Part III - Criminal Justice and Procedure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 211 - 462Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bibliography
Albrecht, H.-J., Frisch, W. and Hirsch, A. von, Tatproportionalität. Normative und empirische Aspekte einer tatproportionalen Strafzumessung, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2003).Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code: Sentencing, Proposed Final Draft, Philadelphia, American Law Institute (2017).Google Scholar
Beccaria, C., An Essay on Crimes and Punishments, Brookline Village, MA, Branden Books (1992 [1764]).Google Scholar
Bentham, J., Theory of legislation, 4th edn, trans. Hildreth, Richard, London, Trübner (1882 [1789]).Google Scholar
Du Bois-Pedain, A. ‘Punishment as an Inclusionary Practice: Sentencing in a Liberal Constitutional State’, in Ulväng, M., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Asp, P. (eds.), Criminal Law and the Authority of the State, London, Bloomsbury Publishing (2017).Google Scholar
Eisele, J., ‘Vor § 13’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 29, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014).Google Scholar
Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A. M., Choo, A. L.-T. and Summers, M. (eds.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2012).Google Scholar
Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des Gemeinen in Deutschland Gültigen Peinlichen Rechts, 4th edn, Darmstadt, Georg Friederich Heyer (1808).Google Scholar
Fichte, J. G., Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Prinzipien der Wissenschaftslehre, 2nd edn, Leipzig, Germany: von Felix Meiner (1922 [1796])Google Scholar
Flanders, C., ‘Can Retributivism Be Saved’, Brigham Young University Law Review (2014), 309–60.Google Scholar
Frase, R. S., ‘Sentencing Principles in Theory and Practice’, Crime and Justice, 22 (1997), 363–433.Google Scholar
Frase, R. S., ‘Limiting Retributivism’, in Tonry, M. (ed.), The Future of Imprisonment, Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar
Frase, R. S., Just Sentencing: Principles and Procedures for a Workable System, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Freiberg, A., Fox & Freiberg’s Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria, 3rd edn, Pyrmont, NSW, Australia, Thomson Reuters (2014).Google Scholar
Fricker, M., ‘What’s the Point of Blame? A Paradigm Based Explanation’, Noûs, 50(1) (2016), 165–83.Google Scholar
Frisch, W., ‘Chuldgrundsatz und Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz’, Neue zeitschrift für strafrecht, 33(5) (2013), 249–56.Google Scholar
Gallas, W., ‘Der dogmatische Teil des Alternativ-Entwurfs’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 80(1) (1968), 1–33.Google Scholar
Grasberger, U., ‘Three Strikes and You Are Out’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 110 (1998), 796.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K., ‘Punishment’, in Dressler, J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, New York, MacMillan (2001).Google Scholar
Grube, A., ‘Strafrechtspflege Die Strafaussetzung zur Bewährung’, JURA-Juristische Ausbildung, 32(10) (2010), 759–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (1968).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘Symbolisches Strafrecht und Rechtsgüterschutz’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1989).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit als Grenze strafrechtlicher Eingriffe’, in Seelman, K., Wohlers, W. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Mediating Principles, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2006).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘Sicherheit durch Strafrecht’, Eröffnungsvortrag des 30. Strafverteidigertags, Frankfurt am Main (2006).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W. and Burkhardt, B. (eds.), Die deutsche Strafrechtswissenschaft vor der Jahrtausendwende, Munich, C. H. Beck (2000).Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, Stuttgart, Reclam (1970 [1820]).Google Scholar
Henkel, H., Die “richtige” Strafe: Gedanken zur richterlichen Strafzumessung, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (1969).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., Past or Future Crimes: Deservedness and Dangerousness in the Sentencing of Criminals, 1st edn, Rutgers, NJ, Rutgers University Press (1985).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., ‘Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment’, Crime and Justice, 16 (1992), 55–98.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., ‘Proportionate Sentences: A Desert Perspective’, in Hirsch, A. and Ashworth, A. (eds.), Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy Oxford, Hart (1998).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E. and Wikstrom, P.-O., Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis of Recent Research, Oxford, Hart (1999).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Strafe – Warum?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
Honderich, T., ‘Idealism, German’, in Honderich, E. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Horn, E. and Wolters, G., ‘§ 46 StGB’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 9th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Gegenwärtige Strafbegründungstheorien’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Strafe – Warum?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Kriminalisierung im Vorfeld einer Rechtsgutverletzung’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 97 (1985).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., Strafrecht, allgemeiner Teil: die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre: Lehrbuch, 2nd edn, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter (1991).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Das Selbstverständnis der Strafrechtswissenschaft vor den Herausforderungen der Gegenwart’, in Eser, A., Hassemer, W. and Burkhardt, B. (eds.), Die deutsche Strafrechtswissenschaft vor der Jahrtausendwende, Munich, C. H. Beck (2000).Google Scholar
Kant, I., Die Metaphysik der Sitten, trans. Ebeling, Horst, Leipzig, Reclam (1990 [1797]).Google Scholar
Kolber, A. J. ‘The Subjective Experience of Punishment Essay’, Columbia Law Review, 109 (2009), 182–236.Google Scholar
Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., ‘StGB’, in Lackner K. and Kühl K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch mit Erläuterungen, 28th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014).Google Scholar
Lee, Y., ‘The Constitutional Right Against Excessive Punishment’, Virginia Law Review, 91 (2005), 677–725.Google Scholar
Listz, F., ‘Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht’, in Strafrechtliche Aufsätze und Vorträge, 2 vols., Berlin, J. Guttentag (1905), I.Google Scholar
Maurach, R. and Zipf, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Teilband, 8th edn, Heidelberg, Auflage (1992), Part I.Google Scholar
Miebach, K. and Maier, S., ‘§ 46. Grundsätze der Strafzumessung’, in Jakobs, W. and Miebach, K. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, II: §§ 38-79b, Munich, C. H. Beck (2016).Google Scholar
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, The Impact of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines: Three Year Evaluation, Saint Paul, MN, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (1984).Google Scholar
Morris, Norval and Tonry, M., Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Murphy, J. G., ‘Marxism and Retribution’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(3) (1973), 217–43.Google Scholar
Peters, S., ‘§ 153’, in Schneider, H. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Munich, C. H. Beck (2016).Google Scholar
Pinkard, T., ‘How Kantian Was Hegel?’, The Review of Metaphysics, 43(4) (1990), 831–8.Google Scholar
Podgor, E. S., ‘The Challenge of White Collar Sentencing’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(3) (2006), 731–60.Google Scholar
Radin, M. J., ‘Jurisprudence of Death: Evolving Standards for the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 126 (1978), 989–1064.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Sydney, Bloomsbury Publishing (2010).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil. Grundlagen, der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, Munich, C. H. Beck (1997).Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., Roberts, J. V. and Keijser, J. W. de (ed.), Sentencing Multiple Crimes. Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar
Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and Gemmeren, G. van, Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Shanmuganathan, J., ‘R v Nur: A Positive Step but not the Solution to the Problem of Mandatory Minimums in Canada’, The Supreme Court Law Review, (2d) 76 (2016), 329.Google Scholar
Singer, R. G., ‘Sending Men to Prison: Constitutional Aspects of the Burden of Proof and the Doctrine of the Least Drastic Alternative as Applied to Sentencing Determinations’, Cornell Law Review, 58(1) (1972), 51–89.Google Scholar
Straub, D. W. and Welke, R. J., ‘Coping with Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for Management Decision Making’, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22 (1998), 441.Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘Schuld, Vergeltung, Generalprävention. Eine tiefenpsychologische Rekonstruktion strafrechtlicher Zentralbegriffe’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 92 (1980), 637–81.Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘Schuld ohne Freiheit? Der funktionale Schuldbegriff auf dem Prüfstand’, Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (1980).Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘StGB § 46 Grundsätze der Strafzumessung’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Germany, Nomos (2017).Google Scholar
Stübinger, S., Das idealisierte Strafrecht: über Freiheit und Wahrheit in der Straftheorie und Strafprozessrechtslehre, L: Juristische Abhandlungen, Frankfurt, Vittorio Klostermann (2008).Google Scholar
Sullivan, T. E. and Frase, R. S., Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions. Oxford University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Thorburn, M., ‘Proportionate Sentencing and the Rule of Law’, in Zedner, L. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
Tomforde, K., Die Zulässigkeit einer Unterschreitung der schuldangemessenen Strafe aus präventiven Gesichtspunkten, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1999).Google Scholar
Tonry, M., ‘Parsimony and Desert in Sentencing’, in Hirsch, A. von and Ashworth, A. (eds.), Principled sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy, Oxford, Hart (1998).Google Scholar
Tunick, M., Hegel’s Political Philosophy: Interpreting the Practice of Legal Punishment, Princeton University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Kommentar zu Tatjana Hörnle, Gegenwärtige strafbegründungstheorien’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Strafe – Warum?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
Welke, W. A., ‘Mandatory Sentencing: Ein kritischer Bericht über die Tendenzen zu absoluten Strafen im Rechtsbereich des Common Law’, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 5 (2002), 207–14.Google Scholar
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G. and Kamin, S., Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
Bibliography
Alex, M., Nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung: Ein rechtsstaatliches und kriminalpolitisches Debakel, Bochum, Felix-Verlag (2013).Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K., Reflections on Crime and Culpability, Cambridge University Press (2018).Google Scholar
Andenaes, J., ‘The General Preventive Effects of Punishment’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114 (1966), 949–83.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 6th edn, Cambridge University Press (2015).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Roberts, J. V., Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Baurmann, M., ‘Vorüberlegungen zu einer empirischen Theorie der Generalprävention’, in Schünemann, B., Hirsch, A. von and Jareborg, N. (eds.), Positive Generalprävention: Kritische Analysen im deutsch‐englischen Dialog, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1998), 1–16.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S., ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy, 76 (1968), 169–217.Google Scholar
Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 2nd edn, 2 vols., London, W. Pickering (1823), II.Google Scholar
Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J., ‘Penal Policy and Political Economy’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6 (2006), 435–56.Google Scholar
Cochran, J. K. and Chamlin, M. B., ‘Can Information Change Public Opinion? Another Test of the Marshall Hypotheses’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 33 (2005), 573–84.Google Scholar
Cooter, R., ‘Expressive Law and Economics’, Journal of Legal Studies, 27 (1998), 585–608.Google Scholar
Cox, E., The Principles of Punishment: As Applied in the Administration of the Criminal Law by Judges and Magistrates, London, Law Times Office (1877).Google Scholar
Dölling, D., Entorf, H., Hermann, D. and Rupp, T., ‘Is Deterrence Effective? Results of a Meta-Analysis of Punishment’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15 (2009), 201–24.Google Scholar
Dressel, J. and Farid, H., ‘The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism’, Science Advances, 4 (2018).Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘Positive Generalprävention und Rechtsgutstheorie: Zwei zentrale Errungenschaften der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft aus amerikanischer Sicht’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 117 (2005), 485–518.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Punishment, Communication, and Community, Oxford University Press (2001).Google Scholar
Eschelbach, R., ‘§ 46 StGB’, in Satzger, H., Schluckebier, W. and Widmaier, G. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 4th edn, Cologne, Heymanns (2018).Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S., ‘Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments’, American Economic Review, 90 (2000), 980–94.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gintis, H., ‘Human Motivation and Social Cooperation: Experimental and Analytical Foundations’, Annual Review of Sociology, 33 (2007), 43–64.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Feinberg, J. (ed.), Doing and Deserving, Princeton University Press (1970), 95–118.Google Scholar
Feldman, Y., ‘The Expressive Function of Trade Secret Law: Legality, Cost, Intrinsic Motivation, and Consensus’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6 (2009), 177–212.Google Scholar
Feuerbach, J. P. A. von, Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 11th edn, Gießen, Heyer (1832).Google Scholar
Flander, B. and Meško, G., ‘Penal and Prison Policy on the Sunny Side of the Alps: The Swan Song of Slovenian Exceptionalism?’ European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22 (2016), 565–91.Google Scholar
Frase, R., ‘Prior-Conviction Sentencing Enhancements: Rationales and Limits Based on Retributive and Utilitarian Proportionality Principles and Social Equality Goals’, in Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 117–36.Google Scholar
Frase, R. and Hester, R., ‘Magnitude of Criminal History Enhancements’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R., Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 19–28.Google Scholar
Frase, R. and Roberts, J. V., Paying for the Past: Prior Record Enhancements in the US Sentencing Guidelines, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R., Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015).Google Scholar
Funk, P., ‘Is There an Expressive Function of Law? An Empirical Analysis of Voting Laws with Symbolic Fines’, American Law and Economics Review, 9 (2007), 135–59.Google Scholar
Gallas, W., ‘Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Lehre vom Verbrechen’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 67 (1955), 1–47.Google Scholar
Greco, L., Lebendiges und Totes in Feuerbachs Straftheorie, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2009).Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S., Rückfälligkeit und kriminelle Karrieren von Gewalttätern, Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2007).Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S., ‘Neues zur Gefährlichkeit von Gewalttätern: Rückfälligkeit im sechsjährigen Intervall 2004 – 2010’, in Albrecht, H.-J. and Jehle, J.-M. (eds.), National Reconviction Statistics and Studies in Europe, Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2014), 183–210.Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S., ‘Sentencing Thresholds in German Criminal Law and Practice: Legal and Empirical Aspects’, Criminal Law Forum, 28 (2017), 501–39.Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S., Absolute und relative Bagatellen: Grenzen des Strafrechts bei geringfügiger Delinquenz (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S. and Geng, B., ‘Der rational kalkulierende Verbrecher? Zu Entwicklung, Stand und Zukunftsperspektiven ökonomischer Kriminalitätstheorien’, in Körnert, J., Lege, J. and Grube, C. (eds.), Recht trifft Wirtschaft, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2019), 181–212.Google Scholar
Heinz, W., ‘Neue Straflust der Strafjustiz – Realität oder Mythos?’ Neue Kriminalpolitik, 22 (2011), 14–27.Google Scholar
Herzberg, R. D., ‘Setzt strafrechtliche Schuld ein Vermeidenkönnen voraus?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 12–63.Google Scholar
Hessick, C. B. and Hessick, F. A., ‘Double Jeopardy as a Limit on Punishment’, Cornell Law Review, 97 (2011), 45–86.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, ‘Criminal Record Rides Again’, Criminal Justice Ethics, 10 (1991), 2–57.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, ‘Begründung und Bestimmung tatproportionaler Strafen’, in Frisch, W., Hirsch, A. von and Albrecht, H.-J. (eds.), Tatproportionalität: Normative und empirische Aspekte einer tatproportionalen Strafzumessung, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2003), 47–82.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, Bottoms, A., Burney, E. and Wikström, P. O., Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity, Oxford, Hart (1999).Google Scholar
Hirsch, H. J., ‘Tatstrafrecht – ein hinreichend beachtetes Grundprinzip?’, in Prittwitz, C., Baurmann, M., Günther, K., Kuhlen, L., Merkel, R., Nestler, C. and Schulz, L. (eds.), Festschrift für Klaus Lüderssen zum 70. Geburtstag am 2. Mai 2002, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2002), 253–67.Google Scholar
Holz, W., Justizgewähranspruch des Verbrechensopfers, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2007).Google Scholar
Horstkotte, H., ‘Die Vorschriften des Ersten Gesetzes zur Reform des Strafrechts über den Rückfall und die Maßregeln der Sicherung und Besserung’, Juristenzeitung, 5 (1970), 152–6.Google Scholar
Indermaur, D., Roberts, L. D., Spiranovic, C., Mackenzie, G. and Gelb, K., ‘A Matter of Judgement: The Effect of Information and Deliberation on Public Attitudes to Punishment’, Punishment & Society, 14 (2012), 147–65Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. B., The Eternal Criminal Record, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (2015).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Das Strafrecht zwischen Funktionalismus und ‚alteuropäischem’Prinzipiendenken: Oder: Verabschiedung des ‚alteuropäischen Strafrechts’?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 107 (1995), 843–76.Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., ‘Approach, Structure and Outcome of the German Reconviction Study’, in Albrecht, H.-J. and Jehle, J.-M. (eds.), National Reconviction Statistics and Studies in Europe, Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2014), 25–41.Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., Albrecht, H.-J., Hohmann-Fricke, S. and Tetal, C., Legalbewährung nach strafrechtlichen Sanktionen: Eine bundesweite Rückfalluntersuchung 2010 bis 2013 und 2004 bis 2013, Mönchengladbach, Forum Verlag Godesberg (2016).Google Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Jolliffe, D. and Hedderman, C., ‘Investigating the Impact of Custody on Reoffending Using Propensity Score Matching’, Crime and Delinquency, 61 (2015), 1051–77.Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., Verhältnismäßigkeit und Grundrechtsschutz im Präventionsstrafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2014).Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., Gutachten C zum 72. Deutschen Juristentag: Sentencing Guidelines versus freies tatrichterliches Ermessen – Brauchen wir ein neues Strafzumessungsrecht?, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, A., Lebendiges und Totes in Bindings Normentheorie, Göttingen, Otto Schwartz (1954).Google Scholar
Kazemian, L., ‘Assessing the Impact of a Recidivist Sentencing Premium on Crime and Recidivism Rates’, in Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. von (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 227–50.Google Scholar
Killias, M., ‘Zur Bedeutung von Rechtsgefühl und Sanktionen für die Konformität des Verhaltens gegenüber neuen Normen: Das Beispiel der Gurtanlegepflicht’, in Lampe, E. J. (ed.), Das sogenannte Rechtsgefühl, Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag (1985), 257–72.Google Scholar
Kinzig, J., Legalbewährung gefährlicher Rückfalltäter, 2nd edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2010).Google Scholar
Klimke, D., Sack, F. and Schlepper, C., ‘Stopping the “Punitive Turn” at the German Border’, in Kury, H. and Shea, E. (eds.), Punitivity: International Developments, I: Punitiveness – A Global Phenomenon?, Bochum, Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer (2011), 289–340.Google Scholar
Kunz, K. L., ‘Vorleben und Nachtatverhalten als Strafzumessungstatsachen’, in Frisch, W. (ed.), Grundfragen des Strafzumessungsrechts aus deutscher und japanischer Sicht, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2011), 135–50.Google Scholar
Kury, H., Brandenstein, M. and Obergfell-Fuchs, J., ‘Dimensions of Punitiveness in Germany’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15 (2009), 63–81.Google Scholar
Lee, Y., ‘Repeat Offenders and the Question of Desert’, in Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 49–72.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. and Cullen, F. T., ‘The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3 (2007), 297–320.Google Scholar
Liszt, F. von, ‘Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht’, Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 1 (1883), 1–47.Google Scholar
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. and Jowell, R., ‘Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science, 32 (2002), 455–87.Google Scholar
Malik, A. K., ‘Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Shackling Judicial Discretion for Justice or Political Expediency?’, Criminal Law Quarterly, 53 (2007), 236–59.Google Scholar
Meier, B. D., ‘What Works? Die Ergebnisse der neueren Sanktionsforschung aus kriminologischer Sicht’, Juristenzeitung, 3 (2010), 112–20.Google Scholar
Mews, A., Hillier, J., McHugh, M. and Coxon, C., The Impact of Short Custodial Sentences, Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders on Re-Offending, London, Ministry of Justice (2015).Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Compendium of Re-Offending Statistics and Analysis, London, Ministry of Justice (2011).Google Scholar
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2017 Sentencing Practices, Annual Summary Statistics for Felony Offenders Sentenced in 2017, Saint Paul, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (2018).Google Scholar
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, Saint Paul, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (2018).Google Scholar
Mitchell, K., ‘Decay and Gap Policies’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R. (eds.), Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 29–38.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K., ‘A Measure of Tolerance: Public Attitudes toward Sentencing Enhancements for Old and Juvenile Prior Records’, Corrections. Policy, Practice, and Research, 3 (2017), 137–51.Google Scholar
Parent, D., Structuring Criminal Sentences: The Evolution of Minnesota’s Sentencing Guidelines, Massachusetts, Butterworths (1988).Google Scholar
Pratt, J., ‘Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess, Part I: The Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism’, British Journal of Criminology, 48 (2008), 119–37.Google Scholar
