Concept in Definition ABC

An action is considered flagrant when it is indisputable and evident. Thus, if in the context of a soccer match someone affirms "the defender committed a flagrant offense", he is expressing that such action is obvious and there is no room for discussion about it.

The opposite of flagrant would be, consequently, everything that is debatable, interpretable, doubtful or debatable.

Continuing with an illustrative example, if a person affirms something and later says the opposite, we could affirm that in his words there is a flagrant contradiction.

As for the etymological origin of this word, it comes from the Latin term flagrare, which means to burn or that it is still hot. The etymology of this word serves to remember that it also means currently, that is, that something is happening at this very moment. It is worth mentioning that the expression Latin "in fraganti" also comes from the verb flagrare (as is known in fragranti means at that very moment, for example "I caught him in fragranti, just at the moment in which he reached into the drawer "which implies that the person who observed this fact has no doubt about what what happened.

Flagrant crime

In the sphere of right there is the figure of flagrant crime, which occurs when the person who violates the law he is surprised by the police at the moment in which he commits the crime. This characteristic is very relevant, as it means that the police have irrefutable evidence about the criminal action.

From the perspective of law, we speak of flagrante delicto, the circumstance in which someone is directly observed in the execution of a crime.

The circumstance of flagrante delicto is exceptional, since normally the police do not witness crimes but rather investigate them a posteriori. In this way, the figure of flagrant crime is presented as a characteristic singular, although in order for it to be considered as such, a series of requirements must be met:

1) it must be given in an objective way at a certain moment and be observed in a indubitable by a policeman,
2) the offender must be identified with absolute clarity and
3) that, given the evidence of the facts, the police are forced to intervene.

Although the concept of flagrante delicto is not complex in terms of its understanding, this does not mean that there are sometimes debates and discussions about its correct interpretation or its legal consequences. Let's see this with a new example: the police consider it very likely that in a home there are some people who are manipulating drugs and then dealing with them. Faced with this situation, the police know that they will only capture the alleged traffickers if they enter the home.

However, entering the home without the pertinent authorization of a judge is illegal and is only contemplated in the event that the crime that committed is flagrant, something that does not happen in this case, since the police believe that a crime is most likely being committed, but a elevated probability does not suppose flagrante delicto. Consequently, in this case the police could not enter the home according to what the law dictates.