Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- About the Authors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction to Volume II
- Part I Criminal Law
- 2 Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning
- 3 Causation and Responsibility for Outcomes
- 4 Imputation of Responsibility and Intoxicated Offending
- 5 Crimes of Endangerment
- Part II Criminal Procedure
- Part III Criminal Justice
- Index
- References
2 - Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning
from Part I - Criminal Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2022
Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- About the Authors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction to Volume II
- Part I Criminal Law
- 2 Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning
- 3 Causation and Responsibility for Outcomes
- 4 Imputation of Responsibility and Intoxicated Offending
- 5 Crimes of Endangerment
- Part II Criminal Procedure
- Part III Criminal Justice
- Index
- References
Summary
How do criminal lawyers sequence and give shape to their reasoning about criminal liability? Why do they ‘structure’ it as they do? This chapter looks at structure within legal reasoning as a means of understanding the law in the minds of criminal lawyers. It seeks to better understand how structures function and interact. One benefit of doing so is to help lawyers foreign to the legal systems analyse liability as a native might. Another benefit is that, by looking at two paradigmatic orchestrations of the many substantive, organisational and practical issues within criminal legal reasoning, the interconnectedness, priority and valuing of those elements can be revealed and made comparable.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 13 - 56Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Aarnio, A., Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A., On Coherence Theory of Law, Juristförlaget i Lund (1998).Google Scholar
Borghetti, J.-S., ‘Legal Methodology and the Role of Professors in France. Professorenrecht is not a French Word!’, in Basedow, J., Fleischer, H. and Zimmermann, R. (eds.), Legislators, Judges, and Professors, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2016), 209–22.Google Scholar
Burchard, C., ‘Strafverfassungsrecht – Vorüberlegungen zu einem Schlüsselbegriff’, in Tiedemann, K., Sieber, U., Satzger, H., Burchard, C. and Brodowski, D. (eds.), Die Verfassung moderner Strafrechtspflege, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 25–62.Google Scholar
Chalmers, J., ‘“Frenzied Law Making”: Overcriminalization by Numbers’, Current Legal Problems, 67 (2014), 483–502.Google Scholar
Christopher, R., ‘Tripartite Structures of Criminal Law in Germany and Other Civil Law Jurisdictions’, Cardozo Law Review, 28 (2007), 2675–95.Google Scholar
Dubber, M., ‘The Promise of German Criminal Law: A Science of Crime and Punishment’, German Law Journal, 6 (2005), 1049–71.Google Scholar
Dyson, M., ‘Overlap, Separation and Hybridity across Crime and Tort’, in Dyson, M. and Vogel, B. (eds.), The Limits of Criminal Law, Cambridge, Intersentia (2018), 79–106.Google Scholar
Dyson, M. and Green, S., ‘The Properties of the Law: Restoring Personal Property through Crime and Tort’, in Dyson, M. (ed.), Unravelling Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2014), 389–421.Google Scholar
Dyson, M. and Randall, J., ‘England’s Splendid Isolation’, in Dyson, M. (ed.), Comparing Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2015), 18–72.Google Scholar
Engisch, K., Einführung in das juristische Denken, 11th edn, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer (2010).Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., ‘The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 49 (1949), 171–94.Google Scholar
Jahn, M., ‘Strafverfassungsrecht: Das Grundgesetz als Herausforderung für die Dogmatik des Straf- und Strafverfahrensrechts’, in Tiedemann, K., Sieber, U., Satzger, H., Burchard, C. and Brodowski, D (eds.), Die Verfassung moderner Strafrechtspflege, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 63–86.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Naucke, W., ‘An Insider’s Perspective on the Significance of the German Criminal Theory’s General System for Analyzing Criminal Acts’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 305 (1984), 305–21.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. L., ‘Jurisprudence in the Criminal Law’, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 18 (1936), 212–25.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., ‘Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?’, in Robinson, P. H. and Barton, J. S. (eds.), The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law, Farnham, Ashgate (2014), 1–26.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. W. B., Cannibalism and the Common Law, University of Chicago Press (1984).Google Scholar
Stark, F., ‘It’s Only Words: On Meaning and Mens Rea’, Cambridge Law Journal, 72 (2013), 155–77.Google Scholar
Thier, A., ‘Das Werk von Claus-Wilhelm Canaris und die europäische Rechtstradition: Das “System” als Beispiel’, in Grigoleit, H. C. and Petersen, J. (eds.), Privatrechtsdogmatik im 21. Jahrhundert. Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 80. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (2017), 29–50.Google Scholar
Whitman, J., ‘No Right Answer?’, in Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context, Oxford, Hart (2008), 371–92.Google Scholar
Wolf, W., ‘Richterliche Entscheidungsroutinen als Gegenstand und Leitfaden der juristischen Methodenlehre: zivilrechtliche Perspektiven’, in Reimer, F. (ed.), Juristische Methodenlehre aus dem Geist der Praxis?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 75–90.Google Scholar