NON REQUIREMENT OF DIFFERENT CONDUCT

I-INTRODUCTION.

Criminal Law imposes and requires certain behaviors from the recipient of its rules. It operates with the technique of the legal duty to act or refrain from acting, threatening punishment in the event that its commands or prohibitions are not complied with.

As long as this is so, the idea of ??the enforceability of behavior other than that of the offender is deeply embedded in the very nature of punitive law.

It is embraced in a predominantly objective, generalizing way, in anti-legality; predominantly subjective, individualized in guilt.

Well, a conduct is guilty when the subject could have proceeded in a different way than he did, which means that ultimately the legal system understands that he could be required to act or refrain from acting in accordance with its prescriptions. Therefore, it can be stated that the enforceability of different conduct is a regulative principle informing criminal laws.

II-EXEMPTION OF LIABILITY DESPITE BEING GUILTY.

Gradually, the idea has made its way to the idea that the only reasonable explanation for this is the lack of guilt, because different conduct is not legally required.

There are a series of cases, in which despite being the attributable subject and having intentionally or negligently carried out typically illegal conduct, the law declares him exempt from criminal responsibility :

-a-The state of exculpatory necessity.

-b-The insurmountable fear.

-c-And the cover-up among certain relatives.

The history of non-enforceability as a cause of exclusion of guilt is closely linked to the birth of the normative conception of guilt.

III-MOST USUAL CASES.

Thus, the specific cases of unenforceability of different conduct are :

-a-The state of exculpatory necessity.

-b-Insurmountable fear-When the subject has acted motivated by a significant psychic impact.

-c-Transient mental disorder.

-d-Outburst or stubbornness.

IV-SANCTION OF INACTION.

The greatest scope of the unenforceability of the omission with respect to the action derives from the obvious fact that :

-a-The fulfillment of positive duties.

-b-It entails a greater sacrifice than that of the merely negative.

-c-And hence in some types of omissive criminal offenses, inaction is sanctioned only when the action cannot be carried out without risk to oneself or a third party.

V-MAL SITUATION OF THE AGENT THAT GIVES RISE TO MITIGATION

Example-The Supreme Court offers us an example of such a situation :

"the accused, traveling as co-driver in a car, during an overtake and in the proximity of the vehicle that was traveling in the opposite direction, nervous and scared grabbed the steering wheel, turning it abruptly to the right, which caused the car to begin to swerve. lurch and collide with the one traveling in the opposite direction, causing death and injuries to its occupants. Here the subject acted with full awareness of the concurrent risk factors, although his behavior was motivated by the abnormal state of fear that the maneuver caused him. made by the driver. In this case, alleged by the defense as an defense of insurmountable fear, the High Court rejected it, declaring that the only thing being alleged is "a mental situation of the agent who, within good legal principles, The most that could give rise would be to a reduction of their responsibility, but to nothing more, and of course never to a total exemption." As previously reasoned, such cases must be resolved through temporary mental disorder and apply, in "if applicable, the relevant security measures."

VI-PROTECTION OF OWN INTERESTS AT THE COST OF UNLEGAL CONDUCT

That is why, from another perspective, it is considered that the foundation of unenforceability must be sought, more than on the psychic level, in the positive normative assessment that the legal system makes on the subject's decision to protect his or her own interests even at the cost of engage in illegal conduct