Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The cultural limits on uniformity and formalism in the German penal code

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Judge Interview [5CK], May 4, 2006. In order to protect the anonymity of my interview subjects, I use numerical and alphabetic codes to identify interview sources.

  2. General Prosecutor Interview [16PP], April 30, 2008.

  3. Justice Minister Interview [13JM], June 10, 2004.

  4. Art. 28 GG 1949 and Art. 23 I GG 1992.

  5. Remarkably as I reviewed the in-house training materials for new prosecutors in one prosecution office during the course of my field research, those materials referred to Roxin’s maxim as the guiding mantra of prosecution practice. See “Waldenburg” Training Materials (on file with the author).

  6. StPO refers to the German Code of Criminal Procedure.

  7. The statutory authority to dismiss cases for these reasons is found in the German Code of Criminal Procedure ([32] at §153a).

  8. German Constitutional Court, 1BvL 120/53, decision of 30 November 1953, BVerfGE 4, 352,358. See also German Constitutional Court, 2BvR 308/77, decision of 21 June 1977, BVerfGE 45, 363, 272.

    German Constitutional Court, 2BvR 927/76, decision of 15 March 1978, BVerfGE 48, 48, 56.

  9. Public Prosecutor Interview [4AJ], February 6, 2006.

  10. Appellate Judge Interview [13MU], April 10, 2004.

  11. Pfeiffer, C. et al. Causes of Divergent Developments in Imprisonment Rates. Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V.

  12. Second Leading Office Prosecutor Interview, [16PP], May 11, 2006.

  13. Second Leading Office Prosecutor Interview, [16PP], May 11, 2006.

  14. Senior Public Prosecutor [8HL], May 25, 2006.

  15. Senior Public Prosecutor Interview [8AQ], May 26, 2006.

  16. Sect. 142 subs. 1 COA.

  17. The organization of prosecution offices parallels the organization of the courts. There is a Generalstaatsanwalt located at each of the 25 regional courts of appeal (Oberlandesgerichte). Some of the Länder possess more than one regional court of appeal. There are 116 district courts (Landgerichte) in Germany. Beneath those courts are the Amtsgerichte.

