Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning

doi:10.1017/9781009037136.002

2 - Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning

from Part I - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2022

Matthew Dyson and

Frank Meyer

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

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

Book contents

Get access

Summary

How do criminal lawyers sequence and give shape to their reasoning about criminal liability? Why do they ‘structure’ it as they do? This chapter looks at structure within legal reasoning as a means of understanding the law in the minds of criminal lawyers. It seeks to better understand how structures function and interact. One benefit of doing so is to help lawyers foreign to the legal systems analyse liability as a native might. Another benefit is that, by looking at two paradigmatic orchestrations of the many substantive, organisational and practical issues within criminal legal reasoning, the interconnectedness, priority and valuing of those elements can be revealed and made comparable.

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 13 - 56

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037136.002 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

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

Aarnio, A., Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A., On Coherence Theory of Law, Juristförlaget i Lund (1998).Google Scholar

Borghetti, J.-S., ‘Legal Methodology and the Role of Professors in France. Professorenrecht is not a French Word!’, in Basedow, J., Fleischer, H. and Zimmermann, R. (eds.), Legislators, Judges, and Professors, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2016), 209–22.Google Scholar

Burchard, C., ‘Strafverfassungsrecht – Vorüberlegungen zu einem Schlüsselbegriff’, in Tiedemann, K., Sieber, U., Satzger, H., Burchard, C. and Brodowski, D. (eds.), Die Verfassung moderner Strafrechtspflege, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 25–62.Google Scholar

Chalmers, J., ‘“Frenzied Law Making”: Overcriminalization by Numbers’, Current Legal Problems, 67 (2014), 483–502.Google Scholar

Christopher, R., ‘Tripartite Structures of Criminal Law in Germany and Other Civil Law Jurisdictions’, Cardozo Law Review, 28 (2007), 2675–95.Google Scholar

Dubber, M., ‘The Promise of German Criminal Law: A Science of Crime and Punishment’, German Law Journal, 6 (2005), 1049–71.Google Scholar

Dyson, M., ‘Overlap, Separation and Hybridity across Crime and Tort’, in Dyson, M. and Vogel, B. (eds.), The Limits of Criminal Law, Cambridge, Intersentia (2018), 79–106.Google Scholar

Dyson, M. and Green, S., ‘The Properties of the Law: Restoring Personal Property through Crime and Tort’, in Dyson, M. (ed.), Unravelling Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2014), 389–421.Google Scholar

Dyson, M. and Randall, J., ‘England’s Splendid Isolation’, in Dyson, M. (ed.), Comparing Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2015), 18–72.Google Scholar

Engisch, K., Einführung in das juristische Denken, 11th edn, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer (2010).Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1998).Google Scholar

Grammar of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., ‘The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 49 (1949), 171–94.Google Scholar

Jahn, M., ‘Strafverfassungsrecht: Das Grundgesetz als Herausforderung für die Dogmatik des Straf- und Strafverfahrensrechts’, in Tiedemann, K., Sieber, U., Satzger, H., Burchard, C. and Brodowski, D (eds.), Die Verfassung moderner Strafrechtspflege, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 63–86.Google Scholar

Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar

Naucke, W., ‘An Insider’s Perspective on the Significance of the German Criminal Theory’s General System for Analyzing Criminal Acts’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 305 (1984), 305–21.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. L., ‘Jurisprudence in the Criminal Law’, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 18 (1936), 212–25.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. H., ‘Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?’, in Robinson, P. H. and Barton, J. S. (eds.), The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law, Farnham, Ashgate (2014), 1–26.Google Scholar

Simpson, A. W. B., Cannibalism and the Common Law, University of Chicago Press (1984).Google Scholar

Stark, F., ‘It’s Only Words: On Meaning and Mens Rea’, Cambridge Law Journal, 72 (2013), 155–77.Google Scholar

Thier, A., ‘Das Werk von Claus-Wilhelm Canaris und die europäische Rechtstradition: Das “System” als Beispiel’, in Grigoleit, H. C. and Petersen, J. (eds.), Privatrechtsdogmatik im 21. Jahrhundert. Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 80. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (2017), 29–50.Google Scholar

Whitman, J., ‘No Right Answer?’, in Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context, Oxford, Hart (2008), 371–92.Google Scholar

Wolf, W., ‘Richterliche Entscheidungsroutinen als Gegenstand und Leitfaden der juristischen Methodenlehre: zivilrechtliche Perspektiven’, in Reimer, F. (ed.), Juristische Methodenlehre aus dem Geist der Praxis?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 75–90.Google Scholar

Book contents

2 - Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive