crimina culposa

15:31 Nov 13, 2018 

Thanks for your input anyway. Yes, as I wrote in my note to Manuel's answer, I might end up defining it along the lines of "system of statutorily-defined fault (culpability?) offenses". Not ideal, but it does explain to the reader what's going on.

13:04 Nov 13, 2018 

The Dressler quote can certainly muddle the waters. But consider that he also quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes: "most of the difficulty as to the mens rea was due to having no precise understanding what mens rea is." Legal scholars are also confused as to the meaning of mens rea. Ha!

The key for your translation is knowing how crimina culposa contrasts with crimen culpae. Both are about criminal culpability, but the latter system treats all reckless (and negligent) behavior as a fault crime while the former treats it as a fault crime only if the action or omission is defined in a statute.

Maybe there is a great translation for your term, but I don't have the time to waddle through the terminological mud right now. I try to avoid it at all costs, but maybe it would be better to leave it untranslated and let the rest of the text speak for itself.

05:54 Nov 13, 2018 

One last point: that quote by Dressler only muddies things further for me; it sounds strikingly similar to malice (or dolus).

malice noun
mal·​ice | \ˈma-ləs \
Definition of malice
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
an attack motivated by pure malice
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse
ruined her reputation and did it with malice
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malice

do·​lus | \ˈdōləs\
Definition of dolus
1 Roman, civil, & Scots law : the doing of anything that is contrary to good conscience : the use of a trick, stratagem, artifice, or device to deceive another : DECEIT
2 Roman, civil, & Scots law : evil or criminal intent similar to malice at the common law in the law of crimes : willful and wanton misconduct in the law of delicts : FRAUD, DECEPTION
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dolus

05:47 Nov 13, 2018 

The English nomenclature is a trip too. Just look at this paragraph from Wikipedia:

Recklessness usually arises when an accused should be aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others, and, unless they exercised all possible due diligence, the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence. Note that gross criminal negligence represents such a serious failure to foresee that in any other person, it would have been recklessness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

Now, supposedly "negligence" bears a lesser degree of culpability than "recklessness", yet according to the above, "gross negligence" signifies more culpability than "recklessness".

By the way, Sandro, thank you at least for such a clear explanation of how complicated this is :-)

05:37 Nov 13, 2018 

I totally agree, I think it's more problematic than even your first post suggests.
I've been going around in circles for days on the topic of whether "imprudencia" is "recklessness" or "negligence" (in my source text in particular).
In the commentary I've linked to above (2nd link), it further mentions a distinction in Spanish law between "imprudencia temeraria" and "imprudencia simple".

Pero, entre otros problemas de interpretación de la norma que el delito imprudente suscita, aparece el de interpretar la diferente calificación ahora adoptada de la imprudencia, en grave y leve, y su posible relación comparativa con las anteriores imprudencia temeraria y simple. Parece ser que el concepto de imprudencia grave equivale al anterior de imprudencia temeraria, es decir que requiere para su existencia una conducta en que se omita la adopción de las cautelas más elementales.

There's no easy solution for the above, I fear, but at least I'm closer to an understanding of "crimina culposa".

04:31 Nov 13, 2018 

Sorry if my previous comment seems a little out of context in this Kudoz. It does bring a little clarity to the translator. The bigger picture is that there is a lot of debate between legal scholars in English and in Spanish, each in their own systems, regarding the lines between civil torts and crimes, and how crimes are also subdivided by mens rea elements. The nomenclature in Spanish and English is inconsistent among legal scholars and this can make it almost impossible for legal translators to translate accurately.

The best I can do at this point is suggest that you consider the terms strict liability, and mens rea in the culpability meaning, which Joshua Dressler (Criminal Law) describes as "a general immorality of motive, vicious will, or an evil-meaning mind ... i.e., that the defendant committed the actus reus of an offense with a morally blameworthy state of mind."

04:05 Nov 13, 2018 

Rule
imprudencia = recklessness
negligencia = negligence

Exception
In practice, many lawyers mix the two types of fault crimes into one. For example, Robert, your citations all make reference of imprudencia, but I can see them lumping that and negligencia into one. They should have used infracciones culposas.

01:54 Nov 13, 2018 

la culpa en si, no constituye un delito, sino que es necesario que esté en relación a la afección a un bien jurídico, y es por eso que no puede haber más delitos culposos que dolosos***, así mismo en el Derecho Penal Chileno, ―no se sanciona la conducta imprudente como tal, sino tan sólo una conducta típicamente imprudente, porque ***en la ley no se contempla un crimen culpae (delito de culpa) sino crimina culposa‖119 (delitos culposos).***
Conforme a la doctrina del ―crimen culpae, este sería un delito sui generis con sus propias características y conforme a ella existiría por ejemplo junto al homicidio, hurto, violación, etc. un delito de imprudencia‖120, pero superado esto se sostiene que la culpa constituye una forma de injusto, por lo cual ya no es procedente hablar de un delito de imprudencia o de culpa (crimen culpae), sino de delitos imprudentes (crimina culposa).
(http://ri.ues.edu.sv/4300/1/50101316.pdf)

01:53 Nov 13, 2018 

I think these terms should be left untranslated, since they are legal doctrines, not types of crimes, but perhaps you may add an English literal translation between brackets:
crimen culposa => criminal negligence
crimen culpae => crime of negligence
--------
La opinión predominante, actualmente sobre los hechos culposos es que éstos no son crimen culpae sino crimina culposa, ya que lo que no puede hacer el legislador es castigar simplemente la falta de cuidado abstracto, porque implicaría ir a la creación del crimen culpae, que significa desligar el hecho culposo de toda protección a un bien jurídico, y consecuentemente la falta de cuidado pasaría a ser la figura punible de modo general. Lo que impediría toda actividad social, ya que la falta de cuidado está inmerso en el riesgo del quehacer social. Por ello; ***lo que se castiga en el delito imprudente es ―crimina culposa, que consiste en aquella falta de cuidado en relación con un tipo legal determinado por el que se protege un bien jurídico específico‖118, es decir; la culpa en si, no constituye un delito, sino que es necesario que esté en relación a la afección a un bien jurídico,