One of the most disputable issues related to the interpretation of Article 231 (1) of the Criminal Code currently in force, is the qualification of this type of a prohibited act as formal (with no consequences) or material (with consequences). It seems that the majority of the arguments support the opinion that an abuse of power should belong to the specific group of abstract exposures to danger, which are called offences of potential danger. The problem is, however, that the legislator has not clearly set out, nor provided for appropriate criteria for the court to asses, in a concrete case, a possibility to create a threat to legal interest.
The aim of this article is to analyse the problem of the criminal liability of a perpetrator who, while committing an offence, was in the state of inebriation or intoxication as a cause of insanity. Although the regulation of this matter was introduced in Art. 31 § 3 of the Criminal Code, it should be re-examined in the light of the separation of intentionality or negligence and culpability in the Criminal Code of 1997. Traditionally, insanity was treated as an exonerating circumstance, although the legislator mentions the elements that characterise intentionality and negligence. That is why, firstly the relation between Art. 31 § 1 and Art. 9 of the Criminal Code should be examined. Taking under consideration the result of this analysis, the article presents evidence that in the light of Art. 31 § 3 of the Criminal Code, the perpetrator can be sentenced only for a negligent offence.