Editing Nulla poena sine lege (section)

== In natural law ==
The legal principle ''nulla poena sine lege'' as principle in natural law is due to the contention of scholars of the [[Scholasticism]] about the preconditions of a guilty conscience. In relation to the [[Ezekiel]]-commentary of [[Jerome]],<ref>{{Cite book|title=Patrologiae cursus completus {{!}} sive bibliotheca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium ss. patrum, doctorum scriptorum que ecclesiasticorum qui ab aevo apostolico ad usque Innocentii III tempora floruerunt (...) Series Latina, accurante J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Tomus XXV. S. Eusebius Hieronymus. (…) Excudebat Migne (...).|last=Hieronymus|first=Sophronius Eusebius|year=1884|pages=col. 22}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Francisco Suárez]] analysed the formal conditions of the punishment of [[conscience]]. Thomas located the conditions within the [[synderesis]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Summa Theologiae Ia|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|pages=q. LXXIX art. XII. resp}}</ref> For him it is a formal and active part of the human soul. Understanding of activity, which is in accordance with the human nature, is formal possible due to the synderesis. Hence the synderesis contains in the works of patristic authors a law which commands how the human as human has to act.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Patrologiae cursus completus {{!}} sive bibliotheca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium ss. patrum, doctorum scriptorum que ecclesiasticorum qui ab aevo apostolico ad tempora concilii tridentini pro latinis et cconcilii florentini pro graecis floruerunt (...) Series Graeca Prior, accurante J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Graecae Tomus XCIV. S. Joannes Damascenus (…) Excudebat Migne.|last=Damascenus|first=Joannes|year=1864|pages=col. 1199}}</ref> In the individual case this law is contentual definite. For the scholastic this is shown in the action of the intellect. This action is named since Thomas ''conscientia''.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Summa Theologiae Ia|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|pages=q.LXXIX a.XIII. resp}}</ref> A possible content of the ''conscientia'' is the punishment in concordance with the content of the synderesis, in case the human has had not act in concordance with the human nature. An example for the punishment is madness, which since antiquity is a punishment of conscience. The [[Oresteia]] is a famous example for this.

According Suárez the punishment of conscience is the insight in an obligation to act in concordance with the human nature to undo a past misdeed.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Suárez, Opera Omnia. Editio nova, A D. M. André, Canonico Repullensi ,(...) Thomus Quartus. Parisiis: Ludovicum Vivès, Tractatus Tertius. De bonitate et malitia humanorum actuum.|last=Suárez|first=Francisco|year=1865|pages=Disputatio XII. Sectio II. n.1, 439}}</ref> This insight obligates to impossible actions due to the fact that the misdeed is in the past and hence it is unchangeable. Therefore the ''conscientia'' obligates in concordance with the synderesis to do an impossible action.<ref>{{Cite book|title=De bonitate et malitia humanorum actuum.|last=Suárez|first=Francisco|pages=Disputatio XII. sectio IV. n.729–35, 445}}</ref> Hence the ''conscientia'' restricts conscientious persons by doing a limitation on their own will.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Summa Theologiae Ia|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|pages=q. XLVIII. Art. V. resp}}</ref> For they are unable to think about any other action than to fulfil their obligation. Inasmuch the conscientia restricts the intellect the scholastic speak of it as a ''malum'' or ''malum metaphysicum'',<ref>{{Cite book|title=Summa Theologiae Ia|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|pages=q. XLVIII. Art. V. resp}}</ref> because the limitation is related to a metaphysical quality of a human. The law is constituted by the human nature itself from what the ''malum metaphysicum'' is inflicted. Therefore the punishment of the conscience is executed because of a violation of [[natural law]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Simmert|first=Sebastian|date=2016|title=Nulla poena sine lege. Etiam sine lege poena est conscientia.|journal=Rechtsphilosophie - Zeitschrift für Grundlagen des Rechts.|volume=3|pages=283–304}}</ref>

When coming to terms with the Nazi crimes after World War II in Austria, the Austrian legal scholar and judge [[Wilhelm Malaniuk]] justified the admissibility of the non-application of the "nulla poena sine lege" with regard to the Austrian [[Verbotsgesetz 1947]]: "Because these are crimes that are so grossly violate the laws of humanity!" Regarding war crimes law and war crimes related to command structures, Malaniuk said: “In the war instigated by the National Socialists, the requirements of humanity as well as the principles of international law and martial law were violated to such an extent that it was no longer just the government that was believed to be responsible for this, but also the individual citizens, because they knew had to that their actions grossly violate the principles, compliance with which must be demanded from every member of the occidental culture."<ref>Claudia Kuretsidis-Haider in: NS-Prozesse und deutsche Öffentlichkeit - Besatzungszeit, frühe Bundesrepublik und DDR (2012), p 415; Claudia Kuretsidis-Haider „Das Volk sitzt zu Gericht“ (2006), pp 55.</ref><ref>Malaniuk, Lehrbuch, p 113 and 385.</ref><ref>Malaniuk: Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. 2 Band - II, 1949, p 126</ref>