  18. Senior Prosecutor Interview [13AS], June 10, 2004.

  19. Senior Prosecutor Interview [2QM], November 6, 2005.

  20. Appellate Judge Interview [13MU], April 10, 2004.

  21. Second Leading Office Prosecutor Interview, [16PP], April 30, 2008.

  22. Senior Prosecutor Interview [9BU], May 4, 2005.

  23. Justice Ministry Official [9RR], May 6, 2006.

  24. Senior Prosecutor Interview [25ST], April 16, 2008.

  25. Public Prosecutor Interview [13WT], November 18, 2005.

  26. Public Prosecutor Interview [7WK], April 5, 2006.

  27. Public Prosecutor Interview [8AR], May 23, 2006.

  28. Senior Prosecutor Interview [25IFG], April 16, 2008

  29. Second in Command, Leading Office Prosecutor, [16PP], May 11, 2006.

  30. Second in Command, Leading Office Prosecutor, [16PP], May 11, 2006.

  31. Public Prosecutor Interview [7GC], April 6, 2006.

  32. Leading Office Prosecutor Interview [2BN], July 16, 2004.

  33. General Prosecutor Interview [11OT], July 15, 2004.

  34. Public Prosecutor Interview [12CJ], November 29, 2005.

  35. Justice Ministry Official [9CK], May 4, 2006.

  36. Senior Paralegal Interview [10ED], June 28, 2006.

  37. Deputy Leading Office Prosecutor Interview [16PP], April 30, 2008.

  38. Senior Prosecutor Interview [10BJ], June 26, 2006.

  39. Senior Prosecutor Interview [7GC], April 6, 2006

  40. Public Prosecutor Interview [12FG] April 24, 2006.

  41. Senior Public Prosecutor Interview [5BC], January 26, 2006.

  42. Senior Public Prosecutor Interview [16PP] April 30, 2008.

  43. General Public Prosecutor Interview [11OT], July 15, 2004

  44. Senior Public Prosecutor Interview [10FF], June 28, 2006.

  45. General Public Prosecutor Interview [11OT], July 15, 2004.

  46. Public Prosecutor Interview [12CJ], November 29, 2005.

  47. Senior Public Prosecutor Interview [1DR], March 15, 2006.

  48. Public Prosecutor Interview [6SB], February 23, 2006.

  49. Public Prosecutor [4BI], April 3, 2006.

  50. Prosecutor Interview [12LH], November 29, 2005

  51. Senior Prosecutor Interview [10BJ], June 26, 2006.

  52. Senior Prosecutor Interview [5BC], January 16, 2006.

  53. Prosecutor Interview [3TW], November 8, 2005.

  54. Justice Ministry Interview [12CR], May 2, 2006.

  55. General Public Prosecutor Interview [6AI], March 6, 2006.

  56. Leading Office Prosecutor [16PP], May 11, 2006.

  57. Senior Prosecutor Interview [7GC], April 6, 2006.

  58. Senior Prosecutor Interview [5BC], January 16, 2006.

  59. Prosecutor Interview [7WK], April 5, 2006.

References

  1. Albrecht, P.-A. (2009) Could an independent judiciary be a counterbalance to the erosion of European principles of criminal law? In P.-A. Albrecht and Sir J. Thomas (Eds.), Strengthen the judiciary’s independence in Europe (pp 19–37) at 27. Cambridge: Intersentia.

  2. Blankenburg, E. (1998). Patterns of legal culture: The Netherlands compared to neighboring Germany. American Journal of Comparative Law, 46(1–41), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Borneman, J. (1993). uniting the German nation: law, narrative, and historicity. American Ethnologist. 20(2), 288–311, at 290.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boyne, S. (2008). Prosecutorial discretion in Germany’s Rechtsstaat: Varieties of Practice and the Pursuit of Truth. pp. 28–34. Ann Arbor, Michigan: PROQUEST. UMI No. 3294054.

  5. Claes, E., & Krolikowski, M. (89–107) (2010). The Limits of Legality in the Criminal Law. in Facing the Limits of the Law. New York: Springer.

  6. Colin, P. (2001). Die Geburt der Staatsanwaltschaft in Preußen.“ 12 FORUM HISTORIAESE IURIS, 28, (12. März 2001). Available online at http://www.rewi.hu-berlin.de/online/fhi/articles/0103collin.

  7. Damaška, M. (1986) The faces of justice and state authority: a comparative approach to the legal process (p.85, n. 5). New Haven: Yale University Press.

  8. Dubber, M. (2005). The promise of German criminal law: a science of crime and punishment. 6 German Law Journal 1049, 1049–1072, 1051.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, International Organization, 52(4), 887–917, p. 891.

  10. Foster, N., & Sule, S. (2010). German legal system and laws (4th ed., pp. 189–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Frank, C. (2009). Judicial self-governance: a role model for Germany. In P. Albrecht & Sir J.Thomas (Eds.), Strengthen the judiciary’s independence in Europe (pp 97–109 at 99). Cambridge: Intersentia.

  12. Fybel, R.D.(2011). The Absence of Judicial Ethics and Impartiality: The German Legal System, 1933–1945. In M.K. Darmer & R.D. Fybel (Eds.) National Security, Civil Liberties, and the War on Terror (pp 25–37 at 31). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.

  13. Glanert, S. (2008). Speaking language to law: the case of Europe. Legal Studies, 28(2), 161–171, at 162.

  14. Goldstein, A.S., & Marcus, M. (1977). The myth of judicial supervision in three "inquisitorial" systems: France, Italy, and Germany. Yale Law Journal, 87(2), 240–283 at 240.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Green, A. (2003). The federal alternative? A new view of modern German history. The Historical Journal 46, No. 1 (March 2003),187-202, at 200.

  16. Gunlicks, A. (1994). German Federalism after Unification: The Legal/Constitutional Response. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 24, 81–98, at 83.

  17. Hildebrandt, M. (2007). European criminal law and criminal identity. Criminal Law and Philosophy (1), 57–78, 58.

  18. Jackson, J. (2004). The effect of legal culture and proof in decisions to prosecute, Law, Probability, and Risk, 3, 109–131, 115.

  19. Justiz auf einen Blick. (2011), Statisiches Bundesamt. http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Publikationen/Fachveroeffentlichungen/Rechtspflege/JustizBlick,property=file.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2011.

