Miedo Insuperable como Eximente de Responsabilidad Penal en Colombia Critica al Criterio del Hombre Medio

Abstract

The foundations recognized and protected by the Colombian Constitution establish the inherent condition of a person's dignity as the primary structuring principle; likewise, Article 16 of the Constitution protects the ability for personal self-determination, ensuring that each individual can autonomously make decisions guiding their personal path and recognizing both human diversity and the right to personal self-determination.

Following these principles, the assessment of enforceability should be carried out considering the individual in their dignity, individuality, and uniqueness. Attention should be given to the external circumstances in which the wrongdoing occurred, such as time, manner, and place, as well as the social environment in which it takes place, their cultural context, and the special circumstances that make them unique as a person. This approach is necessary to make a judgment of guilt while respecting the legal constitutional recognition of difference, diversity, and human dignity.

The constitutional perspective clashes with the “average man” standard, because while the latter generalizes, the principles of dignity and autonomy require recognizing the individuality and specific circumstances of each person. So, those who deviate from the average standard might be denied full protection, highlighting the tension between doctrinal abstraction and constitutional rights.