Conspiración, cómplice y responsabilidad Pinkerton: ¿dónde termina la responsabilidad penal? Un estudio sobre el sistema de responsabilidad penal estadounidense
Palabras clave:
Common law, Conspiración, Complicidad, Responsabilidad, Pinkerton
Resumen
La conspiración es un delito incipiente que permite el castigo de personas que acuerdan cometer un delito incluso si ellos nunca llevan adelante su plan o si son aprehendidos antes de alcanzar su objetivo. El delito de conspiración debe distinguirse claramente de la categoría ‘cómplice’. Este delito incipiente cumple una serie de funciones diversas que son satisfechas por otros dispositivos jurídicos en los sistemas legales continentales. La membresía a una conspiración genera un estándar para mantener a cada conspirador cómplice en los delitos cometidos por los otros conspiradores. La única restricción a esta prueba de complicidad es que el delito se cometa en cumplimiento del objetivo criminal de la conspiración. Dicha responsabilidad se ve amplificada más aún a partir de la doctrina Pinkerton. La superposición entre estos enfoques crea una red muy complicada de desentrañar. Por ello, en la presente investigación analizaremos la conspiración y su relación otros sistemas de responsabilidad (cómplice, responsabilidad Pinkerton) conforme al arsenal conceptual aportado por el common law, el objetivo principal será su análisis y crítica desde el propio sistema penal norteamericano.
Descargas
La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.
Citas
Ambos, K. (2007). Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility. Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, pp. 159-183. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mql045
Amenge Okoth, J. R. (2014). The Crime of Conspiracy in International Criminal Law, Heidelberg: Springer.
Blackstone, W. (1753). Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 2, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1893.
Clarkson, C. M. V., Keating, H. M., Cunningham, S. R. (2007). Clarkson and Keating Criminal Law: Text and Materials, 6ª edición, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Doyle, C. (2020). Accomplices, Aiding and Abetting, and the Like: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 2, Congressional Research Service, pp. 1-11. Recuperado de: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43769
Fletcher, G. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law, New York: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, G. (1998). Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frisch, W. (1996). Straftat und Straftatsystem, en Wolter, J., Freund G. (Eds.) Straftat, Strafzumessung und Strafprozeß im gesamten Strafrechtssystem: Straftatbegriff - Straftatzurechnung - Strafrechtszweck - Strafausschluß - Strafverzicht - Strafklagverzicht, Heidelberg: C.F. Müller Verlag, pp. 135-210.
Jefferson, M. (2013). Criminal Law, 11ª edición, London: Pearson.
Johnson, P. E. (1973). The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy. California Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 5 (Sep., 1973), pp. 1137-1188. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3479790
Katyal, N. K. (1961). Conspiracy Theory. The Yale Law Review, Vol. 112, pp. 1307-139. Recuperado de: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4808&context=ylj
Kaufmann, A. (1985). Das Übernationale und Überpositive in der Strafrechtswissenschaft, en Jescheck, H-H. et al. (Eds). Gedächtnisschrift für Zong Uk Tjong, Tokio: Seibundo, pp. 100-111.
Kurt, A. (2008). Vicarious Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton. American University Law Review, vol. 57, pp. 585-639. Recuperado de: http://pgil.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Vicarious-Libility-by-kreit.pdf
LaFave, W. R. (2010). Criminal Law, 5ª edición, Eagan, Minnesota: West Publishing.
LaFave, W. R., Scott, A. W. Jr. (1972). Handbook on Criminal Law, Eagan, Minnesota: West Publishing.
Manning A. (2006). A Common Law Crime Analysis of Pinkerton v. United States: Sixty Years of Impermissible Judicially-Created Criminal Liability, Montana Law Review, Vol. 67, pp. 89-119. Recuperado de https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2338&context=mlr
Maljevic, A. (2011). “Participation in a Criminal Organization” and “Conspiracy”. Different Legal Model Against Criminal Collectives, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Model Penal Code Commentaries. (1985). Part 1, General Provisions, Sec. 30.1-5.07 I, Philadelphia: The American Law Institute.
