§ 3 Nineteenth Century Developments

Vormbaum, Thomas; Bohlander, Michael

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37273-5_3

Thomas Vormbaum³ &
Michael Bohlander⁴

1281 Accesses

Abstract

As set out in § 1, this chapter intends to trace how the principles put forward at the beginning of the legal-historical period were put into practice and developed further.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 39.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Naucke, Materieller Verbrechensbegriff, p. 269 ff.
2.
Whether the material definition of crime only defines the outer limits of state punitive force, or whether it also establishes a duty to punish, is another question. Kant’s understanding of criminal law as a categorical imperative can only be understood as the latter. On the attempt to establish a different understanding, see below § 7, at the end of the afterword.
3.
Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 22 ff.
4.
Feuerbach, Lehrbuch, § 22, (p. 46) (emphases in the original); cf. also Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 34.
5.
Feuerbach, Lehrbuch, § 22 footnote 2 (p. 48). Feuerbach singles out the draft of a Bavarian Criminal Code created during the Restoration period (1822) as a “shocking example” of such legislation; however, it did not become law.
6.
Excerpt in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 148 ff.
7.
Thus also Knut Amelung, J.M.F. Birnbaums Lehre vom strafrechtlichen “Güter”-Schutz als Übergang vom naturrechtlichen zum positivistischen Rechtsdenken, in: Diethelm Klippel (Ed.), Naturrecht im 19. Jahrhundert. Goldbach 1997, p. 349 ff., 354.
8.
Frommel, Präventionsmodelle, p. 155.
9.
Naucke, Verbrechensbegriff, p. 280 f.
10.
Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 49, 50.
11.
Thus also Silva Sanchez, Expansion, p. 62 ff.; in 1972, Amelung already pointed out the arbitrariness of the doctrine of protected legal interests: “It is doubtful whether those who have recently placed the reform of criminal law relating to sexual offences under the aegis of protected interests are in fact aware that the theory of an infringement of legal interests was introduced to serve a restorative purpose, particularly in this precise area. The term ‘interest’ is so broad that it covers everything Birnbaum would like to see protected by the state: human beings and morals, objects and fear of God”; Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 47.
12.
On Southern German so-called early constitutionalism (Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, Hesse) see Huber, Verfassungsgeschichte I, p. 314 ff.; also for an overview of the constitutions pertaining to the estates of the realm in the states of the German Confederation.
13.
Recently discussed in Rüdiger Safranski, Romantik. Eine deutsche Affäre, Munich 2007, particularly p. 172 ff.; the emancipation of the Jews, which had made significant progress at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century, suffered setbacks in consequence of the changes made during the period after 1815; see Vormbaum, Judeneid, p. 214 ff. incl. references.
14.
On Friedrich Carl von Savigny Stintzing/Landsberg, III, 2 (text volume), particularlyp. 185–253; Franz Wieacker, Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit. 2nd edition. Göttingen 1967, particularly p. 381 ff.; Senn, Rechtsgeschichte, p. 331 ff.; Wolf, Rechtsdenker, p. 467 ff.; Iris Denneler, Karl Friedrich von Savigny (Preußische Köpfe 17). Berlin 1985.
15.
Friedrich Carl von Savigny, Vom Beruf unserer Zeit zur Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft, in: Jacques Stern (Ed.), Thibaut und Savigny (1914). Newly edited by Hans Hattenhauer. Munich 1973, p. 79.
16.
Worthy of singling out from the extensive literature on Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaier’s biography and a general appraisal of his work are: Landwehr, Mittermaier, op. cit., as well as the 200th anniversary conference proceedings edited by Wilfried Küper with contributions among others by: Frommel, Küper, Maiwald, Müller-Dietz, Naucke, Schlosser, Schulz. Heidelberg 1987; further, Götz Landwehr, Karl Joseph Anton Mittermaier (1787–1867). Ein Professorenleben in Heidelberg, in: Wilfried Küper (Ed.) Heidelberger Strafrechtslehrer im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg 1986, p. 69 ff.; Klaus Lüderssen, Karl Joseph Anton Mittermaier und der Empirismus in der Strafrechtswissenschaft, ibid., p. 101 ff.
17.
Of course this greater clarity, to put it in modern terms, is the result of a reduction in complexity, and is furthermore subject to the conditions of the “hermeneutic circle” (cf. § 1 II. 1. b).
18.
On this cf. Hans Rosenberg, Theologischer Rationalismus und vormärzlicher Vulgärliberalismus, in: Id., Politische Denkströmungen im deutschen Vormärz. Göttingen 1972, p. 18 ff.
19.
Excerpt of his text directed primarily against Feuerbach “Über die Grundfehler der Behandlung des Kriminalrechts” of 1819 in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 122 ff.
20.
References in the works listed under footnote 16.
21.
Martin Fleckenstein, Die Todesstrafe im Werk Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaiers (1787–1867). Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte eines Werkbereichs und seiner Bedeutung für Theorie- und Methodenbildung. Frankfurt am Main 1991.
22.
Mittermaier is seen as one of the “fathers” of comparative law, cf. Konrad Zweigert/Hein Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung. 3rd edition. Tübingen 1996, p. 54 ff.; Landwehr, Mittermaier (as in footnote 16), p. 97 f.—However, Feuerbach had already undertaken in-depth study of comparative law as part of a planned “universal history of law”; on this, cf. Radbruch, Feuerbach, p. 190 ff.
23.
Karl Marx, The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law (1842), in: Marx/Engels Collected Works. Vol. 2. Moscow 1975, p. 203.
24.
Schiller, Wallenstein’s Death, Act 1, Scene 4. The time frame of course has been shifted (the original has “Sterling tomorrow, for today ‘twas sterling!”).
25.
Frommel, Präventionsmodelle, p. 153 ff., pleads for greater understanding for Mittermaier’s position, as she sees its results as not far removed from those of Feuerbach.
26.
For an extensive and differentiated discussion of this, see Neh, Posthume Auflagen.
27.
Cf. the contribution published in 1819, during Feuerbach’s lifetime (above footnote 19). Mittermaier’s preface to the first edition he revised (the 12th) is one long criticism of Feuerbach’s textbook and of its author’s position: “[…] His textbook is no less flawed, in that his theory of criminal law, which cannot be justified, affected every single theory; that the aspect of the infringement of rights, which he made the basis of every crime, led him to an unsuitable systematic order of crimes and to erroneous points of what was punishable for individual crimes” (p. III f.). In the preface to the 14th edition, Mittermaier writes: “[…] The editor, who fully acknowledges of the difficulty of adapting the notes on the work of an author, with whose basic principles the editor disagrees […]” (p. XIV f.).
28.
Neh, Posthume Auflagen, p. 38 ff.; on Feuerbach’s comparative work, see footnote 21 above.
29.
Neh, Posthume Auflagen, p. 60 ff.
30.
In the preface to the first edition he revised (the 12th), Mittermaier himself writes: “After Feuerbach’s death, when the publisher requested that I edit this work, it was my intention to completely revise it”. But even collecting the materials for such a textbook would have gone far beyond its scope, for “it was desirable to reprint Feuerbach’s book, which is so widespread among practitioners” (p. V f.).
31.
On this, cf. Landwehr, Mittermaier (as in footnote 16), p. 99: “31 independent works, many containing several volumes, and more than 600 essays”.
32.
