A Comparative Analysis of Pre-Trial Procedure in Europe: The Search for an Ideal Model

EnglishTürkçe

CHAPTER


DOI :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.05   IUP :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.05    Full Text (PDF)

Pre-trial Procedure in Germany

Uriel Moeller

German criminal procedure is and has been under enormous economic pressure. To relieve the justice system the “deal” or plea-bargain is, as of 2013, officially a part of the German criminal law system. However, the deal is restricted to the main procedure and the initiative of the judge. During the pre-trial procedure, the prosecution is “die Herrin des Verfahrens” (Lord of the procedure). The German Criminal Procedure Code grants the prosecutor vast possibilities to terminate criminal procedures pre-trial. Those possibilities are used extensively in practice. The majority of criminal procedures in Germany are not concluded by the judge, but by the prosecution. This chapter examines the power of the prosecutor to terminate criminal procedures pre-trial in the German criminal law system.

After a brief historical overview, it will show that for all but very grave crimes the prosecution has considerable discretion to terminate the procedure without a conviction, even though a conviction would have been likely. This raises questions of justice and victims’ rights, especially when in practice the prosecution sometimes oversteps its discretion.

This article will also discuss the advantages of such a systematic pre-trail conclusion of criminal procedure. While some claim the costs for “justice” to be high, the economic advantages are considerable, heightening efficiency and focus in a justice system under huge economical restrain while also producing appropriate results in terms of criminal policy.


Keywords: Pre-trial procedure, German criminal law, prosecution, expediency

References

  • Ali B. Norouzi, in Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (1st edn, Munich 2016). google scholar
  • Angelika Walther, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (8th edn, Munich 2019). google scholar
  • BGH (1957) 1244 NJW. google scholar
  • BGH (1981) 2422 NJW. google scholar
  • BGH, judgement on the 21.08.2003 (3 StR 234/03). google scholar
  • BVerfG (2013) 1058 NJW. google scholar
  • BVerfG (2002) 815 NJW. google scholar
  • Claudia Gorf, in Beck’scher Online Kommentar Strafprozessordnung (36th edn, Munich 2019). google scholar
  • Claus Roxin, Kriminalpolitik und Strafrechtssystem (Berlin 1973). google scholar
  • ’Deutschland in Daten’ on https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/deutschland-in-daten/220319/geschlecht-und-alter. google scholar
  • Dirk Teßmer, in Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (1st edn, Munich 2016). google scholar
  • Frank Saliger and Stefan Sinner, ‘Abstraktes Recht und konkreter Wille‘ [2007] Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 476. google scholar
  • Franz v. Liszt, ‘Vortrag im Berliner Anwaltsverein am 23. März 1901’ (1901) 179 Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung. google scholar
  • Gerwin Moldenhauer and Marc Wenske, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (8th edn, Munich 2019). google scholar
  • Hans Kudlich, ‘Ecclestone, Verständigungsgesetz und die Folgen – Reformbedarf für § 153a StPO?‘ [2015] Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 10. google scholar
  • Hans Kudlich, in Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (1st edn, Munich 2014). google scholar
  • Helmut Fischer, in Nomos Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch (5th ed. 2017). google scholar
  • Herbert Diemer, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (8th edn., 2019). google scholar
  • Heribert Ostendorf, Strafprozessrecht (3rd edn, Nomos 2017). google scholar
  • Immanuel Kant, Die Metaphysik der Sitten (1797). google scholar
  • James Goldschmidt, Der Prozess als Rechtslage (1925). google scholar
  • Mehmet Gürcan Daimagüler, in Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (1st edn, Munich 2019). google scholar
  • Mirjan R. Damaska, The faces of justice and state authority: a comparative approach to the legal process (Yale University 1986). google scholar
  • Philip Kunig, in Grundgesetz Kommentar von Münch/Kunig (6th edn, Munich 2012). google scholar
  • Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik 2019. google scholar
  • Ralf Kölbel, in Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (1st edn, Munich 2016). google scholar
  • Sebastian Peters, in Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (1st edn, Munich 2016). google scholar
  • Statistisches Bundesamt (destatis), Rechtspflege-Staatsanwaltschaften 2018 (2019). google scholar
  • Stephan Beukelmann, in Beck’scher Online Kommentar Strafprozessordnung (36th edn, Munich 2019). google scholar
  • Thomas Fischer, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (8th edn, Munich 2019). google scholar
  • Uriel Moeller, Definition und Grenzen der Vorverlagerung von Strafbarkeit (Göttingen 2018). google scholar


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.