Participation in Crime

doi:10.1017/9781108649742.004

4 - Participation in Crime

from Part II - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019

Antje du Bois-Pedain

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Thomas Weigend and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Questions of criminal participation arise when more than one person is in some way involved in the commission of a crime. In some cases, there may be no single individual who, in his own person, fulfils all the definitional elements of the criminal offence. Even where there is one such individual, the criminal law may want to tie other persons to the commission of the offence as well, on the basis that these other persons are complicit in and therefore share responsibility for its commission. What rules and principles do – and which ones should – govern the ascription of criminal responsibility to different agents in multi-party settings is the theme of this chapter. The answer to the should-question is approached with a view to the general aims of the criminal law regarding parties to crime. These are understood to be the following: (i) to guide judges and other decision-makers towards fair responsibility-attributions for criminal norm-violations and their outcomes; (ii) to ensure that the conviction offence fairly reflects the gravamen of the accused’s criminal conduct; and (iii) to facilitate accurate reflection of different degrees of responsibility in sentencing decisions.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 94 - 134

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649742.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alldridge, P., ‘The Doctrine of Innocent Agency’, Criminal Law Forum, 2 (1990), 45–83.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, I: Foundations and General Part, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar

Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.)‚ Participation in Crime: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate (2013), 323–39.Google Scholar

Baker, D. J., ‘Reinterpreting the Mental Element in Criminal Complicity: Change of Normative Position Theory Cannot Rationalize the Current Law’, Law & Psychology Review, 40 (2016), 119–296.Google Scholar

Bloy, R., Die Beteiligungsform als Zurechnungstypus im Strafrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot ( 1985).Google Scholar

Du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Intentional Killings: the German Law’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Homicide Law in Comparative Perspective, Oxford, Hart (2007), 55–81.Google Scholar

Du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Violent Dynamics: Exploring Responsibility-Attribution for Harms Inflicted during Spontaneous Group Violence’, Oñati Socio-legal Series, 6(4) (2016), 1053–78.Google Scholar

Burchell, J., ‘Joint Enterprise and Common Purpose: Perspectives on English and South African Criminal Law’, South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 10 (1997), 125–40.Google Scholar

Buxton, R., ‘Complicity in the Criminal Code’, Law Quarterly Review, 85 (1969), 252–74.Google Scholar

Child, J., ‘Understanding Ulterior Mens Rea: Future Conduct Intention is Conditional Intention’, Cambridge Law Journal, 76 (2017), 311–36.CrossRef Google Scholar

Crewe, B., Liebling, A., Padfield, N. and Virgo, G., ‘Joint Enterprise: The Implications of an Unfair and Unclear Law’, Criminal Law Review (2015), 252–69.Google Scholar

Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Law, 6th edn, New Providence, NJ, LexisNexis (2012).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., ‘Can I Help You? Accessorial Liability and the Intention to Assist’, Legal Studies, 10 (1990), 165–81.Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., ‘Is Accomplice Liability Superfluous?’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 156 (2008), 444–51.Google Scholar

Dyer, A., ‘The “Australian Position” Concerning Criminal Complicity: Principle, Policy or Politics?’, Sydney Law Review, 40 (2018), 289–318.Google Scholar

Dyson, M., ‘Principals without Distinction’, Criminal Law Review (2018), 296–320.Google Scholar

Eichmüller, A., Keine Generalamnestie. Die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von NS-Verbrechen in der frühen Bundesrepublik, Munich, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag (2012).CrossRef Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., ‘Causing Voluntary Actions’, in Feinberg, J., Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility, Princeton University Press (1970) 152–86.Google Scholar

Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 4th edn, Gießen, Heyer (1808 [1801]).Google Scholar

Gardner, J., ‘Moore on Complicity and Causality’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 156 (2008), 432–43.Google Scholar

Gössel, K. H., ‘Dogmatische Überlegungen zur Teilnahme am erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt nach § 18 StGB’, in Warda, G., Waider, H., Hippel, R. and Meurer, D. (eds.), Festschrift für Richard Lange zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (1976), 219–40.Google Scholar

Greve, M., Der justitielle und rechtspolitische Umgang mit den NS-Gewaltverbrechern in den sechziger Jahren, Frankfurt, Peter Lang (2001).Google Scholar

Haas, V., Die Theorie der Tatherrschaft und ihre Grundlagen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2008).Google Scholar

Hamdorf, K., Beteiligungsmodelle im Strafrecht. Ein Vergleich von Teilnahme- und Einheitstätersystemen in Skandinavien, Österreich und Deutschland, Freiburg, edition iuscrim (2002).Google Scholar

Hamdorf, K., ‘The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5 (2007), 208–26.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. and Honoré, T., Causation in the Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (1985).Google Scholar

Heyman, M. G., ‘Losing All Sense of Just Proportion: The Peculiar Law of Accomplice Liability’, St John’s Law Review, 87 (2013), 129–70.Google Scholar

Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRef Google Scholar

Husak, D., ‘Abetting a Crime’, Law & Philosophy, 33 (2014), 41–73.Google Scholar

Just-Dahlmann, B. and Just, H., Die Gehilfen. NS-Verbrechen und Justiz nach 1945, Frankfurt/Main, Athenäum (1988).Google Scholar

Kadish, S. H., ‘Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine’, California Law Review, 73 (1985), 323–410.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kadish, S. H., ‘Reckless Complicity’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87 (1997), 369–94.Google Scholar

Keating, H., Cunningham, S., Walters, M. and Elliot, T., Criminal Law: Text and Materials, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2014).Google Scholar

Kienapfel, D., Der Einheitstäter im Strafrecht, Frankfurt/Main: Klostermann (1971).Google Scholar

