Causalità e colpa nell'esposizione dei lavoratori alle polveri di amianto fra "caos" e "logos"

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

[automatically translated] The jurisprudential experience of exposure of workers to asbestos dust makes a particularly valuable testing ground for a rigorous verification of theoretical elaborations regarding causality and guilt. In terms of causation, to the progressive abandonment of positions focused on the excessive emphasis on the statistical probability quantum was followed by the gradual admission of the criterion of rational credibility. This important change in approach, however, was not sufficient to eliminate radically the tendency to confuse the jurisprudence terms of causal / naturalistic explanation by the set profile legislation / objective of the event, as the solution adopted with regard to the dose lethal asbestos. Here, the fact that the judicial response adheres to the explanations offered epidemiology with regard to the ability of an inhaled to cause the harmful event has prevented the judges to consider the opportunity of using the function block diagram of the human additional causality. In terms of guilt, excessive subjectivism imputation culpable, frequently interpreted as a violation of every prudent prescription - including all appropriate abstractly behavioral mode to avoid injury to the protected legal interest - it has been accompanied by a substantial omission of counter-evidence the alternative behavior lawful. The reconstruction of the path followed by the more recent case law on asbestos. performed the same way as a scientific method that proceeds from the particular to the general, from individual cases up to the theoretical hypothesis, it shows that some of the main criminal problems that emerged in the period of post-moderanità and regarding the question of causality and guilt merely offer under a different guise issues "ancient", already dealt with in the abstract from criminal science and likely to be resolved through traditional dogmatic categories. There is therefore nothing new under the sun; no chaos that can not be explained with the logos of the right, rather a "chaotic" law, often forget the heuristic function of the categories developed by the criminal dogmatic. It shows how some of the main criminal problems emerged in the period of post-moderanità and regarding the question of causality and guilt merely repeat in a different issues as "old", already dealt with in the abstract from criminal science and likely to be resolved through traditional dogmatic categories. There is therefore nothing new under the sun; no chaos that can not be explained with the logos of the right, rather a "chaotic" law, often forget the heuristic function of the categories developed by the criminal dogmatic. It shows how some of the main criminal problems emerged in the period of post-moderanità and regarding the question of causality and guilt merely repeat in a different issues as "old", already dealt with in the abstract from criminal science and likely to be resolved through traditional dogmatic categories. There is therefore nothing new under the sun; no chaos that can not be explained with the logos of the right, rather a "chaotic" law, often forget the heuristic function of the categories developed by the criminal dogmatic.
Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)969-1022
Number of pages53
JournalRIVISTA TRIMESTRALE DI DIRITTO PENALE DELL'ECONOMIA
Volume2009
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Cite this