Criminal law dealing with hate crimes : functional comparative law, Germany vs. USA / Christine Marie Shavers.
2014
K5170 .S53 2014 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Title
Criminal law dealing with hate crimes : functional comparative law, Germany vs. USA / Christine Marie Shavers.
Published
Frankfurt am Main : Peter Lang GmbH, 2014.
Call Number
K5170 .S53 2014
Former Call Number
Comp 833 Sh259 2014
ISBN
9783631642207 (hbk.)
3631642202 (hbk.)
9783653036411 (ebk.)
3631642202 (hbk.)
9783653036411 (ebk.)
Description
xviii, 337 pages, 44 unnumbered pages ; 22 cm.
System Control No.
(OCoLC)869825236
Note
Based on author's thesis - Ludwig-Mazmillian-University in Munich.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages xxiii-lxi) and index.
Record Appears in
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
v
Translation Index of Selected Judicial Terms
vii
Preface
1
ch. 1
Methodical Introduction
9
A.
The Term `Comparative Law'
9
B.
Classification and Derivation of Comparative Law from other Disciplines
11
1.
Classification of Comparative Law as a "pure science"
11
2.
Comparative Law, a Part of Jurisprudence?
11
3.
Resume
13
C.
Tasks and Aims of Comparative Law
14
D.
Methods of Comparative Law
14
1.
Case Method and Scientific-Theoretical Comparative Law
14
2.
The Functional Method of Comparative Law
15
3.
The Delineation of Comparative Law to other Disciplines
21
ch. 2
Preparatory Country Report
25
A.
Choosing the Appropriate Reference Country
25
B.
The U.S. Legal System
26
1.
The Common Law System
26
1.1.
Origin and Development of the Common Law in the United States of America
27
1.2.
Common Law in the United States of America as of today
29
2.
The U.S. Constitution
32
2.1.
Structure and form of the U.S. Constitution
32
2.2.
Separation of Powers
34
2.3.
Constitutional Powers
36
2.4.
Summary
37
3.
U.S. American Criminal Law
38
3.1.
Constitutional Base of Criminal Law
38
3.2.
Legislative Competence and Institution
40
3.2.1.
Federal Matters
40
3.2.1.1.
Federal Legislative Competence
40
3.2.1.2.
Federal Legislative Institution
43
3.2.2.
State Matters
44
3.2.2.1.
State Legislative Competence
44
3.2.2.2.
State Legislative Institution
46
3.2.3.
Summary
46
3.3.
Manifestations of Criminal Law in the United States of America
47
3.3.1.
Federal Criminal Law
47
3.3.2.
State Criminal law
48
3.3.3.
Summary
51
3.4.
Jurisdiction and Competence of Criminal Courts
51
3.4.1.
Federal Matters
51
3.4.1.1.
Federal Courts
52
3.4.1.2.
Applicable Federal Law
53
3.4.2.
State Matters
55
3.4.2.1.
State Courts
55
3.4.2.2.
Applicable State Law
55
3.4.3.
Summary
56
C.
The German Legal System
57
1.
The Roman - Germanic Law System
57
1.1.
Origin and Development of Roman -- Germanic Law in Germany
58
1.2.
Roman - Germanic Law in Germany as of today
61
2.
The German Constitution
63
2.1.
Structure and Form of the German Constitution
64
2.2.
Separation of Powers
67
2.3.
Constitutional Powers
70
2.4.
Summary
70
3.
German Criminal Law
71
3.1.
Constitutional Base of Criminal Law
71
3.2.
Legislative Competence and Institution
74
3.3.
Competence and Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts
76
3.4.
Manifestation of Criminal Law
77
3.4.1.
Enhancing Criminal Penalties according to German Criminal Law Doctrine
78
3.4.1.1.
Aggravated Statute
79
3.4.1.2.
Aggravated Ruling Example
79
3.4.1.3.
Transfer of the General Penalty Enhancement Methodology to the matter of Hate Crime
80
3.4.2.
Classification of Offenses
80
3.5.
Sense and Purpose of Penalty according to the German Legal Doctrine
82
3.5.1.
Absolute Penal Theory
83
3.5.2.
