Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T06:18:20.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private Self-Defence and Necessity in German Penal Law and in the Penal Law Proposal — Some Remarks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Klaus Bernsmann
Get access

Extract

Self-defence and necessity are central institutions of the General Part of German Penal Law. Numerous problems of considerable practical and theoretical relevance are connected with them. How to deal with “self-defence” and “necessity” is also an indicator of liberality or, on the other hand, of the minimum solidarity and public spirit which a State can concede to its citizens or demand of them. In German criminal theory, “self-defence” and “necessity” are closely connected with the release of the distinction between justification and excuse and all conclusions derived thereof.

Instead of elaborating on fundamental or purely theoretical problems concerning self-defence and necessity, an illustration of the contents of the German provisions of self-defence and necessity from a more technical, but nevertheless practical, point of view will be discussed. In the course of the discussion, some differences between the Israeli Draft law and the German law will be pointed out, and some problems which are unsolved in German law and may possibly confront Israeli law in the future will be brought to your attention.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1-2: Reform of Criminal Law , Spring Winter 1996 , pp. 171 - 187
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 Criminal Law, University of Cologne.

References

1 Concerning the history of self-defence see the survey by Bernsmann, , “Entschuldigung” durch Notstand (Koln, Berlin, Bonn, Munchen, 1989) S. 257 f.Google Scholar

2 Refer to the following Schonke, /Schroder, /Lenckner, , Strafgesetzbuch (25 Aufl., Munchen, 1994) § 32, Rn. 19 ff.Google Scholar; Jescheck, /Weigend, , Lehrbuch des Strafrechts, Allgemeiner Teil, (5 Aufl., Berlin, 1996) § 32 II 1c)Google Scholar; Roxin, , Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, (2 Aufl., Munchen, 1994) § 15, Rn. 1 ff.Google Scholar

3 BGHSt, vol. 27, S. 336 (339); Schonke/Schroder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 13 ff.

4 BGHSt, vol. 26, 256 ff.; 147 ff.; Dreher-Trondle, , Strafgesetzbuch, (47 Aufl., Munchen, 1995) § 32 Rn 16 d)Google Scholar.

5 For more details see. Jescheck/Weigend, § 32 2b); Schonke/Schroder/Lenckner, § 32, Rn. 34, both supra n 2.

6 For further details, see Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 1 ff.; Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15, Rn. 1.

7 See also BGHSt, vol. 24, 356 (359).

8 For more details see: Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, § 32, Rn. 3; Roxin, § 15, Rn. 6, both at supra n. 12; Dreher/Tröndle, supra n. 4, at § 32 Rn. 4.

9 Jescheck/Weigend, supra n. 2, at § 32 II 1a).

10 See for further details: Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 10.

11 As, for example, Jescheck/Weigend, supra n. 2, at § 32 II 1a).

12 Schonke/Schroder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 3.

13 For more details see Schonke/Schroder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 13 ff; Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15, Rn. 20

14 Critical Roxin, ibid., at § 15, Rn. 21 ff.

15 For more details see: Jescheck/Weigend, supra n. 2, at § 32 II 1; also Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15, Rn. 10.

16 Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 5 a).

17 General opinion, see: Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, ibid., at § 32 Rn. 5c.

18 For the latest discussion see Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15 Rn. 39.

19 So precisely the view of the legislator of the PC, quoted from Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15, Rn. 2, quotation 1.

20 Examples from judicature: BGHSt, vol. 24, 348; vol. 25, 229; vol. 26, 256; vol. 27, 336; 313.

21 See Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15 Rn. 42 f.

22 See Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 37; 50.

23 For more details see Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 49.

24 Example also mentioned by Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, ibid., at § 32, Rn. 51.

25 As BGH MDR 1979, S. 985, quoted from Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, ibid., at § 32, Rn. 37.

26 Refer to the following: Dreher/Tröndle, supra n. 4, at § 32, Rn. 19; Jescheck/Weigend, supra n. 2, at § 32 III 3a); Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 32, Rn. 52.

27 See the detailed discussion in Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15, Rn. 56 ff.

28 For instance BGHSt, vol. 24, 358; vol. 26, 145.

29 See Jescheck, § 32 III 3a); Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, § 32, Rn. 57, both in supra n. 2.

30 Also criticizing German courts, Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 15, Rn. 81 ff.

31 For more details see Roxin, ibid., at § 15, Rn. 87.

32 For further details see Roxin, ibid., at § 15, Rn. 89.

33 See Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 16, Rn. 7 ff.

34 See Schonke/Schroder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 34, Rn. 9; Dreher/Trondle, supra n. 4, at § 34, Rn. 3.

35 For more details see Schonke/Schroder/Lenckner, ibid., at § 34 Rn. 13, 14, 15.

36 For more details see Schonke/Schroder/Lenckner, ibid., at § 34 Rn. 17; Dreher/Trondle, supra n. 4, at § 33, Rn. 4.

37 For further details see Schönke/Schroder/Lenckner, ibid., at § 34, Rn. 18; Dreher/Trondle, ibid., at § 34, Rn. 5.

38 See Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 16, Rn. 22 ff, with many examples from German courts.

39 For more detail see Roxin, ibid., at § 16, Rn. 23 ff.

40 See for further information Roxin, ibid., at § 16, Rn. 45.

41 For more details: Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 34, Rn. 42; Dreher/Tröndle, supra n. 4, at § 34, Rn. 6; Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 16, Rn. 50 ff.

42 This fact is already stated in the German constitution, Arts. 1, 2, 3 GG.

43 The dispute is discussed in Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 16, Rn. 43.

44 See especially BGHSt, vol. 27, 260; Dreher/Trondle, supra n. 4, at § 34, Rn. 24; Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 16, Rn. 88.

45 Concerning the different theories see the survey by Bernsmann, “Entschuldigung” durch Notstand, supra n. 1, at S. 174 ff.

46 See Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 22, Rn. 22 ff.

47 Critical towards the common theories, Bernsmann, “Entschuldigung” durch Notstand, supra n. 1, at S. 109 ff.

48 See Dreher/Tröndle, supra n. 4, at § 35, Rn. 8; Schönke/Schröder/Lenckner, supra n. 2, at § 35 Rn. 16.

49 See Dreher/Tröndle, ibid., at Rn. 16; Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 22, Rn. 49.

50 About the latest discussion see Roxin, supra n. 2, at § 16, Rn. 57 ff.