Dolus generalis
The dolus generalis ( Latin for "general intent" ) is a criminal law figure of intent . The figure of the dolus generalis used to be dominant. In the meantime, both jurisprudence and the prevailing view of the literature assume that the dolus generalis is no longer compatible with the wording of the law.
According to the legal concept of the dolus generalis, punishment for deliberately committing an act was always possible if at some point during the course of the act the perpetrator had intent. This extended the intent of the perpetrator who initially thought he had already brought about the success of the crime, but only later (ignorantly) actually completed it by taking another act.
The classic dolus generalis problem was shown in the so-called " cesspool case ": the perpetrator stuffed sand into his victim's mouth to prevent him from screaming. The victim became unconscious and remained motionless, so that the perpetrator assumed that the victim was already dead. To cover up the traces, he threw the unconscious but not dead victim into a cesspool, where it then died. The problem here is that the intent to kill was during the strangulation, but not when the perpetrator tossed the victim into the cesspool. However, the intent must be present when the offense is committed (principle of coincidence ). Here the dolus generalis helped out.
While earlier jurisprudence and literature assumed that the dolus generalis was a completed willful homicide ( murder or manslaughter ), today such a construction would not be permissible due to the simultaneity principle following from § § 8 , 16 , 22 StGB . At the time of the act (cause of success) there must be intent, illegality of the act and the guilt of the perpetrator.
For the majority of cases today, however, prevailing opinion uses the figure of insignificant deviation from the causal process . In the case of an insignificant deviation, the criminal liability extends beyond the attempt to commit the offense to an intentional offense.
Individual evidence
- ↑ BGH, judgment of April 26, 1960 ( Memento of the original of July 18, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Az. 5 StR 77/60, full text = BGHSt 14, 193.