Marcus, P. (1992). Criminal Conspiracy Law: Time to Turn Back from an Ever Expanding, Ever More Troubling Area, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-45. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1549&context=wmborj
Marcus, P. (1977). “Conspiracy: The Criminal Agreement, in Theory and in Practice”. The Georgetown Law Journal, vol 65, pp. 925-969. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/558
May, J. (1983). Pinkerton v. United States Revisited: A Defense of Accomplice Liability. Nova Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 21-42. Recuperado de: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1833&context=nlr
Ohlin, J. D. (2007). Group Think: The Law of Conspiracy and Collective Reason. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 147-206. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/437
Ohlin, J. D. (2007b). Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, pp. 69-90. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mql1044
Perkins, R. M. (1941). Parties to Crime Author(s). University of Pennsylvania Law Reviewand American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 581-623. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9136&context=penn_law_review
Posner, R. A. (1985). An Economic Theory of Criminal Law. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 1193-1231. Recuperado de: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2827&context=journal_articles
Recent Decisions (1947). Criminal Law - Conspiracy and Substantive Offenses-Distinctions Between Conspirators and Accomplices-Conviction of Conspirators for Substantive Offenses, Although He Did Not Actually Participate in Them, FordhamLaw Review, Vol. 16, pp. 275-282. Recuperado de: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol16/iss2/6
Robinson P., Dubber, M. (2007). The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview. New Criminal LawReview , Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 319-341. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2007.10.3.319
Robinson P. (1997). Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson P. (1984). Imputed Criminal Liability. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 93, pp. 609-676. Recuperado de: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2500452
Sayre, F. B. (Sr.) (1932). Mens Rea. HarvardLaw Review, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 974-1026. Recuperado de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1332142
Sayre, F. B. (Sr.) (1930). Criminal Responsibility for the Acts of Another. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 689-723. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1330727
Schuessler, T. (1983). Liability for Coconspirator 's Crimes in the Wisconsin Party to a Crime Statute. Marquette Law Review, vol. 66, pp. 345-368. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1972&context=mulr
Sayre, F. B. (Sr.) (1922). Criminal Conspiracy. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 393-427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1328648
Schünemann, B. (1984). Einführung in das strafrechtliche Systemdenken. Schünemann, B., et al. (Eds.), Grundfragen des modernen Strafrechtssystems, Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1-68.
Turner, J. W. C. (1936). The Mental Element in Crimes at Common Law. The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 31-66. Recuperado de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4502876
Welzel H. (1964). Vom Bleibenden und vom Vergänglichen in der Strafrechtswissenschaft, Marburg a. d. Lahn: Elwert.
Weschler, H. (1962). On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, pp. 24-41. Recuperado de: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1034317?seq=1
Willson, W. (2017). Criminal Law, 5a edición, Harlow: Pearson.
Yale L. J. (1947). Vicarious Liability for Criminal Offenses of Co-Conspirators. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Jan., 1947), pp. 371-378.
Sentencias Judiciales
Sentencias de tribunales norteamericanos
American Tabacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946).https://www.jstor.org/stable/1034317?seq=1
Bates v. United States, 323 U.S. 15 (1944).
Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (1947).
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (1946).
Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942).
Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 (1961).
Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 75. A. 631 (1910).
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, (2006).
Hyde & Schneider v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912).
Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949).
Morrisey v. State, 620 A.2d 207 (Del. 1993
People v. Gem Hang, 131 Cal.App.2d 69 (1955).
People v. Hines, 29 N.E.2d 483 (N.Y. 1940).
People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48 (1979).
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).
Poliafico v. United States, 237 F.2d 97, 116 (6th Cir. 1956).
Sneed v. United States, 298 Fed. 911 (C.C.A. 5th, 1924)
State v. Miller, 677 P.2d 1129 (Utah 1984).
State v. Nevarez, 142 Idaho 616 (App.2005).
State v. Powel, 83 S.E. 310 (N.C. 1914).
State v. Stein, 94 Wash.App. 616 (1999).
State v. Stewart, 663, N.W.2d. 281 (Minn. 2002).
State v. Thibodeau, 353 A.2d 595 (Me.1976).
State v. Williams, 916 A.2d 294 (Md. 2007).
State ex rel. Woods v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497 (1992).
Thompson v. State, 106. Ala. 67, 17 So. 512 (1895).
United States v. Álvarez, 755 F.2d 830 (11th Cir.1985).
United States v. Britton, 10S U.S. 199, 204 (1883).
United States v. Castaneda, 9 F.3d 761 (9th Cir.1993).
United States v. Frazier, 880 F.2d 878 (6th Cir. 1989).
United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928 (5th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Hernandez-Orellana, 539 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Martinez, 900 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 465 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Raffone, 693 F2d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 1982).
United States v. Rosado-Fernandez, 614 F.2d 50, 53 (5th Cir. 1980).
United States v. Sail, 116 F. (2d) 745 (C. C. A. 3d, 1940).
United States v. Sall, 116 F.2d 745, (3d Cir. 1940).
United States v. Superior Growers Supply, 982 F.2d 173 (6th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Wilner, 523 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1975).
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).
State v. Williams, 397 Md. 172, 916 A .2d 294 (Md. 2007).
Sentencias de tribunales ingleses
Regina v. John Eagleton 169 Eng. Rep. 826 (Crim. App. 1855).
Regina v. Saunders, 2 Plowd 473 (1573).
