Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Commentary to “Complicity and Causality”

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. In the German literature, this is the prevailing explanation, see Roxin (2003, Sect. 26, nr. 12–15, 26–27). See for a different theory Schumann (1986), who argues that accomplices express solidarity with the principal and thus disconcert the public. This is not convincing as it underrates the degree of responsibility.

  2. In German criminal law, called the „conditio sine qua non“-formula, see Kühl (2005, Sect. 4, nr. 9)

  3. This approach to determine causality is called “Lehre von der gesetzmäßigen Bedingung”. See Roxin (2006, Sect. 11, nr. 15) and Jescheck (1996, p. 283)

  4. See for the concept of objective attribution (“objektive Zurechnung”) Roxin (2006, Sect. 11, nr. 44–145), Jescheck (1996, pp. 286–289) and Kühl (2005, Sect. 4, nr. 36–60).

  5. The Bundesverfassungsgericht recently had to deal with a new legal provision permitting that the airforce shoots down a kidnapped airplane if it appears that the kidnapper will use the plane for an attack. The court declared this law unconstitutional, with the argument that to kill passengers and crew in the kidnapped plane in order to safe the lives of others violates their right to life and their human dignity, NJW 2006, 751, at 758. See also for similar arguments Roxin (2006, Sect. 16, nr. 38–42) and Jescheck (1996, p. 363).

  6. Some even argue that parents’ duties are so important that failing to fulfil them makes the parent always a principal to the crime (Roxin, 2003, Sect. 31, nr. 140; for the contrary view—parent is accomplice—Jescheck, 1996, p. 696). Gardner’s argument is convincing: the parent who does not intervene against actions by others would be an accomplice.

  7. On the contrary: if one would opt to fly the airplane to avoid a much bigger number of victims and survived, one would be most likely be convicted by a German court as conventional doctrine claims that this could neither be justified (see the citations in footnote 5) nor excused (excuse in the criminal law, Sect. 35 of the German Penal Code, calls for the intention to rescue oneself, one’s family or someone to whom one is personally close. Rescuing strangers is not even an excuse according to German law!).

References

  • Ashworth, A. (1999). Principles of criminal law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzberg, R.-D. (1971). Anstiftung und Beihilfe als Straftatbestände, Goltdammer’s Archiv, p. 7.

  • Jescheck, H., & Weigend, T. (1996). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (5th ed.). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienapfel, D. (1971). Der Einheitstäter im Strafrecht. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühl, K. (2005). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (5th ed.). München: Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiwald, M. (1979). Historische und Dogmatische Aspekte der Einheitstäterlösung. In G. Bemmann, D. Krauss, & K. Volk (Eds.), Festschrift für Paul Bockelmann (p. 343). München: Beck.

  • Roxin, C. (2003). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (Vol. 2). München: Beck.

  • Roxin, C. (2006). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). München: Beck.

  • Schumann, H. (1986) Strafrechtliches Handlungsunrecht und das Prinzip der Selbstverantwortung der Anderen. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Juristische Fakultät, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150, Bochum, 44801, Germany

    Tatjana Hörnle

Authors
  1. Tatjana Hörnle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatjana Hörnle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hörnle, T. Commentary to “Complicity and Causality”. Criminal Law, Philosophy 1, 143–149 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-006-9014-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-006-9014-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation