d1cted a11d acqtiitted, tl,e Star Chamber decided 1n tl1e la�1d!11ark Poulterers C:ase{ IOJ of 1611 tl1at tl1e agreeme 11 t itself was punishable eve�1 tf its pttrpose r_ema1 11ed t1nexect1ted. Q11ce the focal point of the offe11se had sl11fted from tl1e O�J�ct of tl1e agreeme11t to tl1e agreeme11t itself, it to ste t�e fJ IJfOf)OS1t1011 tl,at a11 agree1nent to comtnit any critne was a s11or� . was a cr1m111al consJJtracy. Tl1e eager11e�s of tl1e cot1rts, particularly tlie Star �liam ber, to exte11cl tl1e s�o 1�e of co11sp1rac}' ,vas �11 as1Ject of tlie exceptioi,ally _ th of tl1e cr1m,11al la,v ge11erally dt1r111g t]1e seventee11th centttry vigorous grow a11d a reflect1011 of tl,e co11temJJorary le 1 1dency to ide11tify Ia w wit11 n,orality. The sa1ne factors probably accot111t also . for tl1e widespread at1d J)ermanent ac cepla11ce accorded a slaterne11t of Iiawk1 11s, ( 14) dot1btfully supported by previous case law·, tl1at tl1e acts co11ter11JJlated by a co1 1sJ)iracy i1eed not tl1emselves be crimi11al bttt 11eed 011ly be ' wro11gful'' in order to make tl1e consrJiracy pu11isl1able. 1

Possibly the co11cer)t of co11srJiracy i11 sttcl1 a l1igl1ly generalized form cot1ld have been develOJJed 0111)' \'(/itl1i11 a system of jt1dge-1nade la\\'l. In any eve11t, a com parabl}' broad doct ri 11e of co11spiracy l1as 11ot e111erged i11 civil-la"\if countries. Et1rorJea11 [Je11al codes freqt1e11 tly mal<e concerted actio11 a basis for aggravating tl1e pe11alties for cotn pleted sttbstantive crin1es, bt1t v. l1er1 no s 1bsta11tive offense l1as bee1 1 comr)leted, only certai11 tJ'l)es of co 1S[)iracies are f)roscribed - 11otably those directed agai11st tl1e secttrity of tl1e state, tl1ose involving ma11y participa11ts orgar,ized for tl1e pt1r1Jose of cornn1itti11g 11t1111erou.s crimes, a11d tl1ose co11templati11g JJarticularly serious offe11ses. By appl}··i11g tl,e co11spiracy cloctrine 011ly i11 sitt1atio11s i11volving a very great dai1ger to society, continental legislators seem to l1ave \visely li111ited tl1e crime to t!1e scope required by its u11derlying ratio11ale. 1

The l1eart of tl1is rationale lies i 11 the fact - or at least tl1e asst11nptio11 that collective action toward a11 a11tisocial e11d irivolves a greater risl< l<) society than individual actio11 toward tl1e same e11cl. Pri111arily, tl1e stale is concerned witl1 punisl1ing condttct tl1at l1as actttally resLtlted i11 a11�isoci� I co11sequences. It is reluctant to i11tervene as 1011g as the actor can still v11tl_1d�aw and as long as his co11duct is still co11siste11t \vitl1 the absence ?f any cr1_n1111� l intent. However as action toward a crirninal e11d ,,ears execut 1 011, a point 1s reacl1ed at whi�h the i 11 creasing risk to society is ti1?ugl1t. to ou�\x,eigh the diminishing likelihood of a cha 1 1ge of l1eart or of a m1sread111g of 111tent, and at this point mere ''preparation'' becomes punisl1able as ''attempt''. Wr1en the defendant has chosen to act in concert with otl1ers, ratl1er tl1an to act alo11e, tl1e point of justifiable intervention is reached at _ a11 earlier stage. !n this situation the reasons for which the law is relt1ctant to 1_nterve11e are co�1s1derably �eaker. The agreement itself, in theory at least, provides . � substantially 1namb1guous manifestation of intent· it also reduces tl1e probab1l1ty that tl1e defendant can stop the wheels he has set in motio11, since to restore tl1e statu� quo woul_d now require the acquiescence and co-oper�t_ion of ?tl1er wil!s than hts �wn. More important, the collaboration mag111f1es tl1e risk �o society both by increasing the likelihood tl,at a given quantum of l1arm will _ b� successfully pr�duced and by increasing the amount of harm th� t can b� � nflicted. A con spirator who has committed himself to s11pport his assoc1ates may be less 1

(10) 9 Co. 55b, 77 Eng. Rep. 813 (Star Chamber, 1611). (l-t) Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 446 (8th ed., 1824).

•

.Ir.. . .

. . .

I I • I. • '

I. . . .

...' ,.. . '. . . i '.�:

' .... .

. .. .

276

·I

1:�(.1 )I •,

J�I

I Fl

I''• },

•

PARTICIPATION

se be to vi · d re ul a wo y rel l1e pu a11 tl1 t e11 itm private m m co is 1 tl e lat vio to likely t or al pp or d su m of a11 1 e group t t� e,1 em ag ur co 1 e1 e tl1 r, ve eo r o M decision. r. fu�tl1 ermore, the ex1ste��e of e mb 1ne ch e� f. ce ran ve rse pe tlie � strengthens rom�tes the efficiency h p 11c wl or lab of n 1sio d1v a s ate ilit fac numbers botl1 le ss1� kes po 1 e attai_nment ma tl a11d d, r sue I?� be can t jec ob 1 1 e giv a icli wli h wit 1se rw 1ld ot h� w _ ot e a11 th s ou attainab le. 1t1 b _ am ? � a11 ate r bo ela e or m ts jec of ob le sib pos a es rationale for tlie vid pro o als < r1sl ial soc sed rea inc of ion Tl,e not punisliment of agree111ents to engage i11 ce rtai11 typ�s. of co 1 1��c� tl-1at w:ould not otlierwise be crimi11al si11ce tl1e abse11ce of a11y specific proh1bit1on against such co11duct 1nay be due' to tl1e fact that tl1e lil<elil1 ood tl1at a si11gle person will engage i r1 it is s1nall, or tl1at it� l1ar mful itTIJJact whe11 . engaged in _by a single person is sligl1t. A ft1rtl1er rationale may be tl1 at reliance on social pressure alone to deter certai11 forn1s of antisocial conduct becomes unwarranted when tl1is pressure is cou11tered by tl1at of tl1e conspiratorial group itself. Tl1e antisocial JJote11tialities of a conspiracy, unlike tl1ose of an attempt, are not co11fi11ed to the objects specifically co11templated at any given time. Tl1e existe11 ce of a grourJi11g 'for crimi11al JJt1rposes provides a conti11 ui11g foc al poi11t for ft1rtl1er crir11es eitl1e r related or· t111 related to tl1ose immedi ately envisaged. Moreo'1er, tl1e t111easiness JJroduced by the co11sciousness tl1at sucl1 group111gs exist is in itself a11 important a11tisocial effect. Consequently, the state l1as an i11terest i11 sta1nping· out conspiracy above and beyond its interest in pre\re11tir1g the commission of any specific substantive offe11se. This addi tio11al i11te rest may explain, for examJJle, why son1 e courts l1ave imposed cu111 L1lative senter1ces for a conspiracy and fo r the c rime \Vhich was its object. . .

.. .

Questions 1.

3. :I

�s tl1e st1bstantive critne of c rimi11 al conspiracy disti·nct from participation �11 an offen�e or agg ravation of punisl1111e11t for concur re11 t offenses? W h at 1s tl1e relat1011sl1ip betwee11 tl1e defi11itio11 s of conspi racy give11 in Arts. 37 (1), 8_1 (�) a11d 472? May 011e be botl1 a cor1spirator under Art. 472 a11d a pr111 c1pal or co-offender i11 tl1e crime of l1omicide under Arts. 522 or 523? �h_at articles wot1ld gover11 the pt1nisl1 111 ent to be meted out for tl�e commiss 1 011 of co11srJiracy a11d l1omicide concurrently? What is tl1e dif fererice between ''t1nla\vful desig1111 a11d ''commit an offence'' in Art. 37? Is . the Zeryhun Makonrzen case �orrect in arguing that convictio11 fo r con spiracy �nder _Art. 472 11ecess1tates a fi1 1ding of co-offenders ratl1er tl1an �ccompli�es w1�l1 respect to the otl1er substa11tive crime committed? Wl1Y ar p ning r 1� . co �spiracy 111cluded witl1i11 the chapter of the Code conce t1c1pat1on? 1 � conspiracy as defined in Arts. 269 (b), 286 (b) and 313 closer to prep ara tion or to attempt? What relation l1ave these Articles to Art. 26? _ has �liat �ons�,itutes a �riminal agreement? When may it be said that one d c_onspired ? What ts tl,e position of the Falcone case? Why did Jud�e ·H�n re1ect. the argument that one who has knowled of illegal design_ 1�� _·_ ..,. ge consp�r�tor? Must an . agreement be express to satisfy the Falconete��-- 0 �-�- ,4 �onsptritig? What policy considerations do yo fee affect�d the decJ�lQD� _ _ ,_ ·-· :· l u _ .:: ... 111 the Falcone case? =- - .. .. --· - -=.c: A �e you a?le to disti_nguisl1 the facts in t fro ca se Fa lco th ne e �_ d-b-e-ocs-=1si ��:�P=��=� �? �iJ ... . Direct Sales,,· Does Justice Rutle d , _. _ ge s construction o f the F.alcone_-.- _ ��. _......... -�.. .. ______ ........, --. - ..._......,. - --- ·.-·,--... ·"···· . . -:·ne=.cv

--·-----

=r,,.� .

.::.

--------

...

/:.:., • · :;:;;.:;:� �- � :

•

.,.-.-..u......-.-.,; --,...,......., 'T.'.....,.,. •

c....

---

-.:..---..� ......... -.�-�

••

•

----- - - ·.· ----------------------------CONSPIRACY

277

•

co11vince you? What legal l1o]di11gs emerge from the Direct Sa les case? 6. It has been said tl1at a ''stake in tl1e pt1r1)ose'' test may be a middle ground between mere l<11owledge a11cl formal agree1ne11t. Would such a test be.a goo� ground. �or deciding cases like Falcone a11d Direct Sales? Would it help 111 re�o11c1l1ng tl1ese t\�O cases? Wl1at test would you re comme11d to deter1111ne wl1en one ''co 11 spires'' t1 11 der Art. 472? 7. Is tl1e i 1 1te_11t reqt1ired for co 1 1s1Jiracy i11cor11orated witl1i11 tl1e cri111i11al agreeme11 t itself? lv\ay the agreeme11t be tl1ot 1 gl1t of as a positive act wl1ich demo11strates tl1e ''...purpose [i11ter1t] of pre1Jari11g or con11nitti1 1g serious ?ffe11ses....." .L\re tl1�re actt1all)' t\vo i11 te11ts: a11 i 11 te11t to agree and a 1 1 111te11t t ? f_t1lf1ll t1 1e object of ll1e conspiracy? Are botl1 i 11 tents necessary to cor1v1ct1011 t111der Art.472? 8. Wl1at is a se�iotts offe11se �ccordi11g to Art.472 and tl1e Zeryh;,n Makonnen case? Are ser10Lts offe11ses 111 areas otl1 er tl1a11 tl1ose ent11nerated excluded fron1 tl1e cri111e of co11s1Jiracy? 9. I-lo\v 'X'Olt Id yott co11strt1e l lie \VOrds ''provided tl1at tl1e conspiracy male rialises?'' Does 'n1aterialise'' n1ea11 tl1 at tl1e object of tl1e cons1)iracy 1 11t1st be realized, tl1at tl1e offe11se 111t 1 st be at least atteinpted (see Art.35), tl1at a11 overt act n1t1st be co1n111itted JJt1rsua1 1t to tl1e a.greeme11t or that tl1e agreeme11t itself is e11ottgl1? Does Art.472 (3) sl1ed l1gl1t Oil tl1i$ question? U11der w·l1icl1 co11strt1ctio11 of ''1 11aterialise'' would tl1e purpose of tl1e ,l\rt icle be best fulfilled? 10. S1,ould a11y act i11 pursua11ce of tlie co11spiraC)' be l1eld st1fficie11t to satisfy tl1e reqt1 irement tl1at tf1e consJJiracy must ''rnaterialise'�? Sl1ot1lci a ielepho11e call JSmith -v. United States, 92 F.2d 460 (9tl1 Circuit, 193'7)) or ;.1tter1dar1ce at a meeti11g ( Yates v. U11ited States, 354 U.S. 298 ( 1957)) be enougl1? !f j\ and B agree to commit rape a11d go ottt to lool< for a ,,ictirr1, but ii1stea.cl l1aprJe11 ttpon a ricl1 man a11d co111mit a rol1bery, ca11 tl1ey be co11victec1 for co11SJ)iraC}' to rape, co11s1Jiracy to commit robbery or neither? 11. If 011e witl1dra\vs from a co11spiracy whicl1 co 1 1ti11ttes to\vard its object ar1y wa}·, may 011e use sucl1 ,vitl1drawal as � defe11se to _a cl1arge under. �rt. 472? Would it matter wl1ether tl1e co11sp1racy \Vas said to have ''mater1al ised'1? Wl1e11 does tl1e [Jeriod of Iimitatio11 run \Vitl1 respect to a co11spir acy (see Arts. 225-232)? Wl1en may a co11spiracy be said to l1ave e11decl? 1 2. Has Etl1iopia te11ded to follow tl1e co1nn1011 _or contin�ntal la wit? respect to � _ _ conspiracy? Wl1at do you tl1111k 1s tl1e rationale bel11nd Etl11op1a s approacl1 to co11spiracy? Do yott support such an a1Jproach? 13. In Art. 4721 did tl1e legislators desire, do you think, to place primary emphasis up 011 deterring ''agreeme11ts'' to commit serious offenses or tl1e commissio11 of the serious offenses tl1emselves? How do you account for 1naterialises'�? Why is �onspira�y tl1e phrase ''provided that tl1e conspiracy _ often referred to as an i 11 choate crime? Wl1at other 1ncl1oate crimes exist under the P.C.E.? Would you favor tl1e abolition of these crimes in a redrafting of the P.C.E.?

' I

. . .

I !

Problem

Would you, as judge, convict Ato A, B a11d C of conspiracy under Art.

' ! I

' '•

I . I .:

I -1 ii

• ••

'' .

l ...

;

I •

i ·. .

1 ·· . :

f ......i '

I .· "'::

!�

;''-f :

·:,

PARTICIPATION

278

ut in evidence� P.C.E. if the followi11g facts were p 472 At A a storekeeper in the mercado l1ad recent�y sold two guns to Ato 8 and Ato c. Ato A tes_tifie� th�t, at tl1e �tme of the sale, lie liad overl,eard B ai,d C discussing 111 his store wl11ch tyJJe of gun could be most easily coiicealed for tl1e 'job' they had to do. The police arrested A B and c soon after B and C left A's store and cl1arged tliem witl, conspirina to commit robbery. It was learned f�om the appropriate records tliat B band C were shiftas wl10 l1ad bee11 previously convicted for carrying out a 11 un1ber of robberies 011 the highways of Etl1iopia.

Recommended Readings

I ' II '

Bouzat, Droit Penal 602-603 (short treatment of conspiracy in frencl1 jJenal la\x,). Williams, Criminal Law 663-713 (comprehensive discussion of conspiracy in the comn1on law). Brett and Waller, Criminal Law 440-4 78 (i11teresting materials on co11s1Jiracy in a comn1on law jurisdiction). Micl1ael a11d Wecl1sler1 Criminal Law 636-687 (a good collection of common law materials on conspiracy). N izami, The Pakistan Penal Code 104-106 (5th ed., 1963) (sl1ort discussio11 of the law of co11s1Jiracy in Pakistan wl1icl1 is t)'JJical of ma11y commo11 law j llrisdicti on s). Laila ]hina Mawji and anoth er v. The Qtteen, Judicial Comn1ittee of tl1e Privy Cou11cil,. P. C. _Appeal No. 9 of 1956, 1957 J. African L. 116, Engla � d Tanga11 y�l<a (ar_1 111teresti11g case \xritl1 respect to tl1e rece1Jtio11 of foreign law �eal111g w1tl1 wl1etl1er a l1usba11d and wife of a potentially polygamous marriage tnay be convicted of co11spiracy to co1nmit bigamy); see also 73 Law Quarterly Rev. 140-141 (1957). Yates v. [!nited Sta�es, 354 U.S. 298, 1 Law in (an 19 57 ) ( 13 yers ed. 2d. 56 terest� iig �1ner1ca11 case deali11g witl1 Commttnist Party consJJiracy; n.b. tlie d1scussio11 of tl1e requirement of over ac t t at p. 334).

V 0

.. ............-... -�, ••

•

.•

i. • •

•

.� ....

·L

.. I'...

. >

'I . i

Part Ill

I' . '

I •

THE SPECIAL PART AND TI-IE CODE OF PETTY OFFENCES SOME ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLE1v1S

'I ! '

'''

;

.' .I

. .' . "

." . . . ' ' .

. I , I ...,i

I' . , " I . ·;.

.. '

. i·.t. :.:· ::· . ..

. . . I ; :·

l• • :

..•. ' :•'

•• ·�·.·:�· ....

' .... ·, ···,�.. 1 • . C'. II

·, , - : ·. � ••

'. .

CHAPTER 12

The Offense of Bigamy SECTION A. THE FUNCTION AND FORM OF FAMILY GROUPINGS

THE UNIVERSALITY Of TI-IE NUCLEAR fAlv\ILY1 George Murdock

The fa1nily is a social grouJJ cl1aracterized by commo11 residence, economic co-operation, a11d re1Jrodt1ction. It i11clt1des adt1l ts of both sexes, at least t\vo of wl10111 n1ai11tai11 a socially afJI Jroved sext1al rel ationsl1i1J, and one or more cl1ildre11, ow11 or adoJJted, of tl1e sext1al ly co-habiting adults. The family is to be distingt1isl1ed fro1n n1arriage, \Vl1icl 1 is a com1Jl ex of cu stoms centering up011 tl1e relati onship between a sext1ally associati11g pair of aclults within the famil y. Marriage defines tl1e n1a11ner of establ isl 1ing a11d terminating sucl1 a relatio11ship, tl1e normative bel1avior a11ci reciprocal obligatior1s \'i:,ithin it, and the locally accepted restrictio11 s LijJ011 its JJerso11nel. Used al o11e, tl1e term ' 1fa111ily'' is an1bigt1ot1s. Tl1e Ia)rman and even the social scientist ofte11 aJJJJly it 11ncliscrin1i11ati11g·Iy to several social grou1Js which, despite fu11ctional si111ilarities, exl1ibit im1Jorta11t f)Oi11t s of difference. These must be laid bare b}' a11al)1sis before tl1e term ca11 be used ir1 rigorou s scientific dis course. Three _disti11ct tyJ)es of fa1nily organizatio11 emerae from ot1r survey of 250 representative hurr1a11 s ocieties.l�l,e first a11ct rno st basi; called he re\vitl1 tl1e nuclear g, offs1Jri tl1eir ts s consi typical y l � family, of a n1arried 111a11 a11d \VO�a11 \vitl1 altl1 o t1gl1 in individttal cases 011e or 111ore additional pe rso11s rnay reside with �l�ern. · · · A111?11g the majority of tl 1e JJeo1)les of tl1e ea rtl 1 ... 11uclear fam ilies ar� comb111ed, lil<e ato111s i11 a n1olect1le, i1 1to larger ag·gregates: T.hese conlJ)O�ite for111s of t.he fa111ily fall i11to t\XIO tyj)es \x,I1icl1 differ in the pr111cipl�s by �l,icl, tlie co11st1tue11t 11t1clear fa111ilies . are affiliated. A polJ gamo11s .family con�ists of two ?r n1ore 11t!cl ear fa111ilies. affiliated by JJluraI �narriages, i.e., b � havii,g one tnarried jJarent 111 co1111non. U11der jJOl yga111y, for 111stance, oiie ma J)l�ys the ro�e of I1t1 sba11d and fatl1 er i11 several 11t1clear families and thereby ui11tes them into � .larger . f�milial group. Ai1 extended family consist s of_ two �: � ore .11t 1c!ear farr�il�e� aff1l1ated tl1rot1gl1 a11 exte11sio 11 of tl1e JJare11t-cl11l d re 1.·s tionshtp, t.e., by J?1111ng the nt1clear family of a married adult to that of }1 jJare:1ts. The patrilocal exte11ded fan1ily, often called the patriarcl,al _ fami!f� furi1��l1es a� excelle11_t exa11}JJle. It embraces , tyJJicall)', an ol der ma n, l1is_ w�n o 1v s , l11s t1r1ma:rried cl1il_d rei1, l1is married so11s, and tl1e wives a11d cl1ildrnd 0f ;,e 1. atter. Tl,ree . ge1,erat1011s, ir1cluding the nuclear families of fatller a · 501. 1s, live utider a s111gle ro of or in a clu ter . s of adjacent dwellings. .Jl t.S Of the 192 societies of ot1 r s ample fo· wl1icl s ufficie11t i11form_at�O r 1 1

ln Bell and V.oo0el 1 A "1 0dern Introduction to ' the F,imily 27-44 ( 1960).

•

.·--

BIGAMY

281

available, 47 liave normally only tl1e 11uclear family, 53 l1ave polygamous but not extended families, and 92 possess some form of tl1e extended family.... The 11 ��lear family is a t111iv�rsal J1uma11 social grou1�i11g. Either as the sole preva1l1�� form of tl1e fa1111))7 or as tl1e basic t111it fro1n which more are com potti�ded, it exists as a disti 11ct a1 1d stro11gly com1�lex familiar forms _ f�11ct1�11al grou1) tn every l<_11owi1 society. No exce1Jtio11, at least, I1as come to l !ght 1n tl,e 250 represe11tat1ve. cultur�s st1rveyed for tl1e prese11t study, wl1ich 3) ''It ctoes tl1e co11clt1s1011 of corroborates Lowie:( 11ot ,natter wl1ell1er tnus marital relations are permai1ent or ten, porary; \Vl1etl1er tl1 ere is rJolygarny or l1c�11se; sexual addi \Vl�e�l1er or tl1e by are conditions plicated con1 olyandry R t 1 011 of members 11ot 1r1clttdea in or,r farn ily circle: tl1e o1,e fact stands 011t bey·o�d all otl1ers wife, l111sba11d, tl1e every\x'liere tl1at cl;ildre11 immature a11d _ co11st1ltlte a unit aJJart f ro111 tl,e re111ai 11der of tl1e comrn1111ity." .

Tl1e re �s01�s f�r its u11 iversalit.,, do not beco111e fully appare11t ,x,l1en tl1e �11cle �r fatnt 1)� 1s v1e\X1ed_ mer�ly as a social grotIJJ. Only \vhen it is a11aiysecl 11 1to its c?11st1tt1e11t relat1011 sl�1ps, a1 1d tl1ese are exami 11ed i11divid 1tally as ,:,:,eil 1 1 ga 011e does a11 11 co11cer)tion ate 1 adeq1. collect1vely, s man, family tl1e of as sided utility a11d tl1t1s of its ir1e\1 itability. A social grour) arises \'vl1en a seri�s of i11lerperso11al relatio11sl1irJs 1 \x,l1icl1 111ay be defi11ecl as sets of reci1Jroca!l,r adjusted l1abilt1al resJJonses, bi11ds a 11t1111ber of l)arlicipant i11dividL1als collel�· tively to one anotl1er. Ir, tl,e nuclear fa111iJ,,r, for e}ca111rJle, tl1e clt1sterecl relati(Jr1ships are eigl1t in 11t1111l1er: l-It1sba11d-wife, fatl1er-s011, fatl1er-,Jal1gl1ter! 111ot1'1er- s011, motl1er-dat1gl1ter, brotl1er-brotl'1er, sister-sister, <1.11d brotl1er-sister. l��1e members of eacl1 i11teractir1g pair are li111<:ed to 011e a11otl1er 1 :Joti1 c1ir-�ctl;r tl1rot1gl1 reci1Jrocally rei 11forcing bel·1a vior a11d iridirect.ly 1J1rot1gl1 t i1e rel2.tior1ships of eacl1 to every otl1er me1nber of tl,e fa1nily.,l\11:;r factor \'.�1 l1ic:l·1 s�:·er1g'.l1e11s tl·1e tie bet\'('ee11 011e member arid a seco11d also operates I11directly to bii1c1. tl,e former to a tl1ircl n1ember, ,r,itl1 v1!10111 tl1e secor1c1 t11air1tai11s a c]osc relc.t·· tio11sl1ip. 1-\11 explar1atio11 of tl1e social utility of tl1e 11t1clear f:i.1i1il;/1 ai1ci tl1L1s (1i its universality, must co11seqt1e11tly be sot1gl1t 11ot alo1 1e i11 its ft.111ci.ior1 ;1s a collectivity but also in tl,e services ar1d satisfactio11s of ll-ie relatic111s]1i1Js bet,;;1,::e11 its constitue11t members. Tl,e relatio11shiJJ betwee11 fatl1er a11d n1otl1er i11 tl,e 11uclear fan1ily is solid ified by tl1e sexual pri\(ilege \vl1icl1 all societies accord to n1arried spo11ses. /\.s a powerful impulse, often 1Jressi11g i11d-ividuals �o �el1avior disrUJ)live of tl,e co-operative relationsl1ips upon wl1icl1 l1uman social life rests, sex ca11 11ot safely be left without restrai11ts. All know11 societies, co11sequently, have sot1gl1t to bring its expression under co11trol by st1rrou11ding it ,vitl1 �estrictio1 1s of various kinds. On the otl1er hand regulatio11 must not be carried to excess or tl,e society will suffer througl1 'resttlta11t personalit� maladjustmer1ts or through in sufficie11t reproduction to maintai11 its popttla�1on. All peoples l1ave faced the problem of reconciling the need of co11trol w1�h . tl1e JpfJ0�111g need of expres sion, and all t1ave solved it by cult11rally def1n1!1g a s�ries of sexual taboos and permissions. These cl1ecks a11d balances differ w1d:lY from _ culture to e her culture, but without exception a large measure of _ sexual liberty 1s everyw _1fe m st � granted to the married parents in tl1e nuclear fa1111ly. Httsba� d a11� � ad_ here to sexual etiquette and mu st1 as a ru!e, observe ce�ta1n per1od1c restr1c t1ons such as taboos upon intercourse dur111g me11struat1on, �regnancy, and lactation, but normal sex gratificatio11 is never permanently denied to tl1em.

. t

. . ..

(J) R. H. lowie, Primitive Society (New York, 1920), PP· 66-67. · · ·

I . ., I

;

. ... •

I •

•

II :• , "

TI-IE SPECIAL PART

282

t e s _ tl1 mo rt� as _ JJo e11 im ev 11 t one, o� r, to fac le so e tl1 as x se rd ga To re d ds an e bin em ag th rri ma 1 11t? the 1n r l1e t _ ge to an 1n wo a ct 1 a11 11 11a 1 . t 1 at bri i igs a s r� . ltu l l . a_ cu If r. ro ib : er oh _ pr i ted us rio se a be . .. Ltld \VO re ctu i L str y nil fai 1 ons111 p, st1 ch an lat tal r� r1 111a l1 t e. _ 1n pt ce ex se ur co ter i11 al and JJeiial izecl sexL1 j'. all t �1c no Jha _ r ts tl1 em � tI11 . t Bu le. ab 11 so rea em se t ; case. 1 igl 1 1 1 1 1 o (Jti assum 1 cl1 1 nforma_t1on 1s av a i lable, 6:J allow 1 wl r fo s tie cie so 0 25 r ot1 of se tl,o Amo1 1g 1 n sex_ual matte rs, an d 20 : on ed fre te Jle mJ co ns rso r:>e ed lat 1re 11 t d a11 u111 11arried i d or dtsapproye premarital b for 54 ly on e l1il r \x 1t, 1 1se co1 ied alif qu otliers give 0 at1 sex rel 11s between ow all se tI1e of 1 y 1 ma d a11 s ive lat 1re 101 1 1 1 liaisoi1s betwee1 s1Jecified relatives sL1cl1 as cross-cot1 si11s. �l1ere JJremarita! _license prevails, sex certai11ly can1 1ot be alleged as the pr i mary for ce dr1v11 1g people i1 1to matri1n01 1y. •

I I l'

)�

!f.l

I" •• 1

•

I 11 view of tl1e freq L1 e11cy \xritl, w11 icl1 sexttal relati011s are permitted out side of marriage, it \X'OLtld see1n tl1.e fJart of scie11tific caL1 tio11 to asst1 me n1 erely tl1 at sex is a11 i11 1JJOrtant, but not tl1e excIt i si ye, factor in mair1 taini11g tl1e 1 11arital relatior1sl1ip \,:,itl1i11 the r1t1clear fct1 11iiy1 a11d to look elsewhere for aL1 xiliarJ, SUJ)IJort. Orie SL1cl1 source is fou11 cl i11 eco11 01nic co-operatio11, based t1pon a divisio11 of labor by sex. Si11ce co-01Jeratio11, li!(e sexL1al association, is rnost readily and satisfactorily acl1ievecl by perso11s \Xrl10 11abitually reside togetl,er, tl1 e t\X,o activities, eacl1 derivi11g from a basic biological 1 1eed1 are quite co11 1patible. lndeecl, tl1 e gratificatio11s from eacl1 serve admirably to rei11force tl1e otl1er. B�>' virtL1e of tl1 eir (Jri1nary sex differe11ces, a 1na11 and a won1 a11 1nake a11 exceptio11 ally efficie11t co-OJJerati11g L111it. fv1a11, \xritl1 liis sL1 perior pl1 ysical stre11gtl1, ca11 better L111dertake tl1e n1ore stre11 t1 0L1s tasl<s, s11 cl1 as lt1 mbering, mini11g, qL1arrJ1 i11g, la11d cleara11 ce, a11d l1 ot1sebuildi110-. Not l1a1 1dicapJJed, as is \VOma11, by tl1e JJl1ysiological bt1rde11s of JJreg·r1a11cy �111d 1 1ursino·, }1e can ra11 ge fartl1er afield to l1 L1 11t, to fisl1 1 to l1erd, a11cl to trade. Worr1a11 is at 1�0 disadva11tag e, 110\vever, i11 ligl1ter tasks wl1icl1 ca11 be JJerfor11 1ecl i1 1 o r near tl1e l1ome e.g., tl,e gatl1eri11g of vegetable J)rodt1ct�, tl,e fetcl1i11g· of· \X'ater, tl1e 1Jre1Jaratio_11 _ of food, a11 d tl1e ma11 t1 factt1re of clotl1 111g· a11d t1te11sils. All l<11ow·11 l1t1111 ar1 soc1et 1es l1ave develo1Jed s1Jecializatio11 a11 d co-01Jeratio11 bet\vee11 tl·1 e sexes rough ly alo11� tl1is _ b_i�log·ically cleter1ni11 ecl li11e of cleavage.... Tlie ad\ra 1 1tag·es ir1l1er e11t 1n a d1v1s1011 of tabor by sex JJres1111 1ably accot11 1t for its 1111 iversality..· · _Sext1 �l t111 io11s \Vitl1ot1t eco1101nic co-01Jeratio1 1 are co1111no11 , a11 d tl1ere are relat101 1sl111)_s.be�\xree11 1 ne1 1 a11d \x10111en i11 volvi11 g a ctivisio11 of labo r \xrith out sexual g rat1f1cat1011 , e.g., betwee11 brotl1er a11d sister, master a1 1d 1naids�rva nt, aiid n11c or emp�oyer a11d _ secretary, o ecor1 bt1t 1narriage tl,e exists only wlier1 _ �he sex1;1al are u11_1 ted 11 1to 011e relatio11 slii ( J, and tliis cotiibination occurs only 11 1 marriage.Marriage, tl�us_ defi11ed, is fotttid ir, every ki,ow11 1,uma11 society.In in tlie f o of thei ll 11, mor �ov t er, all i 111 volv es 1 1 residential col1abitatio11 , a11d i � i t torms tlie bas_1s of tl1e 1111 clear f:a�1 i]J'· Genui1 1e cultural t11 1iver�a)s are exc e; edtngly r�re. It 1 s all tl1e more str1 l<11 1g, tl1 at we l1ere fi11d several of tliem ?10 011ly om111 1Jresent but everywhere linked to one ar1other in tl1 e same fasl1 1 0 11· • • uSt m ese Sexual cohabitatio11 leacls i1 1evitablJ' to tlie birth of offspring.Tl1 are p �� tlie : if be n Lt r�ed, le iided, a11d re�recl to JJl1ysical a11d social n,aturity d ro ep a r_ e to 1 �ap _ tl1e afore-me�t1 011ect adv�11tages. Eve11 if tl1e bt1rde11s of ! a as _ t ioi, arid clitldcare ot1 twe1gl1 ·tl1e self1 sl1 bo·ai11 s to the fJarents' tl1e societ)'5o urc e wl.10le lias so heavy a �tal<� 111 tl1 e_ 111air1te11a11ce of its 11u111bers, as a _ att•o 115• ot strength a,,d security 1t w.i ll 1 11 sist that JJarents ft1lfill tl1ese oblig •

•

BIGAMY

283

1_tic id e, atid 11eg;lect, u11less co11fi11ed i11 fa1 n, rti o witl1i11 safe limits, tl1reate11 the Abo entire com1nun1ty a11d arous_e its 1ne111bers to a1JtJly severe social sanctions to the reca lcitra11t p�rents. fear 15 thus addecl to self-i11terest as a motive for the reari11g of _child re1,. Parental lo ve , based 011 variot1s derivative satisfactions cannot be 1gn?�ed as _a ft1rtl1 er tnotive; it is certainly no more mysteriott� tlian tl1e affect1011 lay1s\1ed by �a11y people on burde11s01ne a11imal {Jets ,'<'ltich are a�le to g!ve far less 111 retur11. I11clividual and social adva11taae O � -' thtts operate _1n a va_r1ety . of \X _a)'? to stre11gtl1e11 tl1e re1Jroductive aspects of tl,e 1Jare11t-cl11ld relat1011sl111Js w1tl1111 tl1e 11t1clear family.

. . .. .

No less in11Jortan t tl1a11 tl1e f)l1ysical care of offstJring, a11d probably more difficttlt, is tl1eir social r�a.ri11g. 1-1 ,e )'Ot111g l1uma11 a11in1al 1nt1st acqt1ire an i111mense amottt1t of tracl1t1011al 1 <110\vledge and sl<ill1 a11cl 1 11t1st lea r11 to 1 1 1 1 l)Lt lses lo . t i 1 1 b o rr1 1e 111a11y disci IJ1 i11es prescribed by l1is i is 11 eel ttbj s cL1lt11re, before l1e ca11 assttrne l11s fJlace as a11 adult 1ne111ber of l1is so ciet)'· Tl1e bt1rcle11 o! edt1catic.)11 a11cl ?oc_ializatio11 ever)'Wl1ere falls JJri 1naril�1 tipor1 tl1e 11t1clear fa111tl)', a11cl tl1e tasl< 1s, 111 general, 1nore eqttally distribttled tl1a11 is tl1at of 1.1lI) Sical care. Tl1e fatl1er 111ust JJarticiJJate as ft1ll)' as tl1e 1notl1er beca11se, O\vi11g lo tl1e divisio11 of labor by sex, l1e alor1e is ca1Jable of trair1i11g the s0 11 s i11 tl1e activities a11d disci1Jli11es of adult tnales. Olc.ler sibli11gs, too, J)lay a11 impo rta11t role, i111parti11g l{nO\X1 ledge a11d disci1Jli11e ll1 rol1gl1 daily i11teractior1 i11 ,vorl< a11d JJlay. Perl1a1Js 1nore tl1 a11 a11y other si11gle factor, collective resrJ011sibilil)' for ed11catio11 a11d socializatio11 \x, eld s tl1e variot1s relatio11sl1ips of tl,e fa111ily togetl1er. In tl1e 11L1clear ft1111il\,, or its co11stituent relationsl1ips, we tl111s see asse111bled fot1r ft111ctio11 s fi111d a111 e11tal to l1111na11 social life - tl1e sext1al, tl1e eco11omic, tl1e reprodt1ctive, a11ct il1e ed11catioi1al. Witl1ot1t 1,rovisio11 for tl1e first a11cl tl1ircl, society ,voltld b eco111e exti11ct; for tl1e sec�11 ct, l_ife itse,lf \VOt�lcl c:��e; fo0r tl1c fourtl1 cullt1re \VOL1ld co111e to a11 el1d. [lie 1111111er1se social t1L1l1ty or ll1e nucle;r family a11 d tl1e basic reaso11 for its t111iversality ll1t1s begi11 to e111erge i11 stro11g relief.

I ' ! ·. i

! ''

• •

•

! .

•

Tl1e above-111e11tio11ed ft111clio11s are by 110 111ea11s tl1e 011ly 011es IJerfor111ecl by tl1 e ,,uclear fa1nil}'· As a fir111 social co1�stellatio11, i! f�·e qt1e11tly, btit riot t111iversally d raws to itself vario11s otl1 er ft111 cl1011s. Tl1t1s 1t 1s ofter1 tl1e ce11ler of religiou� \vorsl1i J J, witl1 tl1e fatl1er as fa_111ily fJri.est. It 111ay be llt e p ri1:nary t111it i 1 1 lai1dl,o]dii,g, ve11geance, or _ rec_re_at1011. S0�1al staltts 111ay de1Je11d 1nore t1po11 fainily positio 11 tl1 a 11 upo11 111d1v1dt�al �cl11even1e11t._ A11 d so 011. Th�se additio11al fu11ctioi,s, \vliere tl1 ey occttr, br111g 111creased strer1gtl1 to the family, tl1ough tl1ey do 11ot ex1Jlai11 it.

NOTES A PI IO H T E IN S N R TE T A P E O JA R tv,AR Note 1: Marriage Under the Fetha Nagast fetha Nagast, Tl1e lmJ)Ortance of lv\arriage2 Before dealing with marriage we n1ust remember that the primary end of 2·

'" -

Chap. :XXIV, Bctrotl1 al 1 Dowry and Marriag e.

I .. '

'I .. . I

I• : , '

' '

I I

'I'

'' '

:..

:. '

. .

'' :-·. ' ·.. :

' ,:)l ' '

TI-IE SPE<2IAL PART

284

marriage encompasses two t�ir1gs: the first is the procreation of _offspring i� order to preserve the lineage '\.vl11c�1 has �een demonstrated_ b�, the wor_d 01 G_ o _ d w1 10 said to the first progenitors: ''Increase and multiply (Oen. 1, 28). This can110t take place but by carnal unio11. T�e second concer:1s the conc11pi� ce_nce \vliich is rooted in animal nature; th� desire_ for ? arnal t1n1on m�r be �atisf1ed, ai, d through it comes of-fspring. This prov1d�s ior two nece�s1t1es: first, the satisfaction o.f tl1e concupisce11ce by carnal union for procr�at�on _ a11d second, the s1 1ari 11g \Y1hich takes place between the couple f?r alley1at1ng �he_ burdens of life. Tl1is is dernonstrate d by the word orr the H1gl1est Wl10 said 1n regard to Adam, 11 It is not well that Adam sl1ot1ld be alone, let Us mal<e for him a companion \Vl10 may help l1im'' (Oen. 2: 18). The primary �nds of marriage are to procreate, to give m11tual l1elp ai1d to reinove cc,ncup1scence.... I\fote 2:

Am hara fviaru·iage Iv\essi11g, Tl1e J-Iigl1land Plateau Amhara of Ethiopia3

Family and Ki,iship in Social Org anizati9n: The empl1asis on the extended family ai1d ki11 relatio11s an1011g the A1nhara ca11 hardly be exaggerate d. l11 all problems of · life tl1e Amhara first turr1s to fa1nily a11d kin. While the pat rili11eal-patrilocal extended fa1nily is considered of first i111portance, consangui11eal i(infoll<: 011 tl1e motl1er's side rar1k only sligl1tly less i11 obligation and duties owed by tl1e individual, a11 d in benefits for \vl1icl1 he can aJJpeal. l11 contrast, affinal relationsl1ips are regarde d as co11si d erably less itnportant i11 obligations and benefits. This attitL1de is rei11forced by the trad itional law �,l1ich empha sized inl1eri.tance in co11sanguineal relacio11sl1ips, even distant 011es, over closer affin�l relatives; and by the relatively easy divorce from the common semanya marriage. •

•

Mc:,rr_iage Patterns: ·r�ere are tl1ree pre don1inant types of marriage: l) the eucl1ar1st1c cht1rc!1. 1narr1age, qi,rban, e11gaged i11 on I)' by a mi11ority, such as

some of_ tl1e no�il1ty, �0_1n_e of tl1e . older perso11s, a11d all of the priest}1o od; 2) the k1n-negot1ated ( c1v1l ) n1arr1age, sen1-anya, S\'<'Orn before tl1e cl1equa shHm, headman, and most commo11; 3) -�11e temporary marriag·e for \vhich the man en gages to pay regt1lar l1ousekeep1ng wages, danioz, especially common among those \vl10 travel to 1narkets. . �emany_a literal!)' n1eans ''80.", and is tl1us also called the '1 eigl1ty-bond marr ero rt_a�e · This Emp refe r_ s to tl1� oatl1 the whic h _ inclu des the pl1rase ''May , r· eno d ie , perJury against which used to be penalize the then d by ,w-}1at was mo_tts. sum of 80 Maria l�l1eresa Tl1alers. It is also called baserat, by (''cont�act"). T_his .15 the tnost commo11 form of marriage, dominated by a compl e� itr of . s o. n kins� !P arra�geme11 iati nego t and divorce is possible throttgh similar . a� d. fJarcelling ?L1� of both goods and cl1ildren. There is a minimum 0 ! 111� . divtdual �mphasts in �l11s marriage negotiation, especially in a first marriag�, 15 r� · for tlie kttl of both side tl1e s h m st be satisfied an d ''l1onored'', thoug _ � . some_ eleme11t of or_1g1nal choice through informal courtship. The church takes cognizance by sen d111g a priest to bless the coup le. oJ· e aus bec Qurban marriage is 11ot urged by the church on laymen partly nts me � r the sacerdotal character of the church, partly because the eu�hari-stic sac 11

!f · · ·

Pp. 398-400, 455-459 (1957).

. . '

;

. '

_,·_ t

- . . . .. , \•

• t

•f •

• .

•.

. ·, .. · .. ·-· .. · · ··; . . ... ' ·: . ·.. ·.. . '

· .. ·

•

.•

•

285

BIGAMY

are considered s� l1�ly that �nly serious, mature, fully adult persons are ad vised t� engage .tn 1t, and d1vorce cannot be granted. At this sacrament, the couple 1s rebapt1zed, and may, on all holy days, wear the aklil crown. Widows and widowers may remarry, �ut a priest \Vho becomes a widower is expected to assume monkl1ood. The pr1_est wl10 blesses a semanya bride and groom mere l wish that ••God will show the way'' to the lay ly expresses the prayerfu_ _ couple toward qur_ban, 1n time. In f �ct, middle-aged couples who have gone throt1�h several divorces and l1ave finally decided definitely to spe11d the rest of tl1e1r d_ays together, may take the aklil in qurban. Qurban for lay people, e.g., deacons� 1s per_formed ust�ally only 40 days after tl1eir semanya, lo make certain tl1at their marriage bo11d 1s stro11g and real a11d tl1at 110 rift l1as arisen (e.g., if the bride has been found 11ot a virgin}. Damoz m_arriage (lit. wage) is what tl1e term implies. Most commonly the arrangement 1s fr?m n1011tl1 to mo11tl1, but may be for longer or sl1orter periods, such as tl1e duration of a carava11 trip, or a11 extended stay at a tnajor market, where tl1e damoz wife offers tl1e best and ofte11 tl1e only available 11otel and restaurant services.(Sl1e is similar to tl1e Biblical lady i11 the city of Jericho)....

. .... . . .. ..

11 ••

i .

I . I

Individual arra11geme11ts are freest i11 damoz, also i11 q1irban tho11gh some times less so, a11d least i11 se1n,111ya. But i11 all tl1ree forms of marriage, tl1e \Vife retai11s lier maide11 11a1ne a11cl does 11ot assu1ne tl1at of her l1usba11d .... The damoz is not co11sidered co11tradictor); to 1no11ogamy, xv1hicl1 may explain lier respectabilii)-' desJJite {Jrol1ibitio11 of concL1bi11age ir1 tl1e 'fetl1a i'lagast'' .... Religiot1s perso11s \vill ex1Jlain tl1e jJaradox by quotir,g Jroin Oei1esis, Bc frt1it� fu I a 11 d muIt iply''. 1

Note 3:

Tigrean Marriage

Rossini, Principles of Eritrea11 Ct1sto111ary LaY1i·� . . . Marriage: Its Two Types: In Ethiopia, tl1ere are_ t\X'O types of marriage; a

solemn, tormal one, and a marriage for com1Jensat1on. Tl1e first type has, as its basis, a solerr�n agreement, attested by tw_o stic�<s; the second consists of a conve11tion b)' which the woman passes to live \YJ1th a man for a specified compensation, and, usually for a sp�cifie� period of time. ugh thro also e 1s r1ag m�r of e typ t fir� the g min for per of d nd tho me seco A . religious marriage.But as a rule, the rel!gious aspect i_ s _not part of . tl1e mar riage contract and is not an essential point for the val1d1ty and legality of the union. in, or, i at nic o t_ eth e� fer dif ve ha bly � ba � pro e ag rri ma of es o e Th tw typ least, while the first typ e may have resLtlted from Sem1t1c or Ha'!11t1c customs, (the latter prevailing, perhaps) tl1 � second type may be the remainder of customs imported from ancient Arabia.... • • • •

d ne tio nc be sa o e als ag y a rri m_ ma n lem so d an al rm R,eligious Marriage: The fo b_y religion. Except for the clergy, wh � �re expres�ly o�l1ged to celebrate mar riage by virtue of their priesthood, rel1g1ous marriage ts not commonly used 4.

Rossini Zerab ,

Principi di Diritto ConsNetudinarUJ dell,EritrtA

ruk Aberra.

190-191. 247-251 (1916); translation, Ato

'I .·.,... .. ;

: '

.... ..--. . .. .. . .. .

·:.., .· 1 ..

.l , �I '

·-•• '4

' .j'..1'

�,1,

THE SPECIAL PART

. 286

, le is it a ru br s le A c� . es ag ri ed ar at m ch su g 1 1 vi ol ss di of ty : dtte to t11e difficul al e ag rm d ri fo ar an m 11 m , le so at e th th n he w 11 te of d 1 a1 ed ag e ar le up wlien a co e. or ef s b ar ye l ra ve se d te ra b le ce as w e, is to say, civil 1narriag •

•

t at ou d th te in xt po ne y a� to re al ve ha e_ W n: tio sa en mp Co r fo n Conjugal Unio . . . rm . e fo pl m si e or m a 1s e er tl1 e ag ri d solen111 mar

the formal an , a an ils om r ta w 1 he e1 eit It . 1'' o1 ati ns pe 1n co or ''f as 1 1 ow k11 Tl,is form is n al u io ug th nj wi co in a e l�v to g � in dg ple s, ive lat re er 1 l h t1g ro tl1 or tly ec dir en a t nt. of giv en ou ym am JJa st ain ag d an d, e · ng rra e-a JJr lly ua us ma1,, for a period, •

•

e t ,er , wl e �ere is ntr ce jor ma the i!1 ed � 11s ly ial Jec es1 n,, for st In its simple fluctuatio11 of JJopulation, a11d among soldiers, the woman, �1thout SJJecial _ cer 1 t1ng t? the v�r1o�s se1 con he, as n soo as 1 1 rr1a tt1e h wit e liv to es go _ es, oni em l1m ers1 ov tl11s , But r. nto ara � a es giv t, _ trac con tl1e of ?LI_ ons diti con s and term _ 1 en dealing with wl ge usa 11 1n1a yss Ab e In pur us. d lea mis not uld sho fication of s rite and s litie ma for tl1e of all ost alm e ar1c ort imp e som of s so11 . .. per 1 forn,al marriage are conclttded, starting from tl1e obligation of tl,e intermediary, wife \X1 l10 1 in tl1is case, 111ay also be a woman, to the pro visi.011al retur11 of the to lier fatl1er' s 11ouse after the cons111nmatio11 of tl1 e marriage. • •

Note 4:

Islamic Marriage

I ,evy,

·r l1e

Social Structure of 1s1am5

Tl1e greatest of M11l1ammad's reforms affecting the status of women came i11 tl1e 1natter of tl1eir relatior1ships witl1 the 01Jposite sex. from the Koran it \X,�uld seem_ tl1at l1is_ e�actm�nts 011 tl1e questio11 of marriage were desig,,ed to _ bring Isla1n1c practice i11 to line \Vith \vl1at l1eld it1 Judaism a11d Cl1 ristian1ty as he k_11ew _tl1em, thougl1 tl1ere were feat11res - notably the fact that i11 I�lam r11 arr1age 1s a sec�lar co11tract a11d not a relig·ious rite - '-:1:'1,icl, made for differ ences.Tl1e most 11nporta11t of tl1e 11ew rL1les was the restriction 011 the number of ,vives wl1icl1 tl1e M11 �lim 1nigl1t at a11y one tin1e }1 old in la\vful marriage. B�fore Mul1a111 mad, _ . tl1� ca1Jac1ty of tl1 e Arab's (Jttrse would appear to l1ave provid ed t�e only l1m1t�t1011 to the n11mber of l1is wives, aiid thougl, tl,ere were e�tab l1shed c_onve11t1011s abo11t t_ l1e status ?f wome11 l,e married, tl,ere were neither co11ve11t1011s nor laws _ to dictate to l11m }1o\v many til e)' 5 110111d be. Tl1e Koran �nacted tl1at a. 1na11 n11gl1t marry two, tl1ree or four wives at one time, althou�h 1t.als? reco�111zed tl,at l1e migl1t fi11d it difficult to treat more than one wife _ .... \V1tl1 1m1Jart1al1ty •

•

• •

f�r marr��ge with more than the permitted number of wives 110 punish· ment 15. �pecified bey0.11d tl1e g·e11eral threat of hell-fire for wrongdoers. _But . tl1e pos1t1?n of the offspr111g of an illegal marriage was JJrobably take� 1n!0 co11s1dera�1on, althot1g!1 the �ora11 says nothii,g of it. In actual pract ice _ 1n, n,oder� times eco11�1n1c co11 d1tio11 s make it comparatively rare in most Musli m countries . for a man to l1 ave more than 011e wife at a time; for not every man can provt �e tl,e separate establisl1 mer1ts wl1 ich tl1 e la\vbooks as well as cu.sto m · a11d expediency den,and for eacl,. Moreover, tl1 e growth of public conscience 5.

Pp. 100-102 (1957). .

BlOAMY

287

and th� spread of �es_tern education l1ave in some Islamic countries led to legislation ?f a restr_1ct1ve .cl�aracte� whic\1 h�s made tl1e marriage with more than _one wife at a time d1ff1cul� without definitely forbidding what the I(oran sanctioned. The fa_rn�us mo der�ist reformer, Mttl1ammad Abdtth ( 1848-1905 ), on the str�ngt_h .of h ts interpretation of t_l1e Kora11ic passages (43, 128) which de clare_d 1t d1ff1ct1lt for a ma n to .ac t wi �l1 irnJJartial justice to a plt1rality of wives, co11s1dered that the P�opl1et l111nsel f 1mposed . mo11oga1ny, a view wl1icl1 l1as not !ound ma11y f?llo\v�r�. Polyg�m)' was abol1sl1ed in Turl<ey ,vitl1 tl1e intro duction of .tl1e Swiss �1v1l Cocle 111 1926, a11d it l1as beco111e more diffict1lt in Egypt, Syria, a11d Pe_rs1a, \vl1ere restrictive legislatio11 l1as been introdt1ced. In tl1e {!.S.S.R. and Cl11na f)olyga111y is illegal, bttl tl,ere is evide11ce tl1at in tl1e !v\usl1_m states of c:11tral Asia ll1e law is freqtte11tly evaded. [11 cou11tries wl1ere Islan11c �a11011 la\v_ 1� tl1e la\v of tl1e la,,d, freqt1e11t cl1anges of wives are com mo11 1 _bei11g 011ly l1mitecl by tl1e littsba11d's liability to {Jay ali111011y for tl1e \voma11 lie divorces.

. .

Note 5: Galla Marriage I-lt1r1ti11gforcl, Galla Fa111ily a11d Marriage6 Life c_ycle: Tl1e Galla are organized i11 a strict syste111 of age-sets and gracles

called g..,,la•... f\t tl1e sa111e ti111e tl1ey recog11ize, arid l1ave 11a1nes for, tl1e natt1ral age categories. Circt1111cisio11 does 11ot take place till after i11a11l1ood l1as been attai11ed, and 111arriage co1nes before circt1mcisio11 .... Ki,,ship: Tl1e basis of Galla society is tl1e grotif) callecl 'i.Vctrr,1-, ''fa1nily,' or iLiaJ ''root," \Vl1icl1 com1Jrises }Jater11al l<ir1, disti11g11isl1ed as ll1ose of tl1e t-:-cler,�: or fatl1er's brotl1er, a11d mater11al l<in, disti11gt1isl1ed as tl1ose of tl·1e e)111J1a or motl1er's brotl1er. Affines are callecl fir,1 (Arusi, /Joro), a11c\ tl1e affi11al grot1p, firum,z. Tl1e elementary fatnily lives by itself t11111er ll1e co,1lrol of tl1e fal!1er wl,o l1as tlie rigl1t to expect con11Jlete obedie11ce.... Regi,l,:itio,1 of 1\1.:zrri,tge: Marriage of 11ear r�latives ...\Vas 111ore or les� fo r. bi_ c.lden tl1ro11gl1ot1t Galla la11d . . . . Tl·1e Galla tr� ge11eral l1�ve 011ly 011e ''.11fe; tl11s, ...was ordained by God, a11d tl1e fJract1ce of . tal<t11g s� \reral \V: ves \Y1as 'tat1ght by tl1e dog." Cl1ildre11, 110\vever, are a socta.l 11eces�1ty,. a11d ll1e 1no�e cl1ildren and grandcl1ildre11 a n1a11 l1as, tl1e greater 111s prestige 111 tl�e cot1nc1l. Hence tl1e rich have several wives, so tl1at they n1ay l1ave ma11y cl11lclrc11 a11cl ensure the survival of tl1eir line. Tl1e first \Vi fe is al\vays tl1e cl1 ief x,:,ife, arid her son is the eldest son for tl1e pt1r1Joses of authority a11d i 11heritance. Ricl1 Galla also keep concubines (sejeta) wl10 11ever live i11 tl1e same l1ut as a wife. The Arusi practice polygamy t_o a lin1�ted exten�, as a result per��ps of , lv\oslem influence; the number of wives varies accor�1ng to a man s ab1l1ty to pay for and mai11tain tl1em; some have as many as six or seven.

. .. ' '

• • • •

South-west Ethiopia7

Among th e Sidamo bridewealth is paid either in money ...or with a bull 6· 7·

' '

I i I

. I ·.

I . .: .' .

' •'

.. .' .

:' ':' . . . 1 .. . ..

Note 6: Sidamo Marriage Cerulli, peoples of

Huntingford, Tht Galla of Ethiopia: The Kingdoms of Kaja and ]anjero 33-38 (1955). Cerulli. Ptoples oj Soutli -west Ethiopia and Its Borderland 121 (1956)

. ..

288

or several sheep. Marriage 11egotiatio11s take plac� between tl1e fathers of _ t�e two young people, witli much delay and _ haggling 011 t�� part o_f the girl s fat1,er who, after praising t11e innt1merable virtues � nd. qualities of hts daughter, then asks an exaggerated price. When agreement 1s ftn�lly reached, th� father of the future husband or if lie l1as 11011e, an older relative, pays the stipulated !)rice and then tt1e yot1ng man, accomJJanied by his friends, goes to fe�ch his bride. She meets him in the musa garden before her home, accompanied by her mother wl1 0 anoi11 ts her son-in-law's l1ead with bt1tter. In the evening a banquet is' given, with entertain1nents. _Polygamy is widespread. A man may possess one wife for each farm or l1 old111g.

THE SPECIAL PART

Questions

I. ,I I' . 'II I•

I I

Ii I '

.,(.J

1i' .

I I � I I'

,��,

I tr·

What does Murdock mean by tl1e 11 uclear family''? What does he see as its ur1i\rersal ft1nctio11s? Mt1rdocl< states ([J. 281) that ''All peoples have faced tl1e proble111 of reconciling tl1e 11eed of control witl1 tl1e opposing need of expressio11, and all l1ave solved it by ct1ltt1rally defining a series of sexual taboos a11d per1nissions." Do Arts. 614-626 represent sucl1 a reco11ciliation for Etl1iopia11 society? Incest prol1ibitions seem to be t111i,,ersal. Wl1at result would you foresee if societies did 11ot pe11alize i11cest (see Art. 621)? Whicl1 of tl1e fu11ctions of the fa1nily are protected by penal law? Which by civil law? IV1igl1t such a comparison i11dicate wl1icl1 functions of tl1e family are co11ceived of as more i1nportant? H?w. i1np_ortant is tl1e f�1:1iiy in Etl1iopia? Wl1y does tl1e Revised Con st1tut1011 111clude a prov1s1on (Art. 48) co11cer11ing the Ethiopian family? Are the forms tl1at fa1nily groupi11gs assume u11iform througl1out tl1e world? Are tl1�y u11iform within Etl1iopia? Sl1ould tl1e family receive even greater protect1011 from tl1e penal law tl1an is now tlie case or sl1ould protectio11 a11d regt1latio11 be left to tl1e ci\ril law and otlier institutions of Ethiopian society st1cl1 as religio11, edttcation, etc.? J1ow is m_arriage �efi11ed by Murdock? Wl1at are tl1e fu11ctions of mar riage? _Is its fun_ct1011 differe11t i11 Etl1 iopia tha11 elsewhere? Wl1at cl1ar acter1st1cs appear most frequently i11 Ethio1Jia11 marriage patterns? 11

Problem

Using _a� analysis similar to tl1at employed with respect to ''the family," . in _ your opinio� why do sucl1 articles as 630 (Theft) and other property offense articles appear 1n tl1e Ethiopian Penal Code? SECTION B. THE OFFENSE OF BIGAMY IN ETHIOPIAN LAW

BIOA.MYS

Fetha Negast es g ria mar Part 5: A man sh2.ll not have two wives. The entering into many

Chap. XXIV, Betrothal, Dowry and Marriage.

.·.·. ' -- � � � .

BIGAMY

289

(polygamy) is for tl1e satisfaction of co11cu1Jiscence and not for tl1e t1aving f offspring as God �as ordered. If one is polygamous, he sl1all be forbidden o recei.ve tl1e. Eucl1.ar1st a11d to enter tl1e Churcl1; he sliall not ei,ter the com m1tr1ty until he ts_ separated from tl�e seco11d wo1nan a11d lives \Viti, tl1e first, one takes tw� wives togetl1 e� or if lie takes tl1em in separate l1011ses, or if t1e �eeps � wife an� a c�nct1b11,e, l1e sl1all be de1Josed from l1is priestl1ood if he 1s a priest and tf l,e is a lay1na11 l1e sl1all be excluded from comm11nion witl1 the peop!e (Rom _ a11 s 9). Tl1e woma11 wl10 ap1Jroacl1es a11otl1er n1a11 while her l1usba11d lives 1s a11 aclul teress a11d a breaker of tl,e ta w (Roma 115 7).

PENAL CODE OF ETI-IIOPIA (1930) Art. 390. If a Cl1ristia11 ha vi11g 011e wife sl1011ld 111arry a seco11d wife shall be in1priso11ed fror11 3 1nor1tl1s to 1 year.

' '

•

. . I

•

ii1

additio11, lie

PENAL CODE Of ETI-IIOPIA (1957) Art. 616. - Biga,ny. (1) Whosoever, bei11g tied by tl1e bo11d of a valid 111,l rriage, inte11tion::i.lly contracts anotl1er n1arriage before tl1e first 1111io11 11(1s beei1. clissol,1ed or a11n11lled, is p1111ishable \Viti, sitnple i1npriso111ne11t1 or� i11 gra,re cases, a11c! esrje- cially wl1ere tl1e offender i1as l<110\x1 i11gly 111islecl l1is fJartner i11 tl1e seco11d t1nio11 as to l1is tr1te state, witl1 rigorous itnprisor1iner1t 11ot exceeding five years. (2) Any unmarried person wl10 marries a11otl1er l1e k110\1;S lo be ti�(i by· tl1e bond of a11 existi11g marriage, is f)t111isl1able \,;,itl1 si1111)le itTif)risc)11ment. (3) Limitation of crim111al f)roceecli11gs is s11s1)e11decl u11til st1cl1 ti111e as one of the two 1narriages sl1all l1ave l1ee11 dissolved or a11nulled. Art. 617. - Exception. The preceding Article shall r1ot apiJly in cases \Vl1ere polygamy is recognized under civil la\v i11 co11formity \Vitl1 traditio11 or 1noral usage.

' I

! . • . ••

.. ! :' I. . ..

CIVIL CODE OF ETI-IIOIJ JA (1961)9 Art. 611. - Bigamy. - 1. Criminal sanction. (1) An officer of civil status or autl1ority havi11g c.elebrated _the marriage of a person bottnd by ·the . bon�s of a prev1011s marriage, sl1all be liable to the punishment provided 1n tl1e Pe11al Code, if 11e k11ew or should have known of such circu1nsta11ce. 9.

See also the followin legal provisions in conjunction with this chapter: R evised Constitution, Arts. 40, 48; P.C.E., Ans. �28_5361 614.626; c.C.E., generaJ?y Arts. 577-661, 3347; Proc. No. 13 of 1942 G.C. and Proc. No. 62 of 1944 G.C.

�

i --.:

I • �

290

THE SPEClAL PART

(2) Tlle spouses, tl1e perso11s wl10 have c?nsented to t�e ma� riage and the witnesses shall ·be liable to the pun1sl1ment provtd�d 1n the Penal Code, if tliey l<tiew or should l1ave known of such circumstance.

! j

I I

Questions

Wl1at relatio11ship exists betwee11 Penal Code Arts. 616-617 and Civil Code Art. 611?

U 1 1der the defi11itions of bigamy in Art. 616 P.C.E. and Art. 611 C.C.E. at wl1at poi1 1t 111ay a11 individltal be arrested for �aving committed bigamy? Wl1en cloes the limitation of crimi11al proceedings (Art. 225 ff.) begin to rL111? Wl1y does pe11al prescriptio11 not run from the day that bigamy is committed?

May a11 i11dividL1al defe11cl himself from a charge of bigamy by stating that, althougl1 a court l1as 11ot so declared, his first marriage is invalid? lv1ay biga111y be co111mitted r1egligently? To what articles in the Penal Code do you point to st1pport your conclltsio11? To convict an unmarried persor1 of biga111y L 1 11der Art. 616 (2), m11st he l1ave actual knowledge tl1at l1is IJart11er is n1arried? Wl1at is tl1e p11rpose of this sub-section?

Is the offe1 1se of bigamy applicable to all cultural and religious groupings in Etl1io1Jia today? As of what date? \X/l1at was the position of prior pe11al legislatio 1 1? Does "l\rt. 611 C.C.E. impliedly repeal Proc. No. 62 of 1944 O.C.? Wl1at reaso11s can be give11 to su1Jport natio11al applicability? Is polygan1y i11co111patible witl1 the fu11ctions of marriage and the family? .

Are tl1e modern Codes respo11sive to tl1e functions and various forms of the traditior1al_ Etl1iopian family; that is, l1ave tl1e Codes conformed to the \xrords so wisely stressed by His ImtJerial Majesty in his Preface to tl1e Pe11al Code: Tl1e. �oint of _dep_art �1re mt1st_ re1nain tl1e genius of Ethiopia11 Ie�al trad1t1on� a1:d 111st1tt1t1ons wl11cl1 l1ave origins of unparalleled a11tiqu1ty and co11t1nu1ty?

SECTION C. THE OFFENSE OF BIGAMY IN COMPARATIVE LAW BIGAMY IN SWISS PENAL LAw10 Paul Logoz • •

•

·,, . . Certai11 fo�� er can�onal codes considered bigamy as a ''moral'' offense, The Code Oenovo1s _ , · for 1nsta11ce, (Art. 283) as well as the French Pen al . �t Code (Art. 340) class1_ f1ed it tnong offenses agaitist mo ece with ind alo ng � ral s . assault: rape, etc. This class1f1cation is qtiestiotlable . In reality, bigamy .. · 1,s ---

10.

. · -- B amy: Logoz, Comn1entaire du Code p' . · ,. _ena l' s,uzs� · e, part1e Specia g le 40 3 ( 19 56); Art. 215 C. p. S. stat_ cs: for Wl1oever, b ein alr ea d i t . 1ed r n ,-• -�.. e s l cn1t n o er 1 the in e m � c a d ine ll onf be sl1a rson p � p 1 t 1e hO not over f,ive iears or yin t i�� ri:� f -w e or not �,., lor_ -=knowingly contracts a marr iag { with . �ess than three months. The un married _p t a e . �ar rie pe �son s11all be confined in the p ni enC i,n. L _ = not over three years or in the Crim. and Pol. Sci., Supp. (l 9 39).prison. Translation, Friedlander and Gold berg, 30 .]. r _-��;:;-

" ��--�- - -

_-,c - ---

--�

-+·-

.-��s-� '� ._'"'--

BIGAMY

291

an ittfraction against th e p u_ b�ic or�er w�ich excludes official polygam • Even more accurately, ... 1t 1s a11 1nfractton against the f m ·1 . 1·t _ t?e negat ion of mo11�ga1ny upon which tl,e family _ as we conceiv� iit Y.:_ - s � d It is, th �refore, r1gl1tly _that the C.P.S ..classifies bigamy among offens e� a �1�st g re lat an es tt d no y t on fam ly il to incest an d adultery, bu t aIso 1o off enses the · · · n of f am1ly dttty, abduction of a minor, · Iat io · v10 con1m1tted 1n etc. REYNOLD S v. UNITED STA TE S Supreme Court, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) United States

Mr. Cl1ief J st ice \V AITE d�livered court: This i s an tl1e opinion of the � . . 111d1ctr�1e11t f�r bigamy t111cler Sect1 011 5352, Revised Stattttes, wliich omitting its exceJJt1011s, 1s as follows�

''Every r?erso11 l�avi11g. a l1t1sba11d or ,vife living, wl10 marries anotl1er, _ wl1etl1er 1narr1ec.l or s111gle, 111 a Territory, or otl1er place over wl1 icl1 the United States �1ave exclt1sive -j LI risdictio11, is guilty of bigamy, and sl1all be punished b)' a f111c of 11ot 1nore tl1a11 $500, a11d by i1111Jriso11me11t for a term of ilot 111ore tl1a11 five )'ears." •

• •

i' I

•

011 trial, tl1e JJlai11tiff i11 error, ll1e acct1sed, [Jroved tl1at at tl1e time of l1is alleged seco11d n1arri�ige l1e was, a11d for 1na11y years before l1ad l)ee11, a 1nel11ber of tl1e Cl, Lt rel, of J est1s Cl1rist of Latter-clay Sai11 ts, co111 mo11ly called tl1e Mor1no11 Cl1urcl1 , a11cl a believer i11 its doctri11es; tl1at it was accepteci doctri11e of tl1at Cl1t1 rcl1 ' 1 Tl1al it \x,· as tl1e duty of male 111ernbers of said Cl·1t1rcl1 1 ci rc1.1rnsta11ccs permitti11g, to practice 1Jolygan1y; ... tl1at tl1is dtity \V,lS e11joi11eci by different books \vl1icl1 tl1e 1ne 1 11bers of said Cl1urcl1 believed to be of divi11e origi111 a11cl a 1no11g otl1ers tl1e t·Ioly Bible, a11d also tl1at tl1e 111e111bers of tf1e Ch1.1rcl1 believed tl1at tl1e 1Jractice of JJOlygan1y \vas directly e11joi11ed tlJ)Otl tl1e n1ale 111en1bers tl1ereof by tlte Al111igl1ty Ood, i11 a revelatio11 to JoseJJl1 Sn1itl1, t!1e fot111der a11d jJropl1et of said Cl1urcl1 ; tl1at tl1e faili11g or refusi11g to practice J)olygamy by Sltcl1 male men1bers of said C J1urcl1, \xrl1e11 circt1msta11 ces \X'Ould ad1nit, ""OL1ld be J)L111isl1ed, a11d tl1at tl1e 1Je11alty for sucl1 failt1re a11d refusal wotild be da1n11atio11 i11 tl1e life to co111e.'' I-le also proved ''Tl1at lie l1ad received permis sio11 _frn111 tl1e recog11izcd at1tl1orities i11 said �l1urcl1 to �11te: i11t� polygamot1s 1narr1age; ... that Da11iel Ii. Wells, 011e l1av1ng at1tl1or1ty 111 said Cl1t1rcl1 to perform tl1e 1narriage ceremo11y, married tl1e said defe11dant on or about tl1e time the crime is allegecl to l1ave bee11 coin mitted, to so1ne woman by the 11an1e of Schofield, ancl tl1 at sucl1 111arriage ceremo11y \Vas perforined under and IJUrsua11t to the doctri11es of saicl Cl1t1rcl1."

U p<)n tl1is proof lie asl<ed tl1 e court to i11struct tl1e ju:y tl1at if tl1ey found from tl1e evider,ce tl,at he ''\xras married as charged ...111 pt1rs11ance of and in co11formity with wliat lie believed at tl1e time to be a religious dttty, th�t tl1e verdict mttst be 'not gtiiIty.' '' Th is request was refused, a�d tl1e cot 1 rt d 1d charge ''Tl,at there must Jiave bee11 a criminal i11te11t, bt 1 t tl1at tf tl1e defendant, �nder the inf I uence of a religious belief tl1at. it was rigl1t -:- under a11 ins1?ira tto�, if you please, tl,at it was right - del 1_ b erately marrt�d. a second time, nt, the want e _ l 111t ltav1ng a first wife liviiig, tl,e want of co11sc1ot1sr1_ �vt of ss e _ 0� under standing 011 liis part tl,at he was _com !111tt1ng a . cr�rne, . did n,?t excuse litm; but the law inexorably j 11 suc h case 1mpl1es the cr1m1nal intent.

•

I•

I; :·'. . ' ..

' .. .

·' ' .

t '. .

....

. .. ,

I' .. ; .

rl. ·(:. .

. -·��...

... ':·:,1'.

THE SPECIAL PART

292

. 11a1.ge ai,d refusal to cl1arge tl1e question is raised, wh· eth· er · ·t· ati·o11 o f an overt 11 tl11s c o p U . act ma d e cr1m1 . 1c . . i st nal 1u a s a cl te iJ e c c a e b 11 ca f 1e 1 e b re\10-iot1s er f ow o _ p C ti g ,e o on t as ss re t no . _ to is . r� u1 q i11 1e l T d. an l 1e l t of b)' tl1e la,v ilt e gu th of to e as on t bu s o 1e r wh 1to r er T · e ' tl1 · r fo s w la · l 1a · 111 · prescr1 be cr111 t h I t ct 1 e ac , e en ta y ter en er op pr ins e11 be a s ha l1 iic l \xr aw l a s te 1 a O VI · · 1 y ilg I.{110\Xll . g n ro w 1 s \xr la 1e l t t 1a l t f ie l be rel igiot1s e rritories whic� Te th of t en m _ rn ve go 1e l t_ r_ fo v a\ Congress ca11110t JJass � l nt 11e 1 to d_ e th en am t rs i ti f ns �e Co l )" 11. 10 l1g _ r� �f se ci er ex ee fr e tli it slia ll prollib ranteed eve1' � . is gu om ed fre 1 t1:s 1o lig Re 1. 01 1 t sla 1 g le cl1 st1 s id rb fo s y tution exrJres l l interference 1s 11a 10 ss re ng co s a _ r fa s� s, ate St d ite Un 1 e tl tit where tliroug\1o e tl1 law w r no l1e r 1et de wl un 1s, d 11e 1 _ r� t� de be to n tio es qti ie Tl d. iie er iic co co1�sideratio11 co111es \vitl1i11 this prol11b1t1011. . . .. .

... It is i injJossible to beiie\re tl1at t l1e constitutio11al gu�ra11t)' of_ religious st o mo rtant imp to this t Jec res in 11 atio l is leg t 1ibi Jrol to 1 ci r1cle i11te \Xtas 11 do1 free 1 feat1.1re of social life. Marriage, \xrl1ile from its ver y natL1re a sacred obligation, is 11 evPrtl 1eless ir1 most civilized natio11s, a civil cont ract, and usL1 ally reg11lated b}' io.\v. UiJ011 'it society rnay �e �a.id to be bt1i_lt, a11� out �f its f ruits sprin_g social reiatio11s a11d social obl1gat 1ons a11d duties, with wh1cl1 government 1s 11ecessariiy reqt1ired to deal. . . . 111 our OJJi11io11 tl1e statt1te im111ediately u11der consideration is witl1in the legislative JJo,x,er of Co11gress. It is co11stit1 1tional and valid as prescribing a rL1le of actio11 for all tl1ose residi11g i11 tl1e Territo ries and in places over whicl1 tl1e Ur1ited States l1as exclt1sive co11t rol. 1-1,is bei11g so, tl1e onl)' question ,vhich remains is, \X1l1etl1er tl1ose \vl10 rnal<e pol)rgamy a part of tl1eir religion are exceJ)ted f ro1n tl1e operation of tl1e statt1te. If t!1ey are, tl1e11 those wl10 do not �1al<e JJolyga1ny a part of tl1eir rel igious bel ief ma)' be fo11nd guilty and p�111sl1ed, wl11l e tl1ose \vl10 do mt1st be acqt1itted a11d era free. T l1is would be in troducing a 11ew eleme11t into cri1ni11al l a\v. La\vs :i-e made for the gover1 1ment of actio11s, a11d \Vhile tl1ey can11ot i11terfere witl1 rnere 1·elio·ious belief and opin io11s, tl1ey n1ay \vitl1 practices. SL1pJJose or1e bel ieved that ht1ma11 sacrifices \xrere a 11e_ce_ ssary part of religiot1s \Vorsl1i 1J, ,xroLtld it be seriously conte11ded tl1at tl1e c1v1l gover11n1e1 1 t t111 cier \xrl1icl1 l1e l ived cottl d not i1 1terfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a_ wife religiot1 sly believed it \x,as lier duty to burn her self t11Jo11. t�1e f1111eral p1le of lier dead l1L1sbar1d, \VOtild it be beyond tl1e power of tl1e c1v1 l gover111ne11t to 1Jreve11t lier carryi11g 1,er belief itito fJractice ? lier e, So as __ a la,v o-f tl 1_ e ? rga11iz�tio11 of society u11der tl1e exclusive domin. 1011 of tl1e U111ted States, 1t i_ s 1Jrovided tli at plural marriages shall �ot b_e al_Io,ved.��11 a 111a11 e�c!..ts� 111s 1J ractices to tl,e contrary because of hts rel� g!ous bel!ef? To p_ermit tl11 s \X!Ottld be to 111ake tl1e professed doctrines of relt · g_1�:1s belief sttfJer1or to tl1e la\� of tl"!e land, an d in effect to perm i_ t every c1t1ze11 to be�on1e a la\xr Ltnto l·11111self. Oover11m e1 1t coul exist o11Iy in nam e d unde r s11cl1 c1rct1111sta1 1ces. is A cri1ni11�l i1 1te11t is ge11erally · an element an m every bu t ct ·im of e, e presu�ed to 111te11d tl1e 1 1ecessary and legi at f wh hat s tim ue o :is nc at e e e co . . k!10�11 1gly .does. H�r� tl1e acct1sed l<11ew l1 e th _ an d ed , m ar ri l1a d be on en �e 1 deA . 111s first \X 1fe was l1v1no- I-le also l<tiew tl . b1d· for as t 1 1a 1 1s second marriage w e -:i y by law Wh n, e h ti ,e p.f re b" ·o re , 1 to 1e n1arried tl1e seco11d time l1e is presume d · . r 1nte11ded to breal< tl1e. l a\v. A1 1d t_l1e break i 1 1g of tl1e law is the crim�- Ev e. s, Y w-a act necessa ry to_ co11st1tt1te tlie crime wa k . me cri s now1n . g 1y done, and the . . en tl1erefore, k11ow1ngly co1 111nitted Ign aJ< t s be . �� oranee of a fac t may s ome 1 . t·me · ·

�

•.

BIGAMY

293

35 evidence of a w a1 1t o f cri�i11al_ i11te11t,.bt1t. 11ot igiiorai,ce of tl,e la,'v'. Tl,e only defense of tl1e acct1sed 111 tl11s case 1s I,1s belief tl,at tl,e law o ti g lit r,ot re �ee11 e11actecl.. It m tters 11 o t ha \ tl to 1a t � . l1is belief \vas a IJart of l,is JJrofes sed religion; 1t was still belief, an d belief o11Iy. T HE I\I\ARRl1\- 0E LA\V OF TI-IE PEOPLES REI)LJBLIC OF CI-IINA11 C/;,111g C/Ji/1-Ja11g •

•

�1011oga1 11y is a _ go od S)1 S t_ e111, l1ttl it l1as 1 1ever really bee11 J)t1t i11 to JJr actice Dt co ry 1r111g lhe re1g�1 of_ tl1e i�111)eri,tl Cl)'I1asties a11cl i11 tl11s t111� . tl1 e ol cl Pe l<i 11g JJo 1 ly r11 1t ga 11 1)· \x·as cl1sg111secl 111 tl1e for111 of C/1ie11 Go'1e 111e 1) co11c Ti .io l t1binag� a11d aclt1lt�ry \X:cre citl_ 1�r recogi1i e l or lolerate � \ cl by la\v . Tl1e r�aclio11ar1, Kt10111111ta11g �eg1 r11e l1)'JJO . �r1 l1cally 1)ro)1 1b1lecl b}' la\v tl1e afore1 ne11tio11ecl JJoly ga1110LtS r>racttccs, bt1_t 1 11cl1rect!)' 1Jer1!11 tted tl1e111 to co11ti11L1e. So 1olyga11 1y 11 i _ l f,Lct a11d 111011og�1111y 111 Ia,,;: ex 1stecl s1cle bJ' stcle. Sttcl1 JJraclices fJre vailed es1Jeciall)' an1011g tl1e ,,,ealtl1y. . I11 Ne,x, Cl1i 11a sL1c!1 JJl1 e110111e11a 111t1st be resol11tely \Vipecl ot1t. Ottr Jv\arriagc Law at tl1e \·ery ot1tset l.1}rs eqttal e111JJl1asis 011 ll1e -free cl,oice of f)artr1ers a11d on 1no11oga111)' a11d clearly JJrol1ibits JJolyga111.>r ,111d co11ct1t)i1 1agc. Bt1t clisguisecl a11d l1iclcle11 JJolyga111)' dicl 11 ot occttr ,v-itl1011t cattse. I11 orcier really to 1111clersta11cl tl1is qt1 estio1 1 of JJolJ'ga111)r , \•1e 11111st \i ic,v it iil ti·1e ligl1t of. its ca11ses. -r1 1e rclatio11s of 1Jroclt1ctio11 i11 sc)cicty are its f1111da111c11tal cat1se, \vl1ile tl1e lack: of freeclo111 of 1 11arriag·e is its clirect cat.1se. So, iii soi\! ii1g tl1e problen, of JJOl)·gam)', \i::-e rnust at ll1e sa111e ti111e \\'iJ)e t)lll tlir.: calJscs \\'l1icl1 give rise to tl1 is q11estio11. Tf1e Co1,11111f.11i'st 1"v/,,111ifesto said: 11

I •

Tl1e abolition of tl,e 1Jreset1l s1 ste1n of JJrodL1 c.tio11 111t1st l.)ri11g \X'ill1 it tl1e abolitio11 of tl1e co111 111t111ily of \X1(1111e 11 s1Jrir,gir1 g fro111 tl1at Sj1 stei11, i. e. 1 of prostitt1tio11, boll, lJt1l1lic a11d J)ri\1 ,lle. 1

Tl1is is \'ie\ved fro111 tl1e relatio11 bet,vee11 lite relalio11s of 11roclt1 cti(Jr1 ar1(l 1no11oga1111• [sic]. E11gels, vie\x i 1 1g tl·1e relatio1 1s o[ tl1e t,,!o \Y!illi- tl1e fr e edo111 <Jr marriag·e, said: 1

\Vl 1at \'fill most defii,itel)' disaJJJJear fro111 1nor1oga111)', l10\vever, is all tl1e cl1aracteristics stam1Jed 011 it i11 co11sec1t1e11ce of its_ l1avi11g arise11 out of tl1e f)roiJerty relationsliiJJS. Tl1ese are: firstly, tl1e do111111a11ce of !lie 1na11, arid secondly, the ii,clissolubilitj' of 111arriage•... If 0 11ly 111arr_1age s _ll1at are based on love are moral, tl1e11, also, 0 11ly tl1ose are 111oral 111 \Vl11c1 1 love co11ti1 1Ltes.

