This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
This critique was based on the assumption that penology does not predominantly serve to settle societal conflicts, but pursues other aims, in that it repressively enforces the interests of certain powerful societal groups and suppresses the interests of less powerful groups. It was thus regarded as an instrument in the conflict between various social groups and strata. For example, it was pointed out that the criminal code penalizes typical underclass and youth delinquency, whose social ill-effects falls far short of those of the so-called criminality of the powerful, which for a long time has in great part not been prosecutable. Moreover, the criminal code was also said to be discriminatory in its practical application, since it is predominantly youth and members of (ethnic) minorities who are targeted by monitoring agencies, while the prosecution of presumed perpetrators belonging to higher social strata is relatively rare. This critique was the basis of a demand for extensive decriminalization of petty crime, the abolition of the death penalty and prison sentences, and even the abolition of criminal law altogether. See U. Eisenberg, Kriminologie, 6th ed. (2005), pp. 71 et seq., 77 et seq., 618; D. Garland, The Culture of Control (2001), pp. 55 et seq.; F. Sack, in: F. Sack and R. König (eds.), Kriminalsoziologie (1968), pp. 431 et seq.; T. Singelnstein and P. Stolle, Die Sicherheitsgesellschaft. Soziale Kontrolle im 21. Jahrhundert (2006), pp. 100 et seq., 104 et seq.; G. B. Vold, T. J. Bernard and J. B. Snipes, Theoretical Criminology, 4th ed. (1998), pp. 219 et seq., 260 et seq.
On the various concepts and their ordering, see U. Eisenberg, supra note 1, pp. 194–201.
On the relation between law and power, including in the context of international criminal law, see M. Maiwald, Juristen-Zeitung 2003, pp. 1073 et seq. See also the contribution of J. Arnold in this volume.
See A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (2003), pp. 427 et seq.
See M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law (2003), pp. 680 et seq.; K. Ambos, Internationales Strafrecht (2006), p. 254.
See F. Neubacher, Kriminologische Grundlagen einer internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit (2005), pp. 422 et seq.; G. Werle, Völkerstrafrecht (2003), pp. 35 et seq.
See G. Werle, supra note 6, pp. 28 et seq.
On state leaderships as communities of perpetrators, see, for example, U. Eisenberg, supra note 1, pp. 941 et seq.; C. Kress, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2000, p. 617 at pp. 620 et seq.
See C. Möller, Völkerstrafrecht und Internationaler Strafgerichthof: kriminologische, straftheoretische und rechtspolitische Aspekte (2003), pp. 485 et seq.
See K. Ambos, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 1996, p. 355 at p. 366; H. Jäger, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 1993, p. 259 at p. 271; F. Neubacher, supra note 6, pp. 423 et seq.
For a useful summary, see P.-A. Albrecht, Kriminologie, 3rd ed. (2005), pp. 48 et seq.; P. Stolle, Studentische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft 2006, pp. 27 et seq.
Doubting, C. Möller, supra note 9, pp. 467 et seq.
See the overview and criticism in H. Koriath, in H. Radtke et al. (eds.), Muss Strafe sein? (2004), pp. 49 et seq.
Thus also F. Neubacher, supra note 6, p. 425, who, in accord with some others, nevertheless sees positive general prevention as playing a central role.
Thus K. Ambos, supra note 10, p. 366.
Thus K. Ambos and C. Steiner, Juristische Schulung 2001, pp. 9, 13; C. Möller, supra note 9, pp. 522 et seq.
On the meaning of this process, see K. Ambos and C. Steiner, supra note 16, p. 11.
Cf. P. Roberts and N. McMillan, Journal of International Criminal Justice 2003, p. 315 at p. 324.
P. Stolle, supra note 11, pp. 33 et seq.
F. Neubacher, supra note 6, p. 424.
G. Werle, supra note 6, p. 36, is also skeptical.
See P. Roberts and N. McMillan, supra note 19, pp. 331 et seq.
See C. F. Stuckenberg, in J. Menzel, T. Pierlings and J. Hoffmann (eds.), Völkerrechtsprechung (2005), p. 772; K. Ambos, supra note 10, p. 355 at p. 366.
See C. W. Mullins, D. Kauzlarich and D. Rothe, Critical Criminology 2004, p. 285 at pp. 286, 300 et seq.
P. Roberts and N. McMillan, supra note 19, p. 327. On techniques of neutralization in organizational contexts, see H. Jäger, Makrokriminalität (1989), pp. 200 et seq.; R. Hefendehl, Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform 2003, pp. 31 et seq.
See also N. Roth-Arriaza, in N. Roth-Arriaza (ed.), Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice (1995), pp. 14 et seq.
U. Eisenberg, supra note 1, pp. 944 et seq.
See Frankfurter Rundschau, December 17, 2005.
F. Neubacher, supra note 6, pp. 425 et seq.; G. Werle, supra note 6, pp. 28 et seq.
See K. Ambos, supra note 10, p. 355 at p. 366.
See C. Möller, supra note 9, pp. 521 et seq., 529 et seq.
On this, see H. Jäger, supra note 10, pp. 262 et seq. See also M. Kaiafa-Gbandi, in K. Amelung et al. (eds.), Strafrecht, Biorecht, Rechtsphilosophie (2003), pp. 199, 215.
Cf. R. Keller, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 2006, p. 25 at p. 32.
Thus F. Neubacher, supra note 6, pp. 425 et seq.
See the references in P. Stolle, supra note 11, pp. 27 and 41.
D. Frehsee, in B. Schünemann and M. Dubber (eds.), Die Stellung des Opfers im Strafrechtssystem (2000), pp. 126 et seq., maintains that meeting the needs of victims is not a function of criminal law.
See C. Möller, supra note 9, pp. 164 et seq.
On this, it is sufficient to consult K. Ambos, supra note 10, pp. 355 et seq.
On this, see T. Singelnstein and P. Stolle, supra note 1, pp. 29 et seq.
See also K. Ambos and C. Steiner, supra note 16, p. 12.
See P. Roberts and N. McMillan, supra note 19, p. 331.
Thus C. Möller, supra note 9, pp. 491 et seq., regarding the deterrence function.
Thereto G. B. Vold, T. J. Bernard and J. B. Snipes, supra note 1, pp. 227 et seq.
See, for example, K.-L. Kunz, Kriminologie, 3rd ed. (2001), pp. 178 et seq., 243 et seq.
On this, F. Sack, supra R. König (eds.), Kriminalsoziologie (1968) note 1, pp. 431, 433 and 470; H. Peters, Kriminologisches Journal 2000, pp. 256 and 262.
F. Sack, supra R. König (eds.), Kriminalsoziologie (1968) note 1, pp. 469 et seq.
On selectivity in the context of international criminal prosecution, see also H. Jäger, supra note 10, pp. 264 et seq.
See P. Roberts and N. McMillan, supra note 19, pp. 322 et seq.
U. Eisenberg, supra note 1, p. 655.
Cf. C. W. Mullins, D. Kauzlarich and D. Rothe, supra note 25, pp. 303 et seq.
See R. Keller, supra note 35, pp. 30 et seq.; M. Kaiafa-Gbandi, supra note 34, pp. 202 et seq.
See Generalbundesanwalt, decision February 10, 2005, Juristen-Zeitung 2005, pp. 311 et seq.; OLG Stuttgart, decision September 13, 2005, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 2006, pp. 143 et seq. as well as the review of this in T. Singelnstein and P. Stolle, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 2006, pp. 118 et seq., available at http://www.zis-online.com.
Cf. C. W. Mullins, D. Kauzlarich and D. Rothe, supra note 25, p. 304.
See S. Quensel, in B. Menzel and K. Ratzke (eds.), Grenzenlose Konstruktivität? Standortbestimmung und Zukunftsperspektiven konstruktivistischer Theorien abweichenden Verhaltens (2003), pp. 32 et seq.
On this, see T. Singelnstein and P. Stolle, supra note 1, pp. 73 et seq.
For criticism of the German Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, see T. Weigend, in O. Triffterer (ed.), Gedächtnisschrift für Theo Vogler (2004), p. 197 at pp. 214 et seq.
On lack of certainty in the German Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, see H. Satzger, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2002, p. 125 at p. 131.
On the lack of consideration for limiting criminal law precepts in the ICC Statute, see M. Kaiafa-Gbandi, supra note 34, pp. 214 et seq.
See, e.g., M. Pawlik, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 2006, p. 274 at p. 291, available at http://www.zis-online.com.
See also M. Maiwald, supra note 3, p. 1073.
See also C. W. Mullins, D. Kauzlarich and D. Rothe, supra note 25, pp. 301 et seq.
See P. Roberts and N. McMillan, supra note 19, pp. 335 et seq.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stolle, P., Singelnstein, T. (2007). On the Aims and Actual Consequences of International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. In: Kaleck, W., Ratner, M., Singelnstein, T., Weiss, P. (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46278-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46278-1_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36648-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46278-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)