Regina v. Tolson, 23 Q.B.D. 168 (1889).
Rex v. Huggins. King’s Bench 92 Eng. Rep. 518 (1730).
Sentencias de tribunales internacionales
Prosecutor v. Stakic, (IT-97-24-A, Sentencia de Apelaciones del TPIY, 22/03/2002).
Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, (IT-94-1-A, Sentencia de Apelaciones del ICTY, 15/07/1999).
Amenge Okoth, J. R. (2014). The Crime of Conspiracy in International Criminal Law, Heidelberg: Springer.
Blackstone, W. (1753). Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 2, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1893.
Clarkson, C. M. V., Keating, H. M., Cunningham, S. R. (2007). Clarkson and Keating Criminal Law: Text and Materials, 6ª edición, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Doyle, C. (2020). Accomplices, Aiding and Abetting, and the Like: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 2, Congressional Research Service, pp. 1-11. Recuperado de: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43769
Fletcher, G. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law, New York: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, G. (1998). Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frisch, W. (1996). Straftat und Straftatsystem, en Wolter, J., Freund G. (Eds.) Straftat, Strafzumessung und Strafprozeß im gesamten Strafrechtssystem: Straftatbegriff - Straftatzurechnung - Strafrechtszweck - Strafausschluß - Strafverzicht - Strafklagverzicht, Heidelberg: C.F. Müller Verlag, pp. 135-210.
Jefferson, M. (2013). Criminal Law, 11ª edición, London: Pearson.
Johnson, P. E. (1973). The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy. California Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 5 (Sep., 1973), pp. 1137-1188. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3479790
Katyal, N. K. (1961). Conspiracy Theory. The Yale Law Review, Vol. 112, pp. 1307-139. Recuperado de: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4808&context=ylj
Kaufmann, A. (1985). Das Übernationale und Überpositive in der Strafrechtswissenschaft, en Jescheck, H-H. et al. (Eds). Gedächtnisschrift für Zong Uk Tjong, Tokio: Seibundo, pp. 100-111.
Kurt, A. (2008). Vicarious Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton. American University Law Review, vol. 57, pp. 585-639. Recuperado de: http://pgil.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Vicarious-Libility-by-kreit.pdf
LaFave, W. R. (2010). Criminal Law, 5ª edición, Eagan, Minnesota: West Publishing.
LaFave, W. R., Scott, A. W. Jr. (1972). Handbook on Criminal Law, Eagan, Minnesota: West Publishing.
Manning A. (2006). A Common Law Crime Analysis of Pinkerton v. United States: Sixty Years of Impermissible Judicially-Created Criminal Liability, Montana Law Review, Vol. 67, pp. 89-119. Recuperado de https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2338&context=mlr
Maljevic, A. (2011). “Participation in a Criminal Organization” and “Conspiracy”. Different Legal Model Against Criminal Collectives, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Model Penal Code Commentaries. (1985). Part 1, General Provisions, Sec. 30.1-5.07 I, Philadelphia: The American Law Institute.
Marcus, P. (1992). Criminal Conspiracy Law: Time to Turn Back from an Ever Expanding, Ever More Troubling Area, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-45. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1549&context=wmborj
Marcus, P. (1977). “Conspiracy: The Criminal Agreement, in Theory and in Practice”. The Georgetown Law Journal, vol 65, pp. 925-969. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/558
May, J. (1983). Pinkerton v. United States Revisited: A Defense of Accomplice Liability. Nova Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 21-42. Recuperado de: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1833&context=nlr
Ohlin, J. D. (2007). Group Think: The Law of Conspiracy and Collective Reason. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 147-206. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/437
Ohlin, J. D. (2007b). Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, pp. 69-90. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mql1044
Perkins, R. M. (1941). Parties to Crime Author(s). University of Pennsylvania Law Reviewand American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 581-623. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9136&context=penn_law_review
Posner, R. A. (1985). An Economic Theory of Criminal Law. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 1193-1231. Recuperado de: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2827&context=journal_articles
Recent Decisions (1947). Criminal Law - Conspiracy and Substantive Offenses-Distinctions Between Conspirators and Accomplices-Conviction of Conspirators for Substantive Offenses, Although He Did Not Actually Participate in Them, FordhamLaw Review, Vol. 16, pp. 275-282. Recuperado de: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol16/iss2/6
Robinson P., Dubber, M. (2007). The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview. New Criminal LawReview , Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 319-341. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2007.10.3.319
Robinson P. (1997). Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson P. (1984). Imputed Criminal Liability. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 93, pp. 609-676. Recuperado de: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2500452
Sayre, F. B. (Sr.) (1932). Mens Rea. HarvardLaw Review, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 974-1026. Recuperado de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1332142
Sayre, F. B. (Sr.) (1930). Criminal Responsibility for the Acts of Another. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 689-723. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1330727
Schuessler, T. (1983). Liability for Coconspirator 's Crimes in the Wisconsin Party to a Crime Statute. Marquette Law Review, vol. 66, pp. 345-368. Recuperado de: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1972&context=mulr
Sayre, F. B. (Sr.) (1922). Criminal Conspiracy. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 393-427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1328648
Schünemann, B. (1984). Einführung in das strafrechtliche Systemdenken. Schünemann, B., et al. (Eds.), Grundfragen des modernen Strafrechtssystems, Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1-68.