. '

r . I

• I I •• • •

R as tran 50 7, I 19 ng, p. 1 J · Ch ang Cl 11·11RJang, A M A , Peki Daily les Peop Law e a ri I N 1 ccd c cl Mar _ _ 1 uc1 _ g itbf', c o; Cl.in,i 16R l7 (1959); Arts. 1 and 2 of ch c slated 1n 7/Je lvfarr1age Law of tl,e Peoples Rcp . · .. ge s;·scem wl1icl1 is. b�scd · on T h 1a r n1ar 1 a Jd eu f e lvla1.. · " r1: I · i . e � t Ar L cad r aw 1 • 1950 , o 11. f av t · iv . 0 , ignores the },. of man arb 1t r,1ry and compulsory arrangements and che 5upcriorit . c over ,voman and · I1 1s· base,cl on l · ch'ld 1 rens' ihterests s11a 11 b c ab o1·1s ,cd • Tl1 c N ew �Ocn1 ocrac1c marr1a ,c system, w I11c R _ .., cl1e pro on l and , sexes , 1 or b for cs h ;i l O the free choice of partners, on monogam,' on cq� a . n effect." Arc. 2 tect1o o mc11 and chil drcn, s llall be. Put into v1 of of chc ul ests lawf inter " · · _ 1 chc re-marr1a<>e o f w1'dows, and the exac_ , witl c ·Bigamy, concubina�oc, child bet rot l1a1, inter fcrcnc . l�b' 11 ice cl. " t1on of n1oney or gifcs in connc:ct1on · h ma' rr1a"'CS wit · o , s l1all be •pro · · {1) ('Chien . ' 'concurrent anccsrral l13II") n, cans that the son of one brother or cot1s1n was T1ao" (lit. . _ ' cl er to provide n.1alc dcsc cncJanrs fo r chc "shared" with the other hcirless br ocl1ers or cousins, tn or several families' lineal descent tl1rot1gl1 several conctirrcnt marriages.

'.r

l' .... . . I • • '•. I .. .. . ...: j . . ' .......

'· 1'.

;· '.�. J.'j

l '

},J, .

)•• ,I

��

THE SPECIAL PART

294

m o d ee l1 of fr ic l1 w 1 ri i1 ar m e er e l1 ag p os ni at 1 a1 in y 1t 1 0. t a i ti t ·c . t It ca11 be sa be es riag mar red e11su . p y ap s h f o , er b 1 11 u 11 1e . tl 1 11 � se ea 1 cr i1 1 a1 11 ca revails , ) 1e tl as ac c cr si ba n e1 D 1 ew nd N �o e 1 tl ? of t ou g n yi rr ca le ca -s ll fu 1e tl � art from e 12 m do ee of fr r1 ar is m y m ag . ga 1o o1 m r fo 11 io it ti�n,. tl1 e o11e i 1 1dis1Jensable co11d •

•

13 E D O C L A N BIGAMY UNDER TliE INDIAN PE 11r. H. S. Gour •

•

t w l1a is 11 of ow e kn nc fe in of e tl1 es sl1 11i pu n io ct se ie Tl . . W A 12alogo1,ts la . e e o t th o a c I· bl 1_ ff p e� ap ce I11 · I y r ea c! IS rm te at th t 1 bt ," 1y an ig ''b . Englisl, la\x, as l, t ga bu y !Ile r1l ss� ce wl11�h, 11e e �g rrI Ina d on sec a es u1n ass it r here described fo 11avi1 1g regard to tl1e custo1ns ?f tl1e_ peorJI� 111 tl1e Or1e11t, IS �ot n�cessar1ly t!1 e case. Tl1e E11glish rttle ag·a111 st b1g·a1 ny 1s,_ tl1erefore,_ wholly1 1na1Jplicable to a 11on-Cl1ristia11 Asiatic of wl1atever JJersuas10 11. Jt will, I10\X ever, apply to Christia11s a1no11gst wl10111 mo11ogarn)' is tl1e rule a11d bigamy both a si11 a11d a cr1n1e. Scope and aJiplicability: Tl1e law treats biga1ny .as an offence i11 order

er1sure co11jL1gal haJJJJi11 ess a111011g tl1ose \Vl1 0 belo11g tc mo 1 1ogamot1s communi ties. Tl1t1s1 an offe11ce under tl1is sectio 11 cot1ld only be comn1itted by persons wl1ose JJreviotts n1arriage 01Jerated as a bar to a 1 1otl1er. So, for all fJractical pur1Joses, tl1is sectior1, \x1l1e11 e11actecl, arJplied 0111)' to Cl1ristia 1 1s. St1bseque11t · g of tl1e B01nbay legislatio 1 1, 110\x,ever, l1as altered tl1e !)Osition. Since tl1e passin Pre\,ention of Hi11du Bigamot1s Marriag·e Act (B0111ba y Act No. XXV of 1946 as ame11ded by Bo1nba)' Act. No. XXXVIII of 1948) and tl1e i\!\.adras (Biga111y Prevention and Divorce) Act of 1949, I-Ii11dt1s i11 B0111bay a11d l\t\adras could be pu11isl1ed for a contrave11tio11 of tl1is sectio11. Tl1e Parsi Marriao-e a 11d Divorce Act (Act XV of 1865), st1bseque11tly re1Jlaced by the Parsi M�rriage a1 1d Di vorce Act. (III of 1936) prol1ibited fJolygan1y a111011ast Parsis also a11d 1nade tl1e1 n fJU11isl1able u11der tl1is sectior1. Tl1e Special Ma�riage Act of 1872 (Act III C>f 1872) a11d its a111ended provision�, e11acted as Act XXX of 1923 brought about � similar rest1lt, but only i11 respect of perso 11s \vl,ose marri�ges \vere sole111111sed t111der the act. Tl1e SJJecial Marriao·e Act of 1872 lias 110w bee11 r�fJlacecl by tl_1e Special Marriage Act, 1954 (A;t No. XLIII of 1954) a11d 1nar r1ages s_ olen1 1 1 1 se� t11 1der tl1at Act are st1bject to tli e provisions of tl1is section. Tl1� Ii111�u M.arr1age �ct (A�t No. X�V of 1955) n,al<es moi,ogamy tl1e r ule _ Ii1n Bt1 all cldl11sts, Ja111s_ a11d �tl<l1s arid tli e · JJrovisions of tl,is secti on dt1s, fo_r will _co11seqt1e11tly apply . to _tl1e1r marriages also. To SLim Uf), this section 110,v applies to a] I com1nt111Ities 1 n I 11 d ia except tl,e Muslims. . . .

I 11

ti I

TI-IE LAW Of BIOAM y IN OHANA14 AntonJ' Allott

The jurisdiction of the courts in matrimo,zial causes: Tlie Suprem Cotirt exercis es e 12. Sever�} coun�ries such. as Tunisia and Turkey which ar e pred om 1. nant1y MosI em, hav.e a )so initiated experiments 10 butlawing bigamy. 13. Gour, IV The Penal Law of India 2551 (7c}1 ed. ,. A:t· 494 In d.ian pena_I C0.d e, �eadb, 196 _ 3 s: "Wason hO'" ' '' · _ , · · , evrr having a husband or '

14.

wife .I ivin g, marries in any case re · · } ,,01d 1s in wh ch mar r1ao i sucl e 1 · � . . of its ca k'.1ng. pa t, · °t> the life of sucI1 husb and men ., ison ·I c·e d ur1n impr 'f or w1 e, shall be punished with • o f e1t · I1e r descr1pr10 1 for a tern1 which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine �. _ . ' £ ll A ott, ·ssays zn. A ;r1can l aw 20

9�210, 212�213, 217 (196C).

BIGAMY

'· 5 29

jurisdictio_n, by virtue. of tl1e Courts Ordinance, cap. 4, in divorce and other ma�rim on1 al matters (t) wliere th e marriage has been concluded according to typical Western _monogamou? forms, �1ther outside the country or inside Ghana in accordan�e with tl1e �arriage Ordinance, cap. 127, and (ii) the rel ief sought is that provided by Engl1 sl1 law. As. rega rds p roceedings conce_rning or arisi11g out of marriages in accord ance with custo_mary law, !lie native c�urts exercise exclusive jurisdiction, as _ O r_ d1�1aric�, s7c_t1on 18, provides tl1at tl1 e St1preme C ourt is 11 ot to the �ourts . exerct�, e 1ur!sd1ct1on 1r1 _ c1v1� c auses or mat ters ''pro perly cog11izable by a Native Court , �htch expi:essto� includes cases concernii,g ct1stomary 1narriages; and a � on-nat�ve court 1s obltg�d to r e fer the parties t o sucl1 a case to tl1e appro priate native court for 11ear111g and determi11atio11 of tl1e dis1Jute. • • • •

Types of marriage recog11ized by Gha11a law: In brief Ol1ana la\v recognizes

(a) ''Cl1ristia11 marriage'' and (b) ''11011-Cl1 ristian marriage.'' (a) Christia,i marri,1ge,: tl1is cat�gory is \vider tl1a11 tl1at of marriage t111der the Gha na �ar_r1age Ord111a1�ce, wl1 icl1 is i11cluded in tl1 is category. _ _ Roughly, C hrist1a11 marriage 1s 1narr1age as recog11ized by the la\v of Eng la1 1d.

(b) Non-Christian _marriage: this covers marriage by Africa11 customaiy la\V, and by lslam1c law. As regards mar riages contracted ,vitl1ir1 the confi 11es of 01 ,ana, tl1ere are theref ore tl1ree ty1Jes to co11sider; custotnary marriage; ordina11ce n1arriage; 3J1d Islamic marriage. An A frican (Ol1 a11aian) l1as ge11erally an election as to '\q}1etl1er he sl1all be goveri1ed by Englisl1 o r c11sto111ary 1,t ,�,. Tl1is electio11 operates in relation to marriage also: an Afric an may freely cl1oose (unless l1e is alreac1y married by native law a11d custom) wl1ell1er l1e will n1arry by his c1.1sto111ary law or under the Ordi11ance. Tl1is ap1Jlies wl1etl1er or not he is a Cl1ristia11 ai1d even where he hi1nself is tl1e offs1)ri11g of a marriage under tlie Orcli11a11ce.

.. . . .

1 t 1 u! r ce �e_ offe11 an is ?Y Bi��" es: ojfe,zc te cog11a �e an,i ' bi am of The law g J

Criminal Code, cap. 9, sectio11 440, and by def1111l1011 (thougl1 ll1e def111tt1or1 _1s a little o bscure) is limited to cases wl1ere a person, bei11 g _ already a � artr1er 111 a Christian marriage, goes t hrot1gl1 tl1e ceren1ony of Cl1r1st1an n1 arriage to a third party. . . . • •

• •

...

•

Questions

1. What does Logoz m aintai11 is tl1e reason tl1at the Swiss Penal Code places bigamy among of fe11s�s st1ch as incest and adultery? Is tl1e Swiss position similar to the American? 2. What is th e issue po se d by Reynolds v. U. S.?. Is it sati� factori_ ly res� Iv�d? Is the act of goii,g to c11urc11 on Su11day practice or b�l1e�? lv\1gl1t a _ s1� 1lar 1op 1an Const1tut1011? l1 Et tl1e of 48 nd a 40 ts. Ar question be raised under 3. Does China's approach to bigamy provide ratio�al; fo r E�hiopia? l1at Do reason s are given to support Arts. 1 and 2 of _ Cl11na s Marriage � a\v. ec o n omic devel� t ec eff lly tia tan bs su 11 ca s law you tl,ink t hat such bigamy opment? In wh at ways?

' .. . ' .�

. ''

r ' .. II • .• ",• . . '; . '. ' ". .. I

•

.' -

'· )

;

•

'• r . I.·� :

. ;.

::;:.�1. '· .

. . ...· , "· J .. ,' .

.�.

THE SP.ECIAL PART

296 4. 5.

Are tl,e Indian and Ol1anaian solutions close to those of pre-Civil Code Etl1iopia? Wha!. factors do you feel have he_lpe_d to create the differences among these positions? Is tl1e mod_ern Eth1op1_an stance closer_ to that of Switzer land-America, China or Ind1a-Ol1ana w1tl1 respect to bigamy? Problem

You are asked as legal advisor to the Prime Minister to draft a bigamy statute for the mytl,ical state of Afrasia. Afrasia �s . �ot a large_ country but contains a considerable number of cultural and rel1g1ous groupings some of whicl, practice polygamy. Give reasons to s11pport each provision withi11 your draft statute.

.I II

·· .'1· I'

I • I

t,,o,

tr·' i'. lh

Ir, (,

(, '

Recommended Readings

Logoz, Comrrzentaire du Code Penal Sriisse, Partie Speciale 403-407 ( 1956) (careful co 11sider,tlio11 of the offense of bigamy in Switzerland). r..:-arra11, 1tfatrimo:zial Laws of tl1e Sitdan 3-32 (1963) (good discussion of polygamy in Sudar1ese la\v1). Bi11et1 Lr A1arr£age en Afriq1,te LYoire 61-110 ( 1959) (in teresti11g discussion of polygamy in West Africa). Radcliffe-Bro\vn and forde, African Systems of Kirzship and Marriage (1950) (com jJrel1er1sive treatment of nine Africa11 family systems). Lewis, Marriage and t/Je Family in Northern Somalila.nd ( 1962). fur1nstor1 Pol)rgamy a 1 1d the Wind of Cl1arig·e, 10 lnter11ational and Comparative L. Quarterly 180-186 ( 1961) (consideration of tl,ree cases involving poly gamy witl1 partict1lar reference to conflict of law proble 1ns). Sl1ropsl1ire, Primitive Marriage and European Law 129-143 (1946) (i11teresting treatment of the conflict betwee11 tl,e custornary a 1 1d European law of bigamy in South Africa). Bartholomew, The Origin and Developme11t of the La\v of Bigamy, 74 L. Quarterly Rev. 259-271 (1958) (sl,ort article setti 1 1g out tl,e l1istory of bigamy in England). Bartl,olomew, Recognition of Polygamous lv\arriages i11 Canada, 10 Internatio nal and Compar,itive L. Quarterly 305-327 ( 1961). Bartholomew, Recog 11iti·on of Polygamous Marriages i 11 Atnerica 1 13 lnter11atio11al and Coniparative L. Quarterly 1022-1075 ( 1964). Ed ward_ s , Men� Rea and Biga1:1y, 2 Current Legal P,roblems 47-67 ( 1949) (an art1cle wh1cl1 ex1Jlores tl,e 111te11t requiren1e11t in bigamy 11t1der Englisl1 law). fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law 72-110 (1949) (co11sideralion of marriage in Mosle1n law). o·konkwo and Naish, Criminal Law in Nigeria 277-280 (1964) (the law of biga1ny i 1 1 Nigeria) . 1

CHAPTER 1 3

The Petty Offense '

SECTION A. PETTY OFFENSES IN ETHIOPIA

PENAL CODE OF ETliIOPlA Art. 691. - Petty Ojfe11ces. � R erson commits a petty offe11ce \X1 l1e11, by a11 act or an on,issiot,, he 111fr111ges the mand�tory or prol1ibitive provisions of a regulation, order 9r de�ree law ful ly 1ssL1ed b)' a compete11t at1tl1ority, and st1cl1 infrit1ge1ne· 11t 1s subject to one of tl1e 1)e11alties provicied belo\v1 (Art. 702-732).

i '

I I

I ,

Art. 702. - Excl11sion of Ordinar;• Cri111i11al Penalties. (1) Pe_tty offences �l1all 11ot be JJL111isl1ed \Viti, corpora.I jJt111isl11ne11t, i111pr1sonm�nt or 111ter111n_ent [Jrescribecl for ordir1ary offe11ces. Petty of fences d iffer from ordinary offences lJy reaso11 of tl1e differer1 t fJE:11alties they merit. •

•

THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR v. LISCI SOFIA Federal Supreme l1nperi,il Co1 ,rt, Federal Cri111i11"il Ap/Jeal No. 7/ 51 ( 19 5 9 G. C.) Ethiopia

Hedar 3, 1953 E.C. (Novetnber 13, 1960); J t1stices: Afe11egLtS Takelle \Volcle Hawariat, Dr. W. Btt l1agiar, Ato Berel<et-ab 1-Iabte Sellassie: - This is an ap peal by the federal Proseclttor agai11st a jt1dg1ne11t of tl1e fede ral I-ligh Court of Asmara acquitti11g tl1e respo11cle11t 011 variot1s cl,arges in connectio11 with ! he alleged offe11ce· consisting i11 tl1e fact that tl1e respondent had imported into the Empire of Etl1iopia E$l,060, in addition to E$150 permitted by la'>',, and thus contravened the J)rovisio11s of article S(c) of the Curre11cy Ame11d me,1t Regulations, 1949, pt1blished as L egal Notice No. 127 of 1949. Th� re were also other counts includ ed i11 tl1e cl1arge wl1icl1 are depe11dent on the first one. The Federal J-ligh Court i 11 Asmara acqttitted the respondent on tl1e ground that �rticle S(c) of the Currency Amendment Regul�tions, 1949, was_ not valid law 1n that it was enacted by tl,e Minister of Finance beyond the powers vested in him by la w . . The Currency Amendment Regttlations, 1949, were. enacted �y the .t.Jiin ister of Finance by virtue of the powers conferred on htm by Article 3 (tn} of the Currency Proclamation, 1942 (Proc. No. 31) as amended by the Currency

i '', ,

,, ' '

' ,.

1 •• •

t ' r .. .

ES THE CODE Of PETTY OFFENC

298

' '' I

e usef�l to set ay m b_ t I _ ). 99 . 7 No c . ro (P 194 of out Ame1 1dme11t Proclamatio11 s. A: ttcle 1 1s t�e title 1o at lam oc �� o_ tw e es tl1 of 1s 01 isi ov of . � h ere briefly the pr e, article 3 provides us cl� on iti f�n e d_ tl1e 1s 2 le that, tic ar tl,e Proclamations; 1 stry of fi na nce, no person, excep t an 111 M e th of 1 1 io iss rm IJe except witl, tl,e rro�, or len d or _ se ll, any foreign bo or y bu to ed ow all is autho rised dealer ed deale r; article 4 prohibits the ris th� au an t no is o wh n rso 'pe currei,cy to ai,y t�s or no rr cu nk ency notes or ba in, co y, ne mo y an of e iJir Em tlie of out traiisfer _fo re ign curre�cy, �: bo nds, or ts en um str in e bl tia go ne s, aft dr , lls bi any clieques, er l icens e; sub-article (11) of the d un t ep exc s tie t1ri sec or nts rra \va shares bearer said a�ticle 4 provides tl1at no rvalr,able things may! in any �anner, be trans nt1 f�o or_ ers ?f th� .. Em es ai:1 und bo s om �1�t c tl1e oss acr d e �rr nsf tra or ted por pire unless certain customs for 111al1t1es are complied with, sub-articl e (111) of e reg�l�tio11s by the same article gives the Mini�ter of finance the pow e r to mak y to adm1n1ster ssar e nec e b w.ay as ta Oaze r1t the . notice published in tl1e Nega Procla111ation· sub-article (iv) of tl1e same articl e 4, provides that ''valuable thi11gs'' as u�ed in sub-article (ii) includes a11y article of _value and a11y goods or merchandise but does not include money, cheques, bills, drafts, 11egotiable instrL1me11ts or foreign curre11cy1 i1or any bonds, sl1ares, bearer warrants or secLtrities. Article 5 is a penalty clause.

It is abundantly clear tl1at the said Proclamations contai11 notl1ing to pro;/l,ibit the importation within tl1e Em1Jire of money (notes). The wl1ole object of tl1e Procla1natior1s is to prohibit tl1e export of the money, notes, etc., tl1erein me11tioned a11d to enst1re tl1at a11y foreign currency acquired by the export of valuable tl1i11gs is give11 up to tl1e autl1orised dealer. If it is argued tl1at tl1e words ''trar1sported or transferred across tl1e customs and boundaries of the Empire" as t1sed in article 4 (ii) �pply to trans1Jortation and transfer in a11d out of the E1npire, tl1en it is to be noted that tl1e provision apJJli es 0 11 ly to ''valuable tl1ing·s'' which according to article 4 (iv) does 11ot include money, cl1eques, bills, etc. furthermore, it is to be 11oted that from tl1e context of article 4 (ii) there ca,1 be no doubt tl1at tl1e words ''tra11sported or transferred across the ct1sto1ns, b?undaries or frontiers of tl1e Em1Jire'' apply only to tl1e expo rt of valuable tl11ng�; tl1e whole provisio11 is inte11ded to e11st1re that any foreign curre11cy acqt11red tl1rougl1 tl1e tra11sport or tra11sfer is to be paid or assigned to tl1e autl1orised dealer. I'

!hat b�i11g tl1e positio11 11nd�r . tl1e Proclamations tl1e 11ext point to �e cons1der�d ts tl1e pow�r of t�� fy11n_ist�r of firiartce to make regu lations. This JJO�er g!ven u11der article 4 (1 11)_ 1s l1 n11ted ''to issue ... sucl, regulations and des1gnat1 0!1s ,�s he. may deter1n �11e to be 11ecessary to admi er tlie Cur�e�cy nist P oc amat1on : This power to 1ssL1e regtilations an r is i te n to ad m ion s sig t d d · r e ,a J t ;e rocla_m�tion may be exercised for a variP.ty of purposes su ch bu pu t rp os es mu_s� be l1m1ted to tl1e admi11istration of tl,e does Pr oc lamation. This power ot tiiclud� t�e JJO\xrer t_o create ne\x, offe11ces t_ h e in d m pl at e w l1i ch co nt a re no e t � oc m t1011, to exercise s11 cl1 po \xr er goes beyond th e power of adminis te rz�g . : ; � t e r�c a at1on. The po\xrer to make in ed ve st law ion s is on by the C stitut the I 1 l � e nd n pe son_ or officer or autl1ority has the p o��! to m�{ ��; 1��1!liti � n tt� fes� � e is expressly authnrised so to do by Jaws enacted by tl1e eg1slat1ve or to e ga gi 11; ! an is d s r po w l1e w e n uch y ry perso11 autl1orit _ ce r su r we thtn po _w1 r t st mu y � ictl str be ed exe cis r er �! ,� '. its lim �onferred t ase o tl1e C_t1�re11cy Amendment Reg?lat1ons, . 19· � (Legal Notice No. 12 7 of 1 9 011 1 r 1 n1ster of finance in rnaking p � ega g �� din the · r r the prohibition p e ortin . g m_oney, currency,_ etc , exce powers co11ferred o n l,im b y. tl ie p roc lamat1on; such provisions create 11 ew o f-

�i ?�t,e

THE CODE OF PETTY OFFENCES

299

�e yo 11cl tl1e are _ powe�s of issui11g regulatioiis and designations h wl1 ic es c fen 11ecessary to administer tl1e Procl_amat1011. S�ch are t}1e provisions contaii,ed in S(e) of tl1e said Regu)at1011s; tl1ey are, tl,erefore, ult articles · S{d) a11d ra vir es · and void.. Be_111g vo1'd, tl1ey _are of no effect, l1ave 110 legislative coercion ai,d are not b1nd111g on tl1e sttbJect; tl1ere ca11, tl1erefore, be 110 offence under tllose provisio11s. Tl1e re�ponde11t ca11not b� fou11d gt1ilty of an offei,ce in tl,at sl,e imported ESl , 060 1n excess of wl1at ts allegecl to be allowed, tJ1at is E$150. Sucli a11 offence ca11 . be created_ 011 ly by tl1e legislative orga11. Tl,e re;porident ,,qas also �l1arged \v1tl1 s1n11ggl111g a golde11 _bracelet; with regard to tl,is tl,e federal H1gl1 Court of As111ara l1eld tl1at tl11s bracelet \Vas a JJerso11aI effect Tl1is Court agrees witl1 tl1is. Tl1e jttdgment of tl,e Federal Cottrt of As111ara must tl1erefore be con firmed a11d tl1e appeal is dismisscd.

;

�

PENAL CODE OF ETI-IIOPJ;.\

Art. 3. - Other Pe,,al Legislation. Noll1ing in this Code sl1all affeet Police regulalio11s a11cl s1Jecial la.\vs of a pe11al 11att1re: Provided tl1at tl1e ge11eral pri11ci1Jles e1nbodied i11 tl,is Code are apJJlicable to tl1ose regt1lations a11d Ia,vs exce1Jt as oll1er\vise exrJressly provicled tl1erei11. Art. 375. - F,ilsificatio11 of 1fieig/1ts a11d /J.,fe.tst,res. (I) \Vl1osoever, ,x-·itl1 inte11 t to deceive a11otl1er: (a)

•

falsifies \veig11 ts, bala11ces, 111 eas tt res or o ll1er i11s t ru r11e11 ts i11 te11 cied for ttse i11 co1n111erce or trade; or

(b) unla,vfull}r affixes tl1ereto a 1narl< or i1111Jri11t de11oli11g official certificatio11 or \varra11t)', or forges s11cl1 1T1arl<s; or (c) knowi11gly 1nal<es 11se of st1cl1 forgecl or falsified i11str11111e11ts, is pu11isl1ab)e witl1 rigorous i111J)riso11111e11t 11ot exceedir1g five years. (2) In petty cases, tr1e offe11der is })tt11isl1able \vith si1n1Jle i1111)riso11me11t or fine.

.. .

.. ••

Art. 736. - Use of Illicit Weights a11d Meas1tres.

Wl1osoever, a1Jart from tl1e cases 375).

pt111 isl1able

tlncler tl1e Penal Code (Art.

{a) makes use i 11 l1is relatio11s with tl1ird parties of sea_ls, \veigl1 ts ?r measures wl1icl1 were not officially co11trolled or \vl11cl1 are 11 ot 111 confor1nity \vith tl1e relevant r11les a11d regulations; or (b) ge11eral l}', co11travenes tl1e regt1latio11s or rtiles issued for tl,e stampir1g, control and use of official weigl1ts arid 111easures, . . is punisl1able witl1 fine or arrest \vitho11t prejudice to conftscatioi, when justified.

i . : •,: I : I •• : :

i.' . ..

.,_ I[ ...

,; , :

...

.,. · ., .. , ..".

300

THE CODE Of PETTY OFFENCES

A PROCLAMATION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTAB·LISHMENT Of UNIFORM STANDARDS Of WEIGHTS AND MEASURES No. 208 of 1955 E.C. (1963 G.C.) WHEREAS it has seemed appropriate to Us to provide for the establish ment of unifor� sta11dards of weights a11d measures to be applied tl,roug. hout the Empire of Etl1iopia; and WHEREAS, Our Senate and Chamber of Deputies have approved a law for tl,e establishme11t of sucl1 uniforn1 standards; NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Articles 34 and 88 of Our Revised Co11stitution, We approve the resolutions of Our Senate and Chamber of Deputies, and We hereby proclaim as follows: 3.

' (; ;

" :<, · ;•I11•

i ',,

I\�

I ' ,, : ,p; '1

.,' I

i. I I I I� . ' . ' '1(, 1!I .'I, rH ,I

•t•

I"I )�:I 1/1

I \,

'I,,') , :I! '{ r. J

12.

Ii II

: ii,

. 11 .I . . ' ' ! Ii

,!'

11 . I

I I

•

The metric system is l1ereby adopted as tl1e legal system of weights and measures for the Empire of Ethiopi-a, a11d sl1all hereafter be applied through out said Empire in accordance witl1 the provisions1 of this Proclamation. No person shall: (a) alter, oLJ�terate, detach, obscure or co11ceal a11y seal, stamp or mark affixed, attached or impressed ltpon any weight, measure or weigl1ing or measuring instrument without the prior written consent of an In spector; (b) neglect, fail or refuse to produce and exl,ibit for i11spection a11y weigl1t, n1easure or weighing or measuri11g i11strume11t wl1ich is subject to i11spectio11 as provided in this Proclan1ation upon demand being made tl1erefore by a11 Inspector for purpose of inspection; or (c) obstruct, hinder or molest an l11spector in the performance of l1is · d11ties.

Wl1at is a petty offense ltt1der tl,e P.C. E.? What pe11alties are applicable to petty o-ffenses? Do tl1e ge11eral pri11ciples of tl1e Pe11al Code apply to petty offenses? Ca11 011e be i1nprisoned for tl1e commissio11 of a petty offense? Why is ''altem1Jt11 11ot recognized with respect to petty offe11ses? Complicity? Mistal(e of law? 2. Petty offenses l1ave been labeled ''regtllatory offenses''' ''quasi-crimes ''civil offenses,'' public \vel.fare offenses," etc. Why have su ch labels been ;ttached? Are there offenses 1n tl1e Code of .Petty Offences whicl1 would not be c?n�ide:ed ''r�gulatory:' ? Where do petty offenses fall with respect to the d1st1nct1on between crimes and torts? Would you consider petty offenses primarily mal1tm in se or malum prohibitum? 3. . Where can one find those petty offenses that are prohibited in Ethiopia? Is_ it P?ssible �or bo?ies or officials other than the legislature, tog�t�er with His Imperial Ma1esty, to promulgate penal laws? What is the pos1t1on 11

•

Questions

.. ' ·II I •

•

(b) All breaches, violations, or contraventions of this Proclamation or of the regulations made thereu11der shall be punisl1able in accordance \Y1itl1 the releva11t provisio11s of the Pe11al Code of Ethiopia.

,II

·I II

•

THE CODE OF P.ETTV OFFENCE S

301

of the Lisci Sofia case? What powers shouid a legislature be allowed to delegate to other bod1es? an W d e ei gl 1ts th e � ��ures Proclamatio11 supra penal ii, nature? Is it Is 4. regulatory? D o _ the def1n1t1ons of offenses u11der Sect. 8 of the Proclama� tion confl1ct with tl1ose ttnder Arts. 375 a11d 736 P.C.E.? What is tl,e relations�ip of Art. 3?5 (2) to t_l,e �ode of Petty Offe11ces? I-low should an individual be pu111shed fo r v10Jat1on of Sect. 8 of tl1e Proclaination? 5. How does Art. 3 P.C.E. affect the Weigl1ts a11d Measttres Proclamation? Do you thi11k tl1at tl1e words ''tl1is Code'' i11 Art. 3 include tl1e Code of Petty Offences? Does Art. 3 ap1Jly only to ''Police regulatior1s a11d speci".l laws of a JJenal natur�'' e11acted before tl1e coinirig i11 to force of tl1e Pe11al Code? Would a special la\�' of a pe11al 11attlre wl1icl1 did 11ot conform to the general principles of tl1e Code be 11t1ll a11d void? Sl1ould a jt1dge take it 11p on l1imself to co11forn1 sucl1 a law to tl1e ge11eral l)rinciples en1bodied in the Code? Should 11e t1se tl1e Ge11eral Part of tl1e Code of Pettv Offences if tl1e proclamation is i11 tl1e nature of a JJetty offense? Wl1at areJ tl1e implications of tl1e last clause of Art. 3 1 ''except as otl1erwise expressly provided tl1erei1l''? Is tl1e Pe11al Code of 1930 still in force in Etl1iopia? ':Vhat clistingt1ishes ''ame11dme11ts'' to tl1e Pe11al Code of 1930 (repealed by tl1e P.C.E. ( 1957) from ''special laws of a pe11al nature'' retaineel by Art. 3 P.C.E. (1957) )?

.,.,-.

. .. f· .: . ·s· ..; . _••; , ,. ..·:· .. ..

. ..

.. �--· ,-·�. :!

' .. !

SECTION 8. THE REQUIREMENT OF GUIP_l R,..J f�T1V OlFlfiErt5iES

a. In Ethiopia PENAL CODE Of ETHIOPIA Art. 697. - Conditions for Liability to P1,nishme11f.. {1) Persons who are irresponsible (Art. 48) si1all 11ot be p1111isl1ab1e. (2) Any otl1er offender shall be liable to tl1e pu11isl11nents j)rescribe_d by law. He sl1all be punishable wl1ether l1e con�ravened tl1e lavr r11te�� tio11ally or neglige11 tly (Ar�.. 57 to 5?) save _Ii1 �ases wl�ere t!1e l�i.::' expressly exempts from l1ab1l1ty to pu111sl1n1e11t tn respect 01 11egl1g,_11ce. 0

• • • •

CODE PENAL SUISSE code penal aux at�tres lois fed&ales.

Art. 333. . . . Application de la partie generale d1t · · · · ' ales so nt. punissables · f. e'der Les contraventions prevues par d'atttres l01� . e, 11c ge gl1 � mains q_u'il. ne meme qua11d elles ont ete commises par r1e ee rim rep 5 l e ion nt ve ra nt co la e qu ressorte de la disposition appli�ab le _ seulement si elle a ete commise 1ntent1onnellement. 1'

til

•

1 D N A L R E PENAL CODE Of SWITZ

Art. 333. - Application oj th e General Provisio11s to Other Federal Laws.

, d ce n te n se e b l al sh s w la er th o o t · · , . Minor offe11ses punisl1able accord 1ng

. n, . I • Translat1o Friedlander and Goldberg, 30

. C,,,.. L

· oJ crzrn.

Pol. Sci., Supp. (t 939).

. . I'' '

I ... . ''

·;

.' ..

'. . ':

i ( •�_. ' .

,·.. . '. ... "

'• '·· ' ' '. . '.

...

THE CODE Of PETTY OFFENCES

302

even if comn1 itted neglige11�ly, unless accordin_g to the mea11ing of the J)rovision only wilful com1n1tment shall be punishable. ... THE CLASSIFICATION Of OFFENSES IN TI-IE SWISS PENAL CODE 2 jean Graven

... Tl,is aJJl)licatio11 [a1Jplication of tl1e general pr�11ciples of tl1e Oei,eral Part] to petty offe11ses (contraventions) does . 11ot Of:11Y include ''federal Petty Offenses'' ratl1er close to misdemeanors with which one relates them blit ' also all contraventions withi11 supplementary pe11al legislation, infi11itely more numerous a11d gover11ed by Art. 333 IJara. 3 C.P.S. wl1ich requires a rule co11trary to the general system: '_'Minor o_ffenses pt�11isl1able according to other ]a\x,s sl1all be se11te11ced, even 1f committed negligently, u11less according to tl1e mea11i11g of tl1 e provision only wilful commitment shall be punishable," \'<'hict1 is, as is well l(nown, 11ot usually tl1e case for contraventions. PETTY OFFENSES IN SWISS PENAL LAW3 Paul Logoz

Tl1e rt1les of Article 18 are also apfJlicable to contrave11tio11s i11 the C.P.S. (Art. l 02) a11d, i11 pri11ciple, to infractions provided for i11 otl1er federal la\vs (Art. 333 1Jara. 1). I-lowever, i11 no11conformity witl1 Art. 18 para. I, the co11traventZ:otis JJrovided for in otl1er federal la\VS (Art. 333 para. 2) are equally p1111isl1able \X1l1e11 tl1ey l1ave been committed b )' 11egligence, unless tl1e ajJfJlic able provision states tl1at the contravention 1nay be [JU11isl1ed only if it has beer, con1111itted intentionally. Tl1us clear regulatio11 exists - i11 tl1e sense tl1at it eli1ninates tl1e system of Erfolgshaft1J.r1g t1sed i11 Germany, tl1at is, a system wl1ereby pt111ishment is fJOssible i11 tl1e abser1ce of a11y guilt - co11cer11i110- an important questio11 i11 tl1e_ aJJplicatio11_ ?f Special Part [Jenal legislatio11 in btl1e Co11federatio11 and on \Vl11ch the dec1s1ons of tl1e federal Tribunal l1ave often ,vavered.

,',: II I: 'I ll;, II II I i II I ' I

11 '

!1 1,

I I

•

. Tl1e C.P.S. JJ11t an encl to tl1is u11certai11ty by extendi11g to federal legisla �1011 of a f)e11al nat1�re tl1e rl1le: 110 jJU11isl1me11t \vithout guilt, tl1at is, at lea_st 111 tl1� form _of negl_1gence. Tl1e existence of '' strict liability'' is 110 longer, in . pr1r1c11Jle, ex1stant [111 S\vitzerla11cl].

•

b. In Compa1·ative Law

I I

TI-IE SIGNIFICANCE OF TliE NEW DEVELOPMENT Of TI-IE REGULATORY OffENSE4 Francis Sayre

· · · The development is 11ot the 111111att1ral result of two (Jronou nced �-.

rav n, La Classi fication des se is. Suis al Pen � : Infractions du Code Penal et Ses Effecs, 1958 Re'Uue _ o goz, Con11ne11taire d,, Code JJe na l Suisse 61-6 2 Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colu1nbia L.· Rev. 67-69 (1933).

THE CODE OF PETTY OFFENCES

303

m w entietl1 c�ntury criminal ar t k l1 wh i� en ls administratioi, . ovem (l th _ t fro he r!1 pr ot pl �c 1as �1o 1s n _of i11dividual interests wl,i�-1�-, ml �ift of em rke� cr1 m1 11a l ry ad � 1111 cen str tu �t� on . to the protectioil of public and ninetee_ntt1 tl1 gr e an o� d (2) ing t1tilizat,on of tlie crimii,al law , res ts int e ial soc ma cl, ine r tru 1 e tl e on ly cri mes �f tl1e _cl assic law , but also a tiew to enforce, 11ot reg typ e ula tor me y ast1 re 1 11volvi11g 110 n,oral delitlquei,cy. twentietl1 century

All criminal law is a CO�(JfOf!l ise betwee,1 t\vo fu,,damentally cotif licling interests, - tha_t of_ tl1e �ttbltc wl1 i cl1 dema1�ds. i:estraint o'f all wl,o i i,jure or menace tl1e social well-bei11� a11cl tl1at of tl1e 111d1v1dL1al wl1ic11 deina,,ds tnaxinitim liberty and _ f re �dorn fron1 i11terference. Tl1e l1istory of cri111ii ,al law sl,o\xrs a constant S\v·111g1!1g o_f tl1� 1�e11d t1l t�_1n so as t? favor 110w tl1e 011e, 110w tlie alli er, of tl1ese OJJIJ0s11 1� 1nlet esls. Ott 1 111g tl1e r1111elee11ll1 ce11l tt ry it \Vas tlie irtdivi dual i11teres_t �l1icl1 l1eld tl1e stage; tl1e cri1nir1al law r11acl1i11ery \Vas over bt1rde11ecl \v1tl1 11111t1111erable cl1ecks to pre ve11t po ssible i11jt1slice to ii,dividttal defendants. Tl1e scales were weigl1tecl i11 l1is favor a11d as we l1ave fou11d to our �orrow, tl1e pu�liC": \Ve Ifare often st1ffe red. l11 tl1e 'twe11tietl1 ce 11tury came reaction. We are_ th_1nl,1ng t_oda)' tnore_ of_ tl1e protectio 11 of so cial a11d publ ic interests; arid coi11c1clent w1tl1 tl1e sw111g111g of tl1e pendttlt1m i11 the fielcl of legal administratio11 i11 tl1is dire�tio11 1no de rn cri 1n i11o lo gists are teacl1i11g tl,at the objective Lt11derlying corre ctional treatme11 t sl1ot1ld cl1a 11ge from tl1e barren ai1n of pt111isl1i11g huma11 bei11gs to tl1e fruitful one o f protecti11g social i 11terests. As a direct result of tl1is 11ew e1npl1asis upo11 f)Ublic a11d social, as co 11trast ed ,vit l1 i11dividt1a l i 11terests, courts l1ave 11att1ra l ly te 11ded to co 11ce11trate 1nore u1)011 tl,e i11jt1rious co11dL1ct of tl 1e defei1dai1t tl1a11 UJJ011 tl,e proble in of l1is individua l gui lt. In ll1e case of true cri1n es, l1owever, altl1o ugl1 tl'1e e1npl1asis may sl1ift, co t1rts can never aba11do11 insiste11ce Uf)Oll tl1e e\ril i11le11t as a 1Jrere quisite to criminality, [Jartly becat1se ii1dividual i11terests ca11 11ever be lost sigl 1t of ai,d partly because 1111: real 11 1e 11ace to social i11ter ests is tl1e i11te11tional, not tl1e ii111ocent, doe r of l1arin. Bttt tl·1e ne\v e1111Jl1asis bei11g laic l 11po11 the protection of social i11te rests fostered tl1e gro wtl1 of a specialized type of regt1latory o ffense i 11volvi11g a social i11jt1ry so direct and \Vicles1)read_ a,1cl a pe11alty so ligl1t tl 1at in sucl 1 exceJJtio 11al cases courts coL1lcl safely overricle tl1e interests of i1111oce11t i11dividual defe11cla11ts a11d p1111isl1 \Vitl1ot1l J)roof of a11y guilty intent. 1

In tl,e second place tl1e gro ,vi11g co1nple xities of l'-_ve11tictl1 ce11lt1ry l_ife !1ave dema 11ded a11 increasi11g socia l regt1latio 11; an_d for tl11s fJur1Jos� _ tl1e ex1st1ng machi11ery of the crimi11al l a w l1as bee11 se1zecl tl[J011 a 11d t1l1l1zed. Tl 1e original objective of the cri1ni11 a l law was to keep tl_1e peace ; arid under tlie stro11g churcl1 i 11fluence of the Middle Ages its flt 11ctio11 \vas exte �ded to curb moral delinque ncies of 011e ki11d or a11otl1e r. for tl1ese pur!Joses it dev� lo !Jed � st1itable procedure, requiring proof of n1 o r�l bla1ne:vorth1�ess o r a _crimi11al 1nte11t. But today tl1e cro wded conditio11s of life re qL1 1r� social reg�ilation to a degree never befo re attempted. Tl1e i11 ventio 11 a11d_ extens1v� tise of l,igl,-�ower �d automobi les re quire 11e w fo rm s of traffic regulat1011; tl,e _ii�creased social_ ev! 1: from dri 11 k due to tl 1e mo re crowd ed and co1n1Jle x co11dit1o115 of inoder 11 l_ ife re9uire 11ew forms of liquor reguJatio11; tl1e �e velo1Jme 11 t of �n_ odert1 1!1e �� st1ence and tl1e co11gested Iivi11g accom1nodat1011s o f rnoder 11 cities require forms of sa11itary a i1d l1ealth regtilatio11; tl1e growtl, of rnodern tac� � �ies r uire new forms of labor r egulatio11 · tl1e de veloJJment of modern L i!l ! 11g eq construction and tl1e grow th of skys�rapers require new For 111s _ of build ing iry d tie sig de reg ulation. Tl 1e old , l�w l iia rni cri � 1 i11ery of tl-te cl s ma rou mb cu or te J a1 th� subj ective ad 10t 1 15 rs, de en off blame wortl1iness of ind ividual

•• . . I

I I

I .

.• ' :,! ; . '

.. � .' .

. ,: .

. ,l

.·. �r.

: : '. : :';.... .. .,. '•. · .· ': .� .,. ..

:.��

.!':! 1

,..f!l..

l:t .

I••

•.I

THE CODE Of PETTY OFFENCES

304

exercisirig petty regulation on a wholesale . scale; and consequently a con siderable amou11t of tl1is developi11g regulat101: �as been pla_ced u11der ad ministrative co11 trol. Bt1t un_fortunately the c�1m1nal law, wh1_ch from early times 11act been used to JJun1s�1 those obstr�ct1ng_ or endangering the King's J1igl1 way, tl,reate11i11g tl1e public health. or d1s!urb1�g the peace by reason of iiitoxication, was seized t1pon as � convenient 1nstr�m_ent for enforcing a stibstaiitial part of tl1is 1Jetty regulat1011. As_ a result cr1m1nal courts �re today swamped with great floods of cases wht�h they were never designed to handle; the machi11ery creaks under the strain. . . PETTY OFFENSES IN FRENCH PENAL LAW5 Pierre Bouzat c·ontrave,itions in the Broader !,ense: . . . Contraventions, at least in appearance,

consist of simple breacl1es of the laws a11d regulations. This has sometimes led cot1rts to designate tl1ern falsely as purely material infractions. In fact, the)' all presuppose an offe11se, at least presumed, and cease to be punisl1able 1 1 i11 cases involving a1 act of Ood, circt1msta11ces outside one s control and the fault of a third party. Ma11y of tl1ese contraventions wl1icl1 involve intention are, l10\l1ever, classified alo11g· witl1 no11-i11 tentional i11fractions, and rightly so, fo r in the case of tl1ese acts of little importance, it is advisable to spare the jud ges the worry of sometimes delicate psycl1ological researcl1. Fiscal Infractions: �Offenses whicl1 can be of a serious nature, in matters of

customs, i11 direct taxation, forest and water\vorks, postal 1natters). One of tl1eir characteristics is tl1 at 11 tl1ere is no excuse based upon i11tention'' and tl1at the re fore, tl1e magistrates do not l1ave to, in dealing with them, enter upon psycholog ical researcl1 or fault. However, beca ..1se they often consist in acts wl1ich have been thought out and caref11lly planned, tl1 ev are not 11on-intentional by nature. Tl1ey l1ave becon1e so, artificially, througl1 legal rulings. 1

PROUDMAN v. DAVMAN

1-ligh Court of A1J.stralia, 67 C.L.R. 5 3 6 ( 1944) Australia •

[Daytnan laid a11 informatio11 agai11st Mrs. Proudman, cl1arging her with the statutory ?ffe11ce of 1Jer111itting a11 unlicensed driver to drive a motor c�r. She was conv1ct�d, and a1Jpealed to tl1e S11preme Cot1rt of South Austr alia. Cleland, J., set as1cle tl1e co11viction on the o-rour1d tl1at tl1e evidence showed her to have believecl, 011 reasonable grot111ds, that tl1e driver was licensed. On fur tl1er appeal to tl1e full Court, the convictio11 was restored. Mrs. Proudman then sougl1t special leave to appeal to tl1e High Court of Australia.] •

•

• •

McTIERNAN, J .: ... In my opinio11 the defendant was rightly con�icted. . The substance of the applicant's contention is that mens rea is an 1 �g r� dtent of the offence witl1 whicl1 the defenda11t was cl1arged and tl1e app�icane therefore had a good common law defence, that is, the defence of a m1stak 5.

Bouzat, Droit Penal 18 7-188.

. .

THE CODE OF PETTY 01... FENCES

305

fa 1 , �1e inistal,e being tl1at itl �o od in m ad e fac t sl1e believecl tl1e clriver \Vas � of . the 11 older of a licence to di 1ve tl1e car. Tl1e full Cott rt tl,otiglit ti, at tl1 e ev1dei1 ce failed to sup po rt th e defe11ce. But,_ i11 any case, I agree tl�at tl1e d,efe11ce wotild 110 t 111eet tl,e cliarge Tl defence is based on tl1e co11 te11t1on, wl1icl1, to state it 11,ore ftilly, is tl,at ti�: tl1e wo of rds io1 1 0f s. 30 is restrictecl b,,J llie ina, xi· t natural op·era · , in acl 11s 110n 1ra· · tl11s · 1nax_1. 1n ,tpJ)licable to tlle coiistruclioi, cit rer,m nisi nzen� sit_ rea_. Bu t 1s of . 1s no of ma t ge xim 11e ral apJ)l1cat1or1 to 1nocler11 stattites: see Cii,icly s. 30? Tl1e v. Le Cocq (1884), 13 Q.B.D. 207, at p. 210; 1-Jobbs 7J. lfl'i,ichester, (1910) 2 K.B. 471, at p. 483. It ca11not be J)resun1ed tl1at ll1e legislat11re l1 as 11ot slated \vitl1 J)recisior1 \'Vl1a_t are tl1e elements of tl1� offet1ce . created by s. 30. �fl1e ir1te11tio11 of tl1 e sect1011 (I refer to tl1e 111ater1al _f)a:·t) 1s t o _1nal{e it ar1 offe11ce for any JJerson to pern11t �notl1er perso!1 \Vl10 1s 111 a forb1dcle11 class, tl1 at is, JJerso11s ,:,-1} 10 do 11�t,,l1�ld l1cer�ces, to �r!ve -� car. I� 11eed r1ot be dou1?ted tl1 at tl1e \Xiord '' JJ er m1t 1s ttsed 111 tl1e 01cl1r1a1j n1ea11111g, b11t I can11ot 111fer froin ll1 e \'lords of s. 30 tl1at tl1e off e11ce, \vl1icl1 is createcl, is to per111it a jJersor1 \,1!101n tiie def enda11t k110\VS is 11ot tl1e l1 olcler of a lice11ce or l1as 11ot reaso1;able ,_,r,-rot.111cl for believir1g to be tl1e l1 older of a lice11ce, to drive a car. . . . We ]1ave the advantage of a very ftill revie,xr of tl1e 1JrcJvisio11s of tl1e 1\.ct by tl1e Cl1ief Justice of S01ttl1 Attstralia. It is ()11e of tl1e jJlaii1 objects of tl1e Act to preve11t a11y perso11 bttt tl1e l1older of a Iice11ce fro111 clri,1i11l" · ·- ,t 1,.10� tor car 011 a road. Tl1e [Jrol1ibitio11 is irnposed i11 tl1e ir1terests of persoi1s t1si11g tl1e roads. Tl1e object of s. 30 is to preve11t tl1e clrivir1g of cars by any pcrs()11 except lice11sed drivers. It is \xritl1 tl1at object tl13_t tlie sectio11 111al(<:s it a11 of� fence for tl1e perso11 \vl10 co11trols tl1e car to drive it l111l(:ss l1e is Jice11secl, �.11cl also 111akes it a11 offe11ce to JJer1nit a11 y 1Jerso11 \vl10 is i11 fact riot licer1sec{ to drive tl1e car. If ll1e sectio11 also n1ade it �111 offe11ce for tl·1e C)\Xirier of zt car to permit an u11skilled driver to drive l1 is car it cottlcl l1arclly l)e cc,r1te11clecl tl1at tl1 ere \Vas an implied q ualificatio11 011 tl1e o,if11er's Iial)ility tl1c1.t lie -�iot1lc!. not be guilty of a11 offe11ce if l1e believed tl1at a perso11 \v]1orT1 Ii<� jJer111iiteLi to drive \'(las a sl<illed driver, but l1e \vas i11 fact quite 1111s l<il led. rf lie or1ly i11tention \vl1icl1 is to be fot111d in tl1e sectio11 ancl wl1ici1 is tl1e rnental cle11le,1t requisite to a co11victio11 is tl1e i11te11tion to J)er£11it a j)erso11 \,;,}10 is 11ot ir1 f;:1.ct lice11sed to drive, to drive tl1e car 011 a 1·oad . . . . In rece11t times the fJresu1n ptio11 of me11s rea i11 stat11tory ?ffences has sttffered st1cl1 ar1 ecli JJSe t11at a lear11ed \vriter I1as \"Varned _ leg1slatt1r�s to be very circt1111spect to see tl1at tl1e 11ecessary \vords are 111seitecl rn statt1tes creati 11 g offences if tliey \'v'isl1 to li111it tl1 e r1t1n1 bers of pote11tial lawbreakers. In my opinion tlie clefendai,t was rigl1tly convicted because ttJ?On t11e trt1e constrt1ction of tlie sectioi, lier gtii]t clid 11ot depe11d 011 . tl1e qt1est10�1 \vl1etl1er she knew or believed on reasonable grotii1ds tl1at the driver \Vas DOl tl1 e hol der of a lice11ce. She wa s guilty becat1se it w�s prove� tl,at he \rias tiot tl,e holder of a licence aiid tl,at slle did J)ermit_ l11m to d r1ve tl1e car on a road. ecl (!f _tl1e iiitent to do , an ist The_ mens rea j11stifyi11g th e convictio11 co11s _ act wl11cl1 is proliibited by s. 30, tl,at. is, to give perm1s�1011 to a perso11 "'l10 was not the l1older of a Iice11ce to drive tl1e car 011 tl1 e 1 oad.

.... .. . .f ; 'i' �:

I !.

i I

!�

. ,

., I ••

i.I '..

... . ...

. . .. I'' . ,-: I·.: . ' ... . . ! • . '· . '·'

..•

' '· '• •.

THE COl)E Of PETTY OFFENCES

306

NOT ES ilt in Petty Offenses of Gu t en m ire qu Re e th of n io at er id ns Co Further

Note l:

6 ty ili sib on sp t Re ric St of e qu J-lall, A Criti

e� de be ma in ve t ha tha ts en um arg l ica act _ support of pr tl1e ng isi In appra strict liability, Iittle time need be devoted to the em p�asts on t�e sl1gl1tness of s t ion 1:1e 1n ept ce exc ren s refe eou r�g out to the m fro rt apa ite Qu . alty pen tlie _ et1 e log (?n ly . apo can 11nder ent pat n _is at1o la11 � exp t tl1a s, me cri jor ma s variou s; 1Jle ed 11c1 ish prl abl but it is est ore ign to ges jud the ed enc 1flu 1 i it xr stand ho\ certai11ly 110 justification of strict liability.Sligl1t JJenalties may in some circum sta11ces suggest the. need for a si1nplified JJrocedure and even warra11t the removal of procedural safeguards 11ormally insisted on.Tl1ey cannot be relied on to discard rational penal liability. •

•

A11otl1er argume1 1t in support of strict liability is tl1e claim tl1at it serves as a prod to stimulate increased care and efficiency - even by those who are already careful and efficie11t....But tl1is argument, like certai11 myths, is just too good to be true. It rests wl1olly on assu1T1ptio1 1s tl1at l1ave never been establisl1ed. Tl1at tl1ere is al\xrays room for improvement of business operations us.Tl1e cost is at best a very loose generalization; freque11tly it is quite fallacio 1 of operation is 011e serious limitatio11. Only ''in the abstract is it possible to employ cl1emists, bacteriologists, etc., etc., to analyze every can of food shipped from all tl1e factories in America. Actually sucl1 care and efficiency are in compatible with operati11g a business at al]. Thus an elementary discrimination of \xrl1at is JJossible takes the form of wl1at is reasonable - else we merely indulge in exl1ortation 11ot actttal problem solvi11g. '

•

Tl1us,. as 011e probes for some rational grottnd of strict liability (outside of torts), it becomes increasingly lil<e tl1e proverbial searcl1 in tl1e dark room for the black cat that isn't tl1ere.. ..Inasmucl1 as strict liability mea11s that regardless of .lack of i1 1tent, recl<lessnessI 11ealiaence use of superior knowo o I tl1e l � dge a11d skill, etc., pe11al liability mt1st 11011etl1eless be imposed, it is impossible to def�nd strict liability i11 terms of or by refere11ce to tl1e 011ly criteria tl1at are availabl� to evalt1 ate tl1e i1 1flt1e11ce of legal controls 011 l1uma11 conduct.· Wl1at tl1e11 remains b�t tl1e r:nytl1 tl1at tl1rougl1 deviot1s1 t1 r1knowr1 ways some _ . good r�sults from strict l1ab1l1ty 111 ''pe11al'' la\v? Yet, it is incontest ab!e th�t myth dies l1a:d, and tl1� legal reformer is sometimes compelled to guide his craft by making concessions to a current irrationality . lia A imJJO strict tant clue � of to : what is supfJOrt actually tl1e pri11cipal .. bility ts provided by tl1e fact tl1at fro111 tl1e very begir111i11g of public welfare _ 0!fen ses to tlie !J!·esent t11T1e, tl1ere l1as bee11 an unvarying insistence on tl1e _ difftcttlty of �1_ov111g mens rea; e.g., ''to permit sucl1 a defense would be to a.llow ever � violator to avoid liability merely by pleadi 1 1g Jack of knowledge ao<l tlius, practically, �ull1_ �y the statute....''C63) This argument implies that even tl�o�gl, _mens rea exts�s tt .1s impossible to prove it, presumably because there are distinctive features tn such cases that make this proof peculiarly diffi_ cult.But 6. l-Iall · cip · les 01.r Criminal law 342, 34 · , Genera_l prin 4-345, 348-349. (63) Note, 42 M1cl1. L. Rev. 1103, 1106 (1944).

THE CODE OF PETTY OFFENCES

307

jf we �ppraise tl1e actual situatiC!n in this respect, without prejudgin g it it i s 1 ar at y ta gr c�1 ea to t w e e ig ht ibl to s os tl1 a_ t argume,it. It amounts to 110 more imp than a bare a s�ertion or a mere gu:ss. It 1s obviously at odds with what is actu· ally do·ne tn· cou11tless prosect1t·1ons.. Moreover, 'a glance at ti 1e 1aw 011 vari ou s m�Jor crir1_1 es revea I 5 m an y SitL1a�1?11s wl1ere seriot1s difficulties must be overco1:1e in proving niens. rea, e.g., rece1vi11g stole11 goods, 11t1merous instances where 1g11orance of fact 1s a defe11se, and i11nurnerable statutory provisions wl1ere knowledge mt1st be s110\vn .... . . . . This bra11ch o� Ottr law is s o tl1orot1gl1ly disorgaiiized, rests so largely on c?nJect�re and dt1b1ous IJS)1 Cl1ology, ai1d effects strcl1 gross injustice as to require ma1or reform. • •

•

I . .. '

•

Note 2:

I •

friedma1111, Strict Criminal Respo11sibility a11d Pttblic Welfare Offences7 • • •

l. .., ..

' . '

•

tl1at, clear is_ It grot1p, tl1is tyr?e of offe11ce [ j)trblic \xrelfaie offe11ce], a as . . while going u11der tl1e ge11eral label of cr1n1111al law, is of an esse11tiallv different cl1aracter from tl1e crimi11al offe11ces based 011 i11diviclt1al ,xrrongdoi 11 g. J_il<e all law, tl1e conditio11s u11der ,vl·1icl1 cri1ni 1 1al liability is in11Josed depe11d t11Jon a bala 11ce of valt1es i11 a given society. Eve11 tl1e i1111oce11t l(illi11g of a ma11 l1ar111s tl1e society, but tl1e law ge11erally considers tl1at a se,,ere pe11alty for mt1rder or mansJaugl1ter sl1ould 11ot be im1Josed, except 011 fJroof of i11diviciL1al gttilt. Public welfare offer1ces are, by contrast, essentially sta 1 1dardised. 111 tl1e bala11ce of values, it is generally co11sidered more esse11tial tl1at violatio11s of traffic rules or food laws sl1ot1ld be strictly pt111isl1ed, in ti1e i11terests of tl1e rublic, rather tha11 that the degree of i11dividt1al gt1ilt sl1ot1ld be 1neast1 red iil eacl1 case. Moreover, a va st proportio11 of tl1ese offe11ces are 11owadays i1111Jt1table to corporations ratl1er tl1a11 ii1dividuals i11 sttcl1 areas as social i 1 1st1ra11ce ol)liga tions, safety and l1ealtl1 standards, a11d tl1e like. It is socially e11tirely clesirable that the corporatio11, t111der wl1ose 11ame tl1e busi11ess is co11dL1cted, sl1ottlcl be !he carrier of responsibility ratl1er tl1a11 tl1e ir1di�iclual, altl1ot1gl1 tl1e _IJe! -�011 immediately responsible may, of cotrrse, be st1bJect to co11cL1rre11t. l1ab1l1ty. Given the enormous 11ttmber of offe11ces falli 11g t111der tl1ese categories, st1cl1 �s violations of traffia regt1latio11s, tl1ere �s als? tl�e �l1�er prac_tical ciifficttlty involved in tl1e limitless 11u 111 ber of trials 111 wl11ch 111d1v1dttal gt11lt \vould l1ave to be m easured. On a balance of social i11terests, tl1e ,videsJJreacl - tl1011gl1 by "? means univers al - te11dency of 1nodern st� tt1t�s. to i1111Jose strict liability for violation of public welfare laws i s tl1erefore JUst1f1able.. · .

.· .

•

!• '

.. . ,

Note 3:

American Law Institute, Model Pe11a1 Code (1 Q62) 8

j' '.·: !I . •

' ,. ,.

Sect. 103. - .

Classes of Crimes; Violation.

e at St is tl1 o te tt1 sta er l ot a11 � by r de y (5) An offense defitied by tl,is Co � ? law e tl1 111 or de Co 1s tl1 111 d te 11a s1g de t cons itutes a violation if it i s 50 _ 1e, or fin _ e a11d fordefining tti e offens e or if no otl,er se11tence tJ1an a f11

7• Friedmann, Law in a Changing Society 198-199 (1959). 8 • Proposed Official Draft.

THE CODE Of PETTY OFFENCES

308

io on iet 11 nv ed co riz ho 11t is lty 11a p {Je � or if it is il � civ feiture or otlier h w 11c 110 v1 wl pro de C s thi ?es n t tha tha r l1e o ? e _the tut sta ! a . defitied by . l at10:1 do es no t c?ns�1�ute a crime v1 A . me cri a te 1tu � 11st co t no offense sliall y to an e ris 1l1t 'e ab gi: d1s t 11o y or legal ll ha 1 io1 lat vio a of � i ioi ict nv co . and e. ns fe al of 1n 1m cr a of 11 t10 ic nv co 1 01 d se ba ge disadvanta •

•

• •

Sect. 2.05.

. . . Effect of Absolu.te Liability in Reducing Grade of Offense to Violation.

.. . . . (2) Notwitl1standing any otl1er _IJrovision of existing law and unless a sub seque11t statute otl1er\vise prov1cles: (a) wl1ei1 absolute liability is imposed witl1 respect to any material el e1nent of an offense defined by a statute otl1er tl1an tl1e Code ai1d a conviction is based u1Jon s11ch liability, tl1e offense co11stitutes a violatio11 .... •

Note 4:

•

I-Iowa.rd, Strict Responsibility i11 t l 1e I-ligh Court of Australia9 •

... A cciurt faced \vitl1 the task of deciding i11to wl1icl1 class a new minor statutory offei1ce falls, n1ay find itself in a diffic11lty. If it decides tl1at tl1e of fence reqt1ires fttll mens rea, it may put a11 im1)ossible burde11 upo11 P and tl1ereby virtt1all y 11ullify the legislatio11. But if it decides that P need prove no mental element at all, it ru11s t l1e risl< of 1Je11alising innocent and guilty alike, to tl1e detrin1e11t of jt1stice a11d respect for t l 1e law. Vet tl1is difficulty is often ill11sory. ''Tl1ere is a l1alf-\vay l1ouse bet\vee11 rrzens rea and strict responsibility wl1icl1 l1as riot yet been properl)' utilised, a11d that is responsibility for negl ige11ce.<4> The object of most of those offe11ces for which 011e is now strictl y res1Jo11sibl e is to impose a higl1 standard of care. Notl1i11g is to be gai11ed by co11victing D if he proves tl1at lie took reasonable care, or, if this be desired, all possible care. To impose strict responsibility in suc_h circun1sta11ces is. to JJunisl1 a 11seful 111ember of society for a conseque11ce \X1l1ich l1e has do11e his t1t111ost to avoid, whicl1 is a poi11tless exercise. I� the _ da11ger to soc1e_ty_ fro1n any error at all is so great, tl1en the actiyity itself should �e fJrol11�1ted; yet no one serious l y sttggests that the sale of milk should b_e _ a_bol1shed.If. 1n tl1e cases where strict responsibility is now the rul e, respon s11?1I1ty for negl igence l1ad been im1Josed i11stead, there would have been 110l1 t th! ng to_ preve11t oug the stan t ar of court care being � � tl1e � if set high, very _ this desirabl e tn the p11bl 1c interest; a11d if tl1e burde11 upo11 p were still too great, D could l1ave bee11 required to JJrove any ground of excul pation on tlie bala11ce of probability.

,·

•

Questions I

Does Art.697(2) req11ire a finding of inte11t or negl igence for conv.ictiot� of a petty offense? In what ways does this Article differ from Art. 59(2)·

9. 76 �aw Q11arterly Rev. 547-548 (1960). _ (4) Will iams, Criminal Law: The General Pa

rt, p. 21. . . .

·...:·

..... .

. .· .,..::', ...'.. ' ... .: .

, . .

309

THE CODE OF PEl TY OFFENCES

Is it possible to p11_nish tl1e acciuc11�al co1n1nissio 1 1 of a JJetty offetise? How are ititent a11d negligence to be def111ed for pttrposes of tlie Code of Pett Offe11ces? Does Art. 697 a1Jply to J)e11al {Jrovisio 1 1s exterr1al to tl1e Cod�

of Petty Offences?

C .P an .S d tl1e staten1e11ts of MM. Orave 11 aiicl Lo . 33 3. t. A r D o 2. go z l i elp Art. 697(2) P.C.E.? to interpret 3. Is tl1e Etl1i_oJJian (JOsitio11 \villi res1�ect to tl1e req11ire1ne11t of gtiilt iii !Jetty offe11ses \Vtse? Wl1at \v·ot1ld a IJL1bl1 _c j)rosec11tor l1ave to JJrove to coi1vict a IJerso11 t1 1 1der Sect. 8(a) of tl1e We1gl1ts a11d lv\east1res Procla111a.tio11 511pr1,1,? 4. \Vhy do we fin� a �a1Jidl}r gro,,:1i11g 1111111ber of 11eltJ, offe11ses i11 most societies?_ \'<:'l1at ts tl1e1 r JJl! r1)0s�? Sl1ot1lcl i 11ter1t or 11egl ige11ce be reqttired for co11v1ct1on of a traffic Cllfe11se st1cl1 as failLtre to f)arl{ a car i11 a pro 1 Jer place? 5. Wl1y do 1nost S)�ste111s 1nair1lai 1 1 tl1at offe11ses of a regt1latory 11atL1re do 11ot a11d sho11ld 1 1ot reqt1ire a 'fi11di11g of eitl1er i11te11t or 11eglige11ce? \;</l1at argume11ts might be made for a 1 1d agai11st strict liabil it),?

'·

I ••

\Vl1at was lv\rs. Prot1d111a11's defe11se (IJfJ. 304-305}, a11cl 'IY1l1y ,,:,a5 it i1ot allo\ved? \Vottld it be allO\'{,ed i11 Etl1 io1Jia? 7. Does Etl1iopia's solutio11 fall bet,,,ee11 strict liability a11d tl1e aJJplicatio11 of ge11eral JJe11al princi r Jl�s? Does it sati�fy tl1e criticisn:s set fo_rtl� by J-Ia�l (JJp. 306-307)? Wo11ld it l1el 1 J to reqt11re less proof 111 est�bl1sl1111g 11�gl1ge11ce i 11 petty offe11ses tl1a1 1 i 1 1 J)e11al 011es? Of \Vl1at valL1e 1s tl1e 1\r11er1ca11 Law I11stitute's prorJosal to ''destig 1 11atize'' (Jetty offe11ses by treali11g tl1e1n as 'violatio11s'' ratl1er tl1a11 ''cri111es''?

Is Art. 697(2) reall1r feasible i 11 ligl1t of tl1e great a11d ir1_creasi11� :1L1111ber

of petty offe11ses? Iv1igl1t it J)erl1a1Js _ b� 1110:·e satisfa�tory_ if co1:,11ci1011 s _fo sucl1 offe11ses --x,ere I1a11dled by acl1111r11strat1ve age11c1es 1 atl1er Ll1a11 l1} tlie� crimi11al J)rocess? 1

{iii) sell any declared article at_ � 1Jr1ce exceedi11g tl1at fixecl by or manner ordered by tl1e M1n1ster. I

; .:

i11

. . altl cg R y an of or e re · ec D 115 tl f 11. �hosoever co11travenes the fJr?vistons O e bl lia be 11 tio ic 11v 1 co on l al 1 5 r d t1ons1 o rders or notices prescribe? tlier�u,,_ � _ , i' of Co de Pe iia 1957 l tl e f 0 11s s1o ov to punishme11t 11nder the appro1Jr1ate fJl i as amended. 11 20 $ E e v o ab ld so e b to t 10 1 l · ic t Assume that article X is a ''declared ar 1e tl is es 1c e1 ff O ty ' et P f e d Per arti�le, and further assume tl1 t Art. 745, C 0 appropriate provision referred to �1n Sect. 11 of the aiove Decree.

•

5. (a) No dealer sl1all: I

A DECREE TO PROVIDE FOR PROHIBITION Of UNf1\IR TRADE PRi\CTICES No. 50 of 1955 E.C. ( 1963 G.C. ) •

Problems

•

I I

I .. . '

I .•

•• i '• ! . ..

I! ,'� :·_··. '

-/. i i:, :

...;". :··� ..

. .!

�.,

310

THE CODE Of PETTY OFFENCES

Ato A is a dealer in article X, and although he had read �.ecree No. 50 of l 963, he forgot tl,e conten_ts of tl,at law, and sold large quantities of article X at a price of E$25 per article. What will it be necessary for tl1e pt1blic prosecutor to prove in order to convict Ato A under Sect. 5 (iii) of the Decree? Support your answer with referei,ce to all necessary articles of tl,e Penal Code, Code of Petty Offetices, and tl1e Decree in qt1estio11. As legal counsel to a Parliame11tary Com�ittee currently working on sev eral (Jrovisio11s of the Penal Code, you are assigned th� ta_sk. of presenting a 11ew draft of Art. 697(2) togetl1er with your comments JUst1fy1ng your position. Recommended Readings ·'

I , I

'·

Willia111s, Crimittal Law 215-266 (a comprehensive and important cl1apter on strict responsibility; n. b. pp. 261-265 fer Williams' suggestions witl1 respect to this problem). Iiall, I11terrelatio11s of Crimi11al Law and Torts, 43 Columbia L. Rev. 986-996 (1943) (careful co11sideration of tl1e roots of strict liability i11 tl1e areas of botl1 tort and cri111e i11 the commo11 law). Legros, L'Element Moral Daris Les Infractions 152-173 (1952) (co11sideration of petty offe11ses ir1 fre11cl1 fJenal law). Merle, Droit Penal 252-254 (brief treatme11t of JJetty offenses in Frerich JJenal law). Perkins, The Civil Offense, 100 U. Pennsylvania L. Rev. 832-851 (1952) (general analysis of petty offe11ses in tl,e United States). Brett and Waller, Crimi11al Law 523-574 (interesting case and textt1al material or1 tl1e question of strict liability i11 tl1e con1mon law). Borre, Public \Velfare Offenses: A New Approacl1, 52 J. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 418-422 (196 l) (co11sideratio11 of mistake of fact and law i11 petty of fe11ses). 1958 Law Qu�rter/y Rev. 342-343 (attempted jt1stification of strict liability in the construct1011 of a11 Englisl1 cri111i11al statt1te). Bi11avi11ce, Tl1e Etl1ical fou11datior1 of Cri1ni11al Liability, 33 Fordham L. Re:v27-34 (1964) (excelle11t l1istorical and pl1ilosopl1ical co11sideration of strict liability i11 regt1latory offenses). Starrs, Tl1e Regt1latory Offe11se i11 liistorical Perspective, in Mueller, Essays in Crimirzal Scie1ice 235-267 (1961).

-. ,·

•.

.. . . ..

.. >•

Part IV

I' I ' ' ' ..

i '

THE DISPOSITION OF OFFENDERS

•

• '

;

. . ''

'l .-."' I

...

i: '

II '.'

" i • :' ' '

:' I ... •' l...

· ·1"

. ..,

..(,

•

• •

CHAPTER 14

Sentencing: The Range _ of Judicial a11d Administrative Flexibility· within the Legislative Prescription SECTION Ao l'HE !LEGISLATIVE GRADING OF OFFENSES

THE DETERMINATION Of THE PENALTY 1 M. Frejaville and ]. C. So;•er

Discretio11ary aJid Fixed Pe1ialties: To t1nderstand tl1e 1nodern system, it is

r:ecessa.ry to exami 11e tl1e two syste1ns wl1icl1 are theoretically opposed as to tl1e c.letermi11atio11 of tl1e JJe 11alty:

1. Tl?e system of discretionary pe11alties ap1Jliecl i11 f)re-revolutionary fre 11ch 1a\X.'. rfl1e pe11alty is not deter111ir1ed by tl1e la\x,; the judge establisl1es it takir�g i11to accoL111t tl1e particL 1 Iar circ11 msta 11ces u 11cier \'Xlhicl1 tl1 e offe 11se \X1as con11111t ted ar1cl tl1e fJerso 1 1ality of tl1 e offe 11der. I-le 111ay, for i11stance, take into accot1nt tl1e bacl<g·roL1 1 1d of tl1e offe11cler, l1is general cl1aracter, tl1e reaso11s for \Vl1ich tl1e i11fr8ctio11 \x,as co 111n1ittecl, etc. Tl·1is system \'(!Ottld allo\l:, tl1e J)enalty to be fitted to tl1e gL1ilt of tl1e offe1 1cler, to tl1e fJossiblities of l1is reforn1 or, as we woL1ld sa11 today, to the 11eeds of ''social rel1 abilitation'' - i11 brief - to acco 1111Jlisl1 an i11divicl11alization of tl1e per1alty''. It !1as, on tl1e otl1e� l1and, �11e_ � 1sa� \1 a11 tag·e of te 11cl i11g· to\vards tl1e ,1rbitrary and of \xreaken1 11g tl1e 1 11t1111 1 dat1or1 va ILI e of t 1 1 e JJe11a Ity. 2. _The systerr: of JZ:xecl perz"1lties aclopted b1, tl1 e legislators of the French revolL1t1 011ary JJ�r1ocl wl1icl1 co11sists i11 tl1 e legislative deter111inatio 11 of tl1e_ rJen alty . to be a1Jpl1ecl. to tl1e ir1 fractio11 \'IJ'itl1out an)r possible 1nodificati o11 desig�e � to fit tlie 1Jerso11al1ty of ll·1e offer1der. Tl1is svsten1 l1as tl1e advantage of be1n° stroiigly deterre11t a11d tl1 erefore of 111ai 1 1tai�i 11 0· tl1 e ft1ll i11tim idatio11 valu e of tlie peiialty. I-Io\X,ever! it l1as tl1e clisadva 1 1tage of being u11just and ev�n inef fecttial by 11ot all�\v1 11 g tl1e 1)e11alt;, to be fitted to tl1e offense co1111111tted by tl1e offe11cler a 11d l11s cl1a 11ces of refor111. Tl1e AModerr1- System: Mocler 11 fJenal law has endeavored to borrow from bot}l �ys�e�71s; �liLis t�1e _p_e 11alty is i11 JJrinci 1Jle establisl1ed b)' the legislature ?ut, 111dividLt,lltze_cl_ s1g· 11!f1ca11tly i11 its a1Jplicatio11 by tl1e jt1dge or tl1e. executivee to _tlie specifi� offe 11der. Tl1 is allows for tl1e sttccessive partici1Jat1011 of th _ legislator, tl1e Jttdge a11d tl1 e ad 1 ni11istrative autl1orities. me sche TJ1is T/Je l?.ole of tl;e legislator: Tl1e legislator enacts basic penalties. 11

I '

I' II i

' I

Frcjavillc and Soycr, Droit Cri,ninel 45-46. -

..;

. . ..

._ ...

----- - - -·- --------...

. .. . ..- · . .

THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE

313

· the se11se that the guarar1 tees against arbitrary actio11 by · jttdo0·es' at least 111 t e11ce beyo11 ct tl1e maximum JJet,a sen t o can n ge lty JJrovided b,) 1aw. SLtcl1 a jud sct1eme. also allO\'(IS for deterrence b )' providi li g, whe 11 ti ecessary very severe 1 in g th� sea1 e of penalties tl1 . ' penaIti.es. In establisl e legislator t;ies to set tl1 e peiialty accorcl111g to tl1e ser1ot1sness of tl,e offerise.... Of course tl1e legislator ca 11 estab lisl1 tI1is scale ' 1·11 a11 abstracl way or11y· . the _Ia\v, be�ause Of 1· t5 gei,ei:-a ) .a�plicatio1 1, ca1111ot tal\e i11to accot111 t all of tl,� cular c1rct1msta11ces of 111ci1v1clt1al offe ·1011a11y, tal{es 11de rs Part i Tlie • ta, · \V, exc eJJ · 1. · . . n to_ acco ll 1t certattl · giv .· ei, f· acts; for 111st�11ce it i11creascs tl1e JJe11alty of all ! . i .,..1 I 11· s ual cr1m111als a11d, 011 tl1e . co1.1 t rary 1n1tig·ates tl1e 1,en · hab it alt, . , ) o m 111 o r s. f · d tl� 1 1zat1011 o_f' t . ca11ed , , 1eg 1· slativ · e 111 d · · 1vt l�e tJe11al ty''. I Io\ - '(lever, llte i 11 dividual. !S _ 12at1011 operates ?t1ly 111 r elal1011. to CJbJect 1ve criteria valicl for a \-qJiole category of fJerso11s a11d 1s 11ot really cl1rectecl to \X'l1at is partictila r i ii tl,e irldividtial offe11cler. 1

THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LEOISL1\l'URE2 F-1e,zry 1-liirt

•. '

111 de ter 1ni11i11g _\vl1at de�cribed co11dt1ct_ sl1all co11stitt1te a cri 1ne, a legisla tt1re !11al<es neces_sartl}' tl1e f 1 �·st a1�d t l�e 111aJor decisio11 abot1l tl1e a1)rropria te sanct 1 011 for a v1olat1011 of its d1rect1011. For i t decides tl1c11 tl1at co111n1t111it,, conde1n11atio11 sl1 all be visited t11Jor1 adjttdgecl violators. 811t tl1erc re111aii1 l1c1st� of qt1estioI1s abot1t tl1e degree of tl1e co11cle111 11atio11 a11cl tl1e 11att1re of tl1e autl10 rized ptt11 isl1 111 e11 t, or t real 111e 11t i11-co11seq t1e11ce-o f-vio I ati011. E11ta11gled \vitl1 tl1e proble111s of tl,e apf)rOJJri ate air11s to be pL1rst1ecl ·-x1l1icl1 are involved i 11 tl1ese c1 t1estio 11s are jJrolJle1ns of tl1e aJJJJrOJJriat.e assig11ti1e11t of po,�·ers to make decisions i 1 1 carryi11g oti t tl1e ai111s. ;l�<) \'7l1at exient sl1ot1lcl the legislature undertal\ e to give bindi11g clirectio11s al)ot1t treatrne11t \xrl1icl1 \vill foreclose the exercise of a11v later discretio11? To \'\1 l1at exte11t sl1011lcl it depe11d, instead, 11pon tl1e jt1dgme11l a11d cliscretio11 eitl1er of tl1e ser1ter1cir1g cot1rt or of tl1e correctio11al autl1orities wl10 \vill becon1e resJJ011sillle for clefe11da11ts after tl1ey are se 11t e11ced? It is axiomatic tl1at eac11 agency of decisio11 ot1gl1t to 111al(e tl1ose clecisio!1 s which its positio11 i n th e i11stitt1tio11al strt1ctt1re best fi ts ii to 111al<e. Bttl t his, l ecisio11. c cle gtii to e r a 1 icl wl1 eria crit as \vill be seen, d eJJe11ds in 1Jart 11po11 tl1e 1. Tl1e traditional criminal Iaw r ecog11izes different grades . of o�fe11ses, s11cl1 as felony and misclemeanor, and 1no der11 statutes recog11 1ze d Iffer�11t degrees within the grades. If the cri111i11al la\v \,,ere c?11cer11ed ce_11trally \111tl1 re!ormi ng c riminals, this wo11ld scarcely be a 1Jpropr1ate: a co11f1�med. p� tt y thi ef may have mucli greater 11e ed of reformatio11 tl,an a on�e-tn-a-11fet1111e manslaughterer. If tl,e thesis of tl1is pa 1Jer is accepte�, 110\ve�er, tl follo\vs t_l,at �rading is no t 011Iy prOJJ er, bu t esser1 tial; t l1at tl1e leg1slatt1re 1s tl1e _ ap1Jrop r1ate institu tion to do tl,e gradii,g; tliat tl1e gradi11g sl1011ld be done. \'17tt11 pr 1111ar>' re�ard for the relative bla m e\vort)1iness of offe11ses (a factor \Vl11�}1,_ of cottrse, will take into accoui,t tJ,e relative ex ten t of tl1e l1ar1n cl1aracter1st1cally clo11e or threatened to i 11dividuals and, tl1t1s, to tl1e social order b_y eacli t)�JJe of offense); that the grading s1,ould be determinative of tl1e relative severity of the treatment authorized for each offe11se. 2.

( l 958). Han, The Aims of tl1e Criminal I.aw, 23 Law and Contemporary Prvblc,ns 425-4 27

... i

I·. .. .' '

!· '. : . . .' I' , , ,

I ,.

.•

I :: ' ..

..·-..i ..: .• :- d' '

.....' . . ;.