Even in the last (14th) edition of Feuerbach’s textbook, Mittermaier states that he, the editor, had hoped to “present the readers with a textbook of his own instead of the revision of the 14th edition of Feuerbach. Many distractions” however “prevented him from undertaking this project”. In the nearly 20 further years of his life, Mittermaier failed to produce a textbook on criminal law; Landwehr, op. cit., p. 93.
33.
Frommel, Präventionsmodelle, p. 155, points out that Birnbaum’s essay was basically not quoted for decades, not even by his teacher Mittermaier.
34.
Ko¨stlin, System, § 13, reproduced in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 169.
35.
Karl Binding, Die Normen und ihre Übertretung. Eine Untersuchung über die rechtmäßigen Handlungen und die Arten des Delikts. Vol. I. 2nd edition. Leipzig 1890, p. 339 ff.; on this, cf. Felix Herzog, Gesellschaftliche Unsicherheit und strafrechtliche Daseinsvorsorge. Studien zur Vorverlegung des Strafrechtsschutzes in den Gefährdungsbereich. Heidelberg 1990, p. 10 ff.
36.
See also Amelung, Rechtsgüterschutz, p. 52.
37.
Amelung, who has examined and analysed the history of the idea of protected legal interests as no other, draws the conclusion to use it only in this second sense; see most recently Amelung, Der Begriff des Rechtsguts in der Lehre vom strafrechtlichen Rechtsgüterschutz, in: Roland Hefendehl/Andrew von Hirsch/Wolfgang Wohlers (Eds.), Die Rechtsgutstheorie. Legitimationsbasis des Strafrechts oder dogmatisches Glasperlenspiel? Baden-Baden 2003, p. 155 ff., 159 ff.
38.
On the legal-philosophical points of departure see Müller, Generalprävention, p. 57 ff.
39.
Excerpt in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 19 ff.; then the following page references in the text. For an extensive discussion of Fichte’s theory of criminal law, see Rainer Zaczyk, Das Strafrecht in der Rechtslehre J.G. Fichtes. Berlin 1981; see also Daniela Tafani, Recht, Zwang und Strafe bei Fichte, in: JJZG 9 (2007/2008), p. 267 ff.
40.
J.J. Rousseau, Du contrat social, Chapter 5; excerpt in Vormbaum, StrD, p. 116 ff.
41.
This becomes clear in the following passage, where he writes: “The claim that it is (whether stated explicitly or through propositions that implicitly presuppose such a premise, e.g. the unmodified, categorical proposition that ‘he who killed, must die’) makes no sense” (p. 228).
42.
Müller, Generalprävention, p. 63.—The similarities between Fichte’s remarks on how punishments might be executed and the Prussian “General Plan” for the execution of punishments presented only a few years later (on this, see § 3 IV. 2. below) are striking.
43.
Translator’s note: standard editions translate the German “Recht” in the title of this work as “right”, but in this context “law” seems more appropriate. References are nonetheless made to translations using ‘Right’.
44.
On Hegel’s theory of criminal law, see Ossip K. Flechtheim, Hegels Strafrechtstheorie. Brno 1936 (Reprint Berlin 1975); Kurt Seelmann, Hegels Strafrechtslehre in seinen “Gundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts”, JuS 1979, 687 ff.; Naucke/Harzer, Rechtsphilosophische Grundbegriffe, p. 79 ff.; Daniela Tafani, Pena e libertà in Hegel, in: Carla De Pascale (Ed.), La civetta di Minerva. Studi di filosofia politica tra Kant e Hegel. Pisa (Edizione ETS) 2007, p. 197 ff.; on individual aspects of his theory of criminal law, see Klesczewski, Hegels Straftheorie; further references in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 365.
45.
Translator’s note: Hegel uses the German word aufgehoben, which combines the meanings of “eliminated” and “lifted up”.
46.
It can even be said—with what only appears to be a paradox: Justice produces injustice; Flechtheim, p. 93.
47.
Of course, this brief sketch represents a gross simplification of Hegel’s thought. A more precise account of Hegel’s differentiated thoughts on levels of injustice can be found in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 137 ff.: unprejudiced injustice, deception, crime—this three-part division has not been able to establish itself; particularly the term “deception”, which differs completely from usual terminology, has suffered general rejection; on this, see Flechtheim, p. 78 f.
48.
Hegel, Philosophy of Right, § 104, p. 131; see also Flechtheim, p. 84 f.
49.
Hegel, Philosophy of Right, § 99, addition.
50.
Op. cit., § 101, p. 129 f.
51.
Naucke/Harzer, Rechtsphilosophische Grundbegriffe, p. 88 f.
52.
Naucke, Einfluss Kants, esp. p. 144 ff.
53.
Ibid., p. 149.
54.
On this, see Loenig, ZStW 3 (1883), p. 219 ff., p. 349.
55.
On Abegg, see Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 269 (p. 297 ff.); Müller, Generalprävention, p. 224 ff.; in general, Stintzing/Landsberg, Geschichte III, 2, p. 669 ff.
56.
On Berner, see Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 270 (p. 299 ff.); Stintzing/Landsberg, Geschichte III, 2, p. 680 ff.; on his textbook of criminal law see Radbruch, Drei Strafrechtslehrbücher, op. cit., p. 13 ff.
57.
On Köstlin, see Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 268 (p. 295 ff.); Stintzing/Landsberg, Geschichte III, 2, p. 672 ff.; Müller, Generalprävention, p. 229 ff.; see also the excerpt in Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 165 ff.
58.
On Hälschner, see Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 271 (p. 301 ff.); Stintzing/Landsberg, Geschichte, III, 2, p. 669 ff.
59.
Müller, Generalprävention, p. 138.
60.
On this, see the references in the preceding footnotes.
61.
Schreiber, Gesetz und Richter, p. 121 ff., 124 ff.
62.
Schreiber, Gesetz und Richter, p. 169 ff., Binding’s followers and opponents are also presented here (p. 174 ff.).
63.
For more detail, see Gernot Schubert, Feuerbachs Entwurf zu einem Strafgesetzbuch für das Königreich Bayern aus dem Jahre 1824. Berlin 1978.
64.
On this, see the collected contributions of Friedrich Schaffstein, Abhandlungen zur Strafrechtsgeschichte. Aalen 1986 (including on homicide, lèse majesté, robbery and blackmail, coercion, fraud and the development of a system of offences).
65.
See e.g. on the doctrine of attempt Sergio Seminara, Versuchsproblematik, op. cit., with many quotes from contemporary literature; on the doctrine of secondary participation, where under the influence of French law the doctrine of intellectual authorship was gradually replaced by the three-part division of principal offender, abetting and aiding still valid today, see Raimund Hergt, Die Lehre von der Teilnahme am Verbrechen. Heidelberg 1909; an overview is provided in Dennis Miller, Die Beteiligung am Verbrechen nach italienischem Recht. Frankfurt am Main 2006, p. 64 ff.; on derivative omission offences see Manfred Seebode, Zur gesetzlichen Bestimmtheit des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts, in: Festschrift für Günter Spendel (1992), p. 317 ff.
66.
On this in reference to territorial legislation, see II. below.
67.
Arguing against the opinion that this innovation is due to the influence of the famous 1782 essay by Hanns Ernst v. Globig and Johann Georg Huster, Abhandlung von der Criminal-Gesetzgebung, Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 39 f.; on the essay by Globig/Huster Stefani Schmidt, Die Abhandlung von der Criminal-Gesetzgebung von Hanns Ernst von Globig und Johann Georg Huster. Berlin 1990.
