The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes

Law and History Review

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 433-440

  Dubber, Markus Dirk ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011497647     PISSN: 07382480     EISSN: 19399022     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/744302     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Sanford H. Kadish, “Codifiers of the Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors,” Columbia Law Review 78 (1978): 1098.
2. See, e.g., K. J. M. Smith, Lawyers, Legislators, and Theorists: Developments in English Criminal Jurisprudence, 1800-1957 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
3. Lindsay Farmer, “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate: The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-1845,” Law and History Review 18 (2000): 397-425, 399.
4. I read Farmer's essay as an example of what I have called the historical analysis of law. See Markus Dirk Dubber, “Historical Analysis of Law,” Law and History Review 16(1998): 159-62. Farmer uses the term “historical jurisprudence,” which may suggest unwelcome and unintended connections to Savigny (“Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,” 401).
5. Farmer, “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,” 400.
6. For a provocative exploration of this issue in German criminal law, see Wolfgang Naucke, “Vom Vordringen des Polizeigedankens im Recht, d.i.: vom Ende der Metaphysik im Recht,” in Recht, Gericht, Genossenschaft und Policey: Studien zu Gundbegriffen der germanistischen Rechtshistorie, ed. Gerhard Dilcher and Bernhard Diestelkamp (Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1986), 177-87.
7. Farmer, “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,” 425.
8. “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,”., 423-24.
9. “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,”., 409.
10. “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,”., 410.
11. “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,”., 411.
12. “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,”., 410.
13. “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,”.
14. “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,”., 423.
15. See, generally, Karl Binding, Die Normen und ihre Ubertretung, 4th ed. (1872; Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1922), vol. 1; on Binding's views on retroactivity, see Hans-Ludwig Schreiber, Gesetz und Richter: Zur geschichtlichen Entwicklung des Satzes nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (Frankfurt a.M.: Alfred Metzner, 1976), 169 and following.
16. Farmer, “Reconstructing the English Codification Debate,” 410.
17. See A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th ed. (1885; London: Macmillan, 1965), chap. 12 (“Rule of Law Compared with droit administratif”).
18. For recent discussions of this topic in the U.S. and in Germany, see Meir Dan-Cohen, “Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law,” Harvard Law Review 97 (1984): 625; Eberhard Schmidhauser, Form und Gehalt der Strafgesetze (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1988); Norbert Herster, “Das Adressatenproblem im Strafrecht und die Sozialmoral,” Juristenzeitung (1989): 10.
19. The German experiment with the jury was abandoned in 1924. Today, lay participation on German mixed courts is a (disappearing) practice in search of a rationale. See Markus Dirk Dubber, “The German Jury and the Metaphysical Volk: From Romantic Idealism to Nazi Ideology,” American Journal of Comparative Law 43 (1995): 227-71.