No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Comparisons within the field of sanctions have a long established tradition. Yet, at the same time, they are of a particular difficulty. In our search for the standards governing the system of sanctions we are referred to the general standards of civilization and culture. Perhaps, more than anything else in the criminal justice system, sanctions form part of the cultural pattern of society and, in turn, help creating or reinforcing a particular social pattern. As Garland puts it: “Punishment is one of the many institutions which help construct and support the social world by producing the shared categories and authoritative classifications through which individuals understand each other and themselves”. The particular cultural orientation and ambiance of sanctions do not allow for the light-handed transplant of elements of the system of sanctions from one jurisdiction to another. On the other hand, within a field of law which is, to put it mildly, not exactly characterized by an overflow of solutions and categories, an international and cross-cultural exchange of information has always been considered indispensable for the development of one's own system. Moreover, the concept of Human Rights has come to operate as a cross-cultural yardstick of comparison despite continuing discussion about its universalizability. Notwithstanding existing cross-cultural and individual differences, the measure of pain which States may impose on an individual in reaction to an offence is a matter of universal concern.
Professor of Law, Universität des Saarlandes.
1 Garland, D., Punishment and Modern Society (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990) 251s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Cf. as to the question of universalizability of the human rights concept Cassese, A., Human Rights in a Changing World (Polity Press, Cambridge/Oxford, 1990) 51 s.Google Scholar; Jung, H., Sanktionensysteme und Menschenrechte, (Haupt, Bern, 1992) 44 Google Scholar; Wachsmann, , Les Droits de l'Homme, (Dalloz, Paris, 1992) 35 s.Google Scholar; Rouland, , Aux confins du droit, (Odile Jacob, Paris, 1991) 1216.Google Scholar
3 Müller-Dietz, H., Erfahrungen mit dem Strafvollzugsgesetz, Bitburger Gespräche, Jahrbuch 1986/2, (Beck, München, 1988) 27 Google Scholar, at 40.
4 There are, of course, notable exceptions, such as Stree, W., Deliktsfolgen und Grundgesetz, (1962)Google Scholar; Müller-Dietz, H., Strafe und Staat, (Klostermann, Frankfurt a.M., 1973)Google Scholar; Tiedemann, K., Verfassungsrecht und Strafrecht (Müller, Heidelberg, 1991)Google Scholar; Salas, D., Etat et droit pénal. Droits Nr. 15, (1992) 77 Google Scholar; Kremnitzer, M., “Constitutional Principles and Criminal Law”, (1993) 27 Is. L. R. 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Cf. as to implications from the point of legal theory Mazzarese, T., Judicial Implementation of Fundamental Rights. Rechtstheorie, Beiheft 15 (Duncker Humblot, Berlin, 1993) 203.Google Scholar
6 Up to Nov. 1994, the Protocol has been ratified by 23 member states.
7 Series A. Nr. 161. For its repercussions on international criminal law, e.g., Sheleff, L., “The ‘Penological Exception’ to Extradition: On Ultimate Penalties, Human Rights and International Relations”, (1993) 27 Is. L.R. 203.Google Scholar
8 Series A, Nr. 26, § 31.
9 BVerfGE 35, 202 (235 s.); BVerfGE 45, 187 (238 s.).
10 Cf. e.g., BVerfGE 22, 180 (219).
11 As to this maxim cf. BVerfGE 39, 1 at p. 42, 46 s.
12 Cf. as to recent developments in the USA the remarkable overview by Tulkens, F., “Les transformations du droit pénal aux Etats-Unis,” (1993) Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé 219.Google Scholar
13 Cf. inter alia Recommendation No. R (92) 17 of the Council of Europe on Consistency in Sentencing; dealt with by Jung, , “Die Empfehlungen des Europarates zur Strafzumessung,” in: Festschrift für Miyazawa, (Nomos, Baden-Baden, 1995) 437.Google Scholar
14 Jung, supra n. 2, at 203.
15 As to the specific constitutional issues relating to such measures e.g., Kaiser, , Befinden sich die kriminalrechtlichen Massregeln in der Krise?, (Müller, Heidelberg, 1990) 4.Google Scholar
16 BVerfGE 70, 297.
17 Case of Megyeri v. Germany, Series A No 237-A.
18 418 U.S. 539, 555 s. (1974).