68.
More detail in Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 48 ff.; A. Hartmann, Majestätsbeleidigung, p. 11 ff. A collection of pertinent texts, including by Globig/Huster, Kleinschrod, Feuerbach, can be found in Friedrich-Christian Schroeder (Hrsg.), Texte zur Theorie des politischen Strafrechts Ende des 18. Jh./Mitte des 19. Jh. Darmstadt 1974.
69.
Wolfgang Naucke, Zur Entwicklung des Strafrechts in der französischen Revolution, in: Id., Zerbrechlichkeit, p. 29 ff.
70.
For a discussion of the concept of the public and of public prosecutors up to the French Revolution, see Haber, ZStW 91 (1979), 189 ff.
71.
On this, see Daniel Arasse, Die Guillotine. Die Macht der Maschine und das Schauspiel der Gerechtigkeit. Reinbek bei Hamburg 1988.
72.
In German literature, this is depicted most famously in Georg Büchner’s drama “Dantons Tod” (Danton’s Death); text with a critical literary commentary by Sven Kramer and a critical legal commentary by Bodo Pieroth: in Section “Role of the accused; defence” (Recht in der Kunst—Kunst im Recht) of the series “Juristische Zeitgeschichte”. Berlin 2007.
73.
On this, see Thomas Vormbaum, Die Rechtsfähigkeit der Vereine im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1976, p. 29 ff.
74.
On all this, see Naucke, Revolution, p. 44 f.
75.
Helmut Berding, Napoleonische Herrschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik im Königreich Westfalen 1807–1813. Göttingen 1973; Heiner Lück/Mathias Tullner (Eds.), Königreich Westphalen (1807–1813). Eine Spurensuche. (Sachsen-Anhalt. Geschichte und Geschichten. 2007/5). s.l. 2007; Elisabeth Fehrenbach, Traditionelle Gesellschaft und revolutionäres Recht. Die Einführung des Code Napoléon in den Rheinbundstaaten. 2nd edition Göttingen 1978; Heinz-Otto Sieburg, Die Auswirkungen des napoleonischen Herrschaftssystems auf die Verfassungsentwicklung in Deutschland, in: Id. (Ed.), Napoleon und Europa. Cologne 1971, p. 201 ff.—On developments in Italy, see Dezza, Beiträge, Id., Kodifikationszeitalter (Cisalpine Republic, first Kingdom of Italy, Duchy of Lucca, Duchy of Piombino, Kingdom of Naples).
76.
In greater detail Christian zur Nedden, Die Strafrechtspflege im Königreich Westphalen (1807 bis 1813). Frankfurt am Main. 2003. The author uses the example of a cause célèbre (p. 38 ff.) to detail the new criminal proceedings and show the practical difficulties faced in dealing with this new law.
77.
In detail on the reasons for this zur Nedden, Westphalen, S. 27 ff.; the text of the Westphalian Code Pénal, which was completed but did not become law, in Werner Schubert (Ed. and introduction), Der Code Pénal des Königreichs Westphalen von 1813 mit dem Code Pénal von 1810 im Original und in deutscher Übersetzung. Frankfurt am Main 2001.
78.
Individual details in zur Nedden, Westphalen, p. 134 ff.; Knollmann, Einführung, p. 98 ff.; the views of the Brunswick (temporarily Westphalian) jurist Friedrich Karl vom Strombeck (1771–1848) can be found in Cipolla, Strombeck, particularly p. 51 ff.
79.
On these, see Eisenhardt, Rechtsgeschichte, p. 299 ff.
80.
On this particular trait of German modernisation, a politics of “reform as a response to the challenges of the revolution” which was later to become characteristic of the whole of Germany, see Hans Ulrich Wehler, Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Vol. 1, p. 363 ff.
81.
That the wars of liberation were fought against the country of the “ideas of 1789” (however stunted these ideas had become) meant that the German nationalism emerging at this time had a strongly anti-libertarian element from the very beginning (Heinrich von Kleist wrote in a poem: “Kill him! You will not be asked why at the Last Judgment”). From quite early on, this also included anti-Semitic utterances, noted perceptively for example by Heinrich Heine; on this, see Vormbaum, Judeneid, p. 213 ff.; Id., Einführung Heine, p. 27 ff.
82.
General information on the continued validity of French law in the Rhineland (Baden, Rhine-Hesse, the Bavarian Palatinate, Rhenish Prussia) in Eisenhardt, Rechtsgeschichte, p. 312 ff.
83.
Hermann Conrad, Preußen und das französische Recht in den Rheinlanden, in: Josef Wolfram/Adolf Klein (Eds.), Recht und Rechtspflege in den Rheinlanden. Cologne 1969, p. 78 ff.; Ernst Landsberg, Die Gutachten der rheinischen Immediat-Justizkommission und der Kampf um die rheinische Rechts- und Gerichtsverfassung 1814–1819. (Publikationen der Gesellschaft für rheinische Geschichtskunde. XXXI) Bonn 1914.—That the Rhenish middle classes’ high regard for French institutions was based not only on progressive ideals but had its self-interested side is shown in Dirk Blasius, Der Kampf um die Geschworenengerichte im Vormärz, in: Sozialgeschichte heute. Festschrift f. Hans Rosenberg. Göttingen 1974, p. 148 ff. The resistance of the Rhenish parliament to the draft criminal code of 1843 was directed against the lowering of the punishment for theft, which meant that this would no longer fall within the remit of jury courts, and which had led—due to the severe punishments threatened by French criminal law against property offences—to a drastic reduction in numbers. Blasius, p. 158: “the bitter edge [to the conflict regarding the jury courts] derived not from the political processes, which were nonexistent in the Rhine Province; the jury court seems to have been less the Palladium of civil liberty than the Palladium of bourgeois property rights”.
84.
On its rejection by Saxon theory of criminal law, see e.g. Weber, Sächsisches Strafrecht, p. 172 ff.
85.
As already discussed in § 2 II.
86.
On the legal-theoretical importance of this differentiation, see I. 1. above.
87.
On this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 320 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 1, No. II.
88.
Overview over the territorial criminal codes in Kesper-Biermann, Einheit und Recht, p. 119 ff.; for a cross total of the procedures when enacting the codes ibid., p. 165 ff.
89.
On this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 324 ff.; Müller, Generalprävention, p. 273 ff.; Text in Ludwig Weis, Das Strafgesetzbuch für das Königreich Bayern sammt dem Gesetze vom 10. November 1861 zur Einführung des Strafgesetzbuchs und des Polizeistrafgesetzbuchs erläutert. 2 volumes. Nördlingen 1863/1865.
90.
On this Mittermaier, Fortentwicklung, p. 47 ff.; Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 107 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 1, No. IV. As early as 1829, the Brunswick jurist Friedrich Karl von Strombeck had published a “Draft of a criminal code for a North German state” which no longer included capital punishment; the code of 1840 did not follow this suggestion; for more detail, see Cipolla, Strombeck, p. 113 ff., 212.
91.
On this Mittermaier, Fortentwicklung, Vol. 1, p. 85 ff.; Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 135 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 1, No. V.
92.
On this Mittermaier, Fortentwicklung, Vol. 1, p. 93 ff.; Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 157 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 2, No. VI.
