Kesengajaan 2

Summary

The script discusses various legal concepts in criminal law, focusing on the notion of 'intent' or 'mens rea.' It explores the differences between two theories: one that requires awareness of the law and the other that doesn't. The discussion includes examples like theft, drug planting, and legal mistakes (error facti vs. error juris). It also touches on exceptions, such as when a person unknowingly commits an act that appears criminal but is excused under certain circumstances. The content emphasizes understanding real-world situations and legal interpretations in different cultural and social contexts.

Takeaways

• 😀 A person's actions are considered intentional (kesengajaan) if they are aware that their actions are illegal or prohibited by law.
• 😀 There are two main theories regarding intent: one requires knowledge of the law, and the other considers voluntary actions without needing knowledge of the law.
• 😀 The concept of 'fiksi hukum' (fiction of law) assumes that people are presumed to know the law, regardless of whether they are actually aware of it.
• 😀 In cases where someone does not know the law but commits an illegal act, they can still be held liable under the principle of 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.
• 😀 'Error Facti' (mistake of fact) refers to when a person is mistaken about the facts of a situation (e.g., mistaking someone else's property for their own). This usually leads to no legal liability.
• 😀 'Error Juris' (mistake of law) happens when someone is unaware of the law but still commits a prohibited act. This does not excuse them from legal consequences.
• 😀 Real-life application of these principles involves carefully considering whether a person could reasonably have known the law or made a genuine mistake based on their circumstances.
• 😀 In the case of someone mistakenly targeting the wrong object or person (e.g., mistaking one person for another), this is classified as 'Error in Objecto' and 'Error in Persona'.
• 😀 'Error in Objecto' involves targeting the wrong object, while 'Error in Persona' involves targeting the wrong person, but both can still lead to different legal outcomes depending on the situation.
• 😀 Real-life examples, like a person mistakenly disciplining another's child or someone thinking they are committing a theft, demonstrate how legal mistakes are treated differently based on the circumstances.

Q & A

What is the main debate about the concept of intentionality in criminal law as discussed in the script?

The debate revolves around whether a person must know that their action is prohibited by law in order for it to be considered intentional. One perspective suggests that the person must be aware of the legal prohibition, while another argues that criminal intent can exist without this knowledge.

How does the concept of 'fiksi hukum' (fiction of law) impact the application of criminal law?

Under the principle of *fiksi hukum*, individuals are considered to know the law, regardless of whether they have actually read it. This means that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and individuals can still be held accountable for criminal acts even if they are unaware that those actions are illegal.

What is the difference between 'error facti' and 'error juris'?

'Error facti' refers to a mistake about the facts of a situation, while 'error juris' refers to a mistake about the law itself. In 'error facti,' a person mistakenly believes something that isn't true about the situation, whereas in 'error juris,' the person does not know that their action is illegal.

Can a person be held criminally liable if they commit a crime due to 'error facti'?

No, a person cannot be held criminally liable if they commit a crime due to 'error facti.' If someone makes a factual mistake, such as not realizing they are taking their own property, they are typically not held accountable under the law.

What happens if a person commits a crime because they were unaware of the law, according to 'error juris'?

Under 'error juris,' a person can still be held criminally liable even if they were unaware of the law. The legal system operates under the assumption that individuals should know the law, and ignorance is not considered a valid defense.

What is 'putative error,' and how does it affect criminal liability?

'Putative error' occurs when a person believes they have committed a crime, but in reality, their actions were lawful. In such cases, the individual is not criminally liable because they did not actually perform a criminal act.

How does 'error in objecto' differ from 'error in persona'?

'Error in objecto' refers to a mistake regarding the object of the crime, such as intending to kill a specific person but accidentally killing someone else. 'Error in persona' refers to a mistake about the person involved, where a person targets the wrong individual, like mistakenly thinking one person is another.

Can a person be charged with murder if they mistakenly kill someone else under 'error in objecto'?

In cases of 'error in objecto,' the person can still be charged with murder, but the legal classification may vary. For example, if the intended target was a public figure like the president, but the person killed was a civilian, the charge would differ from a regular homicide.

What is the legal consequence if someone mistakenly shoots an innocent person while thinking it is an animal (as discussed in the 'error in objecto' example)?

In this case, the person would likely be charged with homicide, as they mistakenly killed a human while intending to kill an animal. The key point is that the person’s intention was to kill, but the object of the crime (the person instead of the animal) was incorrect.

What lesson is the speaker trying to convey about the application of legal principles in real-life cases?

The speaker emphasizes the importance of considering the practical realities of each case rather than rigidly applying theoretical legal principles. While legal concepts like *fiksi hukum* and different types of errors are important, the nuances of real-world situations, such as the individual's knowledge and intentions, must also be taken into account.