Dec 18, 2018 13:18
5 yrs ago
15 viewers *
Spanish term
cómplices inconscientes, aunque sí necesarios
Spanish to English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
Code of ethics
This text is from a test that employees must take to show that they understand the company's code of ethics. They are given hypothetical situations and must decide what they would do in each one. In this situation, they are working on a group project and one person copies his part from the Internet. The other group members are not aware that he has done this and so they turn in the project as it is. They get caught and the other group members are described as "cómplices inconscientes, aunque sí necesarios." So although they were not aware that he copied it, they will still be held accountable for turning in plagiarized work.
I'm trying to figure out if there is a term for "cómplice inconsciente" and "cómplice necesario." I have seen "cómplice necesario" translated as "accessory" in the dictionary below but can a person be an accessory if they are not aware of the wrongdoing?
http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642317/1203227/Dicciona...
I'm trying to figure out if there is a term for "cómplice inconsciente" and "cómplice necesario." I have seen "cómplice necesario" translated as "accessory" in the dictionary below but can a person be an accessory if they are not aware of the wrongdoing?
http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642317/1203227/Dicciona...
Proposed translations
(English)
3 +5 | unwitting accessories, but accessories nonetheless | Robert Carter |
4 +2 | unwitting but necessary accomplices | philgoddard |
Proposed translations
+5
3 hrs
Selected
unwitting accessories, but accessories nonetheless
I think you're right, Rachel. It seems to be fairly standard in the US and UK at least that you can't be charged as an "unwitting accessory" because you need to have knowledge of the crime to be seen as an accessory. However, here, you seem to be saying that those members of the team who were unaware of the plagiarism will indeed be viewed as accessories, so I think you do need use the word "accessory". I think even if it is an oxymoron in legal terms, the meaning would be readily understood by most, i.e., someone who was party to the crime/offense without knowing it.
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice
I don't think "necessary" works in English, because as far as I know it's not a term of art in law in relation to guilt, nor is it a word that would generally convey the sense of what is meant here.
James was hanged while Grace was sentenced to life imprisonment. Grace became one of the most enigmatic and notorious women of 1840s Canada for her supposed role in the sensational double murder, and was eventually exonerated after 30 years in jail. Her conviction was controversial, and sparked much debate about whether Grace was actually involved in the murder, or merely an unwitting accessory.
https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/cbc-and-netflix-...
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice
I don't think "necessary" works in English, because as far as I know it's not a term of art in law in relation to guilt, nor is it a word that would generally convey the sense of what is meant here.
James was hanged while Grace was sentenced to life imprisonment. Grace became one of the most enigmatic and notorious women of 1840s Canada for her supposed role in the sensational double murder, and was eventually exonerated after 30 years in jail. Her conviction was controversial, and sparked much debate about whether Grace was actually involved in the murder, or merely an unwitting accessory.
https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/cbc-and-netflix-...
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Charles Davis
: I like this phrasing. Personally I think you could use "accomplices" here. This echoes criminal law terminology but it's not actually criminal law and can be expressed more loosely, I think.
4 hrs
|
Thanks, Charles. Yes, perhaps we could, given that, as you say, it's not actually criminal law. However, the idea of "necesario" is still that of an accessory, i.e., not actually being present at the crime/offense.
|
|
agree |
Meridy Lippoldt
7 hrs
|
Thanks, Meridy.
|
|
agree |
David Hollywood
: that's the way I would go
9 hrs
|
Thanks, David.
|
|
agree |
JohnMcDove
10 hrs
|
Gracias, John.
|
|
agree |
Richard Vranch
: I love it, great readability and super concise and snappy!
21 hrs
|
Very kind of you, Richard, thanks!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks so much for your detailed response. I really like the wording!"
+2
12 mins
unwitting but necessary accomplices
Cooperador necesario: El que cooperan a la ejecución del delito con un acto sin el cual no se habría efectuado.
http://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cómplice
http://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cómplice
Discussion
(https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
Regarding the term “cómplice necesario”, you can see a definition here:
Cómplice necesario
Concepto penal que surge de la codelincuencia (v.) cuando el ejecutor material del hecho punible recibe la cooperación imprescindible o útil de otro para la perpetración del delito. Este otro es el denominado cómplice necesario por algunos penalistas y que el codificador no vacila en calificar de autor (v.) en la fórmula, dentro del Cód. Pen. esp., que establece esa equiparación personal y en la condena para "los que cooperan a la ejecución del hecho con un acto sin el cual no se hubiere efectuado". Tal es el caso del que conduce el vehículo desde el cual se ametralla a la víctima al pasar ante ella. (V. CÓMPLICE SECUNDARIO.)
(http://www.enciclopedia-juridica.biz14.com/d/cómplice-necesa...
-----
Which is similar to that of “co-perpetrator”:
Co-perpetration is a distinct doctrine from conspiracy, although both are related to complicity, i.e. they are attempts to describe, through the language of criminal law, the participation of multiple individuals in a co