Abstract
If the decisive characteristics of the current legal period were formed towards the end of the eighteenth century, then it should be possible to identify key shifts in law and legal theory away from that of the previous period of legal history. An analysis of the criminal law and legislation of the time serves to confirm this.
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
Notes
- 1.
Excerpt in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 26 (references in appendix).
- 2.
On Grotius in general, see Senn/Gschwend, p. 246 ff.; excerpt from his work “De iure belli ac pacis” in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 13 (references in appendix).
- 3.
Eb. Schmidt, Introduction, § 144. Of course, these two characterisations only touch on the central interpretative strategies of the approaches they represent.
- 4.
Excerpts from their works “De jure naturae et gentium” (1672), “Institutiones Jurisprudentiae Divinae” (1688) and “Grundsätze des Natur- und Völckerrechts” (1754) in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 50 ff., p. 67 ff., p. 104 ff. (references in appendix); see also Rüping/Jerouschek, p. 78 ff.; for detailed information on Pufendorf, see Senn/Gschwend, p. 257 ff., on Thomasius ibid. p. 266 ff.
- 5.
Cesare Beccaria, Beccaria: ‘On Crimes and Punishments’ and Other Writings. Ed. Richard Bellamy, transl. Richard Davies. Cambridge 1995, p. 31. Excerpt included in: Vormbaum, StrD, p. 119 ff. (references in appendix).
- 6.
Excerpts of all these in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 267, 223, 205 (references in appendix); for excerpts of Ernst Ferdinand Klein, see also: Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 69 ff. (references in appendix).
- 7.
On Grolman cf. Mario A. Cattaneo, Karl Grolmans strafrechtlicher Humanismus. Baden-Baden 1998; see also Ibid. Die Bedeutung der Strafgesetzgebung in der deutschen Aufklärungsphilosophie, in: Ibid., Aufklärung und Strafrecht, p. 225 ff., particularly p. 285 ff.
- 8.
Karl Grolman, Sollte es denn wirklich kein Zwangsrecht zur Prävention geben? In: Magazin für die Philosophie und Geschichte des Rechts und der Gesetzgebung 1 (1800), p. 241 ff. Excerpt in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 61 ff. [In the language usage of that time, “prevention” meant “special or individual prevention”, not deterrence]; on this cf. Radbruch, Feuerbach, p. 44 ff.
- 9.
On his theory of criminal law, cf. Eb. Schmidt, Montesqieus “Esprit des lois” und die Problematik der Gegenwart von Recht und Justiz, in: Festschrift Kiesselbach. Hamburg 1947, p. 177 ff.; Heike Jung, Montesquieu und die Kriminalpolitik, in: JuS 1999, 216 ff.; Mario A. Cattaneo, Montesquieus Strafrechtsliberalismus. Berlin 2002.
- 10.
Excerpts of all these in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 90, 136, 114 (references in appendix).
- 11.
Excerpt of his main work Scienza della legislazione in Vormbaum, StrD, p.179 ff. (references in appendix); for more general information cf. Paolo Becchi/Kurt Seelmann, G. F. und die europäische Aufklärung. Frankfurt am Main 2000; particularly p. 45 ff.: Filangieri und die Proportionalität von Straftat und Strafe.
- 12.
Sergio Moccia, Die italienische Reformbewegung des 18. Jahrhunderts und das Problem des Strafrechts im Denken von Gaetano Filangieri und Mario Pagano, in: GA 1979, p. 201 ff.
- 13.
On all of these Otto Fischl, Der Einfluß der Aufklärungsphilosophie auf die Entwicklung des Strafrechts in Doktrin, Politik und Gesetzgebung. Breslau 1913 (2nd reprint Aalen 1981); on Beccaria see Wolfgang Naucke, Die Modernisierung des Strafrechts durch Beccaria, in: Id., Zerbrechlichkeit, p. 13 ff.; Id., Introduction: Beccaria. Strafrechtskritiker und Strafrechtsverstärker, in: Beccaria, Verbrechen, p. IX ff.; W. Küper, Cesare Beccaria und die kriminalpolitische Aufklärung des 18. Jahrhunderts, in: JuS 1968, 547 ff.; Herbert Deimling (Ed.), C. B. Die Anfänge moderner Strafrechtspflege in Europa. Heidelberg 1989.
