This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) / Court record
Spanish term or phrase:responsabilidad inexistente
Hi, I'm wondering if there's a better alternative to translate this rather than literally "non-existent liability" in view of the surrounding context which appears as follows:
Que su defendido no es autor de tales hechos, no existiendo circunstancias modificativas de una responsabilidad inexistente, no procediendo imponer pena alguna, procediendo por tanto la libre absolución de su patrocinado con todos los pronunciamientos que tal declaración lleva inherentes.
Explanation: If I have understood you well, what you are looking for is a “technical term”, a legalese expression that renders the Spanish into English in a very technical way.
If this is what you call “a better alternative”, you can go with “criminal liability” (“absence of” in this case since the defendant did not commit the crimes, according to the judge´s verdict, i.e. acquittal), which is a technical expression that fits your context and replaces perfectly well the absolutely non-technical phrase “responsabilidad inexistente”.
My suggestion is actually quite close to yours (“non-existent liability), but it subtitutes the “non-existent” part by “absence of”, which delivers a more technical rendering.
Source: Que su defendido no es autor de tales hechos, no existiendo circunstancias modificativas de una responsabilidad inexistente, (…)
Possible translation: That your defendant is not the author of such actions (= crimes) and there are not any circumstances that might alter the absence of criminal liability (…)
https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2015/01/criminal-liabil... WHAT IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY? Posted on January 17, 2015 by (XXX) We hear the term “criminal liability” a lot in the context of criminal law, but what does it actually mean? WHAT DOES CRIMINAL LIABILITY MEAN? In simplest terms, when you are “criminally liable,” it means you may be held legally responsible for breaking the law. This can be potential or actual responsibility—meaning that you actually committed the crime, or that you are simply suspected of committing it. If the liability is proven in court, you will be held responsible for the crime and sentenced accordingly. In cases of criminal liability, the government believes you may have committed a criminal act, and the government prosecutes the case in court.
Convinded of what, Reuben? That the criminal is a grown-up? That the criminal might perhaps not be a minor? In either case, this is something we still don´t know, so I don´t understand what made you change your mind. Convinced of anything else? Then that “anything else” is something I can´t grasp. Look: If you had posted from the beginning an alternative to my answer just stating that you include “responsibility” instead of “liability” due to the fact that the criminal person could be a minor, I would never have said anything against that, never. The real problem here, what worries me about your participation in this KudoZ, is that I´m not at all “convinced” (using your term) that you understood the matter that way at the beginning. This being said, I´m still not sure that the key distinction between “criminal liability” and “criminal responsibility” due to the age factor is applicable in all Common Law jurisdictions. It´s beyond my knowledge and, after all, it´s a different debate. Good day to you.
@ Toni I apologize for misspelling your name the first time (I noticed but didn't want to have to delete my answer and resubmit). Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Your answer is good, I just feel there is an important distinction between the terms "responsibility" and "liability" and this exists within the criminal court, as well as the civil court. You seem to agree that, albeit unlikely, given the limited context, we cannot entirely exclude the possibility of a defence of "being responsible but not liable" on the basis of age, and it can be used in DV cases, not only for being underage, but for intoxication. So, it IS relevant. https://www.rodenasabogados.com/circunstancias-modificativas...
Discussing why it might be important to question the use of a term is not "shedding doubt"; that's what the comments section is for. As long as the discussion remains constructive. I don't think "disqualifying my attitude" refutes a healthy questioning of your answer. I meant my questioning in a respectful way, you have many years of translating experience and I respect that. Let's agree to respect one another's professional opinions and not disqualify anyone
Reuben, this is what you wrote: "Creo que la idea de Tony ("Toni" is my correct name) para "absence of" es buena, solo que hay que distinguir entre la responsibilidad penal = criminal responsibility, legal responsibility [yes, you call "responsabilidad penal" just "legal responsibility] y la responsabilidad civil/legal = liability. La primera se usa en el codigo penal, la segunda se usa en el litigios para decidir quien tiene la responsabilidad legal de la reparación de los daños (materiales, corporales u otros).
So you were speaking of "civil liability" in a clear criminal matter, and where I wrote "criminal liability" from the beginning. Uf... The only legitimate and relevant doubt concerns the age of the criminal person, in which case, if a minor, "criminal responsibility" might be applicable, but we don´t know how old that person is. We simply don´t know. And for this reason, to shed doubts on my answer disqualify your attitude. We are here to help, do NOT forget it.
responsible = the person is culpable of committing the act liable = the person is culpable and should be held to account for their actions (criminal punishment, fines, damages in a civil suit, which in the US is separate)
Essentially, liability is a question of whether someone should be held responsible, in law, for an action or inaction which caused injury, loss, or damage. Legal responsibility is a distinct concept and may not always align with one’s sense of moral responsibility or perception of factual responsibility. Liability in tort law is also distinct from findings of guilt or culpability in criminal matters, and the two should not be confused.
