16 Nov manslaughter

Manslaughter is a crime provided for by art. 584 c.p. The law punishes with imprisonment from 10 a 18 years whoever causes the death of a man with acts aimed at committing one of the crimes provided for by the articles. 581 e 582 c.p. (beatings and injuries). This is a crime of competence of the Court of Assize, processed ex officio where the protected legal asset coincides with the right to life, understood as an individual good. Active subject of the crime may be anyone who is not necessary for the agent to cover special qualifications and therefore it is a common crime. Liability is another man, different from the active subject. The event of the crime is the death of the victim who is made to coincide when there is the irreversible termination of the brain features and the crime is consumed when the victim ceases to live. Important element that characterizes the crime referred to in art. 584 c.p. It is the fact that death is caused following direct acts to beat or harm someone and that there is a causal relationship between the aforementioned acts and the lethal event. It therefore appears evident that the material element of the crime in question, conduct, is identified with beatings (art. 581 c.p.) The leane (art. 582 c.p.). The term to beat the art referred to in art. 581 c.p. It is not assumed only in the meaning of beating, hit, hit someone, but it is also understood in a wider side, including any violent tampering of the other natural person, such as the impact or violent push, grabbing and the like. As for what concerns, instead, Lessons are essential to refer to the concept of illness. The ministerial report on the project of the Criminal Code has defined any anatomical or functional alteration of the body, even if localized and not influential on the general organic conditions. This definition has always been accepted also by the jurisprudence which specified how the disease or mind disease must be understood by the anatomical structure of the body organs, any subversion of normal physiological or psychological functions of the offended body, consequent with direct causal link to the violence expressed by the agent and decisive a repair process through specific means of care and appropriate requirements, or permanent functional limitations, of the state of physical or mental integrity of the taxable person of the crime. Continuing the analysis of the case in question, it must be pointed out that the rule speaks of "direct acts to cause beatings or injuries", to be interpreted like any threatening or aggressive conduct aimed at damaging or beating. It is therefore not required that the crimes of beatings or injuries are consumed, nor that the conduct covers the extremes of the attempt of these crimes. Indeed, The death event must constitute the product of the specific dangerous situation generated by the offender with its intentional conduct aimed at beating or damaging a person. It follows that if the victim's death is completely foreign to the risk area activated with the initial conduct (which repeats itself, he was intentionally directed to strike or harm) and instead it is a consequence of subsequent behavior, The latter cannot be attributed as a pre -intentional title, but it must be a point of guilt, as a effect of a causal series other than that originating from the event of malicious injuries or beatings. Indeed, For the purposes of the integration of the pre -intentional murder crime, the author of the aggression must have committed acts aimed at beating or damaging and that there is a causal relationship between the aforementioned acts and the lethal event, Without the need for the causal series that produced death represents the development of the same beatshot event or injuries wanted by the agent. The case referred to in art. 584 c.p. requires the subjective element of the pre -intention. In particular, art. 43 c.p. defines the crime "pre -intentional, or beyond intention, When a harmful or dangerous event derives from the action or omission, more serious than that wanted by the agent”. Our criminal system knows only two main pre -intentional cases: The first is that of pre -intentional murder, while the second was governed by art. 18 of the law n. 194 of the 1978 (containing “Rules for the social protection of maternity and the voluntary interruption of pregnancy”), today flowing into art. 593 ter c.p. entitled "non -consensual pregnancy interruption"As a result of the legislative decree n. 21 of the 2018. The legislator defines the pre -intentional crime as a crime "beyond intention": In order to recognize this subjective element, in fact, it is necessary that from the conduct of the offender (intentionally time in the case of the pre -intentional murder to beat or harm) It derives a harmful or dangerous event more serious than that wanted by the offender (The death event in the case of the pre -intentional murder).

This is a very peculiar subjective element given that it is characterized by the voluntarity of the leadership of the offender and the absence of will in the cause of the most serious offense of the one desired. The jurisprudence clarified that the crime in question does not constitute a hypothesis of willful misconduct mixed with guilt as the provision referred to in art. 43 c.p. absorbs the predictability of the most serious event in the intention of result and also because it would be unreasonable to punish the agent because, in the act of striking or damaging, he acted with negligence, imprudence or incompetence, Culturely causing the death of a man. In the same way it has been clarified that it cannot be an example of objective responsibility, Since the death event must at least fall within the sphere of representation of the culprit. The subjective element must instead only be recognized in the malice of beatings or injuries, And the existence of the crime is predetermined by the same law, being absolutely likely that from a violent action against a person he may derive the death of the same. In other words, The agent replies by his own, albeit for a more serious fact than the one wanted. In the case of pre -intentional murder committed against a person other than that the agent wanted to hurt the figure of’Aberration hit governed by art. 82, comma I, c.p. and not that of’deviation of the offense. L’art. 82, comma 1 c.p. reads verbatim that "When, By mistake in the use of the means of execution of the crime, or for another cause, an offense is caused to a person other than the one to whom the offense was directed, the offender responds as if he had committed the crime to the detriment of the person he wanted to offend, salvo, as regards aggravating and mitigating circumstances, The provisions of the article 60”. The rule therefore contemplates the hypothesis in which the victim of the crime is different from the one originally designated and that in the case of the pre -intentional murder occurs when the death of a man with acts aimed at damaging and beating even if one causes one to cause Different person from the designated victim. The pre -intentional murder is consumed when the death event occurs. The attempt cannot be configured, Given that the death event must not be the subject of guilty will. Indeed, The pre -intentional murder crime is characterized by the occurrence of an unwanted event that involves a higher sanctioning treatment. Therefore, It is incompatible with the attempt and the voluntary desistance that instead presuppose a desired event and not occurred for independent circumstances or for the resay of the agent in the case of voluntary desistance. Consequently, It is not possible to configure a hypothesis of pre -intentional murder attempted. In terms of competition of people in the crime, The rules on participation suffer no specific exception regarding pre -intentional murder, being sufficient that the competition is demonstrated (It doesn't matter if moral or material) of the various subjects active in the activity aimed at striking or harming without the desire to kill and that between this activity and the lethal event placed on them there is a rigid causality relationship. E’ configurable, therefore, The competition of people in the pre -intentional murder when there is the material or moral participation of multiple subjects active in the activity aimed at damaging or strikeing a person without the desire to kill it and there is an evident causal relationship between this activity and the event mortal. It is not configurable, instead, The anomalous competition pursuant to art. 116 c.p. in the pre -intentional murder, As for the configurability of this attenuated form of competition it is necessary that the competitor wanted a crime other than that wanted by another competitor and occurred in reality, while in the pre -intentional murder death did not want any competitor and everyone wanted injuries or beatings, with identical title of responsibility for everyone. L’art. 584 c.p. provides for a more serious event hypothesis than the one wanted when the death of a man with direct acts to harm and beat the death of a man. L’art. 586 c.p. instead, constitutes an application of the principle contained in art. 83 c.p., and provides for the hypothesis in which the death event derives as a consequence not desired by an expected fact as a malicious crime, which, however, is not that of injuries or beatings. In both hypotheses it is necessary that there is no intention to kill, but in the case referred to in art. 584 c.p. there is that of beating or harming someone, while in the hypothesis referred to in art. 586 c.p. There is the intention of committing a malicious crime different from those governed by articles. 581 e 582 c.p.