Folia Theologica et Canonica 6. 28/20 (2017)
IUS CANONICUM - Peter Artner, Psychical imputability and punishability in the current penal system of the Canon Law
234 PETER ARTNER imputability "by reason of malice or by reason of culpability”. The importance of this distinction appears in this canon. In Canon 1323 seven qualifiers are identified which show when someone who has violated a law or precept is not “liable/subject” (obnoxious) to a penalty. This is distinct from the previous canon (c. 1322) which provided for the habitually insane. These factors remove the imputability, prevent the imposition of a penalty, but the delict is committed. In these cases the imputability may be limited because of diminished freedom, or the lack of awareness of the consequences of behavior. The lack of imputability in the following cases is temporal. but full. The followings are not subject to penalty: 1 ) A person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age is not subject to penalty. Although the age, as a simple number does not automatically mitigates the imputability of the offender, the law has to set the limit of the presumed imputability. This limit in the penal law is 16 years of age in the Latin Code and 14 in the Eastern Code. We cannot say that somebody under 16 is not responsible for their deeds, or cannot make a decision deliberately, or cannot be mature enough, but in this case the penal law considers those under 16 as quasi infants (although this word is not used in the Code), and renders no penalties for them. On the other hand, a good question may appear: a 15-year-old girl may contract marriage32, so the Code considers her as a person, who can make a lifetime decision, accept all those rights and obligations which come from the marriage, but she cannot be punished for a delict, even she committed it deliberately and fully aware of all consequences, for example: abortion. So, Matrimonial law considers her as an adult with complete use of reason, but Penal law considers her as an infant, with no imputability. On the other hand, a higher age (e.g., over 80-90 years) does not appear in the penal system as a diminishing or exempting category per se. Although if the lack of use of reason is caused by age, this circumstance is to be taken into consideration. 2) A person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; If by no fault on the part of the person there is present: Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that the action violates a law or precept. Error: a false judgement about the matter at hand; or Inadvertence: the lack of attention to a matter, the perpetrator cannot be punished. Canon 15 § 2 prescribes: "Ignorance or error about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another is not presumed (...)”. When a delict is committed ignorance, inadvertence and error are not presumed. If the person was ignorant, inadvertent or erred, this fact is to be proven. These three factors may be caused by psychical circum32 CIC Can. 1083 - § 1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
