Hukum Pidana - Pertemuan ke 6 ( Aliran Kausalitas Dalam Hukum Pidana )

Summary

This video discusses the theory of causality in criminal law, focusing on different approaches to determining the responsibility of a perpetrator in a chain of events. The key theories covered include conditio sine qua non, individualism, and theories of causality such as von Kries. Through various examples, it illustrates how these theories assess factors leading to an outcome, like death or damage, and which person or action is held accountable. The video aims to clarify how causality is measured in legal terms, emphasizing the complexity of determining responsibility in criminal cases.

Takeaways

• 📚 The lecture focuses on the concept of causal theories in criminal law, specifically addressing liability in a series of events leading to a crime.
• ⚖️ One key theory discussed is the *conditio sine qua non* principle, which suggests that each action in a chain of events is a necessary cause of the final result.
• 🧠 The *conditio sine qua non* theory posits that if any event in a sequence were removed, the outcome would not have occurred, emphasizing equal responsibility for all contributing factors.
• 🔍 The lecture introduces an example involving a series of actions (like sending someone to buy cigarettes, crossing a street, and receiving medical treatment) to illustrate how causal relationships are evaluated.
• 🩺 In contrast to *conditio sine qua non*, the *individualization theory* focuses on identifying the most direct cause of harm. For instance, if a victim dies due to an allergic reaction rather than the poison itself, the allergy is seen as the main cause.
• 🔥 The example of someone setting up a glass in the sun to cause a fire is used to differentiate between human actions and natural causes, with responsibility being attributed to the final determining factor (the sun).
• ❓ The lecture also explores the concept of foreseeability and whether the perpetrator could reasonably predict the outcome of their actions, affecting their liability.
• 👊 Another example discusses a case where someone strikes a person with a pre-existing condition, like an inflamed spleen. The theory evaluates whether the perpetrator could foresee the impact of their actions.
• ⚙️ The balance of responsibility is also addressed through the concept of 'combined causality,' where both human action and natural circumstances contribute to the final outcome.
• 📜 The lecture concludes by touching on statutory interpretation, particularly how causal theories are applied to evaluate legal responsibility under specific laws.

Q & A

What is the focus of the 6th lecture in criminal law?

The 6th lecture focuses on the concept of causality (aliran kausalitas) in criminal law, specifically on the burden of proving the responsibility of the perpetrator in a chain of events leading to a criminal act.

What does the theory 'Conditio Sine Qua Non' explain in the context of criminal law?

The 'Conditio Sine Qua Non' theory, introduced by Von Buri, states that every action is a cause for the resulting consequence. In other words, if an action had not occurred, the consequence would not have happened.

How does the example of the chain of events between A, B, and D illustrate the concept of causality?

In the example, a chain of actions starts from A telling B to buy cigarettes, which eventually leads to D’s death. According to 'Conditio Sine Qua Non,' every link in this chain of actions is equally responsible for the final outcome, D's death, because each step contributed to the result.

What is the key difference between the 'Conditio Sine Qua Non' theory and the 'Individualist' theory?

While 'Conditio Sine Qua Non' gives equal weight to every cause in a chain of events, the 'Individualist' theory emphasizes the most direct cause that determines the consequence. For example, in the case of a person with an allergy, the allergy is seen as the determining factor in their death, not the poison itself.

How does the individualist theory apply to the example of a person with a severe allergy?

In the individualist theory, the determining factor in the death of the allergic person is their allergy, not the poison they consumed. The theory focuses on the specific condition that made the consequence (death) inevitable.

What role does the natural environment play in the individualist theory example involving the burning of a house?

In the individualist theory example, the natural environment, such as sunlight igniting a flammable liquid through a magnifying glass, is seen as the primary factor causing the fire. Therefore, the perpetrator who set the conditions is not directly held responsible, as the fire was ultimately caused by a natural event.

How does the 'Teori Meninggalisir' determine responsibility in the gas leak example?

The 'Teori Meninggalisir' looks at whether the perpetrator could have reasonably predicted the consequences of their actions. If someone left a leaking gas canister that later caused an explosion, their responsibility would be based on whether they could foresee that the gas would cause harm.

What is the significance of normal awareness in determining liability under the 'Von Kries' theory?

Under the 'Von Kries' theory, a perpetrator is considered liable if they can reasonably foresee the harmful consequences of their actions. For instance, if a person hits someone with a pre-existing condition, they are responsible if they should have known the action would exacerbate the condition.

In the context of criminal law, how does the 'Teori Relevansi' interpret actions and consequences?

The 'Teori Relevansi,' proposed by Messinger, links causality to legal interpretation. It considers whether the actions and their consequences are relevant under the law and whether the action aligns with the interpretation of legal statutes.

What is the main conclusion of the 6th lecture on causality in criminal law?

The 6th lecture concludes that various theories of causality—such as 'Conditio Sine Qua Non,' 'Individualist,' and 'Von Kries'—offer different perspectives on determining responsibility in criminal cases, with each focusing on different factors to establish liability for the consequences of an action.