Preface |
|
xiii | |
List of Abbreviations |
|
xiv | |
List of Contributors |
|
xvii | |
Part I Introduction |
|
1 | (14) |
|
|
3 | (12) |
|
|
|
|
|
I The Need for a Comparative Conceptual Analysis |
|
|
3 | (2) |
|
II The Aims and Scope of the Project |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
|
6 | (9) |
Part II Criminal Law |
|
15 | (196) |
|
|
17 | (37) |
|
|
I The Basic Distinction between Act and Omission: Towards a Normative Approach |
|
|
17 | (3) |
|
II Two Forms of Omission: Pure Omission and Commission by Omission |
|
|
20 | (7) |
|
III Commission par Omission: The Duty to Act and Its Foundation |
|
|
27 | (12) |
|
1 Guarantor Duties under Civil Law |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
2 Special Duties under Common Law |
|
|
30 | (4) |
|
3 The Civil and Common Law Approaches Combined |
|
|
34 | (5) |
|
IV Failure to Rescue Liability: The Underlying Normative Assumptions |
|
|
39 | (8) |
|
1 Towards a Convergence of the Common and Civil Law Approach |
|
|
39 | (4) |
|
2 From an Ethical Duty to a Legal Obligation: Solidarity and Conditions of Effective Liberty |
|
|
43 | (2) |
|
3 The Responsibility of the Concrete Assister |
|
|
45 | (2) |
|
|
47 | (7) |
|
|
54 | (40) |
|
|
|
I 'Preparatory Offences': Definition and Importance |
|
|
54 | (4) |
|
II Some Examples of Preparatory Offences |
|
|
58 | (6) |
|
III Why Criminalise Preparatory Offences? |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
IV The Legitimate Boundaries of Preparatory Offences |
|
|
65 | (19) |
|
1 Which Completed Offences? |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
|
67 | (4) |
|
3 Preparatory Offences and Imputation |
|
|
71 | (4) |
|
4 Objectively Non-Dangerous Conduct |
|
|
75 | (3) |
|
5 Culpability and the 'Remoteness Principle' |
|
|
78 | (3) |
|
|
81 | (3) |
|
V How Should Preparatory Offences Be Punished? |
|
|
84 | (3) |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
|
88 | (6) |
|
|
94 | (41) |
|
|
|
94 | (9) |
|
1 Terminology: Primary and Secondary Parties; Unitary and Differentiated Systems |
|
|
96 | (4) |
|
2 Unitary or Differentiated Systems: A Matter of Choice or Structural Necessity? |
|
|
100 | (3) |
|
II Differentiated Liability Systems Compared |
|
|
103 | (19) |
|
|
104 | (8) |
|
|
112 | (5) |
|
3 Particular Issues and Their Resolution |
|
|
117 | (1) |
|
a Can Principal and Secondary Party Be Liable for Different Offences? |
|
|
117 | (1) |
|
b Escalating Violence Cases |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
c Recklessness/Negligence and Secondary Liability |
|
|
120 | (2) |
|
III Developing a Sufficiently Differentiated Liability Model |
|
|
122 | (7) |
|
1 The Mediated Action Paradigm ('Acting through Another') |
|
|
123 | (4) |
|
2 The Concerted Action Paradigm ('Acting with Another') |
|
|
127 | (1) |
|
3 The Parallel Actions Paradigm ('Acting alongside Another') |
|
|
128 | (1) |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
|
130 | (5) |
|
5 Consent in the Law Relating to Sexual Offences |
|
|
135 | (37) |
|
|
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
136 | (5) |
|
III The Limits of Consent |
|
|
141 | (8) |
|
IV Lack of Capacity to Consent |
|
|
149 | (2) |
|
V Factors Vitiating Consent |
|
|
151 | (10) |
|
1 Statutory and Common Law Definitions of Consent |
|
|
152 | (3) |
|
|
155 | (5) |
|
3 Strong Inducements and Non-Violent Threats |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
