Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T15:27:45.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Preparatory Offences

from Part II - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Stefanie Bock  and
Findlay Stark
Edited by
Kai Ambos ,
Antony Duff ,
Julian Roberts ,
Thomas Weigend  and
Alexander Heinze
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
Get access

Summary

To establish the importance of ‘preparatory offences’ to a book of this sort, it is necessary to define that concept. ‘Preparatory offences’ is not a formal category in English or German criminal law. At the most general level, preparatory offences criminalise conduct perceived to carry the risk that, in the future, a ‘completed’ crime will be committed. Preparatory offences move criminal responsibility back from the actual occurrence of harmful conduct to the planning and preparation stage – conduct that ‘pre-dates’ the completed offence, and is often quite remote from the threatened harm.

Type
Chapter
Information
Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 54 - 93
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.)

References

Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., ‘Danger: The Ethics of Pre-Emptive Action’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 9 (2012), 647–67.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Reflections on Crime and Culpability: Problems and Puzzles, Cambridge University Press (2018).Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K. with Morse, S. J., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, I: Foundations and General Part, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘§ 24 – Rücktritt’, in Dölling, D., Duttge, G., König, S. and Dieter, R. (eds.), Gesamtes Strafrecht – Handkommentar, 4th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag (2017), 301–16.Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.), Participation in Crime: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Farnham, Ashgate (2013), 322–39.Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries, Part I, Philadelphia, The American Law Institute (1985).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Defining Criminal Offences without Harm’, in Smith, P. (ed.), Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of J. C. Smith. London, Butterworths (1987), 7–23.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Criminal Attempts and the Role of Resulting Harm under the Code, and in the Common Law’, Rutgers Law Journal, 19 (1988), 725–72.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘The Unfairness of Risk-Based Possession Offences’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5 (2011), 237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Zedner, L., Preventive Justice, Oxford University Press (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A., Zedner, L. and Tomlin, P. (eds.), Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Bein, D., ‘Preparatory Offences’, Israel Law Review, 27 (1993), 185–212.Google Scholar
Bock, S. and Harrendorf, S., ‘Strafbarkeit und Strafwürdigkeit tatvorbereitender computervermittelter Kommunikation’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 126 (2014), 337–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohlander, M., Principles of German Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2009).Google Scholar
Broderick, P. A., ‘Conditional Objectives of Conspiracies’, Yale Law Journal, 94 (1985), 895–908.Google Scholar
Carvalho, H., The Preventive Turn in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar
Child, J. J., ‘Exploring the Mens Rea Requirements of the Serious Crime Act 2007 Assisting and Encouraging Offences’, Journal of Criminal Law, 76 (2012), 220–31.Google Scholar
Child, J. J., ‘Understanding Ulterior Mens Rea: Future Conduct Intention is Conditional Intention’, Cambridge Law Journal, 76 (2017), 311–36.Google Scholar
Chou, Y.-Y., Zur Legitimität von Vorbereitungsdelikten, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag (2011).Google Scholar
Clarkson, C. M. V., ‘Attempt: The Conduct Requirement’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 29 (2009), 25–41.Google Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Indirect Crimes’, Law and Philosophy 32 (2013), 485–514.Google Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Rethinking the Wrongfulness Constraint on Criminalisation’, Law and Philosophy, 36 (2017), 615–49.Google Scholar
Dennis, I. H., ‘The Rationale of Criminal Conspiracy’, Law Quarterly Review, 93 (1977), 39–64.Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag, Entwurf eines […] Strafrechtsänderungsgesetzes – Kinderpornographie, Bundestagsdrucksache 12/3001 (1992).Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verbesserung des Schutzes der Bevölkerung vor Sexualverbrechen und anderen schweren Straftaten, Bundestagsdrucksache 15/29 (2002).Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘The Possession Paradigm: The Special Part and the Police Power Model of the Criminal Process’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. (eds.), Defining Crimes: Essays on the Special Part of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, (2005) 91–118.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Criminal Attempts, Oxford University Press (1996).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Criminalizing Endangerment’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. (eds.), Defining Crimes: Essays on the Special Part of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2005), 43–64.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Risks, Culpability and Criminal Liability’, in Sullivan, G. R. and Dennis, I. (eds.), Seeking Security: Pre-Empting the Commission of Criminal Harms, Oxford, Hart (2012), 121–42.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., The Realm of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Hörnle, T., ‘Crimes of Endangerment’, in Ambos, K. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Justice, II, Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Edwards, J., ‘Harm Principles’, Legal Theory, 20 (2014), 253–85.Google Scholar