- 14.
On Sonnenfels: Mario A. Cattaneo, Beccaria und Sonnenfels: Die Abschaffung der Folter im theresianischen Zeitalter, in: Id., Aufklärung und Strafrecht, p. 49 ff.; on Sonnenfels’s role in the abolition of torture in Habsburg territories see also E. Dezza, Der Feind der Wahrheit. Das Verteidigungsverbot und der Richter als “Faktotum” in der habsburgischen Strafrechtskodifikation (1768–1873), in JJZG 9 (2007/2008), Footnote 11; Ezequiel Malarino, Kommentar I, in: Th. Vormbaum (Ed.), Pest, Folter und Schandsäule. Der Mailänder Schandsäulen-Prozeß in Rechtskritik und Literatur. Berlin 2008, esp. footnote 84.
- 15.
Eb. Schmidt, Introduction, § 203; many other exponents of the criminal law of the Enlightenment are discussed in Fischl, p. 25 ff.
- 16.
On this cf. Wolf Wimmer, Anna Maria Schwägelin († 1775). Die letzte Hexenexekution in Deutschland, in: JZ 1975, 631 ff.
- 17.
Wächtershäuser, Kindesmord; Andrea Czelk, Frauenbewegung.
- 18.
On the following, see Küper, Richteridee, p. 39 ff.; Ogorek, Richterkönig, p. 37 ff.; Massimo Nobili, Die freie richterliche Überzeugungsbildung. Baden-Baden 2001; Ettore Dezza, Strafprozeß.
- 19.
For detailed information on this subject, see Schreiber, Gesetz und Richter, p. 46 ff.; an examination of the partially different developments resulting from the four principles deduced from this binding nature of law (prohibition of customary law, prohibition of retrospective legislation, prohibition of analogy, prohibition against lack of specificity) in Krey, Keine Strafe ohne Gesetz, p. 1 f.
- 20.
Mumme, E.F. Klein, p. 28; Thäle, Verdachtsstrafe, p. 24 ff.; Ignor, Geschichte, p. 62 ff. with detailed references in footnote 112; for detailed information on the abolition of torture, see Mathias Schmöckel, Humanität und Staatsräson. Die Abschaffung der Folter in Europa und die Entwicklung des gemeinen Strafprozess- und Beweisrechts seit dem hohen Mittelalter. Cologne 2000; Evans, Rituale, p. 147 ff.
- 21.
In cases where factual evidence would seem to any reasonable observer to prove the guilt of the accused, torture might appear at least understandable as means to an end, if not humane. But in practice, torture was often used beyond these obvious cases, particularly in witch trials; Jerouschek, Die Carolina—Antwort auf ein “Feindstrafrecht”? In: Hilgendorf/Weitzel, p. 79 ff., 90; Ignor, Geschichte, p. 101 ff. Of course, the question remains whether this insistence in the practice of the ius commune on obtaining a confession was (also) due to Christian ideas of confession and repentance, beyond procedural issues; for more detail on this, see Ignor, Geschichte, pp. 62–73.
- 22.
Pietro Verri, Betrachtungen über die Folter (1777), in: Thomas Vormbaum (Ed.), Folter und Schandsäule (as in footnote 11). p. 49 ff.; Beccaria, Crimes op. cit. (footnote 4), p. 33; cf. also the reference in Mumme, Klein, p. 29.
- 23.
In greater detail: Naucke, Einführung; Id., Modernisierung op. cit.; Vormbaum, Judeneid, p. 266 ff.
- 24.
Rüping/Jerouschek, 4th ed., p. 61; see also 5th ed., p. 82.
- 25.
Pietro Verri, Betrachtungen über die Folter (as in footnote 22), p. 49.