19 Delmas-Marty, M., Les grands systèmes de politique criminelle, (P.U.F., Paris, 1992) 379.Google Scholar
20 Such considerations are in line with the fairness requirement addressed by von Hirsch, A. and Maher, L., “Should Penal Rehabilitation be Revived?,” (1992) 11 Criminal Justice Ethics 25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 27, in their critical appraisal of the revival of treatment.
21 Martinson, R., “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform” (1974) 35 Public Interest 22.Google Scholar Cf. the re-appraisal at the 20th Criminological Research Conference on “Psychosocial Intervention in the Criminal Justice System” staged by the Council of Europe in November 1993. The reports presented to that conference have been published in 1995 by the Council of Europe. For a critique of Martinson's position see also Mair, G., What Works — Nothing or Everything? (Home Office Research and Statistics Department, Research Bulletin No. 30, HMSO, London, 1991) 1.Google Scholar
22 They have been the focus of attention at the 19th Criminological Research Conference of the Council of Europe on the New Social Strategies in November 1990 (The relevant reports have been published by the Council of Europe in 1994).
23 Cf. Jung, supra n. 2, at 129.
24 It also includes the so-called Ordnungswidrigkeiten as a “penal matter” in the sense of Art. 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
25 For an example of this cf. Jung, H., “Rückwirkungsverbot und Massregel,” in Festschrift für Wassermann, (Luchterhand, Neuwied and Darmstadt, 1985) 875 Google Scholar, an exercise in applying the non-retroactivity rule to measures.
26 See Baumann, J. u.a., Alternativ-Entwurf Wiedergutmachung (AE-WGM) (1992)Google Scholar; Roxin, C., “Die Wiedergutmachung im System der Strafzwecke,” in Schöch, (ed.), Wiedergutmachung und Strafrecht, (1987) 37.Google Scholar
27 BVerfGE 45, 187. The legitimacy of long-term incarceration has been put into question by Jung, and Müller-Dietz, (eds.), Lange Freiheitsstrafe — wie lange noch? (Forum Verlag Godesberg, Bonn, 1994)Google Scholar.
28 Criticized for being too vague from a just desert point of view by von Hirsch, A. and Jareborg, N., Strafmass und Strafgerechtigkeit. Die deutsche Strafzumessungslehre und das Prinzip der Tatproportionalität (Forum Verlag Godesberg, Bonn, 1991) 53.Google Scholar
29 Cf. Jung, supra n. 2, at 213.
30 I am grateful to Prof. Wolfgang Heinz (Konstanz) for having provided me with the statistical material.
31 Cf. Bottoms, A., “Reflections on the Renaissance of Dangerousness”, (1977) Howard J. of Penology and Crime Prevention 70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 88.
32 Schöch, , Empfehlen sich Änderungen und Erganzungen bei den strafrechtlichen Sanktionen ohne Freiheitsentzug?, Verh. 59 (DJT, Beck, München, 1992) Bd. I, C28.Google Scholar
33 BVerfG, NJW 1992, 2947.
34 Cf. W. Hassemer in Die Zeit of Dec. 3, 1993, p. 7.
35 Even the Neue Züricher Zeitung of Dec. 19/20, 1993, p. 23, could not resist it in its article on “Kriminalität — mehr als ein Wahlkampfthema”.
36 Kunz, K.L., Die Verbrechensfurcht als Gegenstand und Faktor der Kriminalpolitik (MschrKrim, 1983) 162.Google Scholar