:)1 I '

l: .' · �

J ,-

. ,. .:, : I:

314

' I '

I I

THE SE NT EN .CINO PROCESS

ion s est ain qt1 �l1e rem s, : how far up 1se 1 e �ff of 11 g l<i ran a ch su 2. Given t en atm _ tre of ld ou 1ty sl1 len or ty the er1 sey ble ssi po whole of le sca tl1e 11 or dow ts en to hm nis pu b� ere sev favor �d or e!y t1v a r a J m1 co e Ar d? ve . mo array be c bli pu of � ltc 10� po _ est qu a 1s re He whic h is e�? on t 11 ie Ien . ly . comparative al its , din 1on car est qt1 s s thi �tm 1 01 . t t1re should 1s!a Ieg e 1 tl for y ntl ine -em pre e l1 ere 1 1npress 110t o�g to n sev be uld · sho 1 1ts e 1 sl1m 11 1 PL de. gt1i al dir, car . be its c , bli nd pu e mi _ tl1_ tl1e gra v�ty of On UjJ � bu , nd I!1i 's ant e,�d def the 1 only Ltpor society's conden1nat1 on of 1rresJJons1ble bel1av1 or.. B_u_t the ultimat e atm of coi1dem11 i11g irresJJ01 1sibility is trai1 1i11g for respo11s1 b1l1ty. Tl1e trea tment of , tl1e ose ecl n for tha developm ent of her t ra ge, our e11c d oul 1 sl re refo tl1e ls ina crim tl1eir sen�e of resp�11 sibility.A11owa11ce for the possibility of reformation, or fo rn1a tio11 of cl1aracter i11 tl1e generality of cases becomes at this point, in otl1er wo{ds, an overriding co11sideratio1 1.TI1is co11 sideration will -point i11ex orably in tl1e direction of elin1i11a ting capital JJU11isl1ment and mi11imizi11g both tl1e occasior1s a11d tl1e Ie1 1gtl1 of i11carceratio1 1. 3. Should tl1e legislatt1 re {Jrescribe a si11gle definite and unvaryi11 g for1n of treatme11t for eacl1 tyJJe of offense? Tl1e almost u11iversal judgment of modern lega l S)'Ste1 ns is t l1a t, ordi11 arily at least, it sl10�1ld not. T\vO types of considera tio11s seem to u1 1derlie tl1is judgn1ent.Tl1e first is tl1e need of making t l1e treat1ne1 1t fit tl1e cri1ne . Statt1 tory definitio11s of offe11ses are, of 11ecessity, higl 1 Iy general categories co\reri11g a l1ost of variant circt11 nsta11 ces wl1icl1 are releva nt to tl1e bla1ne\YOrtl1i1 1ess of JJarticula r crimes.All tl1e circt1mstances wl1icl1 are relevant i11 a IJ articular case ca1 111 ot be l<110\xr11 u11 til tl1e case l1a s been tried. Tl1e seco11d ty1Je of considera tion is tl1 e 11eed of mal<ing the treatment fit tl1e cri1 11inal, so as to tal<e i11 to accot111 t 11 ot only tl1 e l<i11 d of tl1ing he did, but the ki11d of perso11 lie is. 011Iy i11 tl1 is \x,a y can room be allo\xred for the effective play, 011 the basis of individt1alized jt1dgn1e11t, of tl1e crimina l la\v's subordinate aims of reforn1 i11g offe11 clers or of disa bling tl1em \xrl1ere a S[Jecial period of clisable1nent seems to be 11eedecl. Botl1 ty1Jes of co11sideratio1 1s i11dicate t hat discretio11 sl 1ot1ld be left to trial courts or correctio11a l autl1orities, witl1 res1Ject botl1 to. tl1e tyrJe of trea t1 ne11t - fine, itnprisonn1e11t, IJrobation, or tl1e like and to its exte11 t or dt1ra.tior1 . �- Sl1ot1ld the IegislatL1re fix tl1e 1naxim1tm pu1 1ishme11t, or tl1e 1 11aximum s�ver1t:y of tl1e �reatn1 e11 t at1tl1orizecl, for 1Jartict1 la r types of critnes? Basic con s1_dera t1 ons <?f l1bert )1 as \veil as tl1e logic of tlie aims of 'tl1e crimi11al law d1 �tate that it sl1ot1l?. Men sl1 ot1 ld 11ot be pt1t to deatl1 or i111prisoned f_or a cr1 n1e t111less tl1e _ Ieg1slatt1 re l1a s sa11ctio11ed tl1e 1Jer 1 alty of deatl1 or impr1son_ 1 ne11 � for tl1 at cr1 tne.Even w1 tl1 resrJect to pe11alties of an at1 tl 1orized t)rpe, the 1 naxin1um. of tl:e permitted fi11 e or ter111 o.f impriso11n1e1 1t sl1 ot1ld be fixed _by law. Oiily 111 tl11 s way ca,1 tl1e i11tegrity of tl1e leg·islature's scl1eme of graduat1 011 ? f offenses a�1d of tl1e t111derlyi1 1g IJri11ciple tl1a t JJenalties should correspond 111 �0111.e fasliion to tl1e deg·ree of bla111ewortl1i 11ess of defendants' co1 1d·uct be 1:1a111t atiied. q11ly i11 tl1is \Xia)' can room be allo\ved for tl1e benefice11t ope�a t ion, of tlieortes of refor 111a tion, \xrl1ile sl1 utti11g tl1e door to their tendencies toward cruelt y. . 5. Slioti_ld tlie legisla tt1 re prescribe tl1e 112in im1-em pL1 nisl1 1ne11t, or the . min; imuin severtt)' of tl�e trea t111e11t to be 1neted out, for pa·rticular tyJJes of crimes_. The IJ_roblem 1:ere ts to 1nal<e sure tl1at societ y does 11ot depreciate tl1e grav•: _ t� of. its ow11 JU�gme11ts ?f co11dem1 1ation tl1roug\1 the im1Josition by. se�t�n _ vtd cii,� J1:1dges of dtsproJJort1011a tely trivial JJe11alties Vet tl1e virtues of i ndi ual1za t1.011 l,ave ti 1e11· · c1a1· 1ns, too. Perl1a1Js a st1s1·Jend ' priso11 se11tence, with ed _ IJI o_ba tioti,. may be tlie best forn1 of treat111e11t eve for a co11 victed 111 ti rder er, n as it certainly ma y be for a co11victed n1a1 1slaug l1terer ....

THE LEOISLA TIVE RO LE

315

hic h con victed persons are to b w in s cas e In 6 s t e1 1 ! sho d .1 ri�onment, how ul power be divided betwe n tl enced to _a te�m of 1 Pjury) and pri_son and parole attthorities 11 ente 1 c1ng JU� s i ge � t1 in det rn1 e ning 1e actual duration ( ion? rcerat �r tile inca

NOT ES Note 1:

The Competing Policies Underlying a Sentencing Structure

Bentl,am, 011 Pt1nisl1mer1tl

Punishments may be too sm al l or too great; and tl,ere are reasons for not ma½i�g them too . small, as · well as 11ot maki11g tlieni too great. Tl,e terms minimum and maximum ma y serve to mark the t\v;o extren,es of tliis question, which require equal atte11tior1.

I • ! .:

I I

•

With a view of marking out tl1e limits of punisl11ne11t 011 the side of tl,e first of tl1ese extremes, we may lay it do,v11 as a rule:

I. That the value of tl1e p1111islJ1ne11t 1n1ist 11ot be less irz any c.:tse tlJa,1 w/Jal is sufficient to outweigl, that of t!Je profit of the ojfe11ce.

By the profit of the crime, must be underslood not 0111)' 1Jecu11i(1iy 1,rofit, but every advantage, real or aJJpare11t, wl1icl1 l1as 01Jera_ted as a tnotive to tl1e commission of tl1e crime.

The profit of the crime is tl1e force wl1icl1 t! rges a 1na 11 to deli11qtie11cy the pain of the punishme11t is tl1e force emJJloyed to restrai11 I-1i111 fron1 it. II the first of these forces be tl1e greater, tl1e crime wil I be co 111111 i lted; if tl1e second, tl1e crime will not be committed. If tl1e11 a tna11, havi11g rea1Jecl tl1e profit of a crime, and undergone the pt1nisl1111e11t, fi11cls tl,e r or111er n1ore tl1ar1 equivalent to the latter, he will go 011 offendi11g forevei; tl1ere is 11otl1i11g to restrain him.If those, also, who bel1old l1im, recl(o11 tl1at tl1e bala11ce of gai11 is in favour of the delinquent, the punish mer1t ,v,ill be useless for tl1e p11rposes of example....

Rule III. When two offences come in competitio11, t!Je p1t11isl:,111e11t for t!Je greater 0Jf.ence mHst be suffici en t to in duce a ma n to prefer the less. T�o . o_ffe11 ces may b_: said to be in competition wl,en it is in tl1e po\'<1er of a11 111d1v1d�al to comin_it h?th.When thieves break into a house, tl1ey may ex�ct1te �l1e1r f)�Ir P? 5� 1 1 different manners; by simply stealing, by tl,eft �cco111pa111ed ,v1tl1. bodily 111111r}, or murd er, or incendiarism. If tl,e punisl1ment 1s tl1e same for s!�_!Jle tl,eft, as for theft and murder, you give the tl1ieves a 111otiye_ for co111 m1 tting mtifrler, because this crime adds to the facility of comm1tt111g the former, and the chance of impunity when it is committed. (at pu. nisl11nents The great inconvenience resulting f ro_1n t I1e . ·1nfl.1ct·1 011 .of gre .oportioi, to t 1,e r P1 � 81!1al1 offences, is, that the power of 111creas1ng tl1en1 tn agnitude of the offence is thereby lost. r . la .1n s,,c,J, n1art,ic� 10 e ac/J partictl Rul e Iv· The punishment should be ad;u . ste d Je ,It. ce, I t 1 11 ra st re O»tn to e 'V ti 1o ,r that for t'Very part of the mischief thtre may be a

3· Bentli arn, Principles of Penal Law, in 1 Benth,m•s WarA".S 399-402 Bowring ed., l B-¼J).

I .

I .. .

. . . i. . ..

I ·. . It . ' I

' : I • •• :.

TliE SENTENCING PROCESS

316

ojfeJzd er

h � ad i11 tin e, jus p the m a_ e for nis l s, pu l1t1 x T to it. t/1 bir ment from giving

e the l:m n�s o� de pu itu nt gn ma be deter tl1e let y, 11e mo of m su a for stealing gs 1� ll1n ten al11 sh1 ste a for If .. len st? � ?ffender SLlm tl1e of 11t ou am the by ned nii ng of a!i th� ste 1 tl1e a1n e fiv rem g alin ng five ste for 11 tl1a re mo no hed i,is 1 is pLt e l1m 1s no nis re pu tl1e l1 11c n1 at all. wl for ce en off an is gs llin sl1i 1 te1 of tJ1ose Rt1le V. The punis/1ment ought in no ca�e to be more than what is necessary to ab h ov e rules .o� pro . Of .. . en giv ! re he es � rul the th wi LJ mi for con o int bring it JJOrtio11, the fot1r first 111ay serve t? mark out the I1m1ts of .th� . m1n1mtim side - tl1e limits below \vh1cl1 a JJU111sl1me11t ought not to be d1m1111sl1ed; the fiftl1 will 1nark out tl1e limits 011 the n1aximttm side - the limits above \vhich it ougl1t 11ot to be i11creased. The mi11imu1n of jJL111ish1ne11t is more clearly marked than its maximum. Wl1at is too little is 1nore clearly observed tl1an what is too much. What is not sufficie11t is easily see11, bt1t it is 11ot possible so exactly to distinguisl1 an excess: a11 aJJproximatio11 011ly c,t11 be attai11ed. Tl1e irregularities in the force of tempta tio11s co111pel tl1e leg·islator to i11crease l1is pu11ishments, till they are merely sl1fficie11t to restrai11 tl1e ordinary desires cf men, but also the violence of tl1eir desires \X1l1en L111usL1ally excited. Tl1e greatest da11ger lies i11 a11 error on the minimum side, because in this case tl1e pt1nish111ent is inefficacious; but tl1is error is least likely to occur, a sligl1t degree of atte11tior1 suffici11g for its escape; a11d when it does exist, it is at tl1e same titne clear and ma11ifest, a11d easy to be remedied.An error on tl1e 111axi1nt1111 sicle, 011 tl1e co11trary, is that to wl1icl1 legislators a11d me11 in general are naturally incli11ed: a11tipathy, or a \va11t of compassion for individuals ,vl10 are reJJresented as dangerous a11d vile, pushes tl1em on\vard to an u11due severity. It is on this side, therefore, tl1at we sl1ould take the most precautions, as 011 tl1is side tl1ere has been sl10\vn tl1e greatest disposition to err. By ,vay of suppletnent and explanation to the first rule and to make sure of givi11g to tl1e fJl111isl1ment the superiority over tl1e offe11�e' the ...following rt1les may be laid do\vn: Rul_e VII. T�at the v�lue ?f the punishme11.t may outweig/1 the profit of t�e

•

ojf�7zce, zt m,,1,�t be increased in point of magnit1,de, in proportion as it falls short 111 point of certainty. . Rl1!e VIII. P1,1.nis_J1me1z� 1nust be fi"rther increased in point of magnitude, in proportio,1 as it f�lls short_ i,i poi:1t of proximity. Tl1e profit of a cri1ne is commonly

more certain tl1a11 1ts IJ_u111sl1me11t; or, wl1at a mounts to the same t]1i11g, appea�s so to t �1e offe11d�r. It 1s �e11erally !Dore i1nn1ediate: the temptation to offe11d 15 J)re_se11t, tl1e pun1sl1111e11t 1s at a distance. He11ce there are two circumstances wl11ch weal<:e11 tl1e effect of IJU11isl1me11t, its uncertainty and its distance. Wecl1sler, Correctio11 U11der the Model Penal Code of tl1e American Law Institute4

Wl�e11.tlie legislature declares conduct to the criminal it affirms a purpose condemna t? forbid it �119 to meet �efi�nce the moral of tl1e prohibition by . tion _of convict 1o11 and � J ud1c1otis application of tl1e sanctions that the la:V provides.Tlie ��ast tliat 1s d�manded is tl1at the disposition be so cast that it does not depreciate tl1e gravity of tl1e offense, whatever tl1at may be, and thus 4.

1961)· Wechsler, Correction Under the Model Penal Cod ( 69 468 -4 e, 109 U. Pennsylv.mia L. Rev,

THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE

317

� commit t. But _ 110,v _mucl1 1nore tl1 a11 tl1is tl1e 1Jrol1ibitior1 to se licen a y l imp 11 to C? 11 n_ote 1s obv 1 ot1sly .111deter1ni11ate.Deterre1 1ce (botl1 ge11eral tak� b� ild shot

a 1 1d c?rrect1011 are all IJOssible objectives of tl1e 1ncapac1tat1on, l}, specia and � n1ay be emfJloyed 111 eali11g ,vitl1 offe11ders; all are 1nea11s to tl1at s ction _ san 11 a 1 1d as sucl1 are e11t1tled to be ,veigl1 ed. B t1 l 11ot eve11 crin1e t10 preven e crim prevention is tl1e sole \taltte to be s�rved.Tl1e rel 1 abilitatio11 of a11 i11 clividt1al wl10 has incurred tl1e for�al_ conde1n 11at1011 of tl1 c la ,v is i11 itself a social valt1e of importanc�, a value, it_ 1s ,�ell to 11ote, tl,at is a11cl ot1gl1 t to be tl1e 1Jri1ne g·oal . a11cl tl1at ofte11 ,vill be sacri fic�d t111clt1ly if tl1e of correct1onal . adm1111s�rat1011 _ choice of sa11ct1011s ts dictated 0111}' l)y deterre11ce. Fi11ally, it sttrel.>' is i 1111)orta11 t that tl1e de1Jrivatio11s i11cide11t to dis1)ositio11 s riot be arl)itrar)', excessive, or dis prOfJOrtio11ate, measured _b)1 tl1e co111111<)11 .se11 �e _of �t1stice. Arid arbitrari 11 ess, I scarcely need add, may 111 l1ere 11 ot 011ly 111 cl1st111ct1 011s clra,vn a111011g offe11ses or offe11ders ttpon i11st1fficie11 t grot111ds bttl also i11 ll1e abse11 ce of clisti11ctio11s when substa11tial gro1111ds for 111aki11g tl1e1n arise. Tl1e Coclc sels f c>rtl1 tl1ese multiple objectives i11 its state 1ne11ts o-f tl1e J)ttrf)Oses of tl1e J)r<)·visic)11s g·0,ier11ing the se11ter1ci11g a11d treat111e11t of offe11ders ....5

,• • I •••• : I I. •

...

I..

...'...

l !

I •

I. I

Note 2: The Indeterminate Sentence U nited Natio11s, Departme11 t of Social Affairs, Tl1e ir1clelern1i11at<:'. Sci1tc11cei •

• •

•

We n1t1st not forget tl1at t!1e i11 cleterl11 i11alc se 1 1te 1 1ce, like J:1111is, 11:·c, t·s:(J faces. Tl1e first olJject - \x1 l1icl1 is also l1istoricall); tl 1 t first if \V/(: C<)ll:::i�lcr ii:, application in 1noder11 ti 1nes - is ll1e f)Ossibil it )1 l.o t:xt�11(i. �l i1c11�'. lt)· l:J r . ;ts lo11a as tl1e perso11 detai11ed co11tir1t1es to cor1siitt1te a c.ta11f;er tc) �<'>c1i.;t_y. )\·; ihc No;wegia11 RefJO rt states, i11deter111 i11ate ser1 te11ces ,x·ere _1111 !):->Sell �Jsc>lcl_J' � f ,:Jr -�j . c:!11� reaso11s of public safety; se11te11 �es of il1at 11al ;�re� ,x�er � 1�c)t , ,11iluc11cctl _ siderations of the most aJJpropr1ate treat111e11t. ! l11s '1tl1lt1clL,, ,'� 11.J�.t l�ll)ll111 _,.,,1� 1 in the authoritarian systen1s, is 110 lo11 ger tl1e generall )' ncci.:j)tea ,lll[)roa.cl1. 1

5. Sect , 1.02 reads as follows: "Purposes .. ·

(2) · The general purposes of the provisions governing tl1c sc11tcncing and treatnlcnc of offenders :1rc: (a) to prevent che commission of oO:e!lsc�; .. s·, (b) to proIT1ote correction and rel1ab1l1r�c1on ?f offcn�cr a , unishmenr· · {c) to safeguard offenders against exccss1,•e, d1 sprop ort1on rc o . b. (d) to give fair warning of cl1c na ture of che sentences rl1at �:t; �; i1:osc<l on don,•iction of a? offcn_se; . •w to a just individualization in their treatment; (e) to differentiate among offen d cts . w�. tl1 a vie s, duties and funcliuns of the courts an<l (f) to define, co-ordinate and harmoni 7:c tl1 e po lin(T witl1 offenders; dca for s1 of administrative officers and agencies r cspo?�bl . (g) to advance the use of generally acceptc d sc1ent1fic rncth�ds �nd k.no,vlcdge in the sentcn cing. and treatment of offenders; .. . · (h) to antegrate respons1·b 1· 11ty for c]1 c a dm 1n1str at1on of the correctional system in a Stace . I e dcpar cn,cnt or agency]. Department of Correction [or oc I1cr ' sing

· .. .

6•

. of Scct · 1 ·02 of tile Model Pc11al Code, sec 23 For suggestio ns of H. Hart as to modi·r,1cat1on Liw and Contemporary Problems 440-441 (1958)-_ , . (1) total ce t U.N. Publ., ST/SO A/SD/2 p. 3 5 ( 195 3) · �rhe " indetcrmu1arc sen en , 11,as two ineanings: . i�determinacy in which the legisl ature_ docs not sc� _any l cng·•tll for imprisonmcnt leaving con1 P1eref discretion in the judiciary and correci:zo�al aucilor tte a d (l) tlie more common m�ani11 g ? f cl d inpris onmcnt leaving par�1al i of d crio p �r ,c te boun m, blishes che r· in whicl1 the legislature esta· .? a tive par · n chem. For tl1e com d,J.Scret1on in the judiciary an d correct1ona 1 autl1..orI1r1es to cI1oose wirhi · · , 7_36 For sentencing altcrnac1ves •n. . t I,e a pplica tion of the indeterminate sen tence, see tb,� it -rpor;l plu,isl1me11r, probation, cond1t1ona l P.C.E., i e., simple and rigorous i1np r1_ sonment, capira anP�·, ° _ release, etc., see Chaps. 15 and 16 rnfr a.

I I. . . '. '

• I

•

II ' 1

'·

. : :·

I . . ! . • .

. ..... I .. ...

i ', :

THE SENTENCING PROCESS

318

on cti du of e re th : us e th ts res int p enalt y ich wh t jec ob � r he ot e th is Today it e ve str h sed e W . ve pro im above the to s ort � � ef! n ow s er:' end off tl1rottgh the t 1na erm t e_ e th 1nd e of tes ca vo ad sentenee an r1c ne A1 st fir e th of es tiv jec ob st, : fir ges a sta te ree th sen ing low nce of fol e th in ed fin de be uld co whicl1 ; ve ro im to e tim secondly, the e� e�d off the � ing giv , ion rat du te indeter- mina . education of the offender viewe? as an _1�d1v1dual; and thirdly, a _probationary t he l tha wil ve pro to g mend his 1s.1n rom p his On UJJ er end off the of e eas rel e n. hes isio erv p ar�, indeed, su ed nu � nti co t<:> t je� sub ile wh e, eas rel er ways aft the ai1ns of every modern leg1slat1on, as regards both the 1ndeterm1nate sen te11ce, in its strict con notation, and cond·itional rel eas e. . . .

•1I

Moreover, these consideratio1 1s allow us lo discern the solution of the p rin cipal qualitative problem which l1as arise11 i11 regard to the indeterminate sen tence, and wl1 icl1 l1as provol{ed \vide controversy. It has indeed often been asl{ ed whetl1er the indeterminate sentence should be viewed as an act of lenien cy or co11versely, as 011e of severity towards tl1e offe1 1der concerned. from JJositive experience, it is clear that it is, or can be, either. The prob lem is 11 eitl1er t)t1 e of legal defi11ition nor of sociological qualification, but soleIJ, 011e of cri111i11al policy. Tl1e i11determinate sentence ca11 be used for the si11gle !)ltr1Jose of 11et1 tralizi11g or eliminating the dangerot1s offender. And it ca11 ec1ually well be aJJp!ied as a mea11s of JJroviding a curable offender with re111edial and re-educatior1al treatme11t. IN RE LE E

Supreme Court of California, 177 Cal. 690 (1918) Uriited States •

I•

I I

•

. ... It is necessary. to co11sider the nature and purposes of the indetern1111ate �e11tence law. It ts generally recog11ized by tJ1e courts and by modern JJer1e>log1sts tl,at the purJJose of tl1 e i11determi11ate se11te11ce law like other moder,,. la\'7S i11 rel_atio11 to the administration of tl1e crimi11al law, i� to mitigate tl1e pun1shme11t wl�1cl1 wot1ld other\vise be itnJJOsed upon the offender. These laws pl�ce empl1�s1s t1po1� t�1e reformation of tl1e offender.They seek to make tl1e r:ur11sl11ne!1t fit tl1e cr1 �n111al .ratl1er tl1a11 tl1e crime. They endeavor to put _ I)r1s011 er great 111ce11t1ve to well-doin befo1 e tl1e g ir1 order that his will to do \-vrell s_l1ot1ld be confirme� and strengtl1ened by tl1e habit of well-doing. Instead of try�ng to breal{ the will of tl1e offender and mak e him submissive the pur pose 1s to strengtl1e11 l1is will to do right and Iesse 11 his temptati�n to do wrong.. .. Questions

II I,

What is tl1e role played by t�e legislator in the sentencing process u�d�r the P._C.E.?Wl1y lias t_l1 e legislator assumed sucl1 a role? Does the �1!{1 d est�blt�l1ment of penalties a1 1d treatment by legislators or greater individ ttalizati_on ?Y courts and administrative authorities. better fulfill the purposes embodied 1n tl1e Penal Code? Are the cotirts or tlie legislative process better suited fo establishing �if f �r�nt d�grees ?f penalty for different types of crimes? Do legisl ators ind1v1dual1ze JJun1sl1ments to any degree?

THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE

319

How much discretion should th I g · I t r leave o Judges and a?mini\ t : J! � � . h uc ha s been le . u strators? How m . Would 1t be w1s� for � e P.C.E. legislators to provide completely ndetermtnate sentences for some crimes or crimi11als (see A rt. 136 P.C.E.)� · · Should legislators establish · a m ax im um penalt Y f or each cr1me? A m1n1mum · . . pena ItY?· Wlia t are tile impl1cat1ons of tl1 e positions that you assum e? Do your ans ers tO t Iiese _qt1estio11s depend upo11 tl1e goals that you wi�h to � Wl1at solutions 1m1Jleme nt. l1ave be en adopted by tl1e pc . .E? .. Prohlein

. As a legislator, )7 0ll ar e as�ed _to state your opinion witl1 respect to the pu111sl1!11e1_1t_ that sl1C?t1ld be leg1slat1vely prescribed for the following offenses 111 Etl11op1a. defamat1011, rarJe a11d autornobile tl,eft. . Set out tl,e pri11ciples upon wl1icl1 you mad e tl1 e above decisions botl1 w1tl1 respect to t_he form of pe11 alty (i.e., maximum-minimurn) and the dif ferences 1n penalties among tl1e tl1re e offenses. . Fi11ally, state }'Our reaso11s for �upporting. or rejecti11g a system of basing p�n1sl1me11t 011 tl1e 11ature of t!1e crime committed. If you reject such a syster11, . al tl1e discuss ter11at1ves tl1at m1gl1t be available to the legislator.

.I ... ...

I• •

I I '

SECTION 8.

THE JUDICIAL iNDIVIDfJAlBZATION OIF !PiJ�JHS��r�1�1Ef\lT

a. The Role of the fttdge THE INDIVIDUALIZATION Of f->UNISI-ll\'1ENT7

Ra; rnond Salcilles 1

1jpes of indi·vidualizatio11 . ...On \v'l1at basis sl1all tl1e i11dividualization of punisl1n1e11 t proc eed? Tl1is questio,,, in turn, implied a seconcl, closely allied to it: By wl,om shall tl1e individualizatio11 of punisl1ment be 111ade? Shall it be done in adva11ce by the law? If so, it (Jroceeds upon presumption, in ig11orance of tl1e individuals concerned, and upo11 the judgm ent of the m through their �ctio11s.It groups them accordi11g to prescribed classes, and undertakes approx imately to set the pun isl1ment and to adjust it to the individual crimi11al.This would be a system of legal i11divid t1alizatio11. On the other hand, the judge is confro11ted not by an abstract and name !ess individu al, but by an actual criminal consci_ous of his crime an� its signif ttance. Shall the judge then undertake the adJustment of the punishment to the measure of surviving morality still av�i!abl_e �o� ref?r� and moral rein . statement? This would be a system of Jud1c1al 1nd1v1dual1zat1on. n � n_ iso to th pr tio za c1:Ii du vi di in e th e av le d an ll Or shall w e go farther sti authorities, on the ground tl,at they can observe the prtson_er 1n conf1nemen�, �arefully adjust the punisl,ment to th e �rogress made, �n.d 1_n du e course om!t tt when they consider th e reform established and rehab�l�tat1on secure?_ for 1t m�y . be found that the judge is no t in a. favorable P?Stlton to appreciate _the cr1m1nal, because he knows nothing of htm but the single fact of the crime 1

7•

Saleilles, The Jndivid,u/ization of Punish,mnt 12�13 (Jastrow translation, 1911 ).

I ; I j ," . .I .. I .'.. :

I .•

I.·

I; '

. '. '

: . ..

.. . ·�

.. . ... ,' .. ·..

320

THE SENTENCl�4G PROCESS

committed; and tl1ot1gh he kno\VS tl1is with all its accompanyi11g �ircumstances, 1,e has not tlie basis for anticipati11g tlie [Jrobable effect of punishment. Tliis would be a system of adn1inistrative individualizati 011. Queries and Objectioris: the Schools: Stt� h are tl1e i!71P?rtant i�st1e_s; yet ther� is anotlier 1nore importa11t tl1an sucli qt1est1011 of appl1cat1on, which 1s beset \X11t11 co11scientious dot1bts. Tl1e classic co11ception sets fortl1 a11 important trutl1, or to speal< more acct1rately, two trt1tlis, wl1icl1 sl1ot1l d. be clearly _gr�sped. The first is that iii itself and i11depende11tly of t l1e personality of the cr1m1nal the evil dorie carries a11 actual injury to the commu11ity wl1icl1 is the victim of the cri111e. Tl1is injury, quite a1Jart from an ex1Jiatio11 in any religiO\IS or pl1iloso_phical sense, reqt1ires a satisfactio11 de1nanded by tlie public consc1�11ce. I:'1ow 1f tl1e co11sideration of tlie i11dividual prevails above tlie reparat1011, will 11ot tl1e policy e11cot1rage otl1ers to co11tinue in a cri111inal career? Arid for society, \xrill this riot produce a moral disorder wl1icl1, like a co11tagiot1s disease, tends to s1Jread? An additio11al quer)' or objection apJJlies; namely, tl,e difficul ty of of abstract math em a divesting the ordir1ary co11ception of justice from a kind 1 tical equality. Accordingly, if two i11dividt1als receive clifferent punisl1me1its for tl1e sa11ie offe11se or are differe1it ly treated, it \XlOL1ld seem as tl1ough equity l1ad bee1.1 disregarded, a11cl that ca[Jrice liad re1Jlaced justice. Ho\v sl1all tl1ese exacti11g requirements de1na11ded by society be reconciled to the equally ir1dispensable r1ecessity of taking accot1nt of tl1e i11dividual? Ho\v sl1all tliey be reco11ciled to the like reqt1iren1ents of proportioning tl1e jJL111isliment, not to tl1e objective crime committed or to the material injury do11e, but to tl1e inhere11t cri1ninality of tl1e criminal, to such latent or real criminality as makes him dangerot1s to his fello\vmen? How, in brief, sl1all tl 1ey be adjusted to tl1e degree of morality, or if \xre 111ay say so, of norrna lil)', a11d to tl1e prospects of regeneration wl1icl1 it l1olds ot1t? St1cti are tl1e several asrJects of tl1is ver)' large problem of the i11ciiviclualizatio11 of pu11isl1ment.

•

r r I

�

.�

TI-IE PERSPECTIVE Of TI-IE COURTS 8 Her1ry Hart •

I ;

•

A judgme11t of conviction l1aving been entered tlie trial jt1dge 1nust next face tl1e l1arsl1 realities of i1npositio11 of se11tence. ' If wha� has be�n said is corr�ct,. tlie jt1�ge, i11 doi11g tl1is, should be guided by two main, _and interrelated, ob1e�t1ves. f�rst, is tl1e overridi11g 11ecessity of a sentence wli1ch, tal<en togetl1er with the Judgme11t of convictio11 itself, ade q�ately expresses tl1� commu11ity_'s view of tl1e gravity of tl,e defendant's m1sco11�uct. Seco_nd, 1s tl 1� necessity of a sente11ce wl,ich will be as favorable a.s possible, co11s1s�ently w1tl1 tl1e first objective, to tl,e defei,dant's rel1abilita t1?11 _ as a respo11s1ble_ and ft1nctio11i11g member of 11is coinn,unity. The first . tl1e interests of �l1e. c.ommt1nity; but it does 110t ignore _the �1ect1ve stresses 1�terests o!. the defendant as a11 1nd1v1dual, si11ce }1is rehabilitatio11 requires y unit comm �1s recogn1t1on of commu11ity . i11terests a11d of tl1e obligatioi,s of !tfe. Tl1e se:ond stresses the interests of the defendant as an individual; b ut !t does not 1gnor�_ thos� o� tl1e co�munity, since tl,e community is interest�ind 1n the d�fen_dant s realization of 111s potentialities as a 1,uman being and the co11tnbut1ons he can make to community life. 8.

Hart, The Aims of the Criminal �aw, 23 Law and Contemporary Problems 437-438 (1958); se� ibid. at �P· 438-440 for further suggestions concerning the role of the J·udge in tll e individualizac1on of pun1sl1ment.

THE JUDICIAL

321

ROLE

The co!11munity's condemnation ?f tl1e defendant's co11duct can be expressed in four main ways: first, by the leg1slaJure's prior grading a11d cl1aracterization, ir1 ge1?er 3:l te��s, of tl1e offe11s� of wl11ch lie l1as_ bee11 fou11d guilty; second, by tl1e tria) Judge s formal ex1Jress1?n o_f conden111at1on of tl1e particular co11dt1ct, taking into accou11t all tl,e special c1rct11nsta11ces of it; t/1ird, by a deter1nina tion t�at �1,e defe1�da11t sl1all be �t1lnerable to u11pleasa11t co11sequences in the fi,t,,re tf hts be11av1or _the�eafter fails to confor1n to prescribecl conditio11s; and, Jorert!J, by a determ1nat1011 tl1at tl1e defe11da11t sl1all presently a11d forthwith i1r1dergo u11pleasant cor1seqt1ences, st1cl1 as fi11e or ir111Jriso11ment. Under moder11 statt1tes, tl1e judge's exercise of discretio11 in se11te11ci11g will co11sist largely of cl1oices abotit the use to be made of tl,e tl'1ird a11d fot1rtl1 forms of condetn 11a tio11. T�is paJ)er will_ 11ot atte1n pt a detailed analysis of the jt1dge's pioble1ns i11 mal(111g tl1ese cl101ces, bt1t a fe,v broad suggestio11s i11 Ii11e \vitl1 tl1e genera.I tl1esis of tl1e paper 111a)' be aJJpropriately made. 1. It is first to be obser\1 ecl tl1at tl1e best possibilities of a11 in1agi11ati,;e a11d effective reco11ciliatio11 of tl1e co1nrnunity's i11terests a11d tl1e i11di 1idt1.al's i11 fixi11g ser1te11ces will lie ordi11arily i11 tl1e t1se of tl1e tl1ird of ti1e forrns of condem11atio11 just descril)ed. To declare tl1ai tl1e defe11cla11t is to be ,,u}nerable to future pt1r1ish1ne11t ca11 be, i11 itself, a11 i1n1)ressi\re expression of tl1e con1_.. mu11ity's 1noral clisa1JJJroval. At ll1e sa111e tiine, tl1e co11clitio11al st1SJ)e11sion of tl1e pu11isl1111e11t, ,,,11etl1er it be a fi11e or terrn of i111prisor1111e11t, cc1.r1 !Jrovicle a11 e11viro11ment favor,:1ble to rel1abilitatio111 boll1 by co11,1eyii1g lo tl1e dcfei1clai1t a se11se of tl1e co1nrnL111ity's co11fide11ce ir1 l1is alJility to live reSJJOi1sibly· ai,cI by giving l1irn a srJeci_al i11ce11tiye to d.o so. It ,x1 ol1l� see111. to fol}�"' �l1;.i_t � susrJended se11te11ce w1tl1 1Jrobat1oit sl1011ld lJe tl1e IJrererreci ror,11 oi· trear·,1·1e11t 1 to he chosen alwa}'S unless tl1e circt11nsta11ces (Jlainly ca.II for great,::r sev�rity,

L:. . .

'j . .

•

• •

•

b. The Dete,·rninatio12 of Se,ite1ice

I I

•

PENAL CODE Of ETI-IIOPIA9 Art. 85. - Principle. Tl1e penalties at1d otl1er n:i�asttres _provided by this Code _must. be applied ii, accordance witl1 tl1e sp1r1t of tl11s Code and so as to achieve tne purpose it l1as in view (Art. I). They sliall always be in keepi11g with the respect due to human dignity.

I I.

Art. 86. Calculation of Se11tence. y t i_ rm nfo in res co asu me �r oth d an s ltie na pe e th ne mi ter de The Court shall ial d ec an sp the de s Co tl11 of rt. Pa ra! ne Ge tl1e of s on with tl,e provisi provisions defi11i11g offences an d the1r punishments. f d du in e �l o ivi e gr de e h to t_ � in rd co ac ed in m ter de be . The penalty shall f en f d 1 , o h �s 1e er t o f y or 1t1 os sp d1 s ?u er ng da e th t un co ac , ilt gu taking into cumstances and hi· s . ant ecedents, mot 1ve and purpose' his pers· o11al cir . offence and tl1e cir1s f h o ity av gr e tl1 standard of education, as well as cumstances of its commission.

! ;.

· · 93 (mitigaJ 3-1 18 -84 79 u. . • A r , .E. P.C see s, ult . ad ing nc rne � or therange of JUd1c1al alternarrves 1-!1 � I shments) 127 (secondary puni 120. s n A ) , ts en . h m s n1 pu . a 1p nc r1 d (p t10n an aggravation . bl e to 1rrcspons1'bl'e - 119 . ) , Arts. 88 lica app es asur {me . 137 ) 133_ . ts A A s. 128-132 (measures applrcable to reci. d"1vis n probation). and ce ten sen d nde spe (su 05 ) �2 '19 A . rts persons), Arts. 138-160 {general measures ,

i I'

. .l

I ', �. I, -

r. ." ·-. . , . , .,. r : :. � : ! ·•. ... .. '·' .. •• 4 •

' .. . .. . .

THE SENTENCING PROCESS

322

CAPTAIN KASSAYE LEMMA v. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Supreme Imperial Court, Criminal Appeal No. 350/53 (1961 G.C.) Ethiopia

Tekempt 8, 1954 E.C. (October 19, 1961 0.C.); .J�stices: Vi� e Afenegus Abeje Debalk, Dr. W. Buhagiar, Ato Bekele Habte M1cnael: - This appeal is brought by the appellant who has bee11 charged and sen�en� ed by the High Court pursuant to Article 641 of the Penal Code of. Ethiopia_ for breach of trust in the sum of $7,471.35, which sum was lost while appellant was working as Chief Casl1 ier for the Central Prison Department. Judgment has been ren dered agai11st appellant due to l1is own confession. •

• •

•

... The punishment prescribed under Article 641 is simple imprisonment from ten days to three years and in serious cases, rigorous imprisonment up to five years. In this case the offenct·er l1as committed his first crime; full punishment was, however, inflicted by the lo\ver court1 The appellant has not bee11 a proble1n a11d ha.s confessed to the crime of his own free will; moreover, we are of the OJJinion that, due to the youth of the appellant, punishment can meet the required rehabilitative ends.Lastly, this Court feels that since punish ment is to deter as well as to prevent tl1 e criminal from committing such acts in tl1e future, the appellant, bei11g a member of the Police force has suf fered loss of reputation. We, therefore, reduce the punishment rendered by tl1e High Court, wl1ich had sentenced the appella11t to five years, to three years. Vile also order that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Higl1 Court.

WOZ. DESTA BERHE v. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Supreme Imperial Court, Criminal Appeal No. 68/54 (1962 G.C.) Etl1iopia

I I ' I

·I

Tal1sas 27, 1954 E.C. (January 6, 1962 O.C.); Justices: Afenegus Taddesse Mengesha, Dr. W. Buhagiar, Ato Hero11i Tebebu: - The appellant was charged in tl1e High Court: (a) with_ ":n offence Linder Article 656 of tl1e Penal Code that is with obta1n1ng from Ato Gila .Michael tl1e sum of E$300 througl1 ; maid se rva11t, 1 a letter i11 the name of Woizero Abeba w1tl sent sl1e �horn _ Ktfle Egz1. (b) with an attemrJted offence under tl1e same article to obtain from H.E. Abebe Retta tl1e sum of E$600 after a telephone conversation in whic h tl1 e appellant represented l1 erself to be Woizero Abeba Kifle Egzi. The Higl1 Court found_ tl1e appellan� guilty of the sai d offences, convicted _ her an� _ sentence� lier t ? e1g:ht months imprisonment on the first charge, with an additional. period . of 1n:ipr1sonment of four months, under Article 189 of the Penal �ode, 1n con. s1derat1on _ of tl1e concurrent offence included in tlie sec ond charge, furthe:mor_e, tl1 e H1�l1 Court imposed a fine of E$300 convertible to three months 1�pr1sonment 1n default of payment of su cl1 f'tne.This is an appeal fr�m that Judgment of the High Court.. .. As regards mitigation under Article 184 of the Penal Code the advocate for the appellant argued that the offence under Article od e C al Pe n 656 of the

THE JUDICIAL ROLE

323

is punishable with _simple �mpriso�ment and, therefore, ..under Article 184(f) could be converted into a fin�. This �ourt cannot accept this argument (a) because tl1e offence _ under �rticl� 656 1s punisl1able, according to the gravity of tl1e case, with rigorous 1mpr1sonment and fine and not only with simple imprisonment, and (_b) because the provisions of Article 184 can apply only wl1ere tl1e law prov1�es that the Court may mitigate the penalty· now the provisions of law whi�l1 lay . down in what circumsta11ces the Court :Uay r�duce the penalty are tl1ose 111 _A�t1cle 79 of tl1e Penal Code, a11d tl1e advocate for the aJJpellar1t l1as not satisfied tl1e Court tl1at a11y of tl1e circumstances therein mentio11ed apply to tl1e present aJ)JJellar,t. �s regards t�e _st1spe11s_ion of the se11le11ce tl1e advocate for the appellant submitted t�at tl11s ts �11� first of fe11ce of tl1e arJpellant, tl1at sl1e is married and l1as four ch1l_dr�11 rece!v111g edttcation; he also submitted that the new Penal �ode of Etl11op1a l?�s 1 !1trod11ced a 11ew concept and is inspired by the prin c1pl�s ?f tl1e rel1ab1l1ta t1011 of tl1e offender and not 011ly by the pri11ciples of pu111sh1ng the offe11der to prevent and suppress crime. for these reasons }1e prayed tl1at tl1e se11ter1ce of i mpriso11ment be suspended under the provisions of Articles 194 et. seq. of tl1e Penal Code. In retJly tl1e Public Prosecutor supported tl1e se11tence of the High Court a11d submitted tl,at tl1e se11tence was rather le11ient. This C�t1rt cannot of course co11do11e tl1e offe11ces coin 1nitted by tl1e ap peJlant, particularly \vher1 she is a perso11 of a certain social stc:i.ndi11g, o'f fin:.:i.nu cial 1nea11s and of a certain edttcation a11d intelligence; but tl1e 1Jrosec11tion t1as 1 i11 tl1e opinio11 of tl1is Court, tal,er1 too serious a vie\v of sucl1 offe11ces; inc.leecl, the Public Prosecutor in tl1e Higl1 Cot1rt l1as gone so far as lei cle1nancl ti1e maximum punishment prescribed by Article 656, tl1at is, five )'ears irn prisonn-ient. It sl1ould be considered, l1owever, tl1at tl1e an101111t the appellant obtair1ed 11.r1der tl1e first cl1arge \vas E$300, wl1ile tinder tl1e second cl1a rge tl1e off er1ce �v<1s only an atte1n pted 011e. As can be see11 fro1n tl1e n1anner i 11 \Y.1l1icl1 tl1e cl1J.rge is drafted (wh icl1 contai11s matters ,vl1icl1 do not co11cer11 tl,e substa11ce of tl1e cI-iarge) the prosecution l1as bee11 i11flt1e11ced by extraneous circumsta11ces \Vl1ich are completely outside tl1e scope of tl1e charge agai11st the a1Jpella11 t. Stich ciiu cumstances ca11not be taken into co11sideration by a Court in determining the degree of 1)unisl1men�. Substa11tialJy the appellant has been found guilty of fraudulent representation and tl1us obtai11i11g E$300 and attempting to obtain E$600. Taking tl1e circumstances of this case into consideratio�, particularly. tl1e fact that this is tl1e first conviction of t.he appellant, that sl1e, being a woman :"'7It_h a· family and of a certain social standing, will be deterred from tht: com�1ss1o_n of another offence after the experience of th� ordeal of the pre�ent tnaI,. this Court considers that t}1 e co11ditional suspension of the penalty . ts m�re l!kely to induce the reform and th e reinstatement of appellant than a period of 1mpr1son ment. This Court therefore while confirming the sentence of the High Court orders that �uch sente;ce, as regards the imprisonment for a peri?� of 4 and 8 montl1 s be suspended for a period of two years under the prov1s1ons of Article 196 dt the Penal Code. e th , de l Co na _Pe th of 1 20 le tic Ar of s � In accordance with the provision _ suspension of the sentence sJ1aII be under the following cond1t1ons1 namely that th� appellant shall etiter into a formal undertaking to be of good conduct with a security for such undertaking to the extent of one thousand . dollars (ESI ! OOO), that she repay to At o Gila Michael the su� of E$300 which s�e obtained from him, such ut,dertaking and payment to be given and made not later

l l

, ' '

I I . I " '

•

I.. ' ' '' ' '

I, ,',, ' '

' :..

TliE SENTENCING

324

PROCESS

id l1e sa n hi it rio w � pe if d at th d of ne ar w is nt lla _ pe ap _ le Tl . 54 19 1 er than T n e sio sh ci ks de ea is br th of tl 1e te da e th m fro n ru to · e ar h 1c · h" w two years, ' . . o , ff th ce er o en an h s its e m m co ll e wi sh if or t uc nd co od go of be _ undertaking to d e , to an d_ th de lo en sp s su by of re he IS 1 � cl hi w ce en nt se e tli e rv se to e bl be lia 1 t to which sl1e may be liable eI m sh ni pu y an m fro t ar ap 0 ,00 the security of E$1 for the new offence committed. NOTES Disparity in Sentencing

Note l:

Rl1odesia and Nyasaland Law Journal, R.v.SeveI1ty 10 In this case an u11usual situation arose in that a more severe sentence altl1ough ir\ the view of the J-Iigh Court .a proper on�, was set aside. in part, 'X'l1ile a se11te11ce tl1at tl1e Iiigh Court considered too len1er1 t was left undisturbed. I r1 the exercise of the I-Iigh Court's revisio11 al po,x,ers under the Crimi11al Proceciure Code, tl1e lear11 ed CI1ief Justice of Nortl1ern Rhodesia called for and examined the records of t'IY10 acct1sed co11 victed in separate cases by tl1e resi dent rnagistrate at Nd.ala of clriving under tl1e i11 fluence of intoxicati11 g liquor. The facts in eacl1 case \xrere similar but the sentences were ver)' differe11t.

•

In l1is review judgme11t tl1 e lear11 ed Chief Justice thougl1 t tl1 e se11tence imposed upon tl1e African was tl1e proJJer 011e for tl1e offence co111mitted .... J stice found tl1at tl1 e circun1 sta11 ces of eacl1 case However, tl1e learned CI1ief u were so similar tl1 at he was wl1 olly at a loss to understand tl1 e distinction be tween the pu11isl1ment imposed t1pon tl1e Euro1Jean and tl1 at imposed upon tl1e Africa11. 111 his view the African was, if anything, entitled to be dealt with 111ore le11 iently as l1e was a man i11 em1Jloyme11 t \vitl1 de1Je11dants, lie was by profession a driver a11 d had been drivi11 g witl1 out co11 viction for twenty-six years.These mitigating· factors were not present in the case of tl1e Europea11, and yet tl1e European was dealt witl1 mt1cl1 more lenie11tly. . .. ...Tl1e disparity was so ,xride as to raise tl,e infere11ce tl1 at the 1nagistrate acted ttpon a wro11 g fJrinciple, a11 d a co111parison of tl1e severe with tl1e lighter sentence could only give rise to a sense of i11justice in the public mi1 1d.

l'J!-1

""""'

'I I ' 'I I '' I' I

The learned Cl1i�f Justice, aJJJJlyi11g the oft-quoted principle e11unciated b)' Lord Hewart �-_C.J: 111 R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 K. B. 256, 259 tl1at Jt1st1ce should not 011ly be done but should manifestly and u·ndoubtedly be see11 to be done,'' set aside four �eeks of the African accused'-s sente11 c� �11 d quasl1 ed tl1at part of tl1e magistrate's order requiring the passing of a dr1v111 g test. r� fea: t fref a It is �s well to ref!len:i�er, in these times of rapid change, that as ne do is less and Independent 1ud1c1ary can be trusted to see that justice es.. rac . . rent between man and man, wl1 ether or not those concerned are of diffe -� · " _ · -:_ s �ow It may not be inappropriate to say that in such cases as these justice s _ -��--= itself to be colour blind. 10.

Adam, Disparity in Sentences, 3 Rhodesia and Nyas.aland L. ] . 103-104 (1963).

--- - -

�

......... � -- - .-....

.. A\ • � .li:*j\<t OA,.O,

l;._•4--{DI-

..,.

J)•

·--

jf�--. _

>t -) -��

THE JUDICIAL ROLE

325

It is also wortl1 1�oting that the lear11ed Cl1ief Justice , .despt·te his · strong ece ss1t r1 y for tl1e ste rn on pt1n isl1 ment of drunken drivers, gave greater feel.i11gs . weiglit t o tl1e 11ecess1_ ·ty f or re11 1ov1ng a11y sei,se of iiijustice f rom accused )1 erso11s a11d tl1e public. Note 2: Comparative Sent�ncing Policy lv\annl1eim, Comparative Se11te11cing Practice I 1 . . . �l1e l11ter11at_io11al' _Penal a11� Pe11ite11tiary Commission, at its Nintl, ) l1a� 011 1ts progran1 tlie q ltestioi1: ''Wl,at measures Co11gress 111 Lo11�011, 111 19-?, cot1ld _be take 11, 111steacl of 1mpr1s011111e11t, witl1 regard to offenders who 1,ave co1n1n1t�ed a p�tt)',, offence or a11 offe11ce whicl1 does 110t co,,stitute a danger to pt1bl1c sect1r1ty? Tl1e ans,ver ,vas: Tl1e l10J)e i_s e_xJJressed tl�at eyer)' e11deavor \viii be made to stibstitute otl1er pe11�1lt1es tn f)lace of 11npr1sor1me11t for sl1ort tern1s. It is to be recom me11ded 11otably tl1at: 1. Tl1e syste111 of fJrobatio11 sl1ot1ld be e;{te11ded to tl1e utmost e;tte11t . 2. !l1e I?O\x·er of tl1e cot1rt to i1n1Jose fines i11stead of i1111Jrisoni11ent ,n Slt tia?le_ cases sl1ot1ld be extenclecl, a11d tl1e n1acl·1i11ery for pay me11 t ot f111es sl1011ld be develoJJed so as to elimi11ate as far as JJOssible itnJJriso11me11t i11 clefat1lt of r1ayi11ent. for l1abitt1al a11d da11gerous offe11ders a11cl 111e11tally alJno·i:-n1al JJersc)r1s, meastt�es of preve,�tive detentiort a11d si1nilar 111easL1res of sec11rity l1ad ger1erally bee11 1ntrodt1ced 111 tl1e early clecades of t11is ce11f.t1ry i.11 se·ver(1l t.ll rope,111 cot1ntries, notabl)7 Great Britai11, Nor\x,ay, Belgit1m 1 ltaly ai1d Oerrn�.r1y. Tl,e over-all te11de11cy was untnistal(able, ar1cl, to_getl1er v1itl1 t\1t ge11er,1! directives for tl1e gt1ida11ce of the co11rts i11cluded i11 several Ii1c1der11 1Jc11al codes, it \vas likely to be reflected i11 jttdicial senle1 1cing fJOlicy. It is 11ot SLir lJrisi11g, therefore, to fi11cl i11 tl1e 11atio11al statistics a decline i11 tl1e IJropori1011 of very sl1ort priso11 se11te11ces a 11d tl1eir partial replacement by fines ar1d soi.11,e form of probatio11, or s11 rsis, as ,vell as �t decrease of very lo11g fJriso11 ser1te11ces and tl,e ap1Jeara11ce of meast1res of sec11rity in tl1eir place. \X/l1at is s11r1Jrisi11g i11 view of tl1e st rengtl1 of tl1e criticism of tl1e old syste111, l10\Y1ever, is that tl1e cha11ge i11 j ttdicial IJractice l1as, i11 s0111e cottntries not bee11 1nt1cl1 more strik ing tl1an it afJIJears to l1ave been. Tl1e expla11atio11 may be, in part, that the new policy, with its new penalties and 1neast1res, has 11 ot yet . sto� d the te�t of experience, i11 tliat it }1as not yet !ed to a general red�ctton 1n the crime rates - wliicl, ma>', of course, be attributable to eve11ts �nttrely beyo11d th� powers of any fJena l system. In part, it may als� be a_ttr1butable to tl1e failure of legislators arid adn1inistrators i11 many countries to 11nplement another of tl1e resolutio11s of tl1e Lo1 1 don _Congress of 1925; Jttdicial studies sl1ould be supplemented by. crimi��logical ones. . The _ yc � ra�ry, study of criminal psycliology and sociology, forensic !11ed1c11�e and ps and penolog y, sl1 ould be obligatory fo r all wl10 w1sl1 to Judge 111 cr1m1nal cases.

! •.

' .

.. '. •

I I '

I I I,

cing practices of Aus�r�a, l 1. In 23 u.w tAnd ten c sen c ifi spe for 8); 195 Contemporttry Problems 558-559 ( Denmark, England, France, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, Wales and West Germany see 1b1d. at PP· 562-581.

I. � :. •

.•

.:... ''. " 1, · . .

. ..,..' .

'. w.-:. ..'. ...'.' '....

··.,;,.•'.

THE SENTENCING

326

PROCESS

ently to d an �n rm ly pe le so es lv se em th te v o de d ul o sh Such judg�s o rtunity fo r advancem ent pp o t en ci ffi su be d ul o sh e crimiilal law and ther in this branch. Courses of lectures should be established t o c omplete. their kno�le�ge of crimino logy. Tl1ey should l1ave a f ull kn o wledge of prisons and similar institutio11s and should visit them frequently. Tl1e judge before determinin&" tl1e p��alty should have a full know ledge of the p11ysical and psychic_ c o nditio ns and the social life of the accused and the motives for the crime. •

•

The trial ougl1t to be divided into tw o parts: in_ the first the examina tion and decisi on as to l1is guilt sl1o ul_d tak e place; _1n the second o_ne the punisl1ment shoLtld 'be discussed and fixed. from tl1is part the public and the injured part)' sho uld be exclLtded. .. . . Altl1ougl1 progress has undoubtedly been made, . . . it has been slo\ver and 1nore uneve11 tl1an expected. Many of the o ld traditions, dogmas, a11d prejudices still persist; and, in particttlar, comparatively little has been do11e in some cottntries to bring the teachings of crimin o logy and penology nearer to judges and magistrates, on whom the success of tl1e new system so largely depends, and to [)rovide adeqL1ate facilities for presentence i11vestigations.

.,,� I

,).

,l (',

l\Jote 3:

1-he Predictive Device as a Tool in Sentencing Glueck, Predictive Devices and tl1e lndividLtalizatio n of Justice12

'I , I

l J

.,' I

' .I

It is becomir1g belatedly evident to sch o lars ar1d practitioners in tl1e ad ministration of criminal justice that the m ost pervasive and complex issue is not so mttch the definition of crimes and the manner of their proof, but rather how to obtain a mote efficient and just system of se11tencing. Tl1e familiar cliche about the need to ''individualize justice'' l1ad wor11 tl1in before it was quite clear exactly wl1at individualizatio11 involves. How can a court. individualize tl1e se11te11ce? This fundame11tal question has been all too Iig:htly treated in tl1e literature, the statutes, and penologic c?n gresses. It has Just_ been assun1ed tl1at, given a pr obati on officer's investigation r�port o � tl1e part1cula� offender before l1im f o·r · sentence, the judge will! by his -learn1n� ar1d ex_per1enc�, be _able to decide the exact penal or correctional f!le�sure sµ1ted_ to _the particular perso11 undergoing sentence, as well as t�e l1m1ts o·f the t11ne the offender needs to be subjected to such treatment 1n order to reform or be re11dered 11on-dangero us. But truly t<:> ''individ�alize'' the sentence in the case of any specific _of . _ fender means,. first, to d1fferent1ate him from other offenders in pers� nal1ty,c_ c_haracter, soc_1o��ltural background,. the,)- motivations of his crime, and hts earticular potent1al1t1es fo� _reform or recidivism; and secondly, to determine_..wh1c.h,_ � _:_:: -l among a range .of pun1t1ve, corrective psychiatric and social measures, 1s beS '" '··':'"'."" suGh adapted to solve the special set of pr oblems pres�nted by that offender i�= _ t a way as materially to reduce the probability of his committing crimes -1�h e�=-·o---�.--: - clen� �f uture. When one pauses to reflect on all that this imp ev 1 lies, it becomes --�-

12. In 23 law and ContemporAry Problems 461-462, 466, 470-473 (1958).

- - - -:----:.:.--, •__--::::-.:::=--� - � - ·-- -

--------. --�-- ..._ .._ __ .., _ .......... ·--=·-·-........ ..· ----

--• • -

�--. :.:..:..�;;;;· -�..;-- .........-

.·,-.

··•-

"·r.;;;;-=;,;,.�:;.--.:-·,. • . ;:. � c -••--.....c......-

�

�:�� :-- -::· ··--·--- �� ,- ---,. - ,·:· - ------ '*':!'.;!:*..¼';:------3'f:!--�'-$;'£�� - .,.. _.:::,� =' ™ - ,.. ·::..c.�!'.. ·:.;..:;,k,.�'.· · ......... -··-_-:-_�-� ��-. - - - - - - ---

�-

- --

--...

:-,-·· - -�:::..

THE JUDICIAL ROLE

327

ly abo ut glib ''individualization'' is one ti11· ng; to b ea_k sp _ _ to that e ab le to aco e ti t an r. t 1e qu 1s 1t complish It is time, therefore, tl1at r eformers of the criminal I f c d ti e fact tl�at re the feasibility of a liable technique of i11dividt1alizatio11 �; cr� c1a1 tO, t l e ei, t ire program of scie11tific and l1umane criminal jtistice If in fact a re so i ,a b ly, sou d n \i· can no tio t be ac co m plisl1ed by tlie �;aiis at ' ii anda, tl n liz a i a i du d i � · 1en . esp d 1te er co n od f rr ect·10.11a 1 �liiloso1Jl1y, and regardl ess of t l 1e the lofty �im s � � 11, os t 1on a11 1nv d s est case l11stor1es,tl1e systein will 110 t work. 1gat elaborate co1�side�i11 g. that i11dividua1izatio11 is a very clifficult It is 110 ,vonde� tha�, _ art, the produ ct of Judtct�l d1scret1on 111 tl1e se11te 1 1ci11 g process J1as 1101 beer1 good. It reflects a certa111 gt1 ess\vork and even arbitrarir,ess · . . . o·s 1 ere t·1or1 · I y be; b tit t I1e probJetn is to provide a tecI111 ique w l iereby tl�ere �I 1ot1Id cert atn �1scret1or1 sl1al l �e a_ l l,?�ved am [Jle. cr_ea�1ve scope a11d yet be subj ected to ra tional exterr1al d1sc 1 rJl111 e or se l f-d1sc1pl111e.

Tl1is bri11gs or1e to a str!l<ing, yet usttally overloo l<ecl, as1Ject of the li istory of pe11o lo gy a11 d CC?de d�aft111g; 11a111ely, tl1at all tl1e refor1n de,,ices of the pre sent century - tl 1e Jt1ve111l e cot1rt, JJrobatio11, tl1e i11determi11ate se11tence classifi catio� \Vi_tl�in i11stitt1tio11s, JJar<? l e - depe11� for tl1eir efficie11c)' 011 tl 1e re�s011able pred1ctab1l1ty of l 1t1111a11 bel1av1or u11der given circt11nstai1ces. Vet all tl1ese for ward-loo�in� a �ditions to tl1� apparat�1s of crimi 1 1al jttstice "\:'1ere adoplecl Io11g before thts 1r1d1spe11sable basts for tl1e1r st1ccess - predictability - v.1as avai l able' and tl1ey still ig11ore or mini1nize tl1e crucial elemer1t of predictabi l ity. I

•

.. i

•

• • • •

Some A1nerica11 a11 d a fe\X' forei g11 cri11 1i110Iogists believe tl1at t11e a,1S\iYer lies in tl1e prognostic i 11strt11ne11 t k11ow11 as tl1e JJredictio11 table. 111 several fol low-up researcl1es wl1ic l 1 l1a ve checl(ed 011 tl 1e post-treat1r1e11 t careers ot v(1riot1s classes of ex-priso11ers, Dr. E l ea11or T. Oluecl( a11d t l1e \x riler l1ave co11strt1ctecl a series of JJrognostic instrume11ts wl1icl 1 tl1ey believe give reaso11able J)f<)111ise of ttltimately bringing about better sente1 1ci11g practices and trealmer1t results than are ac l 1ieved at present .... In tl1 eir first st11dy, 500 Criminal Careers [ 1930}, 13 •tl1ey tl1orot1gl1ly ir1vesti gated the pre-institutio11al life J1istories of 500 forn1er 1 1 1 mates of tl1e Jvlassachu s�tts Reformat ory for you11g adult felo11s duri11g a five-year JJ_Ost1Jarole ''t�st pe riod" following tl1eir discl1arge from t l 1at institt1tio11.S01ne fift y factors_ 1r1 tl1e constittttion, socia l backgrour,d, a11d bel1avior o f t l1ese offe11ders, fro1n c l 11 l dl1ood throug h the parole and JJostparoJe [ Jeriods, ,v�re e�plored and ar1alyzed. By �eans . of corre l ation tables, t l 1e degree of rel at1011sl 1!p be t\vee11 eacl1 of tliese bi?log1c and social factors a11d tl1e postparole �ehav1or of tl1e m�n \�as_ deter !""lned . To give one example1 it, respect to tl1e1r JJrereformatory 1ndt1str1al l1ab its, the me11 were su bc l assified i11to ''good worker," ''fair \vorker," �n� ''poor wo:k er.'' By correlati 11g eacl1 of tl1ese i11dustrial categories witl1 tl1e cr1111 1 11al bel,avior of the men duri11g tl1e five-yea r test period,it_ �as fou11 d_ t-1,at of tl,e good work ers,_ forty-tl1 ree (Jer cent contint1ed to co1n1n1t crimes �L1r111g tl,e fJ0stParole teSl period; among t l1e fair workers fifly-nine per ce11t rectdivated; arid of tli e 1�? 0.r fai ll ca � e \V es f tag �n rc Je o se f 1e Tl e c. w s, sti ali i11 im r cr si t e ht r nt pe eig ce yx rk w o es ss la bc st1 nt lure-scrores,'' becaus re ffe e di tl1 of p n e they indicate tl1e pro ortio 1

4 ), }'1U·..,p·e 93 1 ( ts uen lin De e nil lJ. Othe r later ve Ju G d 9 works by S · and E · T · Glueck include: One Tho1tsan / nts ro-wn ,e q1 1n e D e il en uv J ) 37 ' 19 ( Hund:red Det·nquent Women (1934), Later CrtmJ ers . ·n.tl Care · � '11 ers (1945) and Unnd 1 lfe _ Q d t arg sclJ Di (t94�). Crlmznal Careers in Retrospect (1943), After-Conduct of ra-utl,ng )u'IJenil� Delinquency (1'950).

'·'

I' -·' '

I I

�. . -

. ..

.. .. .

I . . .' . '

. '. ' ' .

I •• :

i ··..':-.. '.•.: .. ..• 1 , ........ . ...... ;

. .........

� .' .,.·.' , :' '

THE SENTENCING

328

PROCESS

men \vho failed to reform1 considered from tl1e point of view of their status in res1Ject to such a factor as prereformatory industrial habits. Similar· correlations were establisl1ed between each of the fifty biologic and socio1ogic factors, on the 011e h3:nd, and the act�al postparole behavior, on the other with the result tl1at many factors were found to bear very little relation to r�cidivism, while s01ne sl1owed a very high association therewith. In addition to indt1strial l1abits preceding entrance to the reformatory, the fol lowing five factors, among those of greatest relatio11sl1i_p to_ postparole co11duct, v1ere then employed i11 tl1e constrt1ction of a table which Judges could use in the senter1cing of offenders; (1) seriousness and frequency of prereformatory crime; (2) arrest for crimes preceding the offense for wht�h .sentence to the· reformatory l1ad been imposed; (3) penal exp_erience preceding reformator)' in carceration; (4) eco11omic responsibility JJreceding sentence to the reformator)', a11d (5) 1ne11tal ab11or1nality. . '

,�

., ,t :I"{ , ll

r·

� �

•

• •

•

Si11ce this first table was pt1blisl1ed, Dr. E. T. Glueck and tl1e writer have improved a11d refined many jJredictive i11struments and have prepared them for eacI-1 of tl1e existi11g ty1Jes of correction - e.g., fJrobatio�1 \vith a11d without sus J)ended sentence, jail, industrial school, refor1nator)', JJriso11, and parole - for p?·edictir1g varied response when offenders reacl1 different ages, and for suc cess or failttre during a fifteen-year follow-up span. By const1lting a batter)' of tables coveri11g all available for1ns of peno-correctio11al treatment, a judge could bring to bear on tl1e i11stant case the added ligl1t of syste1natized ar1d objecti fied exJJerience, glea11ed from ht1ndreds of prior cases, reaardi11g tl1e bel1avioral 0 pote11tialities of the individual before l1im for sentence.

I I�

'r,.

Questions 1.

Wh�t �s the role JJlayed by tl1e judge i11 tl1e sente11cing process under the Etl11op1a11 Penal �ode? Wl1y has the judge been allocated such a role? What tools has a Judge under the Penal Coct-e to i11dividualize punisl1ment?

Do you feel tl1a_t a_ �aw-t�ain_ed j t1dge is tl1e best perso11 to establish a penalty? Sl1ould 1nd1v1dt1al1zat1on be sl1ifted to some exte11t to correctional authorities? Would tl1e totally i11deter1ni11ate sentence effect sucl1 a sl1ift?

:X'hat ptir_poses or valt1es sl1ot1ld underlie tl1e determination of a sentence I� Et�1op1a? . Re-re�d. Chap. 2, pp. 14-31 supra. What criteria may be applied b_y a Judg_e 1n fu!f1ll1ng tl1e valt1es e11umerated above? Should tl1ese crite ria be we1gl1ted 111 accordance with those values?

Is the in�ividualization _ of a sentence more important than uniformit ¥ in s�ntetices. Why do disparate sentences for the same or similar crimes �1sturb our sense of justice? Does Art. 4 P.C.E. allow for individt1aliza t1or1 of se11tences? e th 5. Were the_ criteria up nce n d wh ich the su· sen p te rem � e Im perial Court _ offender tn �he c;aptain · Kassaye case proper? What purposes did the court stress as be�ng important to its sentence? Would you have meted out the same sentence to the defendant u11der Art. 86? . ay an ap�eal �e t�ken from sentence in Etl1iopia? Should an ap-pellate 6. . M court substitute its Judgment as to sentence for that of the lower cou. rt -�

---.

. ·... ··� ' .. .

;

- -· ·

!...;'. .-

•J .......,_.__.__ _______ ._.........

• . Pf ...:Z:

��":'-:r �· . �

THE JUDICIAL ROLE

329

a p pellate cour� est�blish grave error an ul d sh o or in th e se n tence o f the e n for rtur e b ove ing rt cou 1t? r lowe gr� e ·w �th Ht ; (p . 3 2 l ) an d The Internatio a u o D y o � 11 al 1. P en al a1 1d P en iten ( ) p s1 o omm is t h a th t e su sp e n tiary C ded sentence together witl1 proba · . tior1 sl1ould be the preferre� f or111 _o f treatment? Wot,ld sucli a dispos it io n t! se pu nd s rp er o l): ln f{ th e pu ul fi ll 111sl1me11t? \Vl,en m ay th e judge ap pl y a ce se tr, 11t en E t� en 10 de 1)1 d a? W 3usp l·1at oll1er alter11atives aside fr om t· rn e so nm ar e en a t va ila im bl e pr i to and a judge in Ei:hiopia? s. Were tl1e cr iteria11pon \�l1icl1 tl1 e Stt1Jre1ne In1perial Court suspen de d th e W oz 0 s e . t a pr of ce er ? sente11 For . \Vl1at reasons did the court suspend �� sentence? \Y ere tl1e �011d1t1011s \V!l !cl1. ,v�re _eslablisl,ecl for tl1e iJroba tionary period cor1duc1ve to rel1ab1l1tat1onl D1ci tl1e cot1rt co11sider deter re11ce? Wl1at was tl1e l1oldi11g of the cottrt witl-1 respect to miti9"atino circt1mslance s? Do yot1 agr ee witl1 tl1e court's dispositio11 in this c case? 9. rlo\v' does a . jud� e provide . l1imself \vitl1 the i11for n1ation necessary to arrive at a11 111tell1ge11t a11d Jt1st se 11te11ce t111der the criteria e11L1n1erate(l in Art. 86? \Vl1icl1 grottp or i1 1stitution cot1ld 1n ost acctlrately ancl con·· ve11ie11tly provide tl1is i11formation? Wl1at s11ould be i11clt1c.lecl i11 such a re1Jort? 10. Is the work of tl1e GI t1eclcs and otl1ers in crec1.ti11g progr1ostic cle,,ict=:s l1elJJful in arrivi11g at a ser1 tence? Coulcl s11cl1 t�tbles be cle,:elc;p,�cl i11 Etl1iopia? \Vhat otl1er types of researcl1 1nigl1t bi: l1elpft1I to tl11.� se11tf:r1cing pr ocess?

...

I .;

. .. '

Attempt, as carefully as possible, to arri•ie at a se11ter1ce f�r tl1·c l1.y j?L1tl1e-· tical cases of X a11d V b}r applyi11g tl1e criteri,1 t:�11tt!11eraiec� 111 .t\.rt .. t\[) ;1r1d keeping in mind the broader fra1neworl< of tl1e j)l.tr1)oses. of serrte1.1cl11f]; a11cl punishment. In decidi 11 g upo11 a se11te11ce you sho11ld co11s1cler: a. What alter 11atives are available to yott t111der tl·1e F1 .C.E. b. Each criterion esta blis hed i11 ft..rt. 86 in ligl1t of the i11formatio 11 9.,,ail able co11cerni11g tl1e defe11da11t. c. Whether all cri teria should be gi·ve11 eq11al \veigl1 t. d. W ha t further i11fo1 111atio11 co 11c er ni11g tl1e defe1 1dants 15 necessary IO arrive at an inforn1ed sentence. e. Tc, wl1at extent your ow n perso11al opi11ions and pr ejttdices play a part in your se11 tence. •

•

The Case of Ato ''X'' er d ur m of d te ic nv co ,d ai d e . Ato X, forty-seven years olcl, has been char� . . .. rd o rec in tl1e second 1 na n11 cr1 us vio pre ) no ( degree Art. 523 . He has _

On the night of Sen e 12, 1954 �. C A t 0 x w en t to drink \V1th friends at -, q t ie t1 f o . a � Il know11 rs u o h l ra ve se er ft A Addis Ababa. 1n ee coff se l1ou w h t at J u ro g e th c atting, a d e in -o d n a oor d 1 certain Ato Q came in through the

•·

..-

' : .

. .... ..

: ... : .I '; •• . I l ..

l. . ....

.!.. .r,:� , I' ' I /• ' . .' .'.. ' ': ' ,·.. .

...

.. . .....•.·�.... �. .... . ('

330

THE SENTENCING PROCESS

� pe o l_ n ve sio de us sc e di nt ce d ate he a ring tes nu mi l ra ve se ter Af le. tab s Ato X' e sit po on op es sid re we of the o Q A� d an X o At cs. liti po al on ati about intern ? X o At X, At at s s�emed to ult ins l era sev d rle l1u o Q At argumei,t and after lose his 1,ead, jumped up from the table an d st�bbed Q th:ee times with a cake . tal s spi wa It ho o the rep in y da rted xt ne the d die Q le. tab the 1 01 ng ki,ife lyi of s 4 cup ed coffee each sum con l1ad t sen pre ers oth the l1 \vit that X along flavored with a bit of Irish Whiskey. Tl1 e testimony of the psychiatric expert at the trial concerning his exam ination of Ato X revealed tl1e follo,ving:

1. Ato X has no previot1s history of mental disturbance. 2. He could not be said to fall witl1in tl1e Arts. 48 or 49 meaning of irresponsibility. 3. He seems to suffer from poor impulse control and is easily irritated, but in other respects seems 1o be normal.

4. Tl1ere is no evide11 ce of organic patl1 ology. Tl1e Police Report concer11ing Ato X states that l1e was bor11 near Oondar of a 1niddle i11come family. His fatl1er is a farmer and still livi11g. His motlier is no\v dead but was divorced from l1is fatl1 er wl1 e11 X was still a young boy. X's father ren1 arried, but X . never got along well with l1is stepmother. X at te11 ded primary a11d seco11 dary scl1ool until tl1e tenth grade in Oondar while he hel1Jed 11is father with tl1 eir land. X's fatl1 er states that X was always a ''good boy'' a11d ca11not imagine l1ow st1cl1 a tl1ing could l1ave l1appened. At tl1e age of sixteen, X came to Addis to live witl1 a11 t1ncle a11d finished secondary scl1ool. After scl,ool, X obtai11ed a clerk's fJOsition witl1 tl1e local brancl1 of an insura11ce compa11y. He tl1e11 worked for a fe\v years witl1 the govern111 ent, but returned to tl1 e insurar1ce company wl1ere he l1eld a low exec ttt1\'e positio11 at the time of the stabbing.

' I '

I i I '

X 11 ever married, but l1is friends report tl1at he al\vays enjoyed the company of _wome11 and seem�� to be quite 1101·mal i11 this respect. X had a number of friends who all test1f1ed to l1is good cl1 aracter and l1011esty. They stz.ted tl1at l1e spent most �f his leisure ti1ne talking wit!, friends and riding l1orses at Ja11 hoy Meda, wl1 1cl1 was a special l1obby of his. Mr. A, X's superior at !lie i11 s11rar1_ce con1pa11y, reported tl1at he liked X very mucl1 a11d 11 ever. noticed a11ytl1111g JJarticularly unusual about him. He stated tl1at X dema11ded good work fro1n tl1ose below him atid }1ad several times lost his temper witl1 incompetent subordinates. He said, however, tl1at X l1ad always do11e a good job a11d tl1 ere was no reason to suspect that he might commit such a crin1e. _ �'s �onduct i11 I?rison aw�itir�g trial, i11 the }1ospital during his psychia�ric exam111 at1on and during the trial itself seemed repentive. He was quiet, with drawn _ and ev�n moody.. I1e �id :1ot seem to really understand what was l1appen1ng to htn:t and test1f1ed 1n his own defense on the witness stand that he could not believe tl1at l1e had really stabbed Q. The Case of Ato ''Y'' r rd � mu Ato Y is twenty-11ine years old and has been charged and convicted of

THE JUDICIAL ROLE

331

de�ree (Art. 523). He has be en co11victed nd se co e th on in ce be fo re in , 19 52 of cr: im pe e tty tl1 e �heft tA�t. 806) a11d sentenced to 10 days in E.C., for ha ve qtteSitoned hi m thereafter several tim po lic e !l !e n. _ o pris es concerning his act1v1t1es. for a number , of years Y l1as bel'ieved tl1at T was J1is enemy. T's father had lost land to Y 5 fattier ma ny years ago, and T 11ad stated several times that Y l1ad ''�etter be careft1l.'' Y al_ways avoided T if possible, and there had tl1e 111gl1t o� Vel<ati_t 22, 1954 E.C., Y was leaving b�e n 110 prev1ot1s trouble. 111s l1<)t1se, a small l1ouse \� 1tl1 C01!J[JOt111d 111 Aclci1s f\baba, \Vl1e11 a ma11 spoke to V from the sl1adows at tl1_e side of tl1e compottnd. Y's zeban -va was not aroL111d, and Y was. ratl1er fr1gl1tc11ed. T ide11tified l1i111self and said tl1at he had co�e to_ talk w1t,t1 Y.. Y st1_dde11l)' picl<ed ttJJ a sticl< lyi;,g nearby a11d hit in the dlrect1011 of T s voice \V1tl1 4 strol\es, one of \vl1icl1 l1it T on the heacl. T toppled forw:ard bleecli11g �rorn tl1e l1ead. Y ra11 for 11elJJ, but wl1e11 l1e ret11rn ed aboLtt 10 1n111t1tes later \v1tl1 a doctor, T \vas deacl. V later testified at tl1e trial tl1at lie l1ad bee11 very frigl1le11ed by T a11d l1ad believed T to be arined.

...

......

: '; \ .. � ·::· �. .(, ,,... � :. ' .. ..

A f)Sycl1iatrist \X.-as co11st1lted a11d stated tl1at V, altl1ougl1 of lo\v intel lige11ce, seemecl to be a 11ormal i11dividttal. Tl1e Police Re1)ort states il1at V \xras borr1 i11 J\.ddis Ababa. I-le livecl l1is earl): years \vitl1 l1is 111otl1er a11d several sisters. J-Ie l1as 11ever l<rIO\Xifl l1is fatl,er \vl10 deserteci l1is motlier L1efore l1e \'>:-ras bor11. V got along pretty \vell \'Vitl1 l1is molller, bt1t several ti111es, \vl1e11 tl[Jset, ra11 a\vay froin l10111e 011ly to be rett1r11ed by tl1e JJolice a few· da)'S later. V l1ad a r1L1n1ber of frie11c{s so,11e oI \\'hon1 \\'ere regt1larl).- co111111itti11g crir11es. I-I� '.:vas a co11t.i11t,al t.rt1ar1t _fro�r1 scl1ool and left al togetl1er after tl1e fot1 rll1 grade. I-Ie l1acl do11e very fJOorl5/ 1 r1 school a11d al,x:ays 111ai1 1tai11ecl tl1at l1e l1aled'' it. I Iis - 111oil1er trie(J qtritc l"Jarcl to support }1er clat1gl1ters arid so11 by ,vorl(ii1g ir1 (1 local lat1r1clry, l)l1t of cot1rs:� l1ad lo be away fro1n l10111e a11d l1er cl1ildre11 ever�>' day.

' ..

- l1a� Y st11Jported l1imself after tl1e age of 14 by obt_air1i11g ?dcl jobs. I ie 11ever \'<'Orked steadily· a11d ofte11 is \•1itl1ot1t \vorl<. I-Ie 1narr1ecl �Lt tl1e age 01' 21 bt1t left I1is \'i:tife soo11 tl1ereafter. I-Ie is still legally married, l1ut cloes riot k 11�w \'(!},ere his \vife is Iivi11g. V's frie11ds a_re of lo-v{/ class �itl1 Iittle educa tion. Tliey spend a good deal of tin1e dri11l<111g·, a11d several or tl1em l1ave bee11 in JJriso11. Y's bel1avior lias bee11 good clt1ri11g trial a11d i11 tl1e f)eriod i11 priso11 awaiting trial. SECTION

G N CI EN NT SE IN LE RO E IV AT TR IS IN M D THE A

14 Y T L A N E P E Tl-IE DETERlv\INATION O f TI-I M. Frejaville and ]. C. Soyer

e tl, cl, ie fJl g in ap be is lty 11a pe e • tl1 1 1 e 1 I W T�1e Role oj LIJe Exec,,tive Aul1Jori·_ty: execu tive autl1ority may vary tl1 e 1mfJlen,e11tati oti Of tl,e . P eiial t \Vithi11 the 1 rary ac t·ion bounds establislied by t)ie juclge. Tllere is a gt1arar1 tee aga111st ar15"t 14· Freja villc and Soyer, Droit Crimintl 47-49.

.' .•. ., .

·.. .. : .' .. .-�,. . ; '.

. ..

I •••

.....x:'. .. .....· .

...•.. ..': :

•' .

• •JI.·

"J . : ..

332

THE SENTENCI��G PROCESS

e as re e tl1 nc ot i _ nn ca it is, m�xif!1�m a! _th , ity ?r th au ive ut ec ex e 1 t1 011 tlie part of s tt, ht1 r_ e. the ?c fur red n c� 1v t 1_ 1nd h 1�c wl id 11! ys. wa are � re tl1e r, ve we Ho . lty na JJe . 1 n o perates 1n many 1o zat al1 du 1v1 1nd e t1v tra n1s m1 ''ad is Th y. alt 1 1 pe t11e ualizi,ig \xrays: Administrative Individualization Throttgh Pardon: All penalties may, through ''pardon'' by the Head ?f the State, b_e r�duced or ev�n fu_Ily pardoned. This is an act of mercy a11d ts 11ot always 1nsp1red by co11s1derat1ons rela�ed to tl1e possibility of rel1 abilitation of the offen��r. Tl1e pardon may serve this purpose l1owever sucl1 as in the case of cond1t1ona] pardon, depende11t upo11 good con duct' ... or the [Jerfor1nance of certain ''re-edt1cating'' o bligations s11ch as not frequenting certain am11sement pla_ces or at!en di11g le�tures _,,on professi?11al traini11g.... Tt1 e {Jardon, l1owever, 1s often 1mb11ed with d_1fferent 1no_t1ves wl1 icl1 are of a political 11ature (collective pardo11 on tl1e occas ion of a nat1011al feast for i11 sta11ce) or ht1ma11 itarian 11 at11re (commutatio11 of a death penalty wl1icl1 l1as created a strong public OJJin io11). 15 !ld,ninistrative Individualizatiort Through the Periitentiary Systera: The exec11tive

aut11ority wi1ic11 is in cl1arg,e of tl1e execL1tion of JJenalties i11volvi11g loss of freecion1, l1as l1ere also vast po\xrer beari11 g on the ter�n of the sente11ce. It l1as at its diSJJosal a ta11gible way of calibrati11 g tl1e severity of tl1e sentence by affecti11 g tl1 e n1etl1od of executio11 \xrl1icl1 rnay perceptibly modify the judge's se11 tence. Tl1 ere is, for i11sta11 ce, a considerable difference bet\veen assig11ing a JJrisoner to a11 agricL1ltL1ral farn1 (prison witl1out bars) a11d a formal priso11, bet\vee11 grar1ting certain privileges st1cl1 as 0L1ti11gs, outside \X!Orl<, se1ni-free do1n, etc.

