Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- About the Authors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction to Volume II
- Part I Criminal Law
- 2 Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning
- 3 Causation and Responsibility for Outcomes
- 4 Imputation of Responsibility and Intoxicated Offending
- 5 Crimes of Endangerment
- Part II Criminal Procedure
- Part III Criminal Justice
- Index
- References
5 - Crimes of Endangerment
from Part I - Criminal Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2022
Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- About the Authors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction to Volume II
- Part I Criminal Law
- 2 Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning
- 3 Causation and Responsibility for Outcomes
- 4 Imputation of Responsibility and Intoxicated Offending
- 5 Crimes of Endangerment
- Part II Criminal Procedure
- Part III Criminal Justice
- Index
- References
Summary
Criminal laws typically contain a wide variety of offences that target dangerous behaviour. Our goal in this chapter is to compare the ways in which German and English criminal law deal with these kinds of offence; to clarify some distinctions that need to be drawn (and that can be discerned, more or less explicitly, in existing laws) if we are to understand the logic and rationale of such offences; and to note some of the normative issues that such offences raise. To that end, we begin (in section II) by distinguishing endangerment offences in a narrower sense from another important category of dangerous conduct without harmful outcome, that is, attempts. If one speaks of endangerment in a wider sense, attempts would fall into this category, but we will limit our analysis to endangerment offences in the narrower sense.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 132 - 166Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. J., ‘The Unfairness of Risk-Based Possession Offences’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5 (2011), 237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. J. and Blake, M., ‘The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law’, Criminal Law Review (1996), 306–17.Google Scholar
Bock, S. and Stark, F., ‘Preparatory Offences’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 54–93.Google Scholar
Chiao, V., ‘Intention and Attempt’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4 (2010), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Rethinking the Wrongness Constraint’, Law and Philosophy, 36 (2017), 615–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A. and Petzsche, A., ‘Terrorism Offences’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 172–209.Google Scholar
Dan-Cohen, M., ‘Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law’, Harvard Law Review, 97 (1984), 625–77.Google Scholar
Dimock, S., ‘Contractarian Criminal Law Theory and Mala Prohibita Offences’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E., Renzo, M. and Tadros, V. (eds.), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 151–81.Google Scholar
Donnelly-Lazarov, B., A Philosophy of Criminal Attempt, Cambridge University Press (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘Policing Possession: The War on Crime and the End of Criminal Law’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91 (2001), 829–996.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘“Abstract Endangerment”, Two Harm Principles, and Two Routes to Criminalisation’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 3 (2015), 131–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘Civic Punishment’, in Dzur, A. W., Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (eds.), Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration, Oxford University Press (2016), 33–59.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Doing and Deserving, Princeton University Press (1970), 95–118.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, C., ‘Is Risk a Harm?’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(2003), 963–1001.Google Scholar
Gordon, G. H., The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn by M. G. A. Christie, Edinburgh, W. Green (2001).Google Scholar
Green, S. P., ‘Why It’s a Crime to Tear the Tag off a Mattress: Over-Criminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses’, Emory Law Journal, 46 (1997), 1533–615.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., ‘Negligence, Mens Rea, and Criminal Responsibility’, in Punishment and Responsibility, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2008), 136–57.Google Scholar
Herzberg, R., ‘Setzt “vorsätzliches Handeln” (§ 15 StGB) ein “Wollen” der Tatbestandsverwirklichung voraus?’, Juristenzeitung, 73 (2018), 122–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Plädoyer für die Aufgabe der Kategorie “bedingter Vorsatz”’, Juristenzeitung, 74 (2019), 440–9.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N, Ignorance of Law: A Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, U., Gefährdung als Straftat – Rechtstheoretische Untersuchungen zur Dogmatik der abstrakten und konkreten Gefährdungsdelikt, Berlin, Klostermann (1989).Google Scholar
Krebs, B., Joint Criminal Enterprise in English and German Law (DPhil. thesis, 2015; Oxford University Research Archive), available at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:34e2c466-33c0-45ea-8790-338c4f4c893d.Google Scholar
Kuhlen, L., ‘Umweltstrafrecht – auf der Suche nach einer neuen Dogmatik’, Zeitschrift für die gesamten Strafrechtswissenschaften, 105 (1993), 697–726.Google Scholar
Law Commission for England and Wales, A Criminal Code for England and Wales (Law Com. No. 177, 1989).Google Scholar
Mandiberg, S. and Faure, M., ‘A Graduated Punishment Approach to Environmental Crimes: Beyond Vindication of Administrative Authority in the United States and Europe’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 34 (2009), 447–511.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 15th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar
Puppe, I., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 13 ff. StGB’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Greco L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, S. V., ‘The Moral Neglect of Negligence’, in Sobel, D., Vallentyne, P. and Wall, S. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press (2017), Vol. 3, 197–228.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Can Negligence Be Culpable?’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, 4th Series, Oxford University Press (2000), 85–106.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’, in Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press (2005), 21–50.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Stark, F., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar
Simester, A. P. and von Hirsch, A., Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation, Oxford, Hart (2011).Google Scholar
Singer, R., ‘On Classism and Dissonance in the Criminal Law: A Reply to Professor Dan-Cohen’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77 (1986), 69–100.Google Scholar
Smith, K. J. M., ‘Liability for Endangerment: English Ad Hoc Pragmatism and American Innovation’, Criminal Law Review (1983), 127–36.Google Scholar
Stark, F., Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Taylor, G., ‘Concepts of Intention in German Criminal Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2004), 99–127.Google Scholar
von Hirsch, A., ‘Extending the Harm Principle: “Remote” Harms and Fair Imputation’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Oxford University Press (1996), 259–76.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Subjective Elements of Criminal Liability’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 490–511.Google Scholar