- 26.
Beccaria, p. 48. The following remarks summarise Vormbaum, Beccaria.
- 27.
Translator’s footnote: the standard translation in the List of Translated Texts has been adapted here slightly, as it does not contain the crucial distinction between “may” and “must”.
- 28.
Naucke, Beccaria, p. 25.
- 29.
For a detailed discussion of the trial and execution of the Chevalier de La Barre in Abbeville (1766), made famous throughout Europe by Voltaire’s “An Account of the Death of the Chevalier de la Barre”, see Max Gallo, Im Namen des Königs! Justizskandal am Vorabend der Französischen Revolution. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin 1989.
- 30.
Thus Voltaire in his Commentaire sur le livre des délits et des peines (1766), in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 136 f.
- 31.
Sellert/Rüping I, p. 372: capital punishment is more economical than building penitentiaries (Michaelis); it is a more effective deterrent (Frederick II. of Prussia, similarly Ernst Ferdinand Klein: “assassins are among those people that the state can only protect itself against by sentencing them to death”, see Mumme, Klein, p. 18 f.).
- 32.
On the Carolina, see most recently G. Jerouschek, Carolina (as in footnote 17); earlier: Gustav Radbruch, Zur Einführung in die Carolina, in: Die peinliche Halsgerichtsordnung Karls V. von 1532 (Carolina) (Reclam 2990/a). Stuttgart 1967. p. 3 ff.; Peter Landau/Friedrich-Christian Schroeder (Eds.), Strafrecht, Strafprozess und Rezeption. Grundlagen, Entwicklung und Wirkung der Constitutio Criminalis Carolina. Frankfurt am Main. 1984; Friedrich-Christian Schroeder (Ed.), Wege der Forschung. Die Carolina. Darmstadt 1986; on territorial criminal codes of the eighteenth century see Ignor, Geschichte, p. 129 ff.
- 33.
Supported, in part, by theory; for more detailed information, see Küper, Richteridee, p. 39 ff. (on Carl Ferdinand Hommel, Christian Thomasius, Christian Gottfried Gmelin).
- 34.
On its creator W.X.A. Frhr. v. Kreittmayr see Richard Bauer/Hans Schlosser (Eds.). W.X.A. v. K. Ein Leben für Recht, Staat und Politik. Festschrift z. 200. Todestag. Munich 1991; part. K. Schlosser, Der Gesetzgeber K. und die Aufklärung in Kurbayern (p. 3 ff.); R. Heydenreuter, K. und die Strafrechtsreform unter Kurfürst Max III. Joseph (p. 37 ff.). In 1768, K. wrote a commentary on the civil, procedural and criminal codes he had shaped: W.X.A. Kreittmayr, Compendium Codicis Bavarici. Reprint of the 1768 edition. Ed. and with an introduction by Richard Bauer and Hans Schlosser. Munich 1990 (on the Codex Criminalis pp. 519–572).
- 35.
The text of the Leopoldina is now available in a German translation for the first time since it was written: Hans Schlosser, Die “Leopoldina”. Toskanisches Strafgesetzbuch vom 30. November 1786. Original text, German translation and commentary. Berlin 2010. On the importance of the Leopoldina see Hinrich Rüping, Das Leopoldinische Strafgesetzbuch und die strafrechtliche Aufklärung in Deutschland, in: L. Berlinguer/F. Colao (Eds.), La “Leopoldina” nel diritto e nella giustizia in Toscana. Milan 1989, vol. 5, p. 140 ff.; see also the introduction to Schlosser, op. cit., which also includes further references.
- 36.
On how Habsburg criminal legislation of the pre- and post-Napoleonic period was transposed to Italian territories, see the contributions in: Ettore Dezza/Loredana Garlati, Beiträge zur habsburgischen Strafgesetzgebung in Italien. Münster, Berlin 2010.
- 37.
