No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The relevant section of the Israeli draft concerning “Mistake of Law” reads as follows:
For the purposes of criminal liability, it is immaterial whether a person, owing to a mistake as to the existence or meaning of a penal enactment, imagines that his act is not prohibited, unless the mistake could not reasonably have been avoided.
The corresponding section of the German Criminal Code (StGB) concerning mistake of law (§ 17) reads as follows:
If the perpetrator, when committing the act, lacks the insight into his wrong-doing, he is not criminally liable if this mistake was unavoidable. In case, this mistake was avoidable, the punishment can be mitigated according to § 49, sec. 1.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Israel Law Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1-2: Reform of Criminal Law , Spring Winter 1996 , pp. 207 - 213
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996
Footnotes
*
Professor of Law, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/Main.
References
1 The Israeli Criminal Code 1936 does not exclude criminal liability unless knowledge of the law is expressly declared to be an element of the offence (Section 8); see also Feller, Schneyer Z., “Mistake in Israeli Criminal Law”, in Israeli Reports to the Tenth International Congress of Comparative Law (1978) 207, 216–223 Google Scholar.
2 See Kuhlen, , Die Unterscheidung von vorsatzausschliessendem und nicht vorsatzausschhessendem Irrtum (1987)Google Scholar.
3 BGHSt2, 104.
4 Roxin, , Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, Vol. I, (2nd ed., 1994) § 21 Rn. 34Google Scholar.
5 Schmidhauser, , Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil (Studienbuch), (2nd ed., 1984) 7/87 ff.Google Scholar; Langer, , Vorsatztheorie und strafgesetzliche Irrtumsregelung, (GA, 1976) 193, at 213 ffGoogle Scholar.
6 BVerfGE 41, 121.
7 Maurach, and Zipf, , Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil I, (8th ed., 1992) § 37 Rn. 33Google Scholar.
8 Cramer, , in Schönke, and Schröder, , Strafgesetzbuchkommentar, (24th ed., 1991) § 17 Rn. 6Google Scholar; Baumann, and Weber, , Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil (9th ed., 1985) 419 Google Scholar.
9 Jescheck, , Lehrbuch des Strafrechts — Allgemeiner Teil, (4th ed., 1988) 408 Google Scholar; Roxin, supra n. 4, at § 21 Rn. 12.
10 Jescheck, supra n. 9, at 408.
11 Kaufmann, Arthur, Das Unrechtsbewusstsein in der Schuldlehre des Strafrechts (1949, Reprint 1985) 142–163 Google Scholar. See also Kaufmann, Arthur, Die Parallelwertung in der Laienshpäre (1982) 22 fGoogle Scholar.
12 Mangakis, , Die Unrechtsbewusstein in der strafrechtlichen Schuldlehre nach deutschem und griechischem Recht (1954) 54 Google Scholar; see also Arthur Kaufmann, Parallelwertung, supra n. 11, at 22.
13 BGHSt 2, 194, 202; BGHSt 10, 35, 41.
14 Jescheck, supra n. 9, at 408.
15 For the difference between legal principles (Rechtsprinzipien) and legal rules (Rechtsregeln) see e.g. Alexy, , Theorie der Grundrechte (1986) 71–104 Google Scholar.
16 Stratenwerth, , Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, Die Straftat, Vol. 1, (3rd ed., 1981) Rn. 565Google Scholar; Jakobs, , Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre, (2nd ed., 1991) 19/23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schroeder, , in Leipziger Kommentar (LK) (11th ed., 1994) § 17 Rn. 7Google Scholar.
17 Lackner, , StGB, Strafgesetzbuch mit Erläuterungen, (11th ed., 1995) § 17 Rn. 2Google Scholar; see also Neumann, , “Der Verbotsirrtum (§ 17 StGB)” (1993) JuS 793, 795 Google Scholar Fn. 26 with references.
18 Jakobs, supra n. 16, at 3/8.
19 Rudolphi, , Unrechtsbewusstein, Verbotsirrtum und Vermeidbarkeitdes Verbotsirrtums (1969) 63 Google Scholar; contrary opinion Rudolphi, , in Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (SK) (1989)Google Scholar § 17 Rn. 6 and the dominant opinion.
20 Langer, supra n. 5, at 203.
21 Neumann, , in Nomos-Kommentar zum StGB (1994) ff.Google Scholar, § 17 Rn. 83 with references.
22 Cramer, supra n. 8, at § 17 Rn. 3; BVerfGE 41, 121.
23 See e.g. Roxin, supra n. 4, at § 21 Rn. 67.