Improper co-authorship in common crimes
Purpose: This reflection article focuses on the involvement of persons in the commission of the punishable conduct. It is said that when several persons carry out the criminal act, it is essential to identify the degree of criminal responsibility that corresponds to each one, according to their contribution. The figure of the improper co-operator in common crimes will be analyzed specifically.
Description: The causes, consequences and legal remedies for those involved in the commission of the punishable conduct are described according to their degree of responsibility, avoiding the use by the Prosecutor’s Office of charges with exacerbated penalties.
Point of view: There are valid legal, doctrinal and jurisprudential elements to make the right distinctions on the degree of responsibility for the intervention in the commission of punishable conduct. Nevertheless, these elements are not enforced by the prosecution agency or by the lawyer in his role as defender, accepting the formulation of charges without the verification of each of the elements that structure the improper co-authorship.
Conclusions: Keep in mind the structural elements of improper co-authorship and the interpretation of its contents according to the law, the doctrine and the jurisprudence on the functional domain of the act and the restrictive concept of author. Based on this, it follows that taking into account the parameters already established, when differentiating improper co-authorship from other forms of participation especially that of the accomplice, leads to the formulation of charges and the merit of penalties proportional to the actual participation of a person in the commission of the punishable conduct.
How to Cite
License
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal DIXI before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
André Scheller D’Angelo. La teoría del dominio del hecho en la legislación penal colombiana. Revista de Derecho Uninorte 35. 2011. Pág. 244.
Alberto Suárez Sánchez. Autoría. 3.ª edición. Universidad Externado de Colombia. (2007).
Claus Roxin. Autoría y dominio del hecho en el derecho penal. 7.ª edición. Marcial Pons. (1998).
Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sentencia 36299 de 2012. (mp María Del Rosario González Muñoz; 15 de febrero de 2012).
Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sentencia 36277 de 2011. (mp María Del Rosario González Muñoz; 25 mayo de 2011).
Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sentencia 31085 de 2009. (mp María Del Rosario González Muñoz; 8 julio de 2009.
Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sentencia 22358 de 2006. (mp Yesid Ramírez Bastidas; 5 de octubre de 2006.
Fernando Velásquez. Manual de derecho penal. Parte gerencial. Librería Jurídica Comlibros. (2007).
Hans Welzel. Das Deutsche Strafrecht. 11.ª edición. De Gruyter. (1999).
