In the canon law doctrine there is an agreement regarding the fact that the notion of legal accountability is wider than sanity. Legal sanity is based on previous existence of physical, psychological, moral and legal sanity and it means theoretical and practical judgement on the basis of which we assign a given person as an author concrete activity which is conscious and voluntary and which infringes moral norm or criminal regulation or criminal order. Consequently this subject must bear responsibility before the society. Pursuant to the canon 1321 § 2 of the Canon Law we distinguish two sources of legal sanity: wilful misconduct and negligence. Presumption of sanity is the supposition of freedom of the man who infringed a given legal regulation. This canonical presumption is based on the supposition that man, as a rule, is accountable for his actions because, as a rule, he acts freely.
A fundamental issue in every system of criminal law is establishing the concept of crime. Law investigations above the nature of ecclesiastical crime appear first in Decretum Gratiani and then in decretals of Pope Innocent III. Ecclesiastical legislator constructs the definition of crime which consists of three basic elements: objective, subjective and legal in the previous code of the 1917 as well as the one that is valid currently of the 1983. The objective element is defined as an external contravention of law or criminal warrant. The subjective one is defined as an accountability of committing an illegal act. Whereas the legal element is expressed in penal sanction relatively undetermined.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.