Inobservabilities within Dutch legal frameworks.

Inobservabilities in legal verbalization could initially be sought in terms directing to mental states i.e. intentions, f.i. in relation to theft or murder. Proof about the inner state of mind should be derived from proved behaviour, although scientific methodological demands to proof require independent indication to intent and behaviour. Friedrich Nietzsche touched the problem of inobservability by pointing to the problem of the succession of facts in relation to the ex post facto moment of consideration, the latter causing a reversed direction in causality , starting with the consequence, the punishable act, and deriving from it the intent by lack of direct observable indicators to the initial entity. The same problems could be discovered in justitial and psychiatric research to states of mind of possible or proved delinquents. A suspect could not be inspected on its degree of mental responsibility quality if its guilt is not proved, and a proved delinquent could no be subjected to mental research relativating its culpability. Concerning psychiatric research the causal relation between disturbance and danger could not ultimately be diagnosed by lack on observability of psychical disturbancies and lack on provability on the causal relationship between meant entities. If proof of existence of disturbancies could be valid, the behaviour observed could be initiated by other than pathological causes. Another inobservabilty could be found in the subject mentioned as supposed actor of the punishable fact, i.e. the obscuration of the woman as possible delinquent, many articles beginning with the verbalization with " He, who...". Other articles posing the fact as punishable without enumeration of a punishable actor in potentio obscurate both sexes, evitating to recall a possible human actor. Either the Civil Code delivers problems concerning observability: a in personal experience bereaved person should leave its possess to fraudeur , thief, obscurator or streetreaver if no formal proof could be reached by police or other justitial functionaries. This circumstance being in some cases inevitable, should however not urge the text to eliminate the difference between ownership and possession., leaving the thief with much or more legality in possession of the reaved entity than the original legal owner could reach. If no spurs are left in the direction of a person as suspect complaint and proved missing goods accompanied with physical and material spurs of damage or refusal of formally permitted rights could instigate the police to start justitial research, initially without applying arrests. Recent obscuration in Dutch legislature of the terms state and civil person deliver the head argument to pose the problem of inobservability as an urgent point of consideration: civil and public rights disappear from the field of political attention, the more since personal defend by the complainer within civil code is no more possible. Even the state as legal public person disappeared from the Statute of the Kingdom, wheras the Kingdom is not mentioned as a legal formal person in Civil code.