-
» Excellent «
In order to determine whether someone has committed a criminal offense, the elements of the relevant norm must be present and further, it must be investigated whether the perpetrator acted unlawfully and culpably. Within the framework of the elements of the offense committed, the act of committing the offense and the result of this action is examined. The connection between the act and the result of the act is called causality. Only when causality is proven, can the perpetrator be accused of the act and be liable to prosecution.
According to the equivalence theory (conditio sine qua non formula), a behavior is ‘causal’ if it is not possible to consider the result of the behavior without the behavior itself. There are some special cases which must be considered. If you are facing ambiguities in your case, our attorneys at law for criminal law in St. Gallen, Zurich and Frauenfeld are happy to help you.
The concern here is how to treat a circumstance in which a later occurring, different cause would have brought about the same result.
Consider the follow scenario. A administers a lethal dose of insulin to B. At the autopsy, it is determined that B would have died regardless of this dose, because B was suffering from an incurable disease.
If the action of A is ignored, B would still have died. The result is technically the same, it might be argued. What is decisive, however, is whether the result in its concrete form would have occurred if the action suspected of causality was removed. If so, the behavior is considered causal. The concept of “result in its concrete form” includes in particular the type of result (e.g. death by poisoning or death by suffocation), its concrete quantity (weight, extent) and the specific time of the action’s success.
It is disputed how to treat a circumstance in which several independent conditions coincide temporally and each would have been sufficient for the result to occur.
Consider the follow scenario. A and B, independently and without an awareness of each other’s actions, give C a lethal dose of poison which acts at the same time, killing C.
Both actions were causal for the success. The result of the action in its concrete form occurs if they are disregarded alternatively but not cumulatively. Both contributions to the crime are therefore causal.
Cumulative causality refers to a circumstance in which several independent conditions, which would not have brought about the success on their own, bring it about through their collaboration.
Consider the follow scenario. A and B administer poison to C independently and without an awareness of each other’s actions. As a matter of fact, one dose alone was not sufficient, but the combination of both poison doses led to C’s death.
This case is not problematic, because if you disregard one dose, the success falls away as well, which is why both actions alone were causal for the success.
In this circumstance, the perpetrator establishes a cause for a success. Before this success can occur, a second perpetrator sets up a new cause, whereby an earlier success occurs.
Consider the following scenario. A poisons B. Before B dies from the poisoning, he is shot by C. If one thinks away A’s act of poisoning, B would still have died from C’s shot. Causal is the cause that led to the concrete success; therefore, it is the action of C that is considered causal. C is therefore punished for the completed action. The causal chain of A to the result was interrupted by C and is therefore not causal for the death of B. Therefore, A is only punishable for attempt. Attorneys at law for criminal law in St. Gallen, Zurich or Frauenfeld will be happy to clarify the special cases of causality in more detail.
The previous mentioned types of causality were special cases. Adequate causality is not a special case, but has a limiting function, namely, to separate misfortune from injustice. An adequate causal connection exists if a behavior was not only conditio sine qua non for the damage to occur, but if, the ordinary course of events and the general experience of life was suitable to cause or at least favor the result that occurred. Adequate causality can only be denied if extraordinary circumstances, such as the contributory negligence of the victim, are added as a contributory cause, which was entirely unexpected and which was so serious that it appeared as the most probable and direct cause of the success. Consequently, it pushes all other contributory factors- namely the behavior of the perpetrator- aside. An attorney for criminal law in St. Gallen, Zurich or Frauenfeld will be happy to help you assess whether or not there is adequacy.