" l

,I�•

·�

Admi11istrative lndividualizatioJz Thro1tgh Corzditional Release: Again tl1e exec

utive a.gency l1as great power at its disJJOsal - f)ow·er beari110- 011 tl1e le11gtl1 of tl1e se11te11ce - si11ce it may reduce tl1e term of i111 1Jrisor1�e11t by 0crra11ti11g a conditio11 al release.

•

'' ', I ,

.I,

Co11 ditio11al release is tl1� _s��JJe11sior1 of a f)enalty of i11carceratior1 for good cor1 dt1ct wl1ere tl1ere are poss1b1l1t1_es of rel1abilitatio11. Tl1is prest1JJJJoses tl1 at JJart of the sentence l1as bee11 served 111 accorda11ce witl1 tl1e serious11ess of the of fense. Tl1 e _ad111i�istrati _o:1 . of the JJe11ite11tiary, follo\xri11g· a11 order of tl1e Minis try of. Jt1st1ce, [111 Etl1 101J1a tl1e CoLtrt, u1Jon reco111111er1datio11 of adrni11istrative autl1or1t1es, Art. 207 P.C.E.] may gra11t tl1e priso11er freedotn u11 cter tl1e co11dit io11 tl1 at he \xrill 11 ot ab11se it a11d tl1at l·1e \vill t1se it to reliabilitate l1imself. Tl1�1s tl1e d�cre� of co11 �itio11al release n1 ay be granted for a trial JJ eriod t!1e l1rn1t of wl11cl1 1s detern1 1r1ed ?Y. law. I t may establis11 certain special obliga t1011 s (st1cl1 as tl1at , of 11ot assoc1at!11�· w�t11 certait, persons), certain co11tr?l n1e�sL1r�s (s11cl1 as_ that of not res1d1ng 1n a f)articular district) and certa _1n obl1ga_t1011s _ of ass1 �tance (sLtch as acceptitig some sort of moral or 1nater1al g uardI ans11 1 p). . . . 1

•

1 ,,

In t�� instance of a 11 ew violation or n o11-observa11 ce of a11 obligation, _ 1t1011al release may be revoked; tlie con vict will liave to abide by tl�e tl1 e co11 d revo�a_t1011 a11d ser.ve all or JJart of tlie setitence remaini,,g at tlie time of h15 cond1t1011 al release. If, on . tl1 e contrary, 11 0 revocation 1,as i i,terve,ied, tl1e re lease, at the e11d of tl1e trial period, becomes fi11al. . . . ' · · ' h1op1a 15. See Arts. 239-241 P.C.E. for prov1's1·ons concerni·ng pardon . a11 d amnesty 111 Ee 16· See Arts. 1 12, 206-215 P.C.E. for provisions concernin g conditional release in Ethio pia.

' ., '

•,

THE ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE

333

SENTENCING BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOAR011 Norman Hayner

!Ji most jurisdictio11s o� the United States . and its_ territories, convicted 1ced by JUdge sen te1 �re s _ _ s alo11e. Tl1e tndetern1111ate-se11tence laws of 111a l crim of nu Ur1sd1ct1ons, ho\vever Jrovid mb J er g eas 1n iiic r e a spread ' I < bet ·. an w ee n m 111 · er_m t m s, u th ma us xim . giving tlieir parole boards respo11sibility for imum and determini11g tl1e actttal time a prisoner '"'ill serve. . .. • • • •

After a bloody 1934 �iot at Wasl1ington State Pei,itentiary, the state 1 l11cl1 tl1e l_ a a \X \v e1_ 1 act ed . I -Ia\'< aiia11 Bo�rd 110w regards as a inodel. latu �e legis This leg1slat1on establ1sl1ed an 1ndepe11de11t ft1I l -t1n1e Board of Prisor, Terms atld Paroles, composed of t_l1ree 111embers to be aJ)IJOi11ted for staggered six-year term s by t�e. Oo� er11or, subJect to a1)r-:roval by tl1e Senate. Witli certai11 offeiises excepted, 1t ts still tl1e dt1ty· of t l1e trial court judge to decide wlietlier he will grant probation or send a convicted offender to 1:>rison. If lie chooses tl1 e lat ter cottrse, however, lie may set 0111)' tl1e 111aximum se11te11ce \vl1icl1 to a co11• siderable exte11t, is deter111i11ed b)1 Ia,v. Tl1e Board mttst 'set the 1ni11imum within. s�x 1no11th s of tl1e im P<?Siti o11. of tl1 e 111axi mll �1 se11 t ei1 ce. Origi11ally, after tl1e m1111mum s�n��nce ,vas fixed, 1t \Vas 11ot sttbJect to cl1a11ge, except for minors; but flex1b1l1t)' \vas add eel by a rece11t an1e11d111e11t, \'.vl1 icl1 1Jrovicles tl1at, witl1 llie exception of rna11dato ry-1 ife-i 111J)risoil me11t, l1a bit ual-cri rni11a l, cleadly-\v-eap on a11d certai11 embezzle111e11t cases, 1ni11imt1111 se11te11ces 1nay 110\v; be recoi1siclered after one year l1as been served, at \vl1icl1 ti111e tl1ey 111ay be reclttcerl or e1<te11clecl. 1

I l. . . ' ' ' ' ' II • I. '. '

' '

•

' I

Se11ter1cing by a11 adn1i11istrative board ca11 l1a\1 t1ie follo\vi11g clisacivai1lal{es as com1Jared with tOJ)-quality jt1dicial s e11te11ci11g: 1. The salaries may be so low or t l1e gover11or's JJOlicy i11 1nc1l<i11g-_ a_1JP�i11i ments so po litical that tl1e 1ne111bers will 11ot possess tl1e JJerso11al qL1al1f1c:�1tio11s equivale11t to tl1ose of l1igh judicial officers, ed ucatio11al bacl\groi111(ls tJroacl enottgl1 to provide k110\v ledge of tl1ose fields 1110s� closely relat�cl to correc tion - e.g., psycl1iatry, psycl1ology, social ,vork, soc1ology, _edt1cat1011 ! l_a\v1 ---:- <:Jr experience in probatio11, fJarole, la,v e11forcen1e11t, or correct1011al acl1111111strat1on. 2. Under sucl1 circt1mstances, members may lack tl1e jltdgn1e11t 11ecessary to make wise decisio11s or tl1e character to resist tJressttres fro111 jJrosectito�s or influential politicians wl10 de1na11d favorable action wit11 respect to tlieir clie11ts. . \Vhere salaries are co m pa ra bl e to those of judges and \X1l1ere statidards influencing appointmerlts are 11 igli, 1,o\vever, se11tencing by a11 aclmi11strative board has the following adva11tage s: 1. Decision about th e sente11ce ca11 be del ayed u11til a signif_icant bodr � f knowledge concerning tl1 e offender has bee11 collected a11d org�i,ized. 1 f 11115 15 do�e by the professio11al staff of a reception ce11ter, it can include wl,at a trained probation officer might incorporate i11 a pr�se11t_e11ce repo\t plus tI! e u nit. n io tss m �d e tli resu!t of weeks of 11� g i!1 st te 1cl a1 observation, interviewing, . ,ts ei ri, dg Jti nt ge Having more facts the Board is able to make more intelli ' · bY J· Udges iability ar v e id w 1e tl is . 2· o ne of the weaknesses of sente11c1ng _ · s, l1ave s1· milar _ . in sentences for t rne er r ila s1m ed itt m m co ve offenders wh o l1a {�

... .

23 Law 4nd Contempor�ry Probkms 477-478, 493-494 (t 95 s). In '

..... 1! - '

• :: i

! •

'' ' ' .

' '·. -·· ' i

. -·�' . .,

.. , . ' "t , '

'·'.i:�· :,1,;:

• l (

334

THE SENTENCING PROCESS

fJrior records, a1,d have similar personal cl1�i:acteristics.- When the judgments o f are dec1s1o_ n � likely t� be more unifo rm tliree menibers are pooled, tl1e ulti1nate in comparable cases tha11 wot1l� be the dec_1s1o�s of one Judge at different times or tlie decisio11s of many Judges operat111g independently. t n no ve gi ely er be m n ca to the n io nt te at . s, ct fa te ua eq ad e or 1n 3. Witli r lia to cu e pe th s lem d ivi ob pr ind to so l ual a t bu d, or rec l i11a im cr e th d ati e im cr offender. er be lat n ca sid s on ce rec ten sen ered le, xib fle y l nt cie ffi st1 are s law 11 l1e 4. W . ly te ria op pr a1J d ste ju ad re d a11 ss re og pr in tl1e ligl1t of Questions

Wl1at role i11 tl1e se11te11ci11g process- l1as bee11 given to correctional autho r ities i11 Etl1io1)ia? Why l1as sucl1 a role been allocated to them? Witl1in \'<1l1icl1 bra11cl1 of governrne11t are correctional author'ities? Is it wise to dis tribute se11te11ci11g ft1nctions an1011g tl1e tl1ree branches of government?

Does tl1e cl1ief exect1tive i11 Etl1iopia l1ave a right to grant pardon and arn11esty? Wl1at pt1r1Jose does sucl1 a rigl1t serve?

\YJI1at are tl1e respective roles of correctional authorities and courts in granting conditional release i11 Ethiopia?

Sl1ould greater resrJonsibility be give11 to correctional at1tl1orities with re spect to tl1e. determ i11ation of priso11 se11 tences? Would you favor the deferra l of fJr1s011 se11te11ces u11til tl1e rel1abil itative pote11tial of the offender ca11 be e,,aluated? Shottl? Art. 136 be extended to afJIJly, i11 addition, to all perso11s sentenced to pr1so11? r i11te of board 01:1 l d_ you recon1mend sentencing by a11 administrative � sucl1 of es d1sc11Jl1nary experts? What \'<10uld the adva11tao· disadva11taa e s and b 0 a se11te11ci11g board be in EthiOfJia?

' '

'. (

1,,

Recommended Readings

Departme11t of Social Affairs, U11ited Nations, The Indeterminate Sentence, U:N· �ubl., ST/S(?A/SD/2 (1953) (tl1e best state111e11t concei·nina sentencing p olicy b 111 co111 (Jarat1ve law). Symposium on Se11t�11cing, 2_3 Law and Contemporar Problems 399-5 82 (1958). . y (an e�cellent series of articles considering tl1e IJroblem of se11tencing from a variety of perspectives). f Bouzat, .Droit Pe1:al 29_3-583 (extended discussion of ste sy _m __9 - - re nc l f th e , h p�n1�hme_nt 111clud111g tl1e variety of alte nc Fre the . rnat·1ves ava1-1 able to cr1m111al Judge). _; · :::= ; � Mannl,eim, Some As. 1Jec_ ts of_ Judicial Sentenci !� 6 L . J. ? ng Y P al ol e 67 ic (_ 1958) (excellent d1sct1ssion of tl1e polic y . � g) � c1 n e. n consider�tions i11 sent -. � � i Rub1n, T_h e L �w of Criminal Correctiorl 73-15 s e 11 reh� p co m 1 (19 rat 63 l1e ) r (a · · in consi d erat ton of tl1e se11te1lCltl -· . · . s · · es . · · g Of offe11ders 1n the cr1m1nal proc _. -.:_;.. America). Rubin, The Model Sentencing Act, 39 New York U. L . Rev. 251-262�-_1____ . �,. _,. . ;} 1��] -= ·. -·. ·. - -·· -� �� ; ·. ..: -

·-

,·

=.: ..

,.,._ '

__ , . ...... . --o:,..,..,-,.·- ..._,,_.v·"f - ':"' �·---" ,-,.-,., --� -.,.-,

r ••• ; ='": -

�-

--,.

·---, . _ --:: .. __:;;:-:---.,......,:-�·-.c...- ·....... �..:: .•· ..-"l

THE ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE

335

(sl1ort article e_xplaini11g th � new Model Sentencing Act of the National CoLiticil 011 Crime and Del1nq11ency, United States). In i11� sti t1: Se 1 te, !1t e1� c _50 ]. ot Cr i 1!i· L. Crim. and Pol. Sci Pil tt, ne . 38 5-3 87 Ben 1n no �t va 1v e t1o Ie n g1 in sl the U111ted States dealing \'Vith the prob,1959) (a lem of se11te11c1ng). dan u_ g e s_ J dt1 Ro l'Ex�ct1tio11 des Peines, 70 Revi,e Pe,1 at Suisse le Le , ero ti Oilli Z67-278 ( 1955) {a brief cons1derat1011 of tl1e role of tl1e jttdge ii, the com mon law, Italy, Fra11ce, Portt1gal a11d several Swiss ca11t011s). Wecllsler, Sente11cing! Correction, a11d tl1e Model Pe11al Code, 109 u. Pennsyl varzi,t L. Rev. 46:>-493 ( 1961 ). Cohe tl a11d Col1en, Re,idings in _]1,rispr11de11ce a11d Legal Philosoplry 358-361 (short selections from Bede, Sale1lles a11cl Iv\. Col1e11 on tl1e individualization of pt111isl1ment). KadisI, Legal Norm and Discr�tio11 i11 tl1e Police a11d Se11te11ci11g Processes 75 H�r'Vard L. Rev. 915-93 l (1962) (argu1ne11t for 1nore JJrocedures and sta11d�rds to co11trol tl1e broad JJOlice a11d jt1dicial discretio11 in tl,e cri1ninal process i11 Atnerica). Columbia Lau· Review, Statutory StrLtctt1res for Se11tencing Felo11s to Priso11, 60 Columbia L. Rev. 1134-1172 (1960) (careful co11sideration of various patterns of legislative prescription i11 se11tencing). Seidma11 I Crimi11 ,il L,tw a,zd Procedrtre 74-130 (1963) (interesti11g comparative a11d' African materials on tl1e subject of se11tenci11g). Oko11k,X'O and Naish, Criminal Law in Nigeria 41-45 (1964) (sl1ort sectio11 011 sentencing in Nigeria). Shol1am, Sentencing Policy of Crimi11al Cot1rts in Israel, 50 ]. Cri,11. L. Cri111 and Pol. Sci. 327-337 (1959). Hood, Sen tencing i11 iv!ag istrates, Co1-1rts (1962) (a study of tl1e variations i11 the se11tencing policies of magistrates' courts in E11gland).

I • ·. ' '· . 'I

. ''

I I

'. '

;

•

..• I .. ' '

I '': ...

''...-·.:' ,.I . . .

;

., '. ·,

• . �: , .J ;···"-' .: I• ,' , .... .. .. .....

,,..•'..·:.�:-·i -.•)�l L

-·.

r._ :

CHAPTER 15

The Ideal of Deterrence SECTION A. CAPITAL AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

a. Capital,,, Punishment ' .I I

CAPITAL PUNISI-IMENT IN ETI-IIOPIA 1 Steven Lowenstein

,l . l!

r {!I .I • I

•

• .� )) >

'1�i . I� II

•., .... ! •�

I,. i I

CarJital punisl11nent has been retained by tl1� Pe1 1al Code_ [of 19�7]. �l1e Code IJrovides that it shall be executed by l1ang1ng a 11cl ma)', 1n the d1scret1on of tl1e court, be carried out i11 [Jltblic to set an exa1111Jle to otl1 ers (Art. 116) . 111 tl1e past, traditio11 and public se11ti1 11ent i11 Ethiopia l1ave ·te 11ded to co11 sider 111urder a fa111ily matter to be disrJosed of eitl1er by paJrme11t of ''blood mo11ey'' or rever1 ge on tl1e per1Jetrator, ofte11 i11 tl1e sa111e ma11 11er i11 wl1icl1 l1 e l1ad killed l1is victi1 11. Tl1ese feelir1gs \xrere so stro11g that it l1as bee11 re1Jorted tl1at after e1 1actmer1t of tl1e 1930 Pe 11al Code, a me1 11ber of t l1e 111urdered 1na n's family was allo\xred, i11 a prescribed place, to pull tl1e trigger \X1l1icl1 carried out tl1e coL1rt's se11tence of death.<26) It 1 nL1st be 1 1oted,· l10\X1 ever, t� 1at tl1 e deatl1 sente11ce may 11ot be i11flicted 0 11 jJerso11s t1nder tl1e age of eightee11 or of limited respo11 sibility· (Art. 118). a11d botl1 t1·aditio11all)' and ltnder Article 59 of tl,e Revised Co11stitL1tio 11 of 1955, 1 1 0 ser1tence of deatl1 ca11 be executed witl1 0L1t tl1e co11firmatior1 of . tl1e En1peror. According to tl1e Priso11 Statistics of 1956, E.C._ ( 1963-64 O.C.), 997 [Jerso11s \'Vere held i11 [Jriso11 1111 cler se11 tence of deatl1 wl11le 011ly 39 deatl1 se1 1te11ces were execL1ted. Altl1oual 1 tl1 is may O jJartially be dlte to inefficie11c)' i11 obtai11ing· co11fir 1 11atioi 1s tl1e more likely reaso11 is the qt1ite traditio11 al le11 ie11cy of tl1e E1n1Jeror i 11 �se of His pardon and am11esty powers.<27 > 2 A RATIONALE FOR CAPITAL ETHIOPI TliE PUNISHMENT IN

Jean Graven •

•

-- --

•

In the Etl1iOJJian context it would i11 partictilar have beer, a11 inco11ceivab- le mistake, and even an imJJossibility, to_ abolisl1 the deatli pei,alty at the JJrese1. 1t time. It is 11ot only 11ecessary for social protection, bttt is based on t he v�r y_ " :� ,..�. ·- - -. 1 • . Lowenstein, The Penal SJ•scem of Ethiopia, in Milner, Plnal S01slems o.r A/i.· (. be ·p'.iilillilie!Ein-� · f i= · = . ; . rica to =· � · , ·_ _ : . _ 1 · 1965) and 2 J. Eth. L. (w..inter, 1965) . , (26) Perl1am, The GO'Uernment of .Ethiopia 142 ff. . _.·=-::-: -�4·· •

• •

-M

,·

·z ;{� - �1!;��-'•i�.

� :: ,,.,,.= (27) Annual Report of the Prison Depanmenc, Mi. :; _ _ 'ni'stry of Inter1·or -· -.,_,... .., -· �=,� Gr ve a n, Intro, Le Code Penal de l'E1np ire d'Etliiopie; engl s ;a 2. nslario.n, l _]. Eth._L ._ 2_!� ih . .......... --- -�. · - �-· --------- . �,..... . .,· :· .--,, ,,,,.... ... , �: .-..., ... • ---;----·--"'; '. :- ·----.. . ' -

••"-•

-:0..-:.�M

•.-·

' ,··_·-__- ;",

-� . •.,. ��-•• ,,-., ,<,....--:·-.---;-, • . -.. ' ...:....;,_ /fe-eo,Ai__ tFf O,-.. ...........- . .

•. -· ,_,,... ,.. ., �:=:' --=.__,_•. --�;-,;-.--�1=-' .

��

Cr\Pll.AL AND CORPOR.t-\L PUNISHA<\ENT

337

deepest f_ eelitigs._ of tl1e -�rtl,i0IJia,i . f)eo1)le for j11stice a11cl for ato11e1ne11t: tl1e destruct1011 of !.• f_e, tl1e 111gl1':st acl11eve111e1_ 1t of tlie Creator, ca,1 011ty be !)aid for b}· tl1e sact 1f1ce o� tl1e life of tl1c gt� 1lt}' fJcrso11_ As iii tiie Cliristia,1 Etiro pea11 S)'Ste1:1 of _111� I\·\iddle Ag;es, deatl1 1s al,,,ays a r1 ecessar}' co11ditio11 for tl1e parclf)ll a11d s�l,�at _1�1� _of tl1e s1r1 11er1 a11d also for exJJiatioi, for llle evil \v;liicll 11e l1as_ c�n1111 1 ttecl, 1t 1s acceptecl �11cl aJJJ)rovecl lJ)' all, arid i i, tlie first J)lace b,, \V_lio l1as cleservecl it, a11d is carriecl ot1t i11 a cli<711ifiecl tl1e cr1n1111al att n� _ cl1f fer 1 e 1t fro111 tl1at o'f Ottr for1ner c,l(ecttlio,1s \v·itlt tl�e axe or tlle SJJhere_ c1t11te crt1iIlot111e. . . b TI-IE AROUFv\EN1�S FOR 1\ND AO,\INST CAPIT1\L PUt-lISI-IIv\E1'iT3 r ) Te1tipor�i1y 1Yev } ork ��l,lle Co111111issio;1 011 J{e1-,isio11 of t/.1e Pe,,al L t,W ( J 965) 111,ij�r�t.y Report: Tl1e qt!estil)tt \vl1etl 1 er tl1e co1n111issio11 sl1ot1lcl reco111111e11(l tl1e ab<1l1t1011 or tl·1e rete11t1011 C)f caJ)ital JJtt11isl1111e11t i11 i'�e\v ·vorl� St(tle 1)re se11ts tl1e gravest J)rol1le1T1 ot1r co111r11issio11s call 011 tis to f8ce. J\s is tl1e c;:i.se \vitl1 1nost great . issl1es i 11 tl 1 e fie��l <)f la\V a11d gover11111ei1 t, tl1cre arc �1 r_g1-1. ments 011 b otl1 stcles l)f tl1e qt1est1011. Tl1ose argt1111e11ts are fairl)i rria.rsl1:11ec1 in the staft_ ref)Ort, ,vl1icl1 also fairl)' su1n111arizes sttch i11forrr1atio11 as tl1erc is to aicl ottr j11Llg111e _11t. �11. tl1e e11cl, \X'e are ol)liged. to cl1(>ose l1et\x1 eei1 1.:oiTlj"Je(i11g valt1es 011 tl1e basis ot 1r111Jerfect data a11d ottr cl1oice, 011 lJalo.11cc, is t1) \'Ole for reco1n mc11di11g abo1itio11. Ot1r reaso11s are as follO\\'S: 1:·irsL: Tl1e exect1lio11 of tl1e 1)e11alty of cleatl1 calls i11esc�t11al:)ly tiJJOrt tl1•:: agents of tl1e sl,Lte to 1Jer1Jetrate �tr1 act of sttJJren1e viole11ce 1,11cler tl1e circt.1111sta11ces of tl1e greatest crt1elty to tl1e i11dividt1al i11volvecl. Oril;/ ll1e cle�lrc::: si co11viclio11 tl1at st1cl1 actio11 is esse11tial to tl1e JJt.1l1lic ,x1 elf�tr 1::; j)ossibl)� ca11 jL1.slii'}r a n1east1re of tl1is l(i11cl. \Ve see 110 basis for l1olcli 1 1g tl1(tt co,,,,ictio11. Tl1e social 11eecl for tl1e grievot1s co11de11111alio11 of tl1e gravest cri111es car1 lJe rr1et, as it is n1et i 11 abolitio11 states, \vitl1ot1t resort to barbaris1n of tl1is l(ir1<.i. Seco11 d: Tl1e rete11tion of tl1e cleatl1 fJe11alt)' l1as a seriottsl)-1 baneft1l effect or1 tl1e ad1 ni11istration of crimi1 1al justice. Tl1e ver}' fact tl1�1t life is at sto.l<e ir1lro dt1ces a 1norbid a11d se11satio11al factor i11 tl1c trial of the acct1sed arid i11crcases tl1e da11ger tl1at JJublic S}'ITIJJatl1y \vill be arot1sed for tl1e defer1da11t, reg·arclless of l1is gttilt of tl1 e crime cl1argeci. Tl1is n?orbid fac�or carries throt1gl1 tl1e period precedi11g exec11tio11 a11cl fJublic se11t11ne11 t, \vl11cl1 s11?t1ld su1)port the law a11d its ad111i11istratio11, is ofte11 marsl1alecl 011 tl1e other side. Tl1ird: Some erro11eotts co11victio11s are i11evitable i11 tl1e cot11_·se of tl1_e a1111ot esta 1sl be enforceme11t s0111etin1es t1I of c� tlie u1 petial law a11d error �; : � ; . _ time l1as passed. Sucl, errors ca11not be correcte9 after exect1t1011. A11 1nJttsl1ce of tl1is l<ind destroys tlie moral force of tl1e e11t1 re fJe11al la\v/. JJenalty ca1111ot be acl1n!11isterecl _ Fourt/1: Experieiice has sliown tl1at tl1e cleatl1 . tn the United States \vit11 eve11 rougl1 eqt1al1ty. All �tates l1ave fou11c� tt 11eces �ary tl1at the penalty be 011e tl,at is _ discretio11�ry w1tl1 tl1e court . �r Jury; eve11 if the sente11ce is itnposed, tl,e cl11ef exect1t1ve 111t1si \X1 rcstle \'Q1tl1 dema11ds 3.

Excerpts from the Report on Capital Punisl1rn ent, Temporary State Commissi n on Revision of the ? Penal Law and Code of Criminal Procedure. as reporred in Tl1c New Yorlt Times, March 20, 1965. p. 23.

I..

I !

. '' I

-I . I

I .. •.. . .· . . ,. ,,' .' 'J· . .,··,' .' ...., ·,· :�. : :. I 'I•

....

' ·

•••....

:.'

•

338 . '

' I '

"' �

�

· 1� .

�

�, �

�!

:!I

' I

. I•I• I

' I

. l'

TliE [DEAL Of DETERRENCE

r be m of 1e nu Tl ec d. ex te an gr iot ut 11 te of is is is 1cy e1 em cl in 1cl a1 ' c) ei1 m cle for . ll a sm y el 11 e1 tr ex e, 1c e1 t1 q conse d us lea uld to wo or abolition ted fav sta ve ha we s ion rat de ilsi co e Til Fftl:. 1t 1 e_ rr r te cy te de ca ea i f_ gr ef a s l1a 1 th� 1 a, atl th de of at e t lir e ti1 t . 110 r J� �r \x,J,etll s 1n se be , ca ich ed wh de 111 s , ay m uch unique e 1er Tl 1t. e1 11m iso pr irn a 11 10 tll reat of as ta w e hav e carries as �a __ cl1 S�1 ._ ed ert ex _ e 11 be t fac i11 s l1a r ;e deterreiit po e. nc ca e 1f1 t1v gn ta s1 1t1 a1 qu or aJ n1 110 s l1a or t c fa sti ra11ce that tl1is ,�1i,zority R eport: for reason� e _11L1tnerate d belo�! the undersigned members of tl,e TemiJora ry State Com1n1ss1011 0!1 �l1e Rev1s1on of tl1e JJenal Law and Crimiiial Code do not join \Vitl1 tl1e maJor1ty of tl1e members of tl1e commission in tl1eir recommendation tl1at capital punishme11t be entirely abolished in the State of New Vork at t 11 is time. . . . Capital pt111isl11ne11t is as }1arsl1 a pL111ishment as murder is hei11ous a cri1ne. Becat1se \vanto11 n1urder is so extremely morally wrong, the jJU11ishment tl1erefore 111t1st rer11ain proportior1ately extrem ely s evere to empl1asize to other \XIOL1ld-be 111urclere rs tl1e l1igl1 outrage tl1at society feels 1 agair1st the commissio11 of st1cl1 crirnes. Co11versely, at1y u11justified lesse11ing of tl1e severity of pun isl1111e11t for murder i11 appropriate situatio11s could be taker, by tl1e mu r derer a11d by otl1ers as a11 i11dicatio11 tl1at 0L1r society no longer regards such murde rs as tl1 e n1 ost 11e i11 o LI s of crim e s. I-Iu1na11 11att1re 1 being \Y1l1at it is, mL1st b e t1nderstood to demand, 011 occasion, a_ reversio11 to earlier JJenal conce1)ts of retaliation, vengeance, and the placa t1011 of a11 OLltraged commt1nity. Tl1 e experie11c e s of otl1er states tl1at l1ave, over the Jrears, abolisl1ed capital fJL1nisl1111 e r1t a11d later retL1rned to it because of tl1e occL1rrence of sorne one particular murder should serve as a significant warni11g to New York tl1at abolition sl1ould not be entered upon eitl1er ligl1tly or on grou11ds tl1at d� _11oi fttlly tak e into accot1nt tl1e frailiti es [sic] of hum�n nature or tl1e complex1t1es of tl1e society a11d the disturba11ces of the times in wl1icl1 we live.... There is_ mo1_·ecritne i11 tl1e State of Ne\xr York tl1an a11ywhere else in tl1e w�rld. Tl_ie hi� tor1c�I re�s011s a11d justifications that I1ave kept the death penalty fo, certain c:1 n1e_s 1 11. this state to the JJrese11t tin1e should not be su_dde nly a,,ct st1mm�r1l� 1� 1val1dated or 11t1llified by unte sted and u11prove n cla�ms of tlie liurna111tarianism of otl1 er tnethods of 1Junish111e11t or tl1e ineffect1ven�ss of tile ? 1d or,es. Nor should tl1e Legislatt1re be swayed by clever semantic_s � ret�iidiiig to s�iow th�t tl1 e state l1as tl1e bL1rden of fJroving to the abolt· 110111sts tl,at capital !)L1111sl1m e11t is a deterrent to cr e im . • • •

•

TI-IE DEATI-l PENAL TV AND ITS DETERRE NT EFFECT Thorsten Sellin

(see PfJ. 28-29 supra)

•

COMPARATIVE STATISTICS ON C APITAL PUNISHMENT"

- -·... e : . _ dat _ . The first cases 0f t ii e total _ _ ,:,: e abolitio11 of the death pe11 alty by statut Department of Social and Ecorzomic Affairs , United Nations

Department of Social and E S1/SOA /SD/9 pp. 28-30 ( 1962conom1c Affairs, United Nations, Ca.pitA,l ).

�·�.,;=-::.;;....w..c--· - . - - .,;.. . �·�

-• - •

"'.'o� � -........: -;;:;.:. --� -= :: ..---:--_....-- �.::;:-�,.r -- "-� ..... -., � .. . ��'?�· , . .. - :"_--:.. .�*"�· . . · : __._. -'·=;..".'.';�.:,a!--�; ...,....' . •

-..

::'

_ °'·'.; .';,!:._- _�:":"_"' =.,

:'!'

CAPITAL AND CORPORAL PUNlSHMEN T

339

ce11tury; i11 1786, Leopold I I of Tttscany en tl1 eig l1te late the p ro . rn u fro111 I g a te d . ti er ttn ie d ct· e, ire d c co t his celeb�ated next year by tl1e pe 1 1al tt1s1) .1rat 1011 of Beccaria, and this was code of J osei)ll I I of Austria... followed 10 tl,e . ...Ca_fJital �rin1es ar e still relative}}' 1111mero11s.TI1e 111111,ber of cotti,tries off e11 ces otl wl 1er 11cl 1. tl1a 111 r1 11111rder are ptttiisl,able by de ti 1 · eve r], w [ho declining, th� 11gl1 tl11s re111ark sl,0 11 Id . be g11ali fied by a referei,ce to o� e �� the outsta11d1ng feat11res of tl1e legal soc1� �ogy ?f tl,e � last tl,irty years: tl,e reaJJpeara 11ce of tl1e deall! I?e11alty for _IJol1t1cal cr11nes. fl,e trei,ct to\vards at, authoritaria11 syste111 of cr1111111al law \Vl1 1cl1 cl1araclerized tlie first lialf of ll,e t,ve11tietl1 centu�y l1as cl1ecl,e�l ll1e slo,xr r11ove111e11t to\varcls gradual abolition that was becorn 111g altno_st t111 1versal As a 1�est1lt of a variety of circti nistai,ces, ma11y bttt not all of \Vl11cl1 ar� dtte to tl1c 111flt1�11ce of ll1is at1tlioritaria11 treiid, the deatl� pe11alty _ l1as s 0111et_1 111cs reaJJ[Jearecl 111 a_ 111ore or less permai,e,,t manner 111 cot111tr 1es \v·l1ere tl l1ad 011ce bee11 abol1sl1ed, a11d i 11 certai11 otlier c ountrie s its af)JJlicatio11 l 1as bee11 exle11 clecl to 11e\xr cases. 1

Tl1ere are practicall)' 110 co1111tries \vl1ere tl1e deatl, JJe11alty 11as 11ever exist ed, witl1 tl1e exceptio11 of certai11 territories [of t11e U11ited States], \vl1ich l1ave recently become states, st1cl1 as Alas l,a a11d I-lawaii. I11 fact, tl1e deatl1 pe11alty existed ever. in tl1ese territories before tl1ey beca111e states. Abolitio 11 i11 la\v l1as very often been preceded by abolitio11 de jicto .... 111 certai11 otl1er cases, tl1e death pe11al ty \vas first limited to certain exceJ)lio 11al cases before beiiig fi11ally abolished... . {Tl1is study lists 64 jttrisdictions or parts tl1ereof '-'1l1ic!1 retai11 tl1e de�ltl1 penally, 35 jurisdictio11s wl1icl1 l1ave abolisl1ed it by express cor1stit L1tioi1al or legislative enactrne11t a11d 9 j11risclictions wl1icl1 l1ave abolisl1ed it i11 j)ractice or have virtually do11e so. Tl1e stttdy i11cludes 011ly tl1ose �t1risclictior1s \x1l'1icl1 re sponded to a United Natio 1 1s questio1111ai re. For a con1plete listing, see CapitrJL 1 Punishme1itJ U.N. Publ., ST/SOA/SD/9 IJf).7-9]

' '

. '

I' I

b. Corpo1·al Pu11isl1111ent 5 \ Pif IJO IET IN NT CORPORAL PUNISI- Ilv\E ,, . Steve11 Lowe11stei11 • • • •

1 ge �octar, � cl1a to _ 11g 111i gi1 be is o11 uti rib gl1 ret ou 011 ltl1 s tl1e asi r pl1 lie em ear A certai_n strongly retributive i11slitutio11s 1·emai11, tl1e 1nost obvious or_ ": litcl1_ 15 g gi lo o, ag l s ear of er nb g 1111 log 1 a ? . ing ed 11u ?d i lv\utilation l1ad bee11 disco11ti f _ I ( ->-�l1e . di after ,� has, l1owever . bee11 retai 11ed in tl,e Pe11al Cocle of 1957.e�clu ded flogging from l1is origi11al Ava1 1t-1Jrojet, btt t tl1e Cod1ficatio 11 Corn!11 1s ston and Parliament rein traduced tl1 e pe11alty.Tl1e stro 11ges t arguments giv�n in its bel1alf were tl1at it is in harn1011y witl1 traditio11s of pui,isl1inei,t, tl,at its

. ·,a (co be published in . rJ Pena / .JJ'Slem rz t1 r 1 01 .r Lowcnste1-n, The Penal System s � of Ethiopia, in ?vl1Inc 651. and 2 ]. Eth. L. (Winter, 1965 �� . i c)1 c proviso in l it w t (22) bu 0 93 l f O ' 1n the Penal Cod c 1mcnc Artaggi ng was also a n enumerated pun1sl ic 1 ou••h J T ts cn · ti m · · rn ve go r 1 ,e r o 3 (. pt 1) : "The sent ence of flogging zs set·11 10 · �sc wt"ti1 a fcw hed in our is cena . e future be abolis · i nly our purpose that the sentence of floggin g sl1 all i. n tli ,,,jno- as it 1135 hitl1crco been co u o l of f gi-, r,, · , for the present we have st ric t ly reserved 1l1e sentence ntry d · i'cl1 )'et docs h w e im cr · tered , r . ac re a mi nis g e m 1or the punishment of chose who have committccl so not deserve sente nce of death." 5·

•

... ·..

. .

.,, ' • •

I I

. ...

...:

; •'

lI .;,: .'

.... ",

·) l ' ; :,

l',.,.. .. ', ', I :• :t

.... r., •·

THE IDEAL OF DETERRENCE

340

� it 1a tl l1a n a d ro st an es g im � cr nt 11a 1g rr JJ ete re ent ry ? ve to � ed ct ri st re . is e . Lis y all ed fin s lt1d wa 1nc it 1t 1e an thi rl1 wi Pa 111 n the te ba de ! 1 tcl int ter Af > 23 .< effect _111stances of A g1 avated 111 ly on Tl1eft (Art. ed JJli aJJ a11d t24) 20A l t. Ar _ ? : Code as 1e Tl 111fl1ct10 .11 of flogging is .. ) ) 7(1 63 rt. (A ery bb Ro d ate av gr Ag 635(3) ) aiid f en and fty hte e1 of a11d es ag tl1e 111ay not e11 \xre bet � ! ers e11d off e na1 1 to . d ite lim 11; 1s10 l erv 1c� sup t me l1e r de t111 t � ou flogging d rie car be to l1es Ias ty for eed exc _ l1 rs alt to be_ 1n jeopa rdy. de he 1 11s co r cto do tl1e t tl1a e tim y a11 at ecl jJJJ niay be sto _ . A decree \xras issued in 1961 exte11d111g the pun1sl1ment of flogg111g to seven ses icl1 fen wl1 ''of as relate to the izes gor cate ree Dec tl1e cl1 wl1i s 11se offe er otl1 25 > Tl1e D�cree stat es tl1 t t he High �o�rt ma)' ,c 11'' nio � _ distt1rbance of public 01Ji sLibstitute floggi11g for tl1e JJe11alty JJrov1decl a11d that 1t ts to be 111fl1cted in accorda11ce \xritl1 Article 120A, but 11ot to exceed tl1irty Iasl1es.

' .'

•

TI-IE RATIONALE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT6 Jean Graven

...Corporal pt1nisl11nent (floggi11g-), \xrhose abolitio11 \Vas alread)' e11visaged by t!1e Code of 19301 is anotl1er exa111 ple of the co11flict between traditio11 and icleas concer11i11g· J)Ut1isl1n1er1ts.It car1 be regarded as a ''barbarous1 institutio11, co11trary to prese11tly acce1Jted ideas about legal progress and res1Ject for l1u rna11 dig11ity \X1l1ose demoralizi11g natt1re n1ust n1al<e us react fro1n it; but it is no less possible to regard it _ as a useft1l institutio11 a1no11g ·a proud and coura geot1s 1)eo1Jle wl10 are afraid not of stifferi11g bt1t of loss of respect, a11d :<1110 \Y�ould. a 1J_fJrove of it, precisely because of its ethical implicatio11s in cases 1 nvolv1ng v1lla111y, base11ess or cynical brL1tality by the offe11der.... '

. l �

.�

�

REVISED CONSTITUTION OF ETHIOPIA Art.57. No one sl1all be st1 bjected to crt1el a11cl i 11 l1t1ma11 pt111isl1111e11t. TI-IE CONSTITUTION Of �fl-IE UNITED STATES

•

.A.n1e11d. 8 . · Excessive l1ail sl1all 11ot be reqt1·11-ed, noi·. , e d s 1Jo 11n es ive fin ess exc cruel a11d t1nust1al fJU111_s!1111e11ts i11flicted.

11or

TROP v.DULLES Supre,ne Court, 256 U.S. 86 (1957) United States

[� n 11oIdi' 11g de11atu ralizatio r1 1nea111ng of A1ne11dment 8 of a crt1el and u11ust1al JJU11isl1ment \vithi11 the Co'11' stitt1tiot1 of tl1e U 1 1ited States $L1pre1ne Cottrt stated]: •

•

(23) Proces-verbal of the Codific . . Se.n,att, ·_ ation Commis�io f th n, 9 Apri 54 l G-C . , p. 3; Proceedi.ngs o e c.).. , 19 I-Iamle 1, 1949 E.C. (Jul, 8 G 9 l 1 ) l io 9.57 ;. -�· -.'-·· --. , r 15,: (24) It is tl1e only article wi t�l a: .��"�-�: , �ma es� uc n H�n1le 8 , 1949 E.C. (July _ _ n ic at in g Pa lia m en tary 1nclus1on. r (25) Decree No. 45 of 1961 G , . · _ . .C. �Grav�n, Intro , Le Code 6. : . · _....,.. 196 -0· . · Pena ' I de l, Empir · : ·.. . e d'Ethiopie; english translacio.n, 1 ]. Et!,: L. 289 ( f_

�

·'

·- . ---

_.,_,. �¥·�....

!.�·

�

34 1

of tl1e constilL1tio11al r,I,rase ''crtiel a"11c scope . 1 t1 11ust1al' J ct exa The ' a s 11� i t r • 1e ot1 tit t · c t B l t 1 a s1c tl11s b !)Olic}' y . d refle"lecl - tl e e 0rd 1s eer ,detaile � Si�ic' e_. �fl1 �firm ; esta blisl1ed i11 tl1e A11glo-Amcric(t11 traclitioi, of cri r ,\\\i al, Jt e \' < '_ _tal<e a tio11 s t� 1 ct lt irec Co11 lly sti fro in tli e E ll giisl,' D ec\ a ali o of iii Ol l r Je r p� �t of 1688, a11cl tl1e 11 r111c1 J)le it re1)resc11ls ca11 be trac · ecl 1 ) a ; ti s I to lie 1 g � 11 a Ca rta. T l 1e . basic cc, 1 1ce1)t t111clerl )'i11g· till� Eic.rli ,\ llt � -� ll t �lS\ 11otl11�110· i n. eiicl lllt IV \ ag " ·1 � s· . I vv 11 e t _le. late: 1 ty o f ma 11. ,v,1 1g11 l1as d tli e 10 tlie · ,y,el· '· 1 · t o J)t1111s11, t I 1e , . less llian . · � J)O\x-e1 . _ l)e cxcrcice to asst1re t 11a l t 1 11s s d sta11 . cl e11t , . , 1· 1--1 1·111 �L 1 1e 1-11n I·t s ot 1 n elld • ;) �., Am • • • .. , . =F . . · tillJJl 1so11 1 11e11t t11es, ,t11cl a1ds. evc11 stai1d e·<eciitic, 11 d 111 a Y b e I in !) osec 1 c1·v·ilize . . . . , . . . , · ' · t 11 11 . t)· of l l1e c1· 1111�, 1 e110 1e 1 l)ttl ar1}r Lcci11110-1 t1 e ritils 1Jo11 1 1 1g ·i clP� 'l· endu L 1e_ 1) 0 LI ll d S · · dep · l t.tC;:,� ·ts� co11s·t 1t 11l 1011all}' s11s1Jc:ct. Tliis Cottrt ll as 1 . 1ac 1 1 ILJJe11a l · t1011a trad1 h ese t Of �· 11 t t · t I t·· co t e11 () e · 1 tve JJ1·ec1se 1 ()" g I t to 1 11 ,i\ 111e11 cl rri1,11 1 ,111 cl ·111 ctJ{ e11o11 ccasi . O . tle _ st1 1�1Jri�i11g. 131.tt \v;lic 1 1 ll ie Cotirt ligl1te11ed cte�1ocr�_ .c}' SttcI1 a_: ot1� s,, tl1�s 1 � tl()l 1 11 e11t ot 1..:.. }1 e:11s 111 1rc:11s at Ji:ird a,1cl ,..,·1 . �t va or r a pt1111sl1 ,x-1tl1 tec o11 c if l c, c: .,c,.11,1 1 · . \ s 1 1 l·r1·r· )r_1 11 g r:-1111)11 recc,rcls, it clicl ilOt a cr1111e �1 1e l for t I I. ec i111JJos l,esiiate lo _ � labor declare that tl1e 1Jc11�ll)' \x·as crttcl 111 _IlS exccss1,;e11ess a11(\ 1.11111stiJI iii its cliar acler. \'{'ee111: v. U111ted States, �17 L�.S. 3L19, 5,:1 L. eel.. 793, 3(} s. Ct. 51..1L!, 1_9 Ann. Cas. 70:>. Tl1e Cottrt rec<..1g· 111zccl 111 tl1c1.t case tl1:lt tile ,�'Ords of tl1e J�\ 111e1icl menl arc 11ot precise, ar1ci tl1atr ll1eir scoi)e is 11ot static. Tl1e a.r11er1ci111e11t ti1tist dra\v its 1nea11i11g fro111 ll1e e, olvi11g sta11clards of decc11c�;: tl1at 1narl( tl1e ·prog ress of a 111aturi11g society. 1

-l

'--

·/

• • • •

Questio11s

I' ' I

•

'' I

' I

!' '

'' I ' I

1. \Vl10 \'ras capable of JJro11ot111ci11g a se11ici1ce of (:a\)itcli l.'it1nisl11,1. c:1t iJefc)i"C tl1e Penal Code of 1930? \Vl1)' does il1e .E1111_·,er Jr l1].\1e tc, cor1fir1:;11 ,t cletiili sente11ce before it can be exect1led? for '\,,l1[-tt crii11es 11. i1cler tl1e l .C.T:. cc111 the deatl1 1Jey1alt)' be inflicted? Is fJttblic OjJi11io11 i11 Ell1i_1)jJia strc111i_�!y in fa\ror of tl1e deatl1 pe11alt,,? 1-10,v do �,ou l<i1l)·�v·? \),/11�/ art: S() ie··,x· (leJtl1 se11tences executecl i1 1 Etl1iopia? Do yo11 agree \:(1it!1 Professc,r Gra\1;:11's ratio11ale for tl1e ret_entioi1 of tl1e deatl1 1)e11alt_y 111 Etl1 ic>j)i�.? 2. \Vl1at are tl1e stro11gest arcrt11ne11ts ll1at c:111 l1c 111acl.c for relc11tioi1 a11cl f()i' . . JJt1,1isl17i1e11t? \Xfot1lcl yott s11jJfJOrt tl1� !\1ajcirjl)' (jt __ 1\\i11:· ab?litio11 of capit;tl .) :_ 1 �tl R 1 t11 c)� 1)11 1S1 c,i _ or1ty ReJ)Ort of tl1e Ne\'t;' YfJri.:: Co11�111issio11 011 tlic \ � �a,y ? Are tl·1e re;:1so11s tl1at ,1r e set fortl1 i11 tl1'"tt I�e,)ort �tl)!Jl1�aole _10. t.L! 1: 10)1 1a? f-lo\v mLtci1 \'veirrl1t ca 11 lJe I)ttl 011 tl-. e stro11gest rete11t1or1. a,g L1111e ,i1. of deterre11t effect? D;es tl1 e i\1i11ority ReJJort acl111it th� ineffective11_es�- of e:: 1111 Ci of le ra t 1es gl l11 e tl1 tl1 deterrence \Vl1en it states tl1at Ne\v; Y or k 11;_1s bo in tli e worlcl a11d tl1e cleatl1 JJe11a l t�,r? 011 \v1!1icl1 side of ll1e coiitroversy clcJ Yott tl1i11k Cl,rist ,vottld l1ave stood? lllri� s lt co se 1o il 3· Would it be 1 ir 1 o1 l1el1jft1l to sl11dy tl1e effect of aboliti ttineiits g ar e t i ca 1t er ct e) t \VJlii cl1 no lo11ge r l1a ve tl 1e cleatl1 pe11alty? To \v1l1� _ � � d. _ e l teS y of eacl1 sid e all r1c 11J1 er1 be y i11 tJ-1is age-old co11trovers ? \'\'liy �vas y 4 . WI1at are a d to ia · ? IJ · 1 Ell11 Ii I · 111e reta c tl1e s 1e11t isl111 l J)Lt11 Jora cor1 ...·. . 1 d b , .s _f _ lo gging retai11ed i 1 1 t t,e Penal Cocle of 1957 aiid ir ti�� Y/J i ft \ . _ e 11 !)e�ree No . 45 of 1961? Does tl1is JJt1111s!111 Je11� l1ave cl�te_1�e crt o\ d i f it is � is tts effect on the o 11der on \'v'l1on1 it is 111 fl1ctcd? 011 ll1e ffe 11 1io Ji1 ' 0 c li ib pt 1 ts ec fl re performed i 11 public? Do yot1 tt1ir1 k tl1at Pa rlia111e11 t tn Ethiopia concer11i11 g the questio11 of floggiiig? r o s s fe o r P . . s e o D ? g · • . 5 Wl,at arguments ca11 be n1ade for and aga11 1st flobr g111 1

�-"�f��i

. ..•..

''"..

� '

. . :'

, t

•

',!' '

·.

•I�.

.· ' ,,,,\!i . '' .

' ••.,.. ' '

I' . ;;r ,' i·

·.I.•,j. .

342

. I

THE IDEAL Of DETERRENCE

t is ha g? W in ur gg yo flo to i sit po t ec sp re 1 ? on itl w d an st a l<e ta Graven r t. e d_ Ar 57 un t of en m e sl1 th ni pu n 11a u1 e 1h vis Re 1 i d d an l ue cr . g itl gg flo Is e t 1n l1a rm utes ''cruel w te tit d� ns co 1� 01 es do _ ow H ? 55 19 of Constitution ce e ur tl1 so of on 1t1 t. 1t\ Ar st on C ? 57 an 1c er n1 A Are e tl1 Is ? i'' ai m hu 1 ancl ir d ul wo es ve at ha St the d ite Un v. op Tr Eighth al? 1 tic e1 id ed us s . ng. anda_rds tl,e \VOrd st v1 11c v ce '.'e de y of l1t li� that in d te re � rp te in ?! t � en m ,d ei m A m is ld 1 I1tate for aboli th ou W . �y c1e s� 1g �11 tu li!a a of ss re inarl{ tl1e JJrog 5 8 _ rt. or es 7 77 Do P. 1a? op h1 Et C.E. help 11 1 g in gg flo J\ of 11 tio 11 te re tio11 or 1 on? ut t1t ns Co e th of 7 5 t. Ar of ds or w e 1 tl 1 g in i 11 terrJreti1 Recommended Readings Capital Punisl1ment

Bedau, The Deat!J Penalty £n America (1964) (a broad a 11thology 011 various SL1bjects related to tl1 e deatl1 JJenalty includi11g sections with argume 11ts for a11d agai11st tl1e pe11 alty, its deterrent effect a11 d a bibliograpl1}'). Carnus, Reflectioris on the Gztillotine (1959) (a fa111ous frencl1 writer states l1is OJJi11io11 or1 caJJital JJL1nisl11ne 11t).

,,.

J {"

Koestler a11d Rolpl1, f-langed by t/Je Neck (1961) (a11 excellent book arguing for aboli tio11 of tl1e deatl1 pe11 alty ).

II • I

I /'I

Beccaria, Essay on Crimes and Punishments (1764) (one of tl1e early and influen tial attacks on capital 1J11nisl1 me11t). fu-Sl1u 1 1 Li11 , Con1n1unist CI1i11a's Emerging fundamentals of Criminal La\v, 13 1merican J. of Comparative L. 88-90 (1964) (brief co 11 sideration of capital pu11 1sl1me 11 t 111 Coinm u11 ist Cl1ina).

Tu ttl_e, The Cr1-tsade Agai1zst Capital Prfnisl1ment in Great Britain (1961) (An l1ist?r· I�al accou11t of the abolition moveme11 t i11 Great Britai11 , i 11 cluding bib I IograJJ 11 y). Block, And May God Have Me1:CJ! . . . ( 1962) (a general consideration of the deatli per1alty and tl1e abol1t 1on move111e 1 1t, i1 1clt1 di r1 g bibliograpl1y). Joyce, <:;apital f!unishmen!: A Worfcl View ( 1961) (an i 1 1teresti11 g treatm e11 t of capital pt1 n1sl1n1e11t 1n Et1 ro1Jean a1 1d Anglo-American law).

�

� !K . ! I

•

. '

l I

Corporal Punishment h ear� Abebe 0:•angoul, Cr uel �nd Inl1t1man Punis 1 (res ) l ments in Ethiopia (1965 re ss ella _ for _ t he pa e ) J1 course 111 Criminal Procedure ' facuity of La,v1 Haile S I Un1vers1t)'). Rubi� r� La of Cri�inal Co?'ection 359-390 (1963) (careful treatm ent of. cru el, �u =l and excessive p u11 1sl1n1e11 t in tl1 e United Sta te s) . es W eems v. Urzited States, 217 U.S . 349 4 L tat ) 7 U Sul ited 0 S 1 3 1 ( r 5 9 (19 Ed 9 . o arem_� Cot1rt c a�e l1 olding tl1 e, acces�ory punisl1 ment of caden,a tem;. 1 �( n1PI 1s011m . records '(cr ue e11t w1tl1 c1 1a·1115 ) ·?: f t 1-�e crime of falsifying public led __ _ and lttlttsual'' under tile ode m been htltppine Constitution wl1icl1 }1ad t1po11 tlie Amer·ican Const1�tut _1on - ). ·-

. _., .. -

•-

343

MODERN PENOLOGY

SECTION 8. THE RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY

a. Ethiopian Penology CORRECTION IN ETI-IIOPIA1 AndargatclJew Tesfaye • • •

•

W_h�11 a priso11er i� brot1gl1t to a JJriso11 ,vit11 a reinaiid warrai,t tlie J r15 1 ' 1 °. tl10 a ma 1ot1 ke I gl1 es sea rcl1 autl1or1t1 of tl1e J)riso11er · A·rtei· 11 ,a 11 cl 111 1 1 111s · g · ove r a · . · h are reg1sterell an d l{erit belong1ngs w I11c ,, · as '' Jro l,ib ite d art i' c les 'h l e fJ rtso 11 er J · e11 a med1ca , ·1s g1v · I c1 1ec 1<-ltf). u r1 1 ess, cltte to trac�s of certain contagious _ _ _ to be ke1Jt 111 a s, the doctor orclers tl1e f)rtso dise ase 11e1 SJJeci·a1 \'l- a -ct 1 , l1e ts · ·1mm dta · · ct sect1011 \X'l1ere l1e belo11 gs. e tely sent to tl1e cl asst· f 1e

',. ''

. . .

Tl1ot1�� n �t b�sed 01� sci�11tific as_sessn1e11t of tl1e 11eeds of tl1e J I risoi,ers, some class1f1cat1or1 1s practiced 111 tl1e pr1s011s. I 11 most of tl1e priso115 tlie follo\vincr standards are more or less adl,ered to: 0

Those awaiting trial are l<e1Jt seJJarate fro1n otl1er prisor1ers ,111(.l are not expected to do a11y labor.

female fJriso11ers are l{eJ)t i11 a separate \vard, bt1t tl1ere is 110 seJ)ara tion of fernale priso11ers accordi11g to age a11d degree of cri 111 i11alit}', save i11 s01ne exceptio11al cases.

l11 places wl1ere tl,ere are 110 seJJarate i11stitulio11s for ) 0ttng cl1ilclrci1 s1Jecial wards i11 ll1e priso11s are reserved for t11e111.

Priso11ers se11tenced tc) tl1e deatl1 1)e11alty are seJJaralecl fror11 l11e rest of tt1e priso11 po1Jt1latio11.

J eriod for Ii fe i 111f)riso111r1e11i) Lifers (i11 Etl1io1Jia tl1ere is 110 specifiecl J are also separated. Tl1ose tl1at are fot1r1cl to be ci:111gerot1s atlcl are J riso11 labor as are cor1de1r111ecl great escape risk:s are exe1111Jted fro111 J pr1s011ers.

Priso11ers \villi tubercttlosis a11d otl1er co11tagious diseases are l<eJ)t ir1 special wards wl1ere tl1ey t111dergo 111eclical treat111e11t. 011ce inside tl1e institutio11, al1 1Jriso11ers except tl1ose segregatecl for s1Je cial reasons a11d tl1ose a waiti11g trial, are expectecl to do s0111e \VOrk. In most of the large pr��011s tl,ere are t1 ai11i11g and worl< OfJportt111ities in �a_riotrs crafts, 1 art1c1pate. but only prisoners with fairly lo11g sente11ces are allo\ved to J The main priso11 industries are: 1. 7.

carpentry - this is a highly develo1 Jed indt1stry a11d the pr1so11ers are

Andargatchcw Tesfaye, Correction in Er l1iopia, in Ill C11rrent 1')r? }� cts in �he Prevention, Co�1trol, an,l

Treatment .:Jf Crime and Dclinq1tency 8·9 ( 1963). For legal prov1s1on s w 1 cl1 respect to 1,r1sons, SCI! _ . Proc. No. 45 of 1944 G.C. aiid Arts. 105-115 P.C.E.; for other pena lties, �cc 1\rts. 88-101 (pccunHi.ry penalties}, 102-104 (pecuniary pena l ties coinbincd ,vith restriction ol· liberry ), 1 I 6-119 (dc�tl-l pe!1alty), J 20-127 (secondary punishments), 138-160 (general n1� asur� s). A 11c,v, cornprel1ens1ve Prisons Proclamation I1 as been drafted and is presently under cons1c.lcrat1on.

I I

•

' .

I '

)

;

'.' .· ' . 'I' ·�·. • ' .•,' I '

L·I·:'.'. .

THE IDEAL Of DETERRENCE

344 2.

5. 6.

trained to tur11 out artic les of good quality;

blacl<srn�tl1 a11d 111etal w ork; weaviiig _ Iiere tl1e JJrisons _ are �till using_ the. old primi_ti\·e Ioo�s. Tl1 ougl1 it is t11 e largest p�1s011 industry,. 1t tL1rn_s _ou� 011l)' tl1e k i nd of 111 ateria1 tised i11 tl1 e mal<111g of th_e nat1.o�al Eth101_J1an d ress. How ever dtie to tlie areat de 1na11d f or tl11s material, especially for \x1omen's clotl�es, tl,e i11clt1;try brings qt1ite a considerable amount of mo11ey to tl1 e !Jri sons; je\velry;

rt1g 111al<i11g or \Veav1ng; •

f Iot1 r 111 i 11 i 11g an d b aI< i ng.

Tl1ot1gl1 tl,ere is s0111e atte1nrJt at vocational train ing, tl1e main emphasis i s on 1 Jrodt1ctio11. first priority in these i11 dustries is given to priso11ers who alrea dy k11ow a craft. Tl1e selectio 1 1 of prisoners for tra i11ing is not based 011 tl1e a1 Jtitt1des of tl1 e prisoners, btit 011 the ra 11 dom cl1oice of tl1e authorities cor1ce r11 ed. ft1rthern1ore, tl1ese industries are not geared to the re l1abilitation of the prisoners after tl1 eir release. It is left to tl1e individual priso11er l1imself to try to 1nake use of l1 is 11ewly learned vocation to ear11 his living.

•

Tl1e priso11ers get abot1t ten percent of tl1 e proceeds from the crafts sl1 ops .

different

Sl1ort term pri�o11ers and otl1 ers not absorbed into th e prisor1 ir1dt1�tries, are made to \X'Ork 1n tl1e garde11s a11d farn1s that are attacl1ed to the prisons. Usuall;', _ 1 10 t�·air1ing is g·iv�11 on scientific farmir1g· metl1ods; 110\vever, i11 some of tlie. big. pr1s011 s located 111 _rural areas \Vitl1 large farmlands, quite a r1t1n1�er of agriculttiral e)cpert: are being used botl1 to train tl1e JJriso11ers a11d_ t? in crease tl,e IJroduce .Jf tl1e far1 ns. I-Iow eve 1· , s11cl1 fJrisons are in the m111ority. due . All tlie JJrisoiis lack p is Thi s rog ra1n 1 s e . ti1 of 1 1 a11y J sor t lock afte _ -u r y maiiil t� tlie_ lacl(. of trained IJersor 1 nel to l1an d le such JJrograms. 111 addition, locl<-tip time 1s qt11te early becat1se of tr1e fear of es es. cap

_Welfare ame11ities i11. tl1e pris?ns are ··few. Tl1e prisoners are_ give11 free red1cal treatme11t. _ 111 most of tl1 e big fJrisons tl1ere are,fulltime medical docto�s . n some of tlie prisons tl1ere are sports ac s o risfar1 ge r d ss l the e tiv iti fo e r s u R p 011er . s. ecently. soine priso11s l1ave establisl1ed librari es for the benefit 0 JJrtsoners w1 10 l ke to borro\xr b ooks, period icals and newspapers. i

i s � h at are mis sing· in our p sons can be d_i pensed wi�! tl s ri but �� fn :if�� /fY is the 5 f t � la � �� 1 o m tr . ai ned correctiona l a d n � _ 1 1a stodY . present mos t of s

our :1 1 s011 a d1n1n1strators have a police outlook a is tl1eir inain con cern

. '

. .. ..

�

.. .,

,.'

. .'

·�

...

-... .

)

-�

' .· ... ·-. ..•'� ·- ·.

. . - �--�.. .· � .

. � �...

. ,

. .

l Acldis Ababa I 2 Sl1oa Province �3 Woll�--=- >> >> 4 Harar • 5 Tegre >> >> � 6 -Bege111dir i Gojam » � 8 -Wollege >> 9 Ilubal1or )> 10 Keffa >> 1 11 Gomu Gofa > >> 112 Sidamo » : 13 Arussi >> 14 Bale �__Ogaden • 16 Robi Farm �

Life •

11npnst•n1 1 11cnt 0 I

1 Ell1 .

scn tcnce'.J

•

Dc:ilh

N:une of prison

No,

Of ETI-IIOPIA (1956 E. C., l9(J3-64 G. C.) 8 DeJ,,1rt1J-1e11t of Priso11s, A1i,,islr.)' of J,1terior, lr11J,eri,1l Et/1iopiar1 Gove1 n,11e11t

Cf-fAI�-r OF Tf-IE Pf�ISON

I I

To�.ils

Etl1 . 1 lvl-"]F lvl . •

467\ 2 -16

·?£_

38 69 I 52 \ 8

365 203

3 [

216 350 __ 350 105 1 166 I 166 l 305 l 146 8 124 2 252 63

6 Corrected Totals f A

2 \ 1 8 2 I 2 2 5 4 3 \

-i7

2 _ 1

1 272 3821 45 j 7

27 -·;

3321 i"5f

;:,.-:

Prisonct1 •

jucl 1;n1cnt

' Sl·ntcnccI... (under 5 ye .irs)

7 _5 3

2 l

I 21L 55 32 27 1 52 3_ 31

I . ight

Etl1. 11. lv( I; -M

_ _ _ 238

- 989 8

l·lc.n·r �c nt�n,: c 11 (o,·cr 5 rc.irs)

SVSTElv\

Eth, ?v[ r,

921 450

a,\·a1L1n1•,.

l:.th.

1-:or. Eth. lr 1\11 1: lv1 F I

jy[

772 19 - 21 -·

.:.__...:.

- - ....------

28 22

]�lh. M

272 27

---

Ei:.l1. :rv1

9 17

Etl1 . M

l:tl1. Jvl

5 4 5 3 13 I 1 3

3 13 9 12 3 3 i JO 7 4 2 1 2 2 2

10 819 13 I 7_ -367- 9- 805 =-467 78 12 I 20 402 6 6-t�!J 13 12 86 258 14 187 4 4 392 7 2_31 4 I 55 .... 3 _ I 24 4 l 97 •1 712 4 I 1 : 3 77 196 5 365 16 19 9 118 11 · 99 I 11 124 2 359 j 8 8 I 18 3 4 l 58 I 146 [ 8 ! 8 69 _ 31 3 ti 499 -4 839 01 I 232 61 291 � ·1 J 83 2 5 32 3 I 02 I l I 323 I 5 340 1 3or 542_ 6 156152-� 127 285 2 l f 8 75 4991 a2oi_2 1::-: jiiull57.·_!��-JII91t- 1184_ 122

7 · C

I 17

r--L . r

1 5-

50-;J . -- --....: ....:.:� ...., __

-------

2 1 I

... --··

·-�:,;;:::=�:.-w·..t.....:.=..--·--·

s. Totals i n italici arc corrected additions. r:r itrc:a ,..-as original!)' listed; chc only ii·;u.rcs �i..-�n ·.·�re -to imprisonml!nt rcduc1ions .. Sec: Central Statiscica] Offi.:c,. I�1rcrial Eduopi.,n _ ��o,·��::, 1��=1.1, Scatistic:il Abstract 0[ Eunopia 1 )9-162 (l 964) {or prison stausu,s i0 r the: )'1:11:. i '::; )-1 <•:,o E. C. 9. There were no foreign male or female prisoners under dcach scnt.:n.:c. 10. There were no Ethiopian female or foreign male or fcn1:tlc pri,oncrs ior liic. I 1. There were: no foreign female prisoners with ;1 heavy senl�n.:e (,\v.::r S yc:irs).

•

l'ri�<>n_c r$ Pr i �oncrs1 Pr i5oner� rct.. l'ri�onc r5 c I VJ ! Death "l� d e aJ • • l.:ad < rccc1 \' 1 Ug i1nprison- before sentence afccr · n1cnc t'XC.. full parjudg: . jud 1 .; rci.l ucdon :! cutcd17 l 1"' c m n 1nent;e 1ion111

:L ! j, ., 1 ·,. ! 5. 16. li.

·rh.:r-1 'lh,�re .� 1 1 1<:rc 1·h!rc Thar,! "l h,?r:,

11?.

.. -·-�,�--�--- •.,.

-.:er..: \'-'c:,t· '.v.?r<! •a,cn: ·:.ere ·,;er.:

no no no no no nv

-·.

·ro1;1l

Prcsent pri�oners

•

Ecl1. For. M 1� 1I -�,1II r: 3035 49 61 3090 • I • 1514. 1488 26 1487 20 1507 : J302 21 ! I I 1324� 89 l : 865 26 I I 1015 13 1028� 972 l JO I / 9821 772 j 15/ J 787 405j6j / 411. 844 I-t I 858� 483 l 12 I 495 • 1497 I 17 1514 : 829 I 19 I / 848 526 • 519 I 7 882 j 36 156 Sf 1126557 I II 558 1 16952 �91 )64_ 52 17459

.. . .

-··-· - . .

-·-·-,----,-----,-

0 t1 rri ::::1 z

.,,rn

z 0 r 0 0 -<

•

for�ii;n male or fcn1alc pri�on�rs. with a light sentence (under 5 years). fuil p;;.rdon, given to foreign m.1.lcs or fc1nJl.:s. . . , · · • n1a.Ies or fcmaIcs. 1n1pnsonn1cnt re ducuons given to E· t11·1 op·1an fem:i Ics or fore1gn Ethivpi.in iemJle or foi:eir,n n1alc: or fe male prisoners \\'ho died before judgn1cnt. Echi0pian f�rn.il.: or foreii:;n rn.1.lc or f�n1ale prisoners \vho died after judgment. Erhiopi�n fcn1al.: or iorc:ign m.ilc: or fen1.1.le pri soners �· ho wc:rc eicccuted.

- - - · ·- - -

�

w � (J\

THE IDEAL Of DETERRENCE

346

b. Comparative Penology THE PENAL SYSTEM Of OHANA 18 ]. Eyison I atn inclined to think tl1at correctio11al service·s i� West Af_rica are more or less 011 t11e pattern of those in tl1� Western countr!es of wht_ch a nun1ber of West African countries were u11t1l recently colontes....Since the late t\veiities the penal system in Ol1ana l1as t�ken .on a new shape.There h�� been a gradtial evolutio11 fron1 tl1e day� wl1en 1m1)r1sonme�t was purely �un1t1ve to t11 e 1Jrese11t day whe11 etnphasis_ ts 011 the reformation of the offender .... Tl,ere are i 11 Oha11a some 34 Pr1so11s.These are scattered all over the country a11 d l1ave bee11 classified i11to four main groups, namely: Central Prisons, Local Priso11s, Prison Catnps and tl1 e Borstal l11stitution....

.I'.

Tl1 e state of recidi\1ism ...i11 1960 was as follows: first offer1ders

., ' )' ·, .J

•

. 11,102 persons

•

One previo11s conviction .

•

2,899 persons

•

1,208 persons

•

1,936 persons

•

Two jJrevious convictio11s

Three or 111ore previoi1s convictio11s.

•

fa.nd here a 'Y/Ord on classification of prisoners. It is done simply on the basis of separating males from fe111ales, ad11lts from juveniles and first offenders from recidivists. •

•

. Ind11strial trai11ing is not all tl1at tl1 e 1Jriso11 s do for the be11efit of the pr1so11 er.Tl1ere are also facilities for l1is c11ltL1 ral a11 d educatio11al development. Tl1 ere are facilitie_s for religio11s services, a11d lit eracy classes for adult !)risoners r11n by Commu111ty Develo1J1ne11t Officers have bee11 introd11ced .... Every priso11 l1as a s1nall library wl1icl1 is at tl1e dis1Josal of iJrisotiers \v11o care to use it .

Tlie After Ca�e system !Jrovides a service of orga11ised l1el1J a11d gt1idan�e · to the released 1Jr1so11er or the boy or girl who corne out of t}1e Industr1�l s School s� that �e oi: sl1e ca11 recover l1is ]Jlace in Here ,n y. co m tl1 1n e un it Ghana tl1_1s service 1s L111dertake11 by t}1e Depart Welfare and m So ei cia it of l Community Developn1 e11t for botl1 tl1e priso1 1 s an d tl1 e scl1ools. •

• •

•

Whe�e a prisoner may 11eed tools or cl t le Ji!m en .� o b hi i ng to on sc ha d rg e a t 0 ente into employm�nt an d to lead , , w �Il rd a 11ormal life tl1 e Discharge Boa 1 upon t �e recom�endatt?n of th e Aft er Care Agent, order a sup[Jly for h1rn � 1 toc ts ob industrial tools �11d : en! m er1 1 � g� 1 t e .epartme11t of Social clothing provided by tl1e Oov . t W lo el , fare a11 d Community Deve pgren . -... i Whe: m e re d ed to pa y f or fte tl1 r e passage l1ome, again, the A Ca. . f Age �y p��Ict ;: finds to meet t h e n e ed. - - --. -. . ; • • • •

!��u

� .

18. Eyison, Correctional S ervices .in WeSt Africa , 1n Drake and Omari, 79-82 (1962).

r 1

. JOCl.Z

wr wO,k ·

•

. y ·-l

.l � - ----1 � : � .. ca .. Afiti . . . . . iri West . � ,. -' . j! . - -- -··-. . . ---•

---'.....

"·

_;. .

�

....

•

.... . -

•::.

MODERN PENOLOGY

347

THE ANNUAL REPORT ON THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS IN KENYA (1961)'9 Prison Department, Government of K enya

:The year 1961 may perha1)s best b� d _ escribed as a year i11 wl1ich the modern approach to tl,e tre �trnen t a11d tra1n111g of pri soners i11trodt1ced dttring the latter part . o! the prevtotts year beca111e firmly established. Staff l1ave become appreciative ?f th e m_etl1ods of trai11ing wi tl1 tl,e result tl1at the clas sific atio11 and segre_gat1011 of pr1s011ers ac�ord i11g to tl,eir age, history and char acter, the progressive stage system, ear111ng scheme and otl,er 11ew innovations introdttced are now applied correctly a11d witl1 e11tl1t1sias1n. Progress on t�1� e11actme�t _of tl1e_ 11ew Prison Legislation prepared with a view to . �od_ern1z111g tl1e ex1st111g Prts_ons Ordi11a11ce by IJroviding for, inter a lia, class1f1cat1011, stage syste1n, ear111ngs, parole, compulsory supervision, e.xtra-n1ural penal employn1ent, Youtl1 Corrective Trai11i11g Ce11tres and Borstal Institutions was l1eld ttp by tl1e fJriority required to be give11 to tl,e pre1Jara tion of constit11tional instr11111e11ts, arisi11g from cha11ges in the Legislature made after tl1e La11caster House Co11fere11ce. . . . �

. . .

The total number of perso11s co11victed a11d sentenced to impriso11ment during tl1e year was 28,697 as agai11sl 27,499 in 1960. The number of perso11s wl10 are sentenced to im prison1ne11t for JJeriods of 12 1no11tl1s or 111ore i11creas ed from 3,412 to 5,222 from tl1e previo us year, a11d tl1e ilUi11ber of persons sente11ced to tl1ree years or more i11creased fron1 70 l to l, 168.

.'.

.. . '; .

•

THE ORGANIZATION OF T liE PENITENTIA.RV SYSTEf\11 ll\l TI-IE REPUBLIC Of MJ\LI 20 Secretariat, U11ited Nations

Tl,e penitentiary system of tl1e. ReJJ�bli_c �f Iv1ali (for1nerly [Jar� of �·re11cl1R . 11 1 � a \Vest Africa) consists of tl1e follow111g 111st1tt�t1011s: tl1e Centr_al_ Pr1s0 � 1 ov111R 1ve tra� 1111s p adrn of ns tow ef cl11 tl1e i11_ s son make, twenty-seve11 outlying JJri ces (circonscriptions), tlie Kidal Penitentiary a11d a reformatory for 1uve111le offender s. •

• •

. I !

•

s�odial fL1ncctt a ly ari irn fJr ing rv se as ed rd ga re er ng t lo en no nm is iso Impr l tua en ev tr the s ard l?w rs 11e iso 1Jr 1t ie1 or to de n; ma tio efforts ar e no w beiiig ose , as well s rp pu is th r fo ry _ a ss ce ne s i t en atm e tre releas . Individualizatio11 of � e t . s As � un ! . 01 k lac by d cte training pro rammes which are currently restri ld ou n sl1 1o at l1t b1 ha re at rts fo ef y, tr un co l Republic is �ssentially an agricultura be directed towards farmi11g. . . 1ox pr ng ap ti sen e pr re 0, is 60 n so . ri P al tr en C Tl,e average popuIat ton of th e prisoners constimately one-third of tl1e pris_o11ers l1eld i� the terr1·to;;� f�male e pri wo me 11's cia l sp n e l ier T i,. io · . tute 1 5 per cent of tl1e prison f)opulat . on is c h pr ea in en om w r fo om ro te ra sons'· �ccommodation consists o f a sepa en d be ha 1 cl l1i w · e, ic rv Se y ar ti en it en P · d, The After a trial two-year per10 ember ec D 29 of er rd O by d 1 ,e 15 . bl a t s e set up on 1 January 1951, wa s formally

19, P. t. 20. In l Int. Rro. o f Crim. Policy 151 (1 960).

.·

.. ..

. .. '

I . :: .: .... '

...

•: .

. . :� . .. ;

{ j .

3.48

CE N E R R E T E D f O L A E ID TliE !

y . �r 59 nu 19 Ja _ A: classification 23 of t Ac e th by ed ov pii afJ 1952 and has been , 111 51 d 19 1�h he w -is l tl b_ ta 1 ree cate es as w o ak am B at s 1 er o� syste 111 for tli e JJris d ce 11 te f n so o ri se p es ri rs o g ne te ca 1 . 1 e v se 1 1d a s er 11 s0 1 r JJ id at gories of rem Worl< is conipulsory for all �Jrisor1ers se11 te1 1ced t111der . statute Iaw, \\?ith exemptioiis gra11ted ot1ly_ for medical . reasons. Sente_nced pr1s011ers. work out side tli e prisoiis on public \'v'�rks JJrOJ ects. An ex1Jer1ment of work 1n semi-lib erty was started at Ba 111ako 111 1952, _but l1ad sti.bs�quen�y to be abandoned owing to esca1Je and tl1eft attem1Jts. Since 1951, pro)�cts 111 fo�estry work with out su1Jervisio 11 a11d in farm worl< u11der the superv1�1on of a s1.ngle guard l1ave JJrove11 successfL1l. 0Liri1 1g 1951-_l 952 a number of pr1s0 1 1ers worked for private firms for tl1e \xrage 11.or1nally paid to free labot1r. However, u11e1nployment led to tl1e aba11do11111e11t of sL1cl1 labour, wl1icl1 had bee11 eco11omically useful and productive. Sicl< 1Jrisoi1ers are cared for i11 dis1Je11saries and 11ospitals and minor ail111e11ts are atte11ded to i11 tl1e i11firmarie·s. Medical care appropriate to the case is also ex.ter1ded to lerJers a11d tl1e disabled.Prisoners are also afforded accident protection ur1der the social la\Y/S. Religious care is adI11i11istered by n1-i1 1.isters- of tl1e variotis religions, who are authorized to visit tl1e prisoners of tl1eir respective faiths. . Sei�Otts eff?rts. f1ave bee11 n1ade \xritl1i11 tl1e las.t ni11e yrears to improve p�n1te11t1ary pol_1 cy 1n_ tl1e country. To this end, special re-education centres \x7 1l� be set llJJ 111 \xrh1cl1 priso11ers \vill be classified into grottps according to their �e:11tences, bacl<grou11ds a11d character, and each grotIIJ \Viii be give11 ap propriate treatn1ent. !t _ is furtl1er st1gg·ested that tl1e priso11er's farnily co11tacts be i1111Jro\ ed by JJrov1d11 1g ft1rlougl1s to !Jrisoners wl10 l1ave earn·ed tJ1.e111� At present, c ertain JJrisoners are allowed tl1ree-hour furlot1ghs on Su 11days duri11g the last t\VO montl1s of tl1eir de11te11tior1 .

fl,, ,f I :I

PENAL PRACTICE IN ENOL1\No21 Winifred Elki,i

! · Accordi11g to tl1e Prison Rtil"es, ''Tlie . .IJ�rfJOse.. s o f tt.a1· 11111g and trea t men t of coiivicted jJrisoiiers s1 1 11. be t o est�bl1s!1 111 tl1e111 the will to lead a good . ' and usef L1 l life on ct·isc I 1a1�ge, a1 1d to fit tl1e1n to d o . . so . ." ' • • • • The clasl1 betwee 1 1 tli e .1·e for.r�i ative · · en t :1 1sl1n 1 pu1 a11� t errent tl1eory of d-e � co111es 1 nore to tlie fore iii disct ssioii s of n=> , pr 1 sor1 treat1ne1 1t tha1 1 i 1 1 disc11ss1� \ of a11y other aspect of ti1 t v r1 1 a refo sy�ter�1. 1 P Il a e r tl1e People accept will . � pri1 1ciple in probation or �11 ie 1 15t1t 11 fe ! tit1on� j o.f ng �ers_.f _ � o treatm u e11t of y I rigl1t a11�l JJrOf)er, but tlie cot, ceptIOil of [)r1s011 as a place 111te11d�d _pr1 ma 1 for punishment is so dee } rooted ok P Y tl:at I e any d parture from 1t 1s � r upon with suspicio,1 b ti e f s as ier l 1d ot IJubltc. f1 b i � r Yet i tl1ere is- a11y sou1 tl1e argument elaboratrd ]n f� ls t�f i fir5t _crim 1)ter, a cl1_ p e na that ote11tial f w witl1 sttfficie,{t delib�ration to : 5 ent, . . restra 111 sl1m 1 by ed pun of tl1e fear 111ust a1Jply to iinp.risonment as 0 a11y otl1er for m of pe11al treatment� .... .. Tl1e ensui11g disct1ssio11 is ad a-.'"' el1 . � mittedly based 011 tl1e assttmJ)tion . t]1at . .- ·__ ... � · ::_, - ·� , . . 21. Elkin, The£ngis /'hpenal System 128-132 (1957). . . .. ...-� . � :

,�a

'• \

.·--·- l-� .

