Comparative Study of the Legal Grounds for Excluding the Criminal Nature of the Act

Abstract

The legal framework governing the causes that exclude criminal liability constitutes an essential safeguard within criminal law, ensuring that sanctions are imposed only when all legal and moral prerequisites for criminal responsibility are fulfilled. This paper offers a historical and comparative analysis of both justification and non-liability causes, tracing their development in Romanian criminal law from the 19th century to the current Criminal Code. It highlights that justification causes - such as self-defence and necessity - remove the unlawfulness of the act and operate in rem, while causes excluding criminal liability - such as mistake of fact, coercion (physical or moral), and fortuitous events - exclude culpability and generally produce effects in personam. The study pays particular attention to the distinction between typicity and unlawfulness, as well as the impact of recent codifications which provide a clearer demarcation between the subjective and objective elements of criminal liability. Using an analytical and comparative methodology, the article examines the conditions of applicability, scope, and legal consequences of self-defence, necessity, mistake, and fortuitous case, with a focus on their effects on both the offender and third parties. The conclusion stresses the importance of precise and coherent legislative drafting in this area, given the significant implications these causes have for the exercise of criminal prosecution. Proper recognition and application of these legal concepts are essential for upholding human dignity, the principle of legality, and the proportionality of criminal sanctions.