El autor y el partícipe del delito previo, como sujetos activos en el delito de receptación
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo
Abstract
La presente tesis investiga el acierto de la adopción jurisprudencial y doctrinal en el
sistema jurídico peruano, del criterio de la imposibilidad de punir al autor o partícipe del hecho previo si acaso cometieran el delito de receptación (teoría de la impunidad de la auto receptación). Como objetivo general de esta investigación tenemos: Determinar el acierto de los criterios jurisprudenciales y doctrinales en el sistema jurídico peruano al señalar que ni el autor ni el partícipe del delito previo pueden ser sujetos activos del delito de receptación. Como objetivos específicos tenemos: Analizar las sentencias que desarrollan el concepto de la impunidad de la auto receptación, analizar los conceptos esbozados por los principales exponentes de la doctrina penal peruana respecto del impunidad de la auto receptación, contrastar los alcances de la lex scripta con los argumentos de los defensores de la impunidad de la auto receptación en el Perú. La investigación se llevó a cabo en gabinete, se utilizó el método sintético, la técnica del fichaje y análisis del contenido para procesar y ordenar la información obtenida. Luego de los hallazgos y discusión, se concluyó que, desde el punto de vista de la garantía de Lex scripta, que la adopción jurisprudencial y doctrinal de la impunidad de la auto receptación en el Perú no es acertada. Se concluyó, además, que los seis argumentos que la sostienen también son errados. De esa forma se describe a profundidad categorías conceptuales tanto a favor como en contra de la auto receptación en el Perú, optando los investigadores esbozar una teoría que explica la razón de punir al auto receptador. Se recomendó dos alternativas: el cambio de criterio jurisprudencial inmediato o la modificación legislativa del tipo penal de receptación que incluya una excusa absolutoria para el auto.
ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the achieve of the jurisprudential and doctrinal adoption in the Peruvian legal system, of the criterion of the impossibility of punishing the perpetrator or participant of the previous act if they commit the crime of reception (theory of the impunity of self-reception). As a general objective of this research we have: To determine the correctness of the jurisprudential and doctrinal criteria in the Peruvian legal system by pointing out that neither the author nor the participant of the previous crime can be active subjects of the crime of reception. As specific objectives we have: Analyze the sentences that develop the concept of impunity for self-reception, analyze the concepts outlined by the main exponents of Peruvian criminal doctrine regarding impunity for self-reception, contrast the scope of the lex scripta with the Arguments of the defenders of the impunity of the self-reception in Peru. The investigation was carried out in the office, using the synthetic method, the technique of recording and content analysis to process and organize the information obtained. After the findings and discussion, it was concluded that, from the point of view of the Lex scripta guarantee, that the jurisprudential and doctrinal adoption of the impunity of selfreception in Peru is not correct. It was also concluded that the six arguments that support it are also wrong. In this way, conceptual categories both for and against self-reception in Peru are described in depth, with the researchers choosing to outline a theory that explains.
ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the achieve of the jurisprudential and doctrinal adoption in the Peruvian legal system, of the criterion of the impossibility of punishing the perpetrator or participant of the previous act if they commit the crime of reception (theory of the impunity of self-reception). As a general objective of this research we have: To determine the correctness of the jurisprudential and doctrinal criteria in the Peruvian legal system by pointing out that neither the author nor the participant of the previous crime can be active subjects of the crime of reception. As specific objectives we have: Analyze the sentences that develop the concept of impunity for self-reception, analyze the concepts outlined by the main exponents of Peruvian criminal doctrine regarding impunity for self-reception, contrast the scope of the lex scripta with the Arguments of the defenders of the impunity of the self-reception in Peru. The investigation was carried out in the office, using the synthetic method, the technique of recording and content analysis to process and organize the information obtained. After the findings and discussion, it was concluded that, from the point of view of the Lex scripta guarantee, that the jurisprudential and doctrinal adoption of the impunity of selfreception in Peru is not correct. It was also concluded that the six arguments that support it are also wrong. In this way, conceptual categories both for and against self-reception in Peru are described in depth, with the researchers choosing to outline a theory that explains.
Description
Keywords
Receptación, Auto receptación, Lex scripta