•,

�

� �

•

.�

--.�'=!· ....... •• -

-:-

••

. _· :..._ ·-"'� ··

,J·

•

•·, '

""II'·

·=·

MODERN PEN.OLOGY

349

bilitation �hould in general be_ tl1e_ overridi11g purpose of tl1e priso11 system. If that aiI? 1s_ accepted, one tht.ng ts certain: prisoners ca11 never be taught to cope with life by means of a syste111 wh1-cl1 den1ands 011ly implicit obedience to rules and orders and leaves nothing to individL1al decisiom or individual respgnsibility· Yet jt is that kitid of control tl,at still domi11ates the routi11e of the closed local pr1s011s. 111 tl1e new OJJe11 priso11s �11d tl1 e lrair1ir1g J)riso11s, 011 tl1 e otl1er l1and, life is based 011 a ft111damer1tall}' d1f _fere11t co11 ce1Jtio11 of disci1Jli 11 e, bttt tl1is clevelop� ment _ l1as come abot1t 0111}' dt1r_ 1 11g rece11t years, a11d 1najority eve11 to-day tl1e _ _ _ of pr1son�rs are l1ot1se� 111 111stltut1011s \v'l1ere tlie olcl disJJe11satio11 still l1olds S\V3)'- It ts tl1e old regime, tl1erefore, \vl1icl1 provides tl1e logical starti11g-point for a co11sideratio11 of priso11 life. Tl1e differe11ce i11 IJOi11t of vie\v bet\vee11 tl1e old and tl,e 11 ew is v,ell illustrated b}' a11 ofte11-qttotecl story of 011e of tl·1e Borstal Governors ,,r,ho \'Qas \v'atcl1i11g_ tl1e boys bei11 g _ r11arcl1ed do \v11 lo tl1eir \vorl{s11 oJ)S, \Y1l1en j t suddenly strL1ck 111111 ho\X' abst1rci tt \X1 as to try a11d leacl1 tl1e111 to be JJu11ctual if it \v;as macle impossible for tl1e111 ever to be late.( 1> from tl1at day tl1e <)11 t1s of arrivi11g on time \Vas placed or1 tl1eir sl1011lde.rs. Tl1e attitt1de to respo11sibiiit}.r eritorn ized i11 tl1is tale l1as beco1ne a com1no111Jlace i11 tl·1e f3orstal i11stit1.1tions a11cl il is recognized no\v ir1 the OfJen a11d trai11i11g priso11s, l)trt in tl1e ciosecl locai iJrisons tl1e approacl1 is still very cliffere11t. Tl1e JJrisoi1er 11e\1 er l1as to tl1ii1l< for liim self or act on l1is O\v11 i11itiative. I -l e l1as to learr1 i11steacl to stjbn1il l1is ,,::ill entirely to ll1e \xrill of otl1ers a11d to acce1Jt co11sta11t st1per,Jisior1. rfl1e n1c,re lit; st1bdL1es any feeli11g lie l1as for inderJe11de11t actic>11, tl1e less risl( tl1erc is 1 .h�.t he will get into trouble. It l1as been said tl1at ''men l<e1Jt for \"\'reel.;:s, i11or1tl1s, years t111cler £t sc,:crc exter11al pressure, a11d praised and e11couragecl i11 proportion_ as !"l1e�,: s11l1111it to it are in a direct course of preparation to yielcl tc) oll1er Iorn,s of 1ircsst1re as s�on as the1 • preser1t tl1en1selves. Tl1ey g: o ir1 \'J7eal,, cJr t11,�� \,1 0� 1lcl 11c1t J)robably be prisoners, a11cl tl1ey con1e ot1t still 111ore e11feel)lecl. ( ..) It 1s �t::i.r: c ling to realize tl1at tl1at ,vas \x,rilte11 over a l11111dred )1 ears �l[O, bt1t tl 1s 11eve rt l1el ess dist ressi11g I y a fJ p1icable to-day. . . . . . .

., .

''. ..··-. . '

I· . .. . .

l I

'I' I

•I

I·

Tl1e demo ralizi i1g effects of tl1is l<i11d of. e:ciste11ce_ arc ir1tc1:sifiecl _ by tl1e lack of jJositive deina11ds n1ade 011 t}1e pr1so11ers f10111 otl1e1. a11�lt:s. Tl1e orga11iza tio11 of priso11 work a11ct priso11 edu_calio11 are dealt \':r1tl1 111 a _ later cl1apter, btit the crucial JJoi11t 111 ust be 111e11 t1oned l1ere. I11 tl1 � local fJr1so11s s . �re the �vorl<it1g we ek is ge11erally 1�111 it:d _ to 22 l1ot1rs, a11� even 111g , classe _ ver y ltlLle restricted by tlie sl1ortage of sta1f. 1111s 11 1ea11s tl1at dt1r111g tl1e d�) energy needs to be exerted atid that the prisoners ar� locked up 1� tl1 e �r cells from 4 or 5 it, t11e afternoon to 6 tl1e next 111orn1ng perl1aps fiv e times a week.... Witli 50 little exJ)ected of the prisoners morally, me.ntall}', or pl1ysically, tl1ey become flabby i n s 1Jirit, mi11d, ai1d body. •

• • •

PRISONS IN TI-IE UNITED S.TATES 22 James Ber111ett

There are few prisons or

correctio 11aI

instittrtions i11 America tl1at are not

(l) Report of Prison Commissioners, 19 35, P· 62. _ 19 2 184 �d P· �· , lJment Punis { ) Maconachie Ca.pt. K. H Crime and c ' 538-539 (1955} 22• B ennett After ' Sentence ' What-? 45 J- Cnm. · L · Crz,n an pol• .JCZ, 0

·,.

.•

I :

I -. :

. ..

... . .. ..... ::, ..: .,.. . ' , .. .. . .. ...:..,:: .

•• ;

•.: .

.•. :�

\_.

•I

•

THE IDEAL Of DETERRENCE

350

e d pm an re ui u t c �q ru , st nt al ic ys h _ p vo de in te le id so b o , d fe af st er d ttn , ed d overcrow s. nd e fu g o� 1n M at er er ov o� r fo d _ ei th ve ar st r d an s ie it 1 ui rt po op k or of real \v 1 th a p_ d l1o an yc � al ps tu n fe bi of ha s, ou rs r� de se of . y el rg la ts is i1s co w no n tio tla pt po en 1d -w e er g t� ev 1n by f of e us ed m 1� of s½ en be ve ha s se ca l fu pe ho e or m The d d pe an ap e 1c th nd l1a e th e , rp al wa 1n �m cr d al on si es of pr e th g in av le n, probatio . . . . h it w al de to on is fJr 1e tl r fo personalities

• . '

THE DUTCH PRISON SYSTEM23 N. S. Timashejf The Dutch penal system is almost unk11own in America, especially with respect to rece11t developments. It is 11owever as good a11d as full of imitable patter11s as tl1ose of Denn1arl< or Swede11 which are highly praised in the U11ited States.

! II

Like tl1e two systems just n1entioned, a11d to a large extent also the Britisl1 the Belgia11, the S\viss (no\Y1adays also tl1e German) pe11al systems, the Dt1tcl1 'syste111 is the fruit of a grand style moveme11t i_n Europea11 cri1ni11ology very little l<now11 in tl1e U.S. This was tl1e ''sociological school in criminolo gy'' wl1icl1 crystallized in the l11te1·national Crimi11ological Association and inspired tl1e progressive crimi11olog·ists 11ot only until its dissolution (as 011e of tl1e co11seque11ces of the first World War), but also many years later....

•A

:, '),

'\ I '

•

w. K ' '

1·

• •

•

Tl1e Dutcl1 priso11 system is based on tl1ese principles: 1) complete cen tralization; 2) differe11tiation of i11stitutio11s; 3) centralized and ratio11al distribtt tion of the individuals to be treated in the particular i11stitutions; and 4) a ,' predominantly curative approach to tl1e treatn1ent of tl1e individual inmates, j by large well trained and \veil paid staffs - in tl1e frame\x,ork of a penal code which pays due respect to tl1e general JJreventive fu11ctio11 of punishment ...· Centralization: All tl1e priso11s of J-Iolland form o11e well structured system. All ge11eral directio11s, tl1e selectio11 of tl1e perso11nel and the distribution of the i�1:3ates _ amo1 1g t_l1e i11stitt1tions are 1Jerfor 1 11ed b)r � central board, tl1e Prison Adm1n1stra�1011_ forming tl1e Tl1�r? DeJJartme11t of tl,e Ministry of Justice. But tl1e _ce�t�al1zat1?n _leayes a st1ff1c1e11t margi11 of freedom to tl,e directors of the . 1nd1v1?ual_ 111s�1tt1t1on� ofte11 assisted by co1111nittees of exrJerts. This .cen tral1�e� d1rect1on _1s co11s1dered by tl1e Dtttcl, crimitiologists to be a functiona l requ1s1te of a rat1011al a11d efficie11t {Jriso11 system .... al s are _ s Diffe:en_tiation of P:isons: Tl1_e units of \-Vliic}1 tli e system consist mms,! an� spec1al1zed. T�1e 11st of prisons as of December 3 l I 953 contains 43 ite t�1e tl1e1_r _ total population, i !1clt1ding tl1ose detai 11 ed in expe'ctation of trial a11d J)ol1t1cal of�en�ers . consisted of 4,462 persot1s, so the average number of 1n atfs.pe� 111.stitu_tioi, w�s 108, with no: i11stitution l1arboring more tl1a11 3oo._ �ac 1 1r1st1tut1on 1s .devoled to tl,e detention at,d treatment of one (in some · · cases, two) categories of offe11der or detait,ee. ... . The J)rison in.- Let1warde11 accepts o11ly priso11ers wit long sentences o h . whce , -. are however not inveterate reci·ctivts . n}a tbe -!� a . ........ "",-::_i·-. · · ts. The pr1s011 1n Oroni11gen 1s · -: ll . . of co11f'1ne1nent of persistent offenders and t t� y n i:ne f : of a certain category o . . =$

-··

.;.

•a

23. In 48 ] . Crim. L . Crim. and. Pol. Sci. 608-613 (1958).

. ·,

. ._ .

. ..

··- -' - " � _.___ .-�-. � ;--�� - � �}i£�-.:i._,:--;-;, �; -

__,:.

l\10DERN PENOLOGY

351

. defective 1Jers o11s placed at tl1e disposal, of tlie, 7i��r1; 1ne i�l. I11 t11e p riso n N o. I 1 1 01 fi1 ds 1e o11 y prisoi e rs sei te � 1e iri tl1e I--lagt o m tl s or tnore fit for t1� tl1o pr ed se o111i11a11tl}' com111t111al life �;� specially , 1 ; 11 I e f-rar1 e111 _ l ,arbors tho se e11tirely t111f1t for comn1t111ity life. To tlie J)rison ai_1 1{e b oscl� in Norg :1 ,a1 1 six mo11tl� s are se11t tl1ose offe11de rs wl 10 l1a ve beet, sei,tei,ced f a11d are fit for . comrnt111ity life, as wel l as tl1 ose �;r1��! 1 ee to SIX 1no 11tl1_s. Tlte pr1s0 1 1 Esserl1_eeI11 i 11 Norg receives J)risotiers 5�11 :� ,,�:J . � o inore l 10 \V a e r s 1 tl1 1 fit for co111nittttil)' life bttt \ .1 ose f rog1 1 s s 1s r t 1er tlian six n10 v 0 J ! � . ! 1 t < t l ell as se tl1o as 1 le se1 ab e t ecl 11c w· o li e \vorl l10 1 se · l 11 a SJ)ec1al d1visI011 unfavor · · . o! �l� e �Jrtsoi, a t \Ittgil t a II JJrisoiiers \"(llll1 _dt1rable (cl1ror1ic) boclily (11ot 1ne11tal) 51ck11es es are co11ce11 trite�. T l�e )r o�1tli [)r1 so11 j 11 Ztitplie,, serves for tl,e treat1nent o� youi�g me,, ( -2 ), 1tl,. crI 111 i 11al an�ccedeI1t s, bttl \Villi relatively favorable prog110s1s. Tl1e as}' le IIl f\ verest receives 1)sycl,oJ)atl 1 ,, IJ laced· at ti, clisposal of tl1e goverr1111e11t. 1,l1e l1ot1ses of clete11tioii'' soine,.t 1�1 nes receive 011 1e-· y . . � f or a111_ e rta d t · ct t · l e s0I 11 , 11el s 1111e s Jerso fJerso11s se11te11ced to less tl1a11 tl1ree 1 111011tl1s1 somet1n1es boll1. �

"':'

As tl1e resttlt of t l 1is dif�e rei1ti�li<J11, tl1 e fJO!Jttlatio11 of a11 iristitttlioil for 1 11s a l1on1oge,1ot1s grottjJ {s0111et11�1es, tt combi11es two st1cl1 grot1ps) to \vl-iicl, � con1111011 treatn1e11t ca11 be rat1or1ally afJlJl ied.

. .

Tl1ose se11te11cecl b}r tl1e cottrts to [Jriso11 are clistributecl a1no110· tlie ii1stitt1tio11s by five 'select1011er s' belo11gi11g to tl1e staff of tl1e Priso11 °}\clr;i,1is lratio11. _Tl1e)' act i11 coo_1Jeratio11 \Viti, tl1e 1Jrosec11tors l,a,,irig l1:1!1cllecl tl1c C()r·· re spo11d111g cases a11d \v1tl1 officials of the 1\1i11istry. Twice a mc>r1tl1 ti:ey cc)rn(: togetl1er i11 tl1e ce11ter of tl1 e cot111try to clisct1ss ge11eral JJolicies a11ci i.l1·(� rr1o r (: diffict1l t cases. If tl1ey st1s1Ject JJS}'cl1opatl1y overlool<ecl lJy tl1e co1.1rt, tl11:y c.;i.:1 se11d tl1e offender to the Observatio11 Cli 1 1ic i11 Utrec:l1t. \X/l1cr1 111a!�ir1}� tl1ci r decisio11s tl1e s el ector 111t1 st first of all1 follO\Yf tl1e directic)11s of ll!e i;,.y; dil•) the ordi11ar1ce of tl1e lv\i11istry t111derl}'·ir1g tl1e clifferer1tiatio11 of JJris()11s cicsr.rit,,::cl above. Tl1ey study tl1e acts, ta!(e i11 accot111t lite reJJorts of tl1e lie::J<Js >f ti,·�:: hot1ses of dele11tio11 a11d \vl1e11ever JJossible, ll1e clesires c>f tl1e off<.�11clers. -r11esr 1 icle11lic:al cail; logi ty1Jo 1 vee1 bet\ icl� cl1o e tl1 1s cer1 coi1 esi as siv·e deci 111ay be res ? 111stitt1tio11s: most commo11 l y tl1e offe 11de rs asl< to be IJlaced a.s close as JJc,ssihle 1 to ll1eir reside11ce so tl 1at tl1ey wo ttld i1ot be e11tirely derJrivecl c)f \ isits of rcl.a tives or frie11ds. Tl1e 1Jriso11er 's desires a re also co11sidered as to placerne11l into a11 i 11 stituti on witl1 full , li 1nited or 110 co111m1111ity l ife. No fori11a.l sel ectio11 tal<es place relative to offe11ders se1 1te·1ced to less tl1a11 tl1ree 111011t11s; these tJ.re directed to the closest l1ouse of dete11tio11 . 1

l 11a e tio ra th is ] m ste sy 1 o1 s i_ �r l1 1tc Dt e tl1 11g 11i er 11c . {co . . Tl1e major fact arra11geme11t of t}1e i 11 divid 11al ite111 s into a11 �ff1c1e11t syste1n. No �f_forts are o1111sing treat tJr t s o_ e rn tl1 of �e 01 cl1 e ll1 d an st ts, wa ed 011 u1111 ecessary treatine,1 ment is 11ot left to c11a11ce decisio11s of uI1c oord1 11ated agencies. t l 1is and ow kn s er ad le Je TI . ct fe r J)e s 11 ea m Of course, tl,e system is by 110 trr gradually t o adatJt w l,at exists to 1Jatte rns derived fron1 contemp?rary scien tific views in tl,e fields of crirn iiiology a11d per1ology and t o ex1Jer1eI1ce gatl 1ered ''on the job 11 sti ll solid an d _ in of e 11c te is ex 1e l t is As elsewhere the greatest l iaridica1:> lia�itabl e builditlgs erected during a period \vl1e11 ()enology \vas based on v1e\vs quite at variance with those (Jrevaili11g today. · · · I

'I I

� :

' '

•

' . ' '

•

' ' I

. I. .. . I.

. ·'

I :. fi . . i

•

..I.. . ;; . .' ',.. ' J ·'- •

...!

: :!

. . .;

.', .

352

E THE IDEAL Of DETERRENC

N OT ES CRITICISM Of MODERN PENOLOGY Note 1: A Critique of Specific Correctional Techniques24

Shulman, The Social ·structure of Prisons and Jails25

l; f•

tJ:

[' r l ' I

·� ) ,1•I

( I

Assuming that we l1ad witl1in prisons an� jails the kinds of prisoners �ho were by and large rehabilitable, we w_ou_ld still. be unable to go very_ far 1n a program of rehabilitation _within tl1� ex1st1ng social structu_re ?f our prts?ns and jails. Tl1at social str11cture IS a funct1011al res1Jo11se to the o�Ject1ves of pun1sl1ment and secure c11stody. It consists of two sep�rate s�ctal . �truct�re�, that �f officialdom and that of prisoners. rfhat of off 1 c1aldom IS m1l1tar)' in_ tts organ1zatio11· tl1at of JJrisoners is fe11dal, being composed of competing groups and b�11 ds \X1l1 0 recogr1ize no secure leadersl1iJJ and amo11g whom dominance is deter 1ni11ed by force ratl1er tha 1 1 by conse11sus or democratic selection. Relations bet'\Y1een -tl1e prisoner co1nmunity a11d tl1e official community are distant a11d strained. Tl·1e object of tl1e official con1munity is to mai11tain its control S)'Stem over the fJrisoner co1111n11nity and tI1e object of tl1e prisoner commu11ity is to 11egate that control syste111. Under these circumstances, social relatio11s between the t\vo grot1ps is 11or111ally 11ot for the purpose of serving the welfare of all, bt1t to acco1nplish the objects of eacl1 separately. The ob jects of officialdom are to accomplish the assigned daily routines and to use tl1e inmates for purposes of information. Tl1e objects of inmates are to reduce tl1eir duties to the bare minimum necessary to escape censure or infraction reports, to 1 'co11'' tl1e official group into forgetfulness of rules or into tacft overlool<i11g of infractions, and to obtain individual favors a11d benefits. Between botl1 groups there is an uneasy relationship of domi11ation a11d submission char�cterized by non-fratemizatio11 on the part of tl1e official group save for tl1e 1ss11ar1ce of necessary orders a11d for tl1e mai11tenance of co11trols. ci�l o s_ of. does el�tio11sl1iJJS �tructure . This co11structive e11courage not \ . social lea_rn1ng, product1v1ty, 1n1t1at 1 ve and i11divid1.1al gro\vtli. There is no escape for. tl1e inmates from tl1e formal b11rea11cralic structure or from the inmate social . st_ructure tl1ro_t1gl1 �ocialized_ aggression s11cl1 as competition nor tl1rot1gh uns?c1al1zed aggress 1 011, s111ce 0 1 1e 1s 110! encotiraged atid tlie otl1er is, of course, pu�1sl1ed._ Escape, �here!ore, for. tl1e JJr1s011er is {Jossible only through psycho log1cal withdrawal into 1ntrovers1on, or worse, into psycl1 osis.

{

Secretariat of the First U11ited Nations Congress on tl1e Prevention of Crime and the Treafment of Offenders, Prison Labour26 : · · It was r�cognized

that, although the subject [prison labour] had b een studied at length _ 1 n the past, tl1e actual position in ne no wa s s co un m trie !hel s mo unsatisfactory. I many prisons prisone wost completely i?!e; ke r � s pt � er �h e in o ers, t ey were only f1cpartially employed; in m an y cases the work was art1

· The following three excerpts are c · t1·caI o f . nular s· · rep sua t1� ese nta 1ve t ar��s o f prison admini � criticism could as well be leveled ;; p . so architect ure, clas s1f1cat1_ on systems, the recruJtmen� and training of st aff education th er d after -care. 3:ll y p a � o W , W at is an m ul Sh h r ng lth A mer1can Prisons and Jails � uL,6-4 c 25, . , ci, . pal > -45 J. Crim. L. Cri,.. 1.nd (1955). , 26. U.N. Publ., A/CONF/6/1, pp. 30-3l (l .• 9SS). 24.

MODERN PENOLOGY

353

too many prisoners far bei11g ed, em I ed, for e mpl , o11 ma n creat lly ia n � ers �iadte ance work. It was pointed out that even in pf iicr s wl1ere ��e pr1so� a n opport unity to w ork, l abour methods and tecl1; es er o t n 1nfer1o_r. h . 1 Y so�v��· i r1� s� 11ers d td lem of remuneration l1ad not bee11 satisfac·to�1 prob e T not be11efit as they should from tile 5 stem of 5 l security ap()l!cable to otl1e r workers, and vocational training !as ofte11 i 11��!qtt�te or w�f given ha� hazard i11sufficient attentiot1 bei11g paid to tile prisoner 5 capact ies and hts prospects of e mployment ttpon release [sic]. Zemans and Cavan, Marital Relatio11sliips of Prisoiiers27 The. �l,ilosopl1 y atid practices of I)enology are rat)idly shifti 11g f-on1 l1arsh an� pu111t1v_e to l1um�1�e a11d rel1abilitative. To \Vliat extent are marit�l relation sl11ps of prisoners ut1l1zed as a 111ea11s to better adjttst111e11t? . Tl1e philosopl1y_ of tl1e authors ... _is that marital and fan,ily co11tacts are a vital fJar_t of tl1e J1fe_ of a11y l111n1a11 be111g. Marriage gives structtire to one's personal life a11d fulfills ht1ma11 11eecls f?r affection, e111otioi1al security, 1:t1cot1rage�1e 11t and apprO\'al, sexual express1011, and so forth. Otl1er satisractio:is come w1tl1 parenthood. Tl1e_ saine 11eeds are jJrcse11t among prison ir1inates as amo11g free IJeople, but tl1e1r f ulfill111e11t is 11egleclecl. •

•

.iv\oreover, wl�e11 a priso11er is released 11e is 11su.1.lly in r1eecl of i1n1111:ci.1a.le perso11al a11d social a�cepta11ce b} a sn1all frie11d.ly grott[J. The f,1mily is tl1'-.: ideal g�oup to l1elp_ l1im make tl1e tr2.11sitio11 fro11;. (..:011fi11.err1ent to fr;�eclor:1. �t. may fail, l1owever, 1f tl1e personal relatio11sl1i iJ l1as fac1ed a.,J:;r;.;_.,,, c1ur1r1r_, t!1c t1�r1�i1 of imprisonment. 1

' '

•

Note 2: The Rationale for Modern Correciional ·r ��11,nio11.�:2s �

Sutherla11d and Cr e ssey, Prison Objectives aI1d

Co11clitio11s20

The success of tl1e priso11 in deterring tl'1e ger1e1·al JJttblic frorr1 crirne is probably much less than its success i11 inC£1J)acitati11g crirni11als. It certai11ly l1as some deterrent effect, but it is diffict1lt to compare tl1e deterrer1t effects of clif ferent prison policies or to isolate tl1e effect of ar1y priso11 policy fro1n the effect of the whole process of arres� and conviction. Perhaps the deterrent effect of imprisonment increases slightly witl1 the l1orrors of priso11 lite, tl1ougl1 tl1is is likely to be offMset by the difficulty of securi11g convictions if the public fe�ls that th e horrors of imprison n1ent are greate� tha11. �11e ho_rr�rs o_f th e �rtmes. Perhaps th e fa ct of incarceration, regardless or cond1t1011s \X'ith1n pris ons, 1s the most import ant factor in deterrence.... , ht ig ry sl _ ve n is io at rm fo re of ns ea n1 a as 1t e1 m The success of imprison n t ow _ no kn ly 1s al �u �c !t . ly t� ra ctt a� e 1 Ii1 rf! te although this, also, is difficult to de l1z ed treatment ua 1d 1y nd ch 1 l1_ \V n 1_ s on is pr whether recidivism is decreased by 1 methods have developed Tile statistics 011 this point are inadequate, btit tl1ey indicate that th e method; thus far developed l1ave 11ot been attended by very its m on m rs co pe e tl1 of nt e rc pe .6 66 8, significant change s in recidivisin. In I 95 27· In -49 ]. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 50 (1958). 28. S� th crland and Cresse y, Principles of Criminology 482-483 (1960). For measures that can be taken with respect to recidivists in Ethiopia, se e Arts. 128-132 P.C.E.

I I

I '' ' ' l

. ; I .. i _:. '

: :',1

1, ., •

I.. -�' t. .. : '

. ... ;·. ...''.. . . ,,.., .

,-·� ..,. . .. �'

',.

NCE E R R "E l E D f O L A E ID IE TI-

354

1'I /1 �

1, i I I

I I

1e tl e� n it [i � U es ri te o ta at S rm s] fo . re d 1d ha a1 s r1 so ri p al er d fe r o ted to state � ry t1 u o 1t at st rm 1n s, n fo e _r r o d an al th en p to is ts 1 1 1e n it tn tn co f o s rd co re JJrevioLts m o sh fr li ed g g n 1 E ar cl _ 1� d forma r� s y o b e 1 tl f O . te le p in o 1c j1 record is cP.rtainly t ce as le on at 1tl1in five d w te 1c nv co re e er w f al l 1 t ou ab tories in 1938-1944, ed n s e _ a_ g m le 11 re t1 yo co 0 51 f cu o se t 11 ce er p n .7 63 t ,a tl d ti u fo \( ec lu O years.(39) d_ s te ou 1t ri m se n1 y co fe or of at m or s ef e_ � ns e at St ts e� L1s ch sa as M ,e tl tively frotTI , od e ri at ol pe th ar 1 -� a1 St JO f _ r dt ea ad -y ve fi a or od ri pe le ro pa either dLtring the 1 � parole O: post-parole tl 1 11 r 1e tl e1 es ns fe of or 1 ir m d tio,ial 20.8 percent co111rnitte s or ou or ri in se m of e 11s rd fe of co re s no ad 1 l t en rc pe .5 15 ly 1 01 at tli period a,,d t e l1a th 1 1 umber of ew 111 so s te ra 40 g� ag ex Js a1 1 rl pe 1is Tl ) subseqLi ent to release.( 11g 10 e 1 e serious tl an us ca be ly al ci pe es od to rs de L1n y 1 ril 11a cli or serioLts cri111es as , 1:1 ce e sti fro tiv ju gi fu ser , de Lte sc re or e ap sc ''e d cle clu in e ar es im cr post-parole 1 d na vy , a11 d ser1ot1s at1tomobile a1 y m ar e tl1 m fro e rg l1a sc di ble ra tion or disho11o . le ro pa s stus me po rio cri se e 1 tl of t 1 1 rce fJe 23 ute offe11ses'' a11d tl1 ese constit 1 e offenses for \X'hich tl of 11t rce pe 80 t1te tit 11s co ery bb ro d a11 , ary rgl bt1 , 11y Larce 1t ce1 of 60 per the ly on d a11 y tor na or1 ref tl1e to d tte 1ni com e 1er wl offe11ders n 1es orcli the cri t tha tes ica ind o als dy stt1 1er otl An .. es e11s off ole Jar st-1 serioL1s po . ole Of a11d par e11t 11m riso imp by sed rea dec are t1s'' rio ''se d r1arily co11sidere 3,424 F'en 11sylva11 ia riarolees w 110 vialated parole by committing 11e\v cri1nes i l1om or y, glar bt1r e, raJJ y, ber rob ecl mitt com ly inal orig had 5 2,26 6, -195 1946 in cide; but tl1ese critnes were repeated by 011ly 1,626 of tl1 e parolees, a decrease of 28.2 perce11 t. Of tl1 e 1,626 offenses, 45 perce11 t \xrere con, n1itted by men 41 > Tl1 e l1igl1 failur e rate sl1ould not .< crin1e otl1er some of ted origi11ally convic be regarded as the resJJonsibilit>' of tl1 e last i11stitt1tion wl1icl1 dealt \X1itl1 these offenders. No i11stitutio111 receiving the failures of tl1 e rest of societ}', sl1ould be expected to refor11: a very large pro1Jortio11 of tl1en1. Also, tl1e reforn1ator)' ca11not prope�ly be given tl1e credit for tl1ose wl10 do refor111 after imprison1ne11t. Tl1ere 1s a te11de11cy to believe prison is a st1ccess if it does 11ot n1ake offe11ders \Vorse. •

lj ( I

•

Cressey, Tl1e NatL1re and Effective11ess of Correctio11al Tecl1 11 iqL1es29 . It must be e��l1asize? tl1at st1p1Jort for co11tint1i11 g tl1e pt111itive reaction to ays rime for or al\v_ spec 1f1ca lly. 1111p is len: i enti1 1g 1ent tl1is 1 im1J reac riso tio11 b)' 111 � ase 011 som sh e valu pu11 1 e wl11 cl1 of pun 1sl11 11e11 t d kir g·e11 1 . eral ly srJe or cific tl 1 e f. 1 m�11 �11f tcte? b¥. tlie f�ct of i11 carceratio11 is assr-tmed to have. We do 11ot have ariy obJ�ctivf, scte�ttfi� . evtdeiice tl,a! i11flicti11g JJai11 on crimi11als is an efficient �ys e!ll ?r niaititainttig, or restor111g, social i11 tegration We do not k,zow tliat tm�risotllllg me11 deters otl1 ers, rei11forces a11 ticri1ni11 al v·alues corrects criminals, . or 1n some otl1er way tJro111otes socia ·n 1 · ' t 1a_ I t · l know . s o_ I'd 1 ar1ty. we Neith do er . . flicting otlier kii,ds of )a111 ciety so orr�c ts es c:1m1 na!s, i11teg rat or ge11e rally, . . Moreover, we do t1 ot �rzo � ,at ttiflt�tttig 1 er otl e som or pain by 1m1Jriso11ment � 111eans is an ine.rr: · nt syste1n for acl11evi11g tl1 e desired ends. » icie . n In recent years there h�s .b een a d1st t·o o th� n , at from i n t tren a w d y a _ � _ tl1at inflicti11g pain ;eforms crttnina s. l Also, 1t 1s no w fasl11011able to aigue ·th· (39) A. G. Rose, Five Hundred BorS ca1 B oys (Oxford: Basis Blackwell, 1954), p. 21. (40) Sheldon and Eleanor T · GIuec _ PP· .0) 193 k, Fiv e f, Hu Kno ndr p ed Cri min al Careers (New York: 167-169, 182-192. (41) William L. Jacks, "Why are P .rnJ./ oJ ]011. ar l Returned to Prison as Parole Violators?" American Correction, 19:22-24, Deccn1ber f9��· 29. In 23 Law and Contemp orary p' b ro lerns 756, 764 (1958). . ..- - -�

- -•

•

MODERN PENOLOGY

355

pris��s do not correct and that? tl1erefore, tl1ey should be abolished or so mo dified that they become ho�p1tals rather than places of punishment. But neit her the tre�d 11or t�e fashionabl� arguments are based 011 scie11tific evi denc e that pu�tshment ts not effect1ve as a general correctio11al tecl1nique. This is true simply bec�use tl1�re !l ever 11as bee11 a11 acceptable measure of ''efficiency." How muc!1 .1n_tegrat1on ts 11 ecessary before a society is i11tegrated? How low mus� a rec1d1v1s� rat e be b efore it ca11 be said to be 1ni11i1nal? This kind of fairy-tale quest1011 car1 le ad 011ly to fairy-tale a11swers: ''some,'' "enough,'' ''lower tl,an at prese11t.'' •

•

• •

If correction al �vork wer:e scie11li fic1 eacl1 correctio11al lecl111ique would be establisl1ed 011 _ a rat1on�l basis .. We ,vot1ld be reaso11ably sure tl1al me11 colnmit crim e i11 certain describable c1rcumslar1ces a11d 11ot i11 oll1ers a11d tl1en we could set out to 1nodify tl1ese crime -prodt1ci11g circt1n1sta11ces: Utilizatio n of each correctio11al tecl111iq11e wottld be an experime11t ct esig11ed to test tl1e validity of a tl,eory of crime cattsation. Stated i11 anotl1er ,vay, fro111 a tl1eory of crime causation, ,v e \vould predict tl1at certai,1 t ecl111iques ,x,.011ld ,vork at1d otl1ers \'(IOUld not. If tl1e t ecl111iqt1e were car efttlly ad111i11istered u11der experime11tally-co11 trolled co n ditio11s bttt yet did 11ot cl1a11ge crimi11als, ,vie would be able to conclude eitl1 er tl1at (a) tl1e tl1eor)' 011 wl1icl1 tl1e tecl1niqt1e was based is \,;, ro ng, or (b) tl1e tecl1nique tts ed was r1ot co11siste11t witl1 tl1e theory. Becat1se correctio11al worl< is carried ot1t t111der tl1e ki11d of conclitions we l1ave already described - co11ditio11s \'(!]1icl1 ca11. scarcely be �l1aract_erizec\ as scientific - we are t111able lo dra,v, eitl1e1· co11clt1s1on. Tl·ie tecl1111ques 111 1.1se certai n ly a re 11ot derived fron1 precis e state1·ne11ts of cri1ni11ological tlte()ry.

. ...

Quesiions

Witl1 respect to Ato A11dargalcl1e,v's descri r)tio11 of Et.l1io1)ia11 j}riso11 l?r_ac lice: Is it wise to send tl1e 11ew prisoners im111ecliately. to tl1e class, f1cc1 sectio11s to ,vl1ich tl1ey belo11g? \Xfl1at ratio11al� ca11 be g1ve11 fo:· tl·1c c�as·: sifications made in Etl1iopia11 prisons? 'X:'l}�t 1s tl1e fJtirJJose ?f t�1e . \Y/t!rl� cl1ose11 for prisoners? WI,at otl1er fac1l1t1es are prov1clecl in Etl110JJ1a1. prisons? 2. WJ1at do you s ee as tl,e possible fL1nctio11s of f)riso11�?, I-Io\� ?o sttc!,_ ft111c� tions relate to the purposes of p1111is11111e11t? Do co11fl1cLS _beLwee1�. cl1ffere_n t aims of punisliment mal<e it difficttlt lf! 11�pleme11t rational pr 1s011 fJI_ �: · 15 co11form pr11na11ly to a det erre11t or ·rel1ab1l1 pr1so1 grams.? o o Eth·1op1an · tative l1iloso 11 ? Does tl1e 1Jriso11 syste111 conform t � th e �eq� treinents of the PP.C.E :f Proc. No. 45 of 1944 still good_ la\V 111 Et�t?J)Ia?_ What e adm1n1strat1on of tl1 111 es ng cl1a for ke ma recommendat1011s wo11 Id ) Ott ;: co11cer11ina . favor O f 1 ,ew legislatio11 0 Ethiopian priso11s? Would you be 111 priso11s in Ethiopia? 3. Do th e entr1·es on tl1e Cl1art of tli e Pr l·s011 System of Ethiopia seem accurate? What accounts for tl1 e large number of deatl1 se11tences and smaJl tl, sente11ces tl1an 11urnber of executions? W hy are tll ere n, aii� more dea 1 vy se11te11ces to ,ea of , i tio r e , tl_ e s t�rrns of life imp risot�m�n_t? Do ve l1a n1 to ste sy 11 iso pr a in al ? �� 1/� it Is .. e ltght sentences have s1g111f1canc e so ar l1y W ,t? i e m dg jtt ng iti wa a e between 1/3 and 1/2 of tli e f 150� � ab tl1e ou 1ed t co nc er 1 P e b e on ld 10 l �any full and partial pardo�s g iven er of priso11 ers i11 b m 11u l ta to e �\ 1 5 ·t? 1 figure ot· 112 deaths befor e 1udgmen · Etl1iopia surprising? 1.

rr·

! •

l I

, :•

I - ..,

l; ...'. "

I.I... .··' .., ' '

. .'

.': ..

356 4.

E C N E R R E T E D F O L A E ID TliE

� 0s of tl1 om fr a an r Gh fe f _ di , 1s 1 iso iiy Ke _1Jr a 's Jia oi lii t E do ys \va t lia t 111 \X e� an JJenal JJractic 1c m A d 11 a 1 sl l1 11g E _ te 1� 11 om e? d s or t c fa t ia 'l \v i? arid Mal p 1 r1s011 system? Would cl L1t D e tl1 of s 1c st 1 er t c ra 1a cl \X/l-iat are tlie pri111ary l r1 1g na re pe fo e tl1 ti ac of pr s 1y ce a1 of of 11 io Jt OJ a� _ e t li �d 11e 1 11 1 co e r you t\·1ese systen1s 1r1 Etl110JJ1 a? r isons?_ Ho\v is tl1e mar p n ia p _ 1io l _ Et to l� ab li� JJJ aJ 1 e ot Is tl"ie criticism 111 N s a l11gh r�te of recid oe D ? 1a �p l11 Et 1n l1 t J_ \V t al de 111 le ob IJr ital anci sexLtal re a l11gh rate of he t _ ls s? ue 1 _ q 111 cl te l 1a 1 t10 ec rr co ve i ct fe ivisrn iridicate inef 1 gl1 t be g1 ve11 for each of tlie 111 le 11a tio ra t l1a W ? ia op l1i Et reciclivism i11 t JJe ty l1a of ? W 11� r iso ea fJr res 11 c\1 Jia o l1i Et in ed s 11 . 1 es tic ac jJr 1al o1 cti corre 1 Sle 1n? S) 1 1 1s0 l pr 1a 1 111igl1t be l1el1JfL1l i11 bL1ilcli11g a n1ore rat10 Problem

•

Vo11 l1ave been asl<ed by tl1e l\t\i11is ter of l11terior to draft a sectio11 for a 11e\xr I)riso11s Proc.:lar11atio 1 1 011 ''classificatior1." �fl1e assig 11me11t s 1Jecifically asks yoL1 to set out tl1e broader JJL1r1Joses \Xil1icl1 I)Lt 11ishme11t i11 Etl1io1)ia must serve a11d to carefull} ' relate yo11r classificatio1 1 syste111 to tl1ose jJUff)Oses.

Recommended Readings

I I I

L o\x1e11stei11, Tl1� Pe11a_l S;1ste 111 of Etl1iopia, i11 lv\ilr1er, Pe,zctl SJ,sler12s of Africa �to be_ J)ttbl1sl1ed 111 1965) a11d 2 ]. Eth. L. (\v'i11ter, 1965) (a11 article cleal111g \v1tl1 botl� yo�111g a1�d �clult offe11ders, tl1e pL1r 1)oses of f)L1 11isl1111e11t ancl tl1e legal sett111g 111 Etl1101J1a). Sy1111)osit11n 911 Cri111e �11cl Corre�tio11, 23_ Law a;zcl Co,1,ten1por,:z--,J' Probfcr;;s 583783 _ (19:JS) (a. series of . articles, J)r1111aril>' critical, co11c e rni11g various apJJl oacl1es to tl1e corre ct1011 of offe11ders). J ol111sor1, Cri1ne, <;;orrectiotz, a11cl Society 515-620 (1964) (a o·ood treatmer1 t of 1Jris011s and tl1e1r progra111s, 1Jri1narily i11 tl1e U11ited S�tes). .. Kort� aiid McCorl<le, �ri1nitzolog_1 a,�d PenologJ! Z18-414, 458-530 ( l 961) (?is�LlS �.i011 ?f �l1 e tlieo i y a11cl l11sto1)1 of (JL1r11sl1111e11t ar1d tl1e ct1rrer1t 111st1tti t1011al1zat1011 of offe11ders). Botizat, Droit JJe,zal 355-415 (a SL1rvey of tl1e jJriso11 syste111s i1 1 1=ra11ce). J-I Llg�e},�Y �11_d Atice 1 - I-ILtg11e11 e)1, de Vabres a 11d A1 1cel L es Grarids Sys ternes 1 J e�iitentr.atres Actr,�l� (1950 a11d 1955) (descri JJtio1 1s i11 fre11cl1 of 11u111erott5 pr1so11 syst�111s ti11 ougliottt tlie \xrorld). . . A11cel, J_es N0 t1,01�s d� Preve11tio11 du Crime ant s 1qu 1 Oe li de Tr et s ait de en1ent da11 s les L eg1slat1011s EtiroiJee1111es M od er11es, 16 1 J · Suisse enal 71 J Revi,e = . . � n ( 1956 ) (cliscLtssi i, f Eui opean theories concerning the treatment aoci prevention of criine). D e1Jart1ne11t of Ecor1011,ic . n_ la t1ou;; ·, · Affairs, . United . Nations, f!rr.so l s ocial U.N. Pub!., ST/SOA/S�;c (1955) ' e eatm ti com ( ve JJrel1ens1ve a11d comparat1 of 1Jriso11 Iabottr). . C le111 rner TA p · o f 9 d _ 8 � (an ;i� stu y O " n u (lie � O ) Y ical excellent { � � sociolog i� ; . ; soci ty _ p o ne A m eiican J)r1s011). .. .sorl . Syl<e.s' The soci·ety o.f . C a p ti r r ve 1 ( l � 9 5 p 8 ) ( t rity h e study secu of a maximum ) :· • 111 the United State _ s). s Sm1t!1, Wo,11,e,i i,i Priso,1 (1 s .. , ; 9 6 2 _ ) i . (t · :. l1 � e { Jr . so. n er_ · . . ::· . _ r 1 h 1 " s e t o � ry a11 d status of 1ema . . tn O reat Britain). '

;

•

�f

;

.' '•• '

•

. ..•

.•

•

·_.:___,!

--· • . • -.---

�

·-.

· . .....

.t.,,:\ ,

•

MODERN PENOLOGY

357

Pris Lab on our of in ms Under�Developed .. Cottntries ' 14 Int. Rev. rob le P i p·tta 1 � / Crim. Policy 3-9 (1959). Jro1;1 Pan�ma to G_ape Hor11 ( 1946) (a descriptive study of the y Pe11olog s, ter Tee 1n Latin America). prison systems _ Syste of ms Priso n England, 41 ]. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 578The s, ter Tee 589 (1951). Marit al Relat ionsl1ips _of Priso11ers in Twe11ty-Eigl1t Cot111Zema ns and an ! Cav _ tries, 49 ]. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Set. 133-139 ( 1958). Rose, The Struggl e for Penal Reform ( 1961) (a history of 1)e11al reform witl1 .spe cial reference to tl1e Howard Leag11e). MacCormick, The Priso11's Role i11 Cri n1e Preve11tio11, Ll 1 ]. Crini. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 36-48 (1950).

I..

. .. '

': .' ' ' '

•

.... .. '

. ·I;.. · .. �

. , ·,, :' -·-' '. ... .'' . ;:. ,.. .,. , : �·

... . •.. I I'··. ,.,�.. �--... '

CHAPTER 16

n io t a it il b a h e R f o l a e d I The E M RI C F O N O TI SA U A C E H T o A N SECTIO

( ) C. 2 0. -6 61 19 , E. C. 54 19 A PI IO H ET R FO CS TI IS CRIMINAL STAT

nt me n vern pia Go !?io Et l ria pe Im ce, sti Ju of y str ini M , eni rtm pa Adrv ocate General's De ,et ;;x•

' ii

Fif

-'i·/'

-o

1.,

ertxceo•,:rs1 e

,-,1

PROVINCE '

I ,

Addis Ababa Shoa (-AA) Sida1no

Gojam Wollega

Tigre

'! '

, I I I

o.., E0

'r' .......,Cl..-.

Harrar

I I I

'"-0 Cl,_ ,_, .0 0 .-

Kaffa (-GE) Be 0 ctnder \X'ollo Arussi

Bale Gon1u-Gofa

Illubabor Geleb Awr.

132 9 l l8 104 77 76 54 61

24 84 36 17 52 26 5 875

if#iCW:'II

ifliA4Y

IN DICTlv1ENTS2

Inten-

cional Bodily Harm

3168

1780 1967 1269 694 1096 699 751 526 483 544 249 388 293 40 13947

di INttfi&i

-, u

"'-o C:.- Inten- Prop- Petty 0 u e rty

Prod,ercy Perry 4 ·;:i·- tional OffenTotals en en · Off 0 c: Bodily Off e n� 0 ses ses "' ses ses rm ::;:r: I Ia ,_.

1834 1877 2269 1546 1280 786 835 1135 853 699 639 377 402 579 58 15179

ACQUITTALS

CONVICTIONS

2399 12493 399 5565 1131 9502 4.10 6892 126 4379 25 3910 280 3805 739 4097 1193 2874 123 2917 198 2710 34 1484, 48 1913 72 1678 12 290 7189a 64509

1 8 3 1 12 5 3 l 14 10

65-

800 909 1919 L99 1158 271 679 1213 523 391 645 I I b 367 687 10 l 294 330 12 358 571 126 238 575 214 354 593 661 256 503 71 178 264 46 67 125 14 179 241 23 87 278 22 15 34 7 4562 8146 4126

C: ·ou ·.... c: E

lnten- Prop- Petry tional crry Offen- Touts BodiJy Offen- se.s � 0 ses c:: .,.. Harn1 .. 0

"'Ci

Totals

5249 23 1720 507 280 4457 204-2 5 1029 485 IO I 2285 -?3741 13 I :)_:) 337 200 2032 2009 I l 394 254 98 1782 3 398 2005 4 46 92 9 1209 1 3 86 9 359 105 1762 6 127 1 I 0 60 696 211 I 209 2 18 ')-3 _, 13 21 l 32� 51 I 75 57 1 1768 4 If 19 62 74 1505 . ...,1 31 667 878 4 142 I.) 28� 7 50 52 378 541 13 76 815 l 123 ' 8 !.1 .. 577 2 62 69 21 -s� 3 6 1 l 115 1 5! 66 1 1205 255!:>1 88 4994 2541

. of the l. T�e. following chart is adapted fro m fi ur es . . enr ' bf ained �y the P�hce and r�corded in the A�v ocate General s. �e pa� · rnis.cell_ a M1111stry of Justice. 195-4 E. c. is the I!t . . cci�ns .r potcnual ea� con':1 or which stat1sucs chart, are available. O n the eng1nal !1eous offenses accounted for mor e th 3 . gtrt n · ns O ' ' t irty d1ca e ce t in of uC?. ••c all several T d offen � com � p es s re �d are · e h mitte . . inac curacy: only on e intentional hom1c1 e conv1ct1on 5 ,:, C '. figures .. r � . for ."burg Iary" wl�1c he Police l!;u ..:._ � . h is not a crin1e sec out in lhe P IS rep orce d f.or Add"is A b ab a during the year 19 .• .c.- by t cna l 1eported Code ; instances of negligent injuries arc ..· a tn al ha 1 decerm1ned th e existence of n 1 · . eg 1g • ence, etc )c:..=..-- ::. 6 . ... . . 1 6-,.4 • . 1 2. Categones for invest1gauon• start cd" . (tor.a, ... ' · · ( rota I l 04 8-14) � ,,in d" � e I o - . .. - _ . ves�g�uons not completed" (ro�al, 5,719), "file s c s and " tn· aIs not completed" (total, 22 ,30 J) . a'Ithoug' h 0 the or1g 1 .nal chart, hav . . . . 1nclu dcd. e not been ,gl!flst� 3. Thu c�tegory, on the original sta �s . . e f tistical ch . . l robbery, le theft-_ O f n possession of 1mn1ovablc property ---:-� ,:.,__· ·: ; (Arts. 6 ��-�� u:�:E. ) ere bu�la."1', theft of animals and simp . , 'J\'bJ�li not ·: d. liste . w b·"" · . . . ·\!!,a·:I· c ,...• • tO· - ·· · 4. Trhe totals show all crime·� commit te d 1n Et h10 pia, and . �herefore, include the t. .he. orig. ae not rec.orde d on 1.he above fr. o m ties following g !fr�_.__�::, � _ ·: ti s �ta t:tin ch ar i: ar , t cm ted . �0;';111c1de, �omicide by neg li-gencr' bo. dily 'ha.rm by -nl'ghgence �.�,� :-.-:,-::--=:: _.:;-. an other pe rsons property' "crimes _ .- , .. touching ,p the sp1r1t and llllscellanc:ous . . · , offenscs. . ..•: ..· .·. ·, :;,;:.· ..; · . _,.•·-�:� ·-- -,_,'I.. �- ... .;•.: . , -- • -'"":..:.:':" � - '" :: -. ,.

CRIME CAUSATION

INTRODUCTORY REVIEW Qf ...THE SEARCH FOR CAUSES5

359

Walter Reckless

. St:holars l1ave sougl1t to explain crime for many ye�rs. Pnor to. the eighte explanations t ended to be den th ry, centu n° gic_al (po ssession by an th een evil spirit) or naturalistic (an affected brain) Du,�� g /fe eig.hteen th century, th e so-called Classical School of Crin1ino\ogy �,ner ed 1;5 11 11 )o �ents were r a nd _Be11tl1am (Etigland, 1 �48�183 2)· ie a�s1cal Scho Beccaria (Italy, 1735-95)_ ol a r a tion lism, according to which 1 a contra ts mtellectual ly was really based on � ; p a in e a r hi rt l ns ce tio s to in ith w / hi s fellow 1 to en ter 1 � a ct theory of society). He w�s pr esumed to have t he power to choo�� fg�.1� from r o�g. The pleasure-pam theory of man's actions (hedonism) was al 0 ,111 r or a_ 7ed tn to the theories of the Classical Scl1ool of Crimii, ology a s �e�av1or \Va s supposed to be guided by ,v11at brot1gl1t l1i111 pleasure ·and f1 e ,xras � ll Pl )Osed to tur11 away . from tl1e things \Vl1icl1 · · broug.ht liiin p�in ai1 d pe11alt1es. O ne read·1I y recognizes tl 1a t mo dern c_rim111a1 la,v 1s based 011 the presumpti on tl,at �an has tl1e pow�r �o cl1oose r1gl1t fron1 wrong (unless 11e is insai1e at tiie time of tl1e com1111ss1011 of tl1e deed). . As t?e vari�t1s �cie11ces bega11 to �r?,v, particularly biology, anth ropology, s0�1010�}, J)sycl11atry, f)srcl1olo�)',. stat1st1cs, tl1e ex.planations s0011 shifted from rat1?nal1sm to catis�s :X'l!1cl1 exist tn tl1e hereditary, co11stitt1tio11al, and J)syclio log1cal 1:1akeup_ of 1nd1v1dt1 als as well as tl1e caus es \J1l1icl1 exist in tl1e pl1ysical and social e 11v1ronme11t of man. �t one p oi�t }TI tl1e ea:lY ni11etee1�tl1 ce11tt1ry, geogra1Jl1ers becaine imp re ss� ed with tl1e var1atio11 of crime accord1 11g to clim,ttic co11clitio11s. St1cl1 a tl1eor)' became known as tl1e ''thermal tl,eo r)'," accord;r1g to wl1icl1 crimes agair1st the perso11 were considered to be i11duced by l1otter cli111ates ::i.11ci criri1es agair1st property, by colder cli1n ates. Begi1111ing abot1t 1830, ,x,hen statistical1 rerJo rti11g on such tl1ings as crime beca111e a part of gover11mer1tal. f1111ctio11, se 1eral si�ttis� ticia11s became impressed witl1 tl1e variation i11 critne rates by various sectio11s or provinces of Europea11 cou11tries a11d called atte11tio11 to tl1e variatior1s 111. socioeconomic conditions wl1icl1 seen1ed to cattse l1igh or lo\r1 cri111e rates Toward the end of the nii1etee11tl1 centt1ry, statistically orie11ted researcl1ers re s o11 ati ctu flu ly ear tl1e tl1 \vi 1ne cri of 11e lt11 vo e tl1 in 1s d ate 1 tio a ctu the yearly flu ! e of crime; 1n the price of gr ain - wl1en grai11 was l1igl1, tl1ere wa s a higl1 volum when low, a low crime volu1ne. ry wl1icl1 br ol<e u nt ce th en te ne ni te la e th of ry eo th a The most sensation l ros? (Italy, b m La by ed nd ou op P: e on e th the back of rationalistic theory, w as as �) : "\;{ 10 ut ol ev of ry e? (�h . m 1s 111 w ar D at tl1 �- 1876). It should be re m embered ve 1t1 y 1m pr ud _st to g 1n 1n _ 1 g1 be e r e w ts is og ol op r Just coming of ag e and that a11tl1 ombroso, n: � t1o o lu e'-: al ci so of e m l1e sc pe oples and attempting to work out a o us cr1m1nal, e�pe ri se e th t 1a tl ed os op pr reflecting these frames of reference ed . th� t the physical n� e nt co e f-! ". al in m cially t he murderer, w as a "bor n �ri e ? f �' throw 1 at 1c 11d l/ re � w s) !� al om an d mental characteristics (stigmata o r an � mal t heory 1� c1 rn o b . s In ed 1h d o 1 " back to primitive m a n (atavism). Late r he avior. And he h be n ? y og ol th pa n ai to_ allow for the effects of epilepsy and br als; S?me were only m m cn rn o b e er w still later recognized that n o t al l crimin als en t along m n o ir n v e d a b a f o s e r u ss cri_ minaloids. His last work consider e d the p re

¥: 0 J

with hereditary criminality.

5· Reckless, Tht Crj,m Problem 233-238 (3d ed., t96l).

I I

' ..... ' .

;

I I. .... i

I :

I . .. '

. . ·::

.. I... ....

.. . .

,.. .:... . . .. .' I. .....

.. . .· ;.:- ' '. ... .

: , •.�,I �.. I. '

. n:·

.·<�! '

·:.

360

,I 1i

'! ,I

I •! d !

I If )

I •• } \

' '• ' �

)

{, I I

N IO T A IT IL B A H E R f O L A E ID THE

al in rim of og C � l ol o _ _ ci o l1o Sc _ y e tl1 in , d re wherea s l1e us ) 84 18 c. y, al (It i Ferr og l o_ op al 1 hr 11 n� y m � r1 C of (which two ol ho Sc e th i11 d re I1e d tis

Lonlbroso ha ). E� al 1n og m ?l r1 C B1 of y ol in h? Sc e 1 tl p a� ro e generatioi,s later be�a1ne l<11own �s e us th 1n ca �o _ e 11 th 10 1�t te at ci so 11g ll1 ca al en by se ca s hi st re t 110 d di Ferri al s1c e 1y pl th ro 1n 1v1 1 e_ ed 1st ex es us nmei it as ca at th ted sis in vironment. He also . an 1�1 m is_ of th up se ke sen rn� l na , io ut tit ns co Ferri d an ary dit re he e th as ll we 1 1bro_so,_ w1tl1 i'a�1011alism.The 1 Lo d di as e, ok br o to l1e gl1 1 l ou alt was an eclectic, y log; 1no 1s 1m Cr of en ol oft l1o Sc l ica ass Cl called tl1e d a11 sm ali ion rat 1 t1 wi breal< l1� t1g 1n so re. the '-Ye es tts ca t heredit ary, tha te ica ind to t a11 n1e is h 1ic wl , Positivistn ent 11m 1ro 01s e!1v as tn , a11d that ll we as . n ma of 1p ket ma tal 1 1 me physical, and the tl1 eory tra11scends the dubious free wi ll of tl1e rat1011al1sts (power to cl1oose between rigl1 t and wrong). Ferri's e1n1j}1 asis 011 Crin1i11al Sociology l1as been carried forward to the JJrese11t, . .. es1Jecially by Et1roJJea11 scl1olars. The American sociologists start eel fro1n tl1is point of vie\xr, 11a1nely by. calling atte11tio11 to the bad conditions a11d pressL1res in tl1e social enviro11me11 t, bt1t fi11ally began to get a closer focus on tl1eir target. First, ti1ey focused 011 social disorga11\zation. Later the focus was 11arro\v;ed to st1cl1 ca11ses as differential associatio11 and differe11tial identifi catio11 1 deli11quent subct1lture1 lacl< of controls, both· _ in11er (self) a11d outer (social), failure to develop a11 i11st1lating self-concept. S01ne American sociologists felt it was 11ecessary to explain SJJecific orders of crime or SJJecific or 1101no ge11eous groups of offenders, t]1i11king· that tl1e forn1ulation or an adequate ge11eral tl1 eorJ, to account for all for1ns of crime is \V/ell-11igh impossible .... One sliould 11ote that Charles Oori11g (England, c. 1910) de111011strated by meas11rement and statistics t11at the cra11 ial a11d skeletal cl1aracteristics of born crin1i�als _as observed b� Lof!Ibroso did 11ot apJJly to 3000 Englisl1 convicts. lie did find son:ie relat1onsh1p betwee11 pl1ysique and type of cri111e, pretty 111ucl� 011_ tl1 e basis ?f_ � certain type of pl1ysique bei11g. naturally selected fo,� certain k111ds of act1v1t1es. I11 addition, Oorino· fou11d tliat ''weal{-n1in dedness was probably tl1 e most_ import�1�t factor in crh11i11ality. His fi11dings arso poin_t e� to the fact tl1at social cond1t1011s had ,,ery little to do with criminality.This piece of y;ork, altl1ougl1 great exceptio11 can be take11 \vith it in regard to the tll-det�rm �rted meast1re of 11\xrea�-mi �dedness'' a11d the poorly specified 1-i:ieastires of social influence, goes down 111 l11story as a n1 ode l of researcl1 in criminolog y. · · · Mai,� studies, falling: witl1in tl1e Scl1ool of Criminal Biology, have a_t tempted to fJI ove tl,e hereditary deter111i11ation of crimi11al behavior. Tl115 . at_tempt _lia� 110t ?een give11 m11cl1 credit in tl1e U t1ited States although Euro pe_an cr11:11110logists, _fJsychiatrists, biologists, and psycl1olog ts still believe is st1ongly In tl,e l,ereditary deter111i11ation of the se rious, repetitive criminals. , ub , .· Euro1Je�n tnedical :nen, psycl1iatrists, s ists olog ant hro and p pl� ysi cal and s t ibe l1ear 1ly to the notion of tl1e ''real cri ve eti ti rep mi 11a hig l'' l1ly wl 10 is : � to s o�s ear y rel�pse after bei11g released ed tri e hav ' fro Tl1 m e , ris on as s e 1fy tl1e phys1_ cal an d tne11tal constitt1t l we l as al' ' io n cr of im in th � ''r ea i -== � S a , o ·� � more ser1ot1s and less serious , n,_ tio titu co ns off en de rs "' cri mi Th na e l a_ tic� ton of tl,e SGhool of Crimina1 B. . . -Lo m-o ra .· o ne I o a o g y y It� l al_ , :e pe is �uro l ea s1a11 co11strt1ct. Tl1e diffict1lty is tl r ' e ' � 1 tl or ; a t h on e � cr11n1 nal const1tut1 . · _ ,d to criminal'' is much mo e of a . IS cl1 It n1 ca l . co re ns ali trt ty 1ct tl1 a an specify it by researcl1 � easurem�11t: ht�e,orY the _ Tl1e experts who subscribe to act as if tl1e con1 1 J011ent5 of a · ,tn e. Y- �� , icl 1 (wl crim 111al constitution are ide11tifiable really are not). If

•

CRIME CAUSATION

361

The strong fatalistic belief in the ''real cr im inal'' the_ cr. 11.nal co11st1.tut1. 0 11 we , akn ess es of f or making adjust a,1c e erit me�ts n 1 l e, a 1d the deter t inh of physical gr?w�h an d tl1e pers onality by d� tles iands... h�oation s g and s1a Lo n1s mb m ro an d the fro m Sc l1o hift o l !11� of Crimi�,al An l� ro�ology to th s mrosianism a11d tl1e Scl1ool of i i 1,o Cri al b nin Bi ology e erge � 111 t!1e I 920's. nO ap sti ply ll i11 ns Eu rope today fro fic tio c se -the m Sw ed A �l · e� · t o t a l 1 Y, 111 a most · ' · ugh probabl (alth o ' s Y wa y 11 0 t 11 1 ... _ovt et Russia, \vl1ere ot]1er fi pervva�iv). eH ct io 11 s th er ar e e er , o 1 ow tab ev le e 1 xc ep t10 11s ail to biological f at 1.tsn, mor1g re P d octors, tl1e JJsycl1iat rists, a11 ct psycliol ogis ica l me d e ts of W f r1 ; 0 th The b elie_f i� not very st ro�g i11 E11gland, a11d oll1er i1nr)ort��1 f !s1a11�;� 1Jif (nonconst1tut1011al) psycl1oge111c tl1eory ca11 be fot111ct it, oe11n,arl< i11 v· na, ud c ing the foll owers o! Frettd a11cl Alf recl A ller aild ii, Zttri�I , incl�gtrig l n i . ' c ' the disci1Jles of Pestalozz1 and Carl J tt11g.

�ooton, the physical a11tl1r�pologist at . I-Iarvard, co mJ)a red the aritliropo melrtc meas11res (skeletal a11d cra111,1l) of A111er1ca11 JJriso11e rs \Viti, civiliai, \vorl<ers an� �as _ led to C?t1clLt_de t_l1at t_ l1� ,x,J1ite . critninals (11ot tl,e Negro) s11owed ctef1n1te signs of b1 olog1�al_ 111fe:1or1ty, wl11cl1 ,xras fJresun,ed to be iriherited. Ho\v lie leaps fron1 stat1st1cal d1ffere11ces bet,v1ee11 convicts a11d civilian 1nales to biolog_ical i11feriori ty is 11 ot scie11_tifically clear. fo]lo\vi11g i11 l1is footste1 Js, Sheldo11 111vented a metl1od to S[Jectfy son1atotyr)es and co11t e11ded tl1at me11 ta.I and tetnJJeramental co11ditions as \veil as delii1qt1e11cy ai1d crime are relatecl to certai11 grouJJings of sotnatot)rpes, partict1larly tl1e n1eson1orphic.Tl1e deter mination of somatotyrJe is probably 1n11cl1 1nore ,ti::ct1rate tha11 tl,at of otl1er mental a11d temperame11tal c o11ditio11s. Tl1e Olt1ecl(s (1e1e r 111i11ec{ tl1at delir1qt1ents \rere l1eavily co11centrated i11 tl1e i1eavy meso11·1or1)i1ic ra,1ge of s0111alotyJJes and also made certair1 specifie co11clusions iii reference to il1e de! tr1qt1ei1C)' potentialities of tl1e other somatot),pes. J-Iowever 1 r11a11y sociologists ;tr1d iJsy� chiatrists as \vel{ as psycl1ologists sitnJ)ly do not subscribe to tr1e Olt1ecl,�s findi11gs and are \Vaiti11g for studies wl1icl1 v.rill disprove their co11te11tio11s.

The years during \vhicl1 I-looto11, Sl1eldo11 and qtuecl< :"'er� n1ost a.ctiv<·� are ro11gl1ly from 1936 until 195 7 (JJ11blicatio11 dates).11,ese sc1e1�t1sts r:11al{e tl1e America11 bid for tl1e impo r tance of t11e constitutio11al con11)011e11t 111 clel111q_t1e!1c�/ and crime, and may be c ontrasted \vitl1 tl1e Et1ropea11 ?cl1?ol of Cr1n1111al �iology , which empliasizes lie redity \veal{11es_ses a11d _const1tt1l101:al \v'eal<1�e.sses 1n describing tlie real c rimii,al. Tlie A1ner1ca11s arrived at tl1e1� J)ropos1t1011s by painstaking measurements and researcl1; the Europea11s, �y cl1n1cal l�t1ncl1es from a restr icted r1umber of cases. Neither group l1as a f111al a11swe1. Eacl1 is probably very wide of tl1e target. in a� � \ el as ss iie ill l ta 1 e1 � f o d el fi . There is a school of thinki11 g i11 tl1e � cr1mitiology which migllt be called th e Psychogenic Scl1?ol. Tl1e ps} ch1atr1sts, psychoanalysts an d psychologists of tl1is scl1ool co11 ceive ?f c�aract� r and personality as 'a fut,ction of expe riences in interper so 11al relat10 11sl11ps �vtt � t �e Y . e in m er et d t o 11 1d a1 d o o li ld li mother, f atl1er, and s1'bl.1ngs d ur1·ng early cl · tm · plies that t l1e traits . 1tered1ty and pl1ysical constitt1tio11. Tl1e ter tn psychogenic aoct patterns o f perso11ality inclttding ego an d 5uper_ego, are a p_rod u�t 0f experi ence - after one is born. Mental illnesses _wl11cl1 r� �� 11��d [i�� g _ l1 t str esses and strai11s of living are .also. called fttiicttonal,_ ti i or e as d tse · m f ro g in lt u s e from ental r ts illnesses du e to bra111 impat rmen . h are close in meaning. m d h atn a ge. F_un ms ter e ar ic gen cho l ctiona an d psy to in k ac b l1 ac re h ic h w s n psycho g en1c usually refers to developmenta 1 co11�1-t�� earl y childhood.

•

..' . .. f.'''· ..".. I'·:· . I'...''.:. ,.l . '

;

. .:,

,., , ". " ' ,. .. '

t . ' .: ' ; ·.

I• '

! . '

i .:

' ''

' ' '

' i '

' '

....•. '

" I"

)

TI-IE IDEAL Of REHABILITATION

362

'I • '

1d 1 _ · ed, re petitive · a ri_ rn s� e c ou s crim on c _ s i a i� er m A in y tr a i i l yc s p As far as !1 ge l�o 1c yc or1g1�, which of ps s er rd so di t y l1 na o s_ r _ pe t o d e t la i i,ality is oftei1 re es but w�ic l1 include _ dtst urb�n s ho y� s JJ or 1�y 1e1 f1c de l ta n e a re definitely not m e e rsonality, passive bl p ta ns _u lly a n io ot em y, lit a on s r pe ces such as i nadequate . s are. a mo�e caref ul er rd so di se e _ Th . on ati vi de al xu se t y, li a n aggres sive perso hall d1ag�?st1c �asket, tc ca e t� 1n d de clu in be to ed s t1 iat s pecification of wl entioned, the preva1�1ng view iii m en �e as h As ." . lity 11a rso pe c tlii ''psycliopa ers are ps ychogen_1c. Howev er, d o� d1s y lit na rso e p t a t h is ry t hia yc s American p a t psychopat l1ic per sonality th w e vi the of s e r ld ho up cal vo ry ve t here are so1ne tl1ogenic) in tl1e brain.. , . pa or ry e ta di r (l1e s vay th\ pa d ge ma da of t ul res e i is tl k e good adjust1na not do s �r ord dis y t li o11a s per m fro ng feri suf ns Perso 1nents to life situations. Tl1ey are hard to conta111. Some become very aggres live wi t11. Sue�. perso11s have sive. ver y difficult to ma11age, a nd very har d to a fairly l1igl1 crime fJOtential, arid ma11y of tl1e m b eco111e repet1t1ve offenders. Tl1ey are i11 co11trast to perso11s suffering from psycl1oneuroses. Tl1eir anxieties, pl1obic reactio11s, dissocia tive a11d co11version n1ecl1a11isn;is ordi1 1 arily do not in volve tl1e111 in crime a11d delinquency. When the 11eurotic m ecl1a11 ism takes tl1e for111 of an obsessi,,e co1npulsive reactio11, the n the 11eurotic may steal or set fires. Usually tl1e expecto.tion is tl 1a t tl1e neurotic is so well contai11 ed that l1e suffers ar1d ago11 izes a11 d feels l1orribly uncomfor table. But he does not ordinarily act out l1is neurosi s in cri1ne. The psychologists and psychiatrists \Y1ho l 1ave followed in tl1e footsteps of frtt1d - more particularly Freud's disciple, Aicl1l1orn - call att ention to .faulty devel opn1ent of tl1e ego a11d superego, \Vl1icl1 m akes it diffict1lt for tl1e perso n to _co�1tai11 . l1is i1npulses. Ego and superego failure is a product of fat1lty up�r1ng_1�g, 1 n tl1e very early years of childl1ood. Deli nqu e11cy results from the 1nab!l1ty of t he �go and SLlfJerego to control irnpttlsiveness. Of all the neo-freud1a11 formulat1011s based on tl1e fa ilure of tl1e bel1avior control sys tem to handle the id (tl1e i11st incts, impulses, drives), t he 011e by Redl is pe_rhaps the bes� thot1gl1t 011 t a11d has_ tl1e best possibility for treatn1e11t ap pl1cat1on. But A1cl1l1orn , Alexander, fr1edla11der 1 to mentior1 a few of tl1 e neofret1dians, are also giants i11 tl1e field. Tl1e sociologist \vor1der s wl1etl1er t!-1e 11eo-freudia11s lik e Aicl,Iior,1 or Redl ha�e a 1nore realist_ ic forn1ulatio11 tl1ar1 do tl1e gerieral ru11 of Arnerica11 fJsych i at_r1st s wl10 su?s�r1be t_ o t l1e conce1Jt of l)ersonality disturbances. Botl1 grou ps a re psycl1oge111c 1n point of re fere11ce. B o tli see a dis t urbaiice at work. Both � re apt .to contend tl1at a large par t of t he jtivenile and a dult offeiiders fit into their constr\t�ts . Wl�ereas tl1e socio!ogist is aJJt to say tliat only a s �all par t of tl1e rep�t1t1v� del111que11 ts a11d crtmiiials fit the tieo-fre udian formt1lat1on or the p�rso11al1ty d1sor�er tl1eory. At any rate, the Psychogetiic School, if \f/e are p�rm_1tted to_ label 1t as sucl1, emer ged witl, growing furlctionalism and . ceFret1d1an1sm afte1 World W ar I and has been g r o · · s1n ver e ure w111g t t n s a 1 · · Consequen�ly, t here are r�ally three sc_hools which _ attli�g-,-- urrently b ar c e . f or st1_prem _ acy i n the explanat1011 of cr1m1nal and de e t11 ; vio r li n uen t beha Co�1st1tut1onal _ Scho ol, the Ps�chogeiiic Sc ll ool, ol cl1 _ o S an d t he \ociolo ical (mostly �mer1can). In t he �n1ted S tates, it is al cip n pr ob ab l t ha.t �e pri tr ue strugg;le !S bet_wee11 the S oc1ological School· an e h l . oo T -=h S c d tl,e sychogen1c . Const1tut1onal School is 11o t relativel o C ne th r, P?werful. . ' .e Y l1oweve In Europe, . . stitutio11al School (Crimi 1 8 o 1ogy 1S en cho 111 Psy School and the Sociologr:a1 �c} 100l) come �he ascendancy and the very gpo�=f 1n a po or se co nd �nd a t hird.

• •

••

-----

•

--· .· •

...

.· · i_ \: .:·.5·,•\. . ·

CRIME CAUSATION

363

TYPES OF CRIMINAL1·rv RESlJL OF NT IO N E TINO FRO PREV OCIA CC HA O GE M S P A AN N N D A YING E CONOMIC DEVELOP:E� T C L

IN LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES<>

Secretariat1 Department of Social and Eco?zoniz·c Al 1r ·rs, JJ,'ll . United Natio11s The Concept of �ocial Disorga_ni�ation: lt is geiierally rec·o�111·zed tllat

•

J)l o1n soci c11a ract al er1s the t1cs .ide1 1tificcl \Vitl1 a.: tra11s1t1011 to a . l·n ent among 1n o d er 11 ac _ c om pa d n1 b e no Y m so y cial cl_1a11ge ar e to be foL11 1d tl1 e l1e 11o . type of �co n 1del inq uen cy. Cri and me . a1 1 d del111que11c:,, are of cot, rse' 110t pJ)ecti_1iar ena of crime e existed tl1rot1gl1 otit recorded 111·'story · Nor ca1 1 a11 cr11ne to this ·process; tl1ey hav · · · · i · occt 1rr1n t \Vt 11 g 11 a sett 111 g of raJJid social aiid 11cy and del1 nque ec 0 1 0n11c c 11 t e b e identified as resulting dire· ctly or ir1directl,,J. frorn tl;is process • I t !1s c1ear, 1a10\v i� • · hstanct·111g the 111adeq ttacy_ of cr1_n111 1al statistics arid tlie deartl, of ever, notw 1t co�pete�t research, �hat most countries st1bJe_cted today to gross cl,aiige ac co_mpany1ng e�onom1 c develo_ pme11t are co11sc1 ot1s of w1de-sJJread problei,,s of crime and del1nque11�y as pr1n1a_ry o: se�o11dary conseq_ue11ces of tli is ra,Jid change. M�ny co�ntr1_es are p�rt1cula1 ly d1 stt1 rbe cl at tl1 e 111volve11 1e1 1t of yolttli in aggressive ant1�soc1al bel1av1ot1r. It is g�nerally assu�ed, moreo�er, that it is i11evitable tl1at tl1e social c hange wh1cl1 accompanies ecor 1 01n1 c develoJJi11e11t will 11:ive as a co11co 111_ it�nt_ a _marked i�cr��se ill crime alo11 g. witl1 tl1e en 1 erge11ce of lyj)es <Jf cr1m1nal1ty 11ot s1gn1f1 ca1 1tly observable 11 1 tl1e past. Tl1is assl11111)tirJ11 is seldom challenged, primarily because criine l1as al \VJ;_i_ys bee11 a clia racteristic of society in transition. In its si1111Jlest forin tl1e co11 ter1tioi 1 is tl·1at tl1cre must be social breakdown before ne\v social cocJes a11d social ir1stitt1tio11s ca11 be created, and that this lag breeds cri111e. It re111D.i11s to be (1eter111i11ecl, 110'-:v ever, whetl1er tl1e inevitable, a11d ge11cr,1lly \r1elco111e, social cl1ar1rie 1111.1sl proceed in a m an11er so l1apl1azard as to f)rodt1ce disastrot1s gaJJS i11 socia1 cor1trol. The urgent question is \Vl1etl1er society ca11 d eveloJJ tl1e tecl111 iqtI(�S a11cl take the measures necessary to allow for orderly social cl1a11gc, \xrl1ile inairi taining all tl1e elements required for asst1ri11g a stable society. -ro cleterrnir1t; the feasibility of sucl1 a propositio11, let alo11e tl'1e tecl111iques and rn�asL1res required, a great deal more 11ational a11d i11ternatio11al eff_ort m t1st be cl1r�ct�d toward an understanding of the relatio11sl1ip bet\vee11 social cl1 a11ge a11d cr11n111ality. d _ an ty ali i11 ir:n cr 1 1 i _ st ea cr i11 e tl1 at th ed 1n su as Urbanization: It is sometitnes delinquency observed in less developed coun tri�s u11dergo111g rapid ec�1101111c deve lopm ent results from. itidustrializatio11 and tl1e atte11da11t co11centra!10�1 of 01 t.1:� , na 11e 1 10 1 �e pl e es tl1 at Ll? ce en i Populat on. There is, however, little evid �elve s, are directly responsible fo r iiicreasecl �rim� a11d �el1�qt1e1�c�. Ratl1e1 � 1t 1s the social changes an d the conseqtieiit socia_l cl1 sorgan1z_at1 on \vl11cl� �rov1cle the_ background fo r forms of bel,aviour ,xr1 11cl1 are def1n ecl as cr1rn111al or delinquent in the urban setting. al ci )e SJ s c la IJ g, ti vi li i at rb u � of It is true moreover that the con1JJlexity _ : or 1 a1 r1 a1 11t a1 m . to r_ de or . restrictions a�d require�ents upon the ii1 ctjvidt.1al iJ1 1 1eces e tl1 . 1d a1 st e1 11d t1 to 1 d_erl y society It is not easy for tl 1e ne,;q city dv-7 eI1e . 1 11 1e tl to 1t rn 1b st to e 1c e1 et s1ty of them. a11d to 1p n co 1d a1 ss 1e develop the readi1

cnJers, ff O f o t en m at re ·r 1 e c1 d an . 6. Second Un1te rime .,. . I J' . d Nar1on. s Congress on tl1e prcvcn ti on of C . U-�. Publ., A/CONF.17/4 (1960). See also, Rapid Social Change . an( �;:;1�·1e. Delinquenc}' in 1 5 · PP a1. ra sup C . er Se 9, . ap Ch y, Africa '"PrlZ at pp. 199-203 and generall

' . '

! .. . '

·'. . . '' ' i !

I'. ' :·. . '

I ..

' ;... , I .' ;• . .. I l: ;

"I .>

i •• • I • •

. , .' ' .,

·:,, J, l� .. ;' : •... !. .: 1' · J-c'.

[·,

'·,' .• ..:·i-·

I ••

H,. •

.,. •"';.:' ,

I•.

••

N IO T A IT IL B A H E R F O L A E THE ID

364

ce e_ of en th o ig sp gl re ne i u� ib ilf ns w li ei:i t ies ev or a� nt de ci ac in lt su re ay in Tl1is ut ec 1 os , st pr 0� re d ar an 1 11 �s at 1n ni lm pu cu sh. ly nt ue eq fr ,d ai g, in liv i, of urba g et 111 re n? st or ve f _ s _ ce d en �n l1c o as ther . gs in tl1 ch su of ue tr is s merit. Thi e e of us � �h o _ ns tl 1o ch ct r1 st re b � la s, de co n r, io t ou ta ni sa 1 it1 w e nc ia pl m co , es tr:ad s on d 1t1 an 1b oh 1r pr qu r� n ba ur e em t? . m o� nts nf co to s re ilu fa e etc. Tl,at tl,es s ha e ho 1tt w m e m on �o d as an al d� ':'1 d1 1n e of th of n io at fic ,ti ei id e tl, result ii, , us e_ o or r1_ m s� �n ve ev we f; ho el its r, tn 11 is er nc co us rio se of r tte 1 na fetice is a �ls e d� t� v1 d1 st m 1n the a1n a� � e y_ lo ve sel 11p e! s s re su ea 1n e tiv ni pu e th at th t fac e tli , al 1ty eg t1v ill ac of d n an t1o ca 1f1 11s te en 1n ev d an n tio ua et rp pe a in lt su re 1 of te1 a al s l' a_ du ina ivi d im in_ ''cr e th ' of and on ati ifi� nt ide l cia so e Th e. lif of )' in a wa � ng f tti h se e e th lo 1n s ck er -up nd fe of ! t en 1st ns c� of ty cie so e tl1 to re l1is exposu a nal of m1 nt cr1 me lop ve de career. the to ive uc nd co hly hig are l ai1d the gao

•

{••

.l, I

" I' " i

l I II I ..