Küper, Richteridee, p. 64 ff.; see also W. Naucke, Hauptdaten der preußischen Strafrechtsgeschichte 1786–1806, in: Id., Zerbrechlichkeit, p. 49 ff.—A further reason for the number of laws included in this title is the inclusion of many prophylactic police regulations.
- 38.
Art. CX; on this, see Rüping, Leopoldina, op. cit.
- 39.
On this, see Dezza, Versöhnung, op. cit.
- 40.
On this, see Vormbaum, Strafrecht und Strafprozeß, op. cit. incl. reference. Structurally, punishment on suspicion and punishment of lying evolved out of the general poena extraordinaria, of which they can be seen as representing special cases; on both this and views on punishment on suspicion in legal theory see Thäle, Verdachtsstrafe; Mumme, E.F. Klein, p. 32 ff.; Elemér Balogh, Die Verdachtsstrafe in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert. Münster, Berlin 2009. There was a close connection between the poena extraordinaria and the punishment by hard labour (“opus publicum”) that (re-)emerged in the seventeenth century and became dominant in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century; for detailed information on this subject, see: Hans Schlosser, Motive des Wandels in den Erscheinungsformen und Strafzwecken bei der Arbeitsstrafe, in: Schulze/Vormbaum et al. (Eds.), Strafzweck und Strafform, p. 145 ff.
- 41.
This insight should not lead to a rejection of Enlightenment ideals; rather, any criticism of the faults of Enlightenment philosophy must itself be informed by Enlightenment thought. I have attempted to demonstrate this generically in Vormbaum, Judeneid, p. 266 ff.; Vormbaum, Kant e la critica illuministica del illuminismo, in: Mario A. Cattaneo (Ed.), Kant e la filosofia del diritto. Naples 2005, p. 37 ff.
- 42.
Naucke, Hauptdaten op. cit., p 52; on Michel Foucault’s similar insights, see in the following § 3 IV.
- 43.
Excerpts from the texts of both of these thinkers can be found in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 36 ff. and 82 ff. (references in appendix).
- 44.
Among the vast literature on Kant: Wolfgang Naucke, Kant und die psychologische Zwangstheorie Feuerbachs. Hamburg 1962; Daniela Tafani, Kant und das Strafrecht, in: JJZG 6 (2004/2005), 261 ff.; reprinted in: JoJZG 1 (2007), 16 ff.; Byrd/Hruschka JZ 2007, 957 ff.; Georg Steinberg, Sittliche Strafwürdigkeit als Rechtfertigung staatlichen Strafens nach Kant, in: Schulze/Vormbaum et al., Strafzweck und Strafform, p. 175 ff.
- 45.
Naucke, Kant und Feuerbach, p. 28.
- 46.
Immanuel Kant, Metaphysical Elements of Justice, transl. John Ladd. Indianapolis 1999, p. 30; see also Mario A. Cattaneo, Menschenwürde und ewiger Friede. Kants Kritik der Politik. Berlin 2004, p. 32 ff., 37.
- 47.
Montesquieu, De l’esprit des Lois/The Spirit of the Laws. Book 12, Chapter 4, printed in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 100 f.; however, M. elsewhere associates ius talionis with despotic states (op. cit., Book 6, Chapter 19, p. 99); furthermore, the sentence quoted refers more to the kind of punishment than to its extent.
- 48.
This has recently been disputed by Daniela Tafani, JJZG 6 (2004/2005) 261 ff. and JoJZG 1 (2007), 16 ff., who claims that the so-called absolute theory in Kant only refers to the extent of punishment, but not to the reason behind it; on this discussion see contributions by Pawlik (JoJZG 2007, 26), Rother (JoJZG 2007, 27 f.), Cattaneo (JoJZG 2007, 59 f.); explicitly contradicting Tafani also Byrd/Hruschka, JZ 2007, 957 ff.
- 49.
Daniela Tafani (as in footnote 42) JoJZG 1 (2007), 16 ff., 25; see also Naucke, p. 34 f.
- 50.
Translator’s note: The English translation of the text here amends an error in the second German edition.
