Paradigms of Penal Law

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus D. Dubber
Keyword(s):  
Penal Law

The Dual Penal State

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus D. Dubber
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Wide Field ◽  
Liberal State ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Penal State ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
War On Crime ◽  
History Of ◽  
Patriarchal Power

Dual Penal State: The Crisis of Criminal Law in Comparative-Historical Perspective addresses one of today’s most pressing social and political issues: the rampant, at best haphazard, and ever-expanding use of penal power by states ostensibly committed to the enlightenment-based legal-political project of Western liberal democracy. Penal regimes in these states operate in a wide field of ill-considered and little constrained violence, where radical and prolonged interference with the autonomy of the very persons upon whose autonomy the legitimacy of state power is supposed to rest has been utterly normalized. At bottom, this crisis of modern penality is a crisis of the liberal project itself; the penal paradox is merely the sharpest formulation of the general paradox of power in a liberal state: the legitimacy of state sovereignty in the name of personal autonomy. To capture the depth and range of the crisis of contemporary penality in ostensibly liberal states, Dual Penal State leaves behind customary temporal and parochial constraints, and turns to historical and comparative analysis instead. This approach reveals a fundamental distinction between two conceptions of penal power, penal law and penal police, that run through Western legal-political history, one rooted in autonomy, equality, and interpersonal respect, and the other in heteronomy, hierarchy, and patriarchal power. Dual penal state analysis illuminates how this distinction manifests itself in the history of the present of various penal systems, from the malign neglect of the American war on crime to the ahistorical self-satisfaction of German criminal law science.

Penal Law and Penal Police in the Dual Penal State

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus D. Dubber
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Penal State ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Patriarchal Power ◽  
Modes Of Governance

The first part of Dual Penal State investigated various ways in which criminal law doctrine and scholarship (or “science”) have failed to address the challenge of legitimating penal power in a modern liberal democratic state. This, second, part explores an alternative approach to criminal law discourse that puts the legitimacy challenge of modern penal law front and center: critical analysis of criminal law in a dual penal state. Dual penal state analysis differentiates between penal law and penal police, two conceptions of penal power, and state power more generally, rooted in autonomy, equality, and interpersonal respect, on one hand, and in heteronomy, hierarchy, and patriarchal power, on the other. Chapter 4 applies the distinction between law and police as fundamental modes of governance set out in Chapter 3 to the penal realm and explores the tension between penal law and penal police as constituting the dual penal state.

scholarly journals “Progressive” Criminalization? A Sociological and Criminological Analysis Based on the German “No Means No” Provision

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 817-832
Author(s):  
Ralf Kölbel
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Policy Discourse ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Sexual Interaction ◽  
Sexual Offenses ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Criminological Analysis

AbstractThe “no means no” model has been applied in Germany since November 10, 2016. Its introduction has considerably extended the scope of criminalized forms of sexual interaction. This Article examines the criminal policy discourse that gave rise to it and the question of whether the new provisions have led to the changes in the practices of criminal prosecution proclaimed in advance. The results will be critically assessed. The new legislation relating to sexual offenses was also shaped on the initiative of groups perceiving themselves as emancipatory, and in the understanding of these groups, the “no means no” provision acts as “progressive” criminalization. Yet, aside from the fact that the associated expectations have hardly been met as of yet, this movement would have to resolve an essential question: Is penal law compatible with a “progressive” social policy they claim to stand for at all, and if so, what conditions does it have to meet?

Utilitarianism and the Criminal Law in Colonial India: A Study of the Practical Limits of Utilitarian Jurisprudence

1994 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 739-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kartik Kalyan Raman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
British India ◽  
Local Society ◽  
Colonial India ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Common Observation ◽  
The One

The role of legal tradition in the reformist rhetoric of Benthamite Utilitarianism presents us with a contradiction. On the one hand, there is the common observation that Utilitarian jurisprudence was necessarily ahistorical and rejected the past as a source of concepts for reworking the criminal justice system existing in Britain during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. For philosophic reformers such as Bentham, contemporary British criminal justice was to be replaced by a scientific jurisprudence, abstract, universal, and secular in outlook, and antipathetic to the more conservative insistence that the foundations of the penal law continue to be tradition-based. ‘If society was to see any improvement, its law must be reformed; if its law was to be reformed it must be burned to the ground and rebuilt according to a new and rational pattern.’ On the other hand, we find that the very same Utilitarian thinkers, in works describing the state of the law in British India, were concerned with local rather than universal conceptions of criminality. In his 1782 Essay on the Influence of Time and Place in Matters of Legislation, Bentham, for instance, urged the philosophic reformer to temper change in India by fitting Utilitarian judgments about the law to the frames of local society.

Grundrechtliche Einordnung sozialer Netzwerke vor dem Hintergrund des Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetzes (NetzDG)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Giere
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Networks ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Political Decision Making

The influence on public opinion of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter regarding the process of political decision-making is constantly evolving. However, the discussion whether these networks are holders of the fundamental right of media freedom is still in its "infancy stage". This piece takes up this topic, which is practically relevant, but still lacks adequate scientific research. Against this background, the paper addresses the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) which came into effect in Germany on 1 October 2017. With this law, the federal legislature has imposed proactive inspection obligations on certain providers of social networks. Operators are now legally required to check contents to ensure it does not violate German penal law.

The Natural and Probable Consequence Rule in Complicity: Section 34A of the Israeli Penal Law Part I

2000 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Ohana
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Probable Consequence ◽  
Anglo American

The rules of criminal law that govern participation in crime often include special provisions with regard to accomplice liability for the commission of collateral offenses by the principal in the course of the unlawful undertaking. While some Anglo-American jurisdictions limit accomplice liability to cases where the commission of the collateral offense is effectively contemplated by the participant, other jurisdictions, including Israel, also provide for punishment of the participant where the collateral offense is reasonably foreseeable. Accordingly, participants are held liable for crimes that are perpetrated incidentally to the commission of the projected crime, on the basis of an objective, rather than subjective, foresight standard. Whether this deviation from the prevalent paradigm of accomplice liability is justified in principle and policy constitutes the main focus of this article.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document