Abstract
The previous chapter described the shifts that took place at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the twentieth century. This account will now be continued and the developments of the twentieth century depicted. However, the “twentieth century” is not to be understood strictly according to the calendar; rather, we will first start by going back once more and giving an account of the developments occurring since the end of the nineteenth century. Given that this single chapter covers events from then nearly up to the present, implying a unified time period, we can anticipate one objection to proceeding in this manner which will need to be addressed at this stage. This objection is that the 12 years of National Socialist rule, with their perversion of the law and mass crimes supported and carried out by the state, represent a break in the unified line of development of criminal law and should thus not be included in an overall account of it. This objection, which also has implications for this book’s understanding of time periods, concerns the question of the continuity or discontinuity of the history of criminal law in the twentieth century. Conveying this history in one single comprehensive chapter shows that this account takes the concept of continuity (which by now represents the predominant understanding of these events) as its basis. However, we will not debate this question theoretically in advance, but instead will make it plausible in the course of this account—the previous chapter already touched upon the subject—and will then summarise and discuss it in conclusion.
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.
On Binding, see Westphalen, Binding; Naucke, Staatsverbrechen.
- 2.
Liszt himself occasionally called himself a “socialist”—his claim to this is doubtful, but he appears to have impressed the Social Democrats with it; on this, see Vormbaum, Sozialdemokratie, p. LIVIII, footnote 5; even the post-1933 exile SPD (cf. Deutschland-Berichte der SPD (SoPaDe), second year 1935 3rd edition Frankfurt am Main 1980, p. 245, 251) still praised Liszt as the progenitor of a “liberal understanding of criminal law”.
- 3.
Dannecker, JJZG 3 (2001/2002), 125 ff., 170 ff.; Westphalen, p. 39 f.; Naucke, Staatsverbrechen, p. XIII ff.; on Binding’s criticism of the “tyranny” of the principle of legality see Schreiber, Gesetz und Richter, p. 169 ff., and above § 3 I. 3. a).
- 4.
Naucke, Staatsverbrechen, p. XV.; cf. also Id., “Schulenstreit?”, in: Festschrift für Winfried Hassemer (2010), p. 559 ff., 563: “The dispute between classicists and moderns shows criminal law in the period where prevention technique reigned supreme. Classicism and modernity are two complementary, vicarious forms of policy, both of which indisputably demand a reduction in crime in order to ensure social security and stability”; id. p. 566: “The Schulenstreit remains of topical relevance to the question of the limitation of criminal policy. The beginnings of this theory in the constitutionally founded limitation of all criminal policy are discontinued; they are neglected, trapped by criminal policy and neutralised”.
- 5.
Binding, Normen, 2nd edition, Vol. I 1, p. 339.
- 6.
Op. cit., p. 353; Binding later abandoned the wording “the preconditions for a healthy life”, replacing it with an even more general phrase (“everything, the unaltered and unimpeded preservation of which positive law considers in its own interest”); on this and on further developments Frommel, Präventionstheorien, p. 118 f.
- 7.
Op. cit., p. 340; on this whole field see Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 74.
- 8.
Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 74; Frommel, Präventionsmodelle, p. 117.
- 9.
Amelung, p. 76.
- 10.
Dannecker, p. 172.
- 11.
A sceptical view is taken in Frommel, Präventionsmodelle, p. 75 f.; expressly in the affirmative, providing a detailed explanation, Naucke, Staatsverbrechen, p. XVIII ff.—Binding and Hoche’s text was reprinted in 2006 as part of the series “Juristische Zeitgeschichte. Taschenbücher”. In the spring of 2010, the city of Leipzig posthumously withdrew Binding’s honorary citizenship because of this book.
- 12.
Thus the interpretation in Frommel, Präventionsmodelle, p. 120 f., who in my opinion justifiably accuses Amelung (Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 82 ff.) of simplifying this ambivalence in Liszt’s position.—On the distinction between protected legal interest (= protected interest) and the object of the action that “embodies” the legal interest, and the consequent abstraction and (increasing) intangibility of the concept of the protected legal interest, see Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 86.
- 13.
This also qualifies the statement that Liszt was a proponent of a material definition of unlawfulness, that of the infringement of protected legal interests (as found for example in Rüping/Jerouschek, Grundriss, p. 110), for this definition only applies to criminal policy, while in regard to legal doctrine unlawfulness is defined by the formal aspect of an infringement of the law.
- 14.
With a high degree of certainty, the historic moment in which this compromise was reached can be identified: in 1904, Liszt presented the conference of the Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung with a draft law on the imprisonment of “mentally inferior individuals” and the elimination of the danger they posed. Besides this, there was also to be preventive detention for “those constituting a threat to public safety”. This draft was later supported by the Deutscher Juristentag, the Conference of German Jurists; cf. Wetzell, Inventing, p. 90 ff.; Chr. Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 149.
- 15.
Merkel, Lehrbuch, p. 9 f.
- 16.
Merkel, Vergeltungsidee und Zweckgedanke [1892], in: Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 248 ff., 254.
- 17.
Ibid., p. 522; for more detail on Merkel’s theory of criminal law see Achenbach, Grundlagen, p. 44 ff.; Frommel, Präventionsmodelle, p. 43 ff., and the comprehensive study by Gerhard Dornseifer, Rechtstheorie und Strafrechtsdogmatik Adolf Merkels. Berlin 1979.
- 18.
Achenbach, Grundlagen, p. 38.
- 19.
Achenbach, Grundlagen, p. 40, 42 f..
- 20.
On this, see Plate, Beling, particularly p. 49 ff.
- 21.
Also cf. Roxin, Strafrecht AT (4th edition), p. 201.
- 22.
Frank, Aufbau des Schuldbegriffs, p. 11; the 2009 reprint contains an introduction and analysis by Hans Joachim Hirsch.
- 23.
Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichstages des Norddeutschen Bundes, 1. Legislaturperiode, Session 1870, Vol. 1, p. 47.
- 24.
All changes to the Criminal Code since it came into effect listed in Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, Vols. 1–4 and Suppl. 3, p. 7 ff.; short descriptions of changes to the StGB during the various political phases of development in the contributions by Roth, Rasehorn, Buschmann, Welp, Scheffler and Hilgendorf in: Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, Suppl. 1; the overall development sketched in Vormbaum, ibid.; on the development of legislative technique F.-C. Schroeder, ibid.; individual information on all amending laws in the contributions by Asholt, Werle/Jeßberger and Utsch, ibid. Suppl. 3, p. 97 ff.
- 25.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 2.
- 26.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 3.
- 27.
On Section 49a Busch; on Section 224 StGB Korn, p. 93 ff.
- 28.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 14; in detail Ilya Hartmann, p. 72 ff.
- 29.
RGSt 29, 111; 32, 165.
- 30.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 16; Andrea Hartmann, Majestätsbeleidigung, p. 173 ff.
- 31.
A. Hartmann, Majestätsbeleidigung, p. 109 ff.; Id. JoJZG 1 (2007), 49 ff.
- 32.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 18.
- 33.
On this, cf. Prinz, Diebstahl, p. 42 f.
- 34.
R. Weber, Nebenstrafrecht, passim; on commercial law cf. Werner, p. 30 f.
- 35.
On this, cf. Löw, Erkundigungspflicht; Id., JJZG 4 (2002/2003), 312 ff.
- 36.
For a contemporary discussion of this issue, cf. Donini, Strafrechtstheorie p. 131, 135.
- 37.
On the debate on orders of summary proceedings without trial: Elobied, Entwicklung, p. 57 ff.; on the debate on the principle of mandatory prosecution and grounds for termination cf. Dettmar, Legalität und Opportunität, p. 109 ff.
- 38.
On the Socialists Act, cf. Pack, Sozialistengesetz; Vormbaum, Sozialdemokratie, p. LII ff.; Wehler, Gesellschaftsgeschichte Vol. 3, p. 902 ff.—On the attempts of criminal law to combat anarchism, equated with the socialist workers’ movement by the leading powers of the Reich and the main political parties (whether on purpose or as the result of autosuggestion), cf. Wagner, Terrorismus, especially p. 325 ff.; cf. also Blasius, Geschichte der politischen Kriminalität in Deutschland 1800–1980. Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 55 ff.
- 39.
On this, cf. Felske, p. 87 ff.; Vormbaum, Sozialdemokratie, p. 133; Grässle-Münscher, Kriminelle Vereinigung, p. 53 f.
- 40.
On general legal questions, cf. N.B. Wagner, Schutzgebiete.
- 41.
Cf. Melber, Kontinuitäten, p. 91 ff.
- 42.
Naucke, Kolonialstrafrecht, p. 285.
- 43.
On the following, cf. Naucke, Kolonialstrafrecht, and Zimmerling, Entwicklung.
- 44.
On this, cf. Czeguhn, JJZG 8 (2006/2007), 174 ff.
- 45.
It is worth reproducing the text of Section 42 (1) here: “If a criminal offence is committed due to dissoluteness or laziness and is punishable by a custodial or prison sentence of at least 4 weeks, the court may in such special cases as defined by law place an offender capable of work in a workhouse for a period of 6 months to 3 years in addition to this sentence or, if the sentence does not exceed 3 months, instead of it, if this measure is deemed necessary to remind the offender to live a law-abiding and industrious life”.
- 46.
For more details, cf. Karl Meyer, DJZ 1909, col. 1283.
- 47.
For more details, cf. Meyer-Reil, Strafaussetzung, p. 77 ff.
- 48.
The phrasing of the respective law was at the expense of previous cases of insanity (Chr. Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, S. 164).
- 49.
An overview of important suggestions for the Special Part of the preliminary draft in Meyer, op. cit.—More details on criminal offences against the state, see Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 106; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 25 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 119 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 37 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 152 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 88 ff.; Putzke, p. 77 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 44 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 37 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 61 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 153 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 59 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 59 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 58 ff.; on lèse majesté see Andrea Hartmann, p. 185 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 108 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 62 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 74 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 87 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 42 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 59 ff.
- 50.
Kahl, Gegenentwurf zum Vorentwurf eines deutschen Strafgesetzbuchs, in: DJZ 1911, col. 501.
- 51.
For more details on the Special Part of the alternative draft: on criminal offences against the state, see Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 106 f.; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 29 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 127 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 41 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 157 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 101 ff.; Putzke, p. 87 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 54 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 52 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 68 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 174 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 63 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 64 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 62 ff.; on lèse majesté see Andrea Hartmann, p. 189 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 115 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 69 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 82 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 102 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 48 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 94 ff.
- 52.
Cf. Zusammenstellung der gutachtlichen Äußerungen über den Vorentwurf zu einem Deutschen Strafgesetzbuch, compiled by the Reich Justice Office, 1911.
- 53.
For more details on the Special Part of the Commission draft: on criminal offences against the state, see Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 107 f.; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 30 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 129 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 44 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 160 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 103 ff.; Putzke, p. 91 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 56 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 55 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 70 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 192 ff.; on the perversion of the course of justice see Thiel, p. 66 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 64 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 64 ff.; on lèse majesté see Andrea Hartmann, p. 190 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 116 ff.; on trespassing see Rampf, p. 75 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 85 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 104 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 50 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 99 ff.
- 54.
On the development of separate institutions of procedural law (up to today), cf. Rieß, Festschr. AG Strafrecht, p. 773 ff. (defence); Id., Festschrift Volk, p. 559 ff. (distribution of tasks in the pre-trial investigation procedure); Id., Festschrift Volk, p. 661 ff. (Unmittelbarkeit).
- 55.
Cf. Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 339, p. 414.
- 56.
Ibid.
- 57.
On this, cf. Krauß, Wahrheit.
- 58.
List of official documentation in Bolder, p. XVIII ff.
- 59.
Bumke, p. 2.
- 60.
A list of the most important official documentation on the reform of the organisation of courts between 1861 and 1920 in Zacharias, Reformversuche p. X ff. On the debate on orders of summary punishment, cf. Elobied, Entwicklung, p. 64 ff.; on the debate on the principle of mandatory prosecution and grounds for a discontinuance cf. Dettmar, Legalität und Opportunität, p. 114 ff.
- 61.
VO des Bundesrates über die Zulassung von Strafbefehlen bei Vergehen gegen Vorschriften über wirtschaftliche Maßnahmen vom 4. Juni 1915 (Decree of the Federal Council on the authorisation of orders of summary punishment for misdemeanours against the economic measures of 4 June 1915; RGBl. p. 325), replaced by BundesratsVO vom 7. Okt. 1915 (Decree of the Federal Council of 7 October 1915; RGBl. p. 631); Gesetz betreffend die Vereinfachung der Rechtspflege vom 21. Okt. 1917 (Law on the Simplification of the Administration of Justice of 21 October 1917; RGBl. p. 1037). For more detail, including evidence of contemporary reactions, cf. Klingebiel, p. 41 f.; more critically, Naucke, Weltkrieg p. 294 f.
- 62.
Riechstein, p. 61 ff.
- 63.
On this and the following, Naucke, Weltkrieg, p. 290.
- 64.
More detail in Riechstein, p. 84 ff.
- 65.
Naucke, p. 293.
- 66.
Riechstein, p. 96 ff.
- 67.
See below § 5 IV. 3.
- 68.
On this as a whole: Barreneche, Räterepublik, incl. references.
- 69.
Members: Joël (Director in the Reich Justice Office), Ebermayer (President of the Senate of the Reich Court), Cormann (OLG President), Bumke (Geheimer Oberregierungsrat [Privy Councillor]) and Krause (Secretary of State of the Reich Justice Office), further staff: judges Schäfer and Kiesow.
- 70.
Cf. Bumke, Die neuen Strafgesetzentwürfe, in: DJZ 1921, col. 11, 16.
- 71.
Bumke, DJZ 1921, col. 14.
- 72.
For more details on the Special Part of the Draft of 1919: on criminal offences against the state, see Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 137 f.; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 43 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 186 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 53 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 180 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 130 ff.; Putzke, p. 212 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 61 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 71 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 81 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 277 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 74 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 69 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 74 ff.; on lèse majesté see Andrea Hartmann, p. 194 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 129 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 79 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 93 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 127 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 81 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 105 ff.
- 73.
Cf. Gleispach, DStrZ 1916, p. 107 ff.; cf. also Schubert I 3.1, p. XXIX.
- 74.
On neo-Kantianism and its influence on criminal law, cf. Ziemann, Neukantianisches Strafrechtsdenken (2009).
- 75.
The following according to Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 125 ff.
- 76.
Heinrich Rickert, Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft. 1st edition 1899, p. 89. Cf. also the major work of Max Ernst Meyer (1875–1932): “Rechtsnormen und Kulturnormen” (1903); on M.E. Meyer, cf. Sascha Ziemann, JJZG 4 (2002/2003), 395 ff.
- 77.
See footnote 12 above.
- 78.
Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 133, with reference to Richard Honig, Die Einwilligung des Verletzten (1919), Erich Schwinge, Teleologische Begriffsbildung im Strafrecht (1930) and Max Grünhut, Methodische Grundlagen der heutigen Strafrechtswissenschaft (Festgabe für Frank Vol. 1, 1930); cf. also Schünemann, Systemdenken, p. 25, 30.
- 79.
A good example of this is furnished by Section 823 (1) BGB. In over a century, only the general right to privacy and the right to an established and functioning commercial enterprise have been added to its canon of (absolute) rights; one might also think of the right to “informational self-determination” (i.e. data protection) inferred from the constitution by the Federal Constitutional Court.
- 80.
For individual detail, cf. Ziemann, Neukantianisches Strafrechtsdenken, p. 40 ff.
- 81.
On the development of the concept of blameworthiness under the influence of neo-Kantianism, cf. Achenbach, Grundlagen, particularly p. 75 ff.
- 82.
It was probably Edmund Mezger who “discovered” the subjective elements of unlawfulness in Mezger, Die subjektiven Unrechtselemente, in: Gerichtssaal 1924, 207 ff.
- 83.
The point at which duress became included in the concept of blameworthiness was the discovery of the aspect of “Unzumutbarkeit” (i.e. whether a person might legitimately be expected to suffer a certain harm). This enabled the differentiating addition of duress to unlawfulness and blameworthiness that began with the decision RGSt 61, 242 ff. (see footnote 132 below); Schünemann, Systemdenken, p. 29.
- 84.
Roxin, Strafrecht AT, p. 201.
- 85.
Still unsurpassed on anti-liberalism, irrationalism and their influence on the theory of criminal law: Marxen, Kampf, p. 47 ff.
- 86.
Schünemann, Systemdenken, p. 33 f.
- 87.
For basic information, see Marxen, op. cit.
- 88.
Gustav Radbruch, Rechtsphilosophie. 4th (posthumous) edition, edited and introduced by Erik Wolf. Stuttgart 1950, p. 182.
- 89.
On Kohlrausch, cf. Karitzky, Kohlrausch; Vormbaum, Opportunismus.
- 90.
Even after the recent substantial monograph by Simone Gräfin von Hardenberg, Eberhard Schmidt. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte unseres Rechtsstaats, Berlin 2009, there is still no critical biography of Eberhard Schmidt (1891–1977).
- 91.
Erich Schwinge/Leopold Zimmerl, Wesensschau und konkretes Ordnungsdenken im Strafrecht. 1937.
- 92.
Erich Schwinge / P. Schweling, Die deutsche Militärjustiz in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, 2nd edition 1978; Erich Schwinge, Verfälschung und Wahrheit, 1988; Id., Die Urteile der Militärstrafjustiz „offensichtlich unrechtmäßig“? In: NJW 1993, 368 f.
- 93.
This is not to say that political developments had no influence on developments in scholarly theory. One attempt to relate both lines of development to one another is made by Kubink, JJZG 5 (2003/2004), 517 ff. (cf. particularly p. 520). However, the limitations of such outlines of parallels must always be borne in mind.
- 94.
Schubert, Reform Division I Vol. 1.1, p. LXIV; Other founding members were among others the teachers of criminal law Philipp Allfeld, Ernst Beling, August Finger, Heinrich Gerland, August Hegler, Paul Heilborn, Eduard Kern, Karl Klee, Adolf Lobe, Edmund Mezger, Johannes Nagler, Richard Schmidt, August Schoetensack, Ludwig Träger, Adolf Wach and Friedrich Wachenfeld. The name of all founding members are listed in Friedrich August Oetker, Die Deutsche Strafrechtliche Gesellschaft, in: Gerichtssaal 91 (1925), 321 ff., 322.
- 95.
Oetker, op. cit; cf. also A. Graf zu Dohna, Die Deutsche Strafrechtliche Gesellschaft, in: DJZ 1925, col. 1100 ff. From 1926 onwards, the Deutsche Juristenzeitung reported annually on multiple conferences and statements of the Deutsche Strafrechtlichen Gesellschaft.
- 96.
Separately, with different majorities, the two sentences of the following resolution were passed: “In regard to the continuation of the reform of criminal law, the German branch of the IKV adheres to its previous aims in criminal policy (unanimously accepted)—notwithstanding its recognition of the influence of new lines of thought and significant changes in the relationship of political forces” (accepted with 25 to 23 votes and 7 abstentions); more detail in Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 345, p. 426; in greater detail Marxen, Kampf, p. 91 ff.; cf. also the description of events from the point of view of Schaffstein: Erinnerungen an Georg Dahm, in: JJZG 7 (2005/2006), 173 ff.
- 97.
On Gleispach, cf. Eduard Rabofsky/Gerhard Oberkofler, Verborgene Wurzeln der NS-Justiz. Strafrechtliche Rüstung für zwei Weltkriege. Vienna, Munich. Zurich 1985, p. 111 ff.; I. Müller, Furchtbare Juristen, p. 76 ff.
- 98.
Georg Dahm/Friedrich Schaffstein, Liberales oder autoritäres Strafrecht? Hamburg 1933; in detail on this text, Mario A. Cattaneo, Strafrechtstotalitarismus, p. 194 ff. Marxen, Kampf, p. 103 ff.; on the debate, rejection and reception of these theories in Italian theory of criminal law, cf. Giorgio Marinucci, Giuseppe Bettiol und die Krise des Strafrechts in den 30er Jahren, in: JJZG 10 (2008/2009), p. 173 ff.; also including information on further texts by these authors.
- 99.
Wetzell, Inventing the criminal, p. 107, 125.
- 100.
Wetzell, op. cit., p. 109 ff.
- 101.
Wetzell, op. cit., p. 131 ff., particularly p. 135; Christian Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 241 ff.; I. Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 55 ff.; Wachsmann, Gefangen, p. 44 ff.
- 102.
In detail Wetzell, op. cit., p. 137 ff. “Viernstein’s unsophisticated methodology and crude hereditarianism were not representative of psychiatric research on the causes of crime, most of which presented a far more complex picture of the interaction of biological and social factors in criminal behaviour” (op. cit., p. 142).
- 103.
Wetzell, op. cit., p. 178.
- 104.
I. Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 66 ff.
- 105.
There are historical reasons for this—besides the unlimited possibilities open to a dictatorship capable of and prepared to do anything—that Heinrich Heine was probably the first to prophetically note (as noted in § 2 footnote 74).
- 106.
Wetzell, op. cit., p. 237; Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche had coined the key word in 1920; see § 5 II. 1. above; cf. also Große-Vehne, Tötung auf Verlangen, p. 89 ff.; Christian Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 150 ff., especially p. 173.
- 107.
Wetzell, op. cit., p. 241 ff.
- 108.
Wetzell, op. cit., p. 250 ff.; I. Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 73 ff.; on social democracy cf. Michael Schwartz, Sozialistische Eugenik. Eugenische Sozialtechnologien in Debatten um Politik der deutschen Sozialdemokratie 1890–1933. Bonn 1995; Id., Medizinische Tyrannei: Eugenisches Denken und Handeln in international vergleichender Perspektive (1900–1945), in: JJZG 7 (2005/2006), 37 ff., especially p. 38 f.; Christian Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 209 and passim.
- 109.
For more details and information on further developments, cf. Vormbaum, Eid, p. 97 ff.
- 110.
This quarrel was only settled in 1975 after a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE 33, 33) opened up the possibility to make an affirmation instead of an oath; more detail in Vormbaum, Eid, p. 164 f.
- 111.
Gusy, Weimar, p. 108; Id., Der Schutz des Staates gegen seine Staatsform. Die Landesverratsrechtsprechung in der Weimarer Republik, in: GA 1992, 195 ff.; A. Hartmann, Majestätsbeleidigung, p. 196.
- 112.
Gusy, Weimar, p. 126; Rasehorn, Justizkritik, p. 159 ff.; contemporary criticism: Emil Julius Gumbel, Vier Jahre politischer Mord und Denkschrift des Reichsjustizkommissars zu “Vier Jahre politischer Mord”. Berlin 1924. Reprint Heidelberg 1980 with an introduction by Hans Thill. Gumbel, a mathematician and associate professor of statistics at the University of Heidelberg, had first published his book “2 Jahre politischer Mord” in 1920, in which he presented his calculation that “the German justice system let over 300 political murders go unpunished”. In the sequel he calculated that 22 murders by left-wingers stood in opposition to 332 murders by the right, and that the average prison sentence was 15 years per left-wing murder, and 4 months per right-wing murder. In a memorandum, the Reich Ministry of Justice basically confirmed Gumbel’s numbers. There was no reaction on part of the justice system (the Reich Supreme Court had jurisdiction in first and last instance over political murders). However, in 1924 Gumbel was prosecuted for treason no less than three times, as he had reported on the so-called “Schwarze Reichswehr” and the links of the Bavarian state government to right-wing hit squads in essays in the “Weltbühne” and a further book titled “Verschwörer”.
- 113.
Gusy, p. 109 ff., 127.
- 114.
Differentiating and emphasising the particular situation in Baden, Kißener, p. 52 ff.; on political justice in general and the bias against the “Left” in judicial practice: Hannover/Hannover-Drück, Politische Justiz.
- 115.
Examples of art that deals with this phenomenon, if sometimes in a time-displaced manner, are Bertolt Brecht’s Threepenny Opera (1928), Norbert Jacques’s novel “Dr. Mabuse the Gambler” (1922) and the final scene in Fritz Lang’s film “M” (1931; Fritz Lang also made a film of Jacques’s novel). Further significant works are discussed in Hania Siebenpfeiffer, Böse Lust. Gewaltverbrechen in Diskursen der Weimarer Republik. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna 2005; this also includes a discussion of gender-specific discourses of crime (the female poisoner; the female infanticide).
- 116.
More detail in Werner, Wirtschaftsstrafrecht, p. 34 ff.
- 117.
Richstein, Das belagerte Strafrecht, p. 148.
- 118.
The so-called Emminger Decree on the organisation of courts and criminal procedure was also passed on the basis of such an enabling act (see IV. 4. below).
- 119.
On the individual laws, cf. Gusy, Weimar, p. 128 ff.; Grässle-Münscher, Kriminelle Vereinigung, p. 71 ff.
- 120.
Gusy, Weimar, p. 135.
- 121.
More detail in Gusy, Weimar, p. 142 ff.
- 122.
Numbers available in Gusy, p. 169.
- 123.
Gusy, Weimar, p. 161 ff.
- 124.
For more detail, cf. Gusy, p. 160 ff.; Angermund, p. 34.
- 125.
On this, cf. Gusy, p. 171 ff.
- 126.
More detail in Gusy, Weimar, p. 193 ff.; Nobis, Strafprozessgesetzgebung.
- 127.
On the early amnesties cf. Max Alsberg, Die Reichs-Amnestiegesetze. Berlin 1919; cf. also Marxen, Rechtliche Grenzen der Amnestie. Heidelberg 1984, p. 11 ff.
- 128.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 127.
- 129.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 190.
- 130.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 192.
- 131.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 197.
- 132.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, Nos. 20–32; Rasehorn, Weimar, in: Vormbaum/Welp, Suppl. 1, p. 38 ff.
- 133.
In order to evaluate this it should be mentioned that according to today’s law, the punishment for conspiracy to commit a felony is based on the basic rules for attempted felonies, and thus in theory may encompass the maximum punishment for the completed offence (Section 30 (2) StGB).
- 134.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 32.
- 135.
On this and its background, cf. Felske, Vereinigungen, p. 185.
- 136.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 26.
- 137.
More detail in Putzke, Abtreibung, p. 273 ff.
- 138.
RGSt 61, 242 ff., decree of 11 March 1927; more detail in Putzke, Abtreibung, p. 25 ff.
- 139.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 24.
- 140.
For more detail and an interpretation, cf. Stapenhorst, p. 39 ff.
- 141.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 103.
- 142.
On the development as a whole, cf. Stapenhorst; also Kubink, Strafen, op. cit.
- 143.
For details of the genesis of this draft, cf. Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch (2008).
- 144.
Thus also the summary of Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, p. 394, who has studied all available (German and Austrian) sources on the draft’s genesis.
- 145.
More detail in Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, p. 110 ff.
- 146.
More detail in Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, p. 252 ff.
- 147.
Radbruch hints at this in a letter to his wife; cf. Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, p. 258.
- 148.
Liszt, Zweckgedanke, op. cit., p. 46 f.; Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, Chapter 6 A) II. 1. b) cc).
- 149.
Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, p. 264 ff.
- 150.
“A more severe punishment prescribed by law for a particularly defined consequence of the offence shall be imposed on the offender only if he caused this consequence at least through negligence.”
- 151.
“The attempt may be punished more leniently than the completed offence.”—Section 23 (4) made impunity compulsory for cases of gross ignorance.
- 152.
Sections 25, 26 E 1922. Section 27 separated the liability of the abettor and the aider from the liability (not only from the blameworthiness) of the principal. The regulation of Section 28 E 1922 on personal characteristics or situations establishing liability was stricter than the regulation in today’s Section 28 (1) StGB (that both have the identical numbering is coincidental): it was to apply to both abettors and aiders if these characteristics were present in their case or in the case of the principal; in the case of the abettor, their absence meant that mitigation was merely optional.
- 153.
In the cases of both kinds of Konkurrenz, only one punishment was to apply (Section 63). The punishment was to be determined according to the strictest law; the maximum punishment could be raised again by half (Section 64 I, II E 1922); more detail in Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, p. 182 ff.
- 154.
More detail in Markus Thiel, Gustav Radbruch und die Rechtsfigur des Überzeugungsverbrechers, in: JJZG 3 (2001/2002), 259 ff.; Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 134 f.; Goltsche, Entwurf Radbruch, Chapter 6 A) II. 3. b).
- 155.
Literature on individual offences and groups of offences in the draft of 1922: on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 55 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 193 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 57 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 183 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 222 ff.; Putzke, p. 136 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 72 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 75 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 85 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 294 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 75 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 71 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 76 ff.; on defamation of the head of state see Andrea Hartmann, p. 217 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 167 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 83 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 98 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 132 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 86 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 110 ff.
- 156.
