Conflicts in Pál Angyal’s and Ferenc Finkey’s Views of Criminal Law – In the Light of Contemporary Cases

Abstract

In my article, I compare the views of two of the most famous Hungarian criminal lawyers, Pál Angyal and Ferenc Finkey, in the light of contemporary cases. Thus, I will review the problem of the so-called aberratio ictus, where although Finkey followed the practice of the court at the time, the early 20th century, today’s practice still adopts the viewpoint expressed by Angyal in relation to this case of mistake in facts. The next topic examined is that of continued offence, where Pál Angyal agreed with the practice of the courts both of that time and of the present day and saw this legal concept as being applicable only to offences committed intentionally. Finkey, on the other hand, in 1895, still saw it as an offence committed by negligence; however, by 1914 he had changed his mind and joined Angyal in this issue. An interesting problem is the subject of impossible attempts, which, however, had not yet been explicitly regulated by law in the lifetime of the two professors. Lastly, the two great scholars were of the same opinion on the way of treating the concurrence of offences committed by one or more acts.

Keywords

• concurrence of offences
• aberratio ictus
• continued offence
• legal dogmatics
• attempt offences