Imputation in Criminal Law and the Conditions for Norm Validity

Abstract

(1) The validity of the norms that determine society’s identity needs to be guaranteed. The reason is that there are other alternatives to this society. The guarantee is accomplished when it is valid that each person has the duty to comply with the norms (law) and that sanctioning occurs in case of not complying. Sanctioning therefore means confirming the identity of society. The confirmation is totally accomplished with the sanction. (2) On the contrary, there’s no alternative to the rules that refer to the social environment; therefore they stabilize themselves. Here lies the basis for lower sanctions in case of reckless acts due to mistakes—not due to indifference. (3) The disturbance of validity occurs in the same manner as its guarantee: by meaning, not by nature. Natural events, such as causal courses or psychological facts are not, per se, components of criminal behavior. They do so as symbol carriers. (4) Imputation begins with the distribution of competence between the offender, the victim, and third parties. (5) The so-called subjective imputation proves itself to be more a specified-personal imputation. It’s an imputation which focuses on the law-abiding citizen as a criterion person. (6) The science of criminal law arises from the distinction between meaning (culpability) and nature. Every single dogmatic concept can be traced to this distinction. The sanction contradicts the meaning of the criminal act (the norm isn’t valid). Meaningless, blameless behaviors should not (cannot) be contradicted.