Personality And Criminal Behavior

Personality and criminal behavior

Introduction

The concept created by Rafael Garofal amount of evil that a person can possess, the second the ability that the offender has to adapt in the middle where he lives

Criminal danger is one of the numerous legal and legal concepts that has a relationship with behavioral sciences and criminology, it is one of the contributions of criminology, it is part of most laws and modern countries, it is the capacity evident of a subject to commit a crime or the probability of being the author of one. In this activity I prepare a comparative table. Where I include different points of view in the issue of criminal danger and criminal guilt:

Developing

A person is considered dangerous when it is believed that it can cause damage or that a criminal capacity can commit a criminal act, refers to criminal internal tension, criminal power, which is capable of giving itself the criminal personality in the field criminal. A limitation that arises is an apothegma nullum crime sine guilt, namely: there is no penalty if the fact has not been committed at least with strict guilt; The danger is based on a fact, the fault does not exist if the event has not occurred, if there is a difference because the first case speaks of risk and the second of a responsibility

It is not necessary for a person to commit a crime before to be considered as a dangerous person social adaptability is the suitability of the criminal for social life, that is, the possibility of adapting the criminal activity to the environment in which it is inserted.

The second, that there is no penalty without guilt, properly speaking, which surrounds more than the proscription of responsibility without fraud and without guilt the commission of an act does not interfere in it, and the responsibility of the commission has to see With the conscience of the individual who commits him. The subject can represent or risk.

• Social danger: individuals who have not committed a crime are close to committing them. Social danger appears before the criminal act or before the violation of the La Tercero law, that the measure of the penalty should not exceed the measure of guilt. In this case, the risk is present and can lead to a crime, and the term of guilt mentions the qualification of the act to seek a sanction according to this. Criminal acts deserve a sanction
• Criminal danger: the individual who being a criminal can re violate the criminal law. Criminal danger occurs when the violation of the law occurs the principle that the greater the amount of unfair corresponds more guilt, and in reverse. The judge indicates in his judgment the unfair fact and his magnitude, and the guilt of the subject and his magnitude I consider that the difference is that the subject can commit to commit crimes regardless of the sanction that may determine who judges the fact and its degree of danger if It can be greater, given the greatest sentence of the penalty.
• For Arturo Rocco: the danger consisted of crime, that is, in the power, aptitude, suitability of the person to being a cause of a punishable fact without guilt there is no possible justification of the penalty, and the guiding point of view for The guilt trial remains the author’s question of responsibility I believe that the difference between this is that the act carried out would not have a justification, which must be taken into account by the judge by assessing in relation to the development of the punishable act
• For Eugenio Florián: ‘The danger is the title by which criminal responsibility is perfected’ The guilt principle plays a transcendental role in the configuration of criminal law by allowing it to legitimize it in front of citizens. The guilt for fact and not by life behavior or by character or mood the crime attempts against society, this may be serious or not, but represents a risk and must be sanctioned by law and applied its sanction by the condition.
• For Anselmo Feuerbach: it is that quality of the person on which the probability that this person will effectively violate the right of guilt will be based on a criminal political function and, at the same time, an essential dogmatic function in contemporary criminal law, the which cannot be replaced or assumed by other principles as mentioned by Dr. Castillo Alva. There is no way that avoids an illicit, but if there are laws that contemplate a sanction for him, and who commits him to attack the community, is an attack on his peers.

Danger is a basic concept, forged by criminological thinking, which can be understood today in simple terms such as the prognosis or probability of committing crimes from the subject, not by mere personal circumstances, but by the existence of objective and reasonable risks Associated with José Luis Castillo Alva himself, he refers to the fact that the principle of guilt constitutes the most important axiom from those who directly derive from a rule of law.

It implies the ignorance of the essence of the concept of person, and that this is responsible for the acts of him that could or should avoid, and prevents him from responding for the consequences that derive from his procedure. The crimes are committed by people and their degree of danger depends on the subject, their formation their environment and the opportunity to commit the illicit. There is no full justification for the commission of an illicit, it is to be out of the law

After having read the support material, and consulted the issues that I mention in the bibliography, I consider that this issue allows us to advance more in the understanding of the criminal acts, of its commission, and we can realize the factors taken in Account to seek to understand the end of matter. This work and reading allows me to understand that the danger is in itself the level that a subject has to generate risk.

That is, it has the ability to raise the level of risk against the integrity of others, or of institutions and society itself, talking about danger is to analyze behaviors that can be strong or weak what can give itself the personality of the individual , its degree of social adaptability this possibility of living with others. Due to these differences, the degree of risk it represents can be understood.

conclusion

And in relation to guilt, which is the quality of guilt, but that in law corresponds to the sanction that must be imposed, that it must be verified, is to have the legal foundations to be able to impose a penalty, a sanction who committed a illegal, that this is proportional to the fact done, an important fact is that this does not exist if there is no fact to sanction. But it also allows analyzing causes that can mitigate the sanction.

The danger will always be linked to the crime itself, and the penalty to the fault with which the illicit is sanctioned, and both are related to the individual who commits the illicit, all this must be taken into account by the scholars of criminology and The right, not only allows the subject and its causes to be known, gives tools to analyze profiles and can sit precedents or formulate hypothesis that allow elaborating criminal personality studies.