VI Impact of Intoxication |
|
|
161 | (4) |
|
VII Temporal Aspects of Consent |
|
|
165 | (2) |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
|
168 | (4) |
|
|
172 | (39) |
|
|
|
|
172 | (3) |
|
II Preparation of Terrorism |
|
|
175 | (9) |
|
III Encouraging Terrorism |
|
|
184 | (7) |
|
IV Offences Related to Terrorist Organisations |
|
|
191 | (8) |
|
V Terrorism-Related Possession Offences |
|
|
199 | (5) |
|
|
204 | (2) |
|
|
206 | (5) |
Part III Criminal Justice and Procedure |
|
211 | (248) |
|
7 Proportionality of Punishment in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Germany |
|
|
213 | (48) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
213 | (2) |
|
II Retributive Proportionality Principles |
|
|
215 | (6) |
|
1 Constituent Elements of Common Law Retributive Theory |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
2 Relative (Ordinal) versus Absolute (Cardinal) Retributive Proportionality Principles |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
3 Determining (Positive) versus Limiting (Negative) Retributive Principles |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
4 The Elements of Retribution and Retributive Proportionality in German Sentencing |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
|
219 | (2) |
|
III Consequentialist Proportionality Principles in Common Law Systems and Germany |
|
|
221 | (15) |
|
1 Ends-Benefits (Cost-Benefit) Proportionality Principles |
|
|
222 | (1) |
|
2 Alternative-Means (Necessity) Proportionality Principles |
|
|
222 | (1) |
|
3 Examples of Penalties Violating Ends-Benefits and/or Alternative-Means Principles |
|
|
223 | (1) |
|
4 Consequentialist Elements in German Sentencing Approaches |
|
|
224 | (1) |
|
a Von Liszt (Special Prevention and the Purpose of Security) |
|
|
224 | (1) |
|
i Consequentialist Elements |
|
|
225 | (1) |
|
|
225 | (1) |
|
b Feuerbach (Consequentialist General Prevention) |
|
|
226 | (1) |
|
c The Approaches to Finding Adequate Sentences in Current German Jurisdiction |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
i Historic Development of the German Concept of Punishment |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
|
228 | (1) |
|
iii 'Margin Theory' - Spielraumtheorie - by the German Federal Criminal Court |
|
|
229 | (1) |
|
iv Theory of 'Just Deserts' - Punktstrafetheorie |
|
|
229 | (1) |
|
v Theory of 'Two Levels' - Stellenwerttheorie |
|
|
230 | (1) |
|
d Ultima Ratio (Last Resort) |
|
|
231 | (1) |
|
e Constitutional Proportionality |
|
|
232 | (1) |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
IV How Do Retributive and Consequentialist Proportionality Principles Differ? |
|
|
236 | (3) |
|
1 Ends-Benefits Proportionality Compared to Retributive Proportionality |
|
|
236 | (1) |
|
2 The Alternative-Means Principle - Does It Have a Retributive Counterpart? |
|
|
237 | (2) |
|
V How Have Common Law Systems Incorporated Proportionality Principles? |
|
|
239 | (6) |
|
VI How Has the German System Incorporated Proportionality Principles? A Quest for Broader Theory of Proportionality in German Legal Theory? |
|
|
245 | (3) |
|
1 Retributive Proportionality/'Just Deserts' |
|
|
245 | (1) |
|
2 Offence-Related Proportionality (von Hirsch/Hornle) |
|
|
246 | (1) |
|
3 Consequentialist Proportionality |
|
|
247 | (1) |
|
VII Can All Proportionality Principles Be Recognised in a Single Punishment Model? |
|
|
248 | (3) |
|
1 Retributivism and Consequentialism |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
2 Adding German Limiting Principles |
|
|
249 | (2) |
|
VIII Possible Challenges on the Way to a Coherent Model of Proportionality in Sentencing |
|
|
251 | (3) |
|
1 The Common Law Perspective |
|
|
251 | (1) |
|
|
252 | (1) |
|
a Losing Legitimacy Due to a Lack of 'Special Prevention'? |
|
|
252 | (1) |
|
b Roll-Back into the Offender-Focused Perspective: Losing the Limits |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
c Focusing on the Public - the Offender as an Instrument of Excessive General Prevention |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
d Losing Legitimacy Due to a Lack of 'General Prevention'? |
|
|
254 | (1) |
|
|
254 | (2) |
|
|
256 | (5) |
|
8 Criminal History Enhancements at Sentencing |
|
|
261 | (43) |
|
|
|
|
261 | (4) |
|
II Prior Record Enhancements and Sentencing Theories |
|
|
265 | (16) |
|
1 Preventive Sentencing Theories |
|
|
266 | (1) |
|
a Types of Preventive Theories |
|
|
266 | (1) |
|
|
266 | (1) |
|
|
272 | (4) |
|
2 Retributive Perspectives |
|
|
276 | (5) |
|
III The Need for Guidance: The Complexity of a Criminal Record |
|
|
281 | (1) |
|
IV Representative Statutory and Guidelines Approaches to Structuring Discretion Regarding Previous Convictions |
|
|
282 | (4) |
|
1 Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines |
|
|
282 | (2) |
|
2 Statutory Provisions Relating to Prior Convictions |
|
|
284 | (2) |
|
3 Judicially Derived Guidance |
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
|
286 | (6) |
|
1 Age of Prior Offences: The Long-Playing Criminal Record |
|
|
287 | (4) |
|
2 The Seriousness of Prior Convictions |
|
|
291 | (1) |
|
3 The Similarity of Prior Convictions |
|
|
292 | (1) |
|
|
292 | (4) |
|
|
296 | (8) |
|
|
304 | (39) |
|
|
Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg |
|
|
|
304 | (1) |
|
II Due Process in England and Wales |
|
|
305 | (20) |
|
1 Due Process and the Citizen-State Relationship |
|
|
305 | (3) |
|
2 The Historical Development of Due Process |
|
|
308 | (1) |
|
3 Due Process Values, Principles and Rights |
|
|
309 | (8) |
|
|
317 | (1) |
|
a 'Procedural Justice' and the Public Legitimation of State Power |
|
|
317 | (1) |
|
b Substantive Due Process |
|
|
319 | (2) |
|
5 Evasions and Erosions of Due Process |
|
|
321 | (3) |
|
|
324 | (1) |
|
III 'Due Process' in Germany |
|
|
325 | (11) |
|
1 Historical and Conceptual Background |
|
|
325 | (1) |
|
|
326 | (1) |
|
b Justizformigkeit and the Nineteenth-Century Rechtsstaat |
|
|
328 | (1) |
|
c Rechtsstaat as a Constitutional Principle and its Procedural Implications |
|
|
330 | (2) |
|
2 Core Principles and Rules |
|
|
332 | (1) |
|
a The Constitutional Duty to Prosecute and Punish |
|
|
333 | (1) |
|
b ...in a Constitutional Manner |
|
|
333 | (1) |
|
|
334 | (2) |
|
|
336 | (7) |
|
10 The Role of the Prosecutor |
|
|
343 | (46) |
|
|
|
|
343 | (1) |
|
II The Role of the Prosecutor: Ethical Framework |
|
|
344 | (9) |
|
|
345 | (3) |
|
|
348 | (3) |
|
3 Prosecutorial Misconduct |
|
|
351 | (2) |
|
III The Role of the Prosecutor: Normative Framework |
|
|
353 | (23) |
|
1 The Conceptualisation of the Normative Framework Beyond the Adversarial/Inquisitorial Divide |
|
|
353 | (2) |
|
2 Institutional Comparisons |
|
|
355 | (1) |
|
a The Prosecutor in the United States from an Institutional Perspective |
|
|