93.
On this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 172 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 2, No. VII.
94.
On this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 197 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 2, No. VIII.
95.
On this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 208 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 3, No. X.
96.
On this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 273 ff.; Text in Stenglein, Vol. 3, No. XII.
97.
On the drafts of 1838 and 1855 Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 92 ff., 304 ff. Text of the 1855 criminal code in Stenglein, Vol. 3, No. XIII.
98.
On this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, S. 135 ff.; for a detailed account, see Judith Weber, Sächsisches Strafrecht. Berlin 2009.
99.
King John had championed the abolition of capital punishment, which took place after a lengthy phase of experimentation and much debate in the parliamentary houses; for more detail, see Weber, Sächsisches Strafrecht, Chapter 7 B) I. 2.; besides Saxony, the main state in which it was abolished (except in martial law and maritime law for mutiny) as early as 1858 was Oldenburg, even though it followed the Prussian Criminal Code of 1851 in most other aspects (on this Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 323); it was also abolished in Anhalt and Bremen (Sten. Ber. des Reichstags des Norddeutschen Bundes, Term I. Session 1870. Vol. 3. Printed matter no. 5. Attachment 2, p. VII ff., XVII ff.). Majorities in many German parliaments during the 1860s had declared themselves in favour of capital punishment, without these resolutions being acted upon; Evans, Rituale, p. 400 ff.
100.
In detail, Weber, Sächsisches Strafrecht, p. 161 ff.
101.
On Schwarze, see Werner Schubert, Die Kommission zur Beratung des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund, in: Schubert/Vormbaum, Entstehung des StGB, p. XI ff., XXIV f.
102.
On this Große-Vehne, Tötung auf Verlangen, p. 28 ff.
103.
On criminal offences against the state, see Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 56 ff.; on fraud, see Schütz, Betrugsbegriff, p. 162 ff., 247 ff.; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 5 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 62 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 17 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 82 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 29 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 4 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 13 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 6 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 26 ff.; on the unauthorised publication of official documents see Voßieck, p. 22 ff.; on perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 31 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 13 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 22 ff.; on lèse majesté see Andrea Hartmann, p. 59 ff.; on prostitution and procurement see Ilya Hartmann, p. 42 ff.; on trespassing see Rampf, p. 34 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 19 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 15 ff.
104.
Cit. in Berner, Strafgesetzgebung, p. 140, 142.
105.
Hälschner, Geschichte, p. 259 ff.; on how Feuerbach distanced himself from his strict views on how the judge should be bound by the law, see above footnote 61.
106.
Schreiber, Gesetz und Richter, p. 156 ff., who also points out that some provisions of the constitutions and laws could be interpreted in such a way that the application of law by way of analogy became permissible.
107.
Wolfgang Naucke, Hauptdaten der preußischen Strafrechtsgeschichte 1786–1806, in: Id., Zerbrechlichkeit, p. 49 ff.
108.
Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 1, p. XXIX.
109.
See footnote 81 above.
110.
For a description of the general process of legal reform up to 1842, see v. Kamptz, Aktenmäßige Darstellung der Preußischen Gesetz-Revision, in: Jahrbücher für die Preußische Gesetzgebung, Rechtswissenschaft und Rechtsverwaltung 60 (1842).
111.
The Commission was made up of: Danckelmann, Kamptz, Sethe, Reibnitz, Köhler, Eichhorn, Sack, Müller, Savigny, Simon, Fischenich, Scheffer, Scheibler and Bötticher; cf. Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 1, p. XVI f.
112.
Entwurf des Straf-Gesetz-Buches für die Preußischen Staaten, Berlin 1828, reprinted in: Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 1, p. 271 ff (302 f.).
113.
Entwurf des Straf-Gesetz-Buches für die Preußischen Staaten, Erster Theil. Criminal-Straf-Gesetze, Berlin 1830, reprinted in: Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 2, p. 467 ff. (500 ff.).—The changes compared to the draft of 1828 referred mainly to the abolition of corporal punishment, the preceding draft having retained these for the “lower classes”; Hälschner, Geschichte, p. 266.
114.
Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 1, p. XIII f.
115.
Reprinted in: Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 3, p. 1 ff. (35 ff.).
116.
Revidirter Entwurf des Strafgesetzbuchs für die Königlich-Preußischen Staaten. Berlin 1836, reprinted in: Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 3, p. 785 ff. (883 ff.).
117.
The poet and supreme court justice E.T.A. Hoffmann, who had himself suffered under v. Kamptz’s persecution, made him an object of ridicule in his novella Meister Floh as the character of privy councillor Knarrpati; on this, see Alfred Hoffmann, E.T.A. Hoffmann. Leben und Arbeit eines preußischen Richters. Baden-Baden 1990.
118.
Hälschner, Geschichte, p. 268 (Readers will note that much of what Hälschner criticises [from the point of view of 1855, during the reactionary period itself!] is still contained in the federal German Criminal Code at the beginning of the twenty-first century.); see also Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, S. 73.
119.
Reprinted in: Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 5, p. 1 ff. (42 f.).
120.
Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 5, p. XIII; on one of the Rhenish provincial parliament’s points of criticism, see footnote 81 above; on this also see Hälschner, Geschichte, p. 275 ff.
121.
On Savigny’s part in the revisionary process, see v. Arnswaldt, Savigny, p. 104 ff.
122.
Reprinted in: Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 6, p. 1 ff. (32 f.).
123.
Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 1, p. XLI.
124.
Entwurf des Strafgesetzbuchs für die Preußischen Staaten, nebst dem Entwurf des Gesetzes über die Einführung des Strafgesetzbuchs und dem Entwurf des Gesetzes über die Kompetenz und das Verfahren in dem Bezirke des Appellationsgerichtshofes zu Köln, reprinted in: Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 6 II, p. 735 ff. (765 f.)
125.
On the context of the formation of the Prussian United Parliament and the United Committee of the Estates, cf. E.R. Huber, Verfassungsgeschichte, Vol. 2, p. 488 ff.; cf. also Bleich, Verhandlungen des im Jahre 1848 zusammenberufenen Vereinigten Ständischen Ausschusses, Vol. 1, p. 2.
126.
Schubert/Regge, Gesetzrevision, Vol. 1, p. XLI.
127.
Cf. Banke, Entwurf, Vol. 2, Appendix p. 37 (65 f.).
128.
Entwurf des Strafgesetzbuchs für die Preußischen Staaten, Berlin 1848; cf. Banke, Entwurf, Vol. 1, Appendix p. 40 (60 f.).
129.
Cf. Banke, Entwurf, Vol. 1, p. 28 ff.
130.
Reprinted in: Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen der durch die Allerhöchste Verordnung vom 2. November 1850 einberufenen Kammern, Berlin 1851, Lower House, Document No. 24.
131.
Goltdammer, Materialien zum Strafgesetzbuch für die preußischen Staaten, Vol. 1, p. XVI.
132.
Art. I of the Introductory Act of 14 April 1851 (Pr.GS., p. 93).
133.
A critical evaluation of this can be found in Holtzendorff, Handbuch Vol. 1, p. 98 ff.; see also Frommel, Strafjustiz und Polizei, op. cit., p. 190. On the development of sexual offences, see Andreas Roth, Die Sittlichkeitsdelikte zwischen Religion und Rationalität. Strafrechtspraxis und Kriminalpolitik im 18./19. Jahrhundert, in: Schulze/Vormbaum et al., Strafzweck und Strafform, p. 195 ff.