Pruin, I., ‘Interdisziplinäre Erkenntnisse zur Entlassung aus dem Strafvollzug und ihre Bedeutung für die deutsche Reformdiskussion’, in Bock, S., Harrendorf, S. and Ladiges, M. (eds.), Strafrecht als interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2015), 139–67.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models, Department of Justice Canada, Research Division (2006).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., Punishing Persistent Offenders: Community and Offender Perspectives on the Recidivist Sentencing Premium, Oxford University Press (2008).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., ‘Justifying Criminal History Enhancements at Sentencing’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R. (eds.), Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 11–18.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., ‘Severity Premium for Similar Prior Offending: Patterning Rules’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R. (eds.), Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 63–70.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. von (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Hough, M., Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice, Maidenhead, Open University Press (2005).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Pei, W., ‘Structuring Judicial Discretion in China: Exploring the 2014 Sentencing Guidelines’, Criminal Law Forum, 27 (2016), 3–33.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Pina-Sánchez, J., ‘Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Exploring Empirical Trends in the Crown Court’, Criminal Law Review, 8 (2014), 575–88.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Pina-Sánchez, J., ‘Paying for the Past: The Role of Previous Convictions at Sentencing in the Crown Court’, in Roberts, J. V. (ed.), Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan (2015), 154–72.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Stalans, L. J., Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice, Boulder, Westview Press (1997).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indermaur, D. and Hough, M., Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons from Five Countries, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., The Ethics of Proportionate Punishment: A Critical Investigation, Dordecht, Kluwer (2004).Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J. and Laub, J. H., Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life, Harvard University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and Gemmeren, G. van, Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Schmidhäuser, E., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil: Lehrbuch, 2nd edn, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (1975).Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., ‘Kriminalpolitische und strafrechtsdogmatische Probleme in der deutschen Strafrechtsreform’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 69 (1957), 359–96.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘Die Akzeptanz von Normen und Sanktionen aus der Perspektive der Tatproportionalität’, in Frisch, W., Hirsch, A. and Albrecht, H.-J. (eds.), Tatproportionalität: Normative und empirische Aspekte einer tatproportionalen Strafzumessung, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2003), 185–97.Google Scholar
Shapland, J. and Bottoms, A., ‘Reflections on Social Values, Offending and Desistance among Young Adult Recidivists’, Punishment & Society, 13 (2011), 256–82.Google Scholar
Smith, P., Goggin, C. and Gendreau, P., The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences, Ottowa, Solicitor General Canada (2002).Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt, Rechtspflege: Strafverfolgung 2016, Wiesbaden, Statistisches Bundesamt (2017).Google Scholar
Stelly, W. and Thomas, J., Einmal Verbrecher – immer Verbrecher?, Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag (2001).Google Scholar
Stratenwerth, G., Was leistet die Lehre von den Strafzwecken?, Berlin, De Gruyter (1995).Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘Schuld ohne Freiheit? Der funktionale Schuldbegriff auf dem Prüfstand’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 101 (1989), 273–334.Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘§ 46 StGB’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos-Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2017).Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., ‘On the Expressive Function of Law’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144 (1996), 2021–53.Google Scholar
Tamburrini, C. M. and Ryberg, J. (eds.), Recidivist Punishments: The Philosopher’s View, Lanham, Lexington Books (2012).Google Scholar
Tomášek, J., ‘The Public and Crime’, in Scheinost, S. (ed.), Crime from the Perspective of Criminologists, Prague, Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention (2011), 221–32.Google Scholar
US Sentencing Commission, US Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2018, Washington, DC, US Sentencing Commission (2018).Google Scholar
Walker, N., Aggravation, Mitigation and Mercy in English Criminal Justice, London, Blackstone Press (1999).Google Scholar
Wasik, M., ‘Guidance, Guidelines and Criminal Record’, in Wasik, M. and Pease, K. (eds.), Sentencing Reform: Guidance or Guidelines?, Manchester University Press (1987).Google Scholar
Wasik, M., ‘Dimensions of Criminal History: Reflections on Theory and Practice’, in Roberts, J. V. and von Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 161–83.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘No News is Good News: Criminal Sentencing in Germany since 2000’, Crime and Justice, 45 (2016), 83–106.Google Scholar
Welcker, C. T., Die letzten Gründe von Recht, Staat und Strafe: Philosophisch und nach den Gesetzen der merkwürdigsten Völker rechtshistorisch entwickelt, Gießen, Heyer (1813).Google Scholar
Bibliography
Allan, T. R. S., ‘Procedural Fairness and the Duty of Respect’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18 (1998), 497–515.Google Scholar
Allan, T. R. S., Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
Allan, T. R. S., ‘The Rule of Law’, in Dyzenhaus, D. and Thorburn, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Victims’ Rights, Defendants’ Rights and Criminal Procedure’, in Crawford, A. and Goodey, J. (eds.), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice, Aldershot, Ashgate (2000).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Horder, J., The Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Redmayne, M., The Criminal Process, 4th edn, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Zedner, L., ‘Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2 (2008), 21–51.Google Scholar
Baratta, A., ‘Zur Entwicklung des modernen Rechtsstaatsbegriffs’, in Baer-Kaufert, F.-W., Leistner, G. and Schwaiger, H. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernhard C. H. Aubin, Straßburg N.P., Engel Verlag (1979), 1–14.Google Scholar
Böckenförde, E.-W., ‘Entstehung und Wandel des Rechtsstaatsbegriffs’, in Böckenförde, E.-W. (ed.), Recht, Staat, Freiheit, 6th edn, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp (2016), 143–69.Google Scholar
Bottoms, A. E. and Tankebe, J., ‘Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to Legitimacy in Criminal Justice’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102 (2012), 119–70.Google Scholar
Bradford, B., ‘Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and Cooperation between Police and Public’, Policing and Society, 24 (2014), 22–43.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, P., Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Carpzov, B., Practica Nova Imperialis Saxonica Rerum Criminalium, Wittenberg, Haered. Zachariae Schureri Senior (1635).Google Scholar
Chan, J., ‘Changing Police Culture’, British Journal of Criminology, 36 (1996), 109–34.Google Scholar
Cole, D., ‘Against Citizenship as a Predicate for Basic Rights’, Fordham Law, 75 (2007), 2541–8.Google Scholar
College of Policing, Code of Ethics: A Code of Practice for the Principles and Standards of Professional Behaviour for the Policing Profession in England and Wales, London, College of Policing (2014).Google Scholar
Council of Europe, The ECHR in Facts and Figures 2016, European Court of Human Rights (2017), available at www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_2016_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar
Damaška, M., The Faces of Justice and State Authority, New Haven, Yale University Press (1986).Google Scholar
Darbyshire, P., ‘The Mischief of Plea Bargaining and Sentencing Rewards’, Criminal Law Review, 79 (2000), 895–910.Google Scholar
Dettmar, J. S., Legalität und Opportunität im Strafprozess, Berlin, Wissenschafts-Verlag (2008).Google Scholar
Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th edn, London, Macmillan (1958).Google Scholar
Dölling, D., Polizeiliche Ermittlungstätigkeit und Legalitätsprinzip, 2 vols. Wiesbaden, BKA-Forschungsreihe (1987), I.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘The Criminal Trial and the Legitimation of Punishment’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2004), I, 85–100.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A. et al., The Trial on Trial: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2007), III.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., ‘Terror and the Attack on Civil Liberties’, The New York Review of Books, 50 (2003).Google Scholar
Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A. and MacDonald, A., Human Rights and Criminal Justice, 3rd edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2012).Google Scholar
Follain, J., Vendetta: The Mafia, Judge Falcone and the Quest for Justice, London, Hodder & Stoughton (2012).Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J., Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar
Gärditz, K. F., ‘Art. 20, 6. Teil: Rechtsstaatsprinzip’, in Kahl, W., Waldhof, C. and Walter, C. (eds.), Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 25 vols., Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2018).Google Scholar
Garrett, B., Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations, Harvard University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Glaser, J., ‘Das Princip der Strafverfolgung’, in Glaser, J., Gesammelte kleinere juristische Schriften – Teil 1: Kleine Schriften über Strafrecht und Strafproceß, 2nd edn, Vienna, Manz (1883), 521–45.Google Scholar
Goss, R., Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford, Hart (2014).Google Scholar
Grote, R., ‘Rule of Law, Rechtsstaat and “Etat de droit”’, in Starck, C. (ed.), Constitutionalism, Universalism and Democracy: A Comparative Analysis, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1999), 269–306.Google Scholar
Gürtner, F., ‘Der Gedanke der Gerechtigkeit in der deutschen Strafrechtserneuerung’, in Gürtner, F. and Freisler, R. (eds.), Das neue Strafrecht, Berlin, Decker (1936), 19–31.Google Scholar
Hamm, R., ‘Der Einsatz heimlicher Ermittlungsmethoden und der Anspruch auf ein faires Verfahren’, Strafverteidiger (2001), 81–5.Google Scholar
Hawkins, K., Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-Making in a Regulatory Agency, Oxford University Press (2002), 424–7.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., ‘Conceptions of the Trial in Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2006), II, 223–42.Google Scholar
Home Office, Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in Favour of the Law-Abiding Majority: Cutting Crime, Reducing Reoffending and Protecting the Public, London, HMSO (2006).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Democratic Accountability and Lay Participation in Criminal Trials’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2006), II, 135–53.Google Scholar
Hoyle, C., ‘Victims of the State: Recognising the Harms Caused by Wrongful Convictions’, in Bosworth, M., Hoyle, C. and Zedner, L. (eds.), Changing Contours of Criminal Justice: Research, Politics and Policy, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Hoyle, C. and Sato, M., Reasons to Doubt: Wrongful Convictions and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar
Hunter, J. et al., The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory to Practice, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar
Jackson, J., ‘Justice for All – Putting Victims at the Heart of Criminal Justice?’, Journal of Law and Society, 30 (2003), 309–26.Google Scholar
Jahn, M., ‘Fair trial als strafprozessuales Leitprinzip im Mehrebenensystem’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 127 (2015), 549–615.Google Scholar
Jhering, R. von, Geist des römischen Rechts, 6th edn, Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig (1923).Google Scholar
Kelman, D., ‘Closed Trials and Secret Allegations: An Analysis of the “Gisting” Requirement’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 80 (2016), 264–77.Google Scholar