The 1923 statement of the Social Democrat Home Secretary Stollman shows what a defensive position even those sceptical of capital punishment were placed in (cit. in Chr. Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 189): “Where there is a state emergency, particularly when organised resistance to the power of the state arises, it will perhaps be necessary in future to allow the death penalty to be imposed”; but there is “no reason to retain a kind of punishment perhaps necessary in cases when the state is particularly threatened during normal times, when it really can be done without”. This is a detailed repetition of the main argument against capital punishment put forward by Cesare Beccaria at the end of the 18th century. The abolition of capital punishment with the caveat of political expediency is one of the Enlightenment’s most ambivalent legacies to the modern era.
- 157.
Literature on individual offences and groups of offences in the Reich Council Bill: on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 55 ff. (including E 1922); on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 195 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 60 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 184 ff.; on abortion see Putzke, p. 304 ff.; Koch, p. 165 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 74 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 75 ff. (including E 1922); on arson see Lindenberg, p. 85 ff. (including E 1922); on assault see Korn, p. 294 ff. (including E 1922); on the perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 76 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 75 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 77 ff.; on defamation of the head of state see Andrea Hartmann, p. 217 ff. (including E 1922); on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 171 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 84 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 98 ff. (including E 1922); on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 136 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 86 ff. (including E 1922); on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 112 ff.
- 158.
The Reich Council Bill was published as a book in 1925. In 1926, a “Critical Review of the Official Drafts of a General German Criminal Code, commissioned by the German Branch of the Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung”, edited by Aschrott and Kohlrausch, was published.
- 159.
On this, see
- 160.
Literature on individual offences and groups of offences in the Reichstag Bill: on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 64 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 218 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 62 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 187 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 304 ff.; Putzke, p. 156 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 88 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 82 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 90 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 318 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 82 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 77 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 78 ff.; on defamation of the head of state see Andrea Hartmann, p. 219 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 174 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 92 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 116 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 145 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 95 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 116 ff.
- 161.
Literature on individual offences and groups of offences in the “Kahl Draft”: on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 66 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 235 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 65 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 192 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 328 ff.; Putzke, p. 164 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 104 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 85 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 96 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 349 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 93 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 78 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 80 ff.; on defamation of the head of state see Andrea Hartmann, p. 229 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 179 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 98 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 123 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 153 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 98 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 117 ff.
- 162.
For a detailed study of the drafts, cf. Wolfgang Rentzel-Rothe, Der “Goldschmidt-Entwurf”. Inhalt, reformgeschichtlicher Hintergrund und Schicksal des Entwurfs eines Gesetzes über den Rechtsgang in Strafsachen. Pfaffenweiler 1995.
- 163.
Thus Löwenfeld, Sozialistische Monatshefte 1920 II, 810.—On the principle of mandatory prosecution and the reasons for discontinuing its application, cf. Dettmar, Legalität, p. 179 ff.
- 164.
Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, p. 417.
- 165.
In agreement with Kohlrausch, DtStrRZ 1920, col. 138.
- 166.
Law of 25 April 1922, RGBl. I, p. 465.
- 167.
Juvenile Courts Act of 16 February 1923, p. 135, 252.
- 168.
On this, cf. Elobied, Entwicklung, p. 93 ff.
- 169.
The individual points criticised by Radbruch were the complexity of first instance jurisdiction, which he regarded as too flexible, the majority of professional judges in the large Schöffengericht, and the selection procedure of lay assessors and members of the jury; he demanded that if these revisions were approved, appeals against jury court verdicts should be permitted or at least the option of repeating the trial before a different jury retained.—The speakers of the bourgeois parties viewed the draft more favourably than Radbruch.
- 170.
On the context, and especially on the unclear role played by Gustav Radbruch in the abolition of jury courts, cf. Vormbaum, Lex Emminger, Chapter 10.
- 171.
Vormbaum, Lex Emminger, p. 109 ff.
- 172.
Ibid. p. 85 ff., with a diagram on p. 98.
- 173.
Ibid. p. 153 ff., with a diagram on p. 168; more detail in Dettmar, Legalität und Opportunität, Chapter 5, particularly (B) and (C).
- 174.
Vormbaum, p. 84, 174 ff.
- 175.
For more detail on the following, cf. Frank Nobis, Die Strafprozessgesetzgebung der späten Weimarer Republik (1930–1932). Baden-Baden 2000.
- 176.
More detail in Nobis, Strafprozeßgesetzgebung, p. 33.
- 177.
Grundsätze über den Vollzug von Freiheitsstrafen. Vom 7. Juni 1923, RGBl. II 1923, 263 ff.; also reproduced in Schubert/Regge, Reform, Section 1 Vol. 5, p. 113 ff.
- 178.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 85; Laubenthal, Strafvollzug, p. 41 incl. further references; Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 344, p. 422.
- 179.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 83 f.; Laubenthal, Strafvollzug, p. 41 f.
- 180.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 84.
- 181.
More detail in Naumann, Gefängnis, p. 64 ff.
- 182.
Naumann, Gefängnis, p. 62.
- 183.
Naumann, op. cit., p. 72.
- 184.
Naumann, Gefängnis, p. 96 ff.
- 185.
Naumann, op. cit., p. 99 ff.
- 186.
On the “Enabling Act” (official title: “Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich” of 24 March, 1933, RGBl. I 1933, p. 141), cf. the documentation in the “Kleine Reihe” of the series “Juristische Zeitgeschichte”. Berlin 2003.
- 187.
See e.g. Dan Diner (Ed.), Zivilisationsbruch. Denken nach Auschwitz. Frankfurt am Main 1988.
- 188.
A reconstruction of the euthanasia project using the prosecution investigations of the post-war period includes the Hessian Prosecutor-General Fritz Bauer’s (1903–1968) indictment of the euthanasia doctor Heyde alias Sawade; published in: Institut für juristische Zeitgeschichte Hagen, Euthanasie vor Gericht.
- 189.
For a recent study of this topic, cf. Götz Aly, Hitlers Volksstaat. Raub, Rassenkrieg und nationaler Sozialismus. 3rd edition. Frankfurt am Main 2005.
- 190.
Further modern elements are described in Michael Prinz/Rainer Zitelmann (Eds.), Nationalsozialismus und Modernisierung. 2nd edition. Darmstadt 1994.
- 191.
On what we term the “specific pathology” of National Socialism, see § 5 V. 8. below.
- 192.
Examples can be found in the contributions to the colloquium of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte NS-Recht in historischer Perspektive. Munich, Vienna 1981; also in the contributions to the symposium “Justiz und Nationalsozialismus” of the Justizakademie NRW: Pauli/Vormbaum, Justiz und Nationalsozialismus.
- 193.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 250.
- 194.
More detail in Marxen, Kampf, p. 172 ff.
- 195.
Carl Schmitt, Nationalsozialismus und Rechtsstaat, in: JW 1934, 714. On Schmitt’s theory of criminal law, see also Mario A. Cattaneo, Strafrechtstotalitarismus, p. 181 ff.; in regard to the basic principle nullum crimen sine lege, there is an interesting difference between the development of German criminal law and that in Fascist Italy, where the new criminal code passed in 1930/31, the so-called Codice Rocco, despite its authoritarian and even totalitarian traits adhered to the prohibition of analogy; cf. Cattaneo op. cit., p. 257 ff., who also points out that this prohibition was subverted by the option of indeterminate detention for incapacitation purposes; the statements of Alfredo Rocco cited in op. cit., p. 259 f. can of course already be found in Section 46 (2) of Radbruch’s Draft of 1922: “Detention lasts as long as necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was decreed”.
- 196.
On “concrete-order-oriented thought”, cf. Carl Schmitt, Über die drei Arten des rechtswissenschaftlichen Denkens. Hamburg 1934, that differentiates between three types of thought: regulation- and law-oriented thought, decision-oriented thought and concrete-order- and design-oriented thought (op. cit., p. 8).
- 197.
The phrase nullum crimen sine poena can already be found in Feuerbach (Lehrbuch, § 20), but of course refers to something else, namely that no crime (as defined by law) should remain unpunished. As we know today, this is an illusion and may not even be desirable in certain circumstances (on this, cf. Heinrich Popitz, Über die Präventivwirkung des Nichtwissens [1968]. Re-publication with an introduction by Fritz Sack and Hubert Treiber in the series “Juristische Zeitgeschichte. “Kleine Reihe”. Berlin 2003), but it has a different meaning than the same phrase during the National Socialist period; on this, cf. Vormbaum, ZNR 2000, 259. Furthermore, in Feuerbach the phrase was “… sine poena legali”, showing clearly that the exact opposite of the phrase used by the National Socialists was meant.
- 198.
More detail in Marxen, Kampf, p. 214.
- 199.
Cf. Marxen, Kampf, p. 189 ff.
- 200.
Interestingly, as shown by Marxen (Kampf, p. 167 ff.), this did not occur as one might think by an overspill of criminal policy into the law, but in fact by a shift in debate from questions of criminal policy to those of doctrine—so quite the opposite course.
- 201.
For example, during the debate of the NS criminal law committee on bankruptcy laws, the theorists of criminal law (Gleispach, Mezger, Nagler) invoked the Willensstrafrecht, suggesting that the objective condition of punishment of what was then Section 209 KO (today’s Section 283 (6) StGB) should be replaced by an objective offence characteristic including intent; more detail in Seemann, Vereitelung von Gläubigerrechten, p. 92 f., 176; on a similar situation when debating laws on sex crimes, cf. Müting, Vergewaltigung und sexuelle Nötigung, Chapter 7A) I.
- 202.
On this, cf. Eckert, Stoßtruppfakultät, p. 21.
- 203.
Incidentally, there was also no “duty” to favour criminal-biological approaches in criminology; on this, cf. Richard F. Wetzell, Der Verbrecher und seine Erforscher: Die deutsche Kriminologie in der Weimarer Republik und im Nationalsozialismus, in: JJZG 8 (2006/2007), 256 ff.
- 204.
Eb. Schmidt, Anselm von Feuerbach und Franz von Liszt, in: Monatsschrift f. Kriminologie 1942, 205 ff., 221 f. Other followers of Liszt, such as Eduard Kohlrausch, made similar statements; on this, cf. Vormbaum, Kohlrausch, including the references to Karitzky’s biography of Kohlrausch.
- 205.
Ibid.; more detail in Kubink, Strafen, p. 254.
- 206.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 233.
- 207.
Op. cit., p. 249; Muñoz Conde. Liszt, p. 558, is of the opinion that “if National Socialism had never existed, […] today not a shadow of doubt would be cast on the theories of Franz von Liszt”. It is certainly correct that National Socialism was an extremely strong catalyst in bringing out the problematic aspects of Liszt’s theories. Incidentally, it is difficult to discuss hypothetical historical developments; if one wished to follow up this line of thought, then one would have to ask whether the problematic aspects of modern criminal law shaped by Liszt in the form that can be seen today (on this cf. § 7 below) would also be evident and invite criticism of Liszt without the NS period; the heuristic significance of that period (on this cf. the end of § 7 II. 4. below) would of course not apply.
- 208.
On this, cf. Kroeschell, 20. Jahrhundert, p. 74.
- 209.
As we now know, the discipline of law was not alone in its eagerness to serve the NS regime; cf. e.g. Till Bastian, Furchtbare Ärzte. Medizinische Verbrechen im Dritten Reich. München 1995; Ernst Klee, Auschwitz, die NS-Medizin und ihre Opfer. Frankfurt am Main (Fischer-TB) 2001; Norbert Frei (Ed.), Karrieren im Zwielicht. 2nd edition. Frankfurt am Main 2002 (with contributions on doctors, businessmen, officers, lawyers and journalists); on psychoanalysis Hans-Martin Lohmann (Ed.), Psychoanalyse und Nationalsozialismus. Beiträge zur Bearbeitung eines unbewältigten Traumas. Paperback edition, Frankfurt am Main 1994; on the discipline of history Winfried Schulze/Otto Gerhard Oexle, Deutsche Historiker im Nationalsozialismus. 3rd edition. March 2000; on classical philology: Volker Losemann, Nationalsozialismus und Antike. Studien zur Entwicklung des Faches Alte Geschichte 1993–1945. Hamburg 1977; on the natural sciences most recently John Cornwell, Forschen für den Führer. Deutsche Naturwissenschaftler und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Bergisch Gladbach 2004 (the book covers far more than suggested in its subtitle). “In all fields of activity and all disciplines related to ideology, in schools and universities, in newspapers and on the radio, in magazines and with writers, even in subjects as neutral as mathematics, physics, chemistry, music and industry the National Socialist rulers’ strategies of leadership and control became prevalent. Their influence was not only noticeable in, but even partly dominated a significant portion of church organisations”; Bernd Rüthers, Entartetes Recht. Rechtslehren und Kronjuristen im Dritten Reich. Munich 1988, p. 213.
- 210.
On this, cf. Rüthers, Carl Schmitt im Dritten Reich. Wissenschaft als Zeitgeist-Verstärkung? Munich 1989, p. 53 ff.
- 211.
Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, p. 451. In his biography of Eduard Kohlrausch, Karitzky shows that he can be invoked in support of this statement only to a limited extent: Holger Karitzky, Eduard Kohlrausch—Kriminalpolitik in vier Systemen. Eine strafrechtshistorische Biographie. Berlin 2002. (An attempt to conduct a secondary analysis and evaluation following Karitzky’s work in Vormbaum, Kohlrausch, op. cit.; in his much-used StGB commentary, which included the most important supplementary provisions, Kohlrausch left the comments on the race laws up to his student Richard Lange [1906–1995], who was later to become one of the leading teachers of criminal law in the Federal Republic. Lange’s commentary cannot by any means be seen as attempting to limit these problematic regulations). However, Eb. Schmidt (op. cit., § 46, p. 428) explicitly and critically mentions the conference organised by Carl Schmitt and “Reichsrechtsführer” Hans Frank.
- 212.
On the continuities in the theory of offences which persist throughout the NS period, cf. also Klaus Marxen, Die rechtsphilosophische Begründung der Straftatlehre im Nationalsozialismus. Zur Frage der Kontinuität strafrechtswissenschaftlichen Denkens, in: Hubert Rottleuthner (Ed.), Recht, Rechtsphilosophie und Nationalsozialismus (ARSP supplement No. 18). Wiesbaden 1983, p. 55 ff.
- 213.
But he did expect that it would give him a better position in the struggle between factions within the system; on this, cf. Bernd Rüthers, Carl Schmitt im Dritten Reich. Munich 1989, p. 74 ff.; Id., Entartetes Recht, p. 125 ff.
- 214.