134.
Cit. according to Hälschner, Geschichte, p. 250.
135.
Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, p. 253; see also Naucke, Hauptdaten, op. cit., p. 52: “relapse into the pre-Enlightenment police state”; further information on problematic rules id. p. 52 f.
136.
For “thieves and other criminals”, § 5 ALR II 20 stipulated, in addition to their punishment, the so-called Erwerbsdetention, “proof of income detention”, i.e. further detention after the sentence had been served until the possibility of earning an honest income had been proven. § 1160 ALR II 20 went even further in the case of thrice convicted felons. These were to be “detained in a workhouse after serving their sentence and forced to labour […] until they have reformed and have provided sufficient evidence of how they will earn their living honestly in future”; see Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, p. 252 f.
137.
It is no coincidence that Mumme (p. 52), writing in 1936, draws a connection between the regulations introduced in 1933 and the Decree of 1799, which he pays tribute to.
138.
Mumme, p. 35; Thäle, p. 72 ff.
139.
Mumme, p. 51.
140.
From the point of view of Heinrich Heine’s struggle against censorship: Vormbaum, Einheit, op. cit.; on the prohibition of associations, enforced by punishment, that already had a predecessor in the Prussian Edict of 20 October 1798, see Grässle-Münscher, Kriminelle Vereinigung, p. 18 ff. (Text of the Edict of 1798 in ibid., p. 15).
141.
Blasius, Bürgerliche Gesellschaft p. 43 ff.
142.
In greater detail Blasius, Gesellschaft, p. 103 ff.; Karl Marx produced a well-known commentary on the Rhenish provincial parliament’s debate of the draft of the law on the theft of wood (excerpt in: Vormbaum, MdtStrD, p. 155 ff.).
143.
More detail in Vormbaum, Politik und Gesinderecht im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1980, p. 102 ff.
144.
The larger picture of course shows that this decree probably hardly had any importance in practice; on the basis for this speculation and reasons for it, see Vormbaum, Gesinderecht, p. 103.
145.
In detail on all of these points Vormbaum, Gesinderecht, p. 85 ff.; see p. 107 for a catalogue with 13 special groups of punishable offences.
146.
Frommel, Strafjustiz und Polizei, p. 186, talks of a “modernisation of the police in the wake of lofty ideals of the rule of law”.
147.
See III. below.
148.
The following is based on Schubert, Kommission (as in footnote 98). The most recent account of its creation in Kesper-Biermann, Einheit und Recht, p. 297 ff; an the relationship between the theory of criminal law and the process of codification ibid., p. 373 ff.
149.
Schubert, p. XIII.
150.
Schubert, p. XVI.
151.
The commission was made up of four Prussian jurists (besides the Prussian Minister of Justice Leonhardt, there were Friedberg, Bürgers und Dorn), one from Saxony (Schwarze), one from Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Budde), and one from Bremen (Donandt). For their biographies, see Schubert, p. XXI ff.
152.
These include the offences of political criminal law (with which the Special Part characteristically opens), in which the conviction for laesae majestatis constituted a mass phenomenon; cf. Andrea Hartmann, p. 90 ff.
153.
More detail in Seminara, Versuchsproblematik, op. cit., including many references.
154.
More detail in H.J. Hirsch, Versuchstheorie, op. cit., S. 65.
155.
In today’s terminology, “Assistance in avoiding prosecution or punishment (Strafvereitelung)”.
156.
A discussion of the fundamental issues can be found in the standard work of reference by Achenbach, Grundlagen, p. 20 ff.
157.
See e.g. explicitly Rüdorff, StGB, § 59 Note 1 et al.; Geyer, Verbrechen gegen die leibliche Unversehrtheit, in: Holtzendorf, Handbuch Vol. 3.2., p. 533, both including references; Schwarze, StGB, § 224 final part; for an early different opinion, see Berner, Strafrecht, p. 478.
158.
On the order of laws in the Reich Criminal Code, see Oehler, Legalordnung, p. 186 ff.—The regulation of individual offences and groups of offences in the RStGB: on criminal offences against the state, see Schroeder, Schutz von Staat und Verfassung, p. 86 ff.; on the offence of omitting to effect an easy rescue see Gieseler, p. 21 ff.; on criminal and terrorist/anarchist organisations see Felske, p. 79 ff.; on the failure to report a crime see Kisker, p. 21 ff.; on duelling see Baumgarten, p. 97 ff.; on abortion see Koch, p. 43 ff.; on theft see Prinz, p. 30 ff.; on false accusation see Bernhard, p. 19 ff.; on arson see Lindenberg, p. 39 ff.; on assault see Korn, p. 42 ff.; on the perverting the course of justice see Thiel, p. 43 ff.; on mercy killing see Große-Vehne, p. 37 ff.; on the frustration of creditors’ rights see Seemann, p. 33 ff.; on offence against a sovereign see Andrea Hartmann, p. 73 ff.; on prostitution and procurement see Ilya Hartmann, p. 51 ff.; on trespassing see Rampf, p. 47 ff.; on embezzlement and unlawful appropriation see Rentrop, p. 39 ff.; on forgery of documents see Prechtel, p. 43 ff.; on demagoguery (“incitement to class warfare”) see Rohrßen, p. 45 ff.
159.
“Duelling” forms the main topic of the 5th volume (2003/2004) of the Jahrbuch der juristischen Zeitgeschichte; see also Peter Dieners, Das Duell und die Sonderrolle des Militärs. Zur preußisch-deutschen Entwicklung von Militär- und Zivilgewalt im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1992.
160.
See e.g. C.J.A. Mittermaier, Englisches Strafverfahren (from 1851).
161.
Subsequent demands were jury courts, the accusatory principle, and public prosecutors. More on these shortly.
162.
On this Fögen, Öffentlichkeit; Alber, Öffentlichkeit, and Haber, ZStW 1979, 590. More on this shortly.
163.
On this Mittermaier, Mündlichkeit. More on this shortly.
164.
The idea that a change in form of government also changed criminal laws and criminal procedure was already widespread in the eighteenth century due to Montesquieu’s influence; see e.g. the position of the Italian theorist of criminal law Luigi Cremani in Dezza, Beiträge Strafrecht, p. 10 f.
165.
Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 70, p. 86; Rüping/Jerouschek, p. 42, marginal note 84.
166.
After a thorough analysis of recent legal developments, Ingo Müller (Leviathan 1977, 522 ff.) comes to the conclusion that the principle of the ascertainment of truth is always used very rigidly when the aim is to gloss over the rights of the accused, whereas in other cases there is much more willingness to dispense with “exaggerated demands” of truth-ascertainment.
167.
However, some authorities preferred to use torture if the offender refused to confess even if sufficient evidence existed; Günter Jerouschek, Die Carolina—Antwort auf ein Feindstrafrecht? In: Hilgendorf/Weitzel, Strafgedanke, p. 79 ff., 90.
168.
Whether this “formal” requirement of conviction was intended to balance out the search for material truth, which is in itself opposed to formality, and to which extent a role was played by deeply rooted religiosity that linked confession with penance and repentance, is hard to determine; on this see § 2 footnotes 21, 22 above; see also Edw. Peters, Folter, p. 75 ff., and most recently, Mathias Schmo¨ckel, Metanoia. Die Reformation und der Strafzweck der Besserung, in: Schulze/Vormbaum et al., Strafzweck und Strafform, p. 29 ff.