Turner, J. W. C. (1936). The Mental Element in Crimes at Common Law. The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 31-66. Recuperado de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4502876
Welzel H. (1964). Vom Bleibenden und vom Vergänglichen in der Strafrechtswissenschaft, Marburg a. d. Lahn: Elwert.
Weschler, H. (1962). On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, pp. 24-41. Recuperado de: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1034317?seq=1
Willson, W. (2017). Criminal Law, 5a edición, Harlow: Pearson.
Yale L. J. (1947). Vicarious Liability for Criminal Offenses of Co-Conspirators. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Jan., 1947), pp. 371-378.
Sentencias Judiciales
Sentencias de tribunales norteamericanos
American Tabacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946).https://www.jstor.org/stable/1034317?seq=1
Bates v. United States, 323 U.S. 15 (1944).
Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (1947).
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (1946).
Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942).
Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 (1961).
Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 75. A. 631 (1910).
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, (2006).
Hyde & Schneider v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912).
Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949).
Morrisey v. State, 620 A.2d 207 (Del. 1993
People v. Gem Hang, 131 Cal.App.2d 69 (1955).
People v. Hines, 29 N.E.2d 483 (N.Y. 1940).
People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48 (1979).
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).
Poliafico v. United States, 237 F.2d 97, 116 (6th Cir. 1956).
Sneed v. United States, 298 Fed. 911 (C.C.A. 5th, 1924)
State v. Miller, 677 P.2d 1129 (Utah 1984).
State v. Nevarez, 142 Idaho 616 (App.2005).
State v. Powel, 83 S.E. 310 (N.C. 1914).
State v. Stein, 94 Wash.App. 616 (1999).
State v. Stewart, 663, N.W.2d. 281 (Minn. 2002).
State v. Thibodeau, 353 A.2d 595 (Me.1976).
State v. Williams, 916 A.2d 294 (Md. 2007).
State ex rel. Woods v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497 (1992).
Thompson v. State, 106. Ala. 67, 17 So. 512 (1895).
United States v. Álvarez, 755 F.2d 830 (11th Cir.1985).
United States v. Britton, 10S U.S. 199, 204 (1883).
United States v. Castaneda, 9 F.3d 761 (9th Cir.1993).
United States v. Frazier, 880 F.2d 878 (6th Cir. 1989).
United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928 (5th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Hernandez-Orellana, 539 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Martinez, 900 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 465 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Raffone, 693 F2d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 1982).
United States v. Rosado-Fernandez, 614 F.2d 50, 53 (5th Cir. 1980).
United States v. Sail, 116 F. (2d) 745 (C. C. A. 3d, 1940).
United States v. Sall, 116 F.2d 745, (3d Cir. 1940).
United States v. Superior Growers Supply, 982 F.2d 173 (6th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Wilner, 523 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1975).
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).
State v. Williams, 397 Md. 172, 916 A .2d 294 (Md. 2007).
Sentencias de tribunales ingleses
Regina v. John Eagleton 169 Eng. Rep. 826 (Crim. App. 1855).
Regina v. Saunders, 2 Plowd 473 (1573).
Regina v. Tolson, 23 Q.B.D. 168 (1889).
Rex v. Huggins. King’s Bench 92 Eng. Rep. 518 (1730).
Sentencias de tribunales internacionales
Prosecutor v. Stakic, (IT-97-24-A, Sentencia de Apelaciones del TPIY, 22/03/2002).
Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, (IT-94-1-A, Sentencia de Apelaciones del ICTY, 15/07/1999).
Publicado
2022-04-07
Cómo citar
Cordini, N. S. (2022). Conspiración, cómplice y responsabilidad Pinkerton: ¿dónde termina la responsabilidad penal? Un estudio sobre el sistema de responsabilidad penal estadounidense. Revista De La Facultad De Derecho, (53), e20225301. https://doi.org/10.22187/rfd2022n53a1
Número
Sección
Doctrina
Derechos de autor 2022 Nicolás S. Cordini
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0.
Los autores conservan sus derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cuál estará simultaneamente sujeto a la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional License. que permite compartir la obra siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