I I

e p�r pre �o t is people for f�rs e. �h s. che roa app �e a!·a sep two s est g · sL1g Tl1is tl1e requireme11ts of urban l1v111g, both tl1ose 111d1v1duals 1n tl1e village who are co11ten11Jlati11g migration to urban areas and those wh o have already arrived in tl1e scl1ernes and programmes of local leadersl1ip, especially rural a11d urban com n11111it}' developn1e11t }Jrogrammes, about which more will be s aid later. Tl1e seco11d aJJproa.ch \vout·d be more radical. It would call for other n1easures of a 11011-JJL111itive character for gaining· compliance with unfamiliar urba11 restr ictio11 s arid reqL1irements. Part of this approach would be to devise n1east1res \xrhereby compliance would be greatly facilitated. For example, the licensing of street trades migl1t be made simrJler and les s costly, even elimin ated i11 sotne i11sta.nces. Tl1e pollution of \vaters could be Iargel)' avoided by tl1e provision of eas ier access to sanitary facilities, etc. Anotl1er pl1a se of tl1is approacl1 would be to handle tl1e transgressor with o-reater flexibility and leni ency, s11bst�tu!ing actn:ii�istrative corrective measures:::.for punishment. A11alyses of s ome cri1n1nal stat1st1cal data for certain Asian and African communities re veal tl1�t ofte11 _tl1e bt1ll<: of �riminal prosecutions involve no11compliance with regt1lat1or1s \vl11c�1 are peculiar to urban living and wl1icl1, in the majority of ca ses, are_ very little t1nders tood by the population recently arrived from the r\1ral sett1�g s . In t �1is co11ne�ion, the failure of the urba 11 wage earner to pay l11s taxes 1 s a special case, since poor planning, g·ross financial limitation and a Iacl< ?f �'-":are11es s of the respo11sibility often result in tlle complete inability of the 1nd1v1dual to meet his tax obligation. . . ela_ted to tl,is as a �ause ?f. i11creased crime and delinquency in urban � s 1s tl1e fac t_ tl1at wl11le sett1nb off1c1ally there may be only one recognized code of law f?r tl,e entire country, it is often a fact that this had not been accepted a� .a b�sic �spect of t! 1e rt1ral culture. In this respect, the rapid growth of some . cities In African, �atin Ai:11er1ca11, Middle Eastern an d Asian countries present s proble!Tis and conflicts which rarely appear in the economically highly devel oped countries, wl,ere tl1e pattern of life as far as criminal law is concerned is vecy · mucl1 tl1e same througl1out the country. te r� e it hi can _�ot be sep a exp e c_ ted t�at there could or should be two W � 1 a1 c 0�� h o e on nal 1et tio oc na , _ i is ti ra at pc h t_ t im e v y _ 1 � �!� �� ! � u �� s ld a i n th. e rea social and cultural s1tuat1on and shou1�.• .d i judge all behavio·ur .bY a Singl� · set of standards. T for --th- e infor· . call wou ld his vidualizat·t?� . of Ju�t�ce to a ·htgh degree. , w allo to have The law would 1 1 ty n. ng at t Jo the co nis urt t s �ide latitude in the admi � i� d� r::1��e� �� ha;�� tn de uately trained or improperlr m_?tivated indt�u t n als, such power cou�� be d angerously ra a ab o us ed . Th is us it. f p IJl. d .:_ . n i mportance that there shQuId b e d a s or eveloped a corps of admin'lstrat

!�

•

I i

CRit;\E CAUSATION

365

judiciary_ who are hi_ghly trained th e o f er s b m e m in an u n derstandin f th d yn ra am l cu ic lt s u at d w o rk tn count�ies_ undergoing rapid social a� ch e, so that th sf ci �l an� ey an g _w o u m ld ic h av e no the 1ns1gl1t, togell1er witl1 the ow eco _ e measures appropriate er sc r1 b to tl 1e pr e sp ec ial social a11d cultural fact�rs i11: to volved Acts of violence as a manifestation o. f veiigeance b Y 01 1e group upo11 ample e ma , Y la 0� I f l v e g ,er, ro ss 1Y different mea11i 1 1gs i 1 1 urba11 an ano t . � . d in an w l1t d et le ie s, th ey so ci ca 111 1ot be condo11ed i 11 eitl1er setting, tl1ei rural . r ap th pr e an oa d ch to ni tli ng e1 n must be quite differe11t. It is sometimes mea overlooked that, e_ven though the offe 1 1c e occttrred i11 a11 urban setti1 1g, tl1e standards of. behaviour and �he cod� o_f ho11011r servi11g as backgrour1d for tl1 e act were . as. truly rural or !rtbal as 1f 1 t h�d occ�trred in tl,at type of setting. In deed! it ts known t�at �n some countries, tl11 s particttlar ma tte r l1as been of be ma to Jo niz r importance a1 1d a solution is bei11 g urge11tly sougl1t. recog ed The Dtm_ographic lmbala!lc� in. Migralio11: A factor whicl1 is widely recogniz ed as c_ ontr1but1ng to. cr1m1nal1ty wl1ere rapi9 s�cial �hange accompa11 yir1 g economic �ev�lopment tn less developed co�111tr1es 1s taking place1 is tl1e gross demograpl1_ 1 c 1�balanc 7 of the urban pop11lat1on. Tl1e general patter11 is tl1 at tl1e first to arrive tn tl1e city fro� tt1e . r_11ral area are tl1e yottng me11 1111accomr)ar1� ied by any members of tl1e1r fam1l1es. Often their stay i 11 tl1e city l1ad bee11 intended to be onl)' temporary but generally1 after occasio11al brief ret11rns to the rural setting, urban reside11ce becomes perma11e11t. l\Jext . come tl1e \"!Omeil. generally wives planni11g to join tl1eir mates i11 the cit�/. �fl1e11 co111e tl1e chilcl: ren of tl1ose unions. Tl1e elders arri\1e last, if at all. Tl1is j)atter11 jJreser1ts a number of criminogenic situatio11s. Tl1e yot111g 111e11 arrive v:ritl101.1t tics, '.:>7it11011t visible responsibilities a11d \Vitl1out tl1e structure of social cc1i1f.rol to 'X;l1ic�1 they are accustomed. In response to a clrive for co111rJai1io11:;l1ii) a11d se:�ti;i.1 satisfaction, prostitutio11 flourisl1es. Col1abitatio11 i11 tl1e city becornes a s1.1b stitute for the family in tl1e village and ofter1 tl1e origi1 1al f(:spo11sibility to tl1e legal family is 11ot resumed. Wl1en tl1e wife arrives in tl1e city, sl1e may be rejected or forced i11to an inferior role fron1 ,vl1 icl1 sl1e seel<s inderJende11ce. When the children arrive, the family situation is 11ot co11ducive to pr?JJer care. The motl1er may be required to work; at ar1y rate, sl1e l1as 11ot available tl1e many members of the extended family, especially tl1e elcler�, on \vl101n sl1e l!ad traditionally relied heavily for the care, instruction and gi1 1dance of tl1 e cl11ld ren. The children mus t largely find their O\Vn res?urces a11� ofte11 the resources thus available are those which are higl1ly conducive to delinquency. . How far any policy can be carried out for tl1e [Jreven�io1 1 of this i�bala11ce ts a complex question inyolving a gre at number of s<;>ctal and, I?ar� 1�ularly, economic factors. If it is found impossible to control the 11nbalance s1 gn1f1 cantly, compensatory programmes will be called for. One_ woul_d b� a G:?11certe_d effort to keep the young mi gr an t ma le closely associated w1tl1 l11� family. Tl11s could be done in part by devising urban employ'!1ent and _ recruitment so that there would not be reat distances between tl1e city of re�1�ence and the co� munity of origin. A n�ther would be to facilitate _ regular v1s1ts by the urba11 1te to his village. The ties with th e village commun!tr could be. strengthened by activities of tribal associations an d societies. Policies 0� housing1 emJJloyrnent, educa t·ion a�d ass1. tance I. cht·ict care couId be so oriented as to e11courage � � _ h t e early reunion in the city of the wof!lan 3:0d her ; cl1ildren witl1 tl,e urban worfe wi to e tl1 of o11 ati ar re e lud inc P P t ker. Rur al development programmes migh Play the required role of urban wife an d urban molher. · y rl de e el th e ur ct ru st ily m fa d e d en Because, with the breakdown of the ext

�

I I

. '

. . ..

.I . •

•.

N IO T A IT IL B A H E R f O L A E ID THE

366

e er e, th at st e ld th ou 1 w o1 b up 1 e e1 d i: c bu l ia 011_ 11c n� i f_ d an al ci so . l ia i1t te are a IJo er e rn to ag ea w e th co to en ? at al i ag er ur _ at m ng e i v gi r fo 11 tio ca ifi st ju e bl ra de si d. �l eh n us ba e ho er ur s Th hi tn rs de ul el wo e_ th e d t1d cl in to te da y rl ea an n at l,ii l� in _ tu ou r� rn make a w de el e th at th g n 1_ m su as , is th in ge be n,utual ad va11ta ty ili d ily ab m st an fa e of th ce an en nt care ai m e tl1 to n io ut rib 11t co le coiisiderab of tl1 e c11iIdre 11. •

•

l l

I I

•

es to it: Prevention tiv rna lte or m ste Sy :1 mi Fa ded ten Ex ly_ the of nce na nte i a. The M g� a an mp l ch co cia ac so _ of ing es �y di stu l al y all tic ac Pr : ies lic Po e iv ipt sr1Di of

eco1101i1ic developme11t i n less developed countr ies place_� maJor �mphas1s on al ily 1on fam d1t st tra ructu re the of 'n O\X al(d bre the m fro i11g ult res es 1lti ficL dif tl1e g n of at�n ctio nci fu11 enu the ry and car to ons uti stit n i ial soc 1er otl of e e11c abs a11d tl1e enforci11g a set of sta11dards of bel1aviour. It wo uld seem to be a matter of 11rge11cy, tl1erefore, that first attention should be giv�n to devisin� methods for eitl1er tl1e co11ti11ued existe11ce of tl1e exte11ded family or the rap id creation of social i11stitt1tions to fill tl1e void. Associated with this would be tl1e scru ti11)' of social a11d eco1101nic progran1mes and policies to ensure they do not, u11\X1illi11gly a11d un11ecessarily, contribute to tl1is disruptior1. Industrial and extractive fJrojects (mines, oil fields, etc.) tl1at encourage the migration of only tl1e al1le-bodied n1ale labot1rer (and even render it impossible for him to con: ti11 ue tl1e origi11al family relationsl1i 1J) are a case in point. Housi ng develop1ne11 ts so desig11ed as to allO\X' only tl1e conjugal family to reside togetl1er are a11otl1er i11sta11ce of how tl1e breal(down of tl1e traditional family u11it may be accelerated.

.' )

)

•

I ,

It may be difficult to reconcile desirable social objectives with econ·omic 11ecessities, but it is e vident tl1at some errors tl1at l1ave been made would have bee11 avoidable a11d probably would 1 1ave been pre vented, if tl1ese social values and consequences l1ad beer1 understood and given consideration in national plar1ni11g. . · Alternatives: E ven accepting tl1e inevitability of a certain degree of disrup tion a11d a�celerated cl1a11ge, at least a partial solutio n cati be found if the 11eed ren1a111s upJJermo�t i11 tl1e minds of tl1e plan ners. In this connexion the Report on the 1T;7orld So�ia_l. �ituatiori, JJublished by the United Nations in 1957, declared that tl1e JJoss1b1l1t1es of promoting v olui,tary o rgatiizations a11ct assisti�g groups . tl1�t de velo1J spo11ta11eously a11d provide growing points for social �eorga111z�t�o n l1ave bee11 barely explored as means of helping migrant families 111 t_ l1e c1t1es of less developed countries i i , their adaptation to the urba n e11v1ro111ne11 t' '. q11e importa11t co11sideration, \vl,ich seems to e litt l bu t iv en tt 11�1011 as a poten�ial substitute for tl1e extended have been f o s tio n fu 11c fam ily in cert!n � e f1111ng a11d enforc111g social st . andards ! ts aggtom· th d · t a eve11 urbanize 1n · l1ighly eratio11s rece11t immigrant tend t 0 co rytinue tha! a�: ties to live com in mu sma ni ll . relatively liotnogeneous a�d receiv� f trSl loy a_ I ty rs. !his I _fr om me mb e the ir of prime importa11ce since it rovides c� h: � wh a 1 soc ial ins thr titu ou tio gh n nature a11d speed of social h�ng� : � c whi J)Ositive social force ca11 be mea111 ta1nec an be controlled and through d. �� . In ma11y Asian cities for exa p1 till 1 arge segmen_ts of the population . reside _in wl1at amounts to' individ � · · ts -sn e .... "· a el_ e rn �I of tl1�1r folk. culture wl,ich enabl� vi I ages and_ retain thereby �any o t . u o 1 em _ erv remain 1mp � �.-:: n � \� io· more or less t�e d1sorgar11zi11g factors of urb e in n 1 fe. s r�e ryis dese pheno meno n, too, s1ve study for tl1e guidatlce it � a . : . � . .. . .. . ic · � ol Y y · for the prevention o f criminality. offer in the development of social p ---, ....,--�'

- -- - - +_ =:.; , ;_ _ -�-

' �

-·-

CRIME CAUSATION

367

Tribal associatio11s l1ave l1ad many social 11d : coi, m t. c Sttccesses i1 1 aiding t o COfJe witl1 ttrba11 life. One 1111c rs � embe m 1 io n ias been to ease emer eir th 1 101n ic press11res i1 1 individLtal cases· ai,otlier lias be eco cy <1en e 11 t o J)rovide t1 1e �ocial cohesio11 tl1e migrant ttrgently needs in' � �1e�v a� d co!nple� en viron11�e11t. Botl, of tl1e�e co11side�atio11s are closely re la e � t ,e PI e�e11t1on of crime, since tl1e fat!ur_e to f111d solutiot,s to tlrge i,t c 10 _ eco1101�11c f)roblem s may . f� , . ts l ac he 1a T 111 n 1n t co cr iti bt t ri oi s o f t r a 1 assoctatio11s t o J1 re cipita e 1 orderly a1 , · 11 ' e tio rv za se de urba11i slttd} witl a v 1 � to tl�e J)ossible stro11g sttp of ss ce )ro 1 1 1t as 011e J)liase �f 5 �c ia J) port of tl1e111 by Oover11n1e l tc}' · I 11 _sucl 1 a11 exa1ni na � � i) l 11 \vil ne�d to be d i rectecl se aratel io n e_ _ t � at n, 0 1 ,e various ele n 1e11ts of tio the act1v1t1es of_ �l1e tribal_ associatioi,s, si ii ce it 1Ja/, .be tl,a t _oiily s01ne of them reJJrese11t a positive co11tr1bt1tio11 \xrliile otl,ers 1,,a J _fact! 1 1 1J de a,, orderly tra11sitio11 by �l1e rt1ral peoJJle to 11 rbai, l ife. TI,� Y iat;e 1g 11� � ti,e case 1 f � e � or �ntribal assoc1at1011s ,�·orI.;:e ct agair1st t1,e attai,, i nei,t of e"q:,af1tY ?f woin explo ttal ion of cl1ilcl re,,. TI1ere lia' ve C\'e11 b ee11 111s t a11ces 111 \'vliicl1 couragecl tl1e ' · , ,1·ty b Y re-es tabl.1s I11r1g . 11ave co11tr1 1011s t · tttecl ·b to assocta cri111i11a l act1· l , tr1"ba ( � 111 1· · ct· ( · . · t· f)rac 11 11 n ices 1 I ega ed1at e 1 ly 111 ·11 · fol lo ,x,i11 s I a tliei ·d lia r i·elease ,. f.101n gao 1 after v1 · · . o "'� ti ,e re for tl,ese sa11 1e . illegal !)r(l.... cti·ces . At se1-v1ng se11te11ce:s • a11y ra ,e e, ti vart . · 111es . of tribal assoc1at1·o11s meri·t c aref LI I eva I t1a 1·1011 1ot1s eIen1e11ts o f ti 1e program "' · · o_se_ �Sf)ects cle s �r�1r1g SUf)jJOrt as i11 strun,e nts for ] _i �1n111e e e _t tlie preve11tioi, to d t of cr1m111al act1v1t)· 111 co1n1nt1r11t1 es t111dergoi11g ttrbat1izatio11. •

•

.I I .

;

•

Tl1e fll1p.ict 011 Ri,rtil. Life of Social CIJa11ges 1lcco111/Ja1iJ'i11g Eco,,omic De·velopnze,it: _

Tl1e _l)_ �obletn of t1rba111zat_ 1011 1:as oversl1adowed. tl 1e qt1estio11 of cliatiges in the l1" 111�. 1Jatter11s of tl1_e 111l1ab1 ta1:ts of tl1e rttral_ areas \Vl10 clo not 1 n igratc !O tl1e ctt�es a1_ 1d yer}' _ little atte11t1or1 l1as b ee11 g·1ve11 to crir11i11oger1ic factors involved 111 tl11s s1tuat1oi1. 1'11oreo\rer, tl1 e soci,11 cl1aracleristics and il1e cri111e rates of rural co1111 nur1ities vary greatly 011e fro1n tl1e otlier a11d s0111e areas are n?toriotis for tl1eir ii legal activi �Les, qtti tt irrespective of a11y i1n pact of urba111s111 or progra1n n1es �f eco1101111c _de\te lo1)111e11t. U11fort1111ately a.11 a11alysis of _ur_!Ja11 as coinpared \v'I tl1 rural crime rates is so severely l1a111 j)ercd hy stat1st_1cal arid otl1e r tecl111ical diffict1ltie s as to re11d er ar1y co11clt1sio11s l1igl1ly te11tat1ve. Nevertl1eless, c ertain factors associated \vitl1 social cl1a11ges accompanyi11g 1tri C(J1 y 111a t tl1a 1ts 1e1 11 e le 1g 1 bi tur dis e l ab ob JJr t es eco11on1i c develOJJme11t sugg b�te to crimi11ality i11 rt1ral areas. Tl1e 1 r1igra11t \vorl<er \X'l10 rett1rr1s lo l1is village \Vitl1 new an d generally 1n ore i11aterialisti c values, \'\'itl1 grossly altered 1 atter11s 1 ecl tt.l e se tl1 s 1rb stt di s, l a go 1d a1 co11ceptions of i11dividual liberties ectior1 of establisl1ed j re d a11 d or isc d of s ed se of village autl1ority a11d SO\VS tl1e Ltnless 1t, bt ity al i11 im cr to ad le y l b ria va i11 t rio 11orn1s of behaviottr. Tl1 is 11 ee d tl1ese circum . so In do ly <e lil ry ve ay properly i11terpreted a11d dealt \,qitl1 , 1n st � 1n s) er ad le al oc l e tl1 � t _ 11 e v_ gi e 1c a1 stances, local leadership (arid the gt1id c tive pe rs pe r_ )e o1 pr a 11g n1 a1 nt a1 n1 in 11 be p�e1)ared to aid the rtiral po1Jtilatio t hey �re 1 cl h1 \v to _ em �t sy ue al v �11d_ tn evaluatin g tl,e true w o rtI, o f tl1e n ew f� l� l ra t ru 1a tl _ e _ bl ta v1 1e 11 rs ea JIJ aJ 1ncl1re�tly exposed. By the sa 111 e to�e11, i! lf1ll111g tl1e leg1t1fu d ar \v to d ea l l _ l 1 w must itself \velcome tt1o se c liatiges wl1 1cl1 t no e b ld tt o \X;' t . 1 tl u o I y f o y mate aspirations of the co m mutiity, a11d JJart1cularl 1e 1 tl n o fr y 1t n 1 u 1 1 1 rr co al 1r r� 1e tl onir t111wise bttt ftitile to atletnpt to isolate t be lt m y 1e ll e r, 1 ll ra ; 1g 11 tt � se 1 1 a_ soc_1a_l c l1a11ges emai1ating largely from tlie t1rb 1 e village tl f o re tu c ru st e l1 t 1 11 t n u o c c a o 1t , j1 1 k 1 ei ta t d d n te a a lu f·Inr t c 1Ja ed, eva e. t n e m p lo e v e 1e d tl y b e cl a 1 11 is Tl1 e sharpe::; t impact on tt1 e rtiral c o m mt111ity 11ly, an e d d su , re e H . a re a l ra ru or manufacturi11g o r extractive i11dus tries i11 th e

' '·

.. .

'; t I •

! ' •• ,.•

.. :. : \ II ,. ; .. . ' I

....... . .. ..

.. . .,.

" .:: '

I THE IDEAL OF REHABILITATION

368

, _ ed ith uc w od tr no in is � e lif att of ay w mpt ic m 1o o1 ec 1d a1 al ci so w ne entirely t. 1t ek to ou s� To s 11t ta b1 e l1a pr i� e th ?f yent rt pa e tl1 1 01 e ad m having beei, nd ng ou d1 gr r �e fo br e th s e _ 1d im cr ov pr 1 e, cl l11 w n w do kea br al ci so of pe ty e th e r�l !h ru a ng are ari �p pr !or 1n tl1 bo the , ne do be to \re lia ll wi re mo mucl, 1al str e du th 1n ni mi g ad rin t� �c s�r stra so !11 d an try 11s ind ale sc ge arrival of lar ry ato ns pe d m an co d ize program1m 1n m be ll wi ts e11 m ele g tin tp srt tio11 tl,at tl,e di mes made available. Tl1e successes a11d failures achieved by tl1ose i11dustrial undertakings which I1ave already attem1Jted to a11ticipate and provide for the social dislocations associated with their vent11res merit study for the development of a comJJre l1ensive policy tl1at \vould sig11ificantly contribute to the prev�ntion of the ty1Jes of crimi11ality resulti11g froi11 social cl1anges and accompanying economic developme11t i11 less developed countries.

•

' I

•

Questions 1.

Wl1at is tl1e rele\ra11cc� of crin1e ca11satior1 to the rel1abilitation of offenders? Does it l1ave significar1ce witl1 respect to tl1e prevention of crime? Can effective correctional tech11iques be established with little or no understand i11g of cri1ne causatior1? Is a uniform theory of bel1avior, crime causa tio11 and correctional tech11ique essential to a rational pe11al systetn?

Wl1icl1 cri111es are most freq11e11tly committed in Etl1iopia? In wl1ich JJrov inces? Are tl1e figures in tl1e Criminal Statistics for Etl1iopia accurate? Does co1nparison of tl1ese figures \vitl1 tl1ose i11 tl1e Prison Cl1art supra at p. 345 indicate potential inaccuracy?

\li

1 ',

l,J

I-Iistorically \vl1icl1 l1ave been tl1e dominant tl1eories of crime causation ir1 Eur�pe and Am_eri�a? Wl1icl1 theories prevail today? Are sucl1 tl1eories applicable to Eth1op1a? Do yo11 tl1inl< tl1at tl1e causatio11 of crime in indus trialized, t1rba�ize� societies _ i s s�mila1· to that i11 develo1Jing societies? Does tl1e last quest1011. 1m1Jly a bias 111 favor of social-psycl1ological causatio n? \Yhat are _tl1e !Jr1mary cat1ses ?f crime in develofJing areas? Is tl1e cau�a t1011 of crime. 1_11 oth�r de�elop111g cot111tries releva11t to EthiofJia; tl1at ts, l1a� tl1e trad1t1onal 1solat1on of Etl1iopia created institutions wl1icl1 are 11111que, a11d tl1erefore, affect offe11ders uniquely?

Problem t t�1a hoJJe_ t}1e . A wealthy foundatio11 11as offered money to Ethiopia in 11g g1v1 Before �rime cai, be IJrevei!ted a11d offe11ders successfully rel1abilitated. l fo tl1e in its �rant, l1owever, It l1as asked that a meinoratidum be prepared lowing areas; 1. Ex1Jlanat_ion of _ wl�y crimes against property and wilful injt1ry are most _nu mero�s tn Etl11op_1a arid wl1y so many crimes are committed proportion ately In the Provinces of Sl1oa and Harrar? 2. I�olati?11 of the primar� factors causing crime in Ethiopia including con s1derat1011 of tlie follo_w111�. pote11tial factors togetl1er with ideas as to hoW' eacl1 factor can be sc1e11t1fically verified by field research: a. Cl1anges within the traditional family. -,• .: -., . . J'! , --:'' t

CRIME CAUSATION

b. c. d. e. f. g. h. t. •

k. 1. m. n. o. p. q. r.

369

Living away fr o m one's t raditional familY and villa ge. . Changing role of women. The autl1or·itar· ian structure of the famt.1Y and soci. ety Chan.ges w1th111 th e traditional value structure . Sh1ft1ng of the cultural suurce of w·15 dom fro·m elde rs to yo un g, educated men. Mixed religious, etl1nic and national't 1 Y grot1ps of tl1e cities. · Rap·� ct ch ang� c�ustng ''anomie'' and ''cttltural shock'' Rapid urban1zat1on and consequent une1np1oyment Gap betwee11 t�e w ealt11y atld tlle poor. Western educat1011 and films, etc. Lack of recreational facilities. Demograpl1ic imbala11ce in cities. Tl1e role of religion. Concern witl1 perso11al l1onor. Concern witl1 la11d and property ownership. Modern tecl111ology. Impersonality of tl1e city.

3. A pr�posal as to how tl1e major causative f�i.ctors ca11 be l1arnessed to �ehabtl!tat� offenders a11d tJreve11t crime before it becomes an act\te pioblen1 1n Eth1op1a. 4. A plan for tl1e collectio11 of accurate data on il1e c01r1 rf1issioi1 of cri1.ne in Ethiopia and tl1e effectiveness of rcl1abilitative anci 1Jrever1tive �fforts. •

•

I .,

I l

;

Johnson, Crime, Correctio11, and Society 3-314 (1964) ( 011e of tl1e 1nost recent and careful analyses of crime i11cidence a11d causation). 1 o1 ati er id 11s e co siv e11 el1 }Jr m (co ) 60 19 ( 4 23 3on Tappan, Crime, Justice, a1id Correcti of the incidence and causatio11 of criine in the West). n� l co fu re ca (a 0) 96 (1 0 25 3ogy ol in in1 . Cr l)f Sutherland a11d Cressey, Principles titt st s in ou ri va to n tio la re its g in t1d s!deration of the study of crime incl t1ons of society). ., hl . Pu .N U a, nd ga U , la pa am K i11 e Stenning, Documentary Survey of Crim SEMIURB/AF/13 (1962). e th f o w ie ev (r ) 61 9 (1 3 5 -3 8 9 Korn a�d McCorkle, Criminology a_n d !'eno logy 1 . t) es W 1e tl 1n n o ti sa u ca basic � �.eories of crime . m ri C . ] 0 4 r, io av eh B al in m ri Abrahamsen, family Tension, Basic Cause of C L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 330-343 ( 1949).

Christiansen, Industrializat io n and v e R t. e n . I l6 n , li y e c n e u q il D causes fo r the rise in crime years).

e and Juven m ri to n o ti la e R � . urbanization in e th f o n 1o s s u c 1s d _( ) 0 � of Crim . Policy 3-8 (19 es 1n tl1e last twenty coun tri ma11y n i rates

•

.. '

I;;"..;._' I

I......

l ·• ':

<' '' ! '

370

THE IDEAL OF REHABILITATION

r be m a of of nu r eo n th tio ra de ies si on (c 8) re 95 (1 gy o ol in im Cr al tic Vold, Theore . lated to crime causation). . im of . Cr licy Rev t. Po In 16 , -53 47 47 19 e 11c Si n sta ki Pa st Ea in e im Cr Kari111, ( 1960) . the to ch re oa pr asu ap me l1 nc re f ment (a 06 4-3 14 0, -13 89 l na Pe oit Dr el, Pir,at a11d causation of crime). ion d sat an cau e of crime nc ide inc e (th ) 63 (19 01 3-3 a ric Af th freed, Crime .in Sou in South Africa). Von Bar, A History of Conti12 ental Criminal La_w 379-495 (19�6) (an hi�torical treatment of the major theories of punishment and crime causation on tl1e Continent). Ferri, Criminal Sociology (Kelly trans:, 1917) (an Italian scl1?lar, who h� s ha� great i 11flue11ce 011 n1odern practice through the foundation of the 'posi tivist scl,ool,'' dea.ls witl1 crime, its· ca11sation and early reforms in penal practice). l_ombroso, Crime: Its (:auses and Remedies, (Horton trans., 1918) (a basic work of tl,e Italia11 antl1 ro1Jologist who was one of the fo·unders of the biological scl1ool of cri1ne ca11sation). Tarde, Penal Philosophy 215-422 (Howell trans., 1912) (a great French crimi11oiogist considers tl1e causation of crime a11d arrives at the conclusion tl1at socio-J)sycl1ological causes predomi11ate).

·i·' II

l l

Mannl1 eim, Pioneers iri Crimi12ology (1960) (sl1ort biographies of man>' of tl1e leading thinkers in tl1 e l1istory of criminology).

)

I )

' '

SECTiON 8. PRISON INNOVATION DESIGNED TO FURTHER THE REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS

�

v )

OPEN INSTITUTIONS IN FRANCE7

. �)

Pierre Boi,zat

. 1-Iistor[cal Sumn:ary: 111 foreig11 cou11tries OfJen priso11s have existed for a long t11ne, (Jar_t1c11l_arly 11! tl1e_ form of agric11lt11ral colonies (i.e., Witzwill in Switzer land, Cl11n? 111 Cal1for111a, a11d Leyl1ill i11 E11gland); France is just begi11ning s�cl1 expert rr�e11ts. �ra11ce 110w has a11 im fJOrtan t agricultural institution at Casa b1�11da, Corsica _ wl11cl1 tal<es fort>' perso11 s a >'ear (effective capacity of 150 de ta1_nees), an agr1cl1ltur�l e�tat� at Etape near Aix-en-Prove,,ce \vhicl, takes fifteen JJr1s011er�. a year,. tl1e 111st1t11t1011 of Oermingen, which, althougl, classed un9er . t�1e rub11c of priso11-scl1ool, l1as 1nany of the cliaracteristics of an open 1nst1tu t1on. e, urs co Convicts Permitted to Enter Open Institutions: Open institutions would, of a to � t me11 1 11ot b� P1:0p�r for all . fJerso11s convicted of crime. At first, assigr it e: e �s rel_ open 111st1tut1on co11st1tuted 011e stage in progressive steps toward rtY 1be was a step_ beyond. release fro� a closed prison and a step before sem1-� .§.� 5·�· �· � s thiused and co11d1t1o�al release. Tl1e prison administration after havi i 1g 11 ave h tern several times at Oerminge11, abandoned it be'cause it seemed to -

Bouzat, Droit Penal 397-398.

- ;. "---

· . . ·· · • l y : rt3

_,.·,.,: .,_.., .., ' ..... .. :.: ·,:' ', . .�· . . , . ·:,: • ·,· . . . : . {�·,.::. . .

1°• ,; ,, ' . . ., ' . . · ,',

371

prisoners wh o merited im risonmen . cert ain . on . . t effe c d in t o pen _1nst1tutions. adop ted a ation secon d approach Pwhere 1 cement in an �e administr open . stitution is reserved for certain types of delinquent P : as a mea ns of punbe be tte ing r su ite d as to ut tlleir personatftie�� hrnent, b

·. . ....

PENAL REFORM

.. . :,

• •

•

. Methods Used i'! Open lnstit,,tions: Th e principle wllich u d er 1 t� s op en es tabltsh · � con sid erable confidence is placed in tl1e ab 1 1 me1 ts is that •

1 1 y of inmates to better ce e11 s id is nf co ex is Jre tl1 sed primarily by tl1e lack of 1nost of the e 1 s; v sel tem · tl . · d1ca1·ions of prisons. Respect for tlie p e . . I tn er11a rson alt' t t 1 Y of eac 1 prisoner 1s ex · · th an in a closed atmospllere I nmates do not giv· en muc h more etnp I1as1s w ear · pre 1ey · tl )ar e or1 I � 1e1· r ow11 food and move freely about the 1 prison unt'f ns, grounds ( 180� hectares tn Casab1a11da). Surveillance of i,, 111ates does not exis · t at nigl1t a11d 1s reduced to tl1ree roll calls a day. MEXICO'S TRES lv\ARIAS PENAL COLONvs Do11alci }erzvell _l,1lrod1,ction: M,;xico sl1ows I,1,er rel1abilitative pl1�losorJl1y IJarticularly at Tres lv\ar1�s...; Tl,e Tl1ree Marys are. actually four 1sla11ds, grouped ab out ni,ie vlex1co. 011ly t1 1e largest coast \Vest of l the orf miles isla11d Maria iv\adre ' ty is curte11tly under develofJment. It is ricl1 \vitl1 tro1)ical vegetati�n. • •

• •

The Prisoner� of Tres �f�-:ri1-is_.· _Tl1e {Jrisor1ers corne from federal pe11ite11tiaries

througl1out Mexico. At tl11s \vr1t1r1g tl1ere are eigl1 t l1u11clred tl1ere ' i11cI L1cli11rz,::, nearly six hundr ed f rotn Mexico City. Ge11erally lite variotts pe11ite11tiaries acct11nt1late several prisor1ers ,y;l10111 tl1,::y l1ave designated for Tres lv\arias before einbarl<ir1g tl1e111 for tl1e isl(\11d. 1�hey select priso11ers witl1 1011g r ecords of previot1s offe11ses, or \Y1l10 are co11,1icted of killi11g, assaults or otl,er serious crimes; rl11d 11earl}1 alv1a)'S \'Uitl1 se11te11ces of twenty or more )'ears. Exceptior1s are cases ser1te11ced directly to Tres 1\i\a.rias by a court, or tl1ose who are sect1rity risks. !v1a11y \Xil10 t1lti111alely go to -rres lY\arias may serve several years of tl1eir se11 te11ce before beir1g t ransJJortecl tl1er_e. �ollowing psycl1ological a11d fJl1ysical scree11i11g tl1e)' ar� tra11SJJOrtecl u1 ��ler n:1I1tary escort to tl1e coast a11d tra11sferred to a s 1nall sl11p, tl·1e ·'Nayar, \vl11cl1 \Vas built by priso11 labor 011 tl1e isla 1 1cl. at e er th e ar y 11t ve T\ . ias ar M es Tr at ed rJt ce ac en o Wom prisoners are als

' ,.

present.

! i ' r ' i ',• ,• I

risoner p e tl1 , �e ad Ni ia ar lv\ a� l va ri ar s I1i , . The Tres Marias Program: Upo11 to s e l1_ 1s \v lie l 1t1 �11 re t l1e e _ liv y _ 1a ts temporarily assigned to a barracks. He i1 be tll w ): he T l. va ri ar 's tly rn fa s 111 select a site for llis ho m e iti anticipation of per mitted to join hi m after 1,e lias sliown six 1no11tl1s of good bel1av1or. amilies at f ir 1e tl ve ha rs e n so ri p At the present ti m e 011e 1 1tti,dred fifty Maria Madre. � ot1sa11d tl r u o -f ty ir t h 's d r1 la is The prisor,er 1,as com iJlete freedon, 011 tl1e eq_u1r e e�1t r y 11� o e l1 T e. ic 1o cl �cres. He is free to pursue an occu fJatio11 of l1is � 1 11 1sl1 l11mse l b ta s e r o rm fa � t? observe regular worki11g l1ot1rs. He n1ay usiness, tax free.

, i I ' t I I I

'•·

f�· .,

t·

g_ In 48 ]. Crim L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. 41C-413 ( I 957).

r·f. . ;

•

t.· ,. L,

t. . . . ... . .. .

�';,.·..-... :t�·.. .· :.·,·. ,:. . .: . .· ..• .... . . .... . . :'

' •

• ··: • • ·1. ·. :

•

.. '. '

I •: I ;•: :.• I ,• I • .• !

.. .'. . . . .'. ..,... ,.., ..'. '.. . '·. ·. ' .....,. : ��' .......· ...'.... . ". . . ...�

i • '

' .', .•! ' ' ' '

.I ... ' '� '

'; �'

• i •:

I . 'u· .\.�.: ' •. .·

I,,··, ·-,... i,· :�,,,,.H1 Ir ...;•··...�--.L.

I'· "']

� !j r,,,.,_, 'i1.1:.1:�iI-.; l t, ,,.. .

�� :

. . ..

THE IDEAL Of REI-IABILITATION

372

e u ith try eq w en t H �n m in oy pl em t ep te cc _a En to r so al e e fr is 1 er ot is pr e Til ty ir . t Th nd en la rc is pe � th of y of tr us nd i e his at iv pr a , fic ci Pa e l1 JJrise of t e rg r o ha le sc ro . di pa is h on up ed rn tu e r 1d a1 d te 111 ot sc di wages w-ill -be uf an _ t in the forest,_ _fish, m n hu tu ac ay m r e re 11 iso pr t he e tim n ow 11is On a te 1n s_por� s, or 1p 1c rt ), pa ld g;o or r, ve sil ll, e sh f (o s io ur c _ or . approved furniture e theat er, athletic fie lds, ur ct 1 p_ g in ov m a s t or pp su d an isl 1e Tl n. other recreatio i nst tea m s fro m schools on a ag ed ay pl n te of e ar s me Ga g. and a boxii1g rin tl1e mai11la11d. Most prisoners pursue a limited part tii:n.e. bu�iness and dedicate their worl<:ing hours to tl1e learning of trades. f�c1l1t1e� tnc�ude a tanne ry, a_ ship yard a tailor and shoe shop, furnaces for mak111g br ick, tile, pottery and ]1me, a bras� and steel foundry, a diesel-elec tric plant, carpentry and sheet metal shops, and any otl1er trades or crafts \vl1ich prisoners themselves may elect to teach. A moder11 school, constructed of cot1rse b)' prison labor, is also accessible to the prisoners as well as all others of tl1 e island. frbm 1950 to 1955, 653 persons, under tutelage of tl1e scl1ool's five t eacl1 ers, passed through its first six gra.des. Tt1ere are curre11tly one 11undred fifty students of all ages enrolled.

A 1nodern, beautiful, concrete t11ree story hospital is now under construction.

r ' �

1 � f•

Prisoner Sll!) ervision is ker) t at a 1ni11imt1m. Tl1ey are expected to retire at 11ine o'clock taps, arid rnust app ear for revie\v once a month. I t is only on reviev1 day tl1at tl1ey \Y/ear tl1e characteristic t1niform. Discipline consists ge11erally of deprivation of privileaes and assianment to the salt mine. Tl1e latter, i11 earlier days particularly was:::. a particula;ly severe J)U11isl1n1ent because tl1e prisoners \Y/ere not allowed' to \Vear sl1oes. . �or�le is .reporte_d to be :elatively_ l1igl1, and l1as been confirmed i11 t11e \vri ter s intervie\vs with ex-prisoners 1n lvl exico a11d tl1e Uni ted States. Tl1e �realest ten�ion area appears to be related to the female priso11ers. Violent f1gl1ts sometimes occur among men wl10 would marry th em. . . Prostit11ti_on is strictly forbidde11 on tl1e island, and conjugal relationships r1g1dl y moral 1zed.

Tl1ere l1a ve �een nf success�11l escaJJes from Tres Marias, a11d 011ty three attempts: Tl1� 111ainland s great d1sta11ce, combitled witl, fear of sllarks discour age� �w11nn1in�. Two of tl1 e atte1nr)ts \Vere discovered itl tt1e planning, and tl1e tl1_1rd occ111 red t en years ago wl1e11 six me11 stole a small boa t for t11e pu.r pose . Tl1e effort l ed to carJture u 1Jo11 landi11g on th e mainland. Prison ers car:i serve ''g�od time,'' which will allow them eligibility for parole after serving �wo . tl11rds of tlieir sentence. Many of course serve life ' ' sentences a11d are buried 111 tl1e island's cemet ery. · an d . Upon leaving the isla11ds tl1 e intna te must · erties prop give . up his busir, ess a11d · take witl1 him all me. mbers of the d h a he ever fam ily ho If w n1arr ·1ed a . prison er, tl1e spouse must remain behi y ar r m � t e iid an·d ' i s fr e a110ther pr1so11er. · · · from prisoners and st aff th e f O11owii,g · o _ . t ried seei rehabilitative influences have been realized: . . 1.

. .

• .'

Remo�al_ from criminally oriet,ted environme nt and influences. making:.-P ·. _. : . . . for cr1m 111al behavior. . ..

"' ��----=:-- . - � ..- . . . .-=. --.-.::·:,,...,_ -.:: ···· ... .._ ....... � '-· . � -.,. - . . .. . ·1

. .:.

-----·

----=-·.. .,

,..-,,., -�--,- - --�··. -• ':

;�·

. ' .: ·'

PENAL REFORM

373

self-res'pect and dignity o f n g g a in i A 2. b y b e ing treated w 1·th respect without suspicion. and 3. The _learning of a trade and satisfaction from doi·ng construc tive and creative work. 4. Obtaining an academic education witl1 subseqttent fee1.tng of co 11f1dence and status. 5. The learning of new values a11d morals fron1 tli e pri· ests, teacher s; and otl1er staff members. 6. New insights gained tl1rot1gl1 meditatiott. T11ere appear to be n o �c;tatistics i n dic�ti11g tl1e degree of reha bi litative tl1 e ,vh of o s o le av M e an y Ti: es ss. Martas are 1 1ot follo\ved up for various succe reasons, and only a few wh · o get 111 to furt l1er difficulty are returned to ilie island. • • •

•

Concl,�sion: Altl1ougl1 a11y c_orre�tive instit11tion 1n11st ulti1nately measure its st1ccess by the degree to wl11cl1 its released in111ates avoid further crimes this is probably for tl1e f)res_e11t a11 t1 n rea�istic �r1d u nfair criterio11. lv1a11y institu: tions are too greatl)' l1ar1d1capf)ed by 1 nsuff1cie11t funds to be abl e to apply corrective metl,ods \�·hicl1 are l<tlO\X'l1 to be lacl(i11g. Evaluatior1 mttst co11seque11tly be made i11 a 1nore subjective rna1111er, basecl upor1 wl1at i� beir1g do11e \X1itl1 wl1at is available. Tl1ere ca11 be little doubt tl1at in this regard Tres .iv\arias is den1011strati11g ouistc1_11clit1g resot1rceful11css, i11ge11uity, and originality. Tres lv\arias sl10\VS man)' evider1ccs of bei11g a progressive a11d er1ligl1t ened i11stitution. few corrective facil ities, if a11y, all o\:(i s11cl1 a degree of free·· dom to its priso11ers witl1 tl1e co11con1ita11t op[JOrltt11ities for JJL1rsui11g ·i1orr11al

life.

is l1igl1, self-co11fide11ce is i11still:d a11cl, i11 ll1e \vorcls of or1e recent ly paroled aftec tl1irtee11 years at Tres Marias. 'Tl1ey teacl1 yot1 tl1e valt1e of a free, decent life." J\i\orale

Within the last decade, u11ique a11d significant experiments in pre-rele�se work under co11ditions in vo lvi 11g a large measure of freedom have bee n carried · ou t 1n · a 11umber of European countries . w1·11 1out ex ceptior1., •result• s l1ave bee11 successful enough to encourage tl,e several Priso11 A�m1111strat1? ns t template going beyo11d t11e ex pe ri m e 11 tal stage to the �ncor1Joratioti 0� �ic�� work programmes as regular aspects of institutioi1al regimens. l d repret ot w s le ca s er rg la 1 01 es The development of pre-relea se prog�am n:i l1e tradit r _ 11e rt fu in tic . of nt 11 1 :� an_ extr� mely import�n t s tep_ 111 tl1e direct t1 s at st 1e t1 f o l ca i� ty �1 :� b ore reto l1e la iso s h i icln tio \Vh fr m y_ iet soc � s to es cc ? a of"a0 flfende g 11 ti 11 ra g s a S s re u as me 1 rs sub1ected to 111carcerat1on. ucl

I A O IS ST ., bl Pu . .N U · ur bo La on ' Prjs 9 Depan ment of s, on ati N . d ite Un s, fair Af c mi Econo and Social SD/s PP· 22-23, 26 ( l 955). I

f. f,-.

I: l; I

•

I ' I '

. .

.' .

9 K OR W E AS PROORAlv1S OF PRE-RELE Department of Social and Econo,nic Affairs, U,1ited Nations

'' :. '. • I •,

' '

' .i'

... .

. ., I

�

: " '.

I. , I . : ..' I• ·"....:.. ' . ' '.. ' ' '. I-: .;". ..",' .... ..· t ,r: . ' '.., .. �:,.·...;. .

•i .l . :

.:·,: ;

: ,i:�

T H E IDEAL Of REHABILITATION

374

n io of ug ns te rlo ex fu e th 11, h, visio iss m ns tra s les re wi d an ls ca di books' Perio I . . '' ,, f en e o op us e n1m th n11 as e II as umes, leg ivi pr � iting and communication ed dr e y , h on ars t las 1 e tl ar g � tow r1 � du _ , 11d d � tre a t en es pr re � 11s tio tu sti 1 i1 _ y securit 1 � s0� 1ety 1s poor 11 id -ab la m fro n 1 lat 1so � ? e let mp co t tl1a ion nit og rec g increasin r IS ing ne o be 1s_ pr e . _e�posed Th ty c1e s at th to ? 11 ur ret al tu en ev r preiJaration fo to procedures desig11ed to accust� m 11�m to t�e ,routine� � 11d cond1t1ons of 1 g demand tl1at ti1 s1s per s iety so g r111 1gn , � ver we l1o ? ut, ho wit ng livi 1 1 orn1al serioL1s offe11 ders be placed 11nder· bodily restrai11t. U11like tl1e above measures, l1 owever, tl1e pre-release labour experime nts 1nean tl1at at least half tl1e prisoner's waking hours are spent e11tirely away from i11 stitutio11 confi11es in tl1e com1Ja11y, 11 ot of other co11victs, but of free \vorl<ers. for eigl1 t or ten hours daily, the fJrisoner is oblig·ed to follow the routines and meet tl1e res1Jo11 sibilities of freedom, r::i.tl1er tl1 a11 plodding through tl1e er1 ervating patterns of tl1 e institutio11al day, ho\vever much those 1Jatter11s are relieved by wireless progra1nn1es or letters fro1n l1ome. Moreover, as presently admi 11istered, tl1e pre-release scl1emes e11able prisor1ers to occupy productive roles ir1 tl1e State's ordi 11 ary eco11omy, to earn wages comparable tG tl1ose of free \VOrl<ers, a11d to rei1nburse tl1e State for board and lodgi11g.

. ·,I

Sweden \Y/as o.JJparently tl1 e first State to aL1tl1orize private pre-release \'<IOrk. Section 53 of the Act of 21 Dece1nbe1· 1945, Concerning the Execution of lmpriso11ment, etc. provides tl1at: Wl1e11 it appears st1itable, in vie\v of tl1e lengtl1 of the se11tence or for otl1 er S[Jecial reason, and it may be assu1ned tl1at 110 risl{ of abttse is prese1:t, tl1 e Pri�on Administration, or by its autl1orizatio11, tl1e director may, 1n preparat1?11 for r �lea�e, _per11 1it a prisoner to e11 gage i11 worl( \Vith a 11 em fJ 1oyer otits1de t 11e 111s t 1 t ut I o11 ." < 1 > 1 '

•

are:

•

Salient featL1res of tl1e several pioneeri11g scl1emes [i11 pre-release work] 1) ?riso11 ers selec!ed for tl1 e ()rogran1mes are limited to iiidividuals who

are believ�d to be. h1gl1ly reliable and \x,1 10 are 11earing completio11 of th�ir �ern:is ?f incarceratio11. Tl1e develo1Jme11t of 1nediu111 and mitiimum secur1t)' i11stitut1011s �as made _JJOssib!e by t�1e realization tliat itidividual priso11e:s vary greatly �11 es�a1Je-risk; 1Jr1so11 regimens consequently can be organized tn acco _ rda1�ce with tl11s fact, a11 d tl1e fJre-release schemes represent further recogni tion of 1t. 2) Securi_ty meas11res are virtually eliminated during t11e work-day. Oive11

careful_ selectt�n JJroc�dures, the costly and difficult task of providitig custody for � r1so1;ers 1n transit an_d at work ca11 be avoided. Prisotiers properly cl1os�n for free work sel?om violate the trust placed in tl1em contrary to tl1e belief �liared by _tl1 e Plt�lic and_ some prison administrators tl1�t convicts will invar iably flee tf surveillance 1s relaxed even momentari ly. 1

3) l11mates · participati11g i11 tlie JJrogramm e� ot l1 m fro e are housed apart ( i) Tl1is provision is but one of several · . . . . . n f isoners he A.ct spec1f1c_ t isolat1c> ally d esigned to reduce from .s?ciety; see esp ecially Sections �� ( cl o34 p(le crers), · · ;ea ,ng nts), mater ial), 33 (support for depende . 35 (v1s1ts), 36 (co,npassionat e leave ) , an 44 (early transfer to open iostitutions).

�-

· ...· ·-....... . ' . . ... .. .

• -' .

. '

PENAL REFORM

375

. oners, u11der r educed se�urity accommodatioi1s · T rust P 1aced in t hem durin i r p s day i s accorded tl1e prisoners at night. . . . g the r w ) ages a11d w o rk i1 1g c onditions a re identical 4 w t ' tl1 those of free em ployewo rk N . ot r on ly does this permit r.sone doin g simila r to o c c u JJ Y_ p o re s g� i ?� la 1 at r e' ec � o1 1o tl1 e m y, i11 bt 1t � it �n s te J 11ct ;i f 0 re uce compla111ts of 111 t1s 11 1g n ''c et 1t1 he o ap'' prisot, labour. tin fai r cornp •

• • •

THE DEVELOPlv\ENT Of TI-IE PRISON SYSTE IY\ IN OI-f1-\NA10 ]. E_yisor1

• • •

•

Tlt� next q _ ttestio11 is , _are w e in West A!rica doi11g etiougli? No doubt we inust still look al1e �d fo r 1 111 {)roven1e11t.. for 111stance, Ohatia 1,as recei,tly built what m�y be described as a_ 111oder11 _IJr1s011 at Nsa\Xlam, 11ever tlleless tl,e need to _re�tl1111k _tl1e '-Yl1o_le q uest1011 of J)r1s_o11 clesign, i11 tl1e ligl1t of the purpo ses whicl1 a pr1s011 1s 111te11ded t? serve 111 tl1ese days, is still very; presf = . �- T lle dunge on t}'tJe of cell sl1ot1ld give \vay to s_o!lletl1i11g \Vl1icl1 enl1ances tl1e dignity of ma11; and tl1er e mtrst be acleqtrate prov1s1011 111ade i11 the entire struclt1re to facilitate social a11d cultural develo1Jm e11t. E11viro11111e11t mal<es the 111a11 and priso11 ar cl1itectt1re m t1st, JJerforce, be co11duci,,e lo \vl1at \Ve see]{ to aci1ieve. Pris?11 staf_fs 11eed re-_ o rie11tatio11 against r�gi1ne11tation i11 outlook a11d against the 1ntra11s1ge11ce \Vl11cl1 so ofte11 cl1aracter1ses tl1e111; a11d \Ve must from 110\YJ on\x ards look for the calibre of p e rso11 \x,}10 can be a111e11able to trair1ir1g at least i11 tl1ose as1Jects of social worl< \vl1icl1 are releva11t to J)riso11 aclmi11istra tio11. Social \x;ork, to mal-:e a11y contributior1 lo tl1e rel1abilitatio11 of tl1e offender, must co11sist of real ,x:elfare worl<: do11e witl1i11 tl1e 1)riso11s a11d tl1e scl1ools based t1po11 the pri11ci fJles of case,vo rl( i11 a grottjJ\v;orl( selti11g. 'fl1is is a setting 1 \\ hicl1, altl1ottgl1 it is co11greaatio11al i11 11atttre, 1nal{es jJrovisio11 for i11ti111ate concer11 for tl1e i11dividt1al a11d l1is acljttst111ent to ll1e grot1p of \v1l1icl1 lie is a part. If not, 110,v best could tl1e 1Jriso11er be pre1Jared for acce1) table life Otttside tl1e priso11 gates?

1. · '

,. '

' .

'' '

After-care services mttst aim at tJrese11ti11g to tl1e_ c?m1n1111_ity i_n er1 of _d_ig11ity �nd pttrpose - the product of a realistic priso1� tra111111g \vl11cl1 1s sens1t1ve _to in dustrial co11ditions 011 tside - and sl1ot1ld also include a JJrogramme for social edt1catio11 directed to tl1e pub lic a11d, particttlarly, to e1np�O)'ers a11d employees on the 11�ecl for t hei r ac cep ta1 1ce of tl1e t1nfortt111ate ex-1Jr1s011er. ed Tl1ese and any other meastires fo r i 111prove111ent wl1icl1 can be co11templatat must be against a backgrottnd wl1ich is i11dige11ous. Here,_ I would ad�oc e the formatio11 of a West Africa11 body of social workers, \Vtlh �� mbers r�\Vll from tl1e wl1ole territory 1 wl1icl1 will set itself the task of exain rning fro� time 1 ex-pi.·15oner at. 1d' if need be advise on t0 1·1me ottr basic attitt1des towa rds tie m ea dr k · l d m is Th e. what tre11ds our Correctior1al Services shotild tak But _ ho w best can we, as a people, �e et ou: problems ��a��all; ��hin th� te bu ri nt co to le ab e b ay in 5ett1ng of we g ottr idiosy11cracies? A nd 1n so doin 1 . ws no k O h w to the w·orld's effort at meeting a burning JJroblein Africa 83 Wt st in Wo rk Soc ial . Om ari 1C· l-.yi . . �on, Correctional Services in West Africa, in Drake .an d experiment and reform of oc an ; he f �1962). The above selections are again me �e ly s��gesf� re �v;rage 0[ ocher areas of prison reform. •n s ,n1 r� .

pena l syste ms; see the recommended reading

•

I ..

j• ; ' 1

. .' ' . ..: ..

i '

'r.' ....' , ' ·.

,·'

I .-�,. ....-;. ..· . .., C • 1

,,.' ,'r,; .

....

N IO T A IT IL B A H E R f O THE IDEAL

376

NOTES E IV C U D N O C S E U IQ N H O T H E R TEC R E D N E S F f F O O N IO T A IT IL B A H TO THE RE

Note l:

The Use of Probation

d te ns , ni io rs U at ai N ff , A al ci So d an ic om n o Ec of t en m rl Depa 11 on ti ba ro r P fo rs The Selection of Offende

ession 011 the ad pr g i� tin las d an ep de a ft e l ve ha s on uti tit ins l ga Two le e11t1eth ce11tury: juvenile tw the of lf ha st fir the in e tic jus al n mi cri of n tio tra nis mi elop me nt tl1_e y \V e re clo sely v de 1· tl1e ft1r d an n gi ori ir e th In . ion bat pro a11d courts associate d, and in ma11y cour1tries botl1 gre w up �ogether.. Juvenile courts made increasing ttse of probat iori office rs, '11h0 1 by social en qu1r1es and personal care and su1)ervision, hel1)ed tl1e juvenile cot1rts to acl1ie ve tl1 eir purpose of reha bilitating delinqt1e11t and 'X1ay\vard youth. More tha11 any the oretical doctrine of a criminological scl1ool, juve11 ile courts a11d probatio11 made judges aware of tl1e persor1al needs and social prol)le1ns behind the l egal concepts of crime a11d JJunishment. Tl1e resort to co11 strt1ctive metl1ods of treatment i11 preference to pu11itive meas11 res \Y1l1ich \xras the avowed ai n1 of a universal juvenile-co urt movement, and the co11ti11t1ot1s submission of social reports by probation o ffi cers and allied services l1ave cre ated a n e \xr attitude towards offenders and e xt e11ded the legiti1n�te fu11ctions of the ad mi 11istration of justice far be)1 o nd th e assessme nt of g111lt and the meting 011t of the appropriate se11 tence. •

•

I l

•

. Tlie basic _legal co11c�ption of probatio11 applies to a combi11ation of t_wo !htng�, sus1)e11s101: of f)U111sl:n:3 e11t a_11 d p ersonal care a11d sup ervision . Pr�bat1on !s !1e1 t eh r JJrotect1ve . superv1s1on \Vttl1out the JJO\xrer of tl1 e law bel1i11d it, n o r ts it a n,ere sus1)ens1on of fJL111isl1ment like a co11ditior1al discl1arge or a s_us pei1ded sentence. Tl,e esser1ce of probatio11 lies in the combi i 1ation or integrati on ?f t_lles� two _eleme11ts. Tl1is defi11ition is sufficie11tly concre te to de scribe a legal t1tt1t1on w1tl1 cl1ar_ac�eristic featt1res of its own. It is also wide e noug l1 to a 0� for ainpl� variatior1s i11 tl1e actual fo sus e Th ts ele . me r1n of n tl1 tw e o n s n re f ptinishme nt may tal<e � i ? e o n pla cut ce io b du rin g the sta ge of prose f�Ial �eg1ns, f or _ after the fi11di11g of guilt before se11ten is given or b efore a ce ' d give11 sentence 1s executed Tl e er· e b perso 11a · l may 1 care and _ r visio11 Utl ad· e sup taken by professional or voluntary the to d wor ker s, atta cl1e by a serv ice · ministration of ust· e l r ent to � lfa _ or e �� i or tl1 tna y au all , s loc e_ i t_ d a11 be ! y . r �e � f �� J A controlled. llied f ct n like so _ cia l e �vi o� e11 su q_ p u 1r1 es, . pr ob ati on ary priso11ers' after-care may. ;e � in the assig i,ed to differen t services or combine e· hands of a general d rk wo er of the court. It is with regard to the �� des · t ailed features tl1 at ;�ibalt10 1 u t n m u t at be and adapted to tl1e tra ditio11s of particular countries a:d � 1 0 t heir legal systems. • • . •

17f

-'l -l s·" l The spread of probat·ion ar a d the i11tensification of its methods in the y · -� e

11. U.N. �ubl., ST/ �OA/SD/7 _ con ition

�

pen51 on)

� established 111

in Ethiop ia, see

. 1- 8

- ,_- §1 - - ---�

959). The use of probation � A�i 194 1 Arts. 194�20 '{i_{· For the a pplicati on

:. t

... by the

-�

in ErhiopHl 1s hrrud'e�0naI�su �<-= -:;t "' (con batioo ro of p . _� �· -.,;..;·'' •,

·,j

• ·� ....

PENAL REFORM

377

Se co nd tl1e World War ar e a remark ow ed fol l ·c bl e feattire of pr:ese11t-day h h be ha en tl1 s e It pr i11 ci rm pa . l purpose of th15 '*'e tal refo � :11-�vem� nt to introduce p d to extend a c o11structive treatment of offenders ou n 51 e priso11 wa ll� .. T l1e services a11d social the refinement of case � re ase in in�h a development. I11ternational disctis sion and co- \vo r ½ metliod� fac1l1tated o r a_t ion were �n�ended t �; o s�t countries to venture tl1e step from tl,e ne ati a a o1 111g short h fon sentences to th e positive pttrpose o f a c o nstrt1ctive ;��a t�e11r o 1 offend ri ers p the open. . . . in

sh oul d be defi11ed, for comparative ptt ation then Pr ob . 1-. 1)oses, as a COITI b"1· . h m e1 � t a 11ct persor1al c are arid nat10� o f �uspens1 on of pt11 11s st 1 1Jervisio11.Probatior1 tn t his sense l1�s. devel ope d I �1 E t1gla11d a11cl tl1e U i1ited States at a time wl1en m ost of the c1v1l law co u11tr1 es follow ed. tl1e Belgiai, atid f reiicl, preced ents of 1�88 a11d 1891 a11d acl?pled t l1e s11rs1s! tl1� co,iditio11 aI or susiJetided senten.ce 1n. tl1e sense tl1at a fixed se11te11ce 1s g1ve11 but tl,e actua l prison . 11 tl1at 110 furll1er offe11ce is co111111itled com m1tta I ts sti_spen de d . w1·ti 1 ti 1e c?11c1·1t10 within a prescr ibe� period. T l1e cl1ffere11t starli11g 1Joi11ts of tl,ese t\vo liries of legislation _led l? �1vergen! �es11lts T l1e co111111011 la·\'<' J)ro cedure \Viti, its iiiterval betwee n two d1st1nct dec�s1011s - convictio11 arid se11tence - facilitated a stts pension of the promulgat1011 of a ser1te11ce, a11d tl1is al1stentio11 frotn eve11 ,l hypothetical punishn:ie11t �tre11gtl1e11ed tl1e r�l1abilitative forces of probatio11. �o�rts we r e no� re_strrcted 1n t l1e t1se of probat1011 by staltttory li n1 itat io11s. St11Jcr v1s1011 became 111d1spe11sable ancl took 111ore a11d 111ore tl1e for111 of 11rofessio11al case work by trained social worke r s of tl1e cot1rt.T l1e s1trsis, 110,vever, 11cver lost its character of a part icular ac t of le11ienc} gra11ted to offe11ders ,vl1{} dcservccl it in exceptional circumstances. Legislatio11, tl1erefore, provid.ecl gt1::tr�111 ees ag2.i11st abuse by unwarranted applica tion of tl1is meast1re. Stat11lory· jJrovisio11s reslricte(l the admissibility of a sL1spensio11 of a ()riso11 coin111iltal to se11te11ccs of a. limited length, made a rescission of tl1e st1s1Je11sio11 i11,111cl(ttory i11 certair1 IJre,. scribed circumstances, and excluded certa.i11 gro11J)S of offe11ciers ()r l)'11es of offences altogether from tl1e benefit o f a st1spe11sio11 of tl1e exect1tio1} of tl·1eir sentences.The final remission of tl1e se11te11ce ot1gl1 t to be cleser,;ecl oy blai1le� less conduct. -l�here appeared to be 110 roorn for tlie st1jJjJc,rt of tlie '�real( offender by the frie11dly interve11 tio11 of a social ,vorke�. Perso11al c_c1re aricl super vision had its place outsid e a possib le cor1�exio11 \v1tl1 leg�l fJlt111sl11.�,e�1t; protective supervisi on, liberte sur-veillee, Sc/J1ttzai,jszcl1t \vere ed �1c�t1or1al 111ea.:, ltI es for wayward and delinquent juve11 iles . Tl1ere ar� close as�?c1at1on:;, 011 tlie _0 11� h��d, between suspensi on of tl1e ac t ?� se11ter1c111g, a ,v1cte range of ad111�ss1b1l1ty and pers onal care an d su pe rv1s1on and, 011 tl1e o� l,�r l,and, betw eei, suspensio n of the executi on of tl,e sentence, statt1tory restr1cl1on and no st1pervision at all. t

•

II' .•.. . '

! ..

•

n co i, ea op r u_ E e th of es r� t 1 u1 co w . The spread of probation i11 the civil la ; c n � e R_ . e� id w ne l ,e. tinent takes the form of ada ting tl1e traditio11al sursis to _t t�ndencies in European legisfation sl1ow a gradt�al loose11111g 11� t l1e st�1ct It�� · auguration . o·f a spec1al service a lio n s of suspended sentences, and the 111 l1ose se11\v s er d en ff o d.tsposal of the ng isi rv pe su urts with th e funct i on of co tences are suspended.... 11t re fe if d . f o y it l i ib ss o p e th 11 probatio n, _although it is very _ f lexibl� hr g e b 11 t io a t u i s k r o w e s a c · l re9u1rements and t l1e h!ghly 1. n ivi?J1ua listic a dd't 1 iona r o r e d e n ff o y r e v e r tween probat fo a e c a n a p o � 15 ner, for groups ion officer and probatiooffence tn g er1eral · Pr obatioi1 li as its place, of criminals or types of

d·

I.i

,I' . .

. .

'. . ;' .�'...

. ''•

.:. '1. .. ..: ..v:'. I

.·, 1· ..

.. . :

: , �

· !:1 ;-,·� • •: I·

� ,L

:J.

;, ,

THE IDEAL Of REHABILITATION

378

ar1d a JJromii1e11t one, in a differentiated s�ste!11. of J?en�l and corrective- meth ods clesigi1 ed for a reason�ble degree of 1nd1v1dual1zat1on o� treatme11t. 1:his leads to tlie decisive qt1est1011: Who are the offenders deemed suitable for probation?

ds ho et t m en . ?c tm .ee P e� d, tr on �he s ie ud st al ic og ol i11 im cr \ e or 1n ... Tl1e 1 e 11s l re 1Jo t1a en 1s er 1ff ''d a s ail er av 1d fe1 of e tl1 t ou ab � ge led ow kii e bl lia re re nio . b!e or �s1 s po ces me o 11e c_ be ch ar se sary. re 11g 1ci te1 1 se1 to cl1 oa JJr ap \X' 11e a ble and tl 1 e 1nd1 1d��l offe11d g t1n e11 ev fJr _ er of 1 1 tio e� ev JJr al_ du i 1 v_ 1di i i of se � Tlie JJUfJJo 1 g �tl1�r. t1ad1t1onal _ a1n1 s _?1 am e n o_ ly on nly tai cer 1s g 1 o11 gd o11 wr 1 from ftirtlier 1 g s1gn1f1ca11ce .. I_t 1s the s11 rea 1nc of 1 io1 rat ide 11s co a gl1 ou 1 of jJL1tiisl1 1ne11t, tl 1 d �s10 an 1 of a erv e. s�1p car tl1e to rs de 1 e1 off i11g 1itt 11n co1 in le ci1J 1 1 pri 1g leadi1 l e111 of ce Juv cti pra ent at� tr� e 1 tl s _e courts. ate 1 1 mi do it a11d r, ice off JJrobation It is tl1erefore a11 important object of cr1m111olog1cal researcl1 to f111 d wa)'S a11d 11 1ea11s of selecti11 g offer1ders for a JJartict1lar form of treatn1ent from whicl1, i11 tl1e ligl1 t of exrJerie1 1ce1 tl1e best rest1lts ca11 be exJJected for tl1e i11divid11al la\xr-breal<er. •

•

for many cri1 ni11 ologists, tl1 e answer to tl1ese questions lies i11 a further develo1J11·1e11t and a1J1JrOjJriate applicatio11 of statistical JJrediction metl1ods. Botl1 i11 tl1 e U1 1ited States a11 d, n1ore recentlJ', i11 E11g!a11d 1nucl1 progress has been made i11 this field of researcl1. Ho\vever, even \vitl1 tl1e ft1 rther 1:ierfection of 1netl1 ods a11 d tecl111 iq11 es, cri111e preclictio11 ·alone does 11ot offer a comJJlete solu tio11. It is a scie11tific device which p1·ovides an a11s\x,er to tl1e first qt1estion a11d determi1 1es tl1e risl< i11 ct1rred by a nu111erical qt1antitative meas11rement based 011 objective factt1al data. Tl1 e risk i1n1Jliecl i11 fJt1tting an i11dividual offender 011 JJrobatio11 is 011e among other poi11ts to be co11sidered, a1 1d, in tl1ese com prel1e11sive co11siderations, it ca11 be of s01ne valt1e to see as clearly ar1cl object ively as jJOssible tl1 e da11gers tl1at lie al1 ead. To face st1cl1 a sitt1atio11 is al\'v'ays better tha11 to rely 011 JJerso11al i11tt1itio11. ·r11e psycl1ological effect 011 tl1e pr_obati�11 officer ca11 work i11 eitl1er of two \vays. l�I-i e f)robatio11er with a bad cr11ne r1 sl( m�y be a cl1allenge to tl1e JJrobatio1 1 officer to 11,ake a parti-cularly gr_eat effort 1 11 an atte1nrJt to resct1e tl1e offender fro111 a life of JJersistent cr11 ne. I1:1 otl1 er �ases, ''tl1� e_xct1se of tl1e 1<110\vledge'' may temJJt l1i111 to dan1_p do\'<1n 11 1s zeal 11 1 a fata_l1st1c _ 111ood 011 tl1e assu111rJtior1 tt1at tl1e bad risk ! 5 l1 opeless a11d tl1e goocl risk \X'tll st1cceed anyl10\v. Wl1at is 111ore imJJortant 1s tl1 �t a11 acct1rate _assess�e11� of tl1e JJrobability of furtl1 er offe11ces bei11g com· 1n1tted does notl!1�1g to 111d1cate tl1e i11dividual offe11 der's suscer)tibili t)' to a11d 11 eed for, a SfJec1f1c for1n of �reat1�1e!1t to \Vl1icl1 l1e n1 ay resiJoiid eve11 if lie has not yet reacl1ecl tl1e end of l11s cr11n111al career. furtlier co11sideration s are tl1erefore 11eces�ary for tl1 e guida11ce of tl1ose respo11 sible for tl,e selectio11 of treat ment, to find a11 a11swer to _tl·1e seco11 d questio11 , i.e., tlie decision as to, wh_o oug!?t t_o b� IJLtt 011 probat1011. Tl1ese consideratio11 s ma y well 11eed a basts \X1h1c)1 1s dtffer�nt. frorr1 tl1e �ccepted basis of crirne predictiot,. A 011 e.sided_ em· pl1as1s 011 pred1ct1011 ca!1 easily lead to a tendency to assess success arid failure 111 ter1:1s of low an9 htgl, reco11viction rates alone or to restrict the use of probat1011 to safe risks only . - Social adjttstn,ent is a liig11 ty comJJlex process. Profess?r a11� Mrs.. Glt1eck, _tl1e leading autl,orities on crime prediction, l1°"'ve ._ . s�o�11 111 tl1e1r stt1�1es o� cr1mi. 11 al careers tl,at there can be, aiid often is n 1 c;� s1de 1_able _IJrogre�s _ 1t1 s?c1al _ad111stment _ itllprovemer,t ii, \VOrk habits, fa 1 � · . �� orIY·. ,. , e rela.t 1011sl11p, ft1lf1ll111g f1na11 c1al obligations _ evei, one or m of in ·; th fa e ce ft1rtl1er cot1rt appear a11 ces. In order to proVt·ct e OJJportunt·t·1es r1s · k.s -must - , �-· _,:::.-:: - .'-- - .b� · a � ceti. a l If 11 pr o b at io t, ca se s lia d _ . a n sa tis fa te ct 11c or y � ice of tl e outcome tl1e �e11 ��-:=.,� cou1 ts would l1ave failed in a11 importa11t a�pe of. pen ai g op� l1 �� ct _l. p_ �,, _Y:�'. -�.."��.�1 _ .. � .. :.. -� - ·--.:;:::�. ..

�

. ..:. - "� . �·-. -..:, ·:--.·.-:-- .;;:,. . ' . .· . . -....· . ..-':-',·-�,·· :..-·- --..•: -� .·"" � . .-. :' .... ,.,,_.,. _.-..... -.' .- . . .:.· -:-· -·� -- . .....:'•:-;.c.-· ,� :.-::_��?-.-.., .-:.cn--u=·. .· •-· ..... .� . . . . .'":. ..��-·-:, . ...... � · .. ,. .. · _. --�-1- ....:�?l. -�, :

·;..

. -.,

-:,_

_,_.;;_ _,,;� .._ ;

_.,\

... ....

--.�et;·

. � ;.:.��/:...�.$,:--- �::.;r��it _ .. . • .•I ,. .,. r �J,.. ' . , • • ' . ·.:;::,_.t..:.:. .:....:..... .,._ . . . . · . . . ,. > : �� :., .;:; . .-' . ,, . ··- �,, .,...........,. ... ...,_ ...

- -.

: ... .... -�- .. , . ' ,

. . -·

�--s;:·-..... ..

� .....:_ _

:-: -- ,.;· ,.......:.:cy. .. '·"""'!---:---:-:";�_,_....,... _ � '

...._

PENAL REFORM

of Conditional Release Use The 2: e Not Department of Social Affairs, Parole a11d After-Care12

379

Generally SJ)eaking, parole is defined as tJ1e conct·it_i· onal_ release o f a seperson before ted conii)letioi1 of tlle ter 0 f 1m_prison1n co11vic ed Iect � nt to w _ hi cl 1 It te11ced . im1Jlie en s s n tl 1 at tile [Jers oi1 i; q e5l io_n co11t1nues !n he has bee th e or its Stat_ e age11t the and lllat Ile ma �e re1 11carcerated 1 tl1e custody of �. _ av1 our . It mis is bel 1 a J)en olo gic al of t meaittre d 1g11ed to fac1l1t� te even the tra11sitio11 of tl1e offender fron1 tl1e l1igl1ly co11trolle d f� 1 e o f tI1 e pei,al tn g It is not i. nte11ded as a gesture stitution to the freedo m of commu11 ity livin--· o{ leniency or forgiveness. Under JJarole, tl1ere 1nay be 011ly a si11crle cor1ditio11 tn · posed namely, tl1at the offe11der mt1st refrai11 from con1n1ittir1gba 11ew offence, l or there ' _ may a 1 so · mor UStla l - Several _spe�ific conditio11s requiri11g the inb � . - artct ti 11· 5 1S d��ldua o comp 1y w1ti _a 1:u1nb er of obl1gat1011s Oi proliibitions. Parole cond1t1ons h�v_e t�1e dual obJ_ect!v�s of e11sttring pttblic safety and cotitrib11 l tng · t0 the rehab1l1tat1 on of the 1nd 1v 1dt1al. Tl1e use of individualized co11ditions _of rele ase as well as tlie factor of selectivity for parole mt1st rest UJJ011 a social stt1dy. It is tl1e basis for parole decisions. Parole also imtJlies a particular l{ind of s11pervisio11 involvi11g g11ida.nce and assistance wl1icl1 sets it apart fror11 ty1Jical police f1111ctioi1S.

. II '• . '

' '

• • • •

Parole is to be distI11gttisl1_ed fro1n 1�robation i11 tl1at tl1e latter is gra11tecl by the court as a11 alternative to 111ca rceralton. Parole is a.lso to be disti11gttisl1ed fron:1 pardon, wl1 icl1 is an act of forgive11ess a11d remission of pt111isl1n1e11t freeing the individual from respo11sibilit)' to tl1e State ,vitl1 respect to the re� mai11der of tl1is sentence. • • •

•

... Society is obliged at least to 1ni11imize tl1e i111pact of tl1e process of deterioratio11 produced by impriso11ment. . The consequences of the fJrolo11ged in1priso11me11t of ht1sba11d, father and;or chief supporte r of a family constitute a11 equally urgent proble1n. Such imprison me11t may frustrate any possibility for the social a11d moral re inte gration of a family facing the danger of perma11ent breakdo\vn. Since many imponderable f�c tors are involved in this process, even com1Jl etely �deq_uate material support given to dependents can on ly partially alleviate the situation. on ati lit bi ha re ?f n tio i:a pl ap al tic ac pr Parole offers an opportunity fo r tl1e programmes prior to th e expiration of sentence. Ar1y prisoner 1s, to a greater or lesser degre e, moulded by rules an d sta11darcls wl1_icl1 are enforced either t bu , es lv s� e� tl1 s r e on is pr 1e l t_ by by _tl1e managemeiit of t} 1e penitentiary or which preva il in an unnatural co 111 mutiity, bear111g only a �uperf1c1al res�m hlance to free society. Modern peniten tiary systems usttally aim at confronting ns. 112, 20_6-2_15, � , E. l C. e th p � e _ d un 12. p .N. Puhl., se l ea ST/SOA/SD/4 P· 1·5 (1954). Cond itiona re superv1s1on of a charltablc org an_1zat_1on lS combined with a period �f probation us ually u nd er cl1 e ent of t�e nS[lth· m ag an m e th d an ed rv se is f ers groun s or t e a.nd may be ap pl ied after two-third s of the sentence f <? d _ an t1on and the court feel that the offend er's behavior has improved l ease h as bee n i re na 1o 1t d n co . . use of he T n. expecat atio . , . b · pro t ·ion o f continu on ent em ed improv n lic p begu n in Ethio pia but curtailed due to d isagreement a s to its correct ap atio

I.< '

' ''

I 1:

.. ,,' .. '' . ·.'

: .. �

'iI i

f''

. l•

ON l T A IT IL B A H E R f O L A E ID TliE

380.

' '' I I

on is e pr th , e ls al id w ts ou r no ld or w e ms th in i11 a t ob t 1 a tl s rm no priso11ers witl1 at l� a_Sl, �a d not observ , or re �o be n ow kn t 11o d a h whicl1 some of the inm ates l p ia ic im act. rf pe su y gl in 11d po es rr co a ly on ve a h ed. Such efforts often a posi�ion to decid e in lf se m hi ds fin �l du vi di n i_ e �h y, et Upon retur11 to soci h be aviour _t� an the of es od � of ty rie . va er id w l1 . on liis course, f acing a muc e th g_ ? 1t1 in 1d nd clt co 1n ns , �n is1 of rv pe su le ro Pa . rn hi fer of d ul n co tio tu sti i11 al casework involv ci so e th lly a ci pe es 1t b1 d he lis tab es release w1 1ich have been a re_alis�ic _applic atio11 i11 dail)' g ki� tna i11 l' a du ivi ind tl1e ist ass le, ed i1 1 paro . 11 on tur 11t1 Re t1t to tl1e 1ns e tl1 1n ed cat vo acl rds a 11d sta ur vio life of tlie bel1a e Th s. ard n� pros�ect of a st es� h t_ ve ser ob to re ilu a f institution may follow t tac con l1 um w1t xim ma the in a int ma to 1er so1 J)ri tl1e es rag o11 e11c o] [als ole par world outside tl1e instit11tio 1 1. •

•

l I I I

I ' l I '•. I '•

•

I I

l l

•

l�l,e prospect of parole stimulates the prisoner to derive ma ximum benefit from tl1e facilities provided by tl1e priso11 as fJre1Jaratio11 for parole. Tl1e i1 1diviclual 11risoner 1nay have avail able to l1in1 a v ariety of edt1cational, voca tio11al1 religious, recreational or otl1er services to which he \:qill res1Jond \Vitl1 apatl1y or er1tr1usias111 1 depe11cling 11po11 l1is ge11eral 011tlook. Tl1e i11divid11al \x:ho l1as the prospect of parole before l1im is more inclined to apply l1imself, con sci011s ly or 111 1conscio tis 1y, to t11e utilization of s11ch services. Paro le offers assistance to tl1e individ11al Uf)Or1 release from fJrison. Tl1rough the s11pervisi11g age11t, tl1e parolee may receive botl1 n1aterial and psycl1ological assista11ce. It is not u11lil<ely that the assista11ce received especially tl1e advice arid support_ gi_ven by �he parole officer, may be a key factor i11 tt1e s11ccessful IJost-1nst1t11t1011al ad111stn1e11t of n1any individ11als. Tl1e possibility of parole revocation acts as a deterre11t. Tl1e merits of this co1 1ce1Jrio11 of jJarol� are (Jresently i11 disptlte. Altl1ough it is 1Jossib le, �v�n pr�bable, that coerc10 11 may co11tribute to making (Jarole a s11ccess, si1 1ce It 1s unlikely tl1a� any _ 111a_11 co11ld be \vl1olly i11differe11t to tl1e risk of being sent ba�k to prrson, It I_s qt1est�o11ab!e \vl1etl1er tl1e existe11ce a11d afJjJlicatio11 of _coercive 111easures are 1 11 kee1J1 1 1g \X1ttl1 acce1Jteci principles of IJarole IJractice. It _ 1 s a�reed, _l10\X1ev�r, _that parole a11d after-care, as ttnderstood tod a)', do _11ot pr1n1ar1ly de1_1ve tl1e1r 1m1Jorta11ce fro111 tl1e threat of JJossible parole revocation. •

•

! I

Parole offers t_l1e O!JIJ?rtunity to re-evaltiate tlie role of iristitutiorial treat m·e11� a11d tl1e rel�t1ve merits of alter11atives. Parole, along witli the compa11ion service of probation, l1as de1nonstrated tlie efficacy of non-institutional treat �ent of offe11ct�i:s, Tl1ese n:ieasL1res l1a�e led to a sllift in emphasis, includi11g · increased sc_ept1c1sm r�ga�d111g tl1e merits of itnprisoiimetlt a nd greater reliance on 11on-JJL11 11t1ve tecl1111q11es. Questions

· o pi:a ·1· Etl1 ·Eva1 l11ate each o· f the foll. o\vi11g a. srJects of ti 1e prison .. 111 system · t �1 ig · 1 1t of possible tl1eor1es of crime causatio11 1ta b1l 1 re l l a 11d its potentia a t 1ve effect : a. Isolatir,g m_e11 fron1 women within . �con : de i . s out the son m pri fro and tact with �1ves, etc. (Art. 109 {l) ). . .. . ,. b. Poor l1ous111 g facilities. .. .

! ",

....... -

.. ·. ��.

-:-� . .. . - :;.;�z_._ � _ . - -.,; --·'--' •, . . -• ,--. , .� . . ·. . . . .·•:• � . --:_ .. , .,-

----·· . . . :- :� :·:;- ·-

�.

PENAL REFORM '

c. d. e.

g. 11. •

381

Tl1e lack of trai11ed staff and programs of tI 1era1Jy. Classificatio11 011 tl1e basis of se1,tence. Restrictio11 of freedom of moveme11t. Priso11 discipli11e (Art. 111 (1) ). Priso11 regimentatio11. Privilege s for good co11clt1ct (Art. 111 (3) ). Conditio11al release (fJarole) witl1 a fJeriod of probatioi, (Arts. 112, 206-215).

\Vhy is __ tl1e Dutcl1 pe11a� syst�11� (JJIJ. 350-351 sr,pra) corisidered very good by 1)e!1olog1sts.? D?es {Jt1l1l1c OfJ1111011 l1ave a st1bsta,itial effect 011 ti 1 t f JJr1so11 S)'Stetn tl1at _a cot111try 111ai11tai11s? Ca11 JJublic opii,ion be �/tiI�eJ? \Vl1 y l1av; most f)rtsoiis IJrovecl ge11erally so t111st1ccessft1l i11 rel1abilitating offenders. _\Vhat cl1a11ges ca11 be 1nade i11 treatment tliat will 1,ave an • effect 011 l11gl1 rates of reciclivism? Wl1 at are tl1e pri1nary cl,aracteristics of ''01)e11'' i11stitutio11 s? Are sttc11 institt1tio11s com1Jatible \Vi_tl1 tl1e 11eeci lo fJrotect society fro111 crirninals? Sl1_ot1ld 011ly· tl1e �est 1Jr1so11ers be se11t to ''ope11'' i11stitt1lio11s? Sl1 ottlcl pr1s011ers wear t111 1for111s? ?l1ot1ld tl1ey l1ave tl1i11gs do11c for tl1e1n or be e11couraged to do a11d tl1111lc for tl1e111selves? I-I,1ve ''ope11'' institutions been successfttl i11 rel1abi Ii tatio11 efforts? J-lo\v 1nigl1t syslems of pre-release \v;or!c be l1elj)ft1l i11 rel1 ai.1i]itatio11? Ca11 such S) Slems be geared to pa:>ri11g for tl1e rnaj or costs of Sll!J!)Orti11i,! a priso11er? Should prisoners be askecl le) re1Jay as best tl1e)r ca11 tl1c !Ji�rso�i1(s) whom t}1ey l1ad i 11j ti reel i11 tl1e co111111issio11 of tl1eir cri111e? 1

How shoulcl tl1e staff of pe11al i11stitt1tio11s be recrt1ilecl and traii1eci.? Sl1ol'.1c1 tl1ere be after-care of priso11ers wl1er1 tl1ey leave J)riso11s? v/l1at sl101.tld be given a prisoner t1pon release fro111 fJriso11? Sl1 ot1ld lie fi11cl l1is 0\\'/11 job after release? 6. Wl1y is probatio11 co11siclered 011e of tl1c great adva11ces i11 1)e11al practice i 11 the 20tl1 ce11tury? \VI1y clid 1t clevelop l1 istorically witl1 tl1e jt1ve11ile cotirt? Does probatio11 l1e!JJ to i11clivi{lt1alize treat111e11t? I-lo\v sl1ould JJersons be cl1ose11 for probatio,1? Are tl1ere lirnits set t1po11 \Vl10 ca11 b� selected for es nc 11 1te s0 se1 fJr1 er ov red fer pre be o11 ati ob 9r ld 011 Sl1 probation i 1 1 Etl1iopia? in all cases tl1at offer a possibl)ity of s11ccess? 7. ls co11ditio11al release a t1sef11I i11stitutio11? lvlust it be combined \Vitl1 s on rs r pe fo t s� be ld ou sh ns tio i 11d co of . probation in Etl1ioiJia? Wl1at t)'fJe se l�a al re on 1t1 nd d co t1l 1o Sl d? ke vo re be e as released? Can co11 ctitio11al rele ? or v1 l1a od be go r fo ce en 11t se of n tio ic clt re a be conceived of primarily as ld ou ? Sh ct fe ef ve a lil bi l1a i:e or 1t e1 rr te d � 8. £?oes a fii,e (Arts. 88-06) 1,ave � _ 11Jr1sonment. Do fi11es l1ave a fines be JJreferred to eitt1er probat1011 or 1n discri mi11atory effect against tl1e poor (see Art. 94)?

