KJCKorea
Journal Central

@article{ART001994335},
author={오정한},
title={A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law},
journal={DONG-A LAW REVIEW},
issn={1225-3405},
year={2015},
number={67},
pages={165-194}

TY - JOUR
AU - 오정한
TI - A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law
JO - DONG-A LAW REVIEW
PY - 2015
VL - null
IS - 67
PB - The Institute for Legal Studies Dong-A University
SP - 165
EP - 194
SN - 1225-3405
AB - In recent discussion on responsibility theory, moral responsibility theory and preventive responsibility theory based on relative indeterminism seems to be a prevalent view. Moral responsibility theory premises a doer’s free will, but in preventive responsibility theory, Jacobs eliminates free will from element of responsibility, while Roxin says free will in criminal law function not as practical fact but as one of norms, so there is no need to prove and it is enough to be just “fiction form”. As mentioned before, in moral responsibility theory, social responsibility theory, preventive responsibility theory, and alternative theory of responsibility which are represented as the conflict between determinism and indeterminism, the existence of free will has always been the start of discussion and important position to investigate the nature of responsibility. However, it has not been proved whether free will exist practically to human beings. “responsibility” that Roxin frequently referred is a eternal subject of criminal law and an essential question in criminal law. And yet at the same time, the dispute over the existence of free will and related issues about freedom is also a typical symbol of insoluble philosophical principle problem. But, Roxin’s opinion is worth to watch over meaningfully because the issue of free will cannot be determinable empirically. Also, if the purpose of prevention can be existed to raise the fundamental rights, not to infringe them, it seems to have a significant meaning to accepting it in the principle of responsibility. In other words, Roxin’s concept of responsibility which considers preventive purpose as maintaining the concept of responsibility as basis of punishment and restriction of punishment seems to minimize the dispute and protect the doer’s fundamental rights efficiently.
KW - criminal responsibility;the psychological responsibility theory;the normative responsibility theory;the alternative theory of responsibility;the preventive responsibility theory
DO -
UR -
ER -

오정한. (2015). A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law. DONG-A LAW REVIEW, 67, 165-194.

오정한. 2015, "A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law", DONG-A LAW REVIEW, no.67, pp.165-194.

오정한 "A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law" DONG-A LAW REVIEW 67 pp.165-194 (2015) : 165.

오정한. A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law. 2015; 67 : 165-194.

오정한. "A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law" DONG-A LAW REVIEW no.67(2015) : 165-194.

오정한. A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law. DONG-A LAW REVIEW, 67, 165-194.

오정한. A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law. DONG-A LAW REVIEW. 2015; 67 165-194.

오정한. A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law. 2015; 67 : 165-194.

오정한. "A review on dispute over essence of responsibility in criminal law" DONG-A LAW REVIEW no.67(2015) : 165-194.