Causality in Criminal Law
Causality plays a central role in criminal law when attributing actions and their legal consequences. It describes the causal relationship between human behavior and the occurrence of a criminal offense’s result. Establishing causality is particularly crucial in connection with result offenses, since criminal liability can generally only be established if there is a causal connection between the individual act and the result.
Basics of Causality in Criminal Law
Definition
Causality in the criminal law context refers to the relationship between an action (or omission) and the resulting factual outcome. It examines whether the result would still have occurred without the conduct in question. Only if the conduct is the cause of the result can criminal liability be established.
Significance of Causality
The causality test is part of the objective elements of an offense. It is a prerequisite for legally attributing the result of an action to a perpetrator. The absence of causality generally excludes criminal liability, since in such cases there is no causal connection between the perpetrator’s conduct and the result.
Theories for Determining Causality
Various theories have been developed in criminal law to address the issue of causality. The most important approaches are the equivalence theory (conditio sine qua non formula), the modified equivalence theory, and the doctrine of objective attribution.
Equivalence Theory (Conditio sine qua non Formula)
According to the equivalence theory, an act is causal for a result if it cannot be eliminated without the concrete result also being omitted. This means:
An act is causal if the offense-specific result would not have occurred in its absence.
This broadly defined theory means that every condition contributing to the result is considered equivalent. There is no differentiation regarding the significance of individual causes.
Modified Equivalence Theory
Since the pure equivalence theory can lead to a very broad extension of causality, it is modified in practice. Cases involving so-called atypical courses of causation or in which a third party causes the result independently of the initial act are excluded from criminal liability.
Doctrine of Objective Attribution
Objective attribution goes beyond the mere causal link. It asks whether the result can also objectively be attributed to the person acting. This is only the case if:
- The perpetrator created or increased a legally relevant risk through their conduct,
- The risk materialized in the concrete result.
This prevents the result from being attributed to anyone who has in some manner set a remote cause.
Special Problems of Causality in Criminal Law
Superseding and Hypothetical Causal Courses
A central problematic area involves so-called superseding and hypothetical causal courses:
- Superseding causality: A result would have occurred even without the conduct of the perpetrator, due to another cause at a later time (e.g., a poisoned victim dies earlier due to being shot by a third party).
- Hypothetical causality: The conduct of the perpetrator was causal for the result, but if the conduct had been omitted, the result would have occurred later in another way.
In both cases, criminal liability for the result is generally not established.
Alternative Causality and Cumulative Causality
- Alternative causality: Two independently acting behaviors would each have certainly led to the result on their own. Both perpetrators are responsible for the result, even if the actual cause of success is unclear.
- Cumulative causality: Multiple independently acting but individually insufficient causes together result in the occurrence of the result.
In such cases, all involved can be held criminally responsible for the result.
Omission Offenses and Causality
A causal link is also required for omission offenses. The causality test answers the question of whether the result would have been prevented with near certainty had the perpetrator acted as required by duty. The requirements for the probability are stringent (so-called ‘quasi-causality’).
Distinction from Objective Attribution
While causality examines the scientific-logical connection between action and result, objective attribution constitutes a normative evaluation that goes beyond the mere causality criterion. It distinguishes legally relevant causation from purely coincidental or socially acceptable realizations of risk.
Significance in the Criminal Liability Assessment
Establishing causality is generally necessary for determining the objective elements of an offense. It ensures that a perpetrator is not held liable for results that they have only remotely or accidentally contributed to. Only if both causality and objective attribution are met can an infringement of legal interests be considered a crime.
Practical Relevance and Evidence Assessment
In legal practice, the causality test is particularly important in complex causal chains, omission offenses, as well as in medical and traffic law. Establishing causality is often associated with difficult factual and scientific evaluations and requires careful consideration of the individual case.
Summary
Causality in criminal law is a central element for attributing results, especially in result offenses. It forms the link between human conduct and the result covered by the offense definition and is essential for establishing criminal liability. The various causality theories and the supplementary assessment of objective attribution ensure that attribution is made both legally and logically in a responsible manner, thereby countering the risk of an unjustified expansion of liability.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the concept of causality play an equally important role in all areas of criminal law?
The concept of causality is a central component in the objective elements of most offenses, especially result offenses in which the occurrence of a specific result is relevant under criminal law (e.g., homicide, bodily injury, property damage). In these cases, it must be examined whether the perpetrator’s conduct actually caused the legally defined result. For so-called conduct offenses, which are complete upon the performance of a certain act (e.g., drunk driving, perjury), the causal link between conduct and result is not relevant, as the occurrence of the result is not a criterion for the offense. Thus, the significance of causality varies considerably depending on the type of offense and is typically essential in result offenses, whereas it plays a subordinate role in so-called conduct offenses.
How should the legally relevant causal course be determined when there are several potential causes?
If several actions or factors contribute to a result, criminal law requires careful examination of which causes actually played a causal role in the result. The classic criterion is the so-called equivalence theory (conditio sine qua non formula), which holds that every action is a cause if it cannot be eliminated without the result in its concrete form also disappearing. If there are several equivalent conditions, in principle all involved can be included as causally acting perpetrators. In practice, however, complex issues of distinction arise, for example in parallel, alternative, or cumulative causalities, each of which must be considered individually. In addition, the causality assessment is complemented by the requirement of objective attribution, which filters out purely coincidental, socially inadequate, or entirely atypical courses of causation.
How is the occurrence of interruptions in the causal chain handled (e.g., third-party intervention or behavior of the victim)?
Interruptions of the causal chain (so-called interruptions of attribution) can arise, for example, through the intervention of a third party, independent conduct by the victim, or force majeure. Legally, it is examined whether the original chain of causation has been significantly altered such that the subsequent materialization of harm can no longer be attributed to the original cause. The decisive factor is whether the subsequent cause represented an entirely atypical, consciously self-determined, or grossly negligent intervention that essentially overlaid the original chain of causation. In cases where the victim acts independently and with completely free will (particularly in cases of self-endangerment), the original perpetrator is often no longer held legally responsible for the subsequent result.
What is the significance of objective attribution for causality in criminal law?
Mere causality alone is not sufficient for criminal liability in the context of the objective elements, as otherwise there would be a risk of limitless liability. Therefore, the causality criterion is supplemented by objective attribution. Objective attribution requires that the perpetrator, through their conduct, created a legally disapproved danger that materialized in the result required by the offense. If such a creation of danger or realization of risk is not present, the objective elements are not met, even if a causal connection exists. Exclusion grounds include the existence of a completely atypical course of causation, independent intervention of third parties or the victim, as well as socially appropriate behavior.
How does the principle of causality influence the assessment of criminal liability in cases of negligence?
The causality test is particularly important in cases of negligence, since here the unlawful conduct of the perpetrator must have caused the result. In addition to causality, hypothetical causality must also be examined, meaning it must be determined whether the result defined by the offense would also have occurred if the perpetrator had acted in accordance with their duty. If this is the case, there is no so-called nexus of wrongful conduct, and criminal liability for negligence is excluded. The principle of causality thus ensures that responsibility is only assumed for results that can actually be traced back to the wrongful conduct.
What role do so-called ‘reserve causes’ play and how do they affect the assessment of causality?
‘Reserve causes’ are alternative causes that would have led to the result independently of the perpetrator’s conduct, but only became effective after the offense-specific conduct. In criminal law, it is crucial that even if the result would have occurred later due to another condition, the initial causal act remains the cause for the result that actually occurred, as long as it did in fact bring about the result. Reserve causes therefore do not negate the causality of the initial act, but are relevant for determining the nexus of wrongful conduct in cases of negligence: if the result would have occurred in any event, the breach of duty is not causal for the result.
What evidentiary issues can arise in connection with the assessment of causality in criminal law?
The establishment of causality is often based on scientific or medical findings, which in practice can create complex evidentiary problems. Especially when there are multiple possible causes, longer periods between conduct and result, or specific medical expertise is necessary, reconstruction of a definite causal chain can be challenging. In such cases, the criminal law principle ‘in dubio pro reo’ (when in doubt, for the accused) applies, so a conviction may only be imposed if the causal connection can be proven beyond doubt. Otherwise, the accused must be assumed not to have caused the result.