Eisele, J., ‘§ 26 – Teilnahme’, in Baumann, J., Weber, U., Mitsch, W. and Eisele, K. (eds.)‚ Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil – Lehrbuch’, 12 edn, Bielefeld, Gieseking Verlag (2016), 797–860.Google Scholar
European Commission, Towards an EU Criminal Policy: ‘Ensuring the Effective Implementation of EU Policies through Criminal Law’, COM(2011) 573 final (2011).Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., Rethinking Criminal Law, Boston, Little & Brown (1978).Google Scholar
Frisch, W., ‘An den Grenzen des Strafrechts’, in Dencker, F., Marxen, K., Schneider, H.-J., Schumann, H., Struensee, E. and Vormbaum, T. (eds.), Beträge zur Rechtswissenschaft. Festschrift für Walter Stree und Johannes Wessels, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1993), 69–106.Google Scholar
Hassemer, W. and Neumann, U., ‘Vorbemerkung zu § 1’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag (2017), 79–191.Google Scholar
Heine, G. and Weißer, B., ‘§ 30 – Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019), 560–8.Google Scholar
Heine, G. and Weißer, B., ‘§ 31 – Rücktritt vom Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019), 568–71.Google Scholar
Hoffmann-Holland, K., ‘§ 24 – Rücktritt’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. von (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, I: §§ 1–37, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 1139–219.Google Scholar
Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘§ 184b – Verbreitung, Erwerb und Besitz kinderpornographischer Schriften’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. von (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, III, §§ 80–184j, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 1723–47.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘The Nature and Justifiability of Nonconsummate Offenses’, Arizona Law Review, 37 (1995), 151–83.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘The Criminal Law as Last Resort’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2004), 207–35.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘Preventive Detention as Punishment? Some Potential Obstacles’, in Ashworth, A., Zedner, L. and Tomlin, P. (eds.), Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2013), 178–93.Google Scholar
International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind with Commentaries (1996).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Kriminalisierung im Vorfeld einer Rechtsgutsverletzung’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 97 (1985), 751–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jareborg, N., ‘Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio)’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2 (2005), 521–34.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H. H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts – Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Johnson, P. E., ‘The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy’, California Law Review, 61 (1973), 1137–88.Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., Verhältnismäßigkeit und Grundrechtsschutz im Präventionsstrafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2014).Google Scholar
Katyal, N. K., ‘Conspiracy Theory’, Yale Law Journal, 112 (2003), 1307–98.Google Scholar
Köhler, M., Strafrecht – Allgemeiner Teil, Heidelberg, Springer (1997).Google Scholar
Kühl, K., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Munich, Franz Vahlen (2017).Google Scholar
Lacey, N., ‘Historicising Criminalisation: Conceptual and Empirical Issues’, Modern Law Review, 72 (2009), 936–60.Google Scholar
Law Commission, Attempt and Impossibility in Relation to Attempt, Conspiracy and Incitement, Law Com. No. 102 (1980).Google Scholar
Law Commission, Inchoate Liability for Assisting or Encouraging Crime, Law Com. No. 300 (2006).Google Scholar
Law Commission, Conspiracy and Attempts: Consultation Paper, Law Com. CP No. 183 (2007).Google Scholar
Law Commission, Conspiracy and Attempts: Report, Law Com. No. 318 (2009).Google Scholar
Letzgus, K., Vorstufen der Beteiligung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1972).Google Scholar
Lilie, H. and Albrecht, D., ‘§ 24 – Rücktritt’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Leipziger Kommentar, I: Einleitung, §§ 1 bis 31, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007), 1649–811.Google Scholar
Merten, D., ‘§ 68 Verhältnismäßigkeit’, in Merten, D. and Papier, H. J. (eds.), Handbuch der Grundrechte in Deutschland und Europa, III: Grundrechte in Deutschland: Allgemeine Lehren II, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2009), 517–68.Google Scholar
Miebach, K. and Maier, S., ‘§ 46 – Grundsätze der Strafzumessung’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, II: §§ 38–79b, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2016), 181–337.Google Scholar
Moore, M. S., Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics, Oxford University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Murmann, U., Grundkurs Strafrecht, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Oberdiek, J., Imposing Risk: A Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar
Ohana, D., ‘Desert and Punishment for Acts Preparatory to the Commission of a Crime’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 20 (2007), 113–42.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D., ‘Making Sense of Mens Rea in Statutory Conspiracies’, Current Legal Problems, 59 (2006), 185–230.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. and Fortson, R., ‘Serious Crime Act 2007: The Part 2 Offences’, Criminal Law Review (2009), 389–414.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 15th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paeffgen, H.-U., ‘§ 89a – Vorbereitung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttat’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2017), 225–67.Google Scholar
Prittwitz, C., Strafrecht und Risiko, Frankfurt, Vittorio Klostermann (1993).Google Scholar
Puschke, J., Legitimation, Grenzen und Dogmatik von Vorbereitungstatbeständen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2017).Google Scholar
Rackow, P., Bock, S. and Harrendorf, S., ‘Überlegungen zur Strafwürdigkeit tatvorbereitender computervermittelter Kommunikation im Internet’, Strafverteidiger, 32 (2012), 687–95.Google Scholar
Renzikowski, J., ‘§ 176 – Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, III: §§ 80–184j, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 1386–414.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Criminal Law Defenses, 2 vols., St Paul, West (1984).Google Scholar
Rogers, J., ‘The Codification of Attempts and the Case for “Preparation”’, Criminal Law Review (2008), 937–54.Google Scholar
Rook, P. and Robert, W., Rook and Ward on Sexual Offences, 5th edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2016).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Über den Rücktritt vom unbeendeten Versuch’, in Lüttger H. (ed.), Festschrift für Ernst Heinitz, Berlin, De Gruyter (1972), 251–76.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, II: Besondere Erscheinungsformen der Straftat, Munich, C. H. Beck (2003).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, I: Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2006).Google Scholar
Schäfer, J., ‘§ 129 StGB – Bildung krimineller Vereinigungen’, in Miebach, K. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, II: §§ 80–184j, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 613–64.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘Kritische Anmerkungen zur geistigen Situation der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 142 (1995), 201–29.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘§ 30 – Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Leipziger Kommentar, I: Einleitung, §§ 1 bis 31, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007), 2109–156.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘§ 31 – Rücktritt vom Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Leipziger Kommentar, I: Einleitung, §§ 1 bis 31, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007), 2157–169.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Prophylactic Crimes’, in Sullivan, G. R. and Dennis, I. (eds.), Seeking Security: Pre-Empting the Commission of Criminal Harms, Oxford, Hart (2012), 59–78.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Causation in (Criminal) Law’, Law Quarterly Review, 133 (2017), 416–41.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P. and Hirsch, A. von, Crimes, Harms and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation, Oxford, Hart (2011).Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Stark, F., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, G. J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart/Bloomsbury (2016).Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R., ‘Trying to Help Another Person Commit a Crime’, in Smith, P (ed.), Essays in Honour of J.C. Smith, London, Butterworths (1987), 148–69.Google Scholar
Stark, F., ‘Encouraging or Assisting Clarity?’, Cambridge Law Journal, 72 (2013), 497–501.Google Scholar
Stark, F., ‘It’s Only Words: On Meaning and Mens Rea’, Cambridge Law Journal, 72 (2013), 155–77.Google Scholar
Stark, F., Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Stuart, D., Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (Student Edition), 6th edn, Scarborough, Carswell (2011).Google Scholar
Taylor, G., ‘Concepts of Intention in German Criminal Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2004), 99–127.Google Scholar
Thalheimer, K., Die Vorfeldstrafbarkeit nach §§ 30, 31 StGB, Frankfurt, Peter Lang (2008).Google Scholar
Wade, C., ‘Prevention of Harm: Legislative Strategies for Law Reform’, Journal of Criminal Law, 72 (2008), 236–50.Google Scholar
Walen, A., ‘The Doctrine of Illicit Intentions’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 34 (2006), 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Why Lady Eldon Should Be Acquitted: The Social Harm in Attempting the Impossible’, DePaul Law Review, 27 (1978), 231–73.Google Scholar
Wohlers, W., Deliktstypen des Präventionsstrafrechts – zur Dogmatik ‘moderner’ Gefährdungsdelikte, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2000).Google Scholar
Wörner, L., ‘Die deutsche Versuchsdogmatik – eine Frage der Vorverlagerung des Strafrechts’, in Sinn, A., Gropp, W. and Ferene, N. (eds.), Grenzen der Vorverlagerung in einem Tatstrafrecht, Osnabrück: Universitätsverlag Osnabrück (2011), 135–54.Google Scholar
Wörner, L., ‘Expanding Criminal Laws by Predating Criminal Responsibility: Punishing Planning and Organizing Terrorist Attacks as a Means to Optimize Effectiveness of Fighting against Terrorism’, German Law Journal, 13 (2012), 1037–55.Google Scholar
Yaffe, G., Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
Zaczyk, R., Das Unrecht der versuchten Tat, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1989).Google Scholar
Zaczyk, R., ‘§ 23 – Strafbarkeit des Versuchs’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2017), 1078–84.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×