No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Criminal Responsibility: A Survey of Developments in Israel Legislation and Precedent
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Extract
It is difficult to compress within thirty minutes or so, a talk on the general part of the criminal law in Israel, its sources, development, present status and future projection. The very nature of the topic, the wealth of detail connected with issues of criminal responsibility, the multitude of theories and controversial approaches, prevents this, particularly when bearing in mind that in such a talk one purports to cover a period of twenty-five years of dynamic development with a law operating in a changing society, in an emerging State in a world in flux.
I shall thus merely attempt to outline some of the salient features of legislation and precedent in the field of criminal responsibility, employing broad generalizations, and perhaps glean in some detail certain opinions—touching variously upon the responsibility issue—which appear to be in the nature of landmark decisions, introducing a new trend in the development of the law.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974
References
1 The Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936.
2 In 1965, we find amendments in connection with certain offences of negligence (sees. 232, 243a, 243b) and with the care and custody of children and infirm persons. Very extensive amendments, spread throughout the entire fabric of the specific part, were introduced in 1966 sometimes stream-lining punishments, and otherwise touching mainly upon: conspiracies to commit misdemeanours (sec. 35), offences against the State (sees. 59, 63, 64) and public order (sees. 85, 86, 102, 103), misapplication of public funds and abuse of office (sees. 110, 111, 112), giving false information (sec. 123), disturbing religious service (sec. 147), committing rape and sexual offences (sec. 152), attempts to procure abortion (sec. 175), obscene publications (sec. 179), attempted suicide (sec. 225(1)), abolishing certain species of theft (sees. 271, 272, 273, 277, 278), breaking and entering with felonious intent (sees. 295, 296), forgery of bank notes and counterfeiting (sees. 348, 349, 350, 356, 357, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363, 365, 366, 367). In 1968, 1971, and 1972, we find amendments in offences relating to the administration of justice concerning fake swearing before Commissions of Inquiry (sec. 119), presenting contradictory testimony (sec. 120A), refusal to testify (sec. 120B), interference with witnesses (sec. 121 A), publishing incorrect reports of proceedings in front of a Commission of Inquiry (sec. 127), and obstruction or insults to officers or members of such Commissions (sees. 139, 144).
3 (1972) S.H. no. 651 p. 51.
4 Some very interesting developments in the spheres of causation, mistake, intoxication and legality cannot be properly set out in this short introductory paper, and may be described during the open discussion.
5 David Yakabovitchv. A.G. (1952) 6 P.D. 514.
6 Shmuel Deutsch v. A.G (1954) 8 P.D. 456.
7 Armand Isan v. A.G. (1966) 20 P.D. 102.
8 Abu Rabia, Abu-Grinat v. A.G. (1963) 17 P.D. 2913.
9 Mandelbrot v. A.G (1956) 10 P.D. 281.
10 Mandelbrot v. A.G. (1956) 11 P.D. 769; Pano v. A.G. (1961) 16 P.D. 1105.
11 Aba Carmel v. State of Israel (1968) (II) 23 P.D. 803.
12 Maor Mizrachi v. A.G. (1959) 14 P.D. 1882. [For a detailed analysis of the Maor Mizrachi doctrine, see Ginossar, , “Autonomy of Corrective Law” (1974) 9 Is.L.R. 24Google Scholar (Ed.)].
13 Gadisi v. A.G. (1968) (I) 20 P.D. 57.