No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Dogmatic Structure of Criminal Liability in the General Part of the Draft Israeli Penal Code — A Comparsion with German Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Extract
Initially I was taken aback at the request that I express my views on the most important aspects of the general part of the draft Israeli penal code, because the draft contains Anglo-American legal concepts, such as “strict liability” and “mens rea”, which are unknown in Continental-European criminal law. At second glance, however, something quite different came to my attention; namely, that the contents of the draft reflect, to a large extent, the European legal tradition even though the terminology is in part quite different, and even though the draft only partly corresponds to the present dogmatic structures of the European legal system. Some of the passages almost sound like summaries of a middle-European textbook on criminal law. At the outset I want to offer my opinion on the draft: it is a good draft, up to the level of international discussion. It even sets out important parts of the general principles of liability much more precisely than does the German Criminal Code. Many of the draft's solutions are, of course, open to debate, but precisely for that reason we are assembled here.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Israel Law Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1-2: Reform of Criminal Law , Spring Winter 1996 , pp. 60 - 81
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996
Footnotes
*
Professor of Law, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
References
1 See Roxin, AT 1 = Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Band 1, (1992) § 3 Rn. 46 ff.Google Scholar with further references.
2 See Schmid, , Strafverfahren und Strafrecht in den Vereinigten Staaten (2nd ed., 1993) 186 ff.Google Scholar
3 LK11-Roxin = Leipziger Kommentar, (11th ed., 1993) vor § 26 Rn. 23 ff.Google Scholar
4 BGHSt 7, 363 = Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen, Band 7, p. 363 Google Scholar.
5 For in depth treatment see Roxin, AT 1, § 12, Rn. 21 ff. with further references in n. 32.
6 See, e.g., Schmidhäuser, , Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Lehrbuch (2nd ed., 1975) 10/89 ffGoogle Scholar. with further citations; critical Roxin, AT 1, § 12, Rn. 39 ff.
7 Roxin, AT 1, § 24, Rn. 34 ff., 110 ff. with further references.
8 LK11-Roxin, § 25, Rn. 179 ff. with further references.
9 Roxin, , Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft, p. 352 ff., 651 ff.Google Scholar; Roxin, LK11, § 25, Rn. 37 ff., 134 ff., both with further citations.
10 Roxin, ibid., at 212 ff., 639 ff.; Roxin, LKII § 25, Rn. 96 ff.
11 BGHSt 35, 347.
12 See Roxin, supra n. 9, at 193 ff., 637 ff.; Roxin, LK11, § 25, Rn. 83 ff.; both with further citations.
13 LK11-Roxin, § 26, Rn. 3ff., 58 ff.
14 LK11-Roxin, § 27, Rn. 2.
15 LK11-Roxin, § 27, Rn. 1 ff. with further citations.
16 See Eser, and Fletcher, , eds., Justification and Excuse, Vols. 1 and II, (1987/1988)Google Scholar.
17 See Roxin, AT1, § 8 with further citations.
18 Schaffstein, , “Strafmundigkeit ab 16 Jahren?”, in Festschrift fur Schuler-Springorum, (1993) 371 Google Scholar; Frehsee, , “Strafreife—Reife des Jugendlichen oder Reife der Gesellschaft?” in Festschrift fur Schuler-Springorum, (1993)Google Scholar.
19 See Roxin, AT 1, § 20, Rn. 36 ff.
20 See Roxin, AT 1, § 20, Rn. 55 ff.
21 Roxin, AT 1, § 23, Rn. 8 ff. with further citations.
22 Münchener Habilitationsschrift, (1985).
23 Roxin, AT 1, § 15, Rn. 35 ff. with further citations.
24 Roxin, AT 1, § 15, Rn. 40
25 See Roxin, AT 1, § 21, Rn. 70
26 For an in-depth discussion of consent and presumed consent see Roxin, AT 1, §§ 13 and 18 A.
27 The issue in German law is addressed by Roxin, AT 1, § 23, Rn 58, 59.
28 In this vein see Roxin, AT1, § 21, Rn. 38, 39, 50 ff.