Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:20:21.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Questions and Comments on What is Called “The Mental Element of the Offence”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Björn Burkhardt
Get access

Extract

In this paper, I shall address three problems: the question of content and limits of the “mens rea” elements (part II), the controversy over the correct concept of negligence (part III), as well as the problem of “divergence from the intended causal chain” (part IV). In doing so, I will compare the regulations of the Israeli draft Code (the “Israeli Draft”) not only with German law, but also with English and American law. Of course, within the scope of this paper I can neither probe deeply into the subject matter nor address all the important questions related to it.

Before starting with my questions and comments, I would like to make two introductory remarks:

1. First, I have to admit that I am unsure whether I understand correctly the regulations of the Israeli Draft (sec. 19-21, 22, 54). At least three sources of potential misunderstanding exist: first, the English version of the Israeli Draft is a preliminary translation of the Hebrew text. Any translation may shift the meaning of the original and binding Hebrew text. Second, misunderstanding may also result from my rather modest knowledge of the English language.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1-2: Reform of Criminal Law , Spring Winter 1996 , pp. 82 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor of Law, University of Mannheim.

References

Ashworth, Andrew, Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford, 1991).Google Scholar
Binding, Karl, Die Schuld im deutschen Strafrecht. Vorsatz, Irrtum, Fahrlässigkeit (Leipzig, 1919).Google Scholar
Cramer, Peter: in: Schönke, A. / Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar; 24. Aufl. (München, 1991).Google Scholar
Duff, Robin A., Intention, Agency and Criminal Liability: Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law (Oxford, 1990).Google Scholar
Finnis, John, “Intention and Side-Effects”, in Frey, R.G. / Morris, C.W., Liability and Responsibility. Essays in Law and Morals (Cambridge, 1991) pp. 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Wolfgang, Vorsatz und Risiko. Grundfragen des tatbestandsmässigen Verhaltens und des Vorsatzes. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Behandlung aussertatbestandlicher Möglichkeitsvorstellungen (Köln, Berlin, 1983).Google Scholar
Gessler, Theodor, Ueber den Begriff und die Arten des Dolus (Tübingen, 1860).Google Scholar
Honig, Richard M., Entwurf eines amerikanischen Musterstrafgesetzbuches (Berlin, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, Günther, Strafgesetzbuch Allgemeiner Teil. Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre; 2. Aufl. (Berlin, New York, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil; 4. Aufl.; (Berlin, 1988).Google Scholar
Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, “Die Schuld im Entwurf eines Strafgesetzbuches für England und Wales im Vergleich mit dem deutschen Strafrecht”, in Geppert, K. u.a. (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Rudolf Schmitt zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1992) S. 56–76 Google Scholar
Klee, Karl, Der dolus indirectus als Grundform der vorsätzlichen Schuld (Berlin, 1906).Google Scholar
LaFave, Wayne R./Scott, Austin W., Criminal Law (2nd ed., St. Paul, Minn., 1986).Google Scholar
Larenz, Karl, Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft; 6. Aufl. (Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrie, Alan W., “Oblique Intention and Legal Politics” (1989) Crim. L.R. 793–807.Google Scholar
Roxin, Claus, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Bd. I. Grundlagen, der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre; 2. Aufl. (München, 1994).Google Scholar
Samson, Erich, Strafrecht I; 6. Aufl.; (Frankfurt am Main, 1985).Google Scholar
Searle, John R., Intentionality. An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge, London, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sistare, Christine T., Responsibility and Criminal Liability (Dordrecht, Boston, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, John C., “Comment on R. v. Reid” (1992) Crim. L.R. 817–821.Google Scholar
Smith, John C. / Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law. Cases and Materials (5th ed., London, Dublin, 1993).Google Scholar
White, Alan R., Grounds of Liability. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (Oxford, 1985).Google Scholar
Williams, Glanville, “Oblique Intention” (1987) C.L.J. 417–438.Google Scholar