CRIMINAL CULPABILITY IN BOLIVIA

NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CULPABILITY

This foundational principle asserts that criminal penalties cannot be based solely on the result of an action, but must also consider whether the offender could have acted differently. If there is no intent or negligence, there is no culpability, and therefore, no punishment is warranted.

Within criminal theory, this principle also aligns with the humanity of penalties doctrine, which prohibits punishment beyond an individual’s personal responsibility.

Practical example:
If someone has an unexpected epileptic seizure while driving and hits a pedestrian, they cannot be held criminally liable because the act was neither intentional nor negligent—it is not reproachable.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTENT (DOLO) AND NEGLIGENCE (CULPA)

Intent (Dolus)

Intent involves the conscious and voluntary decision to commit a criminal offense. Legal doctrine distinguishes between:

• Direct intent: The offender deliberately aims to produce the result (e.g., shooting with the intention to kill).
• Eventual intent: The offender does not desire the result but consciously accepts the risk (e.g., driving drunk at high speed through a school zone).

Example:
A person drives intoxicated through a pedestrian zone, aware of the likely danger but proceeds anyway.

Negligence (Culpa)

Negligence refers to the violation of the duty of care that any reasonable person would observe under the same circumstances. It may include:

• Negligence: Carelessness or inattention.
• Recklessness: Acting with disregard for obvious risks.
• Lack of expertise: Inadequate technical knowledge in a professional setting.

Example:
A driver causes a crash while distracted by their phone. The accident was unintentional, but due to negligence.

In the criminal system, negligent acts are only punishable if explicitly stated by law. Otherwise, only intentional acts (dolus) are subject to penalties.

OMISSIVE CONDUCT: WHEN FAILURE TO ACT IS A CRIME

In some circumstances, the law equates failure to act with causing harm, but only when the individual has a special legal duty to act as a guarantor. This doctrine is based on the idea that the protection of certain legal interests depends on actions from individuals legally obligated—by law, contract, or voluntary assumption of duty.

Example:
A father watches his young child fall into a pool and does nothing to help, despite being present and having a legal duty to protect. This omission is treated as equivalent to causing the child’s death.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES AND EXECUTIVES

Legal doctrine recognizes that culpability can extend to administrators, executives, or representatives of companies and organizations. Even when acting on behalf of a legal entity, these individuals are personally liable if the conditions for criminal liability are met.

This reflects the principle that criminal liability is personal and non-transferable—no one can hide behind a legal entity to avoid accountability.

Example:
A factory manager orders the violation of safety protocols to cut costs, resulting in a serious workplace accident. Though acting on behalf of the company, the manager bears direct personal responsibility.

MISTAKE OF FACT AND LAW IN CRIMINAL LAW

Mistakes are significant in criminal law because they can exclude or mitigate culpability by affecting the offender’s understanding of the act. Legal doctrine distinguishes between:

Mistake of Fact

This occurs when the offender misperceives a critical aspect of reality regarding the criminal act.

• Invincible mistake (unavoidable): Excludes criminal responsibility.
• Vincible mistake (avoidable): May lead to negligent liability if recognized by law.

Example:
Someone mistakenly takes an identical backpack, believing it to be their own. The error negates intent; if unavoidable, it excludes responsibility.

Mistake of Law

This refers to unawareness of the illegality of one’s conduct.

• Invincible mistake: Exempts the offender from punishment.
• Vincible mistake: May reduce the penalty under applicable legal provisions.

Example:
A foreign national hunts a protected animal without knowing it’s illegal in Bolivia. If the error was unavoidable, there is no liability; if avoidable, the penalty is mitigated.

PENALTY REDUCTION IN CASES OF MISTAKE

When the law allows for special mitigation, penalties may be significantly reduced in accordance with the principles of proportionality and human dignity. These reductions are regulated and aim to align punishment with the actual degree of culpability.

Example:
In cases of avoidable mistake of law, a crime punishable by 30 years in prison may see the sentence reduced to 15 years.

In conclusion, culpability in Bolivian criminal law is not limited to the outcome of an act, but hinges on a reproach-based assessment of the offender’s behavior. Sanctions apply only when conduct is attributable to intent or negligence. The law also provides for criminal liability by omission under special duties, personal liability of legal representatives, and the relevance of factual or legal errors. Finally, special rules of mitigation ensure penalties are proportionate to actual culpability.

Culpability thus serves as a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary punishment by the State, ensuring proportionality and justice in each case.