Election offense

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In criminal law, a delusional offense (also called a putative offense or delusional crime) is the erroneous assumption of the perpetrator that an act he has committed is punishable. The perpetrator thus makes a wrong legal assessment of his act by assuming to his disadvantage his own criminal liability as a result of misjudgment of criminal liability rules. There is no legal regulation of the election offense.

Depending on whether the error relates to the facts of the case or the justification , the electoral offense is also referred to as a reverse prohibition error , reverse subsumption error or reverse authorization error .

Unlike the unsuitable attempt , the election crime is unpunished.

Examples

  • Reversed error of prohibition : the landlady of a furnished room allows women to visit after 10 p.m. , although she is firmly convinced that this would make herself punishable for pimping (the domed paraphrase , however, no longer exists since 1969).
  • Reverse permissive error : someone defends himself against a current, unlawful attack with the conviction that he is making himself a criminal offense for bodily harm (however, self-defense is a justification that leads to impunity).
  • The "normal" error in prohibition or permission is also a legal misstatement. Here, however, the perpetrator only remains unpunished if he could not avoid the error, otherwise such an error can only lead to a reduction in the sentence. An election offense, on the other hand, is always unpunished.

Demarcation

The electoral offense shows similarities to the unsuitable attempt , in which the act, contrary to the perpetrator's ideas, cannot bring about any criminal success . Here, however, the perpetrator is mistaken about the circumstances of the crime. Compared to a suitable attempt , this can in exceptional cases affect the sentencing. The distinction between unsuitable attempt and elected crime is controversial in the case of normative elements of the offense (characteristics that can only be determined by a legal assessment).

Individual evidence

  1. Kudlich, Hans: Cases on criminal law, general part , 3rd edition, Munich 2018, p. 120.
  2. Fischer, Criminal Code, § 22 Rn. 49