  20. Keiser, T. (2005). Europeanization as a Challenge to Legal History, German Law Journal 6(2), 473–481, 475.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Langbein, J. H. (1979). Land without plea bargaining: how the Germans do it. Michigan Law Review, 78(2), 204–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller, R. (2001). Germany's Party Finance Scandal "Ends" With Kohl's Plea Bargain and Too Many Unanswered Questions, German Law Journal, (15 March 2001). Available at: www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=60

  23. Müller, J. (2007). Constitutional Patriotism. p. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  24. Oeter, S. (2006). “Federal Republic of Germany,” in Legislative, Executive, And Judicial Governance in Federal Countries. In J. Kincaid, C. Saunders, & K. L. Roy (Eds.), International Association of Centers for Federal Studies, Forum of Federations (pp. 136–165). Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press.

  25. Pfeiffer, C. et al. (2004, June 10). Causes of divergent developments in imprisonment rates. Interview with Dr. C. Pfeiffer. Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V.. Hannover, Niedersachsen.

  26. Reuband,K.-H. (2008). Wie punitive sind die Ostdeutschen? Sanktionseinstellungen and Strafphilosophie der Ost- und Westdeutschen im Vergleich. Monatschrift fuer Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 91, 144–155 at 152.

  27. Teil, R. (2006, May 25). Zu wenige Staatsanwälte, zu viel Korruption: Eine Űbersicht von Transparency International. Interview with Michael Wiehen. Referring to R. Zu wenige Staatsanwälte, zu viel Korruption - Zusammenfassung des Umfrageergebnisses. April 2003. TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL DEUTSCHLAND e.V. http://www.transparency.de/Zu-wenige-Staatsanwaelte-zu.440.98.html.

  28. Rosen, L. (2006). Law as culture: An invitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roxin, C. (1997). Zur Rechtstellung der Staatsanwaltschaft damals und heute, 3 DRiZ 109, 113.

  30. Sessar, K. (1997). Prosecutorial discretion in Germany. In W. McDonald (Ed.), The prosecutor (pp. 255–276). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schram, G. (1971). Ideology and politics: the Rechtsstaat idea in West Germany. The Journal of Politics, 33, 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. StPO (The German Code of Criminal Procedure). Strafprozeβordnung (Criminal Procedure Code) (StPO) Code of Criminal Procedure in the version published on 7 April 1987 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] Part I p. 1074, 1319), as most recently amended by Article 2 of the Act of 22 December 2010 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] Part I p. 2300). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/

  33. Weigend, T. (2008). The decay of the inquisitorial ideal: plea bargaining invades German criminal procedure. In J. Jackson, M. Langer, & P. Tillers (Eds.), Procedure and evidence in a comparative and international context: Essays in honour of Professor Mirjan Damaska (pp. 39–64). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Weisburd, D., Bruinsma, G. J. N., & Bernasco, W. (2009). Units of analysis in geographic criminology: Historical development, critical issues, and open questions. In D. Weisburd et al. (Eds.), Putting crime in its place (pp. 3–31). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Wetzels, P., & Pfeiffer, C. (1996). Regionale Unterschiede der Kriminalitätsbelastung in Westdeutschland: Zur Kontroverse um ein Nord-Süd-Gefälle der Kriminalität. KFN Forschungsberichte Nr. 52.

  36. Wintgens, L. (2010) From law without a science to legal science without the legislator: the German historical school and the foundation of the law. Statute Law Review 31 (June 2010)(pp. 85–100), at 97.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Richard Humphrey for his dedicated assistance in locating reference materials as well as the hospitality of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law. I would specifically like to thank Craig Bradley, Monica Eppinger, SpearIt, Marianne Wade, Anders Walker, and George Wright for comments on an earlier draft of this paper and Jennifer Cooper for her research assistance.

Methodological Notes

The interviews conducted for this project were completed during three different periods of field research in Germany that occurred in: 2005–2006, 2007–2008, and during a three month period in the fall of 2010. The bulk of the interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed. During this time, I conducted interviews and/or participant observation studies in 14 of the 16 German Länder and in twenty different German cities. The participant observation studies included periods of courtroom and workplace observation. To enhance the validity of the data collected, I also interviewed over two dozen judges and defense attorneys. In order to protect the anonymity of the interviewees, I use fictitious place names as well as a numerical coding system to identify documents

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, 530 West Street, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Shawn Marie Boyne

Authors
  1. Shawn Marie Boyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shawn Marie Boyne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boyne, S.M. The cultural limits on uniformity and formalism in the German penal code. Crime Law Soc Change 58, 251–293 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9385-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9385-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation