For example, the doctor who caused the death of a six-month-old child, the prosecutor’s office accuses him of leading the administration inadvertently leading to death. However, in this case, is it really possible to speak of leadership?
Types of agency
Criminal law provides for several types of agency. As indicated in art. 18 § 1 of the Criminal Code: is responsible for the perpetration not only the one who does the offense itself (jednosprawstwo – perpetration single) or jointly and in collusion with another person (an accomplice), but also the one who directs the performance of an offense by another person (perpetration management ) or using the addiction of another person, recommends her to do so (advocacy).
The person who performs or performs it alone is responsible for this type of act. In other words, it consists in the independent execution of a prohibited act. It takes place personally, without participation or participation of other people.
An example of this may be the independent decision to make the theft in the store and make it yourself.
It involves the execution of a prohibited act jointly and in consultation with other people. The action must therefore be common and must precede the agreement.
Does joint implementation mean that all accomplices must perform actions that are considered a crime? Not necessarily. The complicity may be based on the division of roles – one perpetrator brings the other car to the place of theft, waits in readiness and ensures that the other person does not prevent the other in making the theft. In fact, one could say that he does not directly commit a prohibited act – he does not break in, does not steal – he simply participates as a driver and looks after the area. If, then, there were no concepts of complicity, he could not be held responsible.
Of course, agreement is an important element of complicity. The perpetrators determine the division of activities, circumstances of the act, share roles etc. Criminal law does not require a special form of this agreement – so it can only be an implied agreement.
Together, the co-operators carry out a prohibited act – not everyone separately and each of them is responsible for this act in the same way.
In this case, one of the perpetrators takes a decision-making role – he directs the execution of deeds, in fact he controls the execution of criminal acts by others.
An example may be a mafia boss who directs his “soldiers” – decides what action to be taken, what is the division of roles, watches over his course and makes decisions in the changing conditions of performing an act.
Importantly, the manager’s perpetrator does not take the causative action himself – for example, he does not succeed at all at the scene, and communicates with the contractors via, for example, a telephone.
It is based on the order to perform a prohibited act using the dependency relationship (subordination). The committing perpetrator does not direct the execution of the act – he only orders or recommends it. He uses his superior position over the direct contractor.
An example of this is the relationship of dependence in the army, work or family.