No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Questions and Comments on What is Called “The Mental Element of the Offence”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Extract
In this paper, I shall address three problems: the question of content and limits of the “mens rea” elements (part II), the controversy over the correct concept of negligence (part III), as well as the problem of “divergence from the intended causal chain” (part IV). In doing so, I will compare the regulations of the Israeli draft Code (the “Israeli Draft”) not only with German law, but also with English and American law. Of course, within the scope of this paper I can neither probe deeply into the subject matter nor address all the important questions related to it.
Before starting with my questions and comments, I would like to make two introductory remarks:
1. First, I have to admit that I am unsure whether I understand correctly the regulations of the Israeli Draft (sec. 19-21, 22, 54). At least three sources of potential misunderstanding exist: first, the English version of the Israeli Draft is a preliminary translation of the Hebrew text. Any translation may shift the meaning of the original and binding Hebrew text. Second, misunderstanding may also result from my rather modest knowledge of the English language.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Israel Law Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1-2: Reform of Criminal Law , Spring Winter 1996 , pp. 82 - 105
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996
Footnotes
*
Professor of Law, University of Mannheim.
References
Binding, Karl,
Die Schuld im deutschen Strafrecht. Vorsatz, Irrtum,
Fahrlässigkeit (Leipzig,
1919).Google Scholar
Cramer, Peter: in:
Schönke, A. /
Schröder, H.,
Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar; 24. Aufl.
(München, 1991).Google Scholar
Duff, Robin
A., Intention, Agency and Criminal
Liability: Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law
(Oxford, 1990).Google Scholar
Finnis, John,
“Intention and Side-Effects”, in Frey, R.G. / Morris, C.W.,
Liability and Responsibility. Essays in Law and Morals
(Cambridge, 1991) pp.
32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Wolfgang,
Vorsatz und Risiko. Grundfragen des tatbestandsmässigen
Verhaltens und des Vorsatzes. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Behandlung
aussertatbestandlicher Möglichkeitsvorstellungen
(Köln, Berlin,
1983).Google Scholar
Honig, Richard
M., Entwurf eines amerikanischen
Musterstrafgesetzbuches (Berlin,
1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, Günther,
Strafgesetzbuch Allgemeiner Teil. Die Grundlagen und die
Zurechnungslehre; 2. Aufl. (Berlin, New
York, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich,
Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil; 4. Aufl.;
(Berlin, 1988).Google Scholar
Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich,
“Die Schuld im Entwurf eines Strafgesetzbuches für England und Wales im
Vergleich mit dem deutschen Strafrecht”, in Geppert, K. u.a.
(Hrsg.), Festschrift für Rudolf Schmitt zum 70. Geburtstag
(Tübingen, 1992) S.
56–76
Google Scholar
Klee, Karl,
Der dolus indirectus als Grundform der vorsätzlichen
Schuld (Berlin,
1906).Google Scholar
Larenz, Karl,
Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft; 6. Aufl.
(Berlin, Heidelberg,
1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxin, Claus,
Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Bd. I. Grundlagen, der Aufbau der
Verbrechenslehre; 2. Aufl.
(München, 1994).Google Scholar
Searle, John
R., Intentionality. An Essay in the
Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge,
London, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sistare, Christine
T., Responsibility and Criminal
Liability (Dordrecht, Boston,
1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, John
C. / Hogan, Brian,
Criminal Law. Cases and Materials
(5th ed., London,
Dublin, 1993).Google Scholar
White, Alan
R., Grounds of Liability. An Introduction
to the Philosophy of Law (Oxford,
1985).Google Scholar