Kirste, S., ‘Philosophical Foundations of the Principle of the Legal State (Rechtsstaat) and the Rule of Law’, in Silkenat, J. R., Hickey, J. E. Jr. and Barenboim, P. D. (eds.), The Legal Doctrines of the Rule of Law and the Legal State (Rechtsstaat), New York, Springer (2014), 29–43.Google Scholar
McBarnet, D., ‘False Dichotomies in Criminal Justice Research’, in Baldwin, J. and Bottomley, A. K. (eds.), Criminal Justice: Selected Readings, Oxford, Martin Robertson (1978), 23–34.Google Scholar
McBarnet, D., Conviction: Law, the State, and the Construction of Justice, London, Macmillan (1983).Google Scholar
McConville, M., Sanders, A. and Leng, R., The Case for the Prosecution: Police Suspects and the Construction of Criminality, London, Routledge (1991).Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., ‘Der Rechtsstaat und die rule of law’, Juristen-Zeitung, 39 (1984), 65–70.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Macdonald, S., ‘Constructing a Framework for Criminal Justice Research: Learning from Packer’s Mistakes’, New Criminal Law Review, 11 (2008), 257–311.Google Scholar
McEwan, J., ‘Ritual, Fairness and Truth: The Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Criminal Trial’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2004), I, 51–69.Google Scholar
Marshall, G., ‘Due Process in England’, in Pennock, J. R. and Chapman, J. W. (eds.), Due Process, New York University Press (1977), 69–92.Google Scholar
Mayer, O., Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht, 1st edn, 2 vols. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot (1895), I.Google Scholar
Meares, T. L., Tyler, T. R. and Gardener, J., ‘Lawful or Fair?: How Cops and Laypeople Perceive Good Policing’, Journal of Criminology and Criminal Law, 105 (2016), 297–344.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-Y., ‘The Rule of Law and the Rechtsstaat Concept: A Comparison’, in McWhinney, E. (ed.), Federalism in the Making: Contemporary Canadian and German Constitutionalism, National and Transnational, Dordrecht, Kluwer (1992), 60–86.Google Scholar
Neuberger Lord, D. E., ‘JUSTICE – Justice in an Age of Austerity’, available at www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-131015.pdf.Google Scholar
Nickel, J. W., ‘Due Process Rights and Terrorist Emergencies’, European Journal of Legal Studies, 1 (2007), 243–64.Google Scholar
Orth, J., Due Process of Law: A Brief History, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas (2003).Google Scholar
Phillips, C. and Bowling, B., ‘Ethnicities, Racism, Crime and Criminal Justice’, in Liebling, A., Maruna, S. and Mcara, L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford University Press (2017), 190–212.Google Scholar
Ramraj, V. V., ‘Four Models of Due Process’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2 (2004), 492–524.Google Scholar
Redmayne, M., ‘Exploring Entrapment’, in Zedner, L. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2012), 157–70.Google Scholar
Rieß, P., ‘Einleitung’, in Rieß, P. (ed.), Löwe-Rosenberg, Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommentar, 25th edn, 8 vols., Berlin, De Gruyter (1999), I.Google Scholar
Ristroph, A., ‘The Thin Blue Line from Crime to Punishment’, Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Papers, 108 (2018), 305–34.Google Scholar
Roach, K., Due Process and Victims’ Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice, University of Toronto Press (1999).Google Scholar
Roach, K., ‘Four Models of the Criminal Process’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89 (1999), 671–716.Google Scholar
Roach, K., ‘Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35 (2010), 388–446.Google Scholar
Roberts, P., ‘Theorising Procedural Tradition: Subjects, Objects and Values in Criminal Adjudication’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, Oxford, 3 vols., Hart (2006), II, 37–64.Google Scholar
Roberts, P., ‘Comparative Criminal Justice Goes Global’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28 (2008), 369–91.Google Scholar
Roberts, P., ‘Groundwork for a Jurisprudence of Criminal Procedure’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. P. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 380–408.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Schünemann, B., Strafverfahrensrecht, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Sanders, A., Young, R. and Burton, M., Criminal Justice, 4th edn, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., ‘Gerechtigkeit und Zweckmäßigkeit in Geschichte und Gegenwart der Strafrechtspflege’, in Schmidt, E., Justitia fundamentum regnorum, Heidelberg, Schriften der Süddeutschen Juristen-Zeitung (1947), 75–98.Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., ‘Von Sinn und Notwendigkeit wissenschaftlicher Behandlung des Strafprozeßrechts’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 65 (1953), 161–77.Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., Lehrkommentar zur Strafprozeßordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, 3 vols., 2nd edn, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht (1964), I.Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., Einführung in die Geschichte der deutschen Strafrechtspflege, 3rd edn, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht (1965).Google Scholar
Shipley, D. E., ‘Due Process Rights before EU Agencies: The Rights of Defense’, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 37 (2008), 1–52.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘§ 257c StPO’, in Erb, V., Esser, R., Franke, U., Graalmann-Scheerer, K., Hilger, H. and Ignor, A. (eds.), Löwe-Rosenberg, Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommentar, 26th edn, 13 vols., Berlin, De Gruyter (2013), VI/II.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Gründe für die Abschaffung des § 153a StPO’, in Herzog, F., Schlothauer, R. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte, Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin (2016), 369–89.Google Scholar
Tadros, V., ‘A Human Right to a Fair Criminal Law’, in Chalmers, J. and Leverick, F. (eds.), Essays in Criminal Law in Honour of Sir Gerald Gordon, Edinburgh University Press (2010), 103–25.Google Scholar
Tankebe, J. and Liebling, A. (eds.), Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Tyler, T., ‘Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law’, Crime and Justice, 30 (2003), 283–357.Google Scholar
Tyler, T., Jackson, J. and Bradford, B., ‘Psychology of Procedural Justice and Cooperation’, in Bruinsma, G. and Weisburd, D. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, New York, Springer (2014).Google Scholar
Waddington, P. A. J., ‘Police (Canteen) Sub-Culture: An Appreciation’, British Journal of Criminology, 39 (1999), 287–309.Google Scholar
Waldron, J., ‘Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11 (2003), 191–210.Google Scholar
Ward, J., ‘Transforming “Summary Justice” through Police-Led Prosecution and “Virtual Courts”: Is “Procedural Due Process” Being Undermined?’, The British Journal of Criminology, 55 (2015), 341–58.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Why Have a Trial when You Can Have a Bargain?’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2006), II, 207–22.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘No News Is Good News: Criminal Sentencing in Germany since 2000’, in Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Justice, 45 (2016), 83–106.Google Scholar
Wilmot-Smith, F., ‘Necessity or Ideology?’, The London Review of Books, 36 (2014), 15–17.Google Scholar
Wohlers, W., ‘Einleitung’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 10 vols., 5th edn, Cologne, Heymanns (2018), I.Google Scholar
Zachariae, H. A., Die Gebrechen und die Reform des deutschen Strafverfahrens dargestellt auf der Basis einer consequenten Entwickelung des inquisitorischen und des accusatorischen Prinzips, Göttingen, Verlag der Dieterich’schen Buchhandlung (1846).Google Scholar
Zachariae, H. A., Handbuch des deutschen Strafprocesses, 2 vols., Göttingen, Verlag der Dieterich’schen Buchhandlung (1861), I.Google Scholar
Zedner, L, ‘Seeking Security By Eroding Rights: The Side-Stepping of Due Process’, in Goold, B. and Lazarus, L. (eds.), Security and Human Rights, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Zedner, L, ‘Criminal Justice in the Service of Security’, in Bosworth, M., Hoyle, C. and Zedner, L. (eds.), The Changing Contours of Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Zedner, L, ‘Security against Arbitrary Government in Criminal Justice’, in du Bois-Pedain, A., Ulväng, M. and Asp, P. (eds.), Criminal Law and the Authority of the State, Oxford, Hart (2017).Google Scholar
Bibliography
Albonetti, C. A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’, Law and Society Review, 21 (1987), 291–314.Google Scholar
Alexander, L., ‘Are Procedural Rights Derivative Substantive Rights?’, Law and Philosophy, 17 (1998), 19–42.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W., ‘Courtroom Misconduct by Prosecutors and Trial Judges’, Texas Law Review, 50 (1972), 629–735.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W., ‘Implementing the Criminal Defendant’s Right to Trial’, University of Chicago Law Review, 50 (1983), 931–1050.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, I: Foundations and General Part, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘The International Criminal Justice System and Prosecutorial Selection Policy’, in Ackerman, B., Ambos, K. and Sikirić, H. (eds.), Visions of Justice – Liber Amicorum Mirjan Damaška, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 23–55.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Case comment on EU Court of Justice, Judgment of 27 May 2019 in Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU’, Juristenzeitung (2019), 732–5.Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Heinze, A., ‘Abbreviated Procedures in Comparative Criminal Procedure’, in Bergsmo, M. (ed.), Abbreviated Criminal Procedures for Core International Crimes, Brussels, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher (2017), 27–100.Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice relating to Prosecutorial Investigations, 3rd edn, Washington, DC, American Bar Association (2008).Google Scholar
American Civil Liberties Union, Unlocking the Black Box – How the Prosecutorial Transparency Act Will Empower Communities and Help End Mass Incarceration (2019), available at www.aclu.org/report/unlocking-black-box.Google Scholar
Anders, R. P., ‘Straftheoretische Anmerkungen zur Verletztenorientierung im Strafverfahren’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 374–410.Google Scholar
Aristotle, , The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Ross D. and Brown L., Oxford University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Armenian, A. V., ‘Selectivity in International Criminal Law’, International Criminal Law Review, 16 (2016), 642–72.Google Scholar
Bachmaier, L., ‘The Principle of Legality, Discretionary Justice and Plea Agreements: The Practice in Spain’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 89–114.Google Scholar
Barkow, R. E., ‘Institutional Design and the Policing of Prosecutors: Lessons from Administrative Law’, Stanford Law Review, 61 (2009), 869–921.Google Scholar
Barkow, R. E., ‘Prosecutorial Administration: Prosecutor Bias and the Department of Justice’, Virginia Law Review, 99 (2013), 271–342.Google Scholar
Beale, S. S., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion in Three Systems’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 27–58.Google Scholar
Bellin, J., ‘The Power of Prosecutors’, New York University Law Review, 94 (2019), 171–212.Google Scholar
Boerner, D., ‘Prosecution in Washington State’, in Tonry, M. (ed.), Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative Perspective, Chicago, Illinois, The University of Chicago Press (2012), 167–210.Google Scholar
Bommer, F., Deiters, M., Eser, A., Frister, H., Gleß, S., Jahn, M., Jung, H., Meier, B.-D., Rengier, R., Roxin, C., Schmoller, K., Schöch, H., Stuckenberg, C.-F., Verrel, T., and Weigend, T. ‘Alternativ-Entwurf Abgekürzte Strafverfahren im Rechtsstaat (AE-ASR)’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 166 (2019), 1–128.Google Scholar
Bouloc, B. and Matsopoulou, H., Droit pénal général et procédure pénal, 20th edn, Paris, Sirey (2016).Google Scholar
Brants, C., Field, S. and Jörg, N., ‘Discretion and Accountability in Prosecution: A Comparative Perspective on Keeping Crime out of Court’, in Harding, C., Fennell, P. W. H., Jörg, N. and Swart, B. (eds.), Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1995), 127–48.Google Scholar