Relative Penal Theory
83
3.5.2.1.
General Prevention Theory
83
3.5.2.2.
Specific Prevention Theory
84
3.5.3.
Unification Theories
85
3.5.4.
Summary
87
D.
Determination of the Legitimate Ambit of Criminal Law in Both Countries
88
1.
Purpose of Criminal Law according to the American Penal Theory
89
1.1.
Content of the American Penal Theory: Harm Principle
89
1.1.1.
Liberty-Limiting Principles
90
1.1.1.1.
Offense-Principle
90
1.1.1.2.
Legal Paternalism
91
1.1.1.3.
Legal Moralism
91
1.1.1.4.
Summary
92
1.1.2.
Result: Harm-Principle as Main Principle among Possible Others
92
1.1.2.1.
Word Meaning of `Harm' in the Context of the Harm Principle
93
a).
Setback of Interests
93
b).
The Need to "Wrong" the Other
94
c).
Violation of Rights
94
1.1.2.2.
Summary: Word Meaning of `Harm' in the Context of the Harm Principle
95
1.2.
Summary: Content of the American Penal Theory: Harm Principle
95
2.
Purpose of Criminal Law according to the German Penal Theory
96
2.1.
Content of the German Legal Good Theory
98
2.1.1.
Inbuilt or System-Critical Understanding of the Legal Good Doctrine
100
2.1.1.1.
Inbuilt Understanding of the Legal Good Doctrine
101
2.1.1.2.
System-Critical Understanding of the Legal Good Doctrine
102
2.1.2.
Intermediate Result: System-Critical Understanding of the Legal Good Doctrine
102
2.1.3.
Individual- and Collective Goods
103
2.1.4.
Substantiality of the Term Legal Good
105
2.1.5.
Intermediate Summary
107
2.1.6.
Linking the Legal Good Theory to the Social Theory
107
2.1.7.
Constitutional Guideposts
108
2.1.8.
Result of a Critical Understanding of the Legal Good Theory
111
2.2.
Result according the Content of the German Legal Good Theory
111
3.
Purpose of Criminal Law according to the American and the German Penal Theory
112
ch. 3
Hate Crime in the United States of America
115
A.
Course of Action
115
B.
Emergence of the Hate Crime Concept in the USA
116
1.
The Hate Crime Concept and the Role of Social Movements
118
1.1.
Social Movements rumored to be the Author of the Social Phenomenon Hate Crime
118
1.2.
Propagation of the Term "Hate Crime" among American Society
120
1.3.
Hate Crime Legislation as Problem-Solving Approach induced by Social Movements
121
1.4.
Influence of Social Movements on the Wording and the Composition of Hate Crime Laws
121
2.
Clarifying the Role of Social Movements
122
2.1.
Social Problem "Hate Crime" - Real or Constructed?
123
2.2.
Propagation of the Term "Hate Crime" among American Society
126
2.3.
Hate Crime Legislation as a Problem -- Solving Approach
127
2.4.
Influences on the Wording and the Composition of Hate Crime Laws
128
3.
Conclusion: Emergence of the Hate Crime Concept in the USA
130
C.
Beginnings of Hate Crime Legislation
132
D.
Effective Hate Crime Laws in the United States of America
134
1.
Federal Hate Crime Laws
135
1.1.
Civil Rights Legislation
135
1.2.
Hate Crime Statistic Act of 1990
137
1.3.
Violence Against Women Act
138
1.4.
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1994
139
1.5.
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
142
1.6.
Conclusion of Current Federal Hate Crime Legislation
144
2.
State Hate Crime Laws
145
2.1.
The Launch of a Model Law
146
2.2.
Legal Formation of State Law
149
2.2.1.
Hate Crime Reporting Statutes
149
2.2.2.
Paramilitary Training Laws
150
2.2.3.
Legislation for Criminalizing Bias-Motivated Behavior
150
2.2.3.1.
Substantial Hate Crime Statutes
150
a).
Substantial Hate Crime Statutes refering to previously Penalized Behavior
151
b).
"Real" Substantial Hate Crime Statutes
152
aa).
Cross Burning Legislation
153
bb).