169.
One of the structural demands of the reform of criminal procedure was thus a recognition of the accused as the subject of the trial.
170.
Despite the introduction of § 138 ZPO in 1933, the maxim of delimitation of subject-matter applies to civil procedure to the present day.—The assumption that the principle of the ascertainment of material truth plays no role in Anglo-American criminal procedure should of course not be exaggerated, for the simple reason that the vast majority of criminal proceedings do not take place in front of a jury; more details in Herrmann, Reform, p. 160 ff.
171.
On these voices, see Herrmann, Hauptverhandlung, p. 49 ff.
172.
I think this geological image is even more fitting than the architectural one adopted from Glaser by Ignor, Geschichte, S. 20, that compares the way the examination of the ius commune was combined with the new public trial with adding a new storey to an old building; Glaser, Handbuch Vol. 1, p. 182.
173.
Ignor, Geschichte, p. 16; the term “reformed” of course expresses that something old has been improved, but its substance has been retained.
174.
In contemporary literature, C.J.A. Mittermaier and H.A. Zachariae in particular wrote on the whole range of issues: Mittermaier, Mündlichkeit; Zachariae, Gebrechen. On Heinrich Albert Zachariae (1806–1875), Professor at the University of Göttingen and like Mittermaier a Member of the Frankfurt Parliament, see Bandemer, Zachariae.
175.
Bibliographical references: Collin, “Wächter der Gesetze”; Günther, Staatsanwaltschaft; Knollmann, Einführung der Staatsanwaltschaft.
176.
Cf. the title of Scheffler’s contribution in: Vormbaum/Welp, StGB, Suppl. I, p. 174 ff.
177.
More to follow in § 5; see also Müller, Rechtsstaat, p. 109; Welp, Zwangsbefugnisse, p. 5 ff., particularly p. 7.
178.
See (for Prussia) Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 289, p. 330; Peters, Temme, p. 98 ff.; in Peters, passim, a description of the positions taken by the Prussian judge, literary scholar and democratic politician Jodocus Temme (1798–1881) on all fundamental questions of (Prussian) of criminal procedure reform.
179.
Collin, Wächter, p. 247 ff.
180.
Stölzel, Rechtsverwaltung Vol. II, p. 586; Günther, Staatsanwaltschaft, p. 19 f.; Ignor, Geschichte p. 272; Peters, Temme, p. 100.—On Savigny’s role in the creation of this decree, see v. Arnswaldt, Savigny, p. 249 ff.
181.
The title of a book by Günther.
182.
On Kirchmann, see Rainer A. Bast (Ed.), Julius Hermann von Kirchmann (1802–1884). Jurist, Politiker, Philosoph. Hamburg 1993; Kirchmann is remembered by (juristic) posterity less as the first prosecutor than as the author of his short work “Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft”, which contains the saying: “As science takes the arbitrary as its object, it becomes arbitrary itself; three corrective words from the legislator, and whole libraries become maculature”.
183.
On the following, see Elling, Einführung; Carsten, Staatsanwaltschaft, p. 21 ff.
184.
More detail in Knollmann, Einführung.
185.
More detail in Carsten, p. 25 ff.
186.
Carsten, op. cit.
187.
Carsten, p. 16 f.
188.
Bibliographical references: Hertz, Legalitätsprinzip; most recently Dr. Dettmar, Legalität und Opportunität. Mittermaier—here as elsewhere happily accommodating the “needs of practice”—pronounced himself against the principle of mandatory prosecution and its counter model, the principle of discretionary prosecution, mainly for the reason that the introduction of the prosecution was intended to render opening criminal proceedings for every minor offence unnecessary; Mittermaier, ArchCrR 1842, 449 f.; Id., Mündlichkeit, p. 319.
189.
Fabian Wittreck, Die Verwaltung der Dritten Gewalt. Tübingen 2003, p. 46; in general Ogorek, Richterkönig.
190.
On the development up to 1848, see Ollinger, Richtervorbehalt.
191.
Glaser, Handbuch, Vol. 1, p. 195.
192.
On this, see Herrmann, Reform, p. 161.
193.
Ignor, Geschichte, p. 110 ff.
194.
Beccaria, Of Crimes, Chap. 30, p. 76.
195.
Gneist, Freie Advocatur, p. 1–20; Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 90 ff.; Weißler, Rechtsanwaltschaft, p. 354; Knapp, Verteidiger, p. 27 f.; Kern, Gerichtsverfassung, p. 45. Certain abuses, particularly in civil justice, may have justified this manner of procedure; it should also be noted that the judges’ profession had previously been reformed in the so-called Cocceian reform of justice and commissioners of justice were now required to have the same training as judges.
196.
Including the North Italian territories; on this, see dazu Dezza, JJZG 9 (2007/2008), S. 38 ff.; now also included in: Dezza/Garlati, Beiträge, p. 31 ff.
197.
Dezza, op. cit.; Adriano Cavanna, Storia del diritto moderno in Europa. Le fonti e il pensiero giuridico, Vol. 2, Milan (Giuffrè) 2005, p. 309.
198.
§ 82 contained the telling sentence: “The real purpose of the criminal investigation is: Firstly, to establish the true nature of the act, that is, either the proof of and the actual circumstances of the crime that the accused is charged with, or the proof of his innocence, to justify him in the face of the charges brought against him, so that the innocent individual is freed and the guilty individual is given the punishment he deserves, for the protection of general security.”
199.
Dezza, op. cit.
200.
Dezza, op. cit., in footnote 14.
201.
Dezza, op. cit., Section V; on the struggle against “letting persons vanish without a trace”, ascertainment of the conditions for imprisonment and the duty to notify a defence lawyer if the arrested person so desired, see Cornelius, Verschwindenlassen.
202.
Mittermaier, Strafverfahren in der Fortbildung (1827), § 45, p. 203; in 1813, Mittermaier had declared in the preface to the first edition of his “Vertheidigungskunst”: “It could never have been my aim to give the defence advice aimed at undermining the law, and saving proven criminals from the sword of justice by artifice and rabulistic devices. Rather, I saw the defence itself as the sacred servant of the law and of justice, I saw it not as necessarily opposed to the judge, but as his ally on a joint quest for the truth. […] All of the powers that the defence was once permitted to hold, due to the excessive preferential treatment afforded it, that could not stand up to the law, needed to be removed”; Mittermaier, Vertheidigungskunst, p. VI, cited according to the 2nd edition. (My emphasis—T.V.). The changes Mittermaier’s point of view underwent in light of developments in the state of legal affairs are summarised in Malsack, Verteidigung.
203.
For individual details, see Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 109; Manfred Hahn, Die notwendige Verteidigung im Strafprozeß. Berlin 1975, p. 54 ff.
204.
Art. 141–149 bayStGB; Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 109 f.
205.
Overview of the regulations in individual territories in Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 110 ff.
206.
Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 104 ff.; Knapp, Verteidiger, p. 30.
207.
The Prussian Decree of 2 January 1849 (Prussian Statute Book 1849, p. 1) expressly retained the rules on “commissioners of justice and advocates”, but for the first time introduced the term (“Amtskarakter”) of Rechtsanwalt as an official title to refer to them.
208.
Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 116 f.
209.
Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 117 f.
210.