Brink, D. O., ‘Some Forms and Limits of Consequentialism’, in Copp, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford University Press (2006), 380–423.Google Scholar
Caianiello, M., ‘Disclosure before the ICC’, International Criminal Law Review, 10 (2010), 23–42.Google Scholar
Caldwell, H. M., ‘The Prosecutor Prince: Misconduct, Accountability, and a Modest Proposal’, Catholic University Law Review, 63 (2013), 51–101.Google Scholar
Cancio Meliá, M., ‘Erledigung von Strafverfahren ohne Hauptverhandlung: erste Schritte in Spanien’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 130 (2018), 476–90.Google Scholar
Cardenas, J., ‘The Crime Victim in the Prosecutorial Process’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 9 (1986), 357–98.Google Scholar
Carrabine, E., Cox, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K. and South, N., Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, 3rd edn, London, Routledge (2014).Google Scholar
Cassell, P. G., ‘Overstating America’s Wrongful Conviction Rate?’, Arizona Law Review, 60 (2018), 815–63.Google Scholar
Cassidy, R. M., ‘Character and Context: What Virtue Theory Can Teach Us about a Prosecutor’s Ethical Duty to Seek Justice’, Notre Dame Law Review, 82 (2006), 635–98.Google Scholar
Cicchini, M., ‘Spin Doctors: Prosecutor Sophistry and the Burden of Proof’, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 87 (2018), 489–521.Google Scholar
Combs, N. A., ‘Copping a Plea to Genocide: The Plea Bargaining of International Crimes’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 51 (2003), 1–157.Google Scholar
Corso, P., ‘Italy’, in Wyngaert, C. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, 2nd edn, London, Butterworths (2000), 223–60.Google Scholar
Crump, D., ‘Brady v. Maryland, Attorney Discipline, and Materiality’, Hofstra Law Review, 45 (2016), 515–36.Google Scholar
Cummings, L. P., ‘Can an Ethical Person Be an Ethical Prosecutor?’, Cardozo Law Review, 31 (2010), 2139–59.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure’, Yale Law Journal, 84 (1975), 480–544.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., The Faces of Justice and State Authority, New Haven and London, Yale University Press (1986).Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘Models of Criminal Procedure’, Zbornik Pravnog Fakulleta u Zagrebu, 51 (2001), 477–516.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘What Is the Point of International Criminal Law?’, Chicago Kent Law Review, 83 (2008), 329–65.Google Scholar
Dannecker, G. and Roberts, J., ‘The Law of Criminal Procedure’, in Ebke, W. F. and Finkin, M. W. (eds.), An Introduction to German Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law Internation (1996), 413–48.Google Scholar
Danner, A. M., ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’, The American Journal of International Law, 97 (2003), 510–52.Google Scholar
Davies, M., Croall, H. and Tyrer, J., Criminal Justice, 3rd edn, London, Pearson Education Limited (2005).Google Scholar
Davis, A. J., Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Deiters, M., ‘Abgekürzte Strafverfahren’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 130 (2018), 491–512.Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Process, Cambridge University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Dölling, D., ‘Über das Ziel des Strafverfahrens’, in Fahl, C., Müller, E., Satzger, H. and Swoboda, S. (eds.), Festschrift für Werner Beulke zum 70 Geburtstag, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2015), 679–87.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘American Plea Bargains, German Lay Judges, and the Crisis of Criminal Procedure’, Stanford Law Review, 49 (1997), 547–72.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., The Trial on Trial, III: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Discretion and Accountability in Democratic Criminal Law’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. A. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-national Study, Cambridge University Press (2017), 1–8.Google Scholar
Ellis, M. J., ‘The Origins of the Elected Prosecutor’, Yale Law Journal, 121 (2012), 1528–69.Google Scholar
Esser, R., Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Strafverfahrensrecht, Berlin, De Gruyter (2002).Google Scholar
Fair and Just Prosecution, 21 Principles for the 21st Century Prosecutor (2018), available at www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/FJP_21Principles_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Federico, G. di, ‘Prosecutorial Independence and the Democratic Requirement of Accountability in Italy’, British Journal of Criminology, 38 (1998) 371–87.Google Scholar
Felstiner, W. L. F., ‘Plea Contracts in West Germany’, Law and Society Review, 13 (1979), 309–25.Google Scholar
Fezer, G., ‘Inquisitionsprozess ohne Ende? Zur Struktur des neuen Verständigungsgesetzes’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 30 (2010), 177–85.Google Scholar
Fionda, J., Public Prosecutors and Discretion: A Comparative Story, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1995).Google Scholar
Fischer, T., ‘Absprache-Regelung: Problemlösung oder Problem?’, Strafverteidiger Forum, 5 (2009), 177–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, T., ‘Einleitung’, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 8th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., Fairness in International Law and Institutions, Oxford University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Frase, R. S. and Weigend, T., ‘German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions?’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 18 (1995), 317–60.Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J., Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N., ‘Introduction’, in Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N. (eds.), Exercising Discretion: Decision-Making in the Criminal Justice System and Beyond, New York, Willian Publishing (2003), 1–28.Google Scholar
Geppert, K., ‘Zum “fair-trial-Prinzip” nach Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention’, Juristische Ausbildung (1992), 597–604.Google Scholar
Gifford, D. J., ‘Decisions, Decisional Referents, and Administrative Justice’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 37 (1972), 3–48.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, G., Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe, Berlin, Springer (2014).Google Scholar
Givelber, D., ‘Meaningless Acquittals, Meaningful Convictions’, Rutgers Law Review, 49 (1997), 1317–97.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, J. S., Irons-Guynn, C. and Weiland, D., Community Prosecution Strategies, US Department of Justice (2003), available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/195062.pdf.Google Scholar
Goldstein, A. S., ‘Converging Criminal Justice Systems: Guilty Pleas and the Public Interest’, Israel Law Review, 31 (1997), 169–82.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, W., ‘Art. 6 MRK: Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte vom 19. Dezember 1966’, in Gollwitzer, W. (ed.), Menschenrechte im Strafverfahren: MRK und IPBPR, Berlin, De Gruyter (2005), 37–60.Google Scholar
Gössel, K. H., ‘Wahrheitsermittlung’, in Fahl, C., Müller, E., Satzger, H. and Swoboda, S. (eds.), Festschrift für Werner Beulke zum 70. Geburtstag, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2015), 737–45.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, M. R. and Gottfredson, D. M., Decision Making in Criminal Justice: Toward the Rational Exercise of Discretion, Berlin, Springer Science & Business Media (1988).Google Scholar
Gramckow, H., ‘Prosecutor organization and operations in the United States’, in Open Society Institute Sofia (ed.), Promoting Prosecutorial Accountability, Independence and Effectiveness – Comparative Research, Sofia, Open Society Institute Sofia (2008), 385–429.Google Scholar
Green, B. A. and Zacharias, F. C., ‘Prosecutorial Neutrality’, Wisconsin Law Review (2004), 837–904.Google Scholar
Groenhuijsen, M. and Simmelink, J. B., ‘Criminal Procedure in the Netherlands’, in Vogler, R. and Huber, B. (eds.), Criminal Procedure in Europe, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2008), 377–481.Google Scholar
Grzegorczyk, T. and Tylman, J., Polskie Postępowanie Karne, 6th edn, New York, Lexis Nexis (2007).Google Scholar
Guinchard, S. and Buisson, J., Procédure pénal, 4th edn. New York, Lexis Nexis (2008).Google Scholar
Harding, C. and Dingwall, G., Diversion in the Criminal Process, London, Sweet and Maxwell (1998).Google Scholar
Harris, D. A., ‘The Interaction and Relationship between Prosecutors and Police Officers in the US, and How this Affects Police Reform Efforts’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2011), 54–66.Google Scholar
Heinze, A., International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2014).Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., ‘Conceptions of the Trial in Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., The Trial on Trial, II: Judgment and Calling to Account, Oxford, Hart (2006), 223–43.Google Scholar
Hollander-Blumoff, R., ‘Fairness Beyond the Adversary System’, Fordham Law Review, 85 (2017), 2081–95.Google Scholar
Howell, K. B., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion and the Duty to Seek Justice in an Overburdened Criminal Justice System’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 27 (2014), 286–334.Google Scholar
Hungerford-Welch, P., Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, 7th edn, London, Routledge-Cavendish (2009).Google Scholar
Ingraham, B. L., The Structure of Criminal Procedure, New York, Greenwood Press (1987).Google Scholar
Innocence Commission for Virginia, A Vision for Justice: Report and Recommendations Regarding Wrongful Convictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Arlington, Innocence Commission for Virginia (2005).Google Scholar
Jackson, R. H., ‘The Federal Prosecutor’, American Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 31 (1940), 3–6.Google Scholar
Jacoby, J. E., ‘The American Prosecutor: From Appointive to Elective Status’, Prosecutor, 31 (1997), 33–8.Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., ‘The Function of Public Prosecution within the Criminal Justice System’, in Jehle, J.-M. and Wade, M. (eds.), Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power across Europe, Berlin, Springer (2006), 3–25.Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., ‘Was und wie häufig sind Fehlurteile?’, Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 7 (2013), 220–9.Google Scholar
Jones, C. E., ‘Here Comes the Judge: A Model for Judicial Oversight and Regulation of the Brady Disclosure Duty’, Hofstra Law Review, 46 (2018), 87–138.Google Scholar
Jordan, G., Kaplan, A. B., Beety, V. and Findley, K. A., ‘Contemporary Perspectives on Wrongful Conviction: An Introduction to the 2016 Innocence Network Conference, San Antonio, Texas’, Hofstra Law Review, 45 (2016), 365–71.Google Scholar
Juy-Birmann, R., ‘The German System’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge University Press (2002), 292–347.Google Scholar
Kamisar, Y., LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., King, N. J., Kerr, O. S. and Primus, E. B. (eds.), Basic Criminal Procedure: Cases, Comments and Questions, 12th edn, Eagan, Thomson West (2008).Google Scholar
Kant, I., Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Wood, A. W., New Haven, Yale University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. E., ‘Private Financing of Criminal Prosecutions and the Differing Protections of Liberty and Equality in the Criminal Justice System, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 24 (1996), 665–707.Google Scholar
Kreag, J., ‘Disclosing Prosecutorial Misconduct’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 72 (2019), 297–352.Google Scholar
Kubicek, T. L., Adversarial Justice: America’s Court System on Trial, New York, Algora (2006).Google Scholar
Kuczyńska, H., The Accusation Model before the International Criminal Court, Berlin, Springer (2015).Google Scholar
Langbein, J. H., ‘Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany’, University of Chicago Law Review, 41 (1974), 439–67.Google Scholar
Langer, M., ‘Rethinking Plea Bargaining: The Practice and Reform of Prosecutorial Adjudication in American Criminal Procedure’, American Journal of Criminal Law, 33 (2006), 223–99.Google Scholar
Levine, K. L., ‘The Intimacy Discount: Prosecutorial Discretion, Privacy, and Equality in the Statutory Rape Caseload’, Emory Law Journal, 55 (2006), 691–750.Google Scholar