355 | (1) |
|
b The Prosecutor in England and Wales from an Institutional Perspective |
|
|
359 | (1) |
|
c The Prosecutor in Germany from an Institutional Perspective and Comparative Remarks |
|
|
363 | (4) |
|
3 Prosecutorial Decision-Making |
|
|
367 | (1) |
|
a Official Decision-Making |
|
|
367 | (1) |
|
b Opportunity Principle vs. Legality Principle |
|
|
368 | (1) |
|
c Abbreviated Criminal Proceedings and the Paramount Role of the Prosecutor |
|
|
372 | (4) |
|
|
376 | (3) |
|
|
379 | (10) |
|
11 Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States |
|
|
389 | (39) |
|
|
|
|
389 | (1) |
|
II Scope and Regulation of Bargaining Procedures in the United States, England and Germany |
|
|
390 | (18) |
|
1 Adversarial Influences on Bargaining: United States and England |
|
|
391 | (1) |
|
a Bargaining in the United States |
|
|
394 | (1) |
|
b Bargaining in England and Wales |
|
|
396 | (4) |
|
2 Inquisitorial Influences on Bargaining: Germany |
|
|
400 | (1) |
|
a Principles Limiting Bargaining |
|
|
400 | (1) |
|
b Instances of Bargaining |
|
|
402 | (1) |
|
c Sentence Bargaining at the Trial Stage |
|
|
403 | (4) |
|
3 The European Court of Human Rights and Bargaining |
|
|
407 | (1) |
|
III Evaluating Bargaining Procedures |
|
|
408 | (8) |
|
IV Regulating Bargaining and Alternatives to Bargaining |
|
|
416 | (5) |
|
|
421 | (1) |
|
|
422 | (6) |
|
12 Exclusion or Non-Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Process: Focus on Common Law and German Approaches |
|
|
428 | (31) |
|
|
|
|
428 | (1) |
|
II The Rule or the Exception? On the Use of Evidence in the Criminal Trial |
|
|
429 | (9) |
|
1 Does the Inclusion/Use or the Exclusion/Non-Use of Evidence Require Justification? |
|
|
429 | (1) |
|
2 Exclusion of Evidence as a Limitation on Law Enforcement and the Search for the Truth |
|
|
430 | (2) |
|
3 Evolution of Exclusionary Rules in the Common Law |
|
|
432 | (2) |
|
4 Systematisation of Exclusionary Rules |
|
|
434 | (1) |
|
a Obtaining or Using Evidence |
|
|
434 | (1) |
|
b Long-Term or Limited Effects |
|
|
436 | (1) |
|
c Written or Unwritten Rules |
|
|
436 | (1) |
|
d Balancing Test or Strict Exclusion |
|
|
437 | (1) |
|
|
437 | (1) |
|
III Balancing of Factors in Deciding on Admissibility or Exclusion of Evidence |
|
|
438 | (19) |
|
1 Balancing Tests Relating to the Exclusion of Evidence: The Common Law Perspective |
|
|
438 | (1) |
|
|
438 | (1) |
|
b Balancing under a 'Fair Trial' Model |
|
|
439 | (1) |
|
c Was the Violation of Constitutional Magnitude? |
|
|
441 | (1) |
|
d Was the Violation Serious or Forgivable? - On 'Policing the Police' |
|
|
442 | (1) |
|
e Balancing the Quality or Importance of the Evidence |
|
|
445 | (1) |
|
f The Gravity of the Crime Which Is Being Prosecuted |
|
|
446 | (1) |
|
g Preserving the Integrity of the Courts |
|
|
446 | (1) |
|
h The Public Impact of the Admissibility Decision |
|
|
447 | (1) |
|
2 Balancing Tests Relating to the Non-Use of Evidence: The German Perspective |
|
|
448 | (1) |
|
|
448 | (1) |
|
b Justifying the Inclusion of Evidence |
|
|
449 | (1) |
|
c Justifying the Non-Use of Evidence |
|
|
450 | (1) |
|
|
451 | (1) |
|
e Obligation to Object or Requirement of Consent? |
|
|
453 | (1) |
|
3 (Dis-)Similarities and Lessons to Be Learned |
|
|
454 | (3) |
|
IV Towards a Moral and Legal High Ground in Criminal Justice |
|
|
457 | (2) |
Bibliography |
|
459 | (4) |
Index |
|
463 | |