Intimidation Statutes
154
cc).
State Civil Rights Laws
155
dd).
Conclusion "Real" Substantive Hate Crime Statutes
156
2.2.3.2.
Sentencing Enhancement Laws
157
2.2.3.3.
Overview of Various State Laws and their provided Definition of Hate Crime
159
a).
Alabama
159
b).
California
160
c).
Connecticut
160
d).
Georgia
160
e).
Louisiana
160
f).
Virginia
161
g).
Washington
161
3.
Ambiguity of Hate Crime Laws in the American Nation
162
E.
Brief Look at the American Justification of Hate Crime Laws
166
F.
The Standards set by U. S. Supreme Courts
167
G.
Conclusion: Hate Crime in the United States of America
170
ch. 4
Hate Crime in Germany
172
A.
Historical Background of Hate Crime in its Social and Criminal Political Context (Brief Overview)
174
B.
The Hate Crime "Concept" in Germany
176
1.
Early Beginnings of Data Collection
176
2.
Data Collection in the Present Day
177
3.
Comparison
180
4.
Operation of the Data Acquisition System
182
5.
Hate Crime Situation in Case Numbers
186
6.
Significance of these Numbers
187
7.
Result: German Hate Crime "Concept"
188
C.
Legal Dealing with Hate Crime
188
1.
Draft Bill of Baden-Wuerttemberg Drs. 564/00, dated September 21, 2000
189
2.
Draft Bill of Brandenburg Drs. 577/00, dated September 26, 2000
189
3.
Draft Bill of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Drs. 759/00, dated November 16, 2000
192
4.
Draft Bill of Brandenburg/Sachsen-Anhalt Drs. 572/07, dated August 20, 2007
193
5.
Draft Bill of the Federal Council Drs. 458/08, dated July 4, 2008
194
6.
Draft Bill of the Federal Council Drs. 17/9345, dated April 18, 2012
195
7.
Descriptive Summary and Evaluation of the Draft Laws
197
8.
Symbolic Reasoning of Hate Crime Law
201
9.
Comparison of the German Drafts with American Laws on Hate Crimes
203
10.
Conclusion Legal Dealing with Hate Crime
204
D.
Judicial Dealing with Hate Crime
204
1.
Judicial Recognition of Bias-Motivation in Homicide
204
2.
Judicial Recognition of Bias-Motivation Apart from Homicides
208
3.
Hate Crime in the Light of Section 46 Penal Code
209
4.
Limited Verifiability of Judicial Sentencing Practice
216
5.
Conclusion
218
E.
Parenthesis
220
1.
European Criminal Law Initiatives
220
1.1.
Demands of ECRI for Fighting Hate Crime
220
1.2.
Demands of the OSCE for Fighting Hate Crime
224
2.
Conclusion
225
F.
Brief Review
226
G.
Eligibility Check of Hate Crime Legislation according to German Criminal Law Doctrine
230
1.
The Enactment of a Substantive Norm to Punish Hateful and Bias-Motivated Criminal Behavior
232
1.1.
Possible Goods Protected by a Hate Crime Law
233
1.1.1.
Human Dignity of the Immediate Victim
237
1.1.2.
Human Dignity of the Victim's Community
243
1.1.3.
Public Peace
245
1.2.
Priority of Protected Legal Goods
246
1.3.
Legitimacy of Hate Crime Legislation according to the Legal Good Doctrine
252
1.3.1.
Precepts of the Legal Good Doctrine
253
1.3.2.
Legitimization of Hate Crime Legislation according to the Social Theory
257
1.3.3.
Legitimization of Hate Crime Legislation according to Constitutional Provisions
259
1.3.3.1.
Constitutional Obligation to enact Hate Crime Penal Law
260
1.3.3.2.
Constitutional Criteria to Legitimize Hate Crime Penal Law
263
1.3.3.3.
Constitutional Restriction to enact Hate Crime Penal Law
265
1.3.4.
Jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court
268
1.3.5.
Result
270
1.4.
Legitimacy of a Hate Crime Norm in Regard to the Protected Human Dignity
270
1.5.