' '' .

.. I'

I '

I·

Problem

al en f P o ar )'e · a f o · 11 o ti le p m co . . Tl11s · 1s · )rour f111al ass1g11ment LtfJon y et ci so l1 1c l1 w l1 1t w ' \'v la e th 1g i1 11 law. You have studied tile prir,ciples gover

I ,

I ... •

. :

;

. .. ; .I. ..... .. L'

·; .

•

382

N IO T A IT IL B A H E R f O L A E THE ID

b is jo to st y r la u tr _ o Y to . ed cr sa y if st un o � s er d si n co it 1 1 ic ll w protects that tm ea 1e tr tl t h it en w of em st sy lo 1e tl tl se g in ly er d n t1 s se o rp JJU l ta en am the furld who have violated it. A preface must be written for a 11ew Treatment Proclamation which sets out yotir conception of tl1e fJUr�ose� o! tl1_e penal law and their �recise r_ ela tionship to new, ideal and creative institutions tl1at you have established within the Proclamatio11 for tl1e treatme11t of offenders. Recommended Readings Penal Reform

Department of Ecor101nic and Social Affairs, U11ited Nations, First United Na tio,1s Congress 011 t!1e Preve11-tio11- of Cr:_ ime and t�e Tr�atm e nt of Offeriders, U.N. Publ., A/CON f/6/1, IJP. 23-40 ( 1955) (the d1scuss1011 and resolutions of 1 tl1e Co11gress 011 tl1e subject of ''open'' pe11al a11d c orrectio11al institutions and priso11 labot1r). liibbert, T/1e Roots of Evil (1963) (an e11 tertaini11g treatment of penal l1istory and reform). Kor11 and lv1cCorlcle, Criminology a1id P enology 532-645 (1961) (the trends and iss11es in n1oder11 correctional treatment). Recl<less, The Crin1e Proble,n 589-627 (3d ed., 1961) (rece11t tre11ds i11 punish me11t). Muller, Work of Rehabilitation ("Reclassering) in t/J e Netl1erlands (1964) (pamphlet explair1ing in l1istorical perspective Dutcl1 rehabilitative techniques as em� ployed in tl1eir prison system). Hopper, Tl1e Conjt1gal Visit at Mississippi State Penitentiary, 53 ]. Crim. L. Crinl. and Pol. Sci. 340-343 ( 1962 ). 9 64). (1 39-47 Sci. Baker, Inmate Self-Government, 55 ]. Crin:. L. Crim. and Pol. Yale Law Journal, Toward Re�abilitation of Criininals: A IJJJraisal of Statutor)' Treatment of Ment�lly Disordered Recidivists, 57 Yale L. J. 1085-1113 ( l 948) (a plea for wider use of {Js>rcl1iatric tecl1niqt1es in the treatme11t of recurre11t offe11ders).

)

t I

Probation and Conditional Release

l' 1

I '

j '

·)

I I,

I• !.'l

Department of Social Affairs, United Nations, Probation and Related Meas11-res, �.N. Publ., :ST /SOA(SD_ (1951) (a11 excellent discussion of probatio n ar1d its comparative application). D · epartment of Social Affairs, Parol e and After-Care 55-61 UN Publ., ST/SOA/ to t 4 D 9 e 54) n ( b. the resp / l ( Swiss . , federal �11d cantonal p r�cti�e� with c �he paro e 1 and after-care of offenders) · 11 U11ited Natio11s1 Euroh C/ R ea E n s · r eminar on Probation, UN AA /S · . Pu . ST bl. , JT (1954) (n. b·, pp. 212-216 o n tl1e Swiss. system of_ sursis·). . . . l AsDepartment of Social Affairs , ited Nations, Practical Results .:nd Fzna 3cz� 954)� . pe ct s of Adult pr· obat.zon zn e ec ( D ed SO Co , A un tri /S es U. Pt N tbl . ST , . / : / . of Departme11t of Ee�nim!_c and Social , Affairs, The Selection IJ . U11ited Natio11s Offenders for ro atzon, U .N· Pub ,..:.-:;.::;.:==-==-. l., ST /SOA/SD/7 ( 1959) . -· ent .:. Newman,_ Sourcebook o n Probation ell _ _ c (ex ) p 1964 l ' ar? e . ..-.-;._,�a1id Par ed. , don (2d s read111g materials on botl 1 prob at1on a11d parole). . .-:--;

�f

PENAL REFORM

383

Justice,. and Correction 5�9-�84, 709-750 (1960) (probation and , Cri�e atl, Tapp parole 111 the United States; n.b.1 b1bl1ograpl1 y at pp. 75 l"'.762). Probatio n arld P_cirole, Principles tt;nd Practices (1964) (a good overview of gg , Cle the use of [Jrobat1011 and parole 111 tl1e United States). f Criminal Correctio,i 151-220, 543-568 (1963) (a discussion of o Law e l1 T in: _ Rub proba t1011, tl'1e suspe11ded se11te11ce a11d JJarole). Dev elop n1e1 i11 1ts tl1e nt Law Rece of Probatio 11, 53 J. Crim. L. Crim. o,,, ohns J a11 d Pol. Sci. 194-206 ( 1962). Sutherland a11d Cres�ey, Pr£11ciple! of Criniino(-ogy 421-444, 566-589, 590-624 ( 1960) (treatm e11t of crime preve11t1011, J)robat1011 a11d ()arole togetl1er witl1 sug gested readi11gs). Reckless, T/Je Crin2e Prob/e,11 429-452, 480-511, 531-561 (3d ed., I 961) (a discus sio11 of crime co11 lrol a11d �)reve11tio11, {Jrol1atio11 a11d parole). pa11 to11, Use of tl1e lv\lv\PI �s a11 I11dex to St1ccessft1l Parole, 53 ]. Crim. L. Cri,11. a11d Pol. Sci. 484-488 (1962) (evalt1atio11 of a rece11tl)' developed pre dictive device for cletern1i11i11g SLtilabilily for parole). Orl1nl1ttt, Prob.;Ztio11 ti11,J 1\1e1ital Treatnze11l ( 1963). Berger Le SJ ste1ne de Prob,.,itio11 A11gl(iis el le S1,rsis Contine11tal ( 1953) (a thesis for th� Doctor of La\vs degre e at tl1e U11iversity of Oe11eva comparing the sys tem of probatio11 \Viti, tl1at of s,,rsis). of y aph iogr bibl (a 4) 196 ( "lf,l iogr Bibl II: A Wt,r ld Wor e Si11c ,1 .itio Prob ry ki11s Tom Atn�rican and foreign materials available on probatio11). 1

. ·1'· . ·

• I • •

'. ' . '

·. ·· ,

r I'

!! ''

�

.• . ,.. . ··. l ... !';

I.. . . I..

•->

I . :'• . t '. I.. ... ;..' r., ..• ' ' · ·,.

•

I ,'.··l. ..

" '.. .,1l '. : t· ,. �

: •J1 ,

•

I �

•

·.

.,, ··-

., .'

:..-

. . .. ' . .. · •. .

...

.., ..

......? . ·� •

'' ' •,

Appendix

•.

OENERf\L PART PENAL Of CODE ARTlCLES l�ELEVANT RCES SOU THE TO THE STUDY Of Tl-IE PENAL LAW OF ETI-IIOPIA This appe11rl1.--= ·s clcsigne,J �o �ri11 !� t �getl1er tlie s1,ccessivt· clr,z/ts 411d tl;e foreign sources relevtlnl to th, Jtudy of the Pen �! • de of Et!J1op1a. -�ect1ons I t111,I [] �re the .1I 111/,,zric and English offici,,l texts of the Cocle. _ In inst.tnces of disc p.zncy tl1e A,,,l,.zr1c te."l;t Is co11trol/1ng ( sec Revistci Constitulion of Ethiopia ( 19 55 ), ,1rt. 125 and Proc. No. 2 of I 9.:2 G. C., Sect. 22). lf'"itlJ Section IIl, the "'1vant-J1rojet, anli Section Ii,, tl,e fin.ti Frtncb version, it is possible to tr.ice tlJe �o,le Jron1 its inception in t!Je original Avant-projet of Professor J. Grll'i.'tJJ through tl,e fin1.1l Frenc/1 c/r,ift wl,,cl, e111erged Jro,n ihe Cotlificarion Co,nrnission l? the ojfici.1[ rc.\';tS of English .ind A,nbaric. Discrep.:.incies i,z tr,tnsl,ition 111:z_y be uncoverc,I b_,, ,z c,.1rrf,1l c1J1nptrrison of· rhcs,� texts. 7"'/Je Penal Co,le of Switzt·rla11d ( C.P.S.) is ,1/so set 0111 in botb French (Se, t. v'; JJ•.1nch,r:{tl, Code Penal Suisse Ann o/e, 2cl ell., 1 962) .znd E"nglisb traTJsl,1 tioil (L\' ccl. V/; b_-_,, l-'riccllttndcr anil c:o/d [,,.:rg, 30 J. Crim. L. Crim. and Pol. Sci. (S1,pp., 1939) lo eu,,ble conJJ1arison ,cizh the f)c11t1! (�'ot!t' oj· l:'rhiupi.1. ft is 11seful to co,r.pare the dr.tfter's .,·l'V,tnt-projct witlJ 1l1c French te.-:t of rhc s:1.,. ,iis J)en.:l Co!/i: to ,.!cternHnc th, txtent to 'i.i..-'hich the Etl1iopi;111 JJcn.1l Cocle /J,rs been i11f/ur:11,c(I �)' the .S..;.·i�s. IJr. Philipr,: (j;,zru;:n, o)· the i\-finistr�'V of justice, /1111,eri,.1/ 1:.-;/;iopi,111 Go'l/£'1 n111c11t, l,r.1s p1cJ1,1rt{I }rr.1n tf..e fln/:tbli :o h1 cf Expose d?s Mol,fs ,tnd Records of the Codi{icalion Commission a listing of fo;ci_l:n pen.,/ code ,1rtirlr-s ror1s11lti!tl in tbe drafting of the Etliiopi.in Co,-le. 1'l,is listing appe.irs ,:s Sec/ion \,·I/.

I •• ' '

'' 'I' ' I

;

! I' I ''

Co,le articles not fully set out are listecl 'i.iJit/1 titles ta J:,,ni/i.zrizc th,• f{',tLlt'T with the .Juli scope of· the first eighty-four articlts of tl,e l1en,,/ Cocle of Et/;iopi,1.

Article 1. Object and Purpose.

l. 1"-.P,r., 1n· ,. 0

\'ID",p· •• I\ •;1

OD t0 n iJ' 'i"

t1P

•r ""•}, ,l "I

0'/ /.

'"/•fl it/\ 1n �' I\ f\ OJ•

•r,),9••

;J '/ '}" ., (11• r.

t"'' ,: 0 :'J· ·� 11 I\ 9.. ·t

rm·'I l/\ ;,;:· ou<)ll'Ji, ,), "? n ,n•l•I\ I\ m· flm . .,:�/\,;;�1·· g? nm'14·:l!J:'

r11n·', "II., !z· ·� 'l

\' IL1 ·:;.'t i\'l' ;J·

fl.�·: . .�. "'I ,n·t:··��· _n·�! .':'�•..

!A '7 .( "rJlD ', · �--=t "rl"1' .?'• •'i.P 'h'� 'LJ.' l.'' t CfY/ ),a ou, y. ;;;-. f\ )tJ :,O 1.IL fa,1 "f.

}a :,.';.tD?J',.

7,E. l.1..t 7

II. See p. 27.

111. Objet et but.

de l'Etat et tl�s te uri sec la et x pai la e, rdr l'o r 1re ss1 d'a t La ll)i penale a pour bu citoy e ns dans l'interet ge11eral. . 1nen t ge, ne:o ra, l qu' elle inlJJlique . . se 1s rt ve l'a ar 11 1 t' ra f P ? c 1n des 1011 vent re a Elle tend la p _ � ot1 i la t en rn de en rn J'a :i n, lio ni ,u _ la a t 1 et, en cas d'insurf1sance de cet ave1 t1ssen1en , mise hors d'etat de nuire de Je11rs a11te11rs.

' I

•

IV. Same as Avant-projet ( r11) . Y·VJ. No Swiss stat11tory co11ntcrpart. Vil. Penal Code of Yugoslavia ( I 951 ), Art. I.

•'

.•

Article 2 . Princ iple of Legality.

I. f:t.'1)1: an111l ... 11 1. ,m�:e:n� ou�"5J. ih"? -1-111:,-

i> ·.

' :· :•

' • J

.: o

..... '

.... '

'' :

.. .

�.

' '

.,.;·.:·. . .I .' �- .

'''' i1�: ,F ·. .� �) t

,:· . .· :..:. . .

•

APPENDIX

386

,."°.:,.� :,,

"° ,,,.

ai A n c; m n tJ 1· n h ".:f9' Pct: : '1' 619 "' 111.,.� f"tt. 00 111n t\..f'l'lm-c; n '1'. ;,,-, l! 'h n.:,.. 'i!C.t!" .:'f1' 6194·ID4' l\ti·J ·J·ou ,),-,'° hll4-J!.·'1" 0;,•.-, .fA '\,e ·J·l\.e.Y. IJA1·oPl\tlT .h,(!•J./)!'f- tDf,,'I° 1-.e:l\:i• '1>t11.!'f-� l\.,tDil� hf.:fA'I° u n,)11•?° llt 'h,f,.loA'r'" n 'I° tC..1. ao !'ft11 iJ> l'bl\ 4-C 0 �f9' 'k .,41 °1' 'f 'i' ";f dJ {I J'· !'J· iJ, "1 .y. I\!f- au'i! n ,11 "l >, 11.,. J!: '1" 11 t\ .,·auI\ ti-r::,. .h..e..·t-1 .f.l- I\ ,e ntlu ,"h-i ;,C ,f,.out'\ " '\ A 11 DI/ '-.I!'

' .l

. , ,

llt\\1A 'lllr "

1 �,11 ''1'/·J: au1JJl.!J· f,"h"l'1' :,-c� '1. h.f#/.(!"'r'" If l .. m.!'f- OtC..1\10>4 ll0'£:,W'i" t\.�c:nn:,. .f llOa,.·} l\aoi 1' if11·' m· {)IXl. ;, , 'LIL . ihr f''tf1i''1 nrr'I -. au.a,. .el-'tA u , .,.,: ft tC..ll • ao'1' 1· o;,.. rt-r: ..e..· ,.::,: 1.e: 01>'1' n:,. l·A n"t ,r 1.;1 o 1 "l·O I\ 1 0•1·'r'J° {Im• IJ''r.r..· rm'1'}!t\ t"t- o-1\-l· 'Ltl. .h,e,�t11'/° 12

3. I I. Prin ciple of Legality. ( 1) Crin1inal la\x, specifies tl1e \rario�s offences whicl1 are liable to punishment and the penalties and n1easures a1Jpl1cable to offenders. The court may not treat as a breach of tl1e law a11d punish any act or 01nission wl1 icl1 is not 1Jrohibited by law. It 1nay not impose penalties or measures other tha11 those prescribed by law. Tl1e court n1ay not create offences by analogy. (2) Notl1 ing in this Article sl1all prevent interpretation of the law. In cases of clot1bt tl1e court sl1all interpret the law according to its spirit, in accordance \X'itl1 the 111eaning intended by tl1e legislatt1re so as to achieve the purJ)OSe it has in view. (3) l'Jobody shall be punisl1ed twice for the same act. II I. Principe de l,i lega!ite. ( 1) La loi J)e11ale precise les differentes infractions pt1nissables, et les sanctions et mes11res applicables a leurs at1teurs. Le juge ne pe11t rept1ter infraction et p11nir 11ne action ot1 11ne 0111ission non prevues par la loi. 11 ne pettt a1)pliqt1er d'atttres sanctio11s et mesures que celles qu'elle a retenues. L'apJJlication analogique de dispositions a des faits qu'elle 11'a pas prevus est interdite. (2) Le principe de la legalite n'exclut pas !'interpretation de la loi. En cas d'a111l)i f;t�ite cle celle-ci, l e ji1ge l'interprete selon son �sprit, dans le sens voul11 par le leg1slateur, et de 111aniere a a-:;surer le but qu'elle se propose. (3) Nu! ne pe11t etre pu11i de11x fois po1tr un seul et 111 eme fail IV. Same as A vant-projet. V. Art . 1. f)as de peine sans loi. ' · · par 1a I 01.· · Nul ne peut etre J)Uni s'il 11'a con·1r111·s� un act·e expressen1e11t repr1n1e VI. Art. I. No f)unishn1en t U'litho11l La'lv. Only offenses txplicitly declared J)t1nisl1able by la\v shall be punished. VII. Penal Co�e of Greece ( 1950), A rt. I; I.)enal Code of of Cod e Pen al I· Art . Ital (19 y 30) ' ' Yugoslavia (1951), Arts. 2, 26 (I). Article 3. Other Penal Legislation.

I. llfl Ar.'i' llfl -JU)..f ,11"1 s: I\CD'�J!/\�-- ou� 16L), (1)�•1\1\ ,.,, .. 1 -,u:J.f ra•t.lJ').:,. r �-�-n 001·'\f\'i! l..�fl'.f'i' Al! ih1:f ftt004l u o· r <;!f

I II

Legisla�ion specia le et co1nplen1entai re. L�s d!s11csitions cle police e t 1 . . 1t s01 . e e' n al es lo 1s spec1al es con1pletant la legislation p reservees. Les l)rincipes generaux d11 p 11ent ro r de' e ' ser1 t code leur son t applicables Iorsq11'elles n,Y· . �. J)as expressen1ent. IV. Same as Avant-i)rojet. .

. '-'.' '

... . ..:.

.• ''

. �

.. . ... . '

· .:·

APPENDIX

387

V. Art. 333. Lois Federales. Application de Lt parti e g'enera , lt dH codt penal aux autres /ois Federates. . �les Les dispositions generales du present code son.t appltca au 111fractions prevues par d'autres lois federates ' a mains que ce 11es-ci ne contier1nent xd� s dispositions sur la 1natiere. •

•

VI. Art. 333. Application of the General PrQ'Uisions I0 Otl,er ce I:' deraI Laws· The general provisions of tl1is Code sl1all be aJJP ried to offenses pun1s l�able according _ to other federal laws insofar as these (latter) 1 aws do 11ot provid e special regulations. .. _ . VII. Penal Code of Denn1ark (1930) Art 2· p e�\at c d f o 12; Penal � ( ) � Code of Italy 1930 , Art. 16; Penal ·c�de 0 Yu os1aiia (l��f) ��t� }8 Article 4. Equalily before the Law.

....

1��:

: � '� .... ,,, ·::

.·

.'. �·

J' .... , '

1 '• •

' '

Article 23. Offences.

I. ttA"t.tn+m· ro'7:e:h-* ., 2.

i . ..; i.'

Articles 5-22. Scope of Application of the Law.

t:."' C

flJ�"ll\ :•fl/\-- O;Ja"l f·l-.1!'777Ll1'4"} ont••&,.:,_ m,e'J0 },,,..1.lj_1.J.•,&. f;J•tl}JCD•'} "h/lOD/J.!:' t,.!f- \''ill') .f!"�·f: .e.l:t: m1'i:,:w.9•� O.f.'i-r n.,r'7 m·tj!/.\ �ro- I!

1· .P.'7"11 ro· r-1··1 I\ 1\.:,-� rm'7)! A't ,,., 1,. >-,t.Pa.Rr VDTJ...r!'l•r?nn•:i• f?P .&-/.\ m c.� f"'IJJ·'i; 1""1'1C 111 tJr-+ o-tt- llo»--1\- ->,. e: t-?!t i1/.\·J·�.Ro"· n•rc f,"h"l tro,.. n ·1··1,1r. Ii�-� ·1·1»&, >-. r. fl �°I

�mer

j '

3. Y.e:t-1..m• >,·r�):,- fl'i!C.� 11,:,- ,-,t;,1·l..:i1m 0-<J>C h.e&-1·1: >i.ril•l>l1l�I"'

11. Offences.

I ·. .

(l) A cri1ninal offence is an act or 01nissio11 ,vhich is prol1ibitecl by la\T/. (2) l he _criminal offence is on)y co1npleted \v;hen a.ll its legal, n1alcrial ancl 111or:!l i 11 • gred1ents are present. (1) A criminal offence is p11nishable ,,.1l1ere ihe Court ltas fo11ncl tl1c offence oroved

and deserving of punishment.

III . Infractions punissables. (I) Constitt1e une infraction pen2le toute actio11 declarec p1111issable JJar I::). Joi cl re

contltte cot1pable par le jt1ge 1 qtte1 que soit son clegre cle gravit.e. Le terme d'infraction vise aussi bien, dans Jes dispositions generates qui suivent, une action prohibee par la Joi, qu'11ne 0111issior1 cl'agir lorsque !a loi e11 sanctio11ne l'obligation. (2) L'in fraction 11 1 est consommee que lorsque tous ses clernents constitutifs legaux, rna teriels et moraux, sont realis�s.

IV. Infractions punir:.sablts.

(I) Constitue une infraction penale toute action ot1 omission declaree p11nissable par la loi. (2) L'infraction n'est consomn1ee qt1e lorsque tous ses elen1ents constitutifs legaux , ma teriels et moraux sont realises. est judiciairement (3) Elle n'est punissable que lorsque la culpabilite de son auteur reconnue. V-VI. No Swiss statutory counterpart. ), Art. 13. 51 ia (19 lav gos Yu of de Co nal Pe 15; 14, ts. Ar . VII Penal Code of Greece (1950),

OJ'}lfl-

:;:::;:..:j

. ,. ,, ' ... '

... .,·. 1, ;,

.' �,:..., .:..i,"··,·,i, :.-'.� I"

}

).'}� 'f"l.,S\00 >,.ecJ:.,nC:f"' n

r;l"HH '"l flih 1'" -+ t,m � A"7 C" ft� ,,. ,..,. � '11\ f°t, -r: "'" RfDtl'}fi:� nm-m. OD)JltA '?') )+ 'S 'iat- 11 ":f..,__ ,\:I tr'i A , + . 7""i ?n .,.,. A" 1:1' , m. l."7 ..... m,. , a,.� IP/�/.'? m.e'r M"7�

·i

•• • '

Article 24. Relationship of Cause and Effect. I. •m.-1: lt)1<- :,c: an�}":,. f/l.lD4 nA tJDtr.,. 11 u .e u-.n 1. 1.1 :,. 'in fllf m+ . r:,. "1 .101> J!""l J. ra.-, au111� "''-�R,,. h�J! · v1·mll'i m-.m :,. '}\� � tJA 1 , 11Jc .,,.,s.:,. 'la>- f"t n � 1. �1r.e-tll m-m.:,. ,..,."'-l.1m- m.er 111>.1-.e:l1o>- -, -,11 c 1"' II") O+C

.. .' ; '

I . ., ...

)�'

APPENDIX

388 2.

· .,.., 11� 'l°ti�.r-ttl· r1 ;Je o-t motJ. 11>.;, tD 'I° -,1c 7'1! . 1'l ll'i! lll\.'\ ttto· h,et-1+ tD·m.1:� I\Jr?n .r+ ti� 'l° -,.c; ,.� n: 11.-. l\1· 1.tt. 1r 111" .,.* �, ,rn R&-l r1""'tDf,'I° a ll1"A &-it- fief! ,tlJ"� O'l°tl'�.fi:'i' fltD-IIL1: ODtltJA hi\ f°'-.111\0J-� 'n"1-)!f- flt-,,l'PA m 'h'1'J;.ur· 1111"., 1.u. ftP/,el1· tDf,,'I° fl\ ll'IY:l1· 1-_el\!t m�)!A rll"., 'h�� rr-, rn.o- � :fA t111+ f,l..?.'l°O;l"A II pp. 121, 129-130.

,.,..,a,.

tDf,,'I°

II. See III. Rapport de causalite necessaire. (1) Dans les cas ou la conso1nmation de }'infraction suppose un resultat determine }'infraction n'est reputee co1nmise que si ce resultat est la conseq uence de l'actio� ou de }'omission imputable a l'at1teur. Ce rapport de cause a e ffet sera admis lorsque l'action ou !'omission tombant sous le coup de la loi etait normalement propre, d'apres l'e xperience de la vie, a produire le resultat ir1crime.

(2) En cas de concours ou en cas de cause intercurrente, qt1'elle soit due au fait

d'autrui ou

a un evene1nent

natt1rel ot1 fortuit, le rapport de cause

exclu lorsque la cat1se etrangere

a l'auteur

etait en soi suffisante

effet sera

produire le

resultat. Si, er1 pareil cas, l'action ou l'o1nission imputable a !'auteur constituait en soi une infraction, la peine de celle-ci lui est applicable. IV. Same as Avant-projet. ,r-VI. l..Yo Swiss statutory counterpart. V!I. Penal Code of Brazil (194:0 ), .s.\rt. 1 i; Penal Cod e of Italy (1930 ), Arts. 40, 41. ''1'

Airu.icle 25. Place and Time of the Offence.

.A.rticle 26. il'l?'eparaiory Ac1s.

I. foufi,?i'l· T"'ilie�f J;.'l

)

1if1°1 an ,q � "1 ?'I,. I\ try t"I ,'� i"' tD .&'r I\ £Y1.f!: l.� h�..P,.;rA ftA 4?'1''I° OD °I6 .f9'� ') 0 ao ll 11 {l11 ro�,/I" f>,t.Pi.R!flk O-'i.:J·?J':f· 1,"i-'i."11,a>i- llO"JJ!;l� f·J·t:l.1·!!fc r"°lllC:if tl'lllcl>lf'l!f- f�.::f-lr!t- • (u) 1'"1 fl e:z: &. ,, =,=m- f,"h'1 aolf'I n I" &- tr 'i«r1· f"1..fn +m· (ID u· c; :,=m- o ,"h-, f.,..e.'111 'h�.e. tr'i , (/\) l1 f11f..f n n �-/\01· ti o.e..· 1'4.:,. fi·�lJ mft'I° om:,>"'\ m- n"t.f .e. c (I cDc >-"'-" OD m� A� fih"l OD"lll ovrr'i":fo,• fl,)1"1 T11,\?. f1·�1l 'h'1'J! lf'i 'icDc If II. See p. 98. 11I. Actes preparatoires. Les actes simplement destines a preparer ou rendre poss'1bl e u n e f · ract·10n, notam1n me nt en se procurant es moy ens ot1 en crea11t les cot1ditions de son accompliss e 1 ment, ne sont pas pu11issables, sat1f: (a) s'ils constituent par eux-1nen1es un e infraction prev ue par Ia loi· (b) s'ils _s?nt expressement er}ges en i11fraction Spec iale par la Ioi a cause de leur _s grav1te ou d u danger ge11eral qu'1l representent. IV. San1e as Avant-projet. V-VI. No Swiss statutory �ounterpart. VII. No directly applicable foreign penal co de ar·t·i cl es for para. 1; see generally, Penal Code of finl·and (1889J, Chap. IV Se ct for sub- ects. (a) and (b), see Penal Code of Poland ( 19 2), Art. 96·, Penal Cod� 30·f y ugos � av 3 1 1a (1951), Art. 121 (1).

I ,

•

:\ l '!' ! ' I

.. .

APPENDIX -')1'1 R+r:

>a.rn+nir

389

fm'tJ:A't �� OOD'fDb-C. nau-'fl- /\OD.(.J\JO 01..A "la,. a»"'i:(!A if,tr1:,0 _e+tr1A • f)"l� O-:k:J"jP':f f°1,70- �ll"'i.l'�'?f-"'i I\.J'll"l� •

1='t ll"7tf,ll/.\ .e-:;.'IA n [.,..__ 184 u]

1"'i 'i!CJ:' n.1: ih7- Omil)'OJ- auLJJt:,0

II. See p� IO I. III, Tentative. . (I) �e _ren� co�pabl� de tentative celtii 9u·1• int entionnellen1ent, at1ra commence d tine execut infrac ion tion sans Oll st11vre ti I voir poursuivre jusqu'au bout t ' i P� � . : il son activite delictuelle ou q tii l' ir pou 5111vie tisq au bout sans atteiudre le !!' resultat necessaire pou� q tie l'infraction sotrt conso1J11n1ee ,. , e t· i L 1n frac on st rep11tee com1nencee 1 rsqt1 e l ,a te acc 11 pli tend de manie re non .0 � _ equivoque et par voie de conseqt1enc � d i_ recl e �a sa rea l1sat1on . (2) La tentative d'inf raction est t011l• ours ptin·i ssable 51· la loi ne contient pas de disposition contraire. . La simple tentative d'instigation 011 de co inp1.ic.ite, a 1,. !nfract1011 ne tombe pas sot1s le co ttp de la loi, si celle-ci ne dispose pas expressement le contraire · . · · e tentat d ive d'i11fraction I'at1teu r es t f.•.issib (3) En cas • le en pr1nc1pe de la peine de !'infraction qt1'il a voultt comin�ttre. Si les circonstance� Ie j t1stifient le · tige pe ut atte• nuer la pe1ne dans les limites J prevues pa r la loi (Art. 18 4) . ' IV. Same . as Avant-projet except that sub-sect (2) para. 2 included the \VOrds, 011 de · ' favor1sation" after "coinplicite." V. Art.21. Degres de realiJation. Tentative. .•. potirr , etre � t .\enttee (art.65� a l'egarcl cle cclui qtii attra commence l'e1:ecution pein_ e �� ? _crime ou � un delI , sans toutefo1s poursuivre jusqu'au bout so11 aclivite cottpable. . . Art. 22. De/it manque.•.. La peine po1:1 �� etre attenuee fart. 65) a �·egard de, celui qui aura poursu.ivi jUSllll'rtu bout 50IJ . acti��ite coupabl;, ma1s sans atte1ndre le resu!tat necessaire pot1r qttc ·1e criine ou 1 e de1It so1t conso1nme.

...

:��..: •;

,·,:•' ·? � :e . .,-.·.. :..r.. ,:

. ..

. . " ., . ,.

. .. ' ..

I' I

•

' I

•

....

• •

VI. Art. 21. lncompleted Attempt.

. . .

If the offender, having initiated tlte con1mission of a felony or misdemeanor, f .loes !1ot complete it, he may be punisl1ed less severely (Art. 65). Art. 22. Completed Attempt. • . � f a criminal act had been completed but without resulting in the con11111o;s1on of tb.; intended felony or 111isde1neanor, tl1e offender n1a.y be p1Lnisi1ed less severely (Art. 65) .... VII. Penal Code of Germany (1871), Art. 43; Penal Code of Greece {1950), Ari. 42 (l); Penal Code of Italy (1930), Art.56, para. I; Penal Code of Poland (1932), ;\rts. 23 ( 1), 24; Penal Code of Yugoslavia (1951}, Art. 16. Article 28, Renunciation and Active Repentance. I. nn ao-J·OJ-'i nil OUR-'\:,- 1"111C 11 1111 . (i:C 11')' .E!" "' '}.� � 6J f1' Ji tl.,, JI fl7 A � t� a> .., 1. }..��'ta,. f\..(.1taul"4 f)lf la>- f ..,.l?. )1"- 11-�;r �'i.l?. ov(lilm . )a 61° 611, r l\+A t\f 't 11: .if," l!ffl,la""J n'tt..+�11'4 dli'.I ., 01>1P .., v1-mm· n ,h.,.�'1:r- w.er 'nfi: IJA 1111ft.� . �� "11:"'i ll..1'+Al\:,. .,el-1\A .. ,m .,J.:A � 11 [,r. 18 4 zi] A 'P C1 JJ! }� 1: m tr'4' 1: 11. 11-i.:,- r"n�,:,. rir} l.�.e ,r} .,�c.e .t. {I- t..?� o,. m.1: 'h'},;_e,.I! C n f'n fl m � C >',Jt ;t au '1.l.l 2. >.,t'-1.0J- rm"'i.P:tr� >,,.,, � c }a lJ 'h �f�AA mr.i" au J.! )i"'i -J:� iJ,m 1: 0. C� 'i! ) -.r 'h"'i.P. hbl\ a,�r }.�P,,.e.l!Cll ).CJ;;'" fltlfl 1\:,- �°¥-"A a [er-. 185 111] m�,:"" m-m.+ l."'i r .,e 01 "m A1 � .4' • f14' � I" � A3. filllJ r�c r1·auAb1"m- f!:..,:J"I. rm�l e; . A 11 w .,e °t J\ .C T A 11 'tl m } l\ll' 11 .,., ,-.) .-;11� ll"71 � n n11-1r r·r· P:11•� r,.tr '\.l!l'J [+--. 35 II 36 a] II. See p. I JS .

�ID·..,

. t11el. re son act1.v1.te, del1c ,a poursu1v ( 1) S i l'auteur a renonce d e son propre mouven1ent

III, De1ist-tmrni

tt rtptnlir actif.

I I '

' . I ,••

I I

I · 1

• •

' ll.; . I. • • : '

.. ...·'

.,' . ,. .

.. . ., .. '

390

APPENDIX cer� !'exemption si le desi on, o n pr 11 ine pe . tte . !Ot 9e ter n1p xe l'e le, le jtige petit es. ev ifs el ot m s de ur po ou te te 1e n1 l1o r pa u steinent a etl lie 1 auteur, ayant ete jusqtt'au bout de son activite, delictuelle, empec�e ou con (2J Si 1 at se de ult 1r le res du pro t en e, le juge em uv n1o re op p! 11 50 de er, cl1 tribtie a en1pe (Jeut attent1er libre1ne11t la pe1ne. es une infraction em -m nt eux tue sti con is 1pl o1� acc ive ta� ten de es act (3) Lorsque Jes distincte, la JJeine de celle-c1 est applicable.

IV. Desistement et repentir actif. e ivr sqn rsu pou a activite delic nt m� uv� mo pre _pro son de ce non re a 1r (I) Si l'at1te1 , ale_s (art. 184) ou pourra, si leg 1tes l11n le? s dan tuelle, le juge attentiera la pe1ne r_ono,nce�a }'exe mp p II ne. pe1 la t en re l1� 1er ent att , t en_ tifi jus s le nce les circonsta n:i t1fs des n1o r eleves. pou ou e tet n11e ho par lieu eu a nt n1e isle des le si n tio ' eur avant ete jt1squ'au bout de son activite delictuelle, empeche OU con (2) Si l aut tribue a e�1 p·echer, de son propre mouvement, le resultat de se produire, le juge peul attent1er libre1ne11t la JJeine (art. 185). (3) Ces disrJositions s'appliquent aussi a l'instigateur et att comJJlice (art. 35 et 36) delictieuse OU lorsqu'ils font'. !orsqt1'ils renoncent de leur plein gre a lettr activite 1 d de leur prOJJre 111ouve1nent, tout ce qui depe nd eux pour en1pecher la commissio11 de l'infraction. V. Art. 21. Degres de re,ilisation ... Desistement.

•

Celui qui, de son propre n1ouvement, at1ra renonce a poursuivre jusqu'au bout son act.iviie couJJable pot1rra etre exempte de tot1te peine pour sa tentative. Art. 22.. . . Re1 entir actif.

.,1 J ,.I) '

' '

•

• •

1.l .r

•

• • •

•

• •

•

Le jttge pourra attent1er libren1ent la peine (art. 66) a l'egard de celui qui, de son jJfOJJre 1110l1Ven1ent,. aura e111pecl1e Oil COITtribue a en1pecher que le resultat ne se produise. VI. Art. 21..·.: Withdrawal.

;

, ,I

If on his o,xrn initiative, tl1e offender does not con1plete the cri111inal act, the co l1rt n1ay refrain fron1 in1posing sentence for the attempt. Art. 22 ....Active Repentanc�. •

If (after con1pleting the cri1ninal act) tl1e offe11der, by his own initiative takes n1easures to nullify tl1e result or prevents it, the cot1rt, in its discretion may im pose a less severe sentence. VII. Sub-sect. (1): Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 44 (1); Penal Code of Italy (1930), Art . 56, para. 3 ; Penal Code of Nor,vay (1902) Art.50· Penal Code of Poland (1932) ' 1 8 ( l).' Sub-sect. (2): Penal Code of Art. 25; Penal Code of Yugoslavia (1951), \rt. ... Greece ( 1 950), Art. 44. (2); Penal Code of Italy ( 1930) Art . 56 para 4· Penal Code of Norway (l 902), Art. 50; Penal Code of Poland ( 1932), A rt. 25. S�b:sect. (3): Penal Code of Poland (1932), Art.30 ; Penal Code of Yugoslavia (1951), Art. 22 (2).

Article 29. Offences Impossible of Completion.

I. l\,,.C.K1° 0/\""ff-.;f-A m"}j!An . fl"'7'i.:i lD-1° ll.�.'i' C1Dt>f &.f n_,,..., fl""f'iTOJ·'f° 'i1C '\ e ,r>"}r» n � '1'i!�9° n._lt{. Af1 •• •• . f�_r.;J·A m ··, �A"} I\ au,,.,/..T I\ 'JU ti l. iJ a,. ,;: C .e; ..,)! OD ii I\ID" t If) 1:"'r n,,,,,la A 'h f-.Tl\t\ n [,,..__ ] 85 n] >,.e-t.1 . m- ,-Pi-:,. J!:l. o 'i' rm"})!t\ a,.m.-:,. I\ oo nm :,. II.,., p-:,: A II.,., ":fm-1° ",_'i' ..., &I 0,/t- flh1',A)1 f'"'t, 0'1°��:,. fDPa"D ...,, floo"r4'.,ll AA'i%- fcD"'r)!A Fi,. oo--tJI,. fJ.f!l1 1.ff. 'i!CJ!: R.1: tittJJ1: �� f.e.C1'Pt\ b II. See p. 113. III. Infraction impossible. Lorsque l'autet1r a tente de c on m . b'et tt ti re i une • ntre frac tion par ce . mo tin ott ye11 n° Je tels q11e l'accomplissement de � � u pourra attenuer Jibrement la pei�: l� 1 nir a )�1on etait absolument impossible, le j _g rt_ 8 5

fl°'

,,' •'

n..,;

"°,,,

�

,,,

. .. .�.. .

APPENDIX

391

Le juge prononcera l'exemption lorsque ar superSiit.. ion, simplicite o u illusion d'es ri en se agi servant a de mo �is p t l'auteur d e p rocedes en soi inoffe nsifs et n� pouvant en aucun cas avo ir d'ef£et del1ctuetr�� IV. Same as Avant-projet. V. Art. 23. Delit impossible. Le j uge pourra attcnuer librement la peine ( t 66) a 1 ,eg • ard d"! cel.ti i qui aura tente de con11nett�e tt� crime ott un delit par un Yen Ott contre un obJet de nature telle on pe t rat de rpe i cet te infraction etait ab so1ument impo quc la ssible . II pot1rra exempter le prevent1 de toute peine st· ce derni.er a ag i par defa u t d'intelligence . VI. Art 23. Unsuitable Attempt. If the means used for attemp ting a felo y o r 1n cten1eanor or which he attempted it was 511ch tllat the of� nse c� u;�. 110_t be _comntl1e object against 1itted at all with : such means o r against s u ch an ob"e ct the o rt, n tts disc retion, n1ay !"1 pose a less 1 . severe sente11ce _ ( Art. 66) In case tlie' of fend ;� ac; ed l I1rough want of Judgment , the cot1rt n1ay r efrain from imposing sentence. VII. Penal Code of Brazil ( 1940), A rt 14; Penal Cocle of Greece ( 1950), Art. 43; Penal Code of Italy ( 1930), Art. 49, rJara. 2; Penal Code of Poland (1932), Art. 23 (2), (3),· Penal Code of Yugoslavia (195 l ), Art. t 7.

!�·

Article 30. Special Case of Attempt.

·,,

' . ,.

I.. .

I !

•

Article 31. Discretionary Power of lhe Court.

Article 32. Principal Act: Offender and Co-offenders.

I. flit 'P'i" w·�_l&\ h�t-·1.m•', {11' "'J·lll i,0(!"'1: zr l. m1':£A 'h"}-J!:l·J...Rou 1·.Y.-'1' C "'J!.·t-1..� n JJ.1J• ? '"'l.'1'm m•

I . ' I

(0) 11•1•-T:r a,�,r O'h� hll·C O·J·/\.e,� 0},'7lJ� ro.e-r 111·A'./i'C �Jc../,\ im.C,9" ,{'.ti'y JJ.i,:; "I ii I\ m, .,, ?, .f .h0? ll .e}.:i• fl}. C'"l·l' fCD'�l/.\'7 i• •., fl r. f�?. c;, ,,. t!i'''l a m1'J:tr't 1'I c: (I. t,.� n ,;•.,.:J· 61!.C ,_µ ,.;.,;;•r }a"".r\J, n �,1 },,.,ri•'.i" h.r.;1:.? ·f: <n) "11''r 0 m"}-:e: h- t>'l,.<j 11 ""1.ll mm• m--m.=i• tTD-<ft• -1··n1.J& n�u··� 'F""'/ll,?,''l f!r !e• J.P.t.:1 Id- [1"", 1 (th) tu1':e:A1' f\OD/>'1,,.-:,0 tD�'r /bl\ ilor 'h''il-;,1J11t-, oco--.r, nr�J'ts7.�.IP,,· IJi:"1@•9'" tr� 0;, .1 ilo) m.�9° n "1Jf·4 .ff! :}.eA >-.rJ'l/ti.eii" h'h?"' c Y,t,1,,n,·•, >, '\'11•1: {G7'1 ••1& ,;? o i:r-:1,r.·-t:'1 m''7V.:_(;\

"0>-

2. 3.

\' rJJ l,.

(I (11•

J\ l}'"}-

�Cl)- 11

f1".,, t-m· m"'1 J!A l1 }'1�·1,,.1.m- � "111 n 'l.e. � f\ t. 1\ "'r.I! 11· � m '1' :C: n �: iti,• ra>J,r1• mm· fl •lr1' c 5 8 (3) 0 TOD I\ tli'DJ-- oP 1.JJ l1'" )'a>• H >,�1,,.·1.sPl- 1111·9'":f I'll'.,. ll.. t.l!ti') IJooJ!.0-- 'h.f''i,P,1'�:fw• fliiLV- 'f·i, !'r fl·I·!lllil'rt;}• cl•111-",· OD IP l :,0 _r.4" 111 ft- U ""l.�fl�·:::Z-"} r o,-q� 1TJ:Sr<J -r4-::r 01• fla>-f P. 'h1'. '. ·9'l1Jc�;J Ila>P.1'� t;:C,e lh-J: Ill\ '}.f� �� ;)'1.9'":/- 11D ti 1- A >all fl:,. 11 [ r. 40 • 8 6 itt} 1

II. See p. 253.

Ill. Action principale: Auteur et coauteurs. (I) Est considere comme aute11r d't1ne i11fraction el sera p11ni comme tel: irecte, e ou ind ect dir re nie ma de n, ctio fra }'in ent em iell ter 111a t me 1 con (a) eelui qui rce natt1relle; fo e t111 011 al i1n an 'ttn qtt tel nt n1e tru ins notamment par un 1ine, s'associe rin iel inc ter ma cte l'a nt n1e ire ssa ce ne ir pl m co ac s i {b) celt1i qu ' san t siens; les , fai et he erc cl1 at ult res u a et on cti fra l'in de n sio 1is pleinement a )a comn une infraction, o u e ttr ne n11 co re fai r u po t ien sc on inc e etr n d'u (c ) cel11i q11i se sert qui contraint sciemment autrui a la co1nn1ettre. . ate e leg in e pe la em e rn cip i11 pr e11 t en t1r co en -ci 11x ce (2) En cas de pluralite d'attteurs, es person nc ta ns co _ r _ci s . d� t� f� ef les r su s on iti os sp di Le jnge tiendra compte de s dt1elle. v1 d1 1n te 1l1 ab 1lp ct la n lo se e in pe la de nelles et stir la fixation IV- Action principalt: auteur tl coautturs. ( 1) Same as Avan t-projet. r, celui-ci est jttge eu ut !'a de t1 t!� en nt l'i e ss pa (2) Lorsque l'infraction commise de ). ) 58 (3 . rt (a s ca il re pa en te 1l1 ab lp cu la r d'apres les dispositions ge nerales su

I .

' . .. . '; .'..:.

',..•' . .I' I • •• I. : '.

'..

. .

. ; ,. ..

.... ' . ' ,··. . ·, " ,.. . .. ' �·. ' .' ::

APPEND.IX

392

. d'atitetirs ceux-ci encot1rent en principe la me1ne peine legaJ (3) . E n c �s de P 1tira 1' t,e des dispo�itions sur Ies effets des_ .c!r�on �t�11ces pers onne ese ll t _e p in co ra 1 1duelle Le Jt1gc t1end \ l1te 1nd1 Jab1 cul1 Ia n selo (art. e (Jein la de 86) · n t· io a ix f a 1 r su (art. 40), et V-VI. No S,viss statutory counterpart. e ec re of G e od (1950), Art. 45; Penal C l na Pe ; t. 47 Ar ), 70 18 ( y an ni er O VII. Penal Code of Code of Italy ( I 930), Arts. I 10, 1 11 ·

l !

1 I I

Offences. Article 33. Participation in Cases of Special

Article 34. Collective Offences. Article 35. Incitements.

I\lJJ ''I"f_A I'"'Ir ll I\

'I.,''I i>/ :,. ::

0 t'cJT/.'f:.m l.lJJ• >, 1 .e.· (I lJJ• 1r} 11/r> f11lf hiJO- "'I\W•1 ' /\ •f••0 ?.? ,.,�.t. °}\ � I'"'& A 't«• ..., '"f!. "'" H.P.. {llD· O°?'illfl!'f- ·t·n.-;. nouom:1-'i n·, ...,,,.,1 ilff1:J· OcJT/ilt.&-&-+ m.er tltP/'i:f"'11" 07 (D ..,rl/.\°1 )1 /•�.rJJ_t• •ff.l1(D• l\ 1.(! lJ''J "fa,• II 't,'i"I rf• \'cftf.ii•lflO>• rlD"'rli\• f,,/,,.. r·l·'F'nl. 1l"I.P. tr'! ..,w, :: rcr?m(l'j,(l:'f•?° ,°J•nJ1" t1,.e.t. 0J fl;J·{IOffl'<' ro"ij!A l\.e ,111· n.e.'!110r if>lfl!J- A'n '1"'1:: f'l7<.?° 1J•'l.�1-�·:,-. 1··1n. tl''Jm• fl;J·s! ;h"J tlm{)�m· uorn ·'r· if,m1� fl.:J'l\&\ ,e":J-1\A ,: [er--. 184 i:] m",.(!°ll:''t ni�,:"'J'r f6.?,m,ro· flt»· h�"/fi.flJ• nt.ft"JtD· nl\.e llr.f'l 1.11. >,'lut1f.a,. f°tcf> 11Ja,. 'hC(l. !} 6.��!U• (D .(� '}"' J",IJ''l"/.'\ •(l /\ f\,19"''•f•(D.. 11 "'J.1�1\Clr \'ID"f j!t\ if• Ill !J• 11 ;f= 'J(IJ• :: [ tf>"-. 58 (3) :a] 0

'It"l"f1i.

t1),C:"l'l't11·1il)·"'1 .f.e.l.·Jm· llm· l\t...� avm•

n'lJ!:- m"'l"f_.A

.t-ft.

·n;J� '11\t• •err,/:\ a:

II. See J). 260. lII. lnstigarion. ( J) Esl consiclere co1n1ne instigate11r celtti qui decide inte11tionnelle1nent autrui, que ce soil. JJar persuasion, pron1esses argent, dons,· menaces Ott tout autre moyen, a co1nn1ettre 11ne infraction. L'instigate11r est punissable ])Ollr\rt1 qtte !'infraction ait ete au mains tentee. (2) La pei11e encourue est celle que la loi prevoit pot1r l'i11fractio11 voulue. Elle peut elre attent1ee da11s !es li1nites cle la loi, (art. I 84) si les circonstances le justifient. (3) Lorsque l'at1teur 1nateriel a ete at1-dela de ce qt1'a , 011111. I'instigateur, celui-ci n'en· court que la peine de l'i11fraction q11'il a voultte ou pt1 pre,,oir (art. 58 (3) ). L'a u teur n1ateriel repond sett! de l'i11fractio11 JJ!us grave dont il s'est rendu cou J)able. IV. San1e as ..\ vant-projet. V. Art. 24. lnstigtttion. Celui q u � a,�1ra int_ention�e_lle111ent decicle at1lrt1i a cor11r11ettre un crin1e Oll un delit en COllr:a, s! l 1nfract1o_n a et� �on11111. se, la !)eine apiJ!icable a l'attteu de cette infracti? n. r Ce}111 qui aura tente �le clec1der t111e !)erson11e a co111111ett1· 11n pe1ne la a en co cri e urr 111e 1Jrevt1e J:> our la tenlat1ve de cette infrac1io11. [see contra Art. 27 (2) P.C.E.] IV. Art. 24. 1Ibetti11g. Wl�oever intentio!1ally encourage� or clirects or en1ea JJ1 ai1 tni s sd a co or inp fel let on ed y no1 shall be JJt1111sl} ed equally ,x:1tl1 tl1e princi J· aJ. Wl1oever atte_n1J)ls to .1ncluce anotl1er to co111 J the for 1n it d a fe lo pu ny ni sh ha s e ll be atten1JJt of this felony. [see contra Art. 27 (2 ) P.C.E.} Vil. Penal Cocle of Ge_r1nany (1871), Art. 48; Pena al Pe n 26 l ; Co de Ar of t. Po 19 la 32 nd ) ( ' Code of Yugoslavia (1951), Arts. 19 ll), 22 (I). 1

lI I I

Article 36. Accomplice.

I. ll" �,,,6 -,:,. :: I.

"1''ri,' flJ·'r" ila1• nm·>;"h""A 1 .c. I"&. �,fJ& "la,. 1-11/r> \'°1._�mlm- 'P'ilD41' '1f!".?-1. /\ODC �-l' a, ll\•''r �.oa•,-,, �-1: o".:,. v·> lJJ.er {)'"l., UJ&.fl!f- 1.11» ro� flt71J,f70A o� r-t1 c {D"t1.A f"t w &.n !t- , JI-�-'i m> ''I & .r ro .e 'J° "?<,· "' :1:Cir r'J"' o .e J!.· :JEi!'i r m"I,:A au °I&f °lll"'i! "bC>;:l11 oon n1 :, . (Ja>•.Y. 11111 hiJ n• fl.'\m··i; ila>• fl.J; 'h"i.l! ll '� '7fDc 11 lJ'� •fl/\0 I\"°'l • IJJ /r aJ ·� •"(>�" t\ hfJ& ODlf''; U-/;\ ·1.11. fOl/,..rOrJ>lfl 'It»- n 'l-1111: I\JlV• l\·l·.P.l1a>• a>•er 1\-f•'fD-.. .J' a,. "d ..., f-)1<-' o- n. II� (D "'Thf;\ f1•J!.>7"/{l)c 'Ja,. II cw"". -,.. ._...... IP,-.

>!'f-

2. 3.

. �.--

.·

'•

APPENDIX

393

11. See pp. 253-254. I I I. Co111plicite. (I} Est considere con1me con1plice celtti ttt· re" e 1. t ntent1onnellen1ent assistance a l'a11teur pri ncitJal, avant Ott pendant l'ex9 ct t1 .P 10 seils, fourniture de 111oyens ' appui ou ai� e Illa"1ergieu1e ce soit par informations con 1e qiielconque, pour :.:om� ett re une infraction. La co ntJJlicile e11 \'tte d'11ne 11'1fraction inten1·ionneII e est to111ours punissable (2) La pe·1ne encourue est celle qt1i vise )'infract·'1n ' � ons peu t attenuer la 1Jei�e da11s Jes lin1i-l es legaies t egar on1mee au _tentee. Le juge d du con1pl1ce (art. 134, en tenant con1 ;)le des c1r,;onstances. 1

•

IV. Final French u11a,•ailablt. v. Art. 25. Comp/icite. La �eine. pot1rra elre atle11uee (art. 65) a l'cgarcl de celui qui aura i ntentionnellemenl preA te assistance po11r con1111ettre ttn crinle ou u n delit. VI. Art. 25. .1liding ., Felony or ,l1iscle1nea11or. Wh�ever intentional[)' assists in the cornmission of a fel ony or n1iscem eanor may be punished less severe!}'· {than the fJrincitJal) <Art. 65). VII. Penal �o de o� France (1810), ;.\rt. 59; Penal Code of Gerina11 y (1871) Art 49- . Penal _ '. Code o, tl1e Netl1�rlancl� (1881), Art. 48; Penal Code of Poland (1. 932)1, At. r · 2 I, Penal Code of Yugoslavia (19:>1), Art. 20

•...

.. .... . .'..,., .,..,' .... ' '

'•

...

.,,<.

.. .

.. '

• I I • I :.

Article 37. Criminal Conspiracy. I.

.rltDi-_1.A

l 2.

I"6• 111'1

CID/IUI/O?!tCj

u-n:,. ro.er ·n11· il?1':f- m·--iJ?:A·'I 1\110111-•1"1. r·l·llrr'fm,· r·t· J?.'l'I 1--)· ro•i'f�5P ':i-c,· n 11.,, . 9° l\ ,e. r·J· 01>/\ t11:>,- r�,,s1 :1• oo- fl :f ,,) A

I·I·... 3 I (ou) :: ]

ll/\ U'�9', H ov'',"1fV·J: •P'{ If)<; 'f'•l• 1r··:;. "'�',' ,.,.,._'J. .. .... (1 <f'" ilO[D'rJ "t ... ,,, U.,-,. .,•j,C ii· /f 11' (ll] , ,r·,1•. '/ o,:v JU I..... IJ t" a>/,� � 11(!"1· ill'l ""i<Jl�</°'i" n�ll.0•9'" 0'/-1-flt!"i· OJ•lJ'J' i'li\ a,,·'](11· {ll) 'n4. �1J!.·i-'1. '"'l'�flf.'j·l;�:1� roj'..'/° flro�OJ!.9'�· .l!·e.).):·:r• fltlU ,1,"J 11/.\l� tite:t\ f·J·1,.1 -:. •r:·'i:1·1,yi:1. •e.,(nG'Jfi• r1 I'?··· 269 n 286 n 313 n 472 c] 1

�

I[. See pp. 264-265 [see also Art. ·172 P.C.E. at IJ, 265}. I I I. Co111plot et entente criminel/e. (l) En cas d'accord ot1 d'entente prealable entre cie u x 011 plttsieurs personncs en vue �e realiser , 1111 desstin illegal ou une i nfractio111 les disposilions sur la J)articipa t1on, ainsi que s u r I'aggravatio11 j11stifiee cle ce fait (art. 81 (d} ) sonl en general applicables. (2) Sant toutefois reservees Its disJJOsitions cle la Parlie SJ)eciale sur le c o111plot contrc les interets essentiels de l'Etat et cle sa clefe11se, s11r la fondation de groupernents illiciies et !' adhesion it cle tels gro u 1Jen1enls (art. 269, 286 et 3 I 3), ainsi qt1e sur )'organisation de bandes ot1 d'associations cle 111alfaiteurs visan t (art. 472) a Ia commiss ion d'infractions viole11les co11tre les 1:iersonnes ou les biens. IV. Complot et entente crimintlle. (I) Same as Avant-projet. (2) Son t toutefois reservees les dispositions cle la Partie speciale sur l_e coinplot con tre les interets essentiels de l'Etat et cle sa defen$e, sur la fondat1on de groupe ments illicites et J 'aclhes1on a cle tels grot1pen1enls (art. 269, 286 et 313), ainsi que sur !'organisation de bancles ou cl'associalions de n1alfaiteurs (art. 472). V-VI. No Swiss statutory counterpart.

VII No gent'rally applicable foreign coc.le provision$, l1ul see ti1e follow·ing special provi· s ion&: Penal Code of Brazil ( 1940), Art. 45 (I); Pe nal Code of france 11810), Arts. 89, 265-267; Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 187; Penal Coe.le of Italy (1930), Art. i 15, para. 1 1 270 1 27J 304-309· fJenal Code of Portugal ()886), Art. 34 (7); Penal Coe.le of Spain ( 1870, 1944), Arts. 3, para. I , 4, para. Ii Penal Code of Yugoslavia (1951), Art. 23.

'.;

..' '; . . . ''

..' .

:· · :' . ' .' : ' ! '. '·';-�1

; , .:·;, I J 0: ·,. . . ;!

,;<::J

...

I � . •�...I ·�J '

• ·r �· .

APPENDIX

3-94

Article 38. Failure to Report. Article 39. Accessory after the fact.

(.see p. 254 supra a n d Arts. 144, 305 C.P.S.).

Article 40. Non-transmissibility of Personal Circumstances.

(see Art. 26 C. PS.).

Articles 41-47. Participation in Offences Relative to Publications.

(see ge11erally Art. 27 C. P.S.).

Article 48. Criminal Responsibility and Irresponsibility.

I. l\m�,y_:A >.i\t, ill\ aDl/'..,'i' Oi\l\ODlf� n 1. 'it.e.:1,,.1.m· f\,,.,1,,.(11· /"I,,. �,i\t. tiAlf� n,,,,c nm�:e�l\7.- OD:t-661. ih'? 01>01l!f· 1"+lll.. >t,r,tr�rr: no.�P'l. nt"11on?'° oo(Dc4•7' ll/\OD1--Aoun my,'!° 'l'Aif• nrr� nh">t?°e 01>:J>mO ?°'n�,r:,. ,y4.:,. n011,,. 1.11, r1·'?CJ<.� o,e,.:r·'i" m•,n.!J· I\OD1ou:,. my,'/° flllU oir-:,. 01>01l:,. I\CJD&.oo, : f Afr f\ il..11'� fl 1JJ l,,.tlr ,,..1,,. fl ,"h 1· 01,"}t. i1 �, i\ � hY, ff�?° i: 2. 1·111r'if. ftPJ.e.4-,ri rtv··t c,:c.£!.· n. -1: �, n t. 't ·1. f V,�-:,. :r. n ?'°'i'?>?f �, ro .e 'I° n if11· 00 lJJlT r,r o:,, '1''-,_,J,«esPiJ·''I '>t�,-�. .f.l1.C1·/\1...r•IA ,: [er-. 133 ">til'n 135 r.}

'll. See p. 159. I I I. l�esponsabilite penale et irresponsabilite. ( 1) N'est 1Junissable1 d'apres les dispositions de la Joi penale, que le delinq uant res ponsal)le de ses actes. N'est JJas resJJonsable au sens de la loi celui qui, du fait de !'age, de la 1naladie, d' 11 n retard anormal de son developpement, ou d'une profonde alter ation de ses facultes, n'est pas caJJable, au mo,nent de son acte, d'apprecier la nature et la portee de celui-ci, ou de se concluire d'aJJres cette appreciat ion. 1 (2) A defaut cle JJeine, le juge ordo11 n era a l'egard de l irrespo11sable, les n,esures convenables de traitement 011 de protection prev11es par la loi. (art. 133 a 135). IV. San,e as Ava nt-projet. V. Art. I 0. Responsabilite. Jrresponsables. N'est pas punissable celui q11i, etant atteint d'11ne 111a ladie n1entale d'idiot ie 011 d' une gr�v� alteration ?e l� . c<;>n science, ne possedait J)as, a1.1 111on1e11t d'�gir, la facu!te. d'.ap· prec,er le caractere 1\l1c1te de so n acte ou de se deter min er d'apres cette apJJrec1at1on. VI. Art. 10. Lack of Responsibility. Who�ver because .of in sa11it y, idiocy or grave dist11rbance of 111ental con11 Jetency at _ the t_11ne of com n11tn1ent of the offe11se sl1all be i n capable of recognizing tl1e illegality of_ 111s _ac�, �r wl�oever hr tl1es� reaso11 sl1all be incapable of acti n g in accordance ? with 111s 1ns1gl1t 111to tl1e 1llegal1ty of 111s act, sl1all not be p1111isl1ed. VII. Penal Code of Germa n y (1871), Arts. 51 (1), 55 tl); Pe1 Code of Greece (195 0), 1al Arts. 33 (1), 34; Penal Cocle of Italy (1930), Arts. 88, 96, par Code of Po Pen al 1; a. land (1932), Art. 17 (l); Penal Code of Y11goslavia (1951), Art. 6 (1). Article 49. Limited Responsibility.

I. f1-4''7tt hi\.(.,.:,. u

2. II. See p. 178. 111. Responsabilite restrei nte. (1) Celtti qui, par suite d ' tine troi1ble dan s sa sante me ntale

011

. nce d'un sa conscie '

APPENDIX

395

developpement mental if!COmplet Ott d'tln etat a��rm , .. al ou def1c1ent, n'etait pas au moment de son acte, ple1n ement capable. d' p recie la nature �t la portee de c:ltii � ci, ou_ de se. conduire d'ap res cet te a reef p ion, n eSt pas ple 1ne111e nt passible � �� prevue de la pe1�e . pour l'i11fraction c l mis La pe1ne sera l1brement attenuee par Ie Ju · · ge (art 185). . , m ent em a Con la pe1 ne le jt,ge e t aus�t prrcur r (2) _n traitement, de correction 0�1 de prot�c�ion n ecessa1redsre( arles rnesures legates de t. 133 a 135) .

IV. Same as Avan t-pro1et. V. Art. 1 1.Responsabilite restreinte.

Le juge attenuera librement la Jleine (art 66} · st·' �ar Su�te d'ttn trottb te 1nenlale ou dans sa conscience 011 pa� s llt' te � n develor;>pe111ent le dans s a sanplet, le clelinquant, a11 mon1ent d' agir ne J) 0 se�c ai � D,as !Jl�1ne1nen 1nental incom t la faculte d'ap precier le caractere illicite d e son acte ou Je se c1eterminer d'ap res cette appreciation.

VJ. Art. 11. Partial Responsibility.

· If the orfender, at tl1e time of l1is act was 1e t ll turbed or his n1ental ct;� Yt � � f ' i w competency dimi1 1ished or i£ li e as nen t ally re �rc e 0• 1e exten � that his ca pacity to recognize the illegality of liis a�t or h s �pac tY lo act �n acco rdance . with tl1is insight was di ntinis li ed, the co�t rt ' i n i� 5 �c iscre\ion , niay 1111pose a less severe penalty (Art. 66). Vii. Penal Code of Oer111any (1871) A rts 51 (2) 55 (?)· p nal cOde of Greece (1950), Arts. 33 (2), 36 ( 1 ); Penal Code of ·1 tal ( 1930 Ar�s . : 1 a 6 r Penal Code of Poland (1932), A rt. 18 (I);YPe11al eode lof i�io;1 aef; (1Js1i, Aft� i·c2�'. Article 50. Intentional or

Culpable Irresponsibility.

,. llhl\"-)!f- 11,1!-'i'l\tr 11"11\0:,• 11.P..'} llil

�'ilf (De'/° (I a,• hi\.{. )•J:·�

' i i

I . '' ..

oo�mc �

•.l-�n

ID J','r

'n"'f\&', 'i�·

r'i. t\ 1r) r-[I W 111,.1:, j'tA ,n1111 .,. aJft'r ),1lj''l!"'� ll°1,f.f.>.)11"lJ IDJ�,.,., fli\,"I 0,P.)'�• h�',::'t,,'} ·1·.£'."]l,':. 1')1vL�@• u>1';>'1.';\ ,:,1,1�J•"'I n r"1,.,.'}-ft. m.e'r )'?. f"1�.rmm• .r.:"}-;J·l.9'�·· h.e.r,}•i\:,O��· t:1 m�•"ll\.9.1,:1: ··m�7,',"t,,'\ .,;r.r,n;, ,. , :'Ir �1... •,( jlli\ ,..,.. i\m1

I· I.

{\an.r,�

I I

..:i

'i·111"A .a

h,t!-b-'1..f»- },,).'OJ<p m.e'r {\O'/tDq• }.\';J:il\ IIB.'!.'1° .-17/elD•)• 1,.('tnH1"· }1"7.e" \'SD .,,.J'j!r� f·"/,. i\!Dl,,{. )l9•• n 1 1 1 bcrl- "1'�.:,. 11.�,�t.t!J· o·�·'-.m ,ri m .e.?0 1,1.. :,-i: 1-.""1)t,1•1ll li·1" 1,.�-�-; n:1� \'·s·d• .?, ODd>•'/°dJ'�l!A ll�A·f·� �:,- auvul.'1" \"D1• •eo,t•111 ru·1 }a·�-� t1·"1 -r-r.·1·s"m• 114\ �i= t;;,.·;·;?'I:1• fl T.f.)1 '1- !J• fl aD .l� fl cj=91:f. .(>:"'f :J?,'Jl":f· Gil! rJll' /.,)• •f• c{_ (!}�fl � ).:,<f•tTJt\ 1! [ rj•"'. 59 £l] "'_e-i.·1.w· "· rP bcm· f/:\t.•f•J!..m···, ro .e?·· ,.rt'\ r, 11 ,n·"i f 11,·'t�A ,.,.,;,. 11 6ll·l ·fi.. ·n �. !).t:. ):;, 11 "'.¥••�' �--; o-�:J· 0111 "1'4-1: iPC4- il.1:-i:; n.a,11·0 A·r :J· 1\,e. 1•.i;:,-�, illi cryJ!:i.{I n,"J1·1, f.\?. ·n :r�:/.\ fl.,..... 485 C f1�J!.'J77tD• {J)cf'lt ,f.t<.��fl:J•f.\ r: ;,

11. See pp. 18 l-182.

111. lrresponsahi[ir; provoquee

Jautjve.

( l) Les (lispositions exclttant ou atte n t1a11t la pu nissabilite ne t�·appliquent pas a eel ui ite qui s'est mis intenlio11n elle111ent e11 etat cl'irrespon sabili e ou d� resJJonsabil , JJOur restrei11te, par l'effet de l'alcool, cl'un stupefiant ou de toute at1lre n1aniere ,I ap1 t icables. son lui les e.ra gen s e al pen ns itio pos dis Lts o11. acli infr ttre une com1ne respons abilite ou de rrsJJonsabilite d'ir t eta e11 ent en1 tiv fau 1nis st s'e r Si tet1 l'au (2) ns�it." 1�ce �e s'exp�·,ser � co ir av� ait uv J?o 011 e, nc . cie s con il ava 'il q11 e, ors al int restre d apres les d1spos1n1 pu et e Jt1g a srr ti t, eta cet ns da n tio rac inf con1 mettre 11n e s able nis e est pu nis 1111 co on cti fra l'in 5i J, 59 . t (ar e nc ge gli ne tio11s ordinaires s11r la a ce titre. e en etat cl'irres 1Jonsabilite nis n11 c-o , ue ev pr ni e 1lt1 1 vo on n (3) En ca5 cl'infraction rtie spe la Pa de 5 48 cle rti J'� , 1te fat sa r p s mi st s'e 11r e � l ota) e dans laq11elle l'at1t able. ic pl ap t es t1e l1q 1b pt ile 1r ct se la a s te in ciale Stir les atte 011

IV. Same as Avant-projet. V. Art. 12. Exception. s applicabl�s si l'inculpe a [Jrovo pa n t ro e s ne 11 et o 1 Les disJJositions des articles le clessein de ns c da nc c1e ns co la cle le ub tro e l 1 01 que lui-mem e la grav e alteration commettre l'in fraction . {See also Art. 263 C.P.S.]. VI. Art 12. Exception.

' . I

. .

I .

I ., I

: .'

I,' ..., . . '

t' . ! .'

•

... ...

,.� ·., ...

. .I..

.1··.• $. · . '• ',.

.•. .

;! � '.

APPENDIX

396

if tl1e se�ious distu rban ce le_ ab lic ap be t no l p al sl1 11 d an JO t. Ar Tl1 e provisions of f tl�e �ffencler was occas10!1�d by himse f o y nc ete ni co al l p or retardation of 111e ment o a] tl1at 111e 11t cond1t1 n. [See also 1n e 11l wl se fen of e th g tin iit inn co of t wit ll tile inten Art 263 C.P.S] of Ita l y (1930), Art�. 3 de Co l 11a Pe ; (2) 36 , 35 ts. Ar 0) 7 95 (1 V J I. Penal Code of Greece al Pen t. 45; (-ode of Poland Ar 2), 190 ( ay rw No of e l c Co nal Pe 93 92 I · I 9 para ' lavia (1951), A rt. 6 (3). s go Yu of de Co l na Pe ; (2) 18 ), (1932) Arts: 11' (2 0

Article 51. Doubtful Cases, Expert Examination.

I. >,,n.t.,rJI. 11•<;·J; :: u tl ti &,A f "f Cffl& ?"'117'.f:,• tl ·1·11 1.H. lJctl- r,:r,_�· ll,I: .e,? tD f\, IJao. l\,e 1:1• nl\t, � f) n·l·tl 1. > 'l·C-9':r:'i· r,.�;J·m:t: i\,e. h7'J! >,06,,l\'l.1·1: �·coot, 'I' . ; t}tl•f ,{Jif., fl•J•t tlJ• (l,:J·\' l<> >,{Jt<.'\1. aoi)( P "' .f'' rf! },fl1l DDfll\''I' }11i'1�· :: •'"l f/\ID }."'1,P,.,e,,l°l !f•},1111 1 '(l{Jm 0:.\1\ ill\llV• 'l1C Af. {JCD•4»:,• -,J•»fJtt- r>,"h�'C!' '17i;J· .f.�lO:,• 1,'�.C! 11''1 m,e.'J" lluri.,"f'A 111i;J· (� Cfb1"(1.) f"1.:J·,011 "�-� lf''! ro ,er> n .e.. :"'1<1�c<;<; fl.P,_>;�.!'J· w,e.r n t1Dtn"f >, 11 m·;J· t�!'f- fl 7i :r r1·n 'rl6. 7l'7 .I! 11·� ti11.u, A� i)a,.,s,:,• f fl«J•'} .t1'P'i! (tlD• >,iJ·O OD{llf'<p '1�:J· "'J(D r: 2. 'i!r:.e:· fl,1: /.\r. �t\ :1· .fnro• O'P•l! m,e'I'� 0'P•l!9'":f fl1·f\ao�.:,. O,e.'l�":j- f?°C:ODt-m·�· , t••1 1-i,.,co:,. f!,1.(}\"dO• 11 "",.e.· OIJC/0 .fll :1='11 t·, u 7l'7.t;_r,.9° f•f•"J'lt-Tm--7' h7'l·(l<s" ff1Y/..ffl){..q>fm· c

''1?"' 1·-'i\'·if· 'It\?. J'ft:J·tD•:J•;f:'PA ::

V·�:J· fl 17</ov iB If'�', f)ooro{I"} 7i·l'r0:J•a,. 4'. e, IJ• z:J·m-- fl...fJ!C ii '("'f.. 1·1\lD•''I m-m.�9•• ccr1P ;.. ,u• (£VI 1..:;1 r >ittio !'J· 1111.u 9"' tJ ,,, c: ,1, ti'/.. c;· <; f,)1 ti 9'° 'i' o ,e.�:,. m .e. 'I° ii t\ �'1':r hm l]Oq• flf'';•:f.. "i' "'i _ ,J,u�!Pi-., m:J>� m1 tr'i":ftD•"1 h?i'1 m-- '¥1JIJ:J·mip >',l\ll!'f- :: 011.v, 11 .,. •, ·1 trJ• m>'1h 0'iJ.. cnJ (J,J 1.:, . •-:i! c: .� O,f: ·1·1 n. \' w �CD·7' ;,1 ;J'f! m·fJ :& ,e.il "l A ::r;:c�· 0.1: fl?··?,� "tJ� (Jl!{JU/.1· 11,e;c.1 OD.('11 f'P-/.1/JaJ• Af. tJDC�'/&lD" n£h al '11C l."IJ!,· f°1.f•f•C1lft�·1 >,l'l·n ....P.0''7 n (1.1·1:,n (or� ,rn·n) 1.1.e.· t1:r·»'f1t\ ·J·n1 ..,. f. f"ttl>C·Of\1··'1 'lill.J{w· m-,n.�· 0i�1JJl�· rtf, �·J·77t»•"} ",OJ• ::

(: ·f·,1 l)ii'.,

I I. Doubtful Cases, Expert Ex,z,nination. ( 1) Whe11 there is a dot1bt as lo the responsibi lity of the accu sed person, \vhelhe r fu ll or partial , tl1e Cottrt shal l obtain ex pert evidence and 111ay order an enquiry to be made as to the character, antecedents a11d circu mstances of the accused person. Sucl1 evide1:ce shall . be ob_tained \vl1en the acct1sed person sho\VS signs of a deranged mind or epi lepsy, 1s deaf a11d dt1n1b or is sufferincr intoxicat. fron1 chronic ti on due lo alcohol or dr ugs. (2) The exJJert or ex1Jerts shall be a1Jpoi11ted by tl1e cotirt tinder tl1e ordinary rules of proc�d ure. The Cot1rt shall d e fine tl1eir tern1s of reference and tl1e 111atters to be elucidated. The .exJJert evicle11ce �l 1all describe tl1e present conditio 11 of the accused person and . 1.ts effect t1pon �11s fact1l ties of jt1dgn1e11t and free determination. It shall, in adcli�ion, afford gu1clance to tl1e Cotrrt as to tl1e expediency and the nature of 1ned1cal treatn1ent or safety 111easures. (3) 0� the_ l1 asis of �l1e .expert evide11ce tl1e · Cou rt shall 111ake such decision as it t!11n�s fit. In reacl11ng its decisio11 it sllall be bound solely by definite scientific findings ai1 d µot by tl1e appreciation of the expert as to tl1e legal inferences to be drawn tl1erefron1.

I I I. Expertise.

:r '

..._.,,1l

/ ;I

( 1)

h ,gue oi� qu'�l existe des raiso11s de dot1ter de la res onsabi lle, par ti u e o tota le lite , Je f inctt� QC, le Jtige devra p pre11dre u11 avis d'expert, apres avoir a u besoin ordonn,e ttne en�uete stir la personne, les antecedents et e. ulp l'in c de vie de les condit i ons . Cet av1s est obligatoire . t1?tan1n1ent lorsque les � trou des r resente leilta x 0� des tro�bles epile )tiq{1es, qu'il est cec derniesur toxicai d 1 diatt 111u i tite t de n OU ' n r1on cl1ron1que par l alcool ot1 les stupefiants. (2) Le ju•ge designe !'expert ou les expe· rts 'dure; ce pro la selon de . . les ordi naires formes 1· 1 p r ecis· e 1e11r 1111ss1on et Jes qtiestions a . e 1uc 1'der. , b . de L, exper t·1se eta lira l 'etat existant et , , t · tio e n , ia �es. effets sur les facultes d apprec · el detern1ination de l 'incu l e. , uni t t-e El l e or r enseignera de plu s le juge s u r l'opp Ia nat11rc d'- t111 traiteinentp Ille·a·ICal OU de tnesures de securite. (3) Stir la base cl e ces 1·na1·cat· , . nt b om ions, 1 e Juge a . prend la decision jt1ridi.que lu1 inc I

.. ....... -·· .

.. ....... .. . ,·

.... ,:·· ·· :�· . ...·.:. ' ... ·:•'.; �· ·: ··:·�

:·t. ,. .:·

APPENDJX

397

J I n'est lie qu'attx constatations scieiltifiq ne f • • o rn � elles, mats non a � l'apreciation des experts sur les con sequence s J·tir·i cl i"qt1es a en t1rer JV. Same as Avan t-projet. V. Art. I 3. Doute s11r l'etat ment.il de /'inculpe. Si le juge d'instruction ou le juge char e de statuer ati o�d est en cloute sur la responsabilite de l'inc11l 1 Je, ii re;a exan�ner par un oti pluf 5ieur s experts l'etat n1en tal n r. r ie de ce e d Si l'!ns t1!_1Je est sourd-m11 et OU si l'o n preten d qu ··1 1 e5l eJlileptique, ii sera to ujours JJrocede a cet exame11. Les exp�rts feront rapJJOrl s11r l'etat cle l'incttl )C II, se J?Tononccronl au ss 1 s11r ppr)rtun1te dtt 1,lace1nent clans u11 llr>i ,ital 011 cl •alt1 5· 1111s 11osptce et sur le da11ger qu'ol'o ffre l'incttlpe pottr la sec11rite 011 l'ordre JJttblics. VI. Art. 13. Mental Examination. · ·· The prosect1tor or the co11rt, \vl1e11 in clou l)l as to ti le respon5ib l l ity of the acctt�ed, n 1 s_hall order a enta l exa111inatio11 o f hinl l))t 0,;e or inor� e_xp_erts. A n1ental exa�111na t1on shall be orderccl if t he accusecl is a cleaf�nlttte , eel � hat h� ts _an t is � lit . eJJiltplic . T he ex1,erts sl1all state tl1e conditions of the ��c:1f_e � an _afso g1 v tne1 op1 n � r . reqt whe he tires ther care in a n1enlal hos1,it al ion • a' nd wl1ether I115 con d 1t1on 1s dangerous to jJublic secttri ty and or(ler.

VII. None.

:: , '' '' ''

I '

'' I

Article 52. Infancy; Exoneration from Criminal Provisions.

I. ii n ,l1Y'I:,. :: fJL u \' cu''llll;;: llPiJ• 61�. ;,..,,, .e.·''I :,·1.� ·:;. ll 'ii\01,.ie• .n, ry:,=m· :: fll.1J. l,"1 J!_•''r:1·1.y,·�;. {JJ�:·..1••r:1=m· IJIT)� '",t·JT):,. IJA'Fi\ ;J,'J<,·:,• .l\,r. � .{�6°.?.GD•?° r.l },�ii.UT' : 0(JJ"'r .P.i\� tn>iJ• � ,l,'? ),"'i -� � l\h--Y,·:f · tl''!tP• },,<',•i"'•llJ?.r :: fl JI. 1J ,"r,."/ on 1J1' 1.:,. rG'J••f i'l ,j,111 ro""ljiA - :. _ fl 01 "- '1.11. fl '7Jl lJ ;h 'l'r :,. /.\."fl. ·I· .l\,e 'I fl/.,,,/.\ ITl''i' rt 1ri- fl.•i• If m> }�:J::1: tn,c; >,ll·i•a; ";:,, ;f-:,;tD• in ,J, ts1/. \'V",.:,.·� 1··'i' :J• l? .91':f'· .r,l!C 1·'\T'P t\ :-: II. See p 18i. 1

i I .: '

I I I. Enf.1nce; exclusion di.'S dispositions

JJc11,zles.

L�s. d��positions dtt fJres�nt code 11e sonl })as a}J[Jlicables aux enfants n'a}'ant pas al te! nt l age de neuf a11s revolus. lls nc sonl. pas ccnses reSfJOnsables ::itr sens de la Joi penale. Lorsqu'ils con1mette11t u11 acte p11nissable cl'apres cellc-ci, les 111t>s11res co11venables a leur egard sont prise5 par l'autorite fan1ilia l e, scolaire ou {l1telair� co1r1pclenle.

IV. San1e as Avant�projel. V. Art 82. Dispositions ge11er,1les. Le prese11t code1 n'est JJas applicable aux enfan{s c1ui n'o11t pas at teint !'age de six ans revolus. •

• • • •

VII. Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 126 (I); Penal Code of Yugoslavia (1951), Art. 65. Article 53. Special Provisions Applicable to Young Persons.

>,lll't aum� I.

• • •

VI. Art. 82. General Provisions. Children under six years are 11ot subject to this Code.

fl'l.l!lo- t01T1.f-':f I\Y,. n.n"?.c<.�ao· /.\,� r,l,"/ �.:''t:J1,!1'1· u 1 c :":{-c; LDt11 0 t-i"f f.l .l!l _rl\ m""I ,n 'till · n m· :f fPl\ r .!J• ,tJV • 11:r 1r >,?° Ot>' ti IJf:�f:1:m• 'h 1,m:is 71 11 . flf, .f- ll ID {l ).I\ . ·, ,)1 .P. ll·) ·i, 'h 01 "'f /, I" Ill •I• l1 ffP/ .f . -,.� (ID,&. JI•+) (Im"'t,=l\ if ou•l• ""1 ,l,"I > == {cf'... 16 I ),lib I 73] ll"'l'i':f-m-� v-�;1?' m· �•J• '1.t ,c ...,,-;;. n,, :r:� t.tTJ. f-�, f-r�:J•t:f? ,,. ., ., n J.l1•r ti) .(!J . e n h :, ,n.,,, 1-1. l+ a,.r OJ) · .":f fl•f :i•l 1: �: }-fl .(!' n 110-P+.sP":f ,r4.1-�1· 111·oulfn·J:+ -er.- :,1r nl.nc lb:,.. a,.n-r ,-,,e.e.11ra4�1 •= .r: lll'C(J· '\.f. rr1>lom-·i; • o eC_ lj: • (JJ :ft .:J flPf · m �"1:,. tD,-?8 r�n·rn.� t'"'C:O+ n.,c.Kr'IJ� 2 ).(lb 173 n 16 ·--. [«1 · �m } rf .P. l.� 1n :i1 1t. ·'} m ·:f 'i:J lJil -r-s.:,. 'ja,. 11� )a'\&(.