Rüthers, Carl Schmitt im Dritten Reich, p. 40.
- 215.
For example, Hans Welzel (1904–1977) in his 1944 essay “Über den substantiellen Begriff des Strafrechts” (excerpt in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 291 ff.) speaks in favour of seeing the substance of criminal law not simply in protecting legal interests, but in maintaining a law-abiding attitude (p. 564), He does not mention completely removing the separation between criminal law and morals explicitly, but he certainly advocates relativising this difference (p. 562). Here his subjective aim is to rehearse a problem of legal philosophy, but objectively he forms part of the trend towards an moralisation of criminal law that persisted throughout the 20th century (on this, see § 7 below).
- 216.
In this, cf. Wetzell, Inventing, p. 295 ff.
- 217.
I. Baumann, Geschichte, p. 93.
- 218.
Ibid., p. 94; Baumann bases this interpretation on the work of Edmund Mezger (op. cit., p. 98 ff.).
- 219.
On this, cf. I. Baumann, op. cit., p. 91 ff.
- 220.
In the same vein I. Baumann, Geschichte, p. 91 ff.
- 221.
It is not possible here to give an individual account of the plethora of emergency decrees and laws passed in the field of criminal law during the period of National Socialist rule. All important criminal laws of the NS state are described in Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 65 ff.; the changes to the Criminal Code in Arno Buschmann, Das Strafgesetzbuch in der Zeit von 1933 bis 1945—Die Novellierungen des Strafgesetzbuchs in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, in: Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, supplementary volume 1, p. 53 ff.; the most important texts in Arno Buschmann, Nationalsozialistische Weltanschauung und Gesetzgebung 1933–1945. Vol. II (Dokumentation einer Entwicklung). Vienna, New York 2000, p. 199 ff., 699 ff.; Heribert Ostendorf, Dokumentation des NS-Strafrechts. Baden-Baden 2000. In the following, the laws essential for an understanding of the development of criminal law will be described. On penal provisions outside the Criminal Code (Nebenstrafrecht; hereafter: supplementary penal provisions), cf. the references in footnote 237.
- 222.
Eisenhardt, Rechtsgeschichte, p. 438 f.; Kroeschell, 20. Jahrhundert, p. 70 f.; Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 65 ff.; Thomas Raithel/Irene Strenge, Die Reichstagsbrandverordnung. Grundlegung der Diktatur mit den Instrumenten des Weimarer Ausnahmezustands, in: VfZ 2000, 413 ff.—On the Enabling Act, cf. the documentation published in the series “Juristische Zeitgeschichte. Kleine Reihe”: Das Ermächtigungsgesetz (“Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich”) vom 24. März 1933. Reichstagsdebatte, Abstimmung, Gesetzestext. With an introduction by Adolf Lauf. Berlin 2003.
- 223.
For more detail on the Volksgerichtshof, cf. Heinz Hillermeier (Ed.), “Im Namen des Deutschen Volkes”. Todesurteile des Volksgerichtshofes. Darmstadt, Neuwied 1980; Klaus Marxen, Das Volk und sein Gerichtshof. Eine Studie zum nationalsozialistischen Volksgerichtshof. Frankfurt am Main 1994; Holger Schlüter, Die Urteilspraxis des Volksgerichtshofes. Berlin 1995; Klaus Marxen/Holger Schlüter (Eds.), Terror und “Normalität”. Urteile des nationalsozialistischen Volksgerichtshofs 1934–1945. Eine Dokumentation (Juristische Zeitgeschichte NRW. 13). Recklinghausen 2004; further texts on the Volksgerichtshof are presented and reviewed in Thomas Vormbaum, Strafjustiz im Nationalsozialismus. Ein kritischer Literaturbericht, in: GA 1998, 1 ff.
- 224.
More detail in Manfred Seebode, Streitfragen des strafrechtlichen Rückwirkungsverbots im Zeitenwandel. Das Rechtsgutachten für den Reichstagsbrandprozeß, in: JJZG 3 (2001/2002), p. 203 ff.; a facsimile of the report is included in ibid. p. 229 ff.
- 225.
On this, cf. Chr. Müller, Gewohnheitsverbrechergesetz (1997); Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 86 ff.
- 226.
More detail in Chr. Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 279 ff.
- 227.
Wetzell, Inventing, p. 260 ff.
- 228.
Chr. Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 282.
- 229.
For more detail on how this law was put into practice, cf. Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 139; Bernward Dörner, “Heimtücke”: Das Gesetz als Waffe. Kontrolle, Abschreckung und Verfolgung in Deutschland 1933–1945. Paderborn 1998.
- 230.
Cited according to Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 141.
- 231.
“Whosoever commits an offence declared punishable by law or that merits punishment according to the ideas fundamental to criminal law and according to the healthy common sense of the people, shall be punished. If no criminal law applies specifically to the offence, it shall be punished according to that law the fundamental idea of which best fits the offence”.
- 232.
“If it is clear that an individual has infringed one of several criminal laws, but the offences in question exclude one another so that only one alternative can be selected, then the offender is to be punished according to the most lenient law”.
- 233.
A first attempt at this was made by: Jens-Michael Priester, Zum Analogieverbot im Strafrecht, in: Hans-Joachim Koch (Ed.), Juristische Methodenlehre und analytische Philosophie. Kronberg/Ts. 1976, p. 155 ff.
- 234.
Naucke, Aufhebung, op. cit, p. 324 ff.
- 235.
Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 143, taking up a phrase by Carl Schmitt.
- 236.
Art. 5 of the law also allowed pre-trial detention if evidence suggested that the accused “will abuse his liberty to commit further punishable offences, or if a consideration of the severity of the offence and the public outcry caused renders leaving the accused at liberty unacceptable”.
- 237.
For greater detail on National Socialist supplementary penal provisions, cf. Schmitzberger, Nebenstrafrecht; also see Werner, Wirtschaftsstrafrecht, p. 124 ff.; Joseph Walk, Das Sonderrecht für die Juden im NS-Staat. Eine Sammlung der gesetzlichen Maßnahmen und Richtlinien—Inhalt und Bedeutung. Heidelberg 1981 (and further editions); on this, cf. Vormbaum, GA 1983, 372 f.
- 238.
Judgment ratio summary (Leitsatz) in RGSt (Gr. Senate) 70, 375.
- 239.
This is occasionally taken even further, increasing the number of interests to be protected to as many as eight; Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, NJW 1993, 2581, 2582, with reference to an example from the law on sexual offences.
- 240.
RGSt 70, 377; on this topic as a whole, cf. Gerhard Werle, “Das Gesetz ist Wille und Plan des Führers”—Reichsgericht und Blutschutzgesetz, in: NJW 1995, 1267–1271; Regina Ogorek, “Rassenschande” und juristische Methode. Die argumentative Grammatik des Reichsgerichts bei der Anwendung des Blutschutzgesetzes von 1935, in: KritV 3 (2003), 280 ff.; numerous examples taken from judicial practice can be found in Majer, “Fremdvölkische”, p. 600 ff.; Hans Robinsohn, Justiz als politische Verfolgung. Die Rechtsprechung in “Rassenschandefällen” beim Landgericht Hamburg 1936–1943. Stuttgart 1977.
- 241.
Monika Frommel, Von der Strafrechtsreform zur Rechtserneuerung, in: Hubert Rottleuthner (Ed.), Recht, Rechtsphilosophie und Nationalsozialismus (ARSP supplement No. 18). Wiesbaden 1983, p. 45 ff.
- 242.
References in Schubert, Reform, Vol. II 1.1, p. XII.
- 243.
Reproduced in Vormbaum/Rentrop, Reform, Vol. 2, p. 265 ff.
- 244.
On Frank, cf. Dieter Schenk, Hans Frank. Hitlers Kronjurist und Generalgouverneur. Frankfurt am Main 2006.
- 245.
The Commission was made up of: Reich Minister of Justice Gürtner as chair, the Ministers of Justice of Prussia and Bavaria Kerrl and Frank as deputy chairs, two secretaries of state (Freisler und Schlegelberger), five representatives from the ranks of practitioners (including Reimer and Klee), and as university representatives Kohlrausch, Nagler, Dahm, Count Gleispach, and Mezger among others.
- 246.
More details included in Schubert/Regge, Quellen, Abt. II Vol. 1.1, p. XV ff.; on the commission’s deliberations on the offences in the Special Part, cf. on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue Gieseler, p. 74 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 241 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 93 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 208 ff.; on abortion see Putzke, p. 344 ff.; Koch, p. 185 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 114 ff.; on false accusation and misleading the authorities about the commission of an offence see Bernhard, p. 112 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 117 ff.; on causing bodily harm see Gröning, p. 10 ff.; on the perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 103 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 109 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 89 ff.; on defamation of the head of state see Andrea Hartmann, p. 229 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 201 ff.; on trespass see Rampf, p. 101 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 141 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 165 ff.; on road traffic law, see Asholt, p. 111 ff.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 125 ff.
- 247.
On the draft procedure cf. Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 621 ff.; on this subject, cf. also Francisco Muñoz Conde, Edmund Mezger. Beiträge zu einem Juristenleben. Berlin 2007. (This volume summarises sections from the 4th edition of the work “Edmund Mezger y el Derecho penal de su Tiempo. Estudios sobre el Derecho penal en el Nacionalsocialismo”. Valencia 2003); on the background to the crackdown on “persons alien to the community”, cf. Wolfgang Ayass, “Asoziale” im Nationalsozialismus. Stuttgart 1995; Detlev Peukert, Volksgenossen und Gemeinschaftsfremde. Anpassung, Ausmerze und Aufbegehren unter dem Nationalsozialismus. Cologne 1982.
- 248.
“Editor’s note: § 211 and § 212 StGB are usually translated by “aggravated murder” and “murder”. This has been deviated from here for reasons of style and expression.”
- 249.
Muñoz Conde, Mezger, p. 95 ff.
- 250.
References in Klaus Rehbein, Zur Funktion von Strafrecht und Kriminologie im nationalsozialistischen Rechtssystem, in: MschrKrim 1987, 193 ff., 201.
- 251.
37th meeting of 5 June 1934, (in: Schubert/Regge, Quellen, Abt. II, Vol. 2.2, p. 297): “…I emphasise particularly: in the racial struggle; for I am of the opinion that we are dealing with a struggle here… It is a struggle between races in the German Lebensraum, and I personally am forced to admit that I am far better able to bear the hardships and injustices of the struggle if I tell myself clearly that we are dealing here with a struggle with two opposing fronts, in which conflict is fierce. And I think that fundamentally criminal law can be a suitable, effective, in some cases even a devastating weapon in such a struggle”. This passage is toned down markedly in the corrected version of the minutes (op. cit., p. 239). The question must be asked of whether nobody in the Federal Ministry of Justice, which had access to the minutes of that Criminal Law Commission and used the documents of the NS period as working material for the reformatory work of the 1950s, skimmed over them before Professor Mezger of Munich was appointed the deputy chair of the Grand Criminal Law Commission of democratic post-war Germany. Or was this common knowledge and simply not regarded as an issue? On Edmund Mezger cf. also Gerit Thulfaut, Kriminalpolitik und Strafrechtslehre bei Edmund Mezger (1883–1962). Baden-Baden 1999.
- 252.
Schubert/Regge, Reform Abt. III Vol. 1, p. VIII ff.; also the following.
- 253.
Minutes and drafts are reproduced in Schubert/Regge, op. cit., Vols. 1 to 3.
- 254.
Thus the official Principles of the Reform of Criminal Procedure; cited according to Schubert/Regge, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. XI.
- 255.
Ibid., p. XI f.
- 256.
More detail in Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 210 ff.
- 257.
More detail in Werle, op. cit., p. 217 ff.
- 258.
References in Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 216.
- 259.
Werle, op. cit., p. 217, Schmitzberger, Nebenstrafrecht, both including references.
- 260.
Werle, op. cit., p. 220 ff.
- 261.
Gruchmann, Justiz, p. 906; Schmitzberger, Nebenstrafrecht, p. 138; Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 233 ff.
- 262.
More detail in Irmtraud Eder-Stein, Plünderung im saarländischen Freimachungsgebiet 1939/40. Ein Straftatbestand in Strafrecht und Rechtsprechung des NS-Staates, in: Franz Josef Düwell/Thomas Vormbaum: Themen juristischer Zeitgeschichte (1). Schwerpunktthema: Recht und Nationalsozialismus. Baden-Baden 1998, p. 116 ff.
- 263.
References in. Schmitzberger, Nebenstrafrecht, p. 142; Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 237 ff.; Marxen, Kampf, p. 209; Gribbohm, „Geführte“ Strafjustiz, p. 21 ff.
- 264.
References with the authors listed in the previous footnote.
- 265.
References as above; on the various approaches to the definition of offender types, cf. Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 244 ff.
- 266.
Text in Buschmann, Weltanschauung, p. 745; on the Violent Offenders Act, cf. Schmitzberger, Nebenstrafrecht, p. 177 ff.; Klaus Marxen, Juristische Vergangenheitsbewältigung am Beispiel der Versuchsbestrafung im deutschen Strafrecht, in: Staatsverbrechen vor Gericht. Festschrift for Christiaan Frederik Ruter. Amsterdam 2003, p. 138 ff.; on the judicature of the Reich Supreme Court, cf. Gribbohm, “Geführte” Strafjustiz, p. 42 ff.
- 267.
Roland Freisler, Gedanken zum Kriegsstrafrecht und zur Gewaltverbrecherverordnung, in: DJ 1939, 1849 ff.
- 268.
However, the Decree on the Implementation and Supplementation of the Violent Offenders Act of 9 December 1939 (RGBl. 1940 I, p. 17) restricted this retroactive effect: it was not to apply if the offence had been committed prior to the outbreak of war, i.e. prior to 1 September 1939; any exceptions required the consent of the prosecution.
- 269.
Marxen, op. cit., p. 139 f., who also notes that it has not been investigated to date how many people were sentenced to death for a merely attempted crime due to this new regulation.
- 270.
On this, cf. Marxen, op. cit., p. 142; also Vormbaum, Aktuelle Bezüge, p. 78.
- 271.
Thus also Marxen’s criticism, op. cit., p. 141.
- 272.
More detail in Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 306 ff.
- 273.
Lange, Die grundsätzliche Bedeutung der neuen Bestimmungen über den Geltungsbereich des Strafrechts, in: GA 1941, 6 ff.
- 274.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 47.
- 275.
More detail in Sven Thomas, Die Geschichte des Mordparagraphen. Eine normgenetische Untersuchung bis in die Gegenwart. Bochum 1985. p. 239 ff.; Katharina Linka, Mord und Totschlag, Chapter 7 B) I.
