Murder by Dolus Directus and Dolus Eventualis: A Comparative

Analysis
In criminal law, murder is generally defined as the unlawful killing of
another human being with malice aforethought. However, the concept of
"malice aforethought" encompasses different mental states, which can
significantly impact the severity of the charge and the resulting
punishment. Two such mental states, particularly relevant in many legal
systems, are dolus directus and dolus eventualis. Both relate to
intention, but they differ in the degree and nature of the intention
involved. This article delves into these two forms of intention, exploring
their definitions, applications, and distinctions, with a focus on their role in
murder cases.
Dolus Directus: Direct Intention
Dolus directus, also known as direct intent, is the most straightforward
form of intention. It exists when the accused's primary aim and
objective is to bring about the prohibited consequence, in this case, the
death of the victim. The perpetrator acts with a clear and conscious
purpose to kill, and their actions are directly aimed at achieving that
result.
Key characteristics of dolus directus:
 Purposeful action: The accused acts with a clear purpose to cause
death.
 Direct causation: The accused's actions are the direct cause of the
victim's death.
 No significant intervening factors: There are no unforeseen or
intervening events that break the chain of causation between the
accused's actions and the victim's death.
Example: A person who points a loaded gun at someone's head and pulls
the trigger, with the explicit goal of killing them, acts with dolus directus.
Dolus Eventualis: Indirect or Legal Intention
Dolus eventualis, often referred to as indirect intention or legal intention,
is a more complex concept. It applies when the accused foresees the
possibility of death occurring as a result of their actions but reconciles
themselves to that possibility and proceeds regardless. In other words,
while death may not be their primary aim, they accept it as a possible
outcome of their conduct.
Key characteristics of dolus eventualis:
 Foresight of possibility: The accused foresees the possibility of
death occurring.
 Reconciliation with the outcome: The accused accepts the
possibility of death and continues with their actions despite the risk.
 Subjective test: The focus is on the accused's subjective state of
mind, their awareness and acceptance of the risk.
Example: A person who throws a heavy object from a high-rise building
into a crowded street below may not specifically intend to kill anyone.
However, if they foresee the possibility of causing death and proceed with
the act anyway, they may be considered to have acted with dolus
eventualis.
Distinguishing Dolus Directus and Dolus Eventualis
The distinction between dolus directus and dolus eventualis lies primarily
in the degree of intentionality. Dolus directus involves a direct and
purposeful intent to kill, while dolus eventualis involves a lesser degree of
intention, where death is foreseen and accepted as a possible
consequence, but not the primary goal.
This distinction can be challenging to establish in practice, as it relies
heavily on inferring the accused's subjective state of mind. Courts often
rely on circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the act, the
accused's conduct before and after the act, and any statements made by
the accused, to determine the level of intention involved.
Application in Murder Cases
Both dolus directus and dolus eventualis can lead to a murder conviction.
However, the distinction between the two can be relevant in sentencing.
In some jurisdictions, murder committed with dolus directus may carry a
harsher sentence than murder committed with dolus eventualis, as it is
considered a more culpable form of intention.
Furthermore, the distinction can be crucial in cases where the prosecution
struggles to prove direct intent. Dolus eventualis provides an alternative
pathway to secure a murder conviction in situations where the accused's
primary aim may not have been to kill, but their actions and awareness of
the risk demonstrate a sufficient degree of culpability.
Challenges and Criticisms
The concept of dolus eventualis has faced criticism for being vague and
potentially leading to inconsistent application. Determining whether an
accused truly foresaw and reconciled themselves to the possibility of
death can be subjective and challenging, relying heavily on interpretation
and inference.
Some argue that dolus eventualis blurs the line between intention and
recklessness, potentially leading to individuals being convicted of murder
based on a lower level of culpability. Others defend its importance in
holding individuals accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their
actions, even when death may not have been their primary aim.
Conclusion
Dolus directus and dolus eventualis are two distinct forms of intention that
play a critical role in murder cases. While dolus directus involves a direct
and purposeful intent to kill, dolus eventualis focuses on the foresight and
acceptance of death as a possible consequence. The distinction between
the two can be challenging to establish but is crucial in determining the
level of culpability and the appropriate sentence.
Despite the challenges and criticisms, dolus eventualis remains an
important legal concept, ensuring that individuals who foresee and accept
the risk of death are held accountable for their actions. As legal systems
continue to grapple with the complexities of intention and culpability,
understanding the nuances of dolus directus and dolus eventualis remains
crucial for ensuring justice and fairness in murder cases.