THEORIES OF CRIMINALIZATION AND PREVENTION

Peter-Alexis Albrecht

Анотація


In the article the problem of determining the theories of peno-legal social controls. They usually are called «penal theories» or criminalization theories. Penal theories are not theories about punishment but rather rationalizations of punishment. On the one hand, we are dealing with absolute penal theories which go back to the legal-philosophical works of Kant and Hegel. Here, the idea of a generally binding justice based on «natural law» is the focus according to which the justification of punishment lies primarily in the restitution of guilt. Its purpose lies in the restoration of the legal order, in the realization of justice. In contrast to this, the relative criminal theories favor the purpose of prevention. They assume that crimes are socially harmful. The goal of punishment is then criminal prevention, which is to be achieved by resocializing or securing the perpetrator. The effective penal law and jurisprudence of the courts, as explained by the Federal Constitutional Court mainly follow the so-called unification theory which, with varying foci, attempts to unite all purposes of punishment in a balanced relationship to one another.


Ключові слова


criminalization; penal theories; absolute penal theories; relative;criminal theories

Повний текст:

PDF (English)

Посилання


Cf. Naucke, Strafrecht: Eine Einführung, 10th edition, 2002, p. 32 ff.

Cf. Müller-Dietz, Vom intellektuellen Verbrechensschaden, GA 1983,p. 484.

Hassemer, NK-StGB, 1995, before § 1 margin no. 411 ff.; Herzog,Prävention des Unrechts oder Manifestation des Rechts, 1987, p. 89 ff.

Cf. here also Naucke, Die Kriminalpolitik des Marburger Programms1882, ZStW 94 (1982), p. 525 ff.

BVerfGE 45, 187, 253 ff.

Hegel, Werke, Tome 7 (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts),Amendment to § 99, p. 190.

Cf. Roxin (note 26), p. 643 f.;

Cf. Roxin (note 26), p. 643 f.; Stratenwerth, Die Zukunft des strafrechtlichen Schuldprinzips, 1977.

On this, cf. BVerfGE 105, 135 ff.

Representative of many, cf. Geyer, Hirnforschung und Willensfreiheit –Zur Deutung der neuesten Experimente, 2004.

Von Liszt, Strafrechtliche Aufsätze und Vorträge, Tome 1 (1875–1891),1905, p. 175.

Jakobs, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd edition, 1993, p. 5 ff.

Cf. Haffke, Tiefenpsychologie und Generalprävention, 1976.

Opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE) 45, 187,253 ff.

Cf. Albrecht, P.‑A., Spezialprävention angesichts neuer Tätergruppen,ZStW 97 (1985), p. 832.

Müller-Dietz, Integrationsprävention und Strafrecht, in: Jescheck-Festschrift 1985, Tome 2, p. 817 ff.

Müller-Tuckfeld, Integrationsprävention, 1998, p. 6; Zipf, DieIntegrationsprävention (positive Generalprävention), in: Pallin-Festschrift 1989,p. 481.

BVerfGE 45, 187, 256.

BGHSt 24, 40, 46; cf. also § 56 Para. 3 StGB.

Hassemer, Einführung in die Grundlagen des Strafrechts, 2nd edition,1990, p. 316 ff.

Baratta, KrimJ 1984, p.137.


Пристатейна бібліографія ГОСТ




Посилання

  • Поки немає зовнішніх посилань.


Copyright (c) 2017 Peter-Alexis Albrecht

Creative Commons License
Ця робота ліцензована Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2079-6242 (Print)