Der Verfasser analysiert die Strafbarkeit nach § 89a Abs. 2a StGB, welcher die Vorbereitungsstrafbarkeit schwerer staatsgefährdender Gewalttaten unter bestimmten subjektiven Voraussetzungen bereits an die Ausreise aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland knüpft und damit weit in das Vorbereitungsstadium vorverlagert. Der Verfasser setzt sich angesichts der verfassungsrechtlichen Bedenken mit den Grenzen der Vorverlagerung der Strafbarkeit durch Vorbereitungs-, Gefährdungs- und Unternehmensdelikten auseinander. Dabei untersucht er die Grenzen der Strafbarkeitsvorverlagerung unter Berücksichtigung der strafrechtsdogmatischen und verfassungsrechtlichen Schranken. Die Arbeit bietet eine umfassende praxisorientierte Kommentierung des § 89a Abs. 2a StGB. Darüber hinaus behandelt der Verfasser grundlegende Fragestellung der allgemeinen Strafrechtsdogmatik. Die Arbeit richtet sich daher sowohl an Praktiker als auch an Strafrechtswissenschaftler sowie Studierende der Rechtswissenschaften.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Fragen: Es gibt nach h.M. der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft drei Vorsatzformen: Absicht, sicheres Wissen und dolus eventualis. Soll unterschiedliche Vorsatzform, ceteris paribus, auch bei der Strafzumessung unterschiedlich bewertet werden? Warum? Methode: Diese Fragen werden in einem interdisziplinären Dialog zwischen Norm und Empirie untersucht. Neben der strafrechtlichen und verfassungsrechtlichen Ausführung bezieht sich diese Arbeit großenteils auf die Erkenntnisse aus den Bereichen Kriminalpolitik, Kriminologie, Psychologie, Verhaltensökonomie und Neurowissenschaft. Zur Auswertung der Erkenntnisse wird großer Wert auch auf Forschungsmethode gelegt. Ergebnisse: Zur ersten Frage: Die Schuldangemessenheit gebietet, unterschiedliche Vorsatzformen bei der Strafzumessung unterschiedlich zu bewerten, wenn sie quantitative oder qualitative beachtliche Unterschiede aufweisen. Zur zweiten Frage: Der in Kapitel 6 erarbeitete Maßstab, Vorsatzformen nach dem Risiko für die Tatbestandsverwirklichung abzustufen, erweist sich als am aussichtsvollsten, sich auf solide Grundlagen der Norm und Empirie zu stützen. Möglichkeiten für Vorsatzabstufung nach diesem Maßstab werden erörtert. Eine klare Antwort bedarf aber einer Anpassung der Vorsatzformen an empirisches Wissen, weil die Studien aus anderen Bereichen den Nuancen von rechtlichen Begriffen nicht genug Rechnung tragen. Ferner wäre eine Vorsatzabstufung nach dem Bedarf einer Straftäterbehandlung, wie in Kapitel 4 gezeigt, erfolgversprechend, sollte die Beziehung zwischen den Vorsatzformen und dem Rückfallrisiko festgestellt werden. Ausblick: Der Verfasser plädiert für eine normativ sowie empirisch fundierte Strafrechtsdogmatik. Das heißt, Strafrechtler sollen empirische Beweise vorbringen, nötigenfalls durch eigene Studien, soweit ihre Argumente empirische Thesen enthalten. Zum Schluss verweist der Verfasser auf die Erforderlichkeit, das Potenzial und die Grenzen dieses Ansatzes und die Herausforderungen auf diesem Weg. ; Question: According to the prevailing view of German legal doctrines, there are three severe types of mens rea, collectively referred to as "Vorsatz," i.e., intent, knowledge, and dolus eventualis. This work examined two questions: Should criminal acts committed with different "Vorsatz" types, all other things being equal, be punished differently? Why? Method: This work answered these questions in an interdisciplinary discourse between jurisprudence and empirical research, based chiefly on knowledge from criminal and constitutional law jurisprudence, penal policy, criminology, psychology, behavioral economics, and empirical research methods. Conclusion: To the first question: The proportionality between the penalty and criminal act demands that criminal acts committed with different "Vorsatz" types shall be differently punished if they exhibit considerable qualitative or quantitative differences. To the second question: The state of research, as discussed in Chapter 6, indicated that a gradation of "Vorsatz" types according to the risk they pose for crime completion is the most promising guideline that could enjoy both normative and empirical justifications. Possibilities of "Vorsatz" gradation are suggested. However, revisions of the definition of "Vorsatz" types are prerequisite for all these possibilities, because the studies in other disciplines did not take sufficiently into consideration the nuances of legal notions. On the other hand, a gradation of "Vorsatz" types according to the requirements for successful offender rehabilitation, as shown in Chapter 4, would also be promising if the relation between "Vorsatz" types and recidivism risk could be proven. Prospects: The author called for a criminal legal dogmatics on both normative and empirical bases. It means that criminal law scholars should provide evidence for arguments comprising empirical hypotheses. The necessity, potential, and limitations of this approach and challenge toward it are discussed. ; 問題:按照德國刑法學通說,故意有三種類型:意圖、明知、間接故意。假設其他條件相同,不同的故意類型在量刑時是否應做不同評價? 方法:本文以規範與實證之間的對話來回答上述問題。除了刑法學和憲法學的辯證之外,本文大量援引數個領域的知識,例如刑事政策、犯罪學、心理學、行為經濟學及神經科學。為了適切評析實證知識,也注重實證研究方法的理解。 結果:回答第一個問題:罪刑相當原則要求,若故意類型之間具有量或質的重要差異,便應於量刑時做相應不同的評價。回答第二個問題:第6章提出的標準,亦即按照故意類型所代表的構成要件實現風險來做故意分級,是最有潛力同時具備堅實的規範基礎及實證基礎之標準。本章提出按照此標準來做故意分級的數種可能性。然而,必須先對故意類型的定義略做修改,才能得出明確的答案,這是因為其他領域做的研究不能充分顧及法律概念的細微變化。此外,若有朝一日能釐清故意類型與再犯風險之間的關係,則按照犯罪人矯治的需求來做故意分級,如同第4章所分析,也是很可能成功的。 展望:作者提倡「兼具規範與實證基礎的刑法釋義學」,此意味著,刑法學者應該提出經驗證據來支持自己論述當中的經驗命題,若有需要時,也應自己從事實證研究來達成此事。於論文結尾,作者提示這種研究取徑的必要性、潛力和界線,也指出追求此路徑之際可能面臨的挑戰。
Access to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage of proceedings is an essential component of the right to defense in criminal proceedings and the right to a fair trial. Access to a lawyer enables the accused to make a good decision for his her defence. At present, there is no doubt that prompt access to a lawyer constitutes an important counterweight to the vulnerability of suspects in police custody, ensures equality of arms and provides a fundamental safeguard against coercion. This study analyses a suspect's right to access to a lawyer at the initial stage of criminal proceedings in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The first part of the article provides an analysis of the understanding of the right to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage as applied by the ECtHR prior to the Salduz case. This period in the ECtHR's case law was characterized by a lack of precision as to the temporal limits of the right laid down in Article 6 § 3 (c) of the ECHR. The next part shows the changes brought about by the judgment in the Salduz case regarding the protection of suspects and ensuring their right to counsel. It is argued that the Salduzdoctrine not only covered the suspect's access to a lawyer at the initial stage of the pre-trial proceedings, but also stressed the obligation to inform the suspect of his or her rights, including the right to remain silent. An important element of the Salduz doctrine was the possibility to eliminate evidence obtained during an interrogation conducted at an early stage of the pre-trial proceedings in the absence of a defense counsel. Further, the paper argues that the standard set out in the judgment in the Salduz v. Turkey case was confirmed in a number of rulings. The fourth part of the paper draws attention to the erosion of the Salduz standard that occurred with the judgment in the Ibrahim and Others v. the UK case. The article also brings into focus recent judgments of the ECtHR which have reinforced the view expressed in the Ibrahim and Others v. the UK case concerning a test of fairness of a trial as whole. It is underlined in the conclusions that recent ECtHR's case law does not provide any cause for optimism regarding legal assistance at an early stage of criminal proceedings. ; O acesso a um advogado na fase anterior ao julgamento é um componente essencial do direito de defesa no processo penal e do direito a um julgamento justo. O acesso a um advogado permite que o imputado tome uma boa decisão em relação à sua defesa. Atualmente, não há dúvida de que o acesso imediato à defesa técnica constitui um contrapeso importante à vulnerabilidade dos suspeitos sob custódia policial, garante a igualdade de armas e fornece uma salvaguarda fundamental contra a coerção. Este estudo analisa o direito do imputado a um advogado na fase inicial da persecução penal na jurisprudência do Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos. A primeira parte do artigo apresenta uma análise da compreensão sobre o direito a um advogado na fase anterior ao julgamento, conforme aplicado pelo TEDH antes do caso Salduz. Esse período foi caracterizado por uma falta de precisão quanto aos limites temporais do direito previsto no artigo 6.º, n.º 3, alínea c, da CEDH. O item subsequente apresenta as mudanças trazidas pelo julgamento do caso Salduz no que diz respeito à proteção dos suspeitos e à garantia de seu direito à defesa técnica. Argumenta-se que a doutrina Salduz não apenas abrangia o acesso do suspeito a um advogado na fase inicial do procedimento prévio ao julgamento, mas também enfatizava a obrigação de informar o suspeito sobre os seus direitos, incluindo o direito de permanecer em silêncio. Um elemento importante da doutrina Salduz era a possibilidade de excluir as provas obtidas durante um interrogatório em investigação preliminar conduzido na ausência de um advogado de defesa. Além disso, argumenta-se que o standard estabelecido no julgamento no caso Salduz v. Turquia foi confirmado em uma série de decisões posteriores. A quarta parte do artigo chama a atenção para a erosão do padrão Salduz que ocorreu com o julgamento no caso Ibrahim e outros vs. Reino Unido. O artigo também destaca os recentes acórdãos do TEDH, que reforçaram a opinião expressa no caso Ibrahim e outros c. Reino Unido a respeito de uma verificação de legitimidade do julgamento como um todo. Salienta-se nas conclusões que a jurisprudência recente do TEDH não oferece qualquer motivo para otimismo em relação à assistência jurídica na fase inicial da persecução penal. ; sakowicz@uwb.edu.pl ; Professor at the University of Bialystok, Poland; the Faculty of Law; the Department of Criminal Procedure. ; University of Bialystok, Poland ; ARNARDÓTTIR, Oddný Mjöll. Res Interpretata, Erga Omnes Effect and the Role of the Margin of Appreciation in Giving Domestic Effect to the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, v. 28, n. 3, p. 819–843, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chx045 ; BACHMAIER WINTER, Lorena; THAMAN, C. Stephan. A Comparative View of the Right to Counsel and the Protection of Attorney-Client Communications. In: BACHMAIER WINTER, Lorena; THAMAN, C. Stephen; LYNN, Veronica (eds.). The Right to Counsel and the Protection of Attorney-Client Privilege in Criminal Proceedings. A Comparative View. Springer International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43123-5_2 ; BEIJER, Annemarieke. False confessions during police interrogations and measures to prevent them. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, n. 18, p. 311-348, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1163/157181710x12816005399159 ; BERGER, Mark. Self-Incrimination and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedural Issues in the Enforcement of the Right to Silence. European Human Rights Law Review. vol. 5, p. 514-533, 2007. ; BLACKBURN, Robert; POLAKIEWICZ, Jörg (eds). Fundamental rights in Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and its member states, 1950-2000, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. ; BODNAR, Adam. Res Interpretata: The Legal Effect of the European Court of Human Rights Judgments for Other States Than Those Which Were Party to the Proceedings. In: HAECK, Yves; BREMS, Eva (eds.). Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century, Springer Netherlands, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7599-2_10 ; CELIKSOY, Ergul. Ibrahim and Others v. UK: Watering down the Salduz principles? New Journal of European Criminal Law, v. 9, n. 2, p. 229-246, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284418778149 ; CELIKSOY, Ergul. Overruling 'the Salduz Doctrine' in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR's further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer. New Journal of European Criminal Law, v. 10, n. 4, p. 342-362, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284419879228 ; CZERNIKA, Dominika. Europeski Przegląd Sądowy, nr 9, p. Prawo podejrzanego do kontaktu z adwokatem (art. 6 ust. 3 lit. c EKPCz) w orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka, p. 28-39, 2017. ; DZIERŻANOWSKA, Joanna. Access to a Lawyer for a Suspect at Early Stage of Criminal Proceedings and Its Participation in Investigative Acts. Review of European and Comparative Law, v. 41, n. 2, p. 109-127, 2020, https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.6153 ; GERARDS, Janneke; FLEUREN, Josepf (eds.), Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland, Intersentia, 2014. ; GIANNOULOPOULOS, Dimitrios. Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Law Reform and Comparative Law: A Tale of the Right to Custodial Legal Assistance in Five Countries. Human Rights Law Review, v. 16, n. 1, p. 103–129, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv039 ; GIANNOULOPOULOS, Dimitrios. Improperly Obtained Evidence in Anglo-American and Continental Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019. ; GINTER, Jaan; SOO, Anneli. The Right of the Suspect to Counsel in Pre-trial Criminal Proceedings, Its Content, and the Extent of Application. Juridica International, v. XIX, p. 170-178, 2012. ; GORDON, Van Kessel. European Perspectives on the Accused as a Source of Testimonial Evidence. West Virginia Law Review, vol. 100, p. 799-845, 1999. ; GOSS Ryan, Out of Many, One? Strasbourg's Ibrahim decision on Article 6, The Modern Law Review, v. 80, 6, p. 1137-1150, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12305 ; GRABENWARTER, Christoph. European Convention on Human Rights. Commentary. München: C. H. Beck; Oxford: Hard; Baden-Baden: Nomos; Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, 2014. ; HARRIS, J. David; O'BOYLE, Michael; WARBRICK, Chris. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London, Dublin, Edinburgh: Butterworths, 1995. ; HASSEMER, Winfried. Human Dignity in the Criminal Process: The Example of the Truth-Finding. Israel Law Review, v. 44, n. 1-2, p. 185-198, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700001011 ; HAECK, Yves; BREMS, Eva (eds.). Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century, Springer Netherlands, 2014. ; HÖRNLE, Tatjana; KREMNITZER, Mordechai. Human dignity as a protected interest in criminal law, Israel Law Review, v. 44, p. 143-167, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700000996 ; JACKSON, D. John. Common Law Evidence and the Common Law of Human Rights: Towards a Harmonic Convergence? Towards a Harmonic Convergence?. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, v. 27, n. 3, p. 689-715, 2019. ; JACKSON, D. John, Responses to Salduz: procedural tradition, change and the need for effective defence. Modern Law Review, v. 76, n. 6, p. 987-1018, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12227 ; JASIŃSKI, Wojciech: Dostęp osoby oskarżonej o popełnienie czynu zagrożonego karą do adwokata na wstępnym etapie ścigania karnego – standard strasburski. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, n. 1, p. 25-28, 2019. ; LAGODNY, Otto. Human Dignity and Its Impact on German Substantive Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure. Israel Law Review, v. 33, n. 3, p. 575-591, 1999, https://doi.org/10.1017/s002122370001606x ; LEVERICK, Leverick, Fiona. The Right to Legal Assistance During Detention. Edinburgh Law Review, v. 15, p. 352-380, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2011.0057 ; NEUMANN, Ulfrid. Materielle und prozedurale Gerechtigkeit im Strafverfahren. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, v. 101, n. 1, p. 52-74, 1989, https://doi.org/10.1515/zstw.1989.101.1.52 ; OGORODOVA, Anna; SPRONKEN, Taru. Legal Advice in Police Custody: From Europe to a Local Police Station. Erasmus Law Review, v. 4, p. 191-205, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5553/elr.000021 ; OWUSU-BEMPAH, Abenaa, Silence in suspicious circumstances. Criminal Law Review, n. 2, p. 126-135, 2014. ; PERONI, Lourdes; TIMMER, Alexandra. Vulnerable Groups. the Promise of an Emergent Concept in European Human Rights Convention Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, n. 11, 1056–1085, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot042 ; RESS, Georg. The effects of decisions and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the domestic legal order. Texas International Law Journal, vol. 40, 2005. ; SAKOWICZ, Andrzej. Standard of the protection of the right to silence applicable to persons examined as witnesses in the light of the European Court of Human Rights case law. Ius Novum, n. 2, p. 120-136, 2018, https://doi.org/10.26399/iusnovum.v12.2.2018.19/a.sakowicz ; SCHABAS, A. William. The European Convention on Human Rights. A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. ; SCHLEGEL, Stephan; WOHLERS, Wolfgang. Der »Anwalt der ersten Stunde« in der Schweiz. Strafverteidiger, n. 5, p. 307-318, 2012. ; SCHWEIGER, F. Theresa. Prozedurales Strafrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2018. ; SKORUPKA, Jerzy. O sprawiedliwości procesu karnego. Warszawa: WoltersKluwer, 2013. ; SOO, Anneli. Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13th of September 2016). European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, v.25, n. 4, p. 327–346, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02504002 ; SUXBERGER, Antonio H. G.; MELLO, Gabriela S. J. V. A voluntariedade da colaboração premiada e sua relação com a prisão processual do colaborador. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, Porto Alegre, vol. 3, n. 1, p. 189-224, 2017. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v3i1.40 ; THAMAN, C. Stephan; LYNN, Veronica (eds.). The Right to Counsel and the Protection of Attorney-Client Privilege in Criminal Proceedings. A Comparative View. Springer International Publishing, 2020. ; TRECHSEL, Stefan. Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press: 2005. ; TIMMER, Alexandra. A Quiet Revolution: Vulnerability in the European Court of Human Rights. In: FINEMAN, Albertson; GREAR, Anna (eds.). Vulnerability: Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics, Farnham: Ashgate, 2013. ; VAN DE LAAR, Tom; DE GRAAFF, Regien. Salduz and Miranda: Is the US Supreme Court Pointing the Way?. European Human Rights Law Review, v. 3, p. 304-317, 2011. ; WALTOŚ, Stanisław; HOFMAŃSKI, Piotr. Proces karny. Zarys system. Warszawa: WoltersKluwer, 2020. ; WĄSEK-WIADERER, Małgorzata: Model zakazów dowodowych z perspektywy Konwencji i orzecznictwa ETPCz. En: SKORUPKA, Jerzy; DROZD, Anna (eds.). Nowe spojrzenie na model zakazów dowodowych w procesie karnym, Warszawa: C. H. Beck, 2015. ; WEIGEND, Thomas. Is the Criminal Process about Truth?: A German Perspective. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, v. 26, n. 1, p. 157-193, 2003. ; WEIGEND, Thomas; GHANAYIM, Khalid. Human Dignity in Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Overview of Israeli and German Law. Israel Law Review, v. 44, n. 1-2, p. 198-228, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700001023 ; 7 ; 3 ; 1979 ; 2014