Legitimacy of a Hate Crime Norm in Regard to the Protected Partial Aspect of Public Peace
271
1.5.1.
Ambiguity and Heterogeneity of the Legal Good Public Peace
271
1.5.1.1.
Meaning of the Objective Part of Public Peace in a Hate Crime Norm
272
a).
General Legal Safety
272
b).
Protection of Public Peace to Preserve the Current Social Climate
273
aa).
Prevention of Vigilante Justice
273
bb).
Prevention of Revenge Related Activity
274
cc).
Exchangeability of Victims
275
dd).
Prevention of Intergroup Relations
275
ee).
Incited Climate
276
c).
Intermediate Summary
276
d).
Protection of a Tolerant Climate to Maintain the current Multi-Cultural, Pluralistic Form of Society
279
1.5.1.2.
Meaning of the Subjective Part of Public Peace in a Hate Crime Norm
280
1.5.2.
Current Protection of Public Peace by the German Penal Code
281
1.5.3.
Result: Meaning of Public Peace in a Hate Crime Norm
282
1.6.
Hate Crimes and "Worthiness of Punishment"
283
1.6.1.
Disvalue of the Result
284
1.6.2.
Disvalue of the Act
286
1.6.3.
Intermediate Result
287
1.7.
Necessity of Punishment
287
1.7.1.
Necessity of Punishment with regard to Previously Established Criminal Norms
288
1.7.1.1.
Necessity of a Hate Crime Law with regard to the Existence of certain Criminal Norms
288
1.7.1.2.
Section 211 Penal Code
290
1.7.1.3.
Sections 223; 224; 226 Penal Code
292
1.7.1.4.
Section 46 Penal Code
294
a).
Hate Crime Motives: Part of the Wrong or the Culpability of an Offense
294
b).
Culpability Addressed in Section 46 Penal Code and the Influence of the Bias Motive
296
c).
Hate Crime Motives are Different
299
d).
Result According the Reach of Existing Standards
302
e).
Necessity with Regard to the German society
303
1.7.2.
Intermediate Result
304
1.8.
Characterization of a Hate Crime Law
305
1.8.1.
Differentation of Injury Torts and Non-Result-Constituted Offenses
306
1.8.1.1.
Sensational Features as Supplementary Elements of Criminal Liability
306
1.8.1.2.
Frequency and Severity are no Criminality Prerequisites
310
1.8.2.
Intermediate Result
312
1.9.
Summary According a Separate Offense
313
1.10.
Prerequisites of Penalization of Hate Crime
314
1.10.1.
Objective Constituent Elements of a Norm
314
1.10.2.
Protected Characteristics
315
1.10.2.1.
Immutable or Fundamental Characteristics
315
1.10.2.2.
Social and Historical Context
318
1.10.2.3.
Excluded Characteristics
319
1.10.2.4.
Implementation Issues
320
1.10.2.5.
The Protection of Persons Affiliated with Principal Hate Crime Victims
320
1.10.2.6.
Conclusion
322
1.10.2.7.
Defining the Motive in Regard to Consequential Differences
322
1.10.2.8.
Drawn Precepts of the Racial Animus- and the Discriminatory Selection Model for Implementation
323
1.10.2.9.
Unimportant Error in Persona
324
1.10.2.10.
Conclusion
325
2.
Further Possibilities of Explicit Implementation of Hate Crime Legislation
326
2.1.
Aggravated Statute
326
2.2.
Implementation of Aggravated Exemplified Rules
329
2.3.
The Enactment of a Rule for Judicial Penalty Assessment
331
2.3.1.
Scope of Culpability that Could be Addressed by such a Regulation Technique
331
2.3.2.
Legislator's Duty of Providing the Abstract Penal Frame in Regard to the Type of Crime
332
2.3.3.
Hate Crime Enhancement - a Decision of a Court drawn in Equity and Good Conscience
333
2.3.4.
Hate Crime Motives are to be Differentiated from Such Exemplarily Named in Section 46 Penal Code
333
2.4.
Implementation of an Extra Rule in the General Part of the Penal Code
334
3.
Final decision
336
4.
Summarizing Aspects
337
German Abstract
xix
Bibliography
xxiii