Dolus Compositus in the Light of Continental Classicism

  • Adam MAKHARADZE Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Shota Rustaveli Batumi State University, Batumi, Georgia
  • Lasha-Giorgi KUTALIA Faculty of Law, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Omar MAKHARADZE Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University, Batumi, Georgia

Abstract

As a result of penal reform (1999-2001) Georgian legislator redefined its concept of dolus directus, based on a view presented in own penal theory two decades ago. By reducing the concept to its intellectual component ([precise] knowledge of illicit effect) penal legislation introduced a new kind of guilty behavior – dolus directus intellectualis as dolus directus of the second degree (theoretical description). On the other hand: Through adding intellectual segment of dolus indirectus to the voluntative one of dolus directus here emerged a further kind of guilty behavior, when person aspires an unlawful damage, but for sees it just as possible effect of his externalized intention – dolus directus voluntatis as dolus directus of the first degree (theoretical description). Authors prove that these legislative transformations do not meet basic requirements of classical continental guilt scheme and confront both innovations with a new version of dolus compositus (1998).

References

[1] Criminal Code of the Russian Federation dated 13.06.1996 N 63-FZ (as amended on 12/27/2018) as amended. And ext., Effective from January 8, 2019: Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/bf8c1a879a8344fd5cfc85853f5590cef2af1020/
[2] Department of Criminal Law, TSU, Spring 2001.
[3] Duff, R.A. 1987. Codifying Criminal Fault: Conceptual Problems and Presuppositions, Criminal Law and Justice, London.
[4] Gamkrelidze, O. 2015. Concept of Penal Punishment, http://www.dgstz.de
[5] Khornabujeli, B. 1981. Psychological Side of Guilt, Tbilisi.
[6] Kutalia L.-G. 1998. DolusCompositus, in: Man and Constitution, Review of Constitutional Court of Georgia 3: 50.
[7] Kutalia, L.-G. 2000. Guilt in Criminal Law, Tbilisi.
[8] Kutalia, L.-G. 2008. Guilt in Criminal Law, University of Vienna, Phaidra.
[9] Kutalia, L.-G.2011. Handlungslehre.StrafrechtlicheKonzeption, Göttingen.
[10] Kutalia, L.-G. 2018. Extraordinary Conclusions of Supreme Court, in: L.-G. Kutalia, Lagma, Jubilee Edition, 100 volumes, EASPH Mary, Georgia, vol. XXX, http://under www.nplg.gov.ge
[11] Lackner, K. 1997. StGB, Kommentar15:31.
[12] Legros, R.1952. L’élément moral dans les infractions, Paris.
[13] Makharadze, A. 2006.Penal Responsibility for Aiding in Crime, Tbilisi.
[14] Makharadze, A. 2016. About Decision of Constitutional Court of Georgia on Retroactivity of Penal Code, Journal of the University of Kyiv Law 4:398.
[15] Nachkebia, G. 1990. Problem of Psychological Argumentation of Logical Correlation between Guilt and Punishment. State and Law, Tbilisi.
[16] Nachkebia, G. 2016. Criminal Law, General Part. Tbilisi.
[17] Schönke-Schröder. 1978. Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, München.
[18] Turava, M. 2010. Criminal Law, Outlines of General Part, Tbilisi.
[19] University of Law. 2016. Jubilee Edition 4:398.
Published
2019-11-20
How to Cite
MAKHARADZE, Adam; KUTALIA, Lasha-Giorgi; MAKHARADZE, Omar. Dolus Compositus in the Light of Continental Classicism. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 7, p. 2381-2386, nov. 2019. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/4067>. Date accessed: 23 sep. 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v9.7(37).22.