Well, we've been told (I think) that this is a DV case, in which case it's unlikely that the accused is underage, or mentally handicapped. Could be though... As for the other point, I believe, like Reuben, that the judge is summing up, or giving his reasoning. To do that, he recaps what the defense has said. We don't know yet if he will acquit or not.
You yourself admit now not to be sure of what you stated before with such a degree of certainty (solo que hay que distinguir entre la responsibilidad penal = criminal responsibility, legal responsibility y la responsabilidad civil/legal = liability). Well my point is clear, it´s up to you to make up your mind.
@ Toni, yes, and later in your link there is this distinction:
Responsible but not liable—incapacity to form criminal intent Criminal liability law also recognizes situations in which the person who personally, directly engaged in the criminal act should not be held liable for the crime. Essentially, even though certain people committed a criminal act, they should not be held to account for it. The most obvious example is that of a person who is not guilty of a crime by reason of mental incapacity. Another group exempted from certain criminal liability is minors. The rationale for exempting such individuals from liability is that these people are unable to form the type of intent required to make it fair to hold them to account for the crime.
Without more context, I am not sure we can be absolutely sure the speaker is not referring to this type of circumstance giving rise to a plea of incapacity to form intent or the defendant being a minor.
in which case they would be "responsible" but NOT LIABLE. Your link.
It may be worth taking a look at this link, just to post one example among hundreds of thousands: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-lia... Criminal Liability A person is liable, or responsible, for a crime when he or she has acted with criminal intent, as opposed to acting accidentally or lacking the ability to act deliberately.
I think, Reuben, that the 'responsibility' thing refers more to people who are under age, or backward etc. But I'm not sure, haven't checked. I think in the UK they'd perhaps not use these terms much anyway and would tend to say culpability.
You're right, Lester, as you suggested I too believe the speaker is repeating/reporting what the defendant's lawyer was saying in the third person. I still do think there is an important distinction to be made between "criminal responsibility" and "criminal liability" in the Englsh-speaking legal systems. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/crimin...
Good point, you might be right. But when I read "que su defendido" (= el defendido del abogado, la persona acusada del delito), this seems to me to be the judge´s standpoint (i.e. their verdict). If your reading were the correct one, this should then read "que mi defendido bla bla bla", or am I missing here something???
I believe that here the judge is not acquitting the defendant. He is simply repeating/reporting what the defense lawyer has alleged: "That his client is not the author of...etc". And the 'circunstancias modificativas' are mitigating or aggravating circumstances; 'no existiendo circunstancias modificativas de una responsabilidad inexistente' would be "there can be no aggravating circumstances where there is an absence of culpability/absence of criminal liability"
Is this a criminal case? I suppose so when I read "no procediendo imponer pena alguna". Please confirm.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
38 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +7
absence of criminal liability
Explanation: If I have understood you well, what you are looking for is a “technical term”, a legalese expression that renders the Spanish into English in a very technical way.
If this is what you call “a better alternative”, you can go with “criminal liability” (“absence of” in this case since the defendant did not commit the crimes, according to the judge´s verdict, i.e. acquittal), which is a technical expression that fits your context and replaces perfectly well the absolutely non-technical phrase “responsabilidad inexistente”.
My suggestion is actually quite close to yours (“non-existent liability), but it subtitutes the “non-existent” part by “absence of”, which delivers a more technical rendering.
Source: Que su defendido no es autor de tales hechos, no existiendo circunstancias modificativas de una responsabilidad inexistente, (…)
Possible translation: That your defendant is not the author of such actions (= crimes) and there are not any circumstances that might alter the absence of criminal liability (…)
https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2015/01/criminal-liabil... WHAT IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY? Posted on January 17, 2015 by (XXX) We hear the term “criminal liability” a lot in the context of criminal law, but what does it actually mean? WHAT DOES CRIMINAL LIABILITY MEAN? In simplest terms, when you are “criminally liable,” it means you may be held legally responsible for breaking the law. This can be potential or actual responsibility—meaning that you actually committed the crime, or that you are simply suspected of committing it. If the liability is proven in court, you will be held responsible for the crime and sentenced accordingly. In cases of criminal liability, the government believes you may have committed a criminal act, and the government prosecutes the case in court.
Toni Castano Spain Local time: 03:05 Specializes in field Native speaker of: Spanish PRO pts in category: 127
peer agreement (net): +7