Lewis, C., ‘The Prosecution Service Function within the English Criminal Justice System’, in Jehle, J.-M. and Wade, M. (eds.), Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems, Berlin, Springer (2006), 151–84.Google Scholar
Lippke, R., ‘Criminal Prosecutors: Experts or Elected Officials?’, in Ryberg, J. and Roberts, J. (eds.), Popular Punishment: On the Normative Significance of Public Opinion for Penal Theory, Oxford University Press (2012), 163–82.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M., ‘Prosecutors as Judges’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 67 (2010), 1413–532.Google Scholar
Lynch, G. E., ‘Our Administrative System of Criminal Justice’, Fordham Law Review, 66 (1998), 2117–51.Google Scholar
McDonald, W. F., Rossman, H. H. and Cramer, J. A., Police–Prosecutor Relations in the United States – Executive Summary, Washington, National Institute of Justice, Georgetown University Law Center (1982).Google Scholar
McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P., ‘Deontology’, in Copp, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford University Press (2006), 424–58.Google Scholar
Mantovani, F., Diritto Penale, Parte Generale, 10th edn, Milanofiori Assago, Wolters Kluwer (2017).Google Scholar
Markovits, D., A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Mathias, E., Les Procureurs du droit: de l’impartialité du ministère public en France et en Allemagne, Paris, CNRS Éditions (1999).Google Scholar
Mégret, F., ‘International Prosecutors: Accountability and Ethics’, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper No. 18 (2008).Google Scholar
Mégret, F., ‘The Anxieties of International Criminal Justice’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 29 (2016), 197–221.Google Scholar
Mittermaier, C. J. A., Die Lehre vom Beweise im deutschen Strafprozesse, Darmstadt, Johann Wilhelm Heyer’s Verlagshandlung (1834).Google Scholar
Mou, Y., ‘Beyond Legitimate Grounds: External Influences and the Discretionary Power Not to Prosecute in the People’s Republic of China’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 115–40.Google Scholar
Na, C., Choo, T. and Klingfuss, J. A., ‘The Causes and Consequences of Job-Related Stress among Prosecutors’, American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43 (2018), 329–53.Google Scholar
Nejdl, C. S. and Pettitt, K., ‘Wrongful Convictions and Their Causes’, Northern Illinois University Law Review, 37 (2017), 401–19Google Scholar
Nicolson, D., ‘Making Lawyers Moral? Ethical Codes and Moral Character’, Legal Studies, 25 (2005), 601–26.Google Scholar
Panzavolta, M., ‘Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 30 (2005), 577–624.Google Scholar
Parrillo, N. R., Against the Profit Motive: The Salary Revolution in American Government, 1780–1940, New Haven, Yale University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Pizzi, W. T., ‘Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion in the United States’, Ohio State Law Journal, 54 (1993), 1325–73.Google Scholar
Pradel, J., ‘France’, in Wyngaert, C. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, 2nd edn, London, Butterworths (2000), 105–36.Google Scholar
Preuß, T., ‘Das Strafbefehlsverfahren’, Zeitschrift für das juristische Studium (2017), 176–87.Google Scholar
Rapping, J. A., ‘Who’s Guarding the Henhouse? How the American Prosecutor Came to Devour Those He Is Sworn to Protect’, Washburn Law Journal, 51 (2012), 513–69.Google Scholar
Rawls, J., Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (2001).Google Scholar
Reydams, L., ‘Universal Criminal Jurisdiction: The Belgian State of Affairs’, Criminal Law Forum, 11 (2000), 183–216.Google Scholar
Rolinski, K., ‘Der Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit: Garant der Wahrheitsfindung?’, in Esser, R., Günther, H.-L., Jäger, C., Mylonopoulos, C. and Öztürk, B. (eds.), Festschrift für Hans-Heiner Kühne, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2013), 297–316.Google Scholar
Romero, M., ‘Profit-Driven Prosecution and the Competitive Bidding Process’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107 (2017), 161–212.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Schünemann, B., Strafverfahrensrecht, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Ruggeri, S., ‘Investigative and Prosecutorial Discretion in Criminal Matters: The Contribution of the Italian Experience’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 59–88.Google Scholar
Sacher, M., ‘Diskurstheorie als Legitimation für die Absprachen im Strafverfahren?’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014), 957–68.Google Scholar
Safferling, C., Towards an International Criminal Procedure, Oxford University Press (2001).Google Scholar
Scalia, L. J., America’s Jeffersonian Experiment: Remaking State Constitutions, 1820–1850, Northern Illinois University Press (1999).Google Scholar
Schmitt, B., ‘Einleitung’, in Meyer-Goßner, L. and Schmitt, B. (eds.), Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 62nd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Schmitt, B., ‘§ 160’, in Meyer-Goßner, L. and Schmitt, B. (eds.), Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 62nd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Simonson, J., ‘The Place of “The People” in Criminal Procedure’, Columbia Law Review, 119 (2019), 249–307.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘The Nature and Function of Prosecutorial Power’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106 (2016), 473–520.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘The Changing Political Landscape for Prosecutors’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 14 (2017), 647–74.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘Unpacking the Relationship between Prosecutors and Democracy in the United States’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. A. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-National Study, Cambridge University Press (2017), 250–75.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘The Problems with Prosecutors’, Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (2018), 451–69.Google Scholar
Slapper, G. and Kelly, D., The English Legal System, 18th edn, London, New York, Routledge (2017).Google Scholar
Slobogin, S., ‘Lessons from Inquisitorialism’, Southern California Law Review, 87 (2014), 699–731.Google Scholar
Soubise, L. and Woolley, A., ‘Prosecutors and Justice’, Fordham International Law Journal, 42 (2018), 587–626.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R., ‘Introduction’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Process, Cambridge University Press (2002), 1–80.Google Scholar
Spielmann, A. and Spielmann, D., ‘Luxembourg’, in Wyngaert, C. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, 2nd edn, London, Butterworths (2000), 261–78.Google Scholar
Stone, H. F., ‘Progress in Law Improvement in the United States’, American Bar Association Journal, 10 (1924), 633–37.Google Scholar
Stuntz, W. J., ‘The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law’, Michigan Law Review, 100 (2001), 505–600.Google Scholar
Swart, B., ‘Damaška and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 6 (2008), 87–114.Google Scholar
Taguchi, M., ‘Der Prozessgegenstand im japanischen Strafprozessrecht’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 2 (2008), 70–5.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., Comparative Criminal Procedure, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing (2002).Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., ‘Plea-Bargaining, Negotiating Confessions and Consensual Resolution of Criminal Cases’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 11 (2007), 1–54.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., ‘Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 11 (2007), 1–54.Google Scholar
The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, The Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Offences in England and Wales, London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (1981).Google Scholar
Thomas, G. C. III, ‘Where Have All the Innocents Gone?’, Arizona Law Review, 60 (2018), 865–90.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. C., ‘It Takes a Community to Prosecute’, Notre Dame Law Review, 77 (2002), 321–71.Google Scholar
Tulkens, F., ‘Negotiated Justice’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge University Press (2002), 641–87.Google Scholar
Utter, R. F. and Spitzer, H., The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide, Oxford University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Vogler, R. and Huber, B. (eds.), Criminal Procedure in Europe, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2008).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., Anklagepflicht und Ermessen. Die Stellung der Staatsanwalts zwischen Legalitäts- und Opportunitätsprinzip nach deutschem und amerikanischem Recht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1978).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Should We Search for the Truth, and Who Should Do it?’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 36 (2011), 389–416.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘A Judge by Another Name? Comparative Perspectives on the Role of the Public Prosecutor’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012), 377–391.Google Scholar
Welty, J., ‘Private Citizens Initiating Criminal Charges’, North Carolina Criminal Law, 9 April 2015, available at https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/private-citizens-initiating-criminal-charges/.Google Scholar
Weßlau, E., ‘Wahrheit und Legenden: die Debatte über den adversatorischen Strafprozess’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann zum 70 Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014), 995–1018.Google Scholar
Yoffe, E., ‘Innocence Is Irrelevant’, The Atlantic, September 2017, available at www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/.Google Scholar
Zacharias, F. C., ‘Structuring the Ethics of Prosecutorial Trial Practice: Can Prosecutors Do Justice?’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 44 (1991), 45–114;Google Scholar
Zalman, M., ‘The Adversary System and Wrongful Conviction’, in Huff, C. R. and Killias, M. (eds.), Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice, Philadelphia, Temple University Press (2008), 71–91.Google Scholar
Bibliography
Alkon, C., ‘Plea Bargaining as a Legal Transplant: A Good Idea for Troubled Criminal Justice Systems?’, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 19 (2010), 355–418.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W., ‘The Trial Judge’s Role in Plea Bargaining (pt. 1)’, Columbia Law Review, 76 (1976), 1059–154.Google Scholar
Altenhain, K., Hagemeier, I., Haimerl, M. and Stammen, K.-H., Die Praxis der Absprachen in Wirtschaftsstrafverfahren, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2007).Google Scholar
Altenhain, K., Dietmeier, F. and May, M., Die Praxis der Absprachen im Strafverfahren, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Heinze, A., ‘Abbreviated Procedures in Comparative Criminal Procedure: A Structural Approach with a View to International Criminal Procedure’, in Bergsmo, M. (ed.), Abbreviated Criminal Procedures for Core International Crimes, Brussels, Torkel Opsahl (2017), 27–102.Google Scholar
Arbeitskreis deutscher, österreichischer und schweizerischer Strafrechtslehrer, ‘Alternativ-Entwurf Abgekürzte Strafverfahren im Rechtsstaat (AE-ASR)’, Goltdammer’s Archiv, 166 (2019), 1–128.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Redmayne, M., The Criminal Process, 4th edn, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas and the Prosecutor’s Role in the Sentencing Exercise (2009), available at www.gov.uk/guidance/the-acceptance-of-pleas-and-the-prosecutors-role-in-the-sentencing-exercise.Google Scholar
Bachmaier, L., ‘The European Court of Human Rights on Negotiated Justice and Coercion’, European Journal on Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 26 (2018), 236–59.Google Scholar
Berdejó, C., ‘Criminalizing Race: Racial Disparities in Plea-Bargaining’, Boston College Law Review, 59 (2018), 1187–249.Google Scholar
Bibas, S., ‘Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of Trial’, Harvard Law Review, 117 (2004), 2464–547.Google Scholar
Blume, J. H. and Helm, R. K., ‘The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty’, Cornell Law Review, 100 (2014), 157–92.Google Scholar
Bordens, K. S., ‘The Effects of Likelihood of Conviction, Threatened Punishment, and Assumed Role on Mock Plea Bargaining Decisions’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5 (1984), 59–74.Google Scholar
