Extract
[...] Certain formal offenses, on the other hand, do not require the realization of a result to be constituted. In fact, in these situations, it is the behavior itself that is incriminated. Thus, driving under the influence is punishable even if it has not caused an accident. Or, as is the case with poisoning: Article 221-5 of the Penal Code defines poisoning asthe act of endangering the life of another by the use or administration of substances capable of causing death", without, however, requiring the victim to die or suffer harm in order to be punishable. [...]
[...] These offenses therefore punish acts without a real damage having occurred. If, on the one hand, this reinforces prevention, on the other hand, it can lead to excessive punishment of sometimes trivial behaviors. This tension between result and culpability illustrates an evolution of penal law towards a more subjective approach, which moves away from the rigor of traditional offenses. This raises questions about the legitimacy of this evolution, particularly in terms of respect for individual freedoms and proportionality of sanctions. [...]
[...] If the result plays a fundamental role in material offenses, it is secondary, if not absent, in formal offenses. This reflects an evolution of penal law towards a more preventive logic. It is also certain that the place given to the result in the definition of the offense presents certain criticisms. II. The Critiques and Limits of Considering the Result in Contemporary Penal Law Here is an analysis of the criticisms and limits related to the consideration of the result in penal law. [...]
[...] The result, on the other hand, holds a certain role in the definition of the offense. The role of the result, that is to say the concrete effect produced by the incriminated act, occupies a fundamental place. However, this place is the subject of debates. If certain offenses require the realization of a damage to be constituted, others are satisfied with sanctioning a dangerous behavior, independently of any result. This question therefore raises crucial issues for criminal law. On the one hand, taking into account the result ensures a certain legal security and respect for the principle of proportionality of penalties: only a behavior that has really caused damage is reprehensible. [...]
[...] Historically, criminal law has been built around offenses based on the materialization of harm. But contemporary developments, driven by concerns such as collective security or the prevention of risks, favor the multiplication of offenses where the result is secondary, or even non-existent. This dynamic ultimately reflects a reorientation of the purposes of criminal law, but it also raises criticisms: risk of drift towards a preventive criminal law, infringement of individual freedoms, and questioning of fundamental principles such as guilt and proportionality of penalties, etc . [...]
