| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 551.85 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A doutrina e a jurisprudência debatem-se acesamente sobre a natureza da instigação: autoria ou participação? A par desta discusão, têm surgido correntes doutrinárias – com destaque para a posição de CONCEIÇÃO VALDÁGUA – que visam uma reconstrução teoria do domínio do facto formulada por ROXIN, concretamente a reestruturação da autoria mediata, a fim de abrigar nesta categoria dogmática cenários claros de instigação. Entre tais cenários, encontram-se as situações em que alguém tenta dolosamente convencer outro a assassinar uma terceira pessoa mediante a prestação de uma contrapartida. Em face da adesão conquistada por aquelas posições junto dos nossos tribunais, os cenários fácticos descritos têm sido judicialmente qualificados como autoria mediata. Inclusivé, quando nem existe qualquer execução do homicídio pretendido ou mesmo quando a determinação não chega a consumar-se. Ora, tais situações de tentativa de acordo de homicídio (aliciamento ao homicídio) correspondem a uma tentativa fracassada de instigação, realidade isenta de qualquer punição jurídico-penal perante a lei portuguesa. Porém, requalificados estes cenários como autoria mediata, uma tal punição já se revela possível, daí que os nossos tribunais tenham seguido esta via. Tal entendimento é absolutamente inadmissível e corresponde a uma subversão da autoria mediata e da intigação que a lei jamais admite. É isso mesmo que se prentender demonstrar com a abordagem de vários pontos essenciais para a discussão, designadamente, a configuração jurídico-portuguesa da autoria criminal, a distrinça entre a autoria mediata e a instigação, os respectivos âmbitos e, ainda, a responsabilidade criminal emergente da tentativa de instigação. Dissipadas as dúvidas, porventura, existentes sobre estas concretas matérias, somos obrigados a concluir pela irrelevância criminal da tentativa fracassada de intigação. Não obstante não ser responsabilizado criminalmente aquele que tenta instigar, consideramos que o perigo que resulta de uma tal actuação para o bem jurídico vida é inaceitável perante os valores ostentados pela comunidade em geral. Daí que deve o legislador interver positivamente, consagrando a incriminação da instigação ao homicídio como modalidade autónoma, sem a necessidade típica da verificação dos pressupostos – a efectiva determinação do instigado e o início da execução do facto ilícito – previstos para o quadro geral de instigação previsto no art. 26.º do CP.
Do doctrine and jurisprudence openly debate the nature of incitement: perpetration or participation? Along with this discussion, doctrinal currents have emerged - with emphasis on the position of CONCEIÇÃO VALDÁGUA - aimed at a reconstruction of the theory of the domain formulated by ROXIN, namely the restructuring of indirect perpetration, in order to house in this dogmatic category clear incitement scenarios . Among such scenarios are situations where one tries to convince another to murder a third person by providing a counterpart. Because of the adhesion achieved by those positions in our Courts, the factual scenarios described have been judicially qualified as indirect perpetration. Including, when there is no execution of the intended homicide or even when the determination is not consummated. It so happens that such situations of attempted homicide agreement (homicide appeal) correspond to a failed attempt at incitement, a reality exempt from any criminal-law punishment under Portuguese law. However, once these scenarios have been reclassified as indirect perpetration, such punishment is already possible, and our Courts have followed this path. Such an understanding is inadmissible and corresponds to a subversion of indirect perpetration and of the incitement which the law never admits. This is precisely what one should try to demonstrate by addressing several essential points for discussion, namely the legal-Portuguese configuration of criminal perpetration, the distinction between indirect perpetration and incitement, their respective spheres, as well as emerging criminal responsibility of the incitement attempt. Having dispelled the doubts, perhaps, existing on these concrete matters, we are forced to conclude by the criminal irrelevance of the failed attempt of incitement. Although it is not criminal responsibility that tries to incite, we consider that the danger that results from such action for the legal good life is unacceptable by the values assumed by the community in general. That is why the legislator should intervene positively, establishing the incrimination of incitement to murder as an autonomous modality, without the typical necessity of verifying the assumptions - the actual determination of the incitement and the commencement of the execution of the wrongful act – foreseen for the general incitement provided for in article 26.º of the CP.
Do doctrine and jurisprudence openly debate the nature of incitement: perpetration or participation? Along with this discussion, doctrinal currents have emerged - with emphasis on the position of CONCEIÇÃO VALDÁGUA - aimed at a reconstruction of the theory of the domain formulated by ROXIN, namely the restructuring of indirect perpetration, in order to house in this dogmatic category clear incitement scenarios . Among such scenarios are situations where one tries to convince another to murder a third person by providing a counterpart. Because of the adhesion achieved by those positions in our Courts, the factual scenarios described have been judicially qualified as indirect perpetration. Including, when there is no execution of the intended homicide or even when the determination is not consummated. It so happens that such situations of attempted homicide agreement (homicide appeal) correspond to a failed attempt at incitement, a reality exempt from any criminal-law punishment under Portuguese law. However, once these scenarios have been reclassified as indirect perpetration, such punishment is already possible, and our Courts have followed this path. Such an understanding is inadmissible and corresponds to a subversion of indirect perpetration and of the incitement which the law never admits. This is precisely what one should try to demonstrate by addressing several essential points for discussion, namely the legal-Portuguese configuration of criminal perpetration, the distinction between indirect perpetration and incitement, their respective spheres, as well as emerging criminal responsibility of the incitement attempt. Having dispelled the doubts, perhaps, existing on these concrete matters, we are forced to conclude by the criminal irrelevance of the failed attempt of incitement. Although it is not criminal responsibility that tries to incite, we consider that the danger that results from such action for the legal good life is unacceptable by the values assumed by the community in general. That is why the legislator should intervene positively, establishing the incrimination of incitement to murder as an autonomous modality, without the typical necessity of verifying the assumptions - the actual determination of the incitement and the commencement of the execution of the wrongful act – foreseen for the general incitement provided for in article 26.º of the CP.
Description
Keywords
Comparticipação Autoria Instigação Autoria mediata Aliciamento ao homicídio Tentativa de instigação Co-participation Perpetration Incitement Indirect perpetration Homicide appeal Attempted incitement