Abstract

The work deals with the relevance that endangerment crimes can have, evaluated within the framework of a theory of criminal responsibility oriented to prevent harm to others. My argument will be built from the defense of the idea that a concept of risk (as the basis for crimes of danger), could not in many cases - in any way and to any extent - affect the fundamental rights of individuals as it is intended to be based on usually in the dominant doctrine. In this context I intend to specifically discuss whether the principle of harm to others established in art. 19 of the National Constitution of Argentina, requires the specific injury of a protected legal right or not. This considering the current problems linked to the so-called crimes of danger where the affectation is still a hypothesis. For this, I believe that the principle of proportionality in the strict sense and specifically the use of balancing will be useful.