12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Once a major reform has been concluded, one might easily be tempted to be just glad about what has been achieved and to think that nothing more needs to be done. However, experience in Germany as regards the amendment of criminal law and law of criminal procedure has shown that “after the reform” has, at the same time, always meant “before the reform.” The history of German criminal law is the history of a never-ending reform. The reform has not only consisted in making individual corrections to the existing positive law; time and again, developments in society have posed new challenges to criminal law, which, in the course of time, have resulted in profound changes in its structure. This means that even after a reform has been concluded, there must be willingness to further shape criminal law or, as the case may be, to protect it from changes that might be brought about by new influences. German criminal law, with its more than 130 years of history, and with its almost 180 more or less profound amendments of the law, bears eloquent witness to the profound changes that criminal law can experience, in spite of individual extensive reforms, admittedly in a time of historical upheavals. The present contribution provides an outline of the history of German criminal law through the present time and tries, on the basis of this outline, to develop a forecast of the influence to which criminal law will be exposed in the future.
1 See, Eser, in Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, p. 110.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Entwurf eines Strafgesetzbuchs (E 1962), Records of the Bundestag (Bundestagsdrucksache) IV/650, p. 93.Google Scholar
3 In this context: Naucke, Strafrecht, Eine Einführung, 9th edition 2000, p. 35.Google Scholar
4 Eser, in: Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, pp. 112–113; moreover Jescheck, in: Leipziger Kommentar, Strafgesetzbuch, 11th edition 1992, Introduction, marginal number 49.Google Scholar
5 Eser, in: Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, p. 113.Google Scholar
6 Cf. Eser, in: Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, 26th edition 2001, Introduction, marginal number 1.Google Scholar
7 See Eser, in: Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, p. 114.Google Scholar
8 See in this context Maurach/Zipf, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, partial volume 1, 8th edition 1992, pp. 53 et seq.; also Jescheck, in: Leipziger Kommentar, Strafgesetzbuch, 11th edition 1992, Introduction, marginal numbers 58 et seq.Google Scholar
9 This was admitted even by members of the Grand Commission on Criminal Law, like, in particular, Jescheck (Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, 1st edition 1969, p. 75).Google Scholar
10 As regards the alternative draft, see Maurach/Zipf, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, partial volume 1, 8th edition 1992, pp. 53-54; Eser, in: Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, p. 116.Google Scholar
11 Eser, in: Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, p. 117.Google Scholar
12 As concerns the assessment of the reform legislation as a compromise between both drafts: Maurach/Zipf, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, partial volume 1,8th edition 1992, p. 78.Google Scholar
13 Cf. Eser, in: Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, 26th edition 2001, Introduction, marginal number 6, which further specifies the legislation.Google Scholar
14 Cf. in this context Jung's overview in: Roxin/Stree/Zipf/Jung, Einführung in das neue Strafrecht, 2nd edition 1975, pp. 117 et seq.Google Scholar
15 A conclusive account is given in: Ebert, Tendenzwende in der Straf- und Strafprozessgesetzgebung, Juristische Rundschau 1978, pp. 136, 138.Google Scholar
16 See in this context Eser, in: Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, pp. 127–128.Google Scholar
17 Judgment of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of 25 February 1975 - 1 BvR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6/74 -, in: BVerfGE (official collection of decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court), volume 39, pp. 1 et seq.Google Scholar
18 Eser, in: Festschrift für Werner Maihofer, 1988, Hundert Jahre deutscher Strafgesetzgebung, p. 131;in greater detail: Tiedemann, Die Bekämpfung der Wirtschaftskriminalität durch den Gesetzgeber, JZ (Juristenzeitung) 1986, pp. 865 et seq.; see also Jescheck, in: Leipziger Kommentar, Strafgesetzbuch, 11th edition 1992, Introduction, marginal number 90.Google Scholar
19 A comprehensive source in this context: Tiedemann, Die Neuordnung des Umweltstrafrechts, 1980.Google Scholar
20 Cf. Judgment of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of 21 June 1977 - 1 BvL 14/78 -, in: BVerfGE (official collection of decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court), volume 45, pp. 187 et seq.Google Scholar
21 See in this context Eser, in: Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, 26th edition 2001, Introduction, marginal number 11.Google Scholar
22 This assessment is shared by Eser, in: Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, 26th edition 2001, Introduction, marginal numbers 11-12.Google Scholar
23 See in this context Tröndle/Fischer, Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, 51st edition 2003, Introduction, marginal number 13.Google Scholar
24 Judgment of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of 20 March 2002 - 2 BvR 794/95 -, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2002, pp. 1779 et seq.Google Scholar
25 In this context: Neumann, Zum Entwurf eines Verbrechensbekämpfungsgesetzes, Strafverteidiger 1994, pp. 273 et seq.Google Scholar
26 Cf. Bussmann, Konservative Anmerkungen zur Ausweitung des Strafrechts nach dem Sechsten Strafrechtsreformgesetz, Strafverteidiger 1999, pp. 613 et seq.Google Scholar
27 A critical view is also advanced by: Schäfer, brief presentation, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, p. 1288; see moreover Schöch, Das Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Sexualdelikten und anderen gefährlichen Straftaten vom 26. Januar 1998, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1998, pp. 1257 et seq.Google Scholar
28 See also Albrecht, Das Strafrecht im Zugriff populistischer Politik, Strafverteidiger 1994, p. 267.Google Scholar
29 Cf. in this context Eser, in: Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch, 26th edition 2001, Introduction marginal number 14.Google Scholar
30 In the discussion on the Federal Chancellor's policy statement in the German Bundestag on 29 October 2002.Google Scholar
31 In this context an early view was given by Hassemer, Kennzeichen und Krisen des Modernen Strafrechts, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 1992, p. 380.Google Scholar
32 Other examples in Albrecht, Strafverteidiger 1994, p. 265; see also Hassemer, Das Schicksal der Bürgerrechte im “effizienten Strafrecht”, Strafverteidiger 1990, p. 330.Google Scholar
33 Explicitly: Albrecht, Strafverteidiger 1994, p. 269.Google Scholar
34 In this context : Hassemer, Symbolisches Strafrecht und Rechtsgüterschutz, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1989, pp. 553 et seq.Google Scholar
35 Cf. in this context in greater detail: Hassemer, Ein Strafrecht für Europa, talk at the University of Würzburg on 28 June 2002 (unpublished as yet); see also Jescheck, in: Leipziger Kommentar, Strafgesetzbuch, 11th edition 1992, Introduction, marginal numbers 98 et seq.Google Scholar
36 Cf.in this context in greater detail Naucke, Strafrecht, Eine Einführung, 9th edition 2000, which, on pp. 83-85, comments on the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court; see also Hassemer, Symbolisches Strafrecht und Rechtsgüterschutz, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1989, p. 558.Google Scholar
You have
Access