Klug, U., ‘Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes in NS-Prozessen’, in Schoeps, H. J. and Hillermann, H. (eds.), Justiz und Nationalsozialismus. Bewältigt – Verdrängt – Vergessen, Stuttgart/Bonn: Burg-Verlag (1987), 92–117.Google Scholar

Krebs, B., ‘Joint Enterprise Murder Is Dead – Long Live Joint Enterprise Manslaughter?’, in Krebs, B. (ed.), Accessorial Liability after Jogee, Oxford, Hart/Bloomsbury (forthcoming).CrossRef Google Scholar

Kriegsmann, H., Mittäterschaft und Raufhandel seit Feuerbach, Breslau, Schlettersche Buchhandlung (1907).Google Scholar

Küpper, G., Grenzen der normativierenden Strafrechtsdogmatik, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1990).Google Scholar

Küpper, G., ‘Der gemeinsame Tatentschluß als unverzichtbares Moment der Mittäterschaft’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 105 (1993), 295–305.Google Scholar

Kutz, C., Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age, Cambridge University Press ( 2000).CrossRef Google Scholar

Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., Strafgesetzbuch mit Erläuterungen, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar

Law Commission for England and Wales, A Criminal Code for England and Wales (LAW COM. No. 177), London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (1989).Google Scholar

Moore, M., ‘Causing, Aiding and the Superfluity of Accomplice Liability’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156 (2007), 395–452.Google Scholar

Nehmer, B., ‘Täter als Gehilfen? Zur Ahndung der Einsatzgruppenverbrechen’, in Redaktion Kritische Justiz (eds.), Die juristische Aufarbeitung des Unrechtsstaats, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1998), 635–68.Google Scholar

Otto, H., ‘Straflose Teilnahme?’, in Warda, G., Waider, H., von Hippel, R. and Meurer, D. (eds.), Festschrift für Richard Lange zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (1976), 197–217.Google Scholar

Perels, J., Das juristische Erbe des ‘Dritten Reichs’. Beschädigung der demokratischen Rechtsordnung, Frankfurt/New York, Campus Verlag (1999).Google Scholar

Renzikowski, J., ‘Die fahrlässige Mittäterschaft’, in Dannecker, G., Langer, W., Ranft, O., Schmitz, R. and Brammsen, J. (eds.), Festschrift für Harro Otto zum 70. Geburtstag, Cologne, Heymanns (2007), 423–39.Google Scholar

Rotsch, T., ‘Einheitstäterschaft’ statt Tatherrschaft: Zur Abkehr von einem differenzierenden Beteiligungsformensystem in einer normativ-funktionalen Straftatlehre, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2009).Google Scholar

Roxin, C., Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft, 9th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2015 [1963]).Google Scholar

Roxin, C., ‘§ 25’, in Jähnke, B., Laufhütte, H. W. and Odersky, W. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 11th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2003), I.Google Scholar

Samson, E., ‘§ 25’, in Rudolphi, H.-J. and Horn, E. (eds.), Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, loose-leaf edn, 22nd instalment, 5th edn, Neuwied, Luchterhand (September 1993).Google Scholar

Schild, W., ‘§ 25’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos-Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 2nd edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2005).Google Scholar

Schöberl, W., Die Einheitstäterschaft als europäisches Modell: Die strafrechtliche Beteiligungsregelung in Österreich und den nordischen Ländern, Vienna, Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (2006).Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘The Mental Element in Complicity’, Law Quarterly Review, 122 (2006), 578–601.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Accessory Liability and Common Unlawful Purpose’, Law Quarterly Review, 133 (2017), 73–90.Google Scholar

Smith, J. C., ‘Criminal Liability of Accessories: Law and Law Reform’, Law Quarterly Review, 113 (1997), 453–67.Google Scholar

Smith, J. C., ‘Joint Enterprise and Accessory Liability’, South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 11 (1998), 337–49.Google Scholar

Smith, K. J. M., A Modern Treatise on the Law of Criminal Complicity, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1991).Google Scholar

Stewart, J. G., ‘Complicity’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 534–59.Google Scholar

Stewart, J. G., ‘The Strangely Familiar History of the Unitary Theory of Perpetration’, in Ackerman, B., Ambos, K. and Sikirić, H. (eds.), Visions of Justice. Liber Amicorum Mirjan Damaška, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 327–52.Google Scholar

Stuckenberg, C. F., ‘Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge bei Exzeß des Mittäters’, in Pawlik, M. and Zaczyk, R. (eds.), Festschrift für Günther Jakobs zum 70. Geburtstag am 26. Juli 2007, Cologne, Heymanns (2007), 693–713.Google Scholar

Torp, C., Den danske Strafferets almindelige Del, Copenhagen, G. E. C. Gads Forlag (1905).Google Scholar

Toulson, R., ‘Sir Michael Foster, Professor Williams and Complicity in Murder’, in Baker, D. J. and Horder, J. (eds.), The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams, Cambridge University Press (2013), 230–46.Google Scholar

Weißer, B., Täterschaft in Europa. Ein Diskussionsvorschlag für ein europäisches Tätermodell auf der Basis einer rechtsvergleichenden Untersuchung der Beteiligungssysteme Deutschlands, Englands, Frankreichs, Italiens und Österreichs, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2011).Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘The Theory of Excuses’, Criminal Law Review (1982), 732–42.Google Scholar

Williams, G., Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd edn, London, Stevens & Sons (1983).Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code – 1’, Criminal Law Review (1990), 4–21.Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code – 2’, Criminal Law Review (1990), 98–108.Google Scholar

Wilson, W., Criminal Law, 5th edn, Harlow, Pearson ( 2014).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.