Will be called unimpeachable to that individual who is exempted from criminal responsibility, that is, may not be punished under any point of view by the current legislation, for not being able to understand the illegality of a punishable act that he has committed.
Person who cannot be criminally charged for any criminal act as a consequence of not being able to understand the illegality of the same
Normally, those who suffer from a mental illness, mental retardation, are minors, among other alternatives, will be considered unimputable.
Meanwhile, the accountability is the set of circumstances provided for by law, which allow establishing a cause and effect relationship between a criminal event and the subject who is considered responsible for it, therefore, the absence of the aforementioned circumstances will determine a scenario of unimputability Even though the criminal act and authorship have been proven by the defendant, he will not be considered criminally responsible for it.
Mental insanity, self-defense and minority, the most frequent causes
For example, when a person who suffers from some type of mental illness commits a crime, such as murder, once the justice system reliably confirms their situation, it is most likely that in the legal sentence they will be declared unimpeachable for not being able to understand that what she has committed is murder and therefore she will be sent to a hospital or psychiatric clinic for admission, because although she cannot be sent to jail, she cannot remain at liberty either, since she is a dangerous person for herself and also for the environment that surrounds it.
This guarantees your treatment and isolates you from the rest of society so that you cannot cause more serious problems.
On the other hand, another of the issues that mitigate or reduce the unimpeatability of a certain person is their age, so for example if we have a child of only 7 years old who murdered a person, surely, it will be taken into account in the assessment of the case this circumstance, that he is a minor, who may not have a full knowledge of what he has done.
And by case, he will not be tried, much less sentenced to prison, even if the act he has committed is very serious, such as murder.
In some laws, the parents of children who commit crimes are criminally responsible, that is, those who must assume guilt in the appropriate case.
Depending on the cases, minors who commit criminal acts are confined in special institutes for their rehabilitation.
And in another vein, when a person acts especially motivated by the need to save his own life, that is, he murders his aggressor, too, such issue will be addressed as a mitigating factor when evaluating his or her imputability in the criminal act.
In other words, if someone murdered another within the framework of what is known as personal defense, surely the law will decide to exempt them from all guilt and charges and they will not be imprisoned and will not receive a sentence, in cases that of course it is reliably proven that they acted in legitimate defense, to save his own life and that of his environment, which was certainly threatened by a criminal.
These cases have become a common occurrence in many societies, especially in those in which common crime and insecurity have grown.
Ordinary citizens, to protect themselves against the wave of insecurity that live, buy weapons, become legitimate users, and so it is common to hear in the media that some of these people used that weapon in defense of their lives by being robbery victims.
Voices for and against the use of weapons by citizens
Around this issue of the use of weapons there are many controversies and obviously voices in favor of and against it.
Those who are against argue that allowing access to weapons to anyone will not only increase crime but also that it can generate a voucher for the society in question, where all confrontation is settled with weapons.
While those who defend the position argue that no one can take away their right to legitimately defend themselves from an attack.