11. See p. 187. III. Application des dispositions s peci.ales aux adolescents.

I . '

"''

!. ' ' '

' ;'

APPENDIX

398

( l) Les inineurs et adolescents de_ ne� 1f a quinze ans rev}>lus, qui �om� ettent un �cte punissable au regard de la 101 [Jenale_, ne peu�ent et�e so�m1s gu aux sanctions et 111estires que celle-ci prevoit spec1alen1ent a leur 1ntent1on (l1vre II, chapitre IV, art. 161-173.) . . , . ,. 11s ne sont en aucu11 cas soumis aux pe1nes ord1na1re� preyues pour les del1n quarrts adultes ni meles a et1x dans les etablissements de detention. (2) Les mestires de caractere repressif ou discip_linaire (art. 16�-173) n� _pet1ve nt etre appliquees que si le juge retient tine faute a la charge du Jeune del1nquant et le trouve coupable. IV. San1e as Avant-projet. V. Art. 82. Dispositions generates. •

•

• •

•

• •

Si un e11fant age de plt1s de six ans, mais de moins. de q� atorze_ ans, revo_lt1s, commet un acte ptinissable en vertt1 dtt present. code, !es d!spos1t1ons c1-apres lu1 seront ap plicables [See also Art. 89 C.P.S. applying to 1uven1les 14-18 years of age). V l. Art. 82. General Provisions. •

The following provisions shall be applied to acts pt1nisl1able by this Code when com mitted by a child over six years of age a11d under fourteen1 years of age. [See also Art. 89 C.P.S. apJJlying to juveniles 14-18 years of age]. V l I. Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 126 (2); Penal Code of Y11goslavia (1955), Art. 66. T

Article 54. Assessment of Sentence. Article 55. Expert Evidence and Enquiry. Article 56. Offe11ders over the Age of Fifteen. I . ht,r, oum ·., ntr</?.:lit >,l'I �r_g_-qu sfl.a,. oo 'r1 nttif 1.11. 11 l. >,J!.:1.,·1.a>· ro",°f.{}, 11tJ.J/.,fl:r 1.11. n:(?.; a,an:,.. t'Ohm iJ�¢J. ,;-c::,• .,1c arr 1!i; a,ou:,. fA 'l°l\0r 1-,.,,,.� 11·� ,1, ,ri-1: fo->'f. m (1"}11 %- ,1 t"h -,. ".e. o i'anl\ n-J: ::r- n ao.e.n ;p:,: .f!''"I ,1.?1"¥- ,JDavlt .,�

n. rF--,1° 'i=c.e.· n.·1: iJ•lfl1:'"t r"'l.m 11 '!m· 111·1 {. },.?lfl""l.. .,. �:J·'i" .e.AcJ?"}� rtJ·'"t nr n.n 111° . f1· n()if••., \'ID"l (J.e,_•Df"J,. oo,n • ., ),• .,.l! ll cTIJ.-t: 00..,.f::}--r'i" hJ!. , -1 ;:,- )111 tt- '11'4! 1: OIID/l tt:J · l.'J'' <i fl.7iYf A fCTC/.:f. A iJ .f!'t\ \'"'l, .e ;J•l'ODlD• ootr"} h/\anrr�-., flou7"}1111 .1!..,fl�=J:� fq>lt):,, "Yf)•/\J' J!,.·'.,:)'l.?--:f- o0 wl+ h�C1 {lm,,11 ro.e.r f1"?f/\ OD{l/r> (I.•.J-fm- htih "" ODtn , I\ I\.P. l f'l·!'J· (IJ'',:(1:(\iJ'':i· fTOU .l! fl tJ>,"., rAr. cl--lfl !'f- hat fJ {I')- o a••n1" A ;a,- n [1>4-. I 84 I 62 -,, 11 'n 173 :: ] II. See Pl). 187-188. � I 11. Pe riode interm�diai re j11squ 'a la nzajorite civile. 2.

�-,::r·

(I) Si, au 1_110111ent �it ii a �on1n�is l'infractio11, l'auteur etait age de plus de quinze ns

ans. n1�1s de n101ns cle cl1x-l1t11t ans revol11s, il sera jt.ige d'apres Jes dispositio ord1na1res dt.1 code. (2) Toutefois, le jug·e fJ011rra fixer la peine, s_uivant l'opportun nota1n cas e� du ite men_t en tenant con11Jte_ de la pl11s 011 rno1ns grande jet , de � es l'in cu ine lpe de sse s�nt1111e11�s plt1s ott n10111� pervers ?tl dangeret ix et de ses ch i 1ces plus ou n:1 01ns a r_eelles d_ an:ienden1ent, so1t e11 ap1Jl1quant Jes disposit ion s ge i,erales sur I'attenua t!on ord!n.a1re (art. 184), soit, s'il parait Jreferable, e:n ap pli J ian t tine des sanc qt tions s1Jec1ales reten11es pot.tr Jes 111ine11rs (art. 17 0-173). IV. San1e as Avant-1)rojet. V. Art. 100. Mineurs de dix-huit a vingt ans. ( 1) Si, a�1 111�me11t ou le crime ?u le delit a ete de plus ag e _ co m m eta is I'a it ut eu r de _ d1x-ht11t an� , ma1s de 1� 01ns e vingt an er la att en u � s rev olt po is, ur ' 1e ra jug e . pe1n� confor111e�ent_ aux d1spos11 1 ons de l'a rem ser a rti ,,ie cle 6S a . La re clu sio n [Jlacee JJar la recl11s1on JJour cinq a11s at t nloins L� j1;1,ge �ottrr a, renon cer a toute fJeine Ott n1esure si Ia moiti d11 delai de pres, e cr1pt1on s est ecoulee depuis le jo11r ou l'acte a e't e· comn11s. . . . . VI . Art. I 00. A1inors E� ghtcen to 1·wenf)• },,ears of Age. Whoever, at th e t1n1e of tl1e offense, l1a s co1nple1ed his eigh1eerrth year but not his 0

•

-·

APPENDIX

399

twentieth year, shall b e s entenced accord"1� :� the fo! lowing provision confinen1ent in th e penitentiary for life �n e mef!t tn the penitent s: Instead f iary from fiie to twenty y�a.rs. If the felony or misdem�ai,or :� pun sha b le �Y. imprisonment with a statut�ry m_1111mu m, the court is not bou nd b Y th"�s seintence lim ita tion In case o f exth . c1rct1mstances e ng court may order confinement in · tenuat1 · a pr iso n fro m six n O th . · s tea d o f contt •. netnent in a peni·tcntia to f.ive years in ry, and jail confinement inst�a� of ce en e nt . a prison s •

•

• •

VIJ. Penal Code of Greece ( 1950), Art. 133. Article 57. Principle; Criminal Fault and Accident.

I. 01'1Pl1: I faJ�:fA '1"4. !J-'l' .1!,·"71-t'i' h;JIIJ--,_ 'i1C 11 I • IJ ,"h 1- h"11 .>.'1" '--'71: i"1 A,,_ tiA:""a, •1' n +C "7�,- 11 m• I\.+ "1 -,.,-,:A'I° 11 n,.-.'-• -,.. ft.l. tl tr"7 ,-,,.111aJ4 tl m- fl l.:J-.-;. mt,'/° ll=fA1"��:,. >."\'_e: m"\')!A 'ttl\J!l1 2.

Om�)!':l'I)� tl.C.l.e,O:,. >,,ft:J:A'r a "'1"'111 a, .,r {I a,. 'I° "1?° '1" �:,. lt ,f.I! C"1 c f1 " UJ 1,. a,. '1" . • l " "1 n. 1nr h-tl.t t"' -, :,. A 't)! o, l :, ,s 1 -r m 1 ,.._.,"1 "'I. h.l!-' r-t Pl I,. m ft"I° t1 o;p004 O't.e, 1111·1 ��A n .e.·"'1?1"'1"'1:r r, 1-' l l'i tr'i il7 � r\.+"1 ""1fla>-9° a

ltlD"'l)!A �Ir h'\il-�=t- f1•'/•"f f"'l.llmtJ>o a>cl\!it O'i!:,0,h 11,i"C n'h·A r\."i'"Ufl,. -,...-;,-� >,.rn+t--=fm.� ss 11. Principlt; Criminal Fault and Accident. (1) No one can be punisl1ed for an ° ffence unIess he 11as been found under the law. �. pe �son 1· 5 gtiilty if, b�ing responsible for his acts , l1c cornm1·ts an 1nten t1ona1 1 y or b y negligence. (2) No one can be convicted ttnder criminal Ia.w f a c t n rs it wa erform�d o� occurred without there bef�g :n; gt1)1� �� h1s cause� � y f orce maJet1re, or occurred by accident. Nothing in this Article shall be a bar to civil 1,roceedings.

111. Principe; Jautt ptntt.lt

f"'l"fA-+'7, rn. guilty thereof

offence either

�;rtth!n� \"�.;! a

cas fortuit. (l) Nul ne peut etre puni pour ttne infraction s'il n'cn est fJas reco11nu coup:?.ble au sens de la loi. �st c�upa�le �enalement celtti qtti, responsable cle ses actes, �l c0rn;ni5 une infraction intent1onnellen1e11t ou J)ar negligence. (2) N�l n� prut elre condan1ne pe11ale111e11t pour un acte tombant sous le coup (le la . 101 _mats acc�n1pl1 ou st1rvenu sans 1111e fa11te qui lui soil in11 Jul::i.ble, JJar force maJet1re, accident 011 cas forlttit. �e pas celle des reparations civilcs r_a solution de la responsabilite pena)c ne prcjttcr eventt1elles, qui den1et1rent reservees. el

IV. Same as Avant-projet. V-VI. No Swiss statt1tory counterpart. ), Art. 7 (l ). 51 (19 via sla go Yu of de Co l na Pe 45; 42, ts. Ar VII. Penal Code of Italy ( 1930),

Article 58. Criminal Intention.

I. OfD--F ill\ ""1-'fi.:,. a: l_l{qp flllJ-� � '+ -r" 111 0+ .f f""l 'i" 1fl _e' v"'l • .f: I. '1"-S.� d1>l1'�·"'1 ,"hll c;m- )af1"lJiOJ fl �ft. 1-.:P sr "A cJ:.nl ft. '°' u, � >. � A i � a.1 � 11 111 ao .., r a,.m.:,. I\,ry-,"f-:r- r ..., "° nm- o 01- � ih .r;rm- _etJ ,...l,.(l';4 ROJ -, �. -r • lS .m � rott. r>,-rtC.�:,. -, .-,oc IJ/rli 6-.��'i i'1111l ).'})! i".C.,?,IID -t'?fl �'1 1 A )! '} OJ f � '} U .,e h:,.. 7/ 10 '} lJc _e l J; f ll''}' m• "'I1:A cl' "1 + "'I ). '}.e.,"'I. !00 "1fl:,- '}, VT Oa,-.J 1111f '-:Jal',. flLJ\00 1.tl. )OJ- • r rtr'7 ,-11..,1 'i' n n . n :,. 'l' n-t t.., t h oo i" .e. '1 ,-. e 2. n1lf .c.:,.� :r n fl r-r-'-""" o,..,)!A n ,"h 1- l\_ l 78 sr] hl ">64 . [er ., '7dt< •"1 i"l-,. f-7.J' r' .-c 9""'11.11. n. ) lf A "tJ + o :A :l f"'f :,. . m n "l l\ �'l .F.iJ-C:14 r n+ ft 11J • n1 .. A 0 • + • 11'\ . )o,lf . n+ I . ""l"'l'r a,.,,r 1101- nn :fA-t-1).!t- ,., ��1-,.:,. r-t-m 112 ,A 7 .F. h m + n.. t' r ' 011')01 -r;f - m_e,,- o>i.:,"1"'7. 11J;ia0- 01\ft 11. Criminal Intention I

(1) See pp. 135, 141.

,· ' • �' 1

,'.

' ' '

... :·

: : t'I' :,·: "

'.'

' ....

. ''

400

APPENDIX o of ati s fic se sti ca ju n or excuse in ve. sa le ab sh ni pu is e nc ffe o l iia tio 2 An inten . . 8) -7 64 . rt (A . w la by ed id r ov y p sl ( ) expres , nor for l1e ne1tl1er knew of or 1�t�n ded at wh r o f . ted vic con be 11 a (3) No perso11 sh or as a poss1b1!1ty, sub ject t o ly ect dir er eith d nde inte t "'' he d 1a l \V l1at goes beyon " . the provisions governing negl.igence.

JI I. Culpabilite intentionnelle. . . . on celui qu i ag1t avec la conscience et Ia ti rac inf e tin tit nie II e e 1! t· ion t (1) Comm� t ·1,n en le et d'en obtenir le resultat. sab nis JJu et ite lic l i e acl 111 . t tr 1p , on c t acc volon e 1 son· acte peut ,.1 n ten t·1on de'I.Icli uell e est re'al i·see aussi I ors qt1e l'at1teur, sachant que ' L · t neanrn o1ns en ac· 1 rnp 1 o a�c l' es, I b sa n1s pu _et . entrainer d es consequences illi�i!es ceptant celle s-ci JJ011r l 'ev entual1te ou elles s_e produ1 ra1ent. . .. l_e en del1ors d_es cas de 1ust1f1sab n1s JJt1 rs j�u tot1 est le nel ion ent int cti n o fra (2) L'in . cation et d'excttse expressen1ent prevus par la 101 (art. 64 et su1v.) . l n'a pa� connu �t v oulu �· po_�! ce qui i ,q11' ce r pou n� dam cot� e etr t peu ne Nul (3) outre passe sor1 intention, d1recte ott eventuelle, reserve fa1te des d1spos1t1011s sur la negl igence. IV. Sam e as Avant-projet. V. See {). 135. VI. See pp. 135-136. VI I. Penal Code of Brazil (1940), Art. 15 (I); P e na l Code of Greece (1950), Art. 27; Penal Code of Jtaly (1930), .A rt. 43, JJaras. ], 2; Pe11al Code of Poland (1932), Art. 14 (I); Pena l Code of Y t1goslavia ( I 951), Art. 7 (2).

' J

J {•

Article 59. Criminal Negligence.

I. r! ::a= t\ ·t· � 'l :,. fl i\a</•.P. l"1 ,r1-:V· :1 I . ·1·'16l?. (l,,.ran ,'1} fl 1· 'l-I.-:f·f\lD•"'v m>·•in.:'}• '1.e.71°:,.r, ... f ll·fl {J fl °1OD ijfl'}lj' 'J'q.:,. fl lf� IJI\ODm ..,..,, :,. r llJl-P &- {l m n A·f·-;-�:,,,. ro '1'J!t\ '},�J! IP&. .e'l!m&. A " · 0'1t\ "!-C:m• �,,f,>try6W,Y '1'1°:Y. ! 01·h,e.?° OlJ,e_·�m.c,- Ot'J1'1 l1� ()/\DJ- ft\"?� lJOJ-4":,C ():,0 '1° '1.JC.·I: .e.lf.1; Ot\� 'F ! rloirt.6".7.·oo� t"t.ar<; lJtJYJ�O&.'f! 'l-etrr .e.l."1 '?'r:,O aom'} fl.f 1. c:."J:f ro· fi'.JT/.1 n-:, .·".r .rr·�.<J>4!9' ·:;. .eA t..Rl1D it {l)c n >.\J.:\-,. '1'4'�1"1f .en" A • 2. tl-t.l!l?ro• ,r4.:,. 0,,e.'l!J-'i" 'il'l.(!'}1" lDf..'1° n a'/'1lJ�'f! 'l- C" 't.e I\..J'.�Cn fl"t�/\OJ- hl.."J uir>:,- a0 ,n·7 n;,,1. l\,e. 01·1\,e J,..,.e. m'7}!A -t·�'J'C" l1AT)!�7-7 114-C n:rA-r-�):,. f1'1J1t r' Ir i',f l1 ,�. fl) 1° tJ l'l..flf'n.!'f·Afl:,- 'lOTf.";f·l\m···, fl�lt.<;a,., 'h\'Tl·� mf_.1° l\aul.t:;:,. f\.11JllJc'; aol�:,.<; ao100:,.,-, ll.1"Cfl1"' \'J/\ a7001111·,- fT'l"t f.P.l.1tir f'J'i.,r J!ljf<; fh.e,. , &-1.m-� h.�7�'7T n1'1.{', flcJD'/ ou:,. ·i·1Qm·""r cJ•11J:, . r,:c.e.-- O,·J: .f,mll.,fJ;J·A . 1:

=J=

II I

(

I I. Crin1inal J,,iegligence. (I) (2)

·,

See IJP, 148, 151. Offe nces con1n1itted by negl igence are liable to J)unislirnent onl y if the la� so expre�s ly J)rovicles by reaso11 of tl1eir natt1re, gravity or the datiger they constitute to society. The Co11rt shall assess sente11ce according to tl1e degree of guilt and the �an gerous characte r o_f the offen_der,. and according to llis realisatiort of the possible consequences o f his act or l11s fa1l11re to apJJ reciate suc h consequen s as he ought ce to have clone.

I I I. Culpabilite par n�gligence. (1) �ommet unc infraction p_ar negligence celui qui, pa ance ou une inl pre r vo un y e 1�1prudence coupable, ag1t sans se rendre comp e des con co n1p te t ou ten san ir s sequences de son acte . Son a�titu�e est coupable l<:>rsque l'autetir n'a pa s �on ons q�1e l pr pr ec is au ti les pouva1t ra1sonnablement ex1 ger de lui, du fai t1o n s1t ?a sa t de de cir s co ns et tances person�elle, notarnrnent de son age ct de so n, de sa uc tio n ex pe rie ins nc tr so e de n profession ou de son rang. ' de (2) Les i11 fr�ctions co�rnises pa r negligence ne sont pu de c! le Joi nissables que si la exp�esse en t en raison de leur nature, de ial. soc er da ng leu r im leu po r rtance ou de � Le Juge fix; la Pe._ine d'apre� 1� �egre de Ia dan s mo in ott fau te et le caractere plus � gereux de !.autet1. ' �tie celu1-c1 a1t eu. co so de les acte, Ott qu il n , en a1t pas pris consciencenscience des consequences possib alors qu'il aurait dQ le faire.

-�. ..·

·.

'�

·� '·

.. ' •

APPENDIX

401

IV. Same as Avant-projet . v Art. 18. Intention et negligence.

. . .. .

Celt1i-la co111met un crime 011 Ull delit par e' g_{'igence pable, agit sans se rendre con1pte ou sans �� 1 co , qui, par 11ne imprevoyance coup�e des co1J scquenc�s de son acle. n / ce d" voyan t ' es� ble imp coupa re quancl l a iteur e· ac e 11 a pas L' u se des precautions co111• mandees par les c1rco11stances el par sa sitiiation )ers onnelle l Intent and Negligence. VI. Art. 18. •

•

• •

off_ender shall be deen1ed to have c0111111 ittec I � felony or n1 1sdrn1eanor by negligcnce 1f the act is due to tl1 e offender JlOt f e ng 0[ not t�kin g into con ide a i r s e _ ,ci_ , s r t on the result of his Cttlpable conduct. Tile llt'gli�� nt t: 1 cu J)able if � l1e offtnde r did not act as cautiot1sly as ,x,as his duty tinder tile circttllis�ances and with regard to his personal situation. VII. Penal Code of Brazil ( 1940), Art. I? (2); Penal Code of Dennlark (1930} , Art 19; Penal Code of Greece (1950), Arts 'Jb l 1) 28 p na1 Code of Italy (19 30), 3; Penal Code of Poland (1932)' Ari · 14 ' (2) �• ;enal C Ode of Yugo�lav Art. 43, para. ia ( 1951), Art. , 7 (3) (4). T11e

Arts. 60-63. Guilt in Cases of Concurrent Offences or Provisions.

I , ' . I. I

Article 64. Acts Required or Authorized by La\v.

I. n:h"I r;1-1r1tc m.e-r r·r·tC. .+,1;. i·"Jctcl· n n,"h"'? f;J·Jrtt· w.r..-r f·r·tC..�t;.. .,• . .,,11�·-:;. ),·�.I!. m·�j!/.\ riry,r.1!,n<.', 'i'"'/.l'fl•J•m· 'r"rtv· :: n·J·A l',?" (11) ti ,h"'? a> ll''i 'l.rA'1"! f1·t. .Rcn,a,-·� \'�!1111 >-a1 /.\"?ft":,0 t"'/.- m ,I',?" f au "',"/,,_. �"'J',· rm ;J·.� f.."i rt"' &-- "'tC..�?. r \' "'l.oo1111 ·r: .,.., ,, c· ·l· (l, w 'I· n ( /\) ti .l�� n � 4114 d'I I\.'i"'C A 'I"' J!: lD 1) 1 .f {,\ !D lll• f rfl rt .r. ""/l 'J"' an •fl:;¥ (J:J !-','}" qf"' '! /"' l: ", :,. ,:7 (I '-.A'I° ,,.. Alfl'i"CC m,1) .:C,. .ri\:f a,- •J•"Jf} l!•:y. a.li'';· � (,ti) 0-�:J-sP:fi'i" m'1'i:f. f A·l· 111n- l'.J'11D• ,11 1 0>"11 'i� .ei\m• fr.m-fl:g, .::m".1�1:J. il iJ''.f ·�.I1, n;h•·J n-�1"·"11 t A) =t- 'h�. i;• ..,,, t-11 :Y-m· r·rJ. .r, ,.,. M.1 n· ·I·'?l1 c:J· fl. t.r'r· .,,J:'· 2: I I. Acts Required ar A,�t/Jarized b�Y Laui. Acts reqt1ired or at1lhorized by la\V do 11ot constit11le an off e11ce and are not runi·sh ablc in particular: (a) acts in respect l•f p11blic1 State or n1ilitary <lutii·s dOiJL' ,xritl1i11 li11.· li1ni:-. p,�r;11iitc:d by la\v; (b) acts reasonably done i 11 exercising· the right of correclir•n or di-.ciJ,lin�; (c) acts done in tl1e exercise of JJrivate rights recog11izrd J1y la, \'<"h(·re tht· concli tions and lin1its of tl1e exerc:se of s11cl1 rights are not txce,:ded. I I I. A ctes ordonnes ou adrnis par la loi. Ne constituent pas tine inf ractio11 el ne sont pas JJunissablcs \rs actes orclo1111l:S i">U autorises pa r la loi, notan1r11e11t s'il s'agit: (a) d'actes relevant cle fonctions publiq11es, elalic.1l!es ot1 1nilitaires, exercecs dans lcs lin1ites legales; 1'.', 11 d:11 ten 1e, 1 nin ili11 leg line cip dis cle ou ion ect n r cor cle it clro clt1 t e van (b) d'actes rel les limiles raisonnables usuelles; dans I� ca s ::.l'attei_nie _loi \a par t re en iai sicl sub is . adm rc o1:i r p e tic jus � s (c) d'acte de es en s01ent resrec tce s. 1t et hm s 1on d1l con les e qu t tan au r Jou it, illicite a ur1 clro I IV. Same as Avant-projet. V. Art. 32. Loi, drooir de fonction ou de profession. a r la loi, ou pa r un devoir de fonc p <\ nn do or � cte l'a 1 o1 � e constitue pas une iryfracti la loi declare perrnis ou non e qu te a.c l de e em m de t es en ti n; t1on ou. de professio punissabie. . . VI. Art. 32. Official Dt1ty. . l}1e la\V declares pern11ss1blt ich wh or 1ly �t l na sio es of pr An act ordered by law or r. no ea n1 cle 1s n1 or ny lo fe a ot or not punishable1 is n ly (1930). � rt . 5!, 11 ara. I; Ita of de Co l na Pe ; 20 l. A·r VII. Penal Code of 0 reece (1950), en al Code of Spain (1870, I944J, P ; 42 . rt A , 1) 88 (1 Penal Code -0f the Netherlands

. ,. '

. i

II,

1:-,

�

;

I ,.

'. '.,..

. .

''. . . . ', .. .. " I ': . . ,� , • '• . . ····,

. ... .. .. .. .. .· . .

" '••

I • •,

: .• t ' ';.:•, . . :.a:

. ...-

--------------- �---- -APPENDIX

402 Arts. 8 (8), (11), (12). Ari icle 65. Pofessional Duty.

I. r'l°.e !"Ir "IJJ...:1" u

'i 1 fl,ell"�'i fJ'fD/ >t.(!;/r"LtD• frJJt-tD• I ,"h°I TI°1..,,fn11.·J'..a,c tl'l°f /"Ira,. -'�1l . ."11!: Q)c/Jl_ faJJt,c \'JAtr} fl'fPf !'f1'4'-,:,1·� fTA 6/9 IDJ'.. !'f1'4''· tlll·�?° ;ftD IPJ'i '\,.e .R?° >-.t.� ,tD• f"t 0/\.'\ ff"/r d/y_:J· rn�,:,- f)aJJt,c(D« >,.t,J,mr • f'Pl,..{D• 0,"11 \l?"''i 'l°f m.('..'J'' .e.u�

nouil{II\

a,c 'iT ll«Jt ' 1·m 'h� lo ;,, -,..., U/tftl. " .,/'i f'rJ ·:i· fll -A nn ,hc 11, . nq::,-,1

I I. Professional Duty. An act done in the exercise of a professional dut y is not liable to punishment \vhen it is in accordance \Vith the accepted practice of the profession and the doer does not com111it any grave professional fault. Nothing in this Article sl1all affect civil liability.

I l I. Devoir professionnel.

N'est de meme pas punissable l'acte or�o!1ne par tt� devoir profe�sionnel, medica. l ou autre, pottr autant qt1'il reste dan� les l1m1tes des. exigences, des regl�s ou des usages re<;us de la JJrofession, et que l auteur ne s� so�t rendu coupable d aucune faute ou negligence professionnelle grave dans son execution. La reparation du do1nmage civil reste reservee.

�·, ,

r·I

�I

,J.

Il (1

IV. San1e as Avant-projet.

V. See Art. 32 C.P.S. supra at p. 401.

VI. See Art. 32 C.P.S. s1,pra at p. 401.

VII. None.

Articie 66. Consent of the Vnjuf'ed Person.

llt\ 1·n.tu,R.

�:P-,,_. n >t�.:t-1. m· f w &.m· ·r· "1tB c 11 ,'h1- Ar. .R."rfi r-,. TI n ti/\'i' f�.f n + m TI tr,- -,..,�m- m .e'I° n" >.c ftc tfjl!}'ili"' f{um- (J'i·n°1 ° ...,,,T 1•,>;,,e, (ll.F1'� llftlf'1'ra i1>111'r >i.e+cll!r1° a

I I. C'onsent of the Injured Perso11.

I I I.

IV. V-VI.

The consent of an injt1red party to tl1e con1111ission of a cri1ninal offence against him· self or a right he possesses does not relieve the offender of criminal liability. Consentement du lese. N'esr pas punissable celt1i qui met en peril Otl Iese un droit du consentement de la personne qui peut validement er1 disposer. Tot1tefoi�, le consent�1n_ent dt1 _Iese �u de l'ayant droit ne jtistifie pas !'auteur dans les ca_s ou l acte_ d_e celu1�c1 reste interd1t et punissable par une disposition speciale de la 101, que la v1ct1me so1t conser1tante Ott non. Consentement du lese Le _consenten1cnt du Iese a la co111mission d'une infraction contre un droit dont il peut val1deme11t disposer ne justifie pas le delinquant. No Swiss statutory counterpart.

VII. Penal Code of Italy (1930) , Art. 50 [1nodel for Avant-projet}. Article 67. Absolute Coercion.

I. 'i!�.?9 ftr'i ao7J!.}t n ll.1'1J!.a,c f"?.e··"i·/\ a,. Ii! R-1° f lr'i f n a>-)!f- ao7J.!� .l!C I" R:,., h '1J!: m'1lA f aJJt,. {I� f l"7if 111 1JJ!l7•· 1'4{.:,., >.,e+"I?° n hl11�� "n 1\-,.l,Raom« m l h't.C.. 1,,rrc; a I ) [� 37 � A . ( (Ji) ] A "?JJ...:J-t»- f:'11\.'if 'l°t,A -,�� 1:ll"'i }.�J.! IF) 'i!C� R.1: '>.°l.l!OD{ll\ a>- 'l>lfli:'1 /+AA:1-A tl;'f>trJ1: fltj:1\.� 'I� fl.fJ!..C7a,c .e"fl\A a [r . I 85 a} I I. Absolute Coercion. Whosoe�er com_mit? an offence under an absolute ph sical coercion which he co�I d not poss1bly resist is not liable to punishm n cio coe r the ent . The p�rson who exercised sh all answer for the offence. (Art. 32 (I), (c) ). _ When the coercion was of a moral kind the Court may without restriction reduce the- - -

tDf,r

.. .· '.• . ,.... . :.,.,.. :•··: .

' ...

APPENDIX

403

penalty (Art. 185) or n1ay impose no ptinishment .

Ill. Contrainte absol�. N'est pas punissable celui qu i accom )lit u l · 11 ,S? US l'elnJJire d'une contrain te 0 phy�ique absol�e, a l�quelle il lui e.tiit in1� �s �rir:ct1 d e resister. L'auteur de )a contrainI de nf_ r act1 n repo nd _con . 111,is e tc 1 (art 32 (l) (c) ). � . Lorsqt1e la co11tra1nte eta1t une contrainte e,. le Jll¥e attenuer 1 a libremetll 1� peine (art. 185) OU, dans les cas extremes pOttrr��rter JUSQtl'a l'exernption de peine. ' IV. Same as Avant-projet. V�VI. No Swiss statutory cottnterpart. VII. Penal Code of Germany (1870), Art. 52 (1)· Penal Code of Italy (1 930), Art. 46; Penal Code of Poland ( 1932), Art. I 9. Article 68. Resistible Coercion.

Article 69. Responsibility of Person Giving an Order. I. rn'\,e :,0)ill1f I f:,O}atl'11 llal.dJ• h'\,.7:,. a . A � 111 -.,c; ..-fl� l1 "• f n"' e. trrr� .en 'f-.r..I! ,-,u"'d P.. m· -r,..c,n� m J·ll fl· r" ii'· : .f!t :r rro � (IJ. -l-lttf1f \'fl:J-':f fl1")' II• r-r-tama,..-.,· :,.>,1 111 r1.1.1 i,·i,J! 11"1 a,· t . .&\_ � �A m'} � . ..., . >. . oo ,;A- 'h-tt"ltnOJe �}.11,1 OJ·'f!' lJAlJ'� ll•l•C. n·J ,.{',?, ro• a, 1"f..A l,I\� 1r.,; fl°1.•f•tflro· rn I\ r. >,tl-=fr )a,- • [� 58 • ( 3) a]

l\tm;��

II. See p. 206. III. Ordr, liierarchiquc. Responsabilitc de I'a1,teur de l'ordre.

IV. V. VI. VII.

•

En cas d'infraclion con1n1 i se stir l'ordre expres d' n u · ·eu r h' · rchi dn1inisi� ue, q r� ie _, 1 �� e p ! s . e r ; tratifs ou mil itaire, I' aut u de I' orc lre est � re po11sab d 1 a te execut e pa.r le suoalterne · et punissable d ans Ia mesure ou cet acte 11e depasse pas l'ordre qu'il a doni1 e (art. 58 (3) ). Same as Avant-projet. Art. 18. {Code Penal Mi/ii.dire Suisse). ,. I. Si �'executio!1 �·un ordre de. service constitue tin cr i n1e 011 1Ln di�lit, l e s:1.pcr1e;s; ��1. a donne 1 ordre est pt1n1ssable comn1e a11teur cle !'infraction; _ See p. 207. 'J _ JJara. -· · Penal Code of Greece ( 1950), 1\rt. 21,· Penal Cocle of ltalvJ ,,1930), Ari. SI,

Article 70. Responsibility of the Subordinate.

I. ft'h•l"tl d..P."'l.a>- '1'°1'-�r 1: I. t}.1111 "-"'tYTf,a.,., 'h'�.?r.t.�-� f;J·1r1101· ,.,,,,. �1:r1 '"l m•.sJ.b (i'r•tr�--�'i· n·J·J\.t•,9•• ,, 1 11r 011. iJ :i·.,,h II,, I\ ,.e. ,,,t:\ 111 "'I f \' t\." tD• C," t' •'1.t.7, ,n•(D• ·l· ..,'1 r: OJ'i]!A V'">'•""1 t fl ,11 "l?'".. \' ·i· 11 (\ ·11 ti 'i' \"ft/• '° •fll4•111 our.r".r-�, 'hJ'm,J• n·r·".f.?'" \'·l·/...?.lfl•m· ·l·"'tflc: r)'i:ll oo"J.�A tP,e.?'' � :1•,ni\ ;11,1•.'J'" 0 .tpiJ•-r>�· .l'\,l', m_i•.'}..' fl,h·n1.:,. 'P'i 'P'i" 1·fl OJ11 fP .l�<l/< IJ(lsPl- 'l.e, IP.!'.?° llt11l•f-l· 11>!!,'1° "" .,ecf•m.A i.: l1'6i , '11\tf 4-·J: ll-r '.,r (J.11 ."J >..l! .· au11:,. "1.e, fl.lll "?A� rtr� b'II --

I I

{.J'IJ

, \'J.?.o :,.>,11 11 '-"'°l.llt' /""I /"COr"'J rao,nfl�•'i" far,;J•tJ11 ll'�=,- hJ!,·l!"U!'J· 0 {Jl\fD• r�1.mfl"Jll1·"1 �-m:,, tt.,J':J• . flo 0:, •·10 1101 :i· �'l 1J; >,(l i tl•' >i•J rt : fl.1 ">t1-.1! lf"� J fi!CJ!' AA I\:,. .e, 'f'I A 11 (.,..... I 8 5 r:} "' 't /''r. ?. t .R� h6. · .O:it /"C .C: :J·.P fto �l.tf11 6'.J\°1.m• ,r,f•.:0,-. 11.1.1m· floP�'?l":'f- /"l.,'i" = :J· 11011t<. ,,y n,1 ll· !J OD flfl c 1r1 t1� nov ''i >'F :J•a ttflD , r··· 11J :,-1. " o:,. 110,.1n1-".P.m- 1·<11Jc IF6i 1t'"IA1t· n1·l.J} 1. 1 ,. : 0,1 :.e: 'i!t "i 11·� 00 :J:A oP t1fl ·1:, y<1 tt.r � �,1 .R?° n+c "-I\ f-t·W n (ID :,.,,.-r:,. flc,o.h- f\.f n+cn:,. ,::f l\A " .!)-), tr1r·

,. .�. I! rr�

nt-r,. 7 .l!l 11-"° , rr� . --r4 :,-�1 )01 \'tr "P.OJ· 3. -l-ltlf� 1.,,,.-,_,,,. 11 1·llni,,,. �},11 1, l',•J· 1J1A ., · . 11·,; 4'· >.."1 11:fr:� ,, n:,e ... 7 ... l1 11.1! 11 nt.1 II. Sec p. 206. 111. R.tsponsabilite de l'executant. caraclere i llic ite co1npt e du u cl n re t es s: i l (t) J_'executant est egaleme nt pu 11 issa bIe s' et clu caractere son at1teur, cle e nc le JJe 111 co de de l'ordre I notarnment a defaut

It .. ·."' i

;

I .:

I '. .. .. I , I.• • '

II. ::, .

. ' ,,. .' '''. '- . !'

;::: ' '.·1

-·-1

. .

APPENDIX

404

e� d�, viol, d'in d _ i ic, om s ca d'h en nt n1e �am no , cte l'a de e ibl ns crinlinel et reJJrehe contre. l 1ntegr1te des pere av gr � en ern est n!f ma n tio rac inf tre au ne cenclie ou d ' ti le dro1t � es gens. ou s 1el nt se es ics bl pu ets ter in ' Jes s, en bi s 5011nes ou de e�t d'un devo �r t1� le sen e squ lor 85) 1 t (�r !ne pe la J ent �m ibr ; r_e juge attenuera , , pl!r I acte ordo nne; om t ac� an � cut exe I ne 11 ern det a nce ssa be1 d'o ou de discipline . 1mper1eux de ce devoir. 1ns mo 011 s plu ere act car du t, san fai ce , pte com ii tiendra s les circo i, dan ne pei nstances la e n o _ pti � . en1 l'ex a qu' jus � r alle rra _ pou . e jug Le (2) ent str�c.tes de la lem c1a spe ces en x1 d t fa1 d ent nm � ta1 no � et r, µ, lie i t tic , dti cas par d�ns des cond1t1�ns . telles ce pla 1t eta t 1t�n ec1 l'ex re, itai ntil 011 t1e tiq eta e lin cip dis re rei;u et d ag1r auI qu'il ne lti i etait praliq11ement pas possible de d1scuter ord trentent qu'il n'a fait . t est seul et pleine(3) En cas de depassen1ent intentionnel de l'ordre rei;u, l'executan 1nent responsable de son exces. . San1e as Avant-projet Art. 18. (Code Pen,,l Militaire Suisse). 2. L'lnferieur est aussi pt1nissable s'il s'est rendu compte qu'en executant l'ordre ii participait a la con1n1ission d'1111 �rime ou ..d'un delit; dan,� c �. cas, cependant, _ le juge JJe11t attent1er librement la pe1ne, ou 111eme exempter l 1nfer1eur de tot1te pe1ne. II est ainsi lenu con11)te de la sitt1ation particuliere (hierarchie et discipline mil itaires) da.ns laquelle se trot1ve l'i11ferieur me1ne coupable. See p. 207. I)enal Code of Greece (1950), i\rt. 21; Penal Code of Italy (1930), Art. 51, para. 3. 1

IV. V.

VI. VII.

1\rticle 71. Necessirv. ' I . h ll 4t"i 1. r lf'�m-1' h.l�; i-1 :r t10 ·r· d\ Ii "'i! r.:: '1A '1'•l•ao-"", ro.e'r' f�nl\'rlt1n=i" r"'"l.7'1a>·"t \"l\,'\W,,� itatc �11l-r ll'i! ttl\'i" nnttm >..I!.? fl."7 -'i''t n ;h ,. (ID JP l.1· ll"l'�.1-;;: 11"' \'t:ry•• f ll cJ>m r"llJ c. YIP t-- Y"?. 111m-� 00111:� fl/\.'\ "r.e�:,- oo'} if: fl cry ?,"'1 () I\ cmY:tr 9°'il ''l.t' !'f· 0°1.e.: �, 11&'.I\ 7. trS°O 1'· ti 11 {.. htf flfl 1.r�;J-?>:f ;11,,. n -,.0011tt> ,ra,0f 6.f 9'":f- ro ""1lA flw.t-, hfi'l�lfl?° u 11. Necessity. An act wl1ich is perfor1ned to protect fron1 an imminent a. n d serious danger a legal righ_t belongjng to the person who J)erformed the act or a third pa.rty is not liable to pun1sl11nent tf the danger could not l1ave been otl1erwise averted and the doer used 1neans proportionate to tl1e require1nents of the case. I I I. Et.at de necessite. N'est pas pun!ssable l'acte, ton1bant en principe sous le coup des dispositions pe nales, accompl1 po11r preserver d'un danger notable et imminent un bien juridique ap part en ant a l'a11te1�r �u a un tiers, si c� da�ger ne. pouvait et're detourne autrement _ et s1 1 , auteur a use de 1noye11s proport1onnes aux c1rconstances. IV. Same as Avant-projet. V. Art . 34. Etat de neccessit.e. 1. �orsq�1'11n acte aura ete. co111mis J?OUr preserver d'un danger imminent et impos stbl� a �etour�er autrement 1111 �1en appa.rtenant l'auteur de l'acte, notam ment la v ie, l .1ntegr1te. corporelle, I l1berte, l'honneur, le patrimoine, cet acte ne scr� pas puniss_able s1 le dan�er n�etait pas imputable une faute de son auteur ;t si, nc dans les ctrco e n stanc es mena ou c l'actc a ete bien comm _ is, du le sacri fice _ " pouva1t etr e ra1sonnablement exige de l'autcur de I'acte. 1

a a

'' ' ' '' '

•

2· �or�qt i'un acte aura ete co1n1:11is pottr preserver d'un danger imminent et im_ possi�le a detourner at i�rement un b1en appartenant autrui notammcnt la vie, l'1ntegrtt� . S1 c,orporelle, la �1bertc, l'honneur, le patrimoine, cet a�te sable ne sera pas punis l a_utettr potivait se re�dre con1pte que le sacrifice du bien menace pou vait etre ra1son nable1nen� ex1ge de celt1i auquel le bien appartenait le juge attenuera _ ' l1bren1ent la pe1ne (art. 66). YI. Art. 34. Present Danger. 1 · f n act coinmitted by a person to sav e his life1 person freedom honor or prope�Yc rorr:i an in:iinediate danger which cannot , ;hall not ld otb e:.W be ave ise rted cou punishable if the danger was not caused he if r fur by the the offender and t e ex pe ct ed under the circumstanc e s to make this sacrifice. · �� . �

l ':

APPENDIX

405

2. Tl1e act s con11nitted by 011e person to ave tbe 1!fe , person, freedom hon proper ty of anotl1er from a n i inmediate � n e or hic ca n is . not punishable If the offender was abl� t� rew ni� e not be averted other;ii: n�1ght �e exJJecte� to n1ake the sacrifice of lh� �� z t hat t �e threatene d perso � d1scrt't1on, s hall impose a less severe 1,enalty (Art. a n �� red thing, th e court, in its 66 VII Penal Code of Greece (1950) Arts 25 (l) (2) ' 32 ; p enal Code of It aly (1930) Art 54 para l; Penal Code of Nor\vay (1902) 'Art · 47_ p enal Code of Yt1goslavi� ( 1951 ): ' ' Art. 12 ( 1 ). (2). 0

Necessit y. Article 72. Excess of Article 73, Military State of Necessity.

Article 74. Self�Defence.

I. I ll\ ,'h;J'I! ai,t,'\ l1 A ( ilA >iA ,U:,0 11.r. 1· -'"-J:��:,. n) 1,.(11' m.e?o 1\.1\lJJ-'� m .f.'r \' t-0'', CD e,�• \'/bl\ nm•.., r.• •· t,,,'I! au 11:,. ,1)7 m -1' b 11' ) "1':J-t (J)_,,,9•• n m � l\•� r. n b ""I•:1- A ,., •� ;; I\ r.-1J,, .,'f l }..e.;J ID• fD P.?" • • " -1' '<1•1: h'7� ,e..e.r.n fl.Cl'/.e;l."? l

"'r...,

JI. Ill. IV. V. VJ.

l\.i"i (ID'',7,P.: 11,e'i' {: llO-�; •IJ>• Onfl)�/ (}"'0-.."'r.< .,,-,• 11 / 11'"1• ,.�A,••,_ > /T �.f.:JtIJ-'', 'tll }!f,'-" r tn<f!d'4 r l tJct:•J•f )':,. n ""/ GU 111 1rs, II ht\ 'l°:,O '1.e .,. :,;; ,.e.)+ r-tl J!� 7 IIJ• ou"n't ti A >a;+ni� : '7 '-""'f :

See p. 221. See pp. 221-222. Same as Avant-projet. See p. 222. See p. 222.

.. '. ·-

ji',

t ..

Vil. Penal Code of Greece {1950), Art. 22; Penal Code of Italy (1930) Art �ry. p 1 c d. _ Art. 48, paras. (1), (2); Penal Coe.le of Yugoslavin (1951.)�Arl.rlnla(l) �2). of Norway (1902), Article 75. Excess in Self-Defence. Article i6. Mistake of fact.

I. 110< :;e.:J· ,o . ii fl on ti If:,(I)

'1.�·.t-?1: l\..fl'l'n:,.t\ \'�1"1\LIJ-<"}' 71 r.""1,11� �1f: '1•1·,)r,,,, $"'i�,,r.; ilt-m"/alJ:�. u;�;ti·f·:,. il"",t;�, 'f'"TC,,I"-¥- tIJ1'1.:t\ ftJJ .&. (JO>• \"QTl. ,f,tT)al'• flll.lJ• (Ill (�i ·J··i·ei' ..,'),.. �[• iK �!,, t�m· r.;-,r,:., f_'[l{j)"J 7fJ.,,.,, ,n"'7:-f:A na11 /".&.-:,C },llfl f'U!l.1t»· 01,u•1t- ,··J·7n.R 1\1'� Ir1 .,,..�. �·:Ti�· i,ftJ!.i:f1n::;•1.... ! rt�,, "'1?° ft. n- r'? A o-:r. :J· r°1•.r11 u w-·� ·1·°111..t-'I! ·1.1:_,;1· t1 (TI' ti·J· t.t 'i'"'i :J•<r? n o>J,:: l.'�� rt1·1 ;;:'!'/..... >,.? "11 "'l.. r n-�,:,. a "1 au 1111 '7, n n II, -t· + 'i.e. "h··,.q.e.m J!·;s, l'l .:P U"'t {1. ":I· A fD "'i:� f.\ r 2/\J l1 )] ''i.�: 11·� 11 )i..,J?. )I.V , �m· 1. II. "h'},4.cl•t11 fl ,'h''l r•1·�<>/It rf· (I.U''':1 H Sf Si·;-�·')'.!'�· , '.rJ• 01/;1 tl (

(cf.-.. 59 a) (2) m·�j!A \'O'J.IJ''}- �7t:·� lllJ<t:J• 01>lJti:r- fJ!.l1 i!eir .eu fJ.�cw0• fU:11·1·:1, },.�t.1·1� fl,•) f-ry,fll4>"11 a>"r}s:A >-n'n:,•"° "h"tJ! 11") OllV�� 7'-_ei'ai: 'IJij•.rra:r- hY,,?:'"rr ti (3) flilfJJ• l\.f'. aJ.f'.9° 1\11.P.h- rn. .,.r:i- lltr}m- i1C '\,e. r-r·.e.1.111r GPl){J:;- a,"1},_1.t\ as,tr7·''1

htn+cr ::

II. See p. 232.

Ill. Erreur de fait. (1) Celui qtti a commis une infraction en agissant sotts l'inflttence d't1ne appreciation on. iati rec app a te cet nt me me for con e jug a ser l),, ree l fai e de one err de la sitt1ation J . b Toutefois, le s a nis pu s pa est n ur ute }'a e , Si elle exclut toute intention delic1uell on ati _ s par sa situ � de an corn s on uti ec pr les t an en pr en s'il po11vait eviler l'e rreur � � sable n1s pt1 est n o t1_ l rac e inf d r te� au 1 , 61) t. (ar s ce personnelle e t pa r les circonstan lle-c1. pour negligence au cas oil la loi prevoit la repression de ce 'empe� he p s la n e ne ! rn te� de on . �ti ra inf � a (2) L'erreur stir le fait qui constitue une l 11 qu e fai l 1t ra se al1 re e qu ion ct fra in e tr punition de l'auteur pour une au

accompli. 'infraction commise n'abolit l de t e bj l'o (3) L' erreu r stir la personne de la victin1e ou pas celle-ci. IV. Same as .A. vant-projet.

.I ,...: ' I ' .. ' .. , •

t• .

' I ..

I' . .. ....

j' (

.. : " .. 'j I ; �'• •

I ,. •

..•: ..t.

-------------- � APPENDIX

406

V. Art. 19. E11·eur s11r Jes Jaits. ee de s faits sera juge d'apr es on err ion iat ec JJr ap 1ne d'1 ce e11 f}t1 l'in s sou i ag ra ati Celtti qui cette appreciation si elle lu1 es t favorablt. . , tions voulues est punis cau s pre de nt usa en eur r _ !'er it�r v e it uva po i qu t Le delinqtian lit de 11egligence. de ,e mn co t ac n so 1e r1rr rep 101 la si e, nc ge gli ne ur sable po VI. Art. 19. Erroneotts Concept o} tl,e Facts. ts, al If tli e offender act s in an erroneous conception of ti,� actu fac ,the court_ shall er render a decision favorable to the offender on tl1e ba�1s of the latt s �once�tton of r bt g th� erro ct1n id _avo to e wit� �ue abl en e b_ l1ad r nde offe � tl1e If s. fact ting exis tl1e caution, 1,e shall be pt1nisl1ecl for negligence, provided that the negl1g1ble comm1ss1on of the act is p11nishable. VI I. Penal Code of Brazil (1940), Art. 17; Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 30; Penal Code of Italy (1930), Arts. 47, 48, 59, 60; Penal Code of Norway. (1902), Art. 42; F:>enal Code of Polancl (1932), Art. 20 (l); Per1al Code of Yugoslavia (1951), Art. 9. Article 77. Imaginary Offence. Article 78. Mistake of Law and Ignorance of law. iY I fl,)1 "1 i\ e • {JI\ ooi\1,:,-c; ttb°l'.., ill\/\ 1ro•l• 21 1. nflD.P.O· 4 ...,r. om· n"f4.·f: 1.?. /\cwro-,11:,- ih01·1r },l\"'ftD4�'1' ?°n'1'.f-r /\tflf�l"l h.e'fA'I° 12 ., 6llf '1r' 11),£:"7ill� 1,r'�·I: VrP&.m� i1Di1/\0:,•'i' .eu , .f.f.l1t1r'1' 0'P'1' AU.'i'" /\ iY'/f:l'? 11D1) :X· f i"ilD« {I fr<>:'f·'-," tJ{llIJI) IJ !'J· {\01>.e:l(l·9° fl •l!'r 'hC"l m;;: 9°TI'1'.f T i\l\tl14 llt114 'i!Cf: fl,i: ,'J•t•J·f:", il<W(Jf\m· Y:J•t\Ai\:J·t\ n (,f.... . 185 r.) ,,:c.e.· n.-1: iz•,111·..., \''�1.wr,101· )1i1,11·1·:,- f.e.lrtll!f· .,, 1··n·�,:,- ll-t/\_e9° rn,"h1-1: .,'i" .. f'l7{'.� /l l'J {J fl. Ir �:J• fl CJiP '/ OU!f- "J(D• :i 2. Vm'1'�l\�'l·I: ·l·"lflC "lt:\7'· r.r� .ft\:J·r lt.11''1', 114! ?°'rl.,t.f-r l\,.1�fl!'f- fl"'l.'fA 'i!R-9° ntri fl'P1' Ari·')' \'·r.l!.l1 I.I'� it·,� 'i!C.e: O,·J: tJ,p/1}:,• 'l-R 'hfltl ootr'1' l\.J.f.Cilt114 J!,°:i·I\A 12 3. 0}'7�1\-;:ro- rl6..R01Pt!>• IJ'tj.:,- ?0 \J"tJ':,-« iII\J!llllD• 1-,«;:,-« 'n"! htl4-'-.A fl'i!-rth 1lth.C llb-t\ (11)

fli'ed\6''l!r ,f'.,nfJJ,A ::

i I I

II. See p. 238.

• I

I 11 . Erre,,r de droit et ignorance de la Loi. (I) Nul ne peut e11 principe arguer de !'ignorance de la loi poltr s'exct1lper.

l '

IV V.

VI.

. !

VI I.

., I

\rticle 79.

Le jt1�e atten_t1era t�tttefois libreme11t la pei11e {art. 185), a l'egard de celui qui a _ co1nn11_s tine 1n_fr;<1ct1011 en s_e croya11t de bon11e foi en droit d'agir, et qui ava1t des ra1sons JJrec1ses et suff1santes de sc trot1ver dans cctte erreur. II fix:ra la peine e11 te11ant �c1_t1itablen1e11t compte des circonsta11ces, et notam ment des ra1sons ot1 des cond1t1ons JJl11s ou 111oi11s exct1sables de l'erreur. (2) Dans les cas. e�cep_ti?11nel� d'ign?ra1�ce et de bonne foi absolttes et jt1stifi_ees, �-t l?rsqtte !a cr1n11nal1t� de l acte 11 eta1t pas apparente, le juge pourra aller 1usqu a l exen1pt1on de la pe1ne. (3) L'autet1r de I'i11fractio11 reste civile111ent res1Jonsable du dommagc cause. Same as Avant-projet. Art. 20. Erre11r de droit. La pe�ne pour_ra etre attent,1�e libre1ne � par le jttge (art. 66) a l'egard de celui qui a . . co�ini� u� cr1111� ou tin del1t alo_rs qu�11 ava1t des raiso11s suffisantes de se cro1re en droit d ag1r. Le Juge pourra auss1 exen1pter le prevenu de tou peine . te Art. 20. Erroneous Concept of the Law.. !f tl_ 1e o_ffend�r commits tl1e act believing he has legal justification for it , the court _ 1n its d1scret1on n1ay reduce the punishment (Art 66) or ma y refrain from imposing sentence. Penal Code of Brazil (1940), Arts. 16, 48; Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 31; P n l Code of Italy (l930), Art. 5; Penaf Code e Cod Pen al 57; f ;1 of No Art rwa . y (190 2), � 0 0 and (1932), Art. 20 (.:) ; Penal Code of Yugoslavia (195 I), Art. 10. General Extenuating Circumstances.

I. mil-1\1\ fi},/l}!'f- u., :J,/\f 1°'1"}.f�l- u I. 'i!C.�· n.1: 11,-,...,. b1-.P.�·11m- '-1>-lJ� lJfA'i= +lf'w 111. .,.,nb-t:.:,. JDni-,-,.l- tm�� ""'" .

�-,·: . .. ...�·:· ,, ,; . ·. . : , . . � . ,, . . �

, ,·

.. .

APPENDIX

407

AA f"t°fAtJJ- [r. 184 •] (IJ) }IJ':l,.1.tJJ').lJt} JJJt.n:,- "l_Jf. .,•li'I f}lfDrC tnf '- ODA 'han o ll''I'r f111 ,., '1' .,..,. l 0 I.... 4.111-'J° ObtD-"71: t1D7"-�A I fll\"7mcJ- Ooo--,t., 11 AA}!'t I ID�?° llA;f-"O'-' ,. . • O .l!l 1 ,.� ,-.:,111rtt ,_,.-" 11) I (/\) ,e1i--, aJ1'l:A f.1JJt.GJ- fi"ttfll ?'.. . 'n �1:'f-1' llaoti+A I m�?u lJ'i! fl\ ,nq e. '\ , . . f\m• f\ I e, a ,,;:, . I /\'l° t,.A c; l\'I UI\ � }.?9 ',:,- 'h -,.1! 11") I • (,I,) a,--,tA f LJJ,t.m- llOJc fh 'tfA m, e?° roo...,t..n / -':l•,f••P.C{I n:,. m ,e.r• 'h'i! Sfl i'l.l!;J f"? Joo 111 ')-1 C f1·:J• "l O:,.. on ll /\0:'f- m J!. ... ,, on rJJ l. :,. sft m• 'i: c 11:,. h.l!' C" 11:,. 01 J.',,,.. J!...,� tt.:J"H11i\:'f- t'°l 10t11- m.�'r flCi't- /".A111--, ,-V f" ;:. 'l.1·-'i.l!r. fU'} },'-,f. U"'i'l (oi,) fTll.£!1\dt• {la>• tnlJ,f. t1·,1c·.r. t..·1·c,· 't,r. "l..1\->:,a W,f.'r" .l�?D 'n',.l.!6..'I -�J.! .:,• m. �·. '/" nr:J-f, '\ft- h,e;t:fl:,.. w,e?° f i· fl.l!A,mc llOJc J.'�l.1m· �-o •J>ll:1•7i}!f· ,u 1.r ·t··iq_ '" fAlf'rtD- n,e.A h}"'f f '.y.-:,. ro e,'J�.. J!." 1'1" 'n'i! J'll �,ll1,P,�'),1• ,fi\111• ao7J.ll't \'°ti\ , ID-'f n""£:0,. tJ) ,f,'JD ,.-,1·�.r l' fl/\ m• f01,•.,'-ll [),c 'h !'f• I\J'. 0111,11-· :,- h..,.l� W'i j (..,) 01·.nft-r n·r·n>;r. hil.C."\1.m-· � 'hr.Ji: · 11 °1.r.:l."l 'l'. f.·l:''1 o,o.,r, ">1�"'7, A'i!C.l!.· 'll\/"'1:t JJ).., nOIJ l) (0:,. l 'fq.•J: I\ ,I!,('. (l lD• 'J• .'j :,- fl •J• ;J:" (Rt (0 '', fl 01J ll lJ (JJ.., y: fl•.., '(I IV _t. fl:•,, I\ 0.�l.11D- 'r�.:,- Jl"ha>•)':,, T��-f. "h'�.C! U"'J ',ID• u 2. Rih'1- Af. '\l'i!.A OJ-{l'f O·l- 1\f .e.··',;11. ), �JI.U IJ•'l.;J·s,>;1-. .�r. �.O·J· ,rr�- l\try_.r.l"lfi!'f· m·}:�A OD!f:*"'L.f 1 mf..9•• I\�· 1rt ·J: ""I ii· I\ .r 1•·),_,, .r -r-:Y· .t•.u·"r·:J·A n �'l.An :'f• 1.1 r, \" (J)..,i11.··1 <1• lil !'j· nrP/,JJn/:\ l"t.A 'i:r..e.- n.J: f..U'� t.,.�:J· ;;,.1m,� r·,1·'i.r.:Y. fi••l' � c1m• i-if.l·I.\�... c II. G(neTal Extt!nuating Circ1,ms�1nces. (1) The Court may reduce the pena l t)', \x1 ithi11 the Iin1its allo\vecl by la\,:, (Art. l 84), in the foll o\ving cases: (a) �1hen the offencler wl10 previot1sly of good character acted without thought or by reason of l ack of i11tell igence, ignorance or si111plicity of n1ind; (b) \vhen tl1e off encl er was pro111 fJlecl by an l1011ourable ancl clisinteresled 111otive or by :1 l1igh religio11s, 111oral or civil conviclio11; (c) when he acted i11 a slate oi great rn::iieria l or 1nor:1l clislres::; or 11ncter the apprel1ension of a grave tl1reat or a j11slifiecl fe2i': or under tl1e, influenc,· of a person to ·Nhon1 11e owes ol1edie11ce or HiJOil ,vhon1 l1e der1 en<.1s; (d) when l1e \\°as led into grave len1ptalic>n by the co11duc� of the victi:�1 or '.''�.s carried av:ay by \-rralh, pai11 or revolt cause<.! i?Y a �erlt?L!S JJrovo'..::111on �)r ,2.1� unjust insttlt or \"''as at the tin1e of tl1e :ict 111 a Just1f1r1.l,le state of v10!1.:n1 etnotion or rnental distress; (e) wl1en he manifcsied a sincere repen l a11ce for his ::icis ;,.flc1: U1e offence., ii! particular by affording s11cc?�r lo J1is vicli�1:. rec niz�1: � �11s__ r. auli or :1 �� , 1)0 ::isil)l.., tl1�, ing himself up to the aull1orll1es, or by re1Ja11111g, ,.s f a1 ,_s J catlsed by l1is offence. (2) \Vhen the la\"t.' i11 a· SJJecial provisio11 of the 5.J)ecial f:> :irl, has_ i�ki:.n . <: !1('. 0� · these circumi:tances into const·ct erat 1· 0 11 as a consl1'u - l 1.::·· nt elcn1t·11t 01 as � f,1cto1 ol. , · · 1e.. -<:a1ne 1�-1111 t o..,11(-)'.··,· · ' _ 1 10'' at extenuation of a JJr1vi l eged nff�nce, t} 1e c-·o t 1 1·t 111ay , for the san1e circun1stance to recl1ice tl1c tJenally apJJ l icabl e lllet 1:ln.

a,,-z,n...,

}

' .

I. ' .

I ••

.'''

'I;;��-�.:

Ill. Circonstar.ces attenuantes genera/es. . I 84), t (ar loi . r la pa ees iix es 1ii lin (I) Le juge pourra alten11er l a JJe1ne, les �. cla1·1 dans les cas suivants: 11 1·1e c n b o ' e t " ! 1 · �� t1e 9 1 j11s et rs tou tou ttl ) (a lorsque l'auteu ' s p r 1t o i ;_ · r de ] infractio,.n, aya . e , gnorauce, s11 • 11JJ l 1c1 te ct duite, a agi )Jar manque ct 111le 11-igence, 1� l'improviste et par sur1Jrise; . - • 011 . · t,eres<:e · l1onorabl e e l d,esin (b) lorsque !'auteur a ag1 en ce'd· a11 t ,a un 1no.b1le · ee ev el re tu ' e na d e iqu civ ou e ral 111o par une conviction religie11se, ' le profonde , ou a or m ou le iel er at n etre sse (c) lorsqu'il a agi da11s 11n etat de d · . t,d'une crainte fonclee, 011 encore CJl� e ) SOUS }'impression d'trne t11enace grav Oll dont ii ce an ss ei ob it do il e ue aq 1 a sous l'ascendant d'une 1Jerso11ne depend'· . . . 1n1e, ou ct v1 la de te ui nd co la a {d) lorsq u'il a ete induit en te11tat1o n grave IJ � ne provoca d'u nt ulta res e o't 1 l a Otl cntraine par la colere, la do1!l� 11r i1vail dans 1111 tro se 'il squ " �� lor n e 011 lion serieuse 011 d'11ne offense 1nJt15le, .11que�J·ustifie· l c psy e l 11b etat d'emotion violente ou de tro

i .: , I

1 ·::: .f ' ��

r !

. .,

i .•." " ,

APPENDIX

408

e par ses act_es· apres }'infraction, notam cer sin ir ent re un ste r1ife ma a 'il squ lor p (e) nt sa f�ute ou se livr ant rnent en portant secours a sa victime, en reconna1ssa la justice, ou en reparant, dans toute la mesure du possible, le dommage cat1se par son infraction. la �art_ie speciaie, a r len de iere u ti par n itio pos ! dis une s dan � loi, la e squ , (2) Lor � � st1 ou ut1f con fa � �teur d atte une de ces memes circonstances en tan t qu element _ nuation d'une infraction priviligee, le jt1ge �e peut s1111ult_anement appl1quer encor e la meme circonstance pour dirninuer la pe1 ne de celle-c1 .

IV. Same as Avant-projet.

,I '

V. Art. 64. Circonstances atten11antes. Le juge poura atten11er la peine: Iorsque le coupable aura agi en ceda11t un 1nobile honorable, dans une detresse profonde, sous l'impressio11 d'une menace grave, laq11elle il doit obeissance ou de laquelle ii de sous l'ascenda11t d'u11e personne pend; Jorsqu'il aura ete incluit en tentation grave par la condt1ite de la victime; lorsqu'il a11ra ete entraine par la colere 011 par une douleur violente, produites par une provocation injuste 011 une offense i1nmeritee; Iorsqu'il aura n1anifeste I Jar des actes 11n repentir sincere, notamment lorsqu'il aura repare le dom1nage auta11t q11'on pouvait l'attendre de lui; lorsq11'un temps relativement long se sera ecoule dept1is !'infraction et que le delin quant se sera bien comporte pendant ce temps.

VI. Art. 64. Extenuating Circu,nstances. The court 1nay n1itigate the sentence: if the offender acted from honest n1otive�, be cause of pressure of personal need, tinder serious tl1reat, or at 111e s11ggestion of a person to wl1om he O\Yled obedience or on wl1om he \vas dependent; if the offender was seriously terr1pted by 1he cond11ct of the i11jured person; if he was overcon1e by anger or considerable anguish because of an unj11st provocation or outrage; if he has proved hin1self sincerely repentant and particularly if l1e l1as made restitution for the dan1age, insofar as l1e was able to do so or if a comparatively long period of time has elapsed since the offense and the offe11der has lived 11prigl1tly for that entire period.

r I

VII. Penal Code of Greece (1950), Art. 84; Penal Code of Italy (1930), Art. 62; Penal Code of Portugal (1886), Art. 39; Pe11al Code of Spai11 (1870, 1944), Art. 9. t 'J

Article 80. Special Circumstances: Family Relationship or Relationship of Affection. Article 81. General Aggravating Circumstances.

!I i

J . iJ, 111:,.� l1 I\ °1...l' n1l Ji. mer,'\ I\ ?°ti'}f·Y.� • I . ti If.U cJ>"l' h0 f·l· 01J/\ "n 1::,0 9° \l"} .l'.f!':f, fl;, n1 ,w. 1. tt. ti:C .� R.-J: 11 ih-,. I\,e 111"m{I'ia>- .l!'}11(l oYf_t.:P.�m· 01,.,.,1.:,- if•111-r-:r,.� ",_,nn.� fd'/.:!f-1\o:,. •- [r. 188} (r,) >-i.��1.m · 1'"1'4f.·J:� .,...,'le: ft<.�oum· flnth ,&;.'iT m,e.9° nmn'\:t-'iT I m,e'I° nn+. 1110.e'i floo•r,.-: OODl\ I fl•l!OD'1'i:,- I t)(Dl,.J;'i!f· r >t/Jfic'} '1°1'i'>f�"IT I m,e'I° 11\1+. t;:1\1:,0'i 1°i1'1T ! OD"f ,.-: 'i1 C"t I\ auf�· /.. :,S'i" {I a,.�� I\ OD1·.'; T Ii!�'I° t...4>.e.i:1 fl oo� 1 IDft,r .P.°1'1° t\r. fllf'i t>.f.!'f·'i" fl� ll�'iT vrr'i 'h't.l! tr'iI (/\) .m"r:e_:1\-t� flJJ/..o:,. f°;ftr-;J·m·"', Ft\111'} t1011m' }' IIO'flJl\'i: flh�S:"'- r,.�;J· m.e.'r flt"' /..OJ• flooont1:,S'i" 'h�.';.V-?" fl�(I. (l001"°7ou'} 01·{1mo:,. Rll'\,e'i1: m,e'r flll"t" A"' ",'i-J: 1• OU\)-f. }."'J,(! tJ' 'i ! l! '} ° A f h (, ) -,-4.:,...., 'l°f tDf,?'' t\O'f� >,.t!-C1 f.('Jf I fa>:,0(!" ;J-&'n- 01"1\l' hJ!1-;:'i1:� ?.1 1' }t , tr'i m.er- fm'}:e:rr ht.l\.P.1° 011:t-m-'r" ll"l.tt.m· .l't..�?a'I° JfJ!.¥>':i-"r ,eA41 -.,,r on.l\.:'f flaof"'i.,.:,. it11c� m,e.«r ooa,T' } 9°\l'}.fT no?.t!-l.dJ m,e'I° f/JlC 11Dr>f&J9'°f4i'i 1\.1\-l·'}'I° h.l!111':Y. OD'>f � f¥1":f.'} IIauf11 '>l'}J! tr'i f ( 11P) '1'4-1:"r ft. ?.au a,. 61 '}�A /\ aot"'1,.:,- ti 1"IJ II "- a>'} O.l!.¥1":(. ;,&- naon"101/T "'ft1° ;, ,-r'r /\OW/ta:t.n tl'f' !ll!lloo• tlm'}�A OJ'}fl.l!,.SJ>:f ;11,. °1-lOl-,.� fl,n,tr'} ftA.4!"11° 'h·� .l! tD°t fl.11..SJ>",f 1n:1° 61f,'1° hJ!4'-j( m_er ao& llaotr'} ftr'i 'h"rJ! tr'i I ( 1") fl {) �CD- I fl ,n.'} 'i1: I fl 'l·C!"CD-'J flt"'&-m• IJ-�:J• Ai f"1'fl .4> J!::J'i! 11-Uif� I) 111' ftf,,..,

•:

APPENDIX

409

-,.r._e9° noob'\bA o-J>r flA-1\ . o , o ").C.ll .P.ll°'7 ntr� 110111� llJf.'r' ninl� m .,... tDl.�'f ,-i.�mc Ta>I\� fD�'r m.P.l\.e. ,,.,,_ct. m e aJI\J: 1111"; 11• '\r, mf..r- ; , ,ry,;:,- 11/\/ "'A.trl") OU"'r tDf,'r n;,,7 OD")'"lf"!t . ,• fl1"!1:!t:ou •nn aaJO . , A. ,n. ' OJt. .c. , . • , fflf,'/° r1·m�7 .--, f "1 r o a, n � m "A .. " , '\f. OOl/.7� 11"'1'.I!' fif11r11 >,7A:J 01 f. nu"; "t .P.• n� l\"'IJtl.°I fl°l+�· .,..,.,,�_,. m"t)!A fo,� )a"))! tr)' )m• a . A 2 n,"h1· A� ll'i:A m-n_: .,,.fl 'Ir"h}JI. tJ 0-"r.:i::":f- A� "'ll-t-,r:,. ,...,_,f.C" /\:,- a>") . l -.• "1 , ,. .f fD ,\1 ! "'i. !l: r" * 11 \l "" "� f , A -f...-- f.lJ'"l·:J'A t1-iAt1!J, 'I.II. 1. t'm"",ita-•', ,,. nt t " _ , n n .e rt.A 'i! C. e,:, R. 1: . eU1' O-);. :J- ';'"lOD� ?9ti·�_t>:,.C t\..r.f.C1a>• hy ;i, ,::;-A'/° ., p

•JJ�·,.,._.

�!""-: �

�ravating Circumstances. Ag l ra ne Gt II.

(I} The Court sl1all increase the penalty as providec.l by law (Art. 188) in the follow ing cases: (a) when the offencler ac te d \Vitl1_ t reacl1c�y, \Vilh_ perfidy, \Vilh a such as envy, l1atred, g ree d, with a clcl1berate intent to injttre base motive or do -.vrong, or \,l;1hich [sic] special perver sity or c r11elty; (b) when l1e abused l1is po\vcrs, or f1111ctions or th e confidence or autl,o r ity vesl' ed in l1i111; (c) \Vhen he is JJartic11larly danger ous on nccount of his antecedents, the ha ual or professional nature of l1is offence o r the n1eans, !i i nc, place and cirbit cu111stances of its perpetration, in 1:-iartic11lar if he acted by night or und er cover of disiurbances or catastrophes o r l)y using \v'eapons, dangerous instru ments or violence; (d) when he actecl i11 pursuance of a crirninal agreen1cnt, together \\'1ilh others or as a 1nen1ber of a gang orga11izrd to con1n1il offences and, rnore JJarlicu larly, as chief, organize r or ringleader; (e) when h e inteniionall1· assaulted a victi111 deserving s1:iecial proteclio11 l)y reas011 of his aoe state of l1ealth, position or funclion in particular a defenceless, feeble1ni�ded or in\•alid JJerson, a prisrJner, a relative, a s\lperior or inferior, a n1inister of religion, a reJJrese11tative of a duly co11slitultd a.11thority, or a pt1blic servant in the discha rge of 11is duties. (2) \'(!hen the la\v, in a special rirovision of the Speci? l fJart, l:ias laken 011e of the same circumstances into co11si(leralion as a consl1tue11t elen1ent or as a factur of aggravation of an offence, the Court n1a)' 11oi t:1ke this a}zgravatio11 into ac count again. . , , I III. C1rconstances aggr.t'..'antes genera.es. , . . Jrc�vucs par l:i (1) Le juge aggravera la peine, dans le!_: li111iles et selo11 les n1oc1a\1tes l . loi (art. 188), dans !es cas stli\·a:its: . _ un n1 ) ' ;_t_ (a) lorsque l aute11r a agi JJar traili�ise ou �\'�-� perfidie_, 01_1_ -��1 �eclanl :e � c ou bile bas 011 vii tel q11'e11, ie, ha1ne, c111?1�!11c, volonle c�1; :sse . :1e .�1�1:; .c 111al fair1..' 011 encore ave..:: l i ne r1erver�1te 011 1111e cru.:iIJle p;:u licul!c, �:' i� 011 de .5 r 3 1 ° 1� ctioi_1 �; iio !-ilua sa de (b ,· lorsqn'il ' a agi s, voir 11011 ses cle c;ant et1 · � abu · '. l • 1, l c-:. 1 1nv 1 es 1 1t d()l 1 te ori , I l'au ainsi que de la C<)nfiance, cie I ascen(.\ an l 011 Le • • • • . • , • • • acca1 le . ls 1Jcn ece a11i <::l;S . (c.l lorsqu'1l se revele part1ctl11eren1ent l.1 nngerc··t ix· [Jar ' - , . · r , - l·· · , ., 'le· t' '1.11 1....,.,,, 11Vl:! . s IllO es 1 Oll f' tere hal)1t11el Oll piofess1onnel l�ll, lliraC 11 l c.le 5 ? _ �nt de nuit a lieu et les circonstances de son exccu t1 L1 n, no a inin_�� t -nen a'�o iss -��s de rnoy� 11 s ·v r d nt s se ' ' eu 011 la fave ur de trot1bles ot1 cle catastrop 1 1es ou d'instrutnents dangerettx; . . n 1 e affilie ni co u n I b ll n11 (d) lorsqu'il a agi cr te ent en 11 i la s11ite cl't111e � �� f on� �� ilus particulie reune bande constitueP. pour con1n1cttre d es in a i ·, ment encore comrne chef, organisateur 0,t1 niene�ir;_ tio. 11 {e) lorsgu'il__ s'est atlaque, 1._ 11tet1 1.1011.ne11 en,eril .'.1 title v1ct1111 e n1e, r1·tant un�e protec s1t sa e d nt sa de _ at el n so cle 1 part1cul1ere, que ce SOIi dtl fa1t cle sor ,age� le 1b fa e, ns re de ns sa ne on r� pe u e u�tion au de sa fonc�ion, .t�ota111, n1e11 a , au 1n_i11i nt cla en sc de un ; Ol nt da n asce d esprit, infirn1e 011 pr1sonn1tre, a tin 1 a 1111 fonct1on 01 e ue til ns co e ··t 011 t �11 stre d'un culte, . tin r eprcsenlanl d'11ne naire public dans l'exercice de ses com1Jetences. ·1 ·. e d e la Part1e 1e , a rttenu 1:1 _. , ec sp . , . . (2) Lorsque la loi, dans une d1s 1 pos1l1on pai·t·tcu g'n d r eu ct fa u o f ti u " · it sl n un e de ces memes c1rconstances en ta n l q11, ,e;1�en,en t co · r g ravatio n d'une infraction, le juge ne pe11t 1 appliqiter siinttllane111ent encore IJOtt aboutir a une double aggra\,ation. IV. Sam e as Avan t-projet. 1

·,

'I·

' ' I

I •. : r .:

I I . ....; ·. I .,... '

,: . ... .' . . .: ,,. ,.. ..:.... !. •. I I.

410

APPENDIX

t ar rp te un co y or i1t at st s is Sw o N V-VI. l (1886), Arts. 34, 40 (l)·, ga rtu Po of de Co l na Pe ; 61 t. Ar ), 30 (19 VII. Penal Code of Italy . 10 . rt A ), 44 19 , 70 18 ( n ai Sp of e od Penal C

vism. di ci Re d an e nc re ur nc Co s: ce an st um rc Ci l Article 82. Specia Article 83. Other Circumstances.

nces. sta um rc Ci g in at av gr Ag d an ng ati nu te Ex of n tio Article 84. Cumula

- -�-

· ---. .=-:=;.:--:-=-= .�

.. '

• �

..,�

- � --

,. :.:;· . ' ·:· . . :· . · :;.. " -:· · ·,.· �. .·, ,, . . ' 1/: . ,·

��··::::. ,

.•,,. : .

,: ..

' .

·"··

Index Tl,is in,le:,:, e:..:clruJes qrtes �ions ,rncl probl�nrs, wbiclJ c,tn IISllttlly be found at the encl of �..rclJ sr:ct,on of tc:i:t. Ji,tjor classifications are bdsed upon ke:v ·i.lJor,ls use,/ rn tl1e l',·n.rl Co,lc of .Etbiopi,t. Abandonment see Renunciation anll Repentance Aborlion Parties lo, 255 Accessory After the Fact Ethio1Jian la\v on, �5-1, 3<)-1 Accessory Before the Fact see Accon1plice

Accomplice Acceptance of aid by JJrinciJJ:tl, 255 EthioJ)ian la�· on, 253·5..J, 257, 392·93 Fetha Nagast on, 256 In hon1icicle, 25-1 In offenses relating t o p1.1biical ion, 256 Principal, distinguished fro111, 254-55 Reco111111ended reaclings 011, 259·60

I '' "'

' ' I '

i '

I I' I

Act

Authorized L1y la,,·, defense of, 250, 251-52, 401-02 Automatisn1, 79-80 Circumstances surrounding, 77, 78, 79 Concurrence \vith intent, 72-73, 74-75 Condition of liability, 70-71, 76 Consequences of, 77, 78, 79 Crin1inal, 77, 78, 387 Definition of, 77-79, 80-S I Ethiopian law 011, 77, 387 Mental element in, 79-80 Of omission, see On1issions Overt, 271-72 Recommendecl readings on, 76, 80-81 see also Atte1npt; Cattsation; ConsJ)iracy Active Repentance see Renunciation and Repentance

Adequate Cause see Causation, "adequate" tl1eory of Aggravating Circumstances

Ethiopian law on, 408-10 In sentencing, 321 Intoxication as, 183

...

' ' ' .

'. .1

''' ': I . :• I '

I '•· '

r ·.. ..I" .. ' ••.! l

·�

412

INDEX

Amnesty

Adn1inistrative role in, 332

Assault and Battery

see \Vilful Injttry

Attempt

Act requirement i11 Ethiopian law 011, 98, 101, 388, 389 forgery, 102-03 formulations of, I 05-06 ho111icide, 99-100, 103-05 policies underlying, 107-09 preparatory acts, 98-100 Classes of, 101, 102 I 1111)ossibility of, see Impossibility Inte11t elen1e11t in, 95-97 Negligent, 97 Penalty for, 101 Recon1111e11cled reaclings on, 112 Ren11nciation of, see Ren11nciation and Repentance Requirer11ent in incite1ne11t 1 260, 261 Tests of, 98, 99-100, 101, 104, 105-06, 107, 108

'' '

Avant-projet see Appendix Battery see

at fJp. 385-410

\Vilful Inj11ry

Bigamy

Cl1inese law on, 293-94 Etl1iopian law on, 289-90 r:a1nil)1, see family f"etl1a Nagast on, 288-89 Ol1anaian law on, 294-95 Indian law on, 294 Marriage, see lv1arriage Moslen1s, in relation to, 290, 294, 295 I�eco1111nended readings 011 1 296 Religion, in relation to, 291-93 S,viss la,-v on, 290-91

Breach of Trust

By JJttblic official, 207-09, 322 Pur1ishn1ent for, 322

Capital Punishment

Abolitio11 of, 336, 337-39 Argume11ls 011 1 336, 337-38 Con1parative statistics 011 1 338-39 Cri111es receiving, 339 Deterrent effect of, 28-29 Etl1iopiar1 statistics 011, 345 For aggravated homicide, 161 I 1nperial confirmation req11iren1ent for, 16 I, 336 In Ethiopia, 336 Prisoners under, 34 3 Reco1nn1ended readi11gs on, 342

Causation

Act, relationshiJJ to, 12 I 11 Adequate" tl1eory of, I 21 , 12 2 I 22-25 ComJJarative codification of, 127-28 Co11c11rrent ca11ses, 127, 129-30 "Conditio11" theory of, 125 Etl1ioJJian law on, 121, 129-30, 387-88

.,,

,·

.-. .

.--

. . '

�:

'· '

•4

. .-·-: �

•·

•

·-

,:, • •,4 _·: • ��- .; •.•.

. -,· · ·.: . '' : ' ' ; • ;.. :. . . :· .,, . ..

... :. . · :' ...r-..=,�·,·.: .: : .: , . '

,. ., ...

: : .: .·

INDEX ·

1 ip to, 121 t·on s1 1 a 1 r� Harm, 130-32 29 t e, cau s n1ng Interve cotirse of thin ·' gs" tes t, 121 , 122, 122 -25 1 11,Norma cri· me Cansat·10n e se e im cr It u d Of a 50-51 alit y, osex u 001 . Of h ' 160-6 I, 17 0, 172-74 ty ili b ' si · on p 1rres 1 Of . es, JL1ven1 cat1sat1on of cri111e by see crime nile Ve or JU JI t h eor I y. o f, 126 ima te uprox mend ed readings on, 133-34 e':!ance" th eo ry of 126-27 Swiss law on, 121-22

413

��f

Children

see Juveniles

civil Law

Distinguished fro n1 penal law· comment on, 35-38 property cases on, 32-34 recommended readings 011, 39

Code of Petty Offences see Petty Offen�es

' : i

I. , 'I i

•

Codification Commission, Imperial

set Appendix at PI J. 3S5-4 l 0 •

Coercron

Defense of, 250-51, 402-03 Offense of, 251 Recommended readings on, 252

Complicity stt

Accomplice

Compulsion 1tt

Coercion

Concurrence

Of act and intent, 72-73, 74-75 Of ofrenses, 266

Conditional Release

Administrative rol e in, 332 Conditions attached to, 379 Definition of, 379 Ethiopian law on, 379 In Kenya, 347 Policies underlying, 379-80 Probation, distingt.1ished fro m, 379 Recommended readings on, 382-83 Consent Defense of, 251, 402