Keresés

Keresési eredmények

• A társadalomra veszélyességben való tévedés gyakorlati jelentősége a gazdasági bűncselekmények kapcsán

  Mónusné Kiss Katalin

  Megtekintések száma:

  55

  In this study I examined the error, one of the grounds for the preclusion and termination of punishability. Grounds for the preclusion of punishability and grounds for the termination of punishability, mean that punishability shall be precluded. Error, as an obstacle of the preclusion of punishability, doesn’t happened as usually as other grounds for the preclusion of punishability, for example: insane mental state, constraint and menace. The error means- 27. §- the perpetrator shall not be punishable for a fact, of which he was not aware on perpetration. The person, who commits an act in the erroneous hypothesis that it is not dangerous for society and who has reasonable ground for this hypothesis, shall not be punishable. Error shall not exclude punishability, if it is caused by negligence, and the law also punishes perpetration deriving from negligence. I examined how often the judge accept an error, if the person commit a crime, for example: tax fraud, practise usury, bribe somebody. Is it exceptional or not? When can the perpetrator of a crime refer to error? What examine judge?

• A tévedés jelentőségének egyes aspektusai az élet, testi épség elleni bűncselekmények körében

  Mónusné Kiss Katalin

  Megtekintések száma:

  56

  I examined one of the grounds for the preclusion of punishability and grounds for the termination of punishability, which is error. Grounds for the preclusion of punishability and grounds for the termination of punishability, mean that punishability shall be precluded.

  The error means- 27.§- the perpetrator shall not be punishable for a fact, of which he was not aware on perpetration. The person, who commits an act in the erroneous hypothesis that it is not dangerous for society and who has reasonable ground for this hypothesis, shall not be punishable. Error shall not exclude punishability, if it is caused by negligence, and the law also punishes perpetration deriving from negligence.

  I examined how often the judge accept an error, if the person believe that he’s in the right, because he was attecked, or direct emergency menace. Or maybe he believes, that he is in danger of his life.   Is it exceptional or not? What examine judge? It isn’t only hypothetical question, because very complicated task for the judge.

• Tévedés jogtörténeti fejlődésének egyes állomásai, különös tekintettel Bernolák Nándor tévedés tanára

  Mónusné Kiss Katalin

  Megtekintések száma:

  67

  I examine one of the grounds for the preclusion of culpability and grounds for the termination of culpability: error. Grounds for the preclusion of culpability are the followings: infancy, abnormal mental condition, constraint and menace, error, negligible degree of danger to society of an act, self-defence, extreme necessity (emergency), absence of private motion, other grounds defined in the Act. Grounds for the termination of culpability are: the death of the perpetrator, prescription, remission, cessation or becoming negligible of the dangerousness for society of the act, other grounds defined in the Act.

  Grounds for the preclusion of culpability and grounds for the termination of culpability mean that culpability shall be precluded.

  Error - as an obstacle of the preclusion of culpability – is not as usual as other grounds for the preclusion of culpability, for example: insane mental state, constraint or menace. Error means - 27. § of the Hungarian Criminal Code – that the perpetrator shall not be punishable for a fact of which he was not aware on perpetration. The person, who commits an act in the erroneous hypothesis that it is not dangerous for society and who has reasonable ground for this hypothesis, shall not be punishable. Error shall not exclude culpability, if it is caused by negligence and the law also punishes perpetration deriving from negligence.

  I examine error’s ruling from Roman law to now days. One of the most important books was written by Nandor Bernolak: The Error doctrine. I succeeded Bernolak’s method to search how error was regulated in different ages. Bernolak wrote his essay in 1910, so he described the rules of error as it appeared in Code Csemegi. I follow his method during the examination of 1950.:II. Criminal Code of General Part, 1961. IV. Criminal Code and finally 1978. IV. Criminal Code.

  I found many differences and similarities between Criminal Codes, Propositions, and finally I compiled a table about the changes of the development in error’s legal history.

  There is a rule that is known generally from Roman law: „ignorantia facti, non iuris excusat”, which means: ignorance of the law means no excuse.

• A közérdekű munka speciális jellegének főbb vonásai

  Mónusné Kiss Katalin

  Megtekintések száma:

  71

  In Hungary there are two types of punishments: principal punishments and supplementary punishments. I examined the labour in the public interest, which is one of the principal punishments. Judges use this punishment barely than imprisonment, fine. Difficult to use this punishment, because it needs many preliminary works. I examined the labour in the public interest’s ruling from the 1950.:II. Criminal Code of General Part to nowadays.
  

  In Hungary a person sentenced to labor in the public interest is obligated to perform the work defined for him in the court sentence. Only such work may be ordered as work in the public interest which the convict, in light of his health condition and education, is presumed to be capable of performing. There are many problems in rule of the labour in the public interest, for example one day of work in the public. As rule of the Criminal Code punishment shall be six hours of work, but other rule is, punishment shall be 4-8 hours of work for one day.
  

  Other interesting rule is, the imprisonment substituting labour in the public interest or the remaining part thereof shall be established in such a way that one day of labour in the public interest shall correspond to one day of imprisonment. In my opinion it would be better, if the imprisonment substituting labour in the public interest or the remaining part thereof shall be established in fine.
  

  On the other hand I suggested to use this punishment if a person younger than 18 years old. I think if a person is 16 years old, this punishment can be more effective than other punishments.
  

  I found many differences, and many similarities between Hungarian and international Criminal Codes, Propositions, and finally I wrote some important, new point to change the rules.