Abstract
Given the unsatisfactory state of the debate on the relationship between criminalization theory and truth, this paper aims to discuss the limits of its criminal protection. To this end, the two different forms of protection, direct and indirect, are analyzed, and their problems, limits, and specificities are considered and discussed. In this context, a brief exploration of the current state of Criminalization Theory is also promoted, debating the insufficiency of considerations exclusively guided by the theory of legal good and the insertion of so-called deontological barriers in this theoretical framework. Ultimately, it is concluded that the direct criminal protection of truth will always be illegitimate because it violates what has been called the deontological truth barrier, while its indirect criminal protection will only be legitimate in cases where an untruth poses at least a concrete danger to other protected legal good.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
