UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW COMPARATIVE CRIMINAL LAW VOLUME 3 Professor Markus Dubber Fall 2010 Storage K 5015.4 . D816 2010 v. 3 c. 1 boraTasI AUG 1 7 iiitC FACULTY OF LAV/ UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO COMPARATIVE CRIMINAL LAW VOLUME 3 Professor Markus Dubber Fall 2010 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/comparativecrimi03dubb_0 Table of Contents Preliminary A. Punishment: Concept, Fonn, Limits.1 1. The Concept of Punishment.1 a. Rationales: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, “positive general prevention”.1 • United States v. Blarek, 7 F. Supp. 2d 192 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (U.S. sentencing guidelines in money laundering case).1 • BVerfGE 45, 187.14 • Streng, “Sentencing in Germany: Basic Questions and New Developments”.16 • Nestler, “Sentencing in Germany”.18 • Dubber, “Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law”.20 b. The Victim’s Role.25 (i) Compensation and Restitution.25 • Uniform Victims of Crime Act.25 • Dubber, Victims in the War on Crime.27 • StGB § 46a.28 • Frehsee, “Restitution and Offender-Victim-Arrangement in Gennan Criminal Law”.29 (ii) Sentencing.29 • Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (victim impact statements in capital cases).30 • Homle, “Distribution of Punishment: The Role of the Victim’s Perspective”.31 • Dubber, “The Victim in American Penal Law”.33 2. The Form of Punishment.35 a. Fine .35 • United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5E1.2 (Fines for Individual Defendants) (with Commission Commentary).37 • Greene, “Structuring Criminal Fines: Making an ‘Intermediate’ Penalty More Useful and Equitable”.38 • §40 StGB.38 b. Punishment vs. measure.38 • Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (indefinite detention of “sexual predators”).39 • BVerfGE 109, 133 (constitutionality of preventive detention).43 • Homle, “Human-Rights Issues in the General Part of Substantive Criminal Law: German Constitution, Penal Code and Court Practice”.53 3. Limits on Punishment.55 a. Ultimate sanctions: Death and life imprisonment (Quality).55 • Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153 (1976) (constitutionality of death penalty).55 • Life Imprisonment Case, BVerfGE 45, 187 (constitutionality of life imprisonment).60 • Arts. 1,2, 102 Grundgesetz (German Basic Law).72 • Lane, “The Paradoxes of a Death Penalty Stance”.73 b. Proportionality (Quantity).74 • United States v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Utah 2004) (60 years for gun possession).74 • OLG Braunschweig NStZ-RR 2002, 75 (constitutionality of imprisonment for petty crimes).77 B. Legality Principle.79 1. nulla poena sine lege.79 a. Retroactivity.79 • Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (retroactivity of judicial decisions).79 • Border Guard Case, BGHSt. 39, 1.82 b. Vagueness.100 • Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (gang loitering).100 • Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S._(2010).101 • BVerfGE 87, 209 (violence in media, scope of the prohibition).110 2. compulsory prosecution (Legalitdtsprinzip).116 • Davis, Administrative Law.116 • StPO §§ 152, 153, 153a; StGB §§ 258, 258a.117 • Dubber, “Comparative Criminal Law”.118 C. Constitutional limits on substantive criminal law.119 1. General Part.119 •People v. Davis, 33 N.Y.2d221 (1973).119 • Dubber, “Toward a Constitutional Law of Crime and Punishment”.122 • Hornle, “Human-Rights Issues in the General Part of Substantive Criminal Law: German Constitution, Penal Code and Court Practice”.123 2. Special Part: Rechtsgut and Harm Principle.124 • Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (homosexual sodomy).124 • Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91 (1980).127 • R. Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571.129 • Incest Case NJW 2008.137 • Dubber, “Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law”.162 D. Jurisdiction .170 • People v. Carvajal, 14 A.D.3d 165, 786 N.Y.S.2d 450 (2004) (territoriality).170 • StGB §§ 3 ff..174 E. Procedural Context.176 1. Overview of Criminal Process.176 • Whitebread & Slobogin, Criminal Procedure: An Analysis of Cases and Concepts 4th ed., 12-15.176 • Dubber, “American Plea Bargains, German Lay Judges, and the Crisis of Criminal Procedure”.179 2. Plea Bargaining.179 • Lynch, “The Impropriety of Plea Agreements: A Tale of Two Counties”.179 u • Dubber, “American Plea Bargains, German Lay Judges, and the Crisis of Criminal Procedure”.182 F. Analysis of Criminal Liability.184 1. German Scheme.184 • Naucke, “German Criminal Law Theory’s General System for Analyzing Criminal Acts”.184 • Dubber, “The Promise of German Criminal Law”.186 2. Model Penal Code Scheme.187 • Model Penal Code § 1.02(1).187 • Analysis of Criminal Liability.188 3. Illustration: Dudley and Stephens, [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC.189 II. General Part A. Offense Elements.192 1. Actus Reus (Objective Elements).192 a. Voluntary Acts .192 • State v. Tippetts, 180 Or. App. 350 (2002).192 • Martin v. State, 31 Ala. App. 334, 17 So. 2d 427 (1944).194 • People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 133, 138 N.E.2d 799, 157 N.Y.S.2d 558 (1956).195 • OLG Hamm, NJW 1979, 438 (being transported from the scene of an accident).196 • OLG Hamm NJW 1975, 657.198 b. Constitutional Constraints.201 • People v. Davis, 33 N.Y.2d 221 (1973).201 c. Possession.204 • People v. Desthers, 73 Misc. 2d 1085, 343 N.Y.S.2d 887 (1973) (weapons).204 • People v. E.C., 195 Misc. 2d 680, 761 N.Y.S.2d 443 (2003) (drugs).208 • OLG Zweibriicken, AnwBl. 1983, 126 (drug possession).210 o Dubber, “Policing Possession”.215 o Model Penal Code § 2.01.217 o Texas Penal Code §§ 1.07, 6.01.217 o Prop. New Fed. Crim. Code § 301.217 d. Omissions.217 • State v. Miranda, 245 Conn. 209 (1998).217 o Model Penal Code § 2.01.225 o German Penal Code § 13.226 o 12 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 519.226 o Wis. Stat. § 940.34.226 o Gennan Penal Code § 323c.226 o Gennan Penal Code (1935) § 330c.227 o Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314.227 • BGHSt. 48, 301.227 • BGHSt. 30, 391.231 iii • BGHSt. 23,327.235 2. Mens Rea (Subjective Elements).236 a. Modes of Culpability.236 • People v. Baker, A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004).236 • Model Penal Code § 2.02 .240 + R. v. G and another, [2003] UKHL 50 (UK) (recklessness).241 + R. v. Lewis, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821 (Can.) (motive).253 • AIDS Case, BGHSt. 36, 1 (delineating the German concept of “intent”).259 • OLG Braunschweig NstZ-RR 1998, 175 .268 • BGH NStZ 2003, 657 (negligence).271 b. Strict Liability.273 • Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (public welfare offenses).273 • Sayre, "Public Welfare Offenses".275 + R. v. City ofSault Ste. Marie, (1978) 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (Can.).277 c. Mistake .283 (i) As Element-Negating.283 • People v. Gudz, 18 A.D.3d 11, 793 N.Y.S.2d 556 (2005).283 • § 16 I StGB.285 • BGH StV 2003, 393 (lack of knowledge concerning age of child).286 • BGHSt. 37, 214 (error in persona).286 (n) As Excuse (Ignorance of Law).290 • People v. Marrero, 69 N.Y.2d 382 (1987).290 • Border Guard Case, BGHSt 39, 1.301 d. Intoxication.303 • State v. Cameron, 104 N.J. 42 (1986) .303 • § 323a StGB.307 • BGHSt. 37, 231 .307 • BGHSt. 49, 239 .312 3. Causation .319 • People v. Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407 (1974) .319 • Model Penal Code § 2.03 .322 • Leather Spray Case BGHSt. 37, 106 (lack of scientific knowledge establishing causality).322 • BGHSt. 48, 34 (death through victim’s attempt to escape attack).336 4. Complicity .340 • State v. Tally, 102 Ala. 25 (1894); Model Penal Code § 2.06.340 • BGHSt. 11. 268 (co-offenders or accomplices?).343 • Staschynskij Case BGHSt. 18, 87.345 • BGHSt. 40, 218 (boarder crimes, members of the GDR’s National Security Council).352 • Dubber, “Criminalizing Complicity: A Comparative Analysis”.359 5. Corporate criminal liability.364 • N.Y. Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909) .364 IV • People v. Congregational Khal Chaisidei Skwere, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 919, 649 N.Y.S.2d 499 (1996). 366 + Model Penal Code § 2.07* • Weigend, “Societas delinquere non potest?: A German Perspective”.368 6. Inchoate offenses .375 a. Attempt.375 • People v. Lehnert, 163 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2007).375 • Model Penal Code § 5.01.379 • §§ 22, 24 StGB* •BGHSt. 39, 236 .381 • BGH NJW 1997, 3453 (“Barwurz” Case) (beginning of attempt).382 • BGHSt. 35, 184 (withdrawal from attempt) .386 b. Conspiracy.389 • Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).389 • People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48 (1979).390 • People v. Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333 (1980).392 • People v. Washington, 8 N.Y.3d 565 (2007) .395 • People v. Sisselman, 147 A.D.2d 261, 542 N.Y.S.2d 801 (1989).397 • Model Penal Code § 5.03* • § 30 I StGB* • BGHSt. 12, 306 (planning of crimes).398 • § 129 StGB* “Landser” Case BGH NJW 2005, 1668 (extremist rock band as criminal organization).401 c. Solicitation.406 • Benson v. People, 57 Cal.2d 240 (1962).406 • Model Penal Code § 5.02 .407 • § 30 II StGB* • BGHSt. 19, 339 (solicitation to commit felony rather than misdemeanor).408 B. Justifications .409 1. Necessity .409 • People v. Craig, 78 N.Y.2d 616 (1991) (subjective vs. objective).409 + R. v. Perka, (1984) 14 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Can.).412 • BGHSt. 48, 255 (killing of a violent husband).433 • “Katzenkonig” Case BGHSt. 35, 347, 349 (bizarre error about alleged danger).441 • Aviation Security Act Case, BVerfG, 1 BvR 357/05.446 • Hornle, “Hijacked Airplanes: May They Be Shot Down?”.449 2. Self-Defense & Defense of Another.451 • People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (1986) (self-defense).451 • State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 478 A.2d 364 (1984) (batter women syndrome).456 + Gladstone Williams [1987] 3 All ER 411 (defense of another).462 • BGH NStZ 1987, 172 (limits on the use of firearms for self-defense).464 • BGH NStZ-RR 2002, 203; BGH NStZ 2001, 590 (error about attack).465 In Code Supplement. V • Daschner Case, LG Frankfurt/Main, NJW 2005, 692 (torturing a kidnapper to rescue the kidnapped).467 3. Consent.469 • State v. George, 937 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).469 • Model Penal Code §2.11 .473 + R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714 (Can.).473 • BGFISt. 49, 166 (consenting to dangerous sexual practices).482 4. Law Enforcement.488 • Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (use of deadly force in arrest).488 • NStZ 2005, 31 (use of deadly force in arrest).491 C. Excuses.493 1. Duress.493 • Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006).493 • Model Penal Code § 2.09 .499 • BGHSt. 5, 371 (perjury under threat of death).499 2. Entrapment .502 • People v. Calvano, 30 N.Y.2d 199 (1972).502 • Model Penal Code § 2.13.504 • BGHSt. 45, 321 (lesser punishment after entrapment).505 • Ross, “Tradeoffs in Undercover Investigations: A Comparative Perspective,” U Chi L Rev.516 3. Insanity.516 • United States v. Ewing, 494 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2007).516 • Model Penal Code § 5.01* • BGH StV 1995, 405 (schizophrenia exculpates).521 • §§ 20, 21 StGB.522 III. Special Part A. Protected Rights and Interests; Structure of the Special Part.523 1. Table of contents, StGB.523 2. Table of contents, Federal Criminal Code (Title 18, U.S.C.).525 3. Table of contents, Model Penal Code (pts. I & II).526 4. Table of contents, Canadian Criminal Code.527 B. Offenses Against the Person.527 1. Homicide .527 a. Murder .527 (i) Intentional and Depraved Indifference Murder.527 • People v. Payne, 3 N.Y.3d 266 (2004).527 • § 211 StGB* • BGH NJW 1993, 1664 (greed for money as murder).530 • BGHSt. 23, 119 (killing a sleeping person as murder).532 (ii) Felony Murder.534 • People v. Burroughs, 35 Cal.3d 824 (1984).534 + R. v. Martineau, [1990] 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (Can.).542 In Code Supplement. Vl