Abstract
Contemporary criminal law aims to balance the public’s need to punish harmful behavior with the moral choice of the individual agent who causes harm. The principle of individual criminal responsibility in criminal law focuses on human actions and omissions as the foundations of guilt. Although the debate on free will and agency continues to play a role in contemporary criminal law, criminal responsibility is based on a normative understanding of these notions. This understanding presupposes human agency and the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of one’s actions and the ability to conduct one’s behavior accordingly. However, when this capacity is affected by internal or external circumstances, criminal responsibility can be excluded or diminished. This chapter focuses on the different ways of understanding criminal responsibility among various legal systems by comparing the definition and scope of individual criminal responsibility, culpability, and the place of strict responsibility within criminal law and later compares some of the more common defenses affecting the criminal capacity of the defendant: insanity, diminished responsibility, intoxication, and infancy. These defenses shall be compared according to various common law and civil law systems according to their definitions, fields of application, and legal consequences.