On this, with particular focus on the Baden procedure law of 1845/51, Hettinger, Fragerecht.
211.
Armbrüster, Verteidigung, p. 119.
212.
Alber, Öffentlichkeit, p. 15.
213.
Alber, p. 17.
214.
On this list of topics, see Alber, p. 46 ff.
215.
On this list of topics, too, see Alber, p. 36 ff.
216.
References in Alber, p. 152 ff.
217.
Fögen, Gerichtsöffentlichkeit, p. 123.
218.
This is expressed in the title of the best-known pertinent work, Feuerbach’s book “Öffentlichkeit und Mündlichkeit der Gerechtigkeitspflege”. Mittermaier’s 1845 book also combines Mündlichkeit and Unmittelbarkeit (with the accusatorial principle and jury courts) in its title.
219.
Formal: All evidence must be presented in the presence of the participants in the trial. Evidence taken during the investigation stage has to be reproduced during the trial. Material: Of all evidence accrued, the most immediate and direct source of evidence must be used (“best evidence”); a familiar associated problem is that of hearsay evidence.
220.
Represented in Geppert, Unmittelbarkeit, p. 68 ff.
221.
On this and the following, see Geppert, Unmittelbarkeit, p. 63.
222.
The reason for this was the lower courts’ frequent lack of knowledge of (Roman) law; Löhr, Unmittelbarkeit, p. 26 f.
223.
Löhr, p. 30.
224.
“The pronouncement of judgement is to be preceded by an oral trial in front of the adjudicating court, during which the prosecutor and the defendant are to be heard, the evidence presented and the defence of the accused is to be conducted orally”.
225.
“The pronouncement of judgement, on pain of invalidity, is to be preceded by an oral public trial in front of the adjudicating court, during which […]” (continuing as in § 14 of the Decree of 1846).
226.
More detail in Geppert, Unmittelbarkeit, p. 77 ff. (on territorial criminal law), 106 ff. (RStPO).
227.
For basic information, see Erich Schwinge, Der Kampf um die Schwurgerichte bis zur Frankfurter Nationalversammlung. Wroclaw 1926; most recently, Diana Löhr, Zur Mitwirkung der Laienrichter im Strafprozess. Hamburg 2008, p. 55 ff.
228.
Reference in Peters, Temme, Chapter 8 A).
229.
Ignor, Geschichte, p. 249; Peters, Temme, Chapter 8 A).
230.
On Italy, see Dezza, Kodifikationszeitalter, p. 66; in 1805, Napoleon declared in a speech opening the session of the legislative body of the (first) Kingdom of Italy: “I did not think that the situation in which Italy finds itself at present allows me to consider the institution of the jury. Judges must however, as a jury does, reach a verdict based on their own conscience, without using that system of half-proofs that offends innocence itself far more frequently than him who is called to solve a crime. The most secure guiding principle of a judge who has led a trial is the conviction of his own conscience”.
231.
Cf. the list in Peters, Temme, Chapter 8 B).
232.
Feuerbach, Geschworenengericht, p. 74 ff., 112 ff.; Radbruch, Feuerbach, p. 100 ff.
233.
Mittermaier, Mündlichkeit, p. 363 ff.
234.
This shift occurred at the Lübeck German Scholars’ Assembly of 1847; on this, Schwinge, Schwurgerichte, p. 146 ff.; Küper, Richteridee, p. 219.
235.
Schwinge, Schwurgerichte, p. 74; see also Küper, Richteridee, p. 217.
236.
On this, see Mittermaier, Mündlichkeit, p. 364.
237.
Thus e.g. Mittermaier, NArchCrimR 13 (1833), 120 ff., 139 (“Turn it whichever way you like,—there is only one solution: to introduce jury courts”; emphasis in the original text). More details on background context in Küper, Richteridee, p. 219 ff.
238.
The Constitution of the Paulskirche decreed in § 179 (2): “Jury courts are to sentence serious crime and all political misdemeanours”.
239.
See this section under “Prison reform”.
240.
E.g. in Pietro Verri, Betrachtungen über die Folter, op. cit., p. 68 f.
241.
Nobili, Überzeugungsbildung, p. 74; Küper, Richteridee, p. 174 ff.
242.
As already discussed in § 2, footnote 38 ff.
243.
E.g. the Austrian Code of 1803 § 414, and the Baden Code of 1845, § 270; references to Bern in Nobili, Überzeugungsbildung, p. 157, to Bavaria in Mittermaier, Beweis, p. 84.
244.
Nobili, Überzeugungsbildung, p. 77, see also ibid. p. 154 ff.; Küper, Richteridee, p. 130. Exponents of this theory were, among others, Feuerbach (Betrachtungen über das Geschworenengericht, p. 132 f.), Grolman (Grundsätze der Criminalrechtswissenschaft, p. 611) und Mittermaier (Beweis, p. 92).
245.
On this, see Nobili, p. 149 ff., Dezza, Kodifikationszeitalter, p. 64 ff., 143 ff.
246.
For a detailed account of its creation, see Schubert, Die Entstehung der Strafprozessordnung von 1877, in: Schubert/Regge, StPO, p. 1 ff., 4 ff.
247.
Hertz, Geschichte, p. 40 ff.
248.
More detail in Dr. Dettmar, Legalität und Opportunität, Chapter 7 A) IV. 6.
249.
On the “negative proof theory” proposed by Feuerbach among others, see Nobili, Überzeugungsbildung, p. 154 ff.
250.
Thus the subtitle of his book “Freie Advokatur”.
251.
Michel Foucault, Überwachen und Strafen. Die Geburt des Gefängnisses. Frankfurt am Main 1976, p. 93 ff.
252.
Evans, Rituals, p. 10. Of course, Evans criticises that Foucault “remained effectively silent about the origins of discursive shifts and the mechanisms of historical change” (p. 12). This is of course a problem of all theories of discourse.
253.
See footnote 97 above.
254.
This development already started at the beginning of the nineteenth century; Hälschner, Geschichte, p. 252 f.
255.
In detail on this topic Evans, Rituals, p. 399 ff.; Nicola Willenberg, Das Ende des “Theater des Schreckens”. Zum Wandel der Todesstrafe in Preußen im 19. Jahrhundert, in: Schulze/Vormbaum et al., Strafzweck und Strafform, p. 265 ff.
256.
Eb. Schmidt, Zuchthäuser, p. 10.
257.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 21 f., 57.
258.
Eb. Schmidt, Zuchthäuser, p. 6; Krause, Geschichte, p. 32 ff.—The most famous examples are Amsterdam’s “spinhuis” for women and the “tucht- en rasphuis” for men; cf. the images in Robert v. Hippel, ZStW 18 (1898), 482 f.; Eb. Schmidt, Zuchthäuser (Appendix) und Krause, Geschichte, p. 35.
259.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 41.
260.
Rüping/Jerouschek, Grundriss, p. 95 (marginal note 209); Krause, p. 38 ff. The names “Zucht-, Armen- und Waysenhaus” (“house for correction, for the poor and for orphans”, Waldheim/Sachsen, 1716) und “Zucht- und Tollhaus” (“house for correction and for the insane”, Celle, from 1717) are telling; Krause, p. 50. The craftsmen’s guilds protested against work in the penitentiaries, Eb. Schmidt, Zuchthäuser, p. 13.
261.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 50.
262.
