Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Normentheorie als Brücke zwischen Strafrechtsdogmatik und