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
238 PETER ARTNER porai and perpetual, too. It is similar to those cases when somebody acts under any drug or alcohol influence, which limits his imputability. Now let’s see this case when somebody at the dime of acting lacks the use of reason because of some transitory mental disturbance44 such as influence of drug, alcohol or any other material which makes the person to lack the use of reason. The lack of the use of reason can be temporal or perpetual. If it is perpetual and grave, the person according to nr. 6 of Can. 1322 cannot commit any crime, especially if he is committing the crime under involuntarily drunkenness.45 This is somehow similar to Can. 1095 nr. 1, which states that the person, who lacks the sufficient use of reason, is incapable of contracting marriage. This can be temporal and perpetual, too. The temporal lack of the use of reason may be caused by drug, alcohol or some kind of illness, e.g., lunatics, psychical unevenness of temper, depression which may cause panic-disorders, mental or emotional disorders, epilepsy, hysteria, pathological alcohol-intoxication, partial amnesia, etc. In these cases the person loses the self-control and his imputability. If the lack of use of reason is caused by an illness, the person is not responsible for his acts because he cannot do anything to avoid it (provided that he uses the necessary treatments). If the person acts while he is unconscious, or the offence happened while he was unconscious the delict is not imputable for him, because he is out of control.46 The question is: what caused the loose of control? Is he responsible for losing the control or not? Canon 2229 § 3 °2 of the Code of 1917 wrote: Drunkenness, the omission of due care feeble-mindedness and heat of passion are not factors that excuse from latae sententiae penalties provided that there is still grave fault, notwithstanding the diminished imputability. In case of consuming drug or alcohol, the psychical imputability becomes limited or can even completely cease, but the punishability may vary. The person who drinks alcohol and loses the self-control and becomes imputable and later being under the influence commits a crime is not automatically responsible for the offence because although the drinking was voluntary, the crime-committing was not. There is no post hoc ergo propter hoc relation between the drinking and the crime. The second case: If the person drinks alcohol and knows that this will weaken his will but he deliberately drinks and commits a crime, he is responsible, al44 Marzoa, Á. - Miras, J. - RodrIguez-Ocana, R. (ed.), Exegetical Commentary’, IV/1. 284 (MarZOA, Á.). 45 Beal, J. P. - Coriden, J. A. - Green, T. J. (ed.), New Commentary, 1543 (Green, T. J.). 46 Calabrese, A., Diritto penale canonico, Città del Vaticano 1996. 52.