Rüping/Jerouschek, Grundriss, p. 94; Krause, Geschichte, p. 50.
263.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 30; Rüping/Jerouschek, Grundriss, p. 94; Hans Schlosser, Die Strafe der Galeere als poena arbitraria in der mediterranen Strafpraxis, in: ZNR 10 (1988), 19 ff.; Id., Deportation und Strafkolonien als Mittel des Strafvollzuges in Deutschland, in: Mario Da Passano (Ed.) (see the following footnote), p. 41 ff., 44 f.
264.
This was markedly different in Britain and France, where convicts could be shipped off to the colonies (Britain: first North America, then Australia; France: Cayenne), and Italy, who was able to create prison colonies on its many islands; for more detailed information on France and Italy: Mario Da Passano (Ed.), Europäische Strafkolonien im 19. Jahrhundert. International Conference of the Dipartimento di Storia der Universität Sassari and the Parco Nazionale di Asinara. Porto Torres, 25 May 2001. Berlin 2006. Furthermore, Italy had the particular case of forced relocation colonies, where persons who were suspicious on political or other grounds could be banished to designated areas; on this, see Daniela Fozzi, Eine “italienische Spezialität”: Die Zwangskolonien im Königreich Italien, in: ibid., p. 191 ff.
265.
On the reasons for this, Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, § 243, p. 254 f.; on this and other attempts, see also Schlosser (as in footnote 261), p. 46 f. with further references; this text also contains information on the revival of this discussion occurring after the acquisition of German colonies from 1884 onwards, and on the attempts to establish transportation, i.e. “emigration of criminals directed by the authorities” (Schlosser, p. 51 ff.), particularly to the USA, until this was prohibited by law by the US Congress in 1875.
266.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 55.
267.
This is rightly criticised by Naumann, Gefängnis und Gesellschaft, p. 13 ff.
268.
The following is based closely on Sylvia Kesper-Biermann, “Nothwendige Gleichheit der Strafen bey aller Verschiedenheit der Stände im Staat”? (Un)gleichheit im Kriminalrecht der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts; in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 35 (2009), 603 ff. The quote in the title is taken from a written statement by Feuerbach made during the legislative consulation procedure.
269.
This did not preclude that certain offences, such as duelling (as a mitigated homicide offence), could in fact only be committed by members of certain social classes. As a marginal phenomenon, duelling carried its own grounds for punishment, e.g. for challenging, accepting and taking part (in detail Baumgarten, Zweikampf; on the issue of duelling as a whole see also the contributions to the special volume on this topic, “Duell/Zweikampf” in the Jahrbuch der juristischen Zeitgeschichte 5 (2003/2004).
270.
Kesper-Biermann, op. cit., p. 608.
271.
Ibid., p. 617.
272.
Of course there were sex-specific offences, such as infanticide, which only applied to women (and which in the nineteenth century was turned from a qualified to a mitigated offence), or homosexuality, which only applied to men.
273.
Kesper-Biermann, op. cit., p. 620 ff.
274.
Christian Baltzer, Die geschichtlichen Grundlagen der privilegierten Behandlung politischer Straftäter im Reichsstrafgesetzbuch von 1871. Bonn 1966; Krause, Geschichte, p. 73 ff.
275.
Eb. Schmidt, Zuchthäuser, p. 12; Id., Einführung, p. 253; Krause, Geschichte, p. 52.
276.
Rusche/Kirchheimer, Sozialstruktur, p. 143.
277.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 69; Rüping/Jerouschek, Grundriss, p. 96 (marginal note 211); Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, p. 348 f.; on the discussion surrounding the introduction of the Philadelphia System in the Kingdom of Württemberg, see Paul Sauer, Im Namen des Königs. Strafgesetzgebung und Strafvollzug im Königreich Württemberg 1806 bis 1871. Stuttgart 1984, p. 138 ff.
278.
Excerpts reproduced in Sellert/Rüping, Volume 1, p. 451 ff.; the following quotes are based on these.
279.
Eb. Schmidt, Einführung, p. 254; Id., Zuchthäuser, p. 15 (“can only be called great”); on the Decree on Theft see footnote 132 above).
280.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 53.
281.
Rüping/Jerouschek, Grundriss, p. 97.
282.
Müller-Steinhauer, Autonomie, p. 234 ff.
283.
Rüping/Jerouschek, Grundriss, p. 96 (marginal note 124); Krause, Geschichte, p. 69; Albert Krebs, Nikolaus Heinrich Julius, “Vorlesungen über Gefängniß-Kunde”, gehalten 1827 zu Berlin. Eine Studie, in: MschrKrim. 56 (1973), 307–315.
284.
Jürgen Friedrich Kammer, Das gefängniswissenschaftliche Werk C.J.A. Mittermaiers. Freiburg im Breisgau (Dr. iur. Dissertation) 1971; Heinz Müller-Dietz, Der Strafvollzug im Werk Mittermaiers, in: Küper (Ed.), Mittermaier, p. 109 ff.
285.
H.J. Schneider, Franz von Holtzendorff, seine Persönlichkeit und sein Wirken für den Strafvollzug, in: Zeitschrift für Strafvollzug 13 (1964), 63 ff.
286.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 70 f.; see more recently Désirée Schauz, Strafen als moralische Besserung. Eine Geschichte der Straffälligenfürsorge 1777–1933. Munich 2008.
287.
Krause, Geschichte, p. 72 ff.
288.
Saxony had led the way in this regard in 1862, see Weber, Sächsisches Strafrecht, Chapter 6.
289.
Hans-Dieter Schwind/Günter Blau, Strafvollzug in der Praxis. 2nd edition. Berlin, New York 1988, p. 15.
290.
In Prussia, for example, according to § 60 (2) of the Decree on Open Oral Trials and Juries of 3 January 1849, jury courts had been expressly responsible for political misdemeanours and press offences.
291.
Malsack, Verteidigung, p. 187; this tendency can also be detected in Frommel, Implementation, op. cit., p. 561.
292.
On this process, see e.g. Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte. Volume 1 (1866–1918). Munich 1992, p. 414 ff., 418; in connection with social democracy, see Thomas Vormbaum, Die Sozialdemokratie und die Entstehung des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs. 2nd edition Baden-Baden 1997, p. XLI ff., in connection with the Gesinderecht, see Vormbaum, Gesinderecht (as in footnote 140), p. 150 ff.—On this development’s effects on or parallels in cultural history and history of thought, see § 4 I, II.
293.
Ignor, Geschichte, p. 290.
294.
The description given here does not apply to all liberal politicians. A smaller part of political liberalism remained committed to its liberal and constitutional demands. This division of the Liberals was evident in the political organisations of the Kaiserreich (Nationalliberale and Freisinnige) and the Weimar Republic (Deutsche Volkspartei and Deutsche Demokratische Partei); in the Federal Republic, depending on the political situation, Liberalism’s dominant focus is either constitutional or economic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

FB Rechtswissenschaften, FernUniversität Hagen, Hagen, Germany
Thomas Vormbaum
Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham, UK
Michael Bohlander

Authors

Thomas Vormbaum
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Michael Bohlander
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham, Durham, United Kingdom
Michael Bohlander

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vormbaum, T., Bohlander, M. (2014). § 3 Nineteenth Century Developments. In: Bohlander, M. (eds) A Modern History of German Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37273-5_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37273-5_3
Published: 20 May 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37272-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37273-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics