Crimes of Endangerment

doi:10.1017/9781009037136.005

5 - Crimes of Endangerment

from Part I - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2022

Antony Duff and

Tatjana Hörnle

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Judge Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Hague
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Criminal laws typically contain a wide variety of offences that target dangerous behaviour. Our goal in this chapter is to compare the ways in which German and English criminal law deal with these kinds of offence; to clarify some distinctions that need to be drawn (and that can be discerned, more or less explicitly, in existing laws) if we are to understand the logic and rationale of such offences; and to note some of the normative issues that such offences raise. To that end, we begin (in section II) by distinguishing endangerment offences in a narrower sense from another important category of dangerous conduct without harmful outcome, that is, attempts. If one speaks of endangerment in a wider sense, attempts would fall into this category, but we will limit our analysis to endangerment offences in the narrower sense.

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 132 - 166

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037136.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2009).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J., ‘The Unfairness of Risk-Based Possession Offences’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5 (2011), 237–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J. and Blake, M., ‘The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law’, Criminal Law Review (1996), 306–17.Google Scholar

Bock, S. and Stark, F., ‘Preparatory Offences’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 54–93.Google Scholar

Chiao, V., ‘Intention and Attempt’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4 (2010), 37–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cornford, A., ‘Rethinking the Wrongness Constraint’, Law and Philosophy, 36 (2017), 615–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cornford, A. and Petzsche, A., ‘Terrorism Offences’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 172–209.Google Scholar

Dan-Cohen, M., ‘Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law’, Harvard Law Review, 97 (1984), 625–77.Google Scholar

Dimock, S., ‘Contractarian Criminal Law Theory and Mala Prohibita Offences’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E., Renzo, M. and Tadros, V. (eds.), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 151–81.Google Scholar

Donnelly-Lazarov, B., A Philosophy of Criminal Attempt, Cambridge University Press (2015).CrossRef Google Scholar

Dubber, M. D., ‘Policing Possession: The War on Crime and the End of Criminal Law’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91 (2001), 829–996.Google Scholar

Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Criminal Attempts, Oxford University Press (1996).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., The Realm of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘“Abstract Endangerment”, Two Harm Principles, and Two Routes to Criminalisation’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 3 (2015), 131–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘Civic Punishment’, in Dzur, A. W., Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (eds.), Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration, Oxford University Press (2016), 33–59.Google Scholar

Edwards, J., ‘Criminalization without Punishment’, Legal Theory, 23 (2017), 69–95.Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Doing and Deserving, Princeton University Press (1970), 95–118.Google Scholar

Harm to Others, Oxford University Press (1984).Google Scholar

Finkelstein, C., ‘Is Risk a Harm?’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(2003), 963–1001.Google Scholar

Frister, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar

Gordon, G. H., The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn by M. G. A. Christie, Edinburgh, W. Green (2001).Google Scholar

Green, S. P., ‘Why It’s a Crime to Tear the Tag off a Mattress: Over-Criminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses’, Emory Law Journal, 46 (1997), 1533–615.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., ‘Negligence, Mens Rea, and Criminal Responsibility’, in Punishment and Responsibility, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2008), 136–57.Google Scholar

Herzberg, R., ‘Setzt “vorsätzliches Handeln” (§ 15 StGB) ein “Wollen” der Tatbestandsverwirklichung voraus?’, Juristenzeitung, 73 (2018), 122–30.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Plädoyer für die Aufgabe der Kategorie “bedingter Vorsatz”’, Juristenzeitung, 74 (2019), 440–9.Google Scholar

Husak, D. N, Ignorance of Law: A Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar

Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar

Kindhäuser, U., Gefährdung als Straftat – Rechtstheoretische Untersuchungen zur Dogmatik der abstrakten und konkreten Gefährdungsdelikt, Berlin, Klostermann (1989).Google Scholar

Krebs, B., Joint Criminal Enterprise in English and German Law (DPhil. thesis, 2015; Oxford University Research Archive), available at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:34e2c466-33c0-45ea-8790-338c4f4c893d.Google Scholar

Kühl, K., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Munich, Vahlen (2017).Google Scholar

Kuhlen, L., ‘Umweltstrafrecht – auf der Suche nach einer neuen Dogmatik’, Zeitschrift für die gesamten Strafrechtswissenschaften, 105 (1993), 697–726.Google Scholar

Law Commission for England and Wales, A Criminal Code for England and Wales (Law Com. No. 177, 1989).Google Scholar

Kuhlen, L., Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts (Law Com. CP No. 195, 2010).Google Scholar

Mandiberg, S. and Faure, M., ‘A Graduated Punishment Approach to Environmental Crimes: Beyond Vindication of Administrative Authority in the United States and Europe’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 34 (2009), 447–511.Google Scholar

Matuschek, M., Erinnerungsstrafrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2012).Google Scholar

Oberdiek, J., Imposing Risk: A Normative Framework, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 15th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar

Puppe, I., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 13 ff. StGB’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar

Raz, J., ‘Authority, Law, and Morality’, The Monist, 68 (1985), 295–324.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. H., Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar

Roxin, C. and Greco L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Shiffrin, S. V., ‘The Moral Neglect of Negligence’, in Sobel, D., Vallentyne, P. and Wall, S. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press (2017), Vol. 3, 197–228.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Can Negligence Be Culpable?’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, 4th Series, Oxford University Press (2000), 85–106.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., (ed.), Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press (2005).Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’, in Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press (2005), 21–50.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Stark, F., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar

Simester, A. P. and von Hirsch, A., Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation, Oxford, Hart (2011).Google Scholar

Singer, R., ‘On Classism and Dissonance in the Criminal Law: A Reply to Professor Dan-Cohen’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77 (1986), 69–100.Google Scholar

Smith, K. J. M., ‘Liability for Endangerment: English Ad Hoc Pragmatism and American Innovation’, Criminal Law Review (1983), 127–36.Google Scholar

Stark, F., Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2016).Google Scholar

Taylor, G., ‘Concepts of Intention in German Criminal Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2004), 99–127.Google Scholar

von Hirsch, A., ‘Extending the Harm Principle: “Remote” Harms and Fair Imputation’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Oxford University Press (1996), 259–76.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Subjective Elements of Criminal Liability’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 490–511.Google Scholar

Zieschang, F., Die Gefährdungsdelikte, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1998).Google Scholar