Boruchowitz, R. C., Brink, M. N. and Dimino, M., Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts, Washington, DC, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (2009).Google Scholar
Brodowski, D., ‘Die verfassungsrechtliche Legitimation des US-amerikanischen “plea bargaining”’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 733–77.Google Scholar
Brook, C. A., Fiannaca, B., Harvey, D., Marcus, P., McEwan, J. and Pomerance, R., ‘A Comparative Look at Plea Bargaining in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States’, William and Mary Law Review, 57 (2016), 1147–224.Google Scholar
Brown, D. K., ‘The Perverse Effects of Efficiency in Criminal Process’, Virginia Law Review, 100 (2014), 183–223Google Scholar
Brown, D. K., ‘Judicial Power to Regulate Plea Bargaining’, 57 William and Mary Law Review, 57 (2016), 1225–76.Google Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 2004 – Statistical Tables, Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007).Google Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics, 2012 – Statistical Tables, Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015).Google Scholar
Covey, R., ‘Police Misconduct as a Cause of Wrongful Convictions’, Washington University Law Review, 90 (2013), 1133–89.Google Scholar
Dervan, L. E. and Edkins, V. A., ‘The Innocent Defendant’s Dilemma: An Innovative Empirical Study of Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103 (2013), 1–48.Google Scholar
Duttge, G., ‘Die Urteilsabsprachen als Signum einer rechtlichen Steuerungskrise’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Streitbare Strafrechtswissenschaft. Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014), 875–89.Google Scholar
Enker, A., ‘Perspectives on Plea Bargaining’, in President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (ed.), Task Force Report: The Courts, Washington, DC, National Criminal Justice Reference Service (1967).Google Scholar
Fair Trials, ‘The Disappearing Trial’ (2017), available at www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Report-The-Disappearing-Trial.pdf.Google Scholar
Frase, R., ‘State Sentencing Guideline: Diversity, Consensus, and Unresolved Policy Issues’, Columbia Law Review, 105 (2005), 1190–232.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, K. von, Grundlagen konsensualer Konfliktlösungsprozesse, Berlin, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (2013).Google Scholar
Gercke, B., Julius, K.-P., Temming, D. and Zöller, M. A., Strafprozessordnung. Heidelberger Kommentar, 6th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2019).Google Scholar
Gillieron, G., ‘Comparing Plea Bargaining and Abbreviated Trial Procedures’, in Brown, D. K., Turner, J. I. and Weißer, B. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J. and Montgomery, N., ‘Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95 (2005), 523–60.Google Scholar
Heaton, P., Mayson, S. G. and Stevenson, M., ‘The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention’, Stanford Law Review, 69 (2017), 711–94.Google Scholar
Heger, M. and Pest, R., Verständigungen im Strafverfahren nach dem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 126 (2014), 446–86.Google Scholar
Hooper, Lord Justice and Ormerod, D. (eds.), Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2012, Oxford University Press (2011).Google Scholar
Horne, J., Plea Bargains, Guilty Pleas and the Consequences for Appeal in England and Wales, Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2013/10 (2013).Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch, An Offer You Can’t Refuse: How U.S. Federal Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty, New York, Human Rights Watch (2013).Google Scholar
Johnson, M. T. and Gilbert, S. A., The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines – Results of the Federal Judicial Center’s 1996 Survey, Federal Judicial Center (1997), available at www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/gssurvey.pdf.Google Scholar
Kim, A. C., ‘Underestimating the Trial Penalty: An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Trial Penalty and Critique of the Abrams Study’, Mississippi Law Journal, 84 (2015), 1195–256.Google Scholar
King, N. J., Soulé, D. A., Steen, S. and Weidner, R. R., ‘When Process Affects Punishment: Differences in Sentences after Guilty Plea, Bench Trial, and Jury Trial in Five Guidelines States’, Columbia Law Review, 105 (2005), 959–1009.Google Scholar
King, N. J. and Wright, R. F., ‘The Invisible Revolution in Plea Bargaining: Managerial Judging and Judicial Participation in Negotiations’, Texas Law Review, 95 (2016), 325–97.Google Scholar
Klein, S. R., Remis, A. S. and Elm, D. L., ‘Waiving the Criminal Justice System: An Empirical and Constitutional Analysis’, American Criminal Law Review, 52 (2015), 73–130.Google Scholar
Kleinfeld, J., ‘Two Cultures of Punishment’, Stanford Law Review, 68 (2016), 933–1036.Google Scholar
Kudlich, H., ‘Ecclestone, Verständigungsgesetz und die Folgen’, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (2015), 1–15.Google Scholar
Kudlich, H. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 3 vols., Munich, C. H. Beck (2016), II.Google Scholar
Kutateladze, B. L., Andiloro, N. R. and Johnson, B. D., ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: How Does Defendant Race Influence Plea Bargaining?’, Justice Quarterly, 33 (2016), 398–426.Google Scholar
LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., King, N. J. and Kerr, O. S., Criminal Procedure, 4th edn, Eagan, Thomson Reuters (2015).Google Scholar
Langer, M., ‘Rethinking Plea Bargaining: The Practice and Reform of Prosecutorial Adjudication in American Criminal Procedure’, American Journal of Criminal Law, 33 (2006), 223–99.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
McCoy, C., ‘Plea Bargaining as Coercion: The Trial Penalty and Plea Bargaining Reform’, Criminal Law Quarterly, 50 (2005), 67–107.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, C. and Chiricos, T., ‘Race, Plea, and Charge Reduction: An Assessment of Racial Disparities in the Plea Process’, Justice Quarterly, 35 (2018), 223–53.Google Scholar
Meyer-Goßner, L. and Schmitt, B., Strafprozessordnung mit GVG und Nebengesetzen (Beck’sche Kurzkommentare), 61st edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly, England and Wales, January to March 2018 (Annual 2017) (2018), available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720026/ccsq-bulletin-jan-mar-2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Mirza, S., ‘Formalizing the Plea Bargaining Process after Lafler and Frye’, Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 39 (2015), 487–514.Google Scholar
Moldenhauer, G. and Wenske, M., ‘§ 257c’, in Hannich, R. (ed.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 7th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2013).Google Scholar
Natapoff, A., Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice, New York University Press (2009).Google Scholar
National Registry of Exonerations, Exoneration Detail List, available at www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx.Google Scholar
National Registry of Exonerations, Innocents Who Plead Guilty (24 November 2015), available at www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.Guilty.Plea.Article1.pdf.Google Scholar
Niemz, S., Urteilsabsprachen und Opferinteressen – in Verfahren mit Nebenklagebeteiligung, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
O’Hear, M. M., ‘Plea Bargaining and Procedural Justice’, Georgia Law Review, 42 (2008), 407–69.Google Scholar
Peay, J. and Player, E., ‘Pleading Guilty: Why Vulnerability Matters’, Modern Law Review, 81 (2018), 929–57.Google Scholar
Ransiek, A., ‘Zur Urteilsabsprache im Strafprozess: Ein amerikanischer Fall’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 3 (2008), 116–22.Google Scholar
Rauxloh, R., Plea Bargaining in National and International Law, Abingdon, Taylor & Francis (2012).Google Scholar
Richman, D. C., ‘Cooperating Defendants: The Costs and Benefits of Purchasing Information from Scoundrels’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 8 (1996), 292–5.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., ‘Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: Recent Developments and Emerging Issues’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76 (2013), 1–25.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Bradford, B., ‘Sentence Reductions for a Guilty Plea in England and Wales: Exploring New Empirical Trends’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12 (2015), 187–210.Google Scholar
Ross, J. E., ‘The Entrenched Position of Plea Bargaining in United States Legal Practice’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 54 (2006), 717–32.Google Scholar
Schulhofer, S. J., ‘Is Plea Bargaining Inevitable?’, Harvard Law Review, 97 (1984), 1037–107.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘Die Urteilsabsprachen im Strafprozess – ewige Wiederkunft des Gleichen?’, in Zöller, M. A., Hilger, H., Roxin, C. and Küper, W. (eds.), Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft in internationaler Dimension. Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2013), 1107–29.Google Scholar
Sentencing Council, Research to Support the Development of a Guideline for Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea, London (2017), available at www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Guilty-plea-research-report_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C., ‘Plea Bargaining and the Substantive and Procedural Goals of Criminal Justice: From Retribution and Adversarialism to Preventive Justice and Hybrid-Inquisitorialism’, William and Mary Law Review, 57 (2016), 1505–47.Google Scholar
Spohn, C. and Fornango, R., ‘U.S. Attorneys and Substantial Assistance Departures: Testing for Interprosecutor Disparity’, Criminology, 47 (2009), 813–46.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 10 Reihe 3: Rechtspflege Strafverfolgung 2016 (2017), available at www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Rechtspflege/GerichtePersonal/Staatsanwaltschaften2100260167004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.6: Rechtspflege Staatsanwaltschaften 2017 (2018), available at www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Rechtspflege/GerichtePersonal/Staatsanwaltschaften2100260177004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Entscheidungsbesprechung: BVerfG, Urt. v. 19.3.2013’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 8 (2013), 212–19.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Gründe für die Abschaffung des § 153a StPO’, in Herzog, F., Schlothauer, R. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte. Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 369–89.Google Scholar
Thaxton, S., ‘Leveraging Death’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103 (2013), 475–552.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. A., ‘What Happened to the American Jury? Proposals for Revamping Plea Bargaining and Summary Judgment’, Litigation, 43 (2017), 25–30.Google Scholar
Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. P., ‘Punishment and Crime across Space and Time’, Crime & Justice, 33 (2005), 1–39.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Judicial Participation in Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 54 (2006), 199–267.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Prosecutors and Bargaining in Weak Cases: A Comparative View’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Plea Bargaining’, in Luna, E. (ed.), Reforming Criminal Justice, 4 vols., Phoenix, Arizona State University (2017), III, 73–99.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Plea Bargaining and International Criminal Justice’, University of the Pacific Law Review, 48 (2017), 219–47.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘The Decay of the Inquisitorial Ideal: Plea Bargaining Invades German Criminal Procedure’, in Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context. Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška, Oxford University Press (2008), 39–64.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Verfahrenseinstellung nach § 153a StPO: praktikabel, aber nicht legitim’, in Herzog, F., Schlothauer, R. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte. Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 413–25.Google Scholar
Weigend, T. and Turner, J. I., ‘The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany’, German Law Journal, 15 (2014), 81–105.Google Scholar
White, W. S., ‘Proposal for Reform of the Plea Bargaining Process’, 119 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 119 (1971), 439–65.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. S. III, ‘In Defense of American Criminal Justice’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 67 (2014), 1099–172.Google Scholar
Wright, R. F., ‘Trial Distortion and the End of Innocence in Federal Criminal Justice’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154 (2005), 79–156.Google Scholar
Wright, R. F. and Engen, R. L., ‘The Effects of Depth and Distance in a Criminal Code on Charging, Sentencing, and Prosecutor Power’, North Carolina Law Review, 84 (2006), 1935–82.Google Scholar
Wright, R. F. and Miller, M., ‘The Screening/Bargaining Tradeoff’, Stanford Law Review, 55 (2002), 29–118.Google Scholar
Zöller, M. A., ‘§ 172’, in Gercke, B., Julius, K.-P., Temming, D. and Zöller, M. A., Strafprozessordnung. Heidelberger Kommentar, 6th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2019).Google Scholar
Bibliography
Allgayer, P. and Klein, O., ‘Verwendung und Verwertung von Zufallserkenntnissen’, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrecht (2010), 130–3.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, III: International Criminal Procedure, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Amelung, K., Informationsbeherrschungsrechte im Strafprozeß: Dogmatische Grundlagen individualrechtlicher Beweisverbote, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1990).Google Scholar
Amelung, K., ‘Zum Streit über die Grundlagen der Lehre von den Beweisverwertungsverboten’, in Schünemann, B. and Achenbach, H. (eds.), Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 70. Geburtstag am 15. Mai 2001, Berlin, De Gruyter (2001), 1259–81.Google Scholar
Arzt, G., ‘Zum Verhältnis von Strengbeweis und freier Beweiswürdigung’, in Baumann, J. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt des Strafrechts: Festschrift für Karl Peters zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr Paul Siebeck (1974), 223–35.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights’, Criminal Law Review (1977), 723–32.Google Scholar
Augustyn, M., ‘The Irrelevance of Procedural Justice in the Pathways to Crime’, Law and Human Behavior, 39 (2015), 388–401.Google Scholar
Beining, S., ‘Neues zur Widerspruchslösung; Zugleich Anmerkung zu BGH Urt. vom 09.05.18’, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zum Strafrecht (2018), 413–18.Google Scholar
Beling, E., Die Beweisverbote als Grenzen der Wahrheitserforschung im Strafprozess, Breslau, Schletter (1903).Google Scholar
Beulke, W. and Swoboda, S. (eds.), Strafprozessrecht, 14th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2018).Google Scholar
Bockemühl, J., Private Ermittlungen im Strafprozess; Ein Beitrag zu der Lehre zu den Beweisverboten, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1996).Google Scholar
Bradley, C. M., ‘Mapp Goes Abroad’, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 52 (2001), 375–80.Google Scholar
Brodowski, D., Verdeckte technische Überwachungsmaßnahmen im Polizei- und Strafverfahrensrecht, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2016).Google Scholar
Bussche, A. and Voigt, P. (eds.), German Law Accessible: Data Protection in Germany, 2nd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Choo, A. L.-T., ‘England and Wales: Fair Trial Analysis and the Presumed Admissibility of Physical Evidence’, in Thaman, S. C. (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law, Dordrecht, Springer (2013), 331–54.Google Scholar
Cras, A. and Daly, Y. M., ‘Ireland: A Move to Categorical Exclusion?’, in Thaman, S. C. (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law, Dordrecht, Springer (2013), 33–68.Google Scholar
Duff, P., ‘Admissibility of Improperly Obtained Physical Evidence in the Scottish Criminal Trial: The Search for Principle’, Edinburgh Law Review, 8 (2004), 152–76.Google Scholar
Foster, N. and Sule, S. (eds.), German Legal Systems and Laws, 4th edn, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Frase, R. and Weigend, J., ‘German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions?’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 18 (1995), 317–60.Google Scholar
Gaede, K., Fairness als Teilhabe – Das Recht auf konkrete und wirksame Teilhabe durch Verteidigung gemäß Art. 6 EMRK, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2007).Google Scholar
Gleß, S., ‘§ 136’, in Erb, V., Esser, R., Franke, U., Graalmann-Scheerer, K., Hilger, H. and Ignor, A. (eds.), Löwe-Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommentar, IV: §§ 112–136, 26th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007).Google Scholar
Greco, L., ‘Warum gerade Beweisverbot? Ketzerische Bemerkungen zur Figur des Beweisverbots’, in Stein, U., Greco, L., Jäger, C. and Wolter, J. (eds.), Systematik in Strafrechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung, Festschrift für Klaus Rogall zum 70. Geburtstag am 10. August 2018, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2018), 485–515.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. and Ormerod, D., Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
Jäger, C., Beweisverwertung und Beweisverwertungsverbote im Strafprozess, Munich, C. H. Beck (2003).Google Scholar
Jahn, M., Beweiserhebung und Beweisverwertungsverbote im Spannungsfeld zwischen den Garantien des Rechtsstaates und der effektiven Bekämpfung von Kriminalität und Terrorismus, Gutachten C, 67. Deutscher Juristentag, Munich, C. H. Beck (2008).Google Scholar
Jahn, M., ‘Strafverfolgung um jeden Preis? Die Verwertbarkeit rechtswidrig erlangter Beweismittel’, Strafverteidiger-Forum (2011), 117–28.Google Scholar
Jung, H., ‘Zum sozialpsychologischen Gehalt des Formalisierungskonzepts’, in Herzog, F. and Neumann, U. (eds.), Festschrift für Winfried Hassemer, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller Verlag (2010), 73–83.Google Scholar
Kühne, H., Strafprozessrecht: Eine systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Strafverfahrensrechts, 9th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2015).Google Scholar
Küper, W., Die Richteridee der Strafprozessordnung und ihre geschichtlichen Grundlagen, Berlin, De Gruyter (1967).Google Scholar
Landau, P., ‘Die Reichsjustizgesetze von 1879 und die deutsche Rechtseinheit’, in Bundesministerium der Justiz (ed.), Vom Reichsjustizamt zum Bundesministerium der Justiz, Cologne, Bundesanzeiger Verlag (1977).Google Scholar
Landau, P., ‘Das Urteil des zweiten Senats des BVerfG zu den Absprachen im Strafprozess vom 19. März 2013’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 8 (2014), 425–31.Google Scholar
Leipold, K., ‘Form und Umfang des Erklärungsrechts nach § 257 StPO und seine Auswirkungen auf die Widerspruchslösung des Bundesgerichtshofes’, Strafverteidiger-Forum (2001), 300–3.Google Scholar
Lesch, H., ‘Der Beschuldigte im Strafverfahren – über den Begriff und die Konsequenzen der unterlassenen Belehrung’, Juristische Arbeitsblätter (1995), 157–66.Google Scholar
Mahoney, R., ‘Abolition of New Zealand`s Prima Facie, Exclusionary Rule’, Criminal Law Review (September 2003), 607–17.Google Scholar
Neumann, U., Die Wahrheit im Recht: Zu Problematik und Legitimität einer fragwürdigen Denkform, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2004).Google Scholar
Optican, S and Sankoff, P, ‘The New Exclusionary Rule: A Preliminary Assessment of R v Shaheed’, New Zealand Law Review (2003), 1–45.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D, ‘ECHR and the Exclusion of Evidence: Trial Remedies for Article 8 Breaches?’, Criminal Law Review (2003), 61–80.Google Scholar
Öztürk, B. and Wörner, L., ‘Das fernwirkende Beweisverbot im türkischen und im deutschen Strafverfahrensrecht – Zu den Auswirkungen der fruit of the poisonous tree Doktrin im kontinentaleuropäisch geprägten Strafverfahren’, in Gropp, W., Öztürk, B., Sözüer, A. and Wörner, L. (eds.), Die Entwicklung von Rechtssystemen in ihrer gesellschaftlichen Verankerung, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2014).Google Scholar
Packer, H., ‘The Courts, the Police, and the Rest of Us’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 57 (1966), 238–43.Google Scholar
Paternoster, R, Bachman, R, Brame, R and Sherman, L, ‘Do fair Procedures matter? The Effect of Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault’, Law & Society Review, 31 (1997), 163–204.Google Scholar
Peters, K., Beweisverbote im deutschen Strafverfahren, Gutachten A, 46. Deutscher Juristentag, Munich, C. H. Beck (1966).Google Scholar
Reinbacher, T. and Wendel, M., ‘The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s European Arrest Warrant II Decision’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23 (2016), 702–13.Google Scholar
Roach, K., ‘Canada’, in Bradley, C. M. (ed.), Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide Study, 2nd edn, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2007), 57–90.Google Scholar
Rogall, K., ‘Gegenwärtiger Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen der Lehre von den strafprozessualen Beweisverboten’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (1979), 1–44.Google Scholar
Rogall, K., ‘Über die Folgen der rechtswidrigen Beschaffung des Zeugenbeweises im Strafprozeß’, Juristenzeitung (1996), 944–55.Google Scholar
Rogall, K., ‘Zur Lehre von den Beweisverboten’, in Samson, E., Dencker, F., Frisch, P., Frister, H. and Reiß, W. (eds.), Festschrift für Gerald Grünwald zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1999), 523–49.Google Scholar
Rogall, K., ‘Beweiserhebungs- und Beweisverwertungsverbote im Spannungsfeld zwischen den Garantien des Rechtsstaates und der effektiven Bekämpfung von Kriminalität und Terrorismus’, Juristenzeitung (2008), 818–30.Google Scholar
Schubert, W., Die deutsche Gerichtsverfassung 1869–1877: Entstehung und Quellen, Frankfurt/Main, Klostermann (1981).Google Scholar
Singelnstein, T., ‘Strafprozessuale Verwendungsregelungen zwischen Zweckbindungsgrundsatz und Verwertungsverboten’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 120 (2008), 854–94.Google Scholar
Singelnstein, T., ‘Unselbstständige Verwertungsverbote und informationelle Selbstbestimmung’, in Müller, H. E. and Sander, G. (eds.), Festschrift für Ulrich Eisenberg zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich, C. H. Beck (2009), 643–57.Google Scholar
Stark, F. and Leverick, F., ‘Scotland: A Plea for Consistency’, in Thaman, S. C. (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law, Dordrecht, Springer (2013), 69–91.Google Scholar
Störmer, R., Dogmatische Grundlagen der Verwertungsverbote: Eine Untersuchung über die Strukturen strafprozessualer Verwertungsverbote unter dem Einfluß der Verfassung und der Grundsätze des öffentlichen Rechts, Marburg, Elwert Verlag (1992).Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., Comparative Criminal Procedure: A Casebook Approach, 2nd edn, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2008).Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., ‘Balancing Truth against Human Rights: A Theory of Modern Exclusionary Rules’, in Thaman, S. C. (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law, Dordrecht, Springer (2013), 403–15.Google Scholar
Tiedemann, P., ‘The Rechtsstaat-Principle in Germany: The Development from the Beginning until Now’, in Silkenat, J. R., Hickey, J. E. and Barenboim, P. (eds.), The Legal Doctrines of the Rule of Law and the Legal State (Rechtsstaat), Cham, Springer (2014), 171–92.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., ‘What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures’, Law & Society Review, 22 (1988), 103–34.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., ‘Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law’, Crime and Justice, 30 (2003), 283–357.Google Scholar
Vogel, B., ‘The Core Legal Concepts and Principles Defining Criminal Law in Germany’, in Dyson, M. and Vogel, B. (eds.), The Limits of Criminal Law: Anglo-German Concepts and Principles, Cambridge, Intersentia (2018), 39–70.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Law and Truth – Is the Criminal Process about Truth?: A German Perspective’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 26 (2003), 157–74.Google Scholar
Wolter, J., ‘Beweisverbote und Umgehungsverbote zwischen Wahrheitserforschung und Ausforschung’, in Canaris, C., Heldrich, A., Hopt, K., Roxin, C., Schmidt, K. and Widmaier, G. (eds.), 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof, Festgabe aus der Wissenschaft, 4 vols., Munich, C. H. Beck (2000), IV, 965–1009.Google Scholar