- 51.
Kant, Metaphysical Elements, p. 140; on this, see also Senn/Gschwend, p. 277 f.: “Kant’s reaction model is convincing because it appears logically compelling. However, in its categorical consequence and its express rejection of any consideration of the social conditions and the criminal’s point of view, it quickly reaches its limits. Kant’s statements in connection with the argument of ‘bloodguilt’, as used in seventeenth century theocratic theory of criminal law, are highly problematic. Thus his reasoning becomes irrational”. I doubt whether—as Senn/Gschwend, p. 278 believe—Kant misunderstood the Old Testament lex talionis, which meant a “limitation” and not a categorical insistence on punishment; in the case of the death penalty as the heaviest punishment its effects can only go in one direction; with all other punishments, in both directions; precisely therein lies its purpose within the rule of law. Kant derives the duty to punish not from lex talionis but from the nature of criminal law as a categorical imperative.
- 52.
Eberhard Kipper, Paul Johann Anselm Feuerbach. Sein Leben als Denker, Gesetzgeber und Richter. Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Munich 1969; Gustav Radbruch, Paul Johann Anselm Feuerbach. Ein Juristenleben. 3rd edition. Göttingen 1956; on individual aspects of Feuerbach’s theory of criminal law, see also Max Grünhut, P.J.A. Feuerbach und das Problem der strafrechtlichen Zurechnung. Hamburg 1922. Reprint Aalen 1978; important contributions to more recent research and theory of criminal law are included in the conference proceedings edited by Gröschner/Haney; Wolfgang Naucke, Feuerbachs Lehre von der Funktionstüchtigkeit des gesetzlichen Strafens, in: Hilgendorf/Weitzel, Strafgedanke, p. 101 ff., that sees as the main flaw in Feuerbach’s theory of criminal law “the unsuccessful dovetailing of effective utilitarianism, which tends to move beyond the boundaries of criminal law, and Kantian absolute justice”; even more decidedly, Id., Die zweckmäßige und die kritische Strafgesetzlichkeit, dargestellt an den Lehren P.J.A. Feuerbachs (1775–1832), in: Quaderni Fiorentini 36 (2007), 323 ff.; an extensive reconstruction of Feuerbach’s theory of criminal law in Greco, Lebendiges und Totes; further references to his life and works in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 362.
- 53.
Paul Johann Anselm Feuerbach, Kritik des Kleinschrodischen Entwurfs zu einem peinlichen Gesetzbuche für die Chur-Pfalz-Bayrischen Staaten. Gießen 1804.
- 54.
As had already been the case in 1740, King Frederick II. of Prussia instructed the Bavarian King Maximilian Joseph not to make the decree on the abolition of torture public. According to one account, he is said to have stated: “May Feuerbach answer for it if criminals now escape punishment”, Feuerbach, p. 75.
- 55.
Kipper, p. 170.
- 56.
Paul Johann Anselm Feuerbach, Revision der Grundsätze und Grundbegriffe des positiven peinlichen Rechts. 2 vols. Erfurt 1799/Chemnitz 1800 (Reprint Aalen 1966); Id., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts (first published 1801).
- 57.
Lehrbuch § 8; Excerpt in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 82 ff.
- 58.
Correct in linguistic terms would be “mental” coercion. However, Feuerbach speaks of psychological coercion, therefore this term is retained here. Then again, the designation of his theory as “a theory of psychological coercion” is correct.
- 59.
Cf. Naucke, p. 44 ff.
- 60.
There is certainly no great difference between this statement and the one that punishment should strengthen the authority of the law; whether punishment is thus identical with the law (thus Naucke, Quaderni Fiorentini 2007, 331, 337 (as in footnote 50)) I am not so sure.
- 61.
Feuerbach, Über die Strafe als Sicherungsmittel vor künftigen Beleidigungen des Verbrechers (1800), extract in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 82 ff.
- 62.
M.A. Cattaneo, Strafgesetzgebung (as in footnote 7), p. 305 ff.; Id., Grolman (as in footnote 7), passim; Günther Kräupl, Die strikte Tatstrafe, der Täter und das Opfer in der Werkbiographie P.J.A. Feuerbachs, in: Gröschner/Haney, p. 78 ff.
- 63.
The bourgeoisie of course also wanted the state to protect its property interests against the lower classes; this is one of the factors that explain why the criminal law of the liberal period was by no means always lenient.
- 64.
P.J.A. Feuerbach, Über die Strafe als Sicherungsmittel (as in footnote 51), in: Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 82 ff.
- 65.
See e.g. Welzel, Über den substantiellen Begriff des Strafrechts (1944); excerpt in: Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 291 ff.
- 66.
Feuerbach, Lehrbuch, § 18, Note.
- 67.
Ibid.
- 68.
Beccaria, p. 68.
- 69.
In detail, providing a negative answer to this question: Naucke, p. 52 ff.
- 70.
On these, see Cattaneo, p. 262 ff.
- 71.
On Montesquieu’s influence on Italian criminal law of the eighteenth century (Cremani, Renazzi et al.), see E. Dezza, Anklageprozeß und Inquisitionsprozeß in der Rechtslehre des 18. Jahrhunderts; in: Id., Strafrecht, p. 7 ff.
- 72.
Extract including Humboldt’s recommendations regarding criminal law in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 5 ff. and references p. 356.
- 73.
Strictly speaking, this also marks a limitation of police law.
- 74.
Wilhelm v. Humboldt, The Limits of State Action. Ed. J.W. Burrow, transl. Joseph Coulthard. Cambridge 1969, p. 120 f. On Humboldt’s text see also Friedrich Schaffstein, Das Strafrecht in Wilhelm von Humboldts Schrift über die Grenzen der Staatswirksamkeit (first published 1973), in: Id., Abhandlungen zur Strafrechtsgeschichte. Aalen 1986, p. 247 ff. Felix Herzog, Über die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Strafrechts. Eine Hommage an Wilhelm von Humboldt. (Humboldt-Universität Berlin. Public lectures. Booklet 11). 1993.
- 75.
Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 32.
- 76.
Heinrich Heine, Gefängnisreform und Strafgesetzgebung, in: Thomas Vormbaum (Ed.), Recht, Rechtswissenschaft und Juristen im Werk Heinrich Heines. Berlin 2006, p. 136.
- 77.
There is no space here to pursue general questions that arise at this point. Suffice it to suggest that national characteristics—a term that can, of course, only be used with great caution—usually derive their greatest strength as well as their more problematic aspects from the same source: here we have the intellectual discipline of German idealist philosophy, methodologically and conceptually consistent down to the smallest level of detail, there the logic and consistency of racial theory, giving madness a method, and the resulting systematic, methodical mass murder of the holocaust. Naturally, these considerations need to be looked at in greater depth and differentiation.
- 78.
Many references to Kant’s defence of a metaphysics of justice against a theory of law based purely on empirical evidence can be found in Mario A. Cattaneo, Menschenwürde und ewiger Friede. Kants Kritik der Politik. Berlin 2004, p. 32 ff.; Naucke/Harzer, Rechtsphilosophie, p. 77: “Kant’s metaphysics of justice is an attempt to control a system of law based merely on metaphysics”.
- 79.
The debate still ongoing today about the legality and legitimacy of the Enabling Act of 1933 can be seen as symptomatic in this regard. Art. 79(3) of German Basic Law attempts to define and ensure such a minimum level.
- 80.
It might be interesting to explore whether the aversity to theory of German legal practitioners that every junior lawyer encounters during his or her practical training is a phenomenon complementary to the development described in the present text.
- 81.
Müller, Generalprävention, p. 30.
- 82.
Although this accusation can be found in Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vormbaum, T., Bohlander, M. (2014). § 2 Criminal Law at the Beginning of the Legal-Historical Period. In: Bohlander, M. (eds) A Modern History of German Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37273-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37273-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37272-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37273-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)