Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Criminal Law
- 2 Omissions
- 3 Preparatory Offences
- 4 Participation in Crime
- 5 Consent in the Law Relating to Sexual Offences
- 6 Terrorism Offences
- Part III Criminal Justice and Procedure
- Index
- References
4 - Participation in Crime
from Part II - Criminal Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019
Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Criminal Law
- 2 Omissions
- 3 Preparatory Offences
- 4 Participation in Crime
- 5 Consent in the Law Relating to Sexual Offences
- 6 Terrorism Offences
- Part III Criminal Justice and Procedure
- Index
- References
Summary
Questions of criminal participation arise when more than one person is in some way involved in the commission of a crime. In some cases, there may be no single individual who, in his own person, fulfils all the definitional elements of the criminal offence. Even where there is one such individual, the criminal law may want to tie other persons to the commission of the offence as well, on the basis that these other persons are complicit in and therefore share responsibility for its commission. What rules and principles do – and which ones should – govern the ascription of criminal responsibility to different agents in multi-party settings is the theme of this chapter. The answer to the should-question is approached with a view to the general aims of the criminal law regarding parties to crime. These are understood to be the following: (i) to guide judges and other decision-makers towards fair responsibility-attributions for criminal norm-violations and their outcomes; (ii) to ensure that the conviction offence fairly reflects the gravamen of the accused’s criminal conduct; and (iii) to facilitate accurate reflection of different degrees of responsibility in sentencing decisions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 94 - 134Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Alldridge, P., ‘The Doctrine of Innocent Agency’, Criminal Law Forum, 2 (1990), 45–83.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, I: Foundations and General Part, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.)‚ Participation in Crime: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate (2013), 323–39.Google Scholar
Baker, D. J., ‘Reinterpreting the Mental Element in Criminal Complicity: Change of Normative Position Theory Cannot Rationalize the Current Law’, Law & Psychology Review, 40 (2016), 119–296.Google Scholar
Bloy, R., Die Beteiligungsform als Zurechnungstypus im Strafrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot ( 1985).Google Scholar
Du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Intentional Killings: the German Law’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Homicide Law in Comparative Perspective, Oxford, Hart (2007), 55–81.Google Scholar
Du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Violent Dynamics: Exploring Responsibility-Attribution for Harms Inflicted during Spontaneous Group Violence’, Oñati Socio-legal Series, 6(4) (2016), 1053–78.Google Scholar
Burchell, J., ‘Joint Enterprise and Common Purpose: Perspectives on English and South African Criminal Law’, South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 10 (1997), 125–40.Google Scholar
Buxton, R., ‘Complicity in the Criminal Code’, Law Quarterly Review, 85 (1969), 252–74.Google Scholar
Child, J., ‘Understanding Ulterior Mens Rea: Future Conduct Intention is Conditional Intention’, Cambridge Law Journal, 76 (2017), 311–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crewe, B., Liebling, A., Padfield, N. and Virgo, G., ‘Joint Enterprise: The Implications of an Unfair and Unclear Law’, Criminal Law Review (2015), 252–69.Google Scholar
Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Law, 6th edn, New Providence, NJ, LexisNexis (2012).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Can I Help You? Accessorial Liability and the Intention to Assist’, Legal Studies, 10 (1990), 165–81.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Is Accomplice Liability Superfluous?’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 156 (2008), 444–51.Google Scholar
Dyer, A., ‘The “Australian Position” Concerning Criminal Complicity: Principle, Policy or Politics?’, Sydney Law Review, 40 (2018), 289–318.Google Scholar
Eichmüller, A., Keine Generalamnestie. Die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von NS-Verbrechen in der frühen Bundesrepublik, Munich, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘Causing Voluntary Actions’, in Feinberg, J., Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility, Princeton University Press (1970) 152–86.Google Scholar
Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 4th edn, Gießen, Heyer (1808 [1801]).Google Scholar
Gardner, J., ‘Moore on Complicity and Causality’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 156 (2008), 432–43.Google Scholar
Gössel, K. H., ‘Dogmatische Überlegungen zur Teilnahme am erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt nach § 18 StGB’, in Warda, G., Waider, H., Hippel, R. and Meurer, D. (eds.), Festschrift für Richard Lange zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (1976), 219–40.Google Scholar
Greve, M., Der justitielle und rechtspolitische Umgang mit den NS-Gewaltverbrechern in den sechziger Jahren, Frankfurt, Peter Lang (2001).Google Scholar
Haas, V., Die Theorie der Tatherrschaft und ihre Grundlagen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2008).Google Scholar
Hamdorf, K., Beteiligungsmodelle im Strafrecht. Ein Vergleich von Teilnahme- und Einheitstätersystemen in Skandinavien, Österreich und Deutschland, Freiburg, edition iuscrim (2002).Google Scholar
Hamdorf, K., ‘The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5 (2007), 208–26.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. and Honoré, T., Causation in the Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (1985).Google Scholar
Heyman, M. G., ‘Losing All Sense of Just Proportion: The Peculiar Law of Accomplice Liability’, St John’s Law Review, 87 (2013), 129–70.Google Scholar
Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just-Dahlmann, B. and Just, H., Die Gehilfen. NS-Verbrechen und Justiz nach 1945, Frankfurt/Main, Athenäum (1988).Google Scholar
Kadish, S. H., ‘Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine’, California Law Review, 73 (1985), 323–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadish, S. H., ‘Reckless Complicity’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87 (1997), 369–94.Google Scholar
Keating, H., Cunningham, S., Walters, M. and Elliot, T., Criminal Law: Text and Materials, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2014).Google Scholar
Klug, U., ‘Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes in NS-Prozessen’, in Schoeps, H. J. and Hillermann, H. (eds.), Justiz und Nationalsozialismus. Bewältigt – Verdrängt – Vergessen, Stuttgart/Bonn: Burg-Verlag (1987), 92–117.Google Scholar
Krebs, B., ‘Joint Enterprise Murder Is Dead – Long Live Joint Enterprise Manslaughter?’, in Krebs, B. (ed.), Accessorial Liability after Jogee, Oxford, Hart/Bloomsbury (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriegsmann, H., Mittäterschaft und Raufhandel seit Feuerbach, Breslau, Schlettersche Buchhandlung (1907).Google Scholar
Küpper, G., Grenzen der normativierenden Strafrechtsdogmatik, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1990).Google Scholar
Küpper, G., ‘Der gemeinsame Tatentschluß als unverzichtbares Moment der Mittäterschaft’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 105 (1993), 295–305.Google Scholar
Kutz, C., Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age, Cambridge University Press ( 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., Strafgesetzbuch mit Erläuterungen, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Law Commission for England and Wales, A Criminal Code for England and Wales (LAW COM. No. 177), London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (1989).Google Scholar
Moore, M., ‘Causing, Aiding and the Superfluity of Accomplice Liability’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156 (2007), 395–452.Google Scholar
Nehmer, B., ‘Täter als Gehilfen? Zur Ahndung der Einsatzgruppenverbrechen’, in Redaktion Kritische Justiz (eds.), Die juristische Aufarbeitung des Unrechtsstaats, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1998), 635–68.Google Scholar
Otto, H., ‘Straflose Teilnahme?’, in Warda, G., Waider, H., von Hippel, R. and Meurer, D. (eds.), Festschrift für Richard Lange zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (1976), 197–217.Google Scholar
Perels, J., Das juristische Erbe des ‘Dritten Reichs’. Beschädigung der demokratischen Rechtsordnung, Frankfurt/New York, Campus Verlag (1999).Google Scholar
Renzikowski, J., ‘Die fahrlässige Mittäterschaft’, in Dannecker, G., Langer, W., Ranft, O., Schmitz, R. and Brammsen, J. (eds.), Festschrift für Harro Otto zum 70. Geburtstag, Cologne, Heymanns (2007), 423–39.Google Scholar
Rotsch, T., ‘Einheitstäterschaft’ statt Tatherrschaft: Zur Abkehr von einem differenzierenden Beteiligungsformensystem in einer normativ-funktionalen Straftatlehre, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2009).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘§ 25’, in Jähnke, B., Laufhütte, H. W. and Odersky, W. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 11th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2003), I.Google Scholar
Samson, E., ‘§ 25’, in Rudolphi, H.-J. and Horn, E. (eds.), Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, loose-leaf edn, 22nd instalment, 5th edn, Neuwied, Luchterhand (September 1993).Google Scholar
Schild, W., ‘§ 25’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos-Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 2nd edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2005).Google Scholar
Schöberl, W., Die Einheitstäterschaft als europäisches Modell: Die strafrechtliche Beteiligungsregelung in Österreich und den nordischen Ländern, Vienna, Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (2006).Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘The Mental Element in Complicity’, Law Quarterly Review, 122 (2006), 578–601.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Accessory Liability and Common Unlawful Purpose’, Law Quarterly Review, 133 (2017), 73–90.Google Scholar
Smith, J. C., ‘Criminal Liability of Accessories: Law and Law Reform’, Law Quarterly Review, 113 (1997), 453–67.Google Scholar
Smith, J. C., ‘Joint Enterprise and Accessory Liability’, South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 11 (1998), 337–49.Google Scholar
Smith, K. J. M., A Modern Treatise on the Law of Criminal Complicity, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1991).Google Scholar
Stewart, J. G., ‘Complicity’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 534–59.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. G., ‘The Strangely Familiar History of the Unitary Theory of Perpetration’, in Ackerman, B., Ambos, K. and Sikirić, H. (eds.), Visions of Justice. Liber Amicorum Mirjan Damaška, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 327–52.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C. F., ‘Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge bei Exzeß des Mittäters’, in Pawlik, M. and Zaczyk, R. (eds.), Festschrift für Günther Jakobs zum 70. Geburtstag am 26. Juli 2007, Cologne, Heymanns (2007), 693–713.Google Scholar
Torp, C., Den danske Strafferets almindelige Del, Copenhagen, G. E. C. Gads Forlag (1905).Google Scholar
Toulson, R., ‘Sir Michael Foster, Professor Williams and Complicity in Murder’, in Baker, D. J. and Horder, J. (eds.), The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams, Cambridge University Press (2013), 230–46.Google Scholar
Weißer, B., Täterschaft in Europa. Ein Diskussionsvorschlag für ein europäisches Tätermodell auf der Basis einer rechtsvergleichenden Untersuchung der Beteiligungssysteme Deutschlands, Englands, Frankreichs, Italiens und Österreichs, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2011).Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code – 1’, Criminal Law Review (1990), 4–21.Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code – 2’, Criminal Law Review (1990), 98–108.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by