- 276.
As emphasised by Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 371, contradicting Majer, “Fremdvölkische”, p. 753.
- 277.
On these, cf. Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 351 ff.
- 278.
The text is reproduced in Hirsch/Majer/Meinck, Nationalsozialismus, p. 496 ff.
- 279.
Section 1 I, subsection 2.
- 280.
Section 1 I, subsection 3.
- 281.
Section 1 II.
- 282.
Section 2 IV.
- 283.
Section 2 IV.
- 284.
Section 2 V–VIII.
- 285.
Section 2 IX. The language of German law does not recognise the word “beeidigt”, only statements that are “beeidet” (i.e. made under oath) and the person that is “vereidigt” (i.e. who has taken an oath) making the statement; on this regulation’s significance within the history of false testimony offences, cf. Vormbaum, Eid, p. 138 ff.
- 286.
Hirsch/Majer/Meinck, Nationalsozialismus, p. 535.
- 287.
Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 53.
- 288.
More detail in Bernhard, Falsche Verdächtigung, p. 132 ff.
- 289.
More detail in Vormbaum, Eid, p. 138 ff.
- 290.
More detail in Prechtel, Urkundendelikte, p. 178 ff.
- 291.
BGHSt 1, 84 ff.; more detail in Vormbaum, Festschrift StA Schleswig-Holstein; Dencker, Kontinuität und Diskontinuität; Id., NS-Justiz vor Gericht.
- 292.
More detail in Kubink, p. 280 ff.
- 293.
More detail in Meyer-Höger, Jugendarrest; on the police surveillance of juveniles during World War II cf. the third part of Franz’s study, Curfew; on juvenile criminal law under National Socialism in general: Christian Amann, Ordentliche Jugendgerichtsbarkeit und Justizalltag im OLG-Bezirk Hamm von 1939 bis 1945. Berlin 2003; Frank Kebbedies, Außer Kontrolle. Jugendkriminalität in der NS-Zeit und der frühen Nachkriegszeit. Essen 2000.
- 294.
For individual details of these, we must here refer to the relevant literature. Verdicts in political law are listed in: Wolfgang Form (Ed.), Literatur- und Urteilsverzeichnis zum politischen NS-Strafrecht. Baden-Baden 2001; all works noted and accessible until 1997 are presented and discussed in Thomas Vormbaum, GA 1998, 1 ff.; more recent additions are: Robert Bohn/Uwe Danker, Standgericht der Inneren Front: Das Sondergericht Altona/Kiel 1932–1945. Hamburg 1998; Hans-Ulrich Ludewig/Dietrich Kuessner Es sei also jeder gewarnt: Das Sondergericht Braunschweig 1933–1945. Braunschweig 2000; Holger Schlüter, “für die Menschlichkeit im Strafmaß bekannt …”. Das Sondergericht Litzmannstadt und sein Vorsitzender Richter. (Juristische Zeitgeschichte NRW. 14). Recklinghausen 2005. Justizministerium NRW (Ed.), “… eifrigster Diener und Schützer des Rechts, des nationalsozialistischen Rechts …”. Nationalsozialistische Sondergerichtsbarkeit. Ein Tagungsband. Recklinghausen n.d. (2006).
- 295.
On Wehrmacht jurisdiction, cf. Günter Gribbohm, Das Reichskriegsgericht. Die Institution und ihre rechtliche Bewertung. Berlin 2004; Id., Selbst mit einer “Repressalquote” von zehn zu eins? Über Recht und Unrecht einer Geiseltötung im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Münster 2006; Norbert Haase, Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen die nationalsozialistische Herrschaft. Berlin 1993; Manfred Messerschmidt/Fritz Wüllner, Die Wehrmachtsjustiz im Dienste des Nationalsozialismus. Zerstörung einer Legende. Baden-Baden 1987; Manfred Messerschmidt, Was damals Recht war … NS-Militär- und Strafjustiz im Vernichtungskrieg. Essen 1996.
- 296.
Angermund, Richterschaft, p. 142, 199, 209.—Navy jurisdiction later came under particular public scrutiny, as in 1978 the author Rolf Hochhuth called the Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg, Hans Filbinger, a “dreadful jurist” because of his work as a navy judge. In 1987, this remark became the keyword of Ingo Müller’s eponymous and highly regarded book on jurists’ entanglement with the regime of National Socialism.
- 297.
Marxen, Gerichtshof, Schlüter, Volksgerichtshof, op. cit. respectively.
- 298.
Verdicts of the People’s Court are collected in Heinz Hillermeier (Ed.), “Im Namen des Deutschen Volkes”. Todesurteile des Volksgerichtshofes. Darmstadt, Neuwied 1980; more representatively: Klaus Marxen/Holger Schlüter, Terror und “Normalität”. Urteile des nationalsozialistischen Volksgerichtshofs 1934–1945. Eine Dokumentation. (Juristische Zeitgeschichte NRW. 13). Recklinghausen n.d. (2004).
- 299.
Schlüter, op. cit., p. 231.
- 300.
Marxen, Gerichtshof, p. 58.
- 301.
Marxen, op. cit., p. 89.
- 302.
Marxen, op. cit., p. 90.
- 303.
Ibid.
- 304.
Schlüter, Volksgerichtshof, p. 232.—On the connections of both traditional forms of justice and judicial practice in line with measures to political justice, cf. also Niermann, Strafjustiz, p. 375 ff.
- 305.
On the shift in balance in the justice system from the courts to the prosecution, cf. in detail Ulrich Schumacher, Staatsanwaltschaft und Gericht im Dritten Reich. Zur Veränderung der Kompetenzverteilung im Strafverfahren unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in der Weimarer Republik und in der Bundesrepublik. Cologne 1985.
- 306.
On the introduction of a separate jurisdiction of the police and the SS, cf. Bianca Vieregge, Die Gerichtsbarkeit einer “Elite”. Nationalsozialistische Rechtsprechung am Beispiel der SS- und Polizei-Gerichtsbarkeit. Baden-Baden 2002.
- 307.
Rüping, Staatsanwaltschaft, p. 113 ff.; Naumann, Gefängnis, p. 145.
- 308.
Individual details in Jens Luge, Festschrift OLG Oldenburg, p. 244 f.; on the consequences, cf. Günter Gribbohm, Die dem Richter gebührende Sühne—Zur rechtlichen Stellung des Richters im Dritten Reich nach dem Reichstagsbeschluss vom 26. April 1942, in: JoJZG 2 (2008), 1 ff.
- 309.
On the “judge’s letters” distributed from 1942 onwards by the Reich Ministry of Justice, cf. the documentation in Heinz Boberach (Ed.), Richterbriefe. Dokumente zur Beeinflussung der deutschen Rechtsprechung 1942–1944. Boppard 1975.
- 310.
The nullity appeal—introduced in Section 34 of the Decree on the jurisdiction of criminal courts, special courts and other criminal procedural regulations of 21 February 1940—could be launched to the Reich Supreme Court by the Supreme Reich Prosecutor against final sentences issued by an Amtsgericht, the criminal chambers of the Landgericht and special courts, “if the verdict is unjust due to an error in the application of law to the facts proved”.—The extraordinary objection, introduced as early as 16 September 1939 by the Law to change the regulations on general criminal procedure, Wehrmacht criminal procedure and the Criminal Code, gave the Supreme Reich Prosecutor the power to launch this remedy to the Special Senate of the Reich Supreme Court; this appeal could also be made after rejection of the nullity appeal; cf. the example in Werle, Justiz-Strafrecht, p. 320 f.
- 311.
It is only recently that research on sentencing during the period of NS rule has been significantly improved. A survey from 1988: Heinz Müller-Dietz, Der Strafvollzug in der Weimarer Zeit und im Dritten Reich. Ein Forschungsbericht, in: Id., Recht und Nationalsozialismus. Gesammelte Beiträge. Baden-Baden 2000; cf. also I. Baumann, Geschichte, p. 91 ff. Naumann, Gefängnis, p. 113 ff.
- 312.
For a comprehensive study of prisons in the NS state: Nikolaus Wachsmann, Hitler’s Prisons. Legal Terror in Nazi Germany. New Haven 2004.
- 313.
The 1940 Official Regulations of the Reich Ministry of Justice heightened this tendency further; however, Section 48(2) stated the aim that “prisoners capable of reform are to be strengthened in such a way that they become useful members of the national community upon their return to freedom”.
- 314.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 86.
- 315.
Laubenthal, Strafvollzug, p. 44.
- 316.
Cf. Chr. Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, p. 13 ff.; of course, these “innocent” victims also include those sentenced unjustly and those “turned into” criminals by the regime’s decisions on criminalisation.
- 317.
I. Baumann, Geschichte, p. 110 f.—The godfather of this policy was the “Gipsy and Antisocials researcher” Dr. med. Robert Ritter (ibid.).
- 318.
I. Baumann, Geschichte, p. 288; Institut für Juristische Zeitgeschichte Hagen, Euthanasie vor Gericht. Die Anklageschrift des Generalstaatsanwalts beim OLG Frankfurt/M. gegen Dr. Werner Heyde u.a. vom 22. Mai 1962. Ed. Thomas Vormbaum. With a commentary by Uwe Kaminsky and Friedrich Dencker. Berlin 2005, p. 17 ff. (so-called campaign “Sonderbehandlung 14 f 13”).
- 319.
On the topic as a whole, cf. Naumann, Gefängnis, p. 143; an overview is given in Helmut Kramer, Der Beitrag der Juristen zum Massenmord an Strafgefangenen und die strafrechtliche Ahndung nach 1945, in: KJ 2010, 89 ff.
- 320.
Naumann, op. cit., p. 161 ff.
- 321.
Naumann, op. cit., p. 175 ff.
- 322.
Herbert Jäger, Makrokriminalität. Studien zur Kriminologie kollektiver Gewalt. Frankfurt am Main 1989. Id., Verbrechen unter totalitärer Herrschaft. Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Gewaltkriminalität (1967). 2nd edition. Frankfurt am Main 1982.
- 323.
A complete list is included in Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen.
- 324.
These murders, which were declared legal in the retrospectively issued Law on Measures of State Self-Defence of 3 July 1934 (more detail in Gruchmann, Justiz, p. 433 ff.), were justified only a month later by the professor of law Carl Schmitt in the journal “Deutsche Juristenzeitung” which he edited in an essay called “The Führer protects the law” (DJZ 1934, col. 945 ff.: “In actual fact, the action taken by the Führer constituted true jurisdiction. It was not subject to the justice system, but was itself the highest form of justice”); on this, Bernd Rüthers, Entartetes Recht. Rechtslehren und Kronjuristen im Dritten Reich. Munich 1988, p. 120 ff.; Id., Carl Schmitt im Dritten Reich. Wissenschaft als Zeitgeist-Verstärkung? Munich 1989, p. 53 ff.; also Gruchmann, “Dummheiten eines Genies?”, in: JZ 2005, 763 ff. (the author counters post-1945 attempts to represent Schmitt’s activities as atypical aberrations by pointing out his elaborate and consistently upheld National Socialist theorems on criminal procedure).
- 325.
On this, cf. the description given in the indictment of the “euthanasia” doctor Dr. Heyde (who after 1945 practised medicine in Schleswig-Holstein for years under the name of “Dr. Sawade” in more or less open anonymity): Institut für Juristische Zeitgeschichte Hagen, Euthanasie vor Gericht.; also cf. the contributions to the symposium “NS-Euthanasie” in the Justizakademie NRW in October 2005 by Hans Schmuhl, Petra Fuchs et. al, Michael Schwartz, Uwe Kaminsky, Klaus-Detlev Godau Schüttke, Friedrich Dencker, Helia-Verena Daubach und Heinz Holzhauer, in: Jahrbuch der Juristischen Zeitgeschichte 7 (2005/2006), as well as the conference report by Helia-Verena Daubach, in: JoJZG 1 (2007), 30 ff.; Große-Vehne, p. 125 ff.; on the role played by the Reich Ministry of Justice and the justice system Gruchmann, Justiz, p. 497 ff.—NS medical studies’ human experiments also belong in this context; on these, cf. Ernst Klee, Auschwitz, die NS-Medizin und ihre Opfer. Revised new edition. Frankfurt am Main 2001; on the text by Binding/Hoche that furnished the murder campaigns with their catchphrase, cf. § 5 II. 1. above.
- 326.
On this, cf. Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men. Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York 1992.
- 327.
In the plethora of literature on this topic, the standard work of reference remains: Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden. 3 volume paperback edition. Frankfurt am Main 1994; more recently Christopher Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution. The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. Lincoln, NE 2004. Historian and antisemitism researcher Wolfgang Benz has commented on the doubts voiced by right-wing extremists over the number (standardised in federal German discourse) of 6 million Jewish victims. After intense research, he concluded that the number lies in between a minimum of 5.29 million and a maximum of just above 6 million; Wolfgang Benz (Ed.), Dimension des Völkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus. Munich 1996, p. 15 ff.; on the so-called Wannsee conference of 20 January 1942 that marks the beginning of the systematic “final solution to the Jewish question”, cf. the exhibition catalogue of the Wannsee villa, where the conference was held: Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz (Ed.), Die Wannsee-Konferenz und der Völkermord an den europäischen Juden. Catalogue of the permanent exhibition. Berlin 2006; on the jurists’ role in the debate, cf. Alex Jettinghoff, Die Wannsee-Juristen, in: JoJZG 2007, 129 ff.
- 328.
On this, cf. the contributions in: Tilman Zülch, In Auschwitz vergast, bis heute verfolgt. Zur Situation der Roma (Zigeuner) in Deutschland und Europa. Reinbek nr. Hamburg 1979, p. 89 ff.
- 329.
On this, cf. Christian Streit, Keine Kameraden. Die Wehrmacht und die sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941–1945. Bonn 1991; Jochen Böhler, Auftakt zum Vernichtungskrieg. Die Wehrmacht in Polen 1939. Frankfurt am Main 2006, p. 169 ff.
- 330.
On this, cf. Klaus Kastner, Sklaverei oder Arbeitsverhältnisse? Historische und rechtliche Aspekte der Zwangsarbeit des nationalsozialistischen Regimes, in: Commemorative volume for Wolfgang Blomeyer. Berlin 2004, p. 99 ff.—On efforts to gain compensation for forced labourers, cf. among others Diemut Majer, Die Frage der Entschädigung für ehemalige NS-Zwangsarbeiter in völkerrechtlicher Sicht, in: Id., Nationalsozialismus im Lichte der Juristischen Zeitgeschichte. Baden-Baden 2002, p. 226 ff.; most recently Sascha Koller, Die Entschädigung ehemaliger NS-Zwangsarbeiter nach Inkrafttreten des Gesetzes zur Errichtung der Stiftung “Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft”. Bonn (jur. Diss.) 2006.
- 331.
On this as a whole: Matthias Etzel, Die Aufhebung von nationalsozialistischen Gesetzen durch den Alliierten Kontrollrat (1945–1948). Tübingen 1992; on commercial criminal law: Hans Achenbach, Zur Entwicklung des Wirtschaftsstrafrechts in Deutschland seit dem späten 19. Jahrhundert, in: Jura 2007, 342 ff., 344; Werner, Wirtschaftsordnung, p. 571 ff.
- 332.
In detail on the following, cf. Jürgen Welp, Die Strafgesetzgebung der Nachkriegszeit (1945–1953) in: Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, supplementary volume I, p. 139 ff.
- 333.
Otto Schwarz, StGB, 13th edition. Munich and Berlin 1949, Section 44 note 1a (which states that the regulation is contradictory to post-National Socialist thought); the 16th edition of 1953 deleted this passage; Eduard Kohlrausch, StGB mit Nebengesetzen. Textausgabe mit Erläuterung der Änderungen. Berlin 1947, p. 44: “Thus the new German punishment for attempt marks an overemphasis on the idea of the will, going so far as to become a criminal law that focuses on the offender’s attitude. The older regulation is closer to the rule of law” (cited here from Karitzky, Kohlrausch, p. 409).
- 334.
For more detail, cf. Vormbaum, Festschrift StA Schleswig-Holstein, p. 75 ff.; Dencker, Kontinuität, p. 135 ff.; Id., NS-Justiz vor Gericht. Discussion of further aspects of the Special Part in the period immediately following the War: on political criminal law see Schroeder, Schutz, p. 175 f.; on testimony offences see Vormbaum, Eid, p. 144 ff.; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 86 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 119 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 222 f. (particularly on the question of the legitimacy of the “Bestimmungsmensur”, arranged duels between student fraternities; on theft see Prinz, p. 132 ff.; on false accusation and misleading the authorities about the commission of a crime see Bernhard, p. 136 f.; on bodily harm see Gröning, p. 44 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 130 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 89 ff.; on defamation of the head of state see Andrea Hartmann, p. 239 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering see Ilya Hartmann, p. 215 f.; on incitement to hatred see Rohrßen, p. 125 ff.
- 335.
On this, cf. Wogersien; also Vogl, p. 187.
- 336.
On this, cf. van Bebber, Wiedergutgemacht?; also Vogl, Wiedergutmachung, p. 187.
- 337.
Vogl, Wiedergutmachung, p. 190 ff.
- 338.
Vogl, op. cit.
- 339.
Law to Annul Unjust Sentences Imposed during the National Socialist Administration of Criminal Justice of 25 August 1998 (BGBl. I, p. 2501).
- 340.
More detail in Vogl, Wiedergutmachung, p. 195.
- 341.
Collection of the verdicts passed on NS crimes: C.F. Ruter/D.W. de Mildt (Eds.), Justiz und NS-Verbrechen. Die deutschen Strafverfahren wegen nationalsozialistischer Tötungsverbrechen 1945–1999. 22 vols. Munich 1998; also available digitally: www.jur.uva.nl/junsv/ .
- 342.
Most recently on the Nuremberg Trials and their significance for the further development of international criminal law: Herbert R. Reginbogin/Christoph J.M. Safferling (Eds.), The Nuremberg Trials/Die Nürnberger Prozesse. International Criminal Law Since 1945/Völkerstrafrecht seit 1945. Munich 2006: earlier publications include: Bradley F. Smith, Reaching Judgement at Nuremberg. London 1977; record of proceedings: International Military Tribunal Nuremberg (Ed.), Trial of The Major War Criminals Before The International Military Tribunal Nuremberg (14 November 1945 to 1 October 1946). Nuremberg 1947–1949. Available electronically from the Library of Congress under http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/NT_major-war-criminals.html. Text of the sentences in: Lothar Gruchmann (Introduction), Das Urteil von Nürnberg 1946. 3rd edition. Munich (dtv) 1977; a participant’s point of view (that of a member of the prosecution and later chief prosecutor of the so-called follow-up trials) is given in Telford Taylor, An Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials. A Personal Memoir. London 1993; from the point of view of contemporary court reporters: Steffen Radlmaier (Ed.), Der Nürnberger Lernprozeß. Von Kriegsverbrechern und Starreportern. Frankfurt am Main 2001; Prosecutor Harris’s point of view is given in Whitney R. Harris, Tyranny on Trial: The Trial of the Major German War Criminals at the End of the World War II at Nuremberg, Germany 1945–1946. Revised edition 1999. On conspiracy cf. Grässle-Münscher, Kriminelle Vereinigung, p. 83; Christoph Safferling, Die Strafbarkeit wegen “Conspiracy” in Nürnberg und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart, in: KritV 2010, 65 ff.
- 343.
On the Leipzig war crimes trial, cf. Heiko Ahlbrecht, Geschichte der völkerrechtlichen Strafgerichtsbarkeit im 20. Jahrhundert. Baden-Baden 1999, p. 41 ff., including further references.
- 344.
An overview of all the subsequent trials can be found in Gerd R. Überschär (Ed.), Der Nationalsozialismus vor Gericht. Die alliierten Prozesse gegen Kriegsverbrecher und Soldaten 1943–1953, p. 73 ff.
- 345.
On the Judges’ Trial, cf. Klaus Kastner, “Der Dolch des Mörders war unter der Robe des Juristen verborgen”. Der Nürnberger Juristenprozeß 1947, in: JA 1997, 699 ff.; updated version in: JoJZG 2007, 81 ff.; on the Wilhelmstraße Trial (1948/49), in: Festschrift für Heinz Stöckel (2010), p. 499 ff.
- 346.
On this, cf. e.g. Daniel Marc Segesser, Die historischen Wurzeln des Begriffs “Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit”, in: JJZG 8 (2006/2007), 75 ff.
- 347.
On the history of the Nuremberg Trials, cf. Ahlbrecht, Strafgerichtsbarkeit, p. 65 ff.; Christina Möller, Völkerstrafrecht und Internationaler Strafgerichtshof. Kriminologische, straftheoretische und rechtspolitische Aspekte. Münster 2003, p. 75 ff.
- 348.
Werle, op. cit., p. 144: “A downright pardoning frenzy broke out”.
- 349.
On the “Braunbuch” campaign against West German “NS blood judges”, cf. Michael Greve, Der justitielle und rechtspolitische Umgang mit den NS-Gewaltverbrechen in den sechziger Jahren. Frankfurt am Main et al. 2001, 2nd chapter; cf. also Hans-Eckhard Niermann, Zwischen Unbehagen und Verdrängung. Die Reaktion in Richterschaft und Justizverwaltung des Oberlandesgerichtsbezirks Hamm auf die „Braunbuch-Kampagne“ der DDR 1957 bis 1968, in: Requate, Recht und Justiz im gesellschaftlichen Aufbruch (1960–1975), p. 103 ff.
- 350.
On the political background, cf. Frei, Vergangenheitspolitik; Peter Steinbach, Nationalsozialistische Gewaltverbrechen. Die Diskussion in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit nach 1945. Berlin 1981; for Austria, cf. Rabofsy/Oberkofler, p. 207 ff.
- 351.
On this, cf. Rückerl, p. 140; Werle, Bestrafung, p. 146 ff.; Werle/Wandres, Auschwitz, p. 23 f.
- 352.
Rückerl, p. 141 ff.; cf. also Rüdiger Fleiter, Die Ludwigsburger Zentrale Stelle und ihr politisches und gesellschaftliches Umfeld, in: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht (GWU) 53 (2002), 32 ff.
- 353.
Numbers in Werle, Bestrafung, p. 148; Vassalli, Radbruchsche Formel p. 190, including numerous references. The tremendous difficulties that literally got in the way of the Central Office’s work in the first years should not be forgotten. The political and administrative establishment of Baden-Württemberg reacted both frantically and threateningly to prosecutor Barbara Just-Dahlmann’s official statements. Due to her knowledge of the Polish language, Dahlmann had been transferred to the Central Office to translate as many documents as possible before the statute of limitations barred the prosecution of murder in 1960. In the course of her work, she had to contend with the understaffing of the office, working on the translations day and night with her husband in a race to remain ahead of the expiry of the statute of limitations. More detail in Helmut Kramer, Laudatio zur Verleihung des Arnold-Freymuth-Preises an Barbara Just-Dahlmann, in: JJZG 2 (2000/2001), 238 ff.
- 354.
On this, cf. Werle, Bestrafung, p. 148 ff.; Id./Wandres, Auschwitz.
- 355.
Hermann Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß. Eine Dokumentation. 2 volumes. Vienna 1965. Reprint Frankfurt am Main 1995; Werle/Wandres, Auschwitz vor Gericht.
- 356.
More detail in Michael Greve, Amnestierung von NS-Gehilfen—eine Panne? In: JJZG 4 (2002/2003), 295 ff.
- 357.
This was not simply a new “calculation” of the statute of limitation (as implied by the legislator), but rather a retrospective extension of the limitation period (as clarified but not criticised by the Federal Constitutional Court; BVfGE 25, 295).
- 358.
Had this happened, then the offence of genocide—which then was Section 220a StGB, transferred to the German International Criminal Code in 2002 (Section 6 VStGB)—could have been used. But as such a constitution-changing exception provision was not made and the offence of genocide was only added to the Criminal Code in 1954, it played no role in the prosecution of NS crimes. It was also not possible to apply Art. 7 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which makes an express exception for the prohibition of retrospective legislation in cases where the offence, “at the time when it was committed, was criminal according the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations”, for the Federal Republic had explicitly made a reservation for this regulation prior to ratification. The viewpoint discussed under 1 (“natural law”) and the view based on the Radbruch formula shared one problem, albeit to differing degrees: their criteria are more or less manageable in cases of top-level crime. The evaluation becomes more difficult in cases of less serious crime. With the Radbruch formula, the question arises of whether every case of killing counts as “insupportable” (on the “Mauerschützen”, border guards, see below); this is not an issue for the parameter of natural law, but it is questionable down to which level its criteria can securely be applied. One measure might be furnished by the area of offences against the person within the classic delicta in se; but beyond these, the judgement becomes more insecure (does a normal case of using threats or force still count? On cases of perverting the course of justice and electoral fraud in dealing with GDR history see below).
- 359.
This is criticised in Dencker, note 63, in: Institut für juristische Zeitgeschichte Hagen, Euthanasie vor Gericht, p. 405; Id., Die Strafverfolgung der Euthanasie-Täter nach 1945, in: JJZG 7 (2005/2006), 113 ff., here 119 ff.
- 360.
In the meantime enough time has passed to name the cost that had to be paid for Vergangenheitsbewältigung and the justified efforts made to prosecute NS crimes. In this matter, the different viewpoints of historians and legal historians becomes evident: more detail in Pauli/Vormbaum, Vorwort, in: Id., Justiz und Nationalsozialismus, p. VII ff., XII; also Th. Vormbaum, Vergangenheitsbewältigung im Rechtsstaat, in: Festschrift for Knut Amelung (2009), p. 783 ff.
- 361.
Werle, Bestrafung, p. 153:
- 362.
On this, Vera Große-Vehne, Tötung auf Verlangen etc., p. 130 ff.; cf. also Id., Die nationalsozialistischen Pläne für ein “Euthanasie-Gesetz”, in: JoJZG 1 (2007), 2 ff.; a critical point of view in Friedrich Dencker, note 62 ff., in: Institut für juristische Zeitgeschichte Hagen, Euthanasie vor Gericht, p. 401 ff.
- 363.
Jörg Friedrich, Die kalte Amnestie. NS-Täter in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt am Main (Fischer-TB) 1984, p. 321 ff.; most recently, Heinz-Willi Heinckes, Täterschaft und Teilnahme bei NS-Tötungsverbrechen. Analyse und Kritik der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes. Bonn (jur. Diss.) 2005.
- 364.
On the last (unsuccessful) attempt to prosecute a People’s Court judge (the Rehse case), cf. instead of many other sources Freudiger, Aufarbeitung, p. 386 ff.
- 365.
During the 1980s, as part of the research for his habilitation, the author searched through all available textbooks, commentaries and court decisions up to 1945, and found not a single passage referring to such a Richterprivileg; his doctoral student Carsten Thiel, who has recently investigated the history of the offence of perverting the course of justice since the 19th century, conducted a further, even broader search and reached the same negative conclusion; cf. Vormbaum, Schutz des Strafurteils, p. 354 ff.; Thiel, Rechtsbeugung, p. 136 ff.
- 366.
Radbruch, Gesetzliches Unrecht, p. 15.
- 367.
Cf. references in Ursula Schmidt-Speicher, Hauptprobleme der Rechtsbeugung. Berlin 1982, p. 82 ff.
- 368.
In more detail, Schmidt-Speicher, op. cit., p. 105 ff.; Freudiger, Aufarbeitung, p. 395.
- 369.
Jörg Friedrich, Freispruch für die Nazi-Justiz. Eine Dokumentation. Reinbek 1983.
- 370.
On the state of the law in EU states and the theoretical debate on memory enshrined in criminal law, cf. Emanuela Fronza, Recht und Gedenken. Ein schwieriger Dialog, in: JJZG 6 (2004/2005), 435 ff.; on the history of Section 130 StGB cf. the Ph.D. thesis of Benedikt Rohrßen, Von der Aufreizung zum Klassenkampf zur Volksverhetzung. Berlin, 2009.
- 371.
Welp, Nachkriegszeit, p. 315.
- 372.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 381; Meyer-Höger, Jugendarrest, p. 118 ff.
- 373.
Bernhard Duesing, Die Abschaffung der Todesstrafe in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Offenbach am Main 1952, p. 276 ff.; Evans, Rituals, p. 797 ff.
- 374.
For a detailed study of this topic, cf. Yvonne Hötzel, Debatten um die Todesstrafe in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1949–1989). Berlin 2011.
- 375.
Habeas Corpus Act (“Gesetz zum Schutz der persönlichen Freiheit”) of 15 July 1951, Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 60; Welp, Nachkriegszeit, p. 153.
- 376.
Sections 234a ff. and Section 241a StGB as amended by the Protection of Personal Liberty Act; Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 60.
- 377.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 319.
- 378.
In detail on their development, Schiffers, Bürgerfreiheit; F.-C. Schroeder, Schutz, p. 178 ff.
- 379.
Alexander von Brünneck, Politische Justiz gegen Kommunisten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949–1968. Frankfurt am Main (edition Suhrkamp) 1978; also the contributions in: Justizministerium NRW (Ed.), Politische Strafjustiz 1951–1968; also Diether Posser, Anwalt im Kalten Krieg. 3rd edition. Baden-Baden 1999.
- 380.
Justizministerium NRW (Ed.), Strafjustiz, p. 72.
- 381.
Welp, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 169 ff.
- 382.
On this, cf. Meyer-Höger, Jugendarrest, p. 138 ff.
- 383.
Materialien zur Strafrechtsreform Vol. 1. Bonn 1954: Gutachten der Strafrechtslehrer. The reports were created by Edmund Mezger, Bernhard Schmidt, Paul Bockelmann, Hans Welzel, Ernst Heinitz, Richard Lange, Thomas Würtenberger, Rudolf Sieverts, Wilhelm Gallas, Werner Niese, Karl Schneidewien, Reinhart Maurach, Hellmuth Mayer, Hellmuth von Weber, Horst Schröder, Eduard Kern (2x) and Arthur Wegner; cf. also (without numerical attribution to the “Materialien zur Strafrechtsreform”): Gutachten und Stellungnahmen zu Fragen der Strafrechtsreform mit ärztlichem Einschlag. Bonn (Bundesministerium der Justiz) 1958. Reports were created by W. Bitter, K. Ernst, R. Gaupp, Hans Walter Gruhle, E. Kretschmer, Albrecht Langelüddeke and Theodor Ziehen. Nine medical and psychiatric professional bodies provided commentaries, including the German Society of Psychotherapy and Depth Psychology accompanied by reports from Alexander Mitscherlich and Jutta von Graevenitz.
- 384.
Materialien zur Strafrechtsreform. Vol. 2: Rechtsvergleichende Arbeiten (in 2 separate volumes for the General and Special Part), created by the Department for Foreign and International Law in Freiburg. Bonn 1954.
- 385.
The Commission was made up of: representatives of the German Bundestag: Hoogen (CDU/CSU), Rehs (SPD), Schneider (FDP), Czermak (BG/BHE), Merkatz (DP); criminal law theorists: Paul Bockelmann, Wilhelm Gallas, Hans-Heinrich Jescheck, Richard Lange, Edmund Mezger, Eberhard Schmidt, Hans Welzel; representative of the German Judges Association: Resch; representative of the legal profession: Dahs; representatives of the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Prosecutor General at the BGH: Baldus, Wiechmann; specially appointed individual members: Koffka, Niethammer, Richter, Schäfer and Skott.
- 386.
On the deliberations of individual offences and groups of offences in the Special Part within the framework of the reform of criminal law (including the alternative drafts), cf. on political criminal law Schroeder, Schutz, p. 211 ff.; on testimony offences Vormbaum, Eid, p. 150 ff.; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue Gieseler, p. 96 ff., 118 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations Felske, p. 306 ff.; on the failure to report a crime Kisker, p. 131 ff.; on duelling Baumgarten, p. 224 ff.; on theft Prinz, p. 137 ff., 162 ff.; on false accusation and misleading the authorities about the commission of a crime Bernhard, p. 137 ff.; on arson Lindenberg, p. 124 ff.; on assault Gröning, p. 47 ff.; on the perverting the course of justice Thiel, p. 115 ff.; on mercy killing Große-Vehne, p. 167 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights Seemann, p. 100 ff.; on defamation of the head of state Andrea Hartmann, p. 256 ff.; on prostitution, procuring and pandering Ilya Hartmann, p. 216 ff.; on trespass Rampf, p. 124 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation Rentrop, p. 168 ff.; on forgery of documents Prechtel, p. 185 ff.; on road traffic law, Asholt, p. 160 ff.; on incitement to hatred Rohrßen, p. 173 ff.; on capital punishment Hötzel, p. 175 ff.—Richard Lange, already mentioned several times in the course of the present book, was the only teacher of criminal law in the committee who voted for a reintroduction of capital punishment, cf. Hötzel, p. 188, footnote 89.
- 387.
Vormbaum/Rentrop, Reform, Vol. 3, p. 109 ff.
- 388.
Vormbaum/Rentrop, Reform, Vol. 3, p. 245 ff.
- 389.
Jürgen Baumann, Kleine Streitschriften zur Strafrechtsreform. 10 Beiträge. Bielefeld 1965; Id. (Ed.), Programm für ein neues Strafgesetzbuch. Der Alternativentwurf der Strafrechtslehrer. Frankfurt am Main 1968; Id. (Ed.), Mißlingt die Strafrechtsreform? Der Bundestag zwischen Regierungsentwurf von 1962 und Alternativ-Entwurf der Strafrechtslehrer von 1966. Neuwied and Berlin 1969; Id., Weitere Streitschriften zur Strafrechtsreform. 10 Beiträge. Bielefeld 1969.
- 390.
On Güde, cf. Volker Tausch, Max Güde (1902–1984). Generalbundesanwalt und Rechtspolitiker. Baden-Baden 2002.
- 391.
Uwe Scheffler, Das Reformzeitalter 1953–1975, in: Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, supplementary volume I, p. 174, 182 ff.
- 392.
Vormbaum/Rentrop, Reform, Vol. 3, p. 401 ff.
- 393.
These also entered into force on 1 January 1975 with the Criminal Code Introduction Act (Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 98); the entire Criminal Code was publicly announced at the same time (Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 103).
- 394.
BVerfGE 37, 324.
- 395.
BVerfGE 37, 324, 325.
- 396.
BVerfGE 39, 1, 65, 68.
- 397.
The minority of the senate argued that deducing a duty to punish from the rules of the Basic Law actually turned the liberal content of the fundamental rights into their opposite.
- 398.
On the suggestions of the “alternative professors” on Road Traffic Law, cf. e.g. Asholt, Straßenverkehrsstrafrecht, p. 209 ff.
- 399.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 389.
- 400.
See most recently Klaus Adomeit, Der Rechtspositivismus im Denken von Hans Kelsen und von Gustav Radbruch, in: JuS 2003, 161 ff.; Christoph M. Scheuren-Brandes: Der Weg von nationalsozialistischen Rechtslehren zur Radbruchschen Formel. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Idee vom “Unrichtigen Recht”. Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zurich 2006.
- 401.
Cf. the essay discussed above, Radbruch, Gesetzliches Unrecht, p. 10.
- 402.
On this, cf. Wrobel, p. 215: “If only they had been positivists then!”; also explicitly contradicted in Reifner, p. 18 f.; Eisenhardt, Rechtsgeschichte, p. 475 f.; Jettinghoff, JoJZG 1 (2007), 129 ff., 131. In detail on the debate on the positivism theory, with extensive references, Vassalli, Radbruch Formel, p. 26 ff.
- 403.
Radbruch, Gesetzliches Unrecht, op. cit., p. 10.
- 404.
Cf. in particular Gustav Radbruch, Der Handlungsbegriff in seiner Bedeutung für das Strafrechtssystem (1904). Reprinted, edited and with an introduction by Arthur Kaufmann, Darmstadt 1967.
- 405.
Hans Welzel, Kausalität und Handlung, in: ZStW 51 (1932), 703 ff.; Id., Studien zum System des Strafrechts, in: ZStW 58 (1939), 491 ff.; Id., Das neue Bild des Strafrechtssystems. 4th edition. Göttingen 1961 (1st edition 1951).
- 406.
Welzel, Das neue Bild, p. 2 f.
- 407.
An unsurpassed account of the development of doctrine in the mid-20th century is given in Hans Joachim Hirsch, Der Streit um Handlungs- und Unrechtslehre, insbesondere im Spiegel der Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, in: ZStW 1981, 831 ff., 1982, 239 ff. It is required reading for anyone wishing to gain an understanding of the history of the doctrine of criminal law of this period.
- 408.
On the latter, cf. the solution suggested in Eberhard Struensee, Der subjektive Tatbestand des Fahrlässigkeitsdelikts, in: Id., Grundlagenprobleme des Strafrechts. Berlin 2005, p. 1 ff.
- 409.
Wessels/Beulke, Strafrecht AT, p. 32 ff.
- 410.
On this, cf. the introduction by Hans Joachim Hirsch on the reprint of Frank’s text (Berlin 2008).
- 411.
H.J. Hirsch, Über Irrungen und Wirrungen in der gegenwärtigen Schuldlehre, in: Festschrift für Harro Otto. Cologne et al. 2007, p. 307 ff., 309 f.
- 412.
H.J. Hirsch, op. cit., p. 313 f., 316.
- 413.
H.J. Hirsch, op. cit.; Id., JZ 2007, 494 ff., 499.
- 414.
Further investigation would be necessary to ascertain whether the current term “Verbotsirrtum” goes back to Binding’s theory of norms.—On the criticism of the theory of blameworthiness (Schuldtheorie), cf. Jürgen Baumann, Die Reform des Allgemeinen Teils eines Strafgesetzbuches, in: Leonhard Reinisch (Ed.), Die deutsche Strafrechtsreform. Munich 1967, p. 56 ff., 59: “How easy it is to commit one of the comprehensive offences of the Criminal Code or even the Supplementary Penal Provisions in good faith and with no sense of wrongdoing! […] Are the majority of those subject to the law prepared to accept that the punishment for intentional perpetration is meted out in spite of a simple mistake of law if the mistake could have been avoided (e.g. through investigation)?”
- 415.
From a systematic point of view, Section 18 StGB of course represents an extension of liability in law, for without it the principle of Section 15 would apply and insofar intent would be necessary; thus the words “only” and “at least” in Section 18 only make sense in historical terms.
- 416.
H.J. Hirsch, GA 1972, 65, 77 (passim).
- 417.
On this, cf. Claus Roxin, Strafrecht Allg.Teil/1. 4th edition. Munich 2006, 12/138; Udo Ebert/Kristian Kühl, Kausalität und objektive Zurechnung, in: Jura 1979, 561 ff.; Eberhard Struensee, Grundlagenprobleme des Strafrechts. Berlin 2005, p. 1 ff., 31 ff., 37 ff.; for Italy most recently Massimo Donini, Imputazione oggettiva dell’evento. Turin 2006; on the history of doctrine cf. Christoph Hübner, Die Entwicklung der objektiven Zurechnung. Berlin 2004.
- 418.
Claus Roxin, Strafrecht AT, § 10 marginal note 38 (p. 243).
- 419.
Claus Roxin, Bilanz des Finalismus, in: Festschrift für Androulakis. Athens 2004, p. 573 ff., 588.
- 420.
Of course, as shown by Struensee, most of the accomplishments this theory lays claim to can also be achieved by a suitable interpretation of offence-specific results or the normal doctrine of intent; cf. e.g. Eberhard Struensee, “Objektives Risiko” und subjektiver Tatbestand, in: Id., Grundlagenprobleme des Strafrechts. Berlin 2005, p. 31 ff.
- 421.
Paeffgen, in: Nomos-Kommentar zum StGB. 2nd edition. Before Section 32, marginal note 35.
- 422.
Wessels/Beulke, Strafrecht AT, p. 74.
- 423.
Claus Roxin, Kriminalpolitik und Strafrechtssystem, 2nd edition 1973; cf. also Id., Zur kriminalpolitischen Fundierung des Strafrechtssystems, in: Festschrift for Günther Kaiser. Berlin 1998, p. 885 ff.
- 424.
Roxin, Kriminalpolitik, p. 11.
- 425.
Roxin, Kriminalpolitik, p. 15.
- 426.
Kubink, Strafen, p. 433.
- 427.
One reason for the liberalisation of political criminal law in 1968, supported by a wide consensus, was also that at the Olympic Games in 1972, according to the political criminal law in force since 1951, the GDR athletes and functionaries were liable to be arrested. The socialist states thus threatened to boycott the Games; in more detail from a contemporary perspective, Diether Posser, Anwalt im Kalten Krieg. 3rd edition, Baden-Baden 1999, p. 419 ff.
- 428.
Wetzell, Inventing, p. 179 ff.; Id., Der Verbrecher und seine Erforscher, in: JJZG 8 (2006/2007), p. 256 ff.
- 429.
For a representative elaborated account of this theory, cf. the textbook by Günther Jakobs, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil. Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre. (Berlin, New York, 1st edition 1983; 2nd edition 1991). The passages in question are reproduced in: Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 330 ff. Whether the theories the same author puts forward on the so-called “Feindstrafrecht” (“criminal law for enemies”; cf. § 6, footnote 8 ff. below) can be reconciled with his theory of punishment is the subject of surprisingly little discussion; on this, cf. Vormbaum, Einführung, in: Vormbaum/Asholt, Feindstrafrecht, p. XXXI ff.
- 430.
Winfried Hassemer, Das Symbolische am symbolischen Strafrecht, in: Id., Strafrecht. Sein Selbstverständnis, seine Welt. Berlin 2008, p. 93 ff.; there p. 95 (footnote 14) for all necessary references on symbolic criminal law.
- 431.
From then on, this pattern of argument reappeared again and again—neglecting the question of why the regulations in question had not been put into practice before 1933.
- 432.
I. Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 140–143.
- 433.
Cit. according to Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 162 ff.
- 434.
I. Baumann provides references for all cited passages in new editions of textbooks by Franz Exner, Wilhelm Sauer, Edmund Mezger and Ernst Seelig; cf. Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 145 ff.
- 435.
I. Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 189.
- 436.
I. Baumann, Verbrechen, p. 205 ff. A 1955 advisory report (taken over from the court files) of Bruchsal prison runs: “Incapacitation detention and detention in a concentration camp were unable to prevent his reoffending as early as 1946, in this particular case committing assault and fraud” (op. cit., p. 211).
- 437.
Naumann, Gefängnis, p. 215.
- 438.
Cf. instead of many other sources: Fritz Sack, Definition von Kriminalität als politisches Handeln: der labeling approach; in: Arbeitskreis Junger Kriminologen (Ed.), Kritische Kriminologie. Positionen, Kontroversen und Perspektiven. Munich 1974, p. 18 ff.
- 439.
Instead of many other sources, cf. the contributions in: Hans Steinert (Ed.), Der Prozeß der Kriminalisierung. Untersuchungen zur Kriminalsoziologie. Munich 1973; also Hans-Wilhelm Schünemann, Selektion durch Strafverfahren? Die Bedeutung des labeling approach für unser Strafverfahren, in: Deutsche Richter-Zeitung 1974, 278 ff.
- 440.
BVfGE 45, 187, 229, 239.
- 441.
A further consequence of the Federal Constitutional Court decision was the decision in BGHSt 30, 105 (= NJW 1981, 1965), controversial to this day, which issued the so-called Rechtsfolgenlösung (sanction-based solution) of Section 211 StGB in order to fulfil the Court’s demand that only those cases of murder that exhibit a maximum of unlawfulness and blameworthiness be given the maximum punishment.
- 442.
BVfGE 33, 1 (= NJW 1972, 811).
- 443.
The end of the “Wirtschaftswunder” (economic miracle), the oil crisis of 1973, the breakup of social structures and milieus, a comparatively high level of structural unemployment after 20 years of full employment, crises in environmental and armaments policy.
- 444.
This interaction is represented in an instructive and gripping manner in the documentary Die Anti-Terror-Debatten im Parlament. Protokolle 1974–1978. Reinbek nr. Hamburg 1978.
- 445.
An overview of its development from the point of view of 2006 is given in Peter Rieß, Tendenzen der Strafprozessgesetzgebung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Festschrift for Roland Miklau. Innsbruck, Vienna, Bolzano 2006, p. 433. Overall, Rieß sees the development in a more favourable light than the present publication.
- 446.
Schumacher, Staatsanwaltschaft, p. 209 ff.
- 447.
By Art. 1 subparagraphs 52 and 57 of the First Criminal Procedure Reform Act of 9 December 1974 (RGBl. I, p. 3393).
- 448.
Also introduced by the 1st StVRG (Art. 1 No. 36).
- 449.
Erhard Kausch, Der Staatsanwalt. Ein Richter vor dem Richter? Untersuchungen zum § 153a StPO. Berlin 1980; cf. on a specific case (discontinuance of proceedings against Chancellor Helmut Kohl for embezzlement by breaking the rules on donations to political parties) comments by Wolfgang Naucke, Wilhelm Hennis and Thomas Vormbaum, in: JJZG 2 (2000/2001), 722 ff., 725 ff. and 728 ff.
- 450.
By Art. 1 subparagraphs 43, 46 of the 1st StVRG; in this, cf. the scathing criticism of Jürgen Welp, Zwangsbefugnisse für die Staatsanwaltschaft. Tübingen 1976.
- 451.
Schumacher, Staatsanwaltschaft, p. 233.
- 452.
Cf. also Welp, op. cit. p. 9; I. Müller, Rechtsstaat und Strafverfahren, p. 206 ff.
- 453.
F.-C. Schroeder, Die Entwicklung der Gesetzgebungstechnik, in: Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, supplementary volume 1, p. 381 ff., 416 ff.
- 454.
F.-C. Schroeder, op. cit., p. 417.
- 455.
Ibid.
- 456.
On this, cf. most recently: Bernd Schünemann, Der Ausbau der Opferstellung im Strafprozeß—Fluch oder Segen? in: Festschrift R. Hamm. Berlin 2008, p. 687 ff. For criticism of the “martial” terminology “victim”, rather than the traditional “injured party” used in criminal procedure until today, cf. F.-C. Schroeder, op. cit., p. 381 ff., 390.
- 457.
In the first years after 1945, 160,000–260,000 Germans were interned, some arbitrarily, as “active fascists” or war criminals; Helmut Müller-Engbers, Garanten äußerer und innerer Sicherheit, in: Matthias Judt (Ed.), DDR-Geschichte in Dokumenten. Beschlüsse, Berichte, interne Materialien und Alltagszeugnisse. Bonn 1998, p. 431 ff., 432.
- 458.
Around 40,000 people were deported to the Soviet Union during this time and forced to work in the reconstruction of the industry destroyed by the Germans; Müller-Engbers, ibid.
- 459.
Figures according to Andreas Gängel, Die Volksrichterausbildung, in: BMJ (Ed.), Justiz, p. 47 ff.; these shortages were increased by emigration, including of those with no Nazi past, to the Western zones, ibid. p. 48.
- 460.
On this, cf. Gängel, op. cit.; Wentker, Justiz, p. 119 ff.; Andrea Feth, Die Volksrichter, in: Rottleuthner (Ed.), Steuerung, p. 351 ff.
- 461.
Eugen Schiffer, member of the (left-wing liberal) German Democratic Party during the Weimar Republic, Reich Minister of Justice from 1919 to 1921 and President of the German Central Justice Administration in the Soviet Zone from 1945 to 1948, had emphatically declared himself in favour of expanding the position of lay judges; cf. Joachim Ramm, Eugen Schiffer und die Reform der deutschen Justiz. Neuwied and Darmstadt 1987, p. 176.
- 462.
Andrej P. Nikitin, Die sowjetische Militäradministration und die Justiz in Ostdeutschland, in: JJZG 1 (1999/2000), 123 ff.; Thomas Lorenz, Die deutsche Zentralverwaltung der Justiz (DJV) und die SMAD in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone 1945 bis 1949, in: Rottleuthner (Ed.), Steuerung, p. 135 ff.; for Brandenburg, cf. Dieter Pohl, Justiz in Brandenburg 1945–1955. Gleichschaltung und Anpassung. Munich 2001; for Saxony-Anhalt Hermann Wentker, Anfänge der “Volksjustiz in Sachsen-Anhalt1945–1949. Zum Neuaufbau einer Landesjustiz unter sowjetischer Besatzung, in: JJZG 6 (2004/2005), 141 ff.
- 463.
Andreas Gängel, Das Oberste Gericht der DDR—Leitungsorgan der Rechtsprechung—Entwicklungsstationen, in: Rottleuthner (Ed.), Steuerung, p. 253 ff.—On the military justice system cf. Heinz Josef Wagner, Die Militärjustiz der DDR. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtsprechung der Militärgerichte. 2 volumes. Berlin 2006.
- 464.
On this, see Joachim S. Hohmann, Der “Euthanasie”-Prozess Dresden 1947. Eine zeitgeschichtliche Dokumentation. Frankfurt am Main et al. 1993.
- 465.
According to an East German documentary; references in Koch, JZ 2007, 719 ff., 720.
- 466.
In the so-called Waldheim trials; on these, cf. Marxen/Werle, DDR-Unrecht, Vol. 5/2, p. 791 ff.; Haase/Pampel, Waldheimer “Prozesse”; Dirks, Verbrechen der anderen, p. 48 ff.; Falko Werkentin, Politische Strafjustiz in der Ära Ulbricht. Berlin 1995, p. 174 ff.
- 467.
On the show trials (in absentia) against Federal Minister Theodor Oberländer and the Secretary of State in the Federal Chancellery (and former commentator on the Nuremberg race laws) Hans Globke cf. Christian Dirks, Verbrechen der anderen, p. 63 ff. On the “Brown Book” campaign, cf. § 5 VI. 3. above, also Dirks, Verbrechen der anderen, p. 59 ff.
- 468.
Cf. references in Karitzky, Kohlrausch, p. 24 ff.
- 469.
More detail in Karitzky, op. cit., p. 179 ff.; cf. also the secondary analysis in Vormbaum, Kohlrausch, op. cit.
- 470.
On this, cf. the contributions in: Jörg Arnold (Ed.), Die Normalität des Strafrechts der DDR. 2 volumes. Freiburg im Breisgau 1995, 1996; on one particular continuous aspect—combating “antisocial elements”—cf. “Asoziale” und “Parasiten” im Recht der SBZ/DDR. Randgruppen im Sozialismus zwischen Repression und Ausgrenzung. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna 2005.
- 471.
Cf. above all KontrollratsG No. 11 of 30 January 1946 (Repeal of Certain Provisions of the German Criminal Law), in: Vormbaum/Welp, supplementary volume II, No. 1, as well as Control Council Law No. 55 (Repeal of German Provisions of Criminal Legislation) of 20 June 1947, in: Vormbaum/Welp, supplementary volume II, No. 2; for more detail on early legislation in the SBZ/DDR, cf. Jörg Arnold, Einige Aspekte der Entwicklung des StGB der DDR, in: Vormbaum/Welp, supplementary volume I, p. 423 ff.
- 472.
Vormbaum/Welp, supplementary volume II, No. 3.
- 473.
This regulation was supplemented further by Section 9, which made impunity compulsory if the danger to society had disappeared between act and conviction, or the offender’s attitude had undergone a “fundamental change”.
- 474.
Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Die Entwicklung des politischen Strafrechts, in: BMJ (Ed.), Justiz III, p. 107 ff.
- 475.
Vormbaum/Welp, supplementary volume II, No. 4.
- 476.
Both were included in the part on “guilt”.
- 477.
John Lekschas/Joachim Renneberg (Eds.), Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Lehrbuch. Authors Erich Buchholz et al. Berlin (GDR state press) 1976, p. 366.
- 478.
For a critical view on the popular courts of the GDR, cf. Felix Herzog, Rechtspflege—Sache des ganzen Volkes? Bericht über eine Studie zu den Gesellschaftlichen Gerichten der DDR, in: JJZG 2 (2000/2001), 180 ff.
- 479.
For more detail on capital punishment in the GDR and its abolition, cf. Evans, Rituals, p. 855 ff.; Arndt Koch, Das Ende der Todesstrafe in Deutschland, in: JZ 2007, 719 ff.
- 480.
Koch, op. cit., p. 720.
- 481.
On the background to the abolition, cf. Koch, op. cit., p. 722.
- 482.
Erich Buchholz/Ulrich Dähn/Hans Weber (Eds.), Strafrecht. Besonderer Teil. Lehrbuch. Authors: Paul Abisch et al. Berlin (State press of the GDR) 1981; on the theft of socialist property, cf. Wilhelm Rettler, Der strafrechtliche Schutz sozialistischen Eigentums in der DDR. Berlin 2010.
- 483.
“Whosever participates in a group which, in disregard of public order and the rules of socialist communal life, commits violent acts against, threatens, or grossly annoys other persons or maliciously damages objects or facilities…”.
- 484.
All documented in: Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, supplementary volume II.
- 485.
Vormbaum/Welp, supplementary volume II, No. 12.
- 486.
Vormbaum/Welp, supplementary volume II, No. 13.
- 487.
Relevant regulations of the Unification Treaty in Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, No. 141.
- 488.
Apart from some criminal laws relating to the economy and environment, these were mainly the offences of homosexual acts, which were not subject to punishment in the GDR, and abortion, for which the GDR operated a time limit model.
- 489.
On questions of the validity of criminal law in connection with the division of Germany, cf. Gerhard Werle/Florian Jeßberger, in: Leipziger Kommentar zum StGB. 12th edition. Before Section 3, marginal note 433 ff.
- 490.
Valuable information on background and details on how this was carried out in Bettina Lang, Vergangenheitspolitik.—For a comprehensive account, cf. the recent documentation by Marxen/Werle; in summary: Marxen/Werle/Schäfter, Strafverfolgung; cf. also Klaus Lüderssen, Der Staat geht unter—das Unrecht bleibt? Regierungskriminalität in der ehemaligen DDR. Frankfurt (edition suhrkamp) 1992; Jörg Arnold, Strafrechtliche Auseinandersetzung mit Systemvergangenheit am Beispiel der DDR. Baden-Baden 2000; Ernst-Joachim Lampe (Ed.), Deutsche Wiedervereinigung. Die Rechtseinheit. Arbeitskreis Strafrecht. Vol. II: Die Verfolgung von Regierungskriminalität der DDR nach der Wiedervereinigung. Cologne et al. 1993.
- 491.
On this, cf. Adomeit, Gustav Radbruch—zum 50. Todestag, in: JJZG 1 (1999/2000), p. 343 ff., 353 f.; in detail on the use of the Radbruch formula in connection with coming to terms with the GDR past, Giuliano Vassalli, Formula di Radbruch e diritto penale. Note sulla punizione dei “delitti di Stato” nella Germania postnazista e nella Germania postcomunista. Milan 2001, p. 60 ff.
- 492.
Cf. Vassalli, Radbruchsche Formel, p. 92 ff.
- 493.
On this cf. most recently e.g. Detlef Schmiechen-Ackermann, NS-Regime und SED-Herrschaft—Chancen, Grenzen und Probleme des empirischen Diktaturenvergleichs, in: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 52 (2001), 544 ff., especially 649 ff.; cf. also Frank Rohrer, Strafjustiz im Dritten Reich und in der SBZ/DDR. Frankfurt am Main et al. 2007.
- 494.
Against the wish of its party and state leadership, the GDR remained excluded from the Warsaw Pact troops’ invasion of the CSSR in August 1968.
- 495.
On this, cf. as an example Siegfried Mampel, Entführungsfall Dr. Walter Linse—Menschenraub und Justizmord als Mittel des Staatsterrors (Schriftenreihe des Berliner Landesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen. 10). 3rd edition. Berlin 2006.
- 496.
On this, cf. Haase/Pampel, Waldheimer “Prozesse”.
- 497.
Of course, these statistics are more “favourable” percentage-wise because the prosecution was so speedy (unlike the prosecution of NS crimes), so that there were fewer cases where the statute of limitations applied.
- 498.
On this, cf. Thomas Vormbaum, Der Schutz von Institutionen der DDR durch das bundesdeutsche Strafrecht, in: Festschrift Diether Posser. Cologne et al. 1997, p. 153 ff.; Ute Hohoff, An den Grenzen des Rechtsbeugungstatbestandes. Eine Studie zu den Strafverfahren gegen DDR-Juristen. Berlin 2001.
- 499.
BGHSt 40, 35 ff., 39.
- 500.
BGHSt 40, 41; on this topic as a whole, cf. also Friedrich Denker, Strafrechtliche Aufarbeitung des DDR-Unrechts und Rechtskultur, in: Politisches Denken. Jahrbuch 2009, p. 197 ff.
- 501.
BVerfG 92, 277 ff.—Unlike the cases of the domestic activity of the Ministry for State Security; on this, cf. Roland Schißau, Strafverfahren wegen MfS-Unrechts. Die Strafprozesse bundesdeutscher Gerichte gegen ehemalige Mitarbeiter des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit der DDR. Berlin 2006.
- 502.
On this, cf. Lensing/Mertens, JJZG 3, p. 352 ff.; in detail also Helmut Kreiker, Art. 7 EMRK und die Gewalttaten an der deutsch-deutschen Grenze. Zu den Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte. Baden-Baden 2002.
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). § 5 The Twentieth Century. In: Bohlander, M. (eds) A Modern History of German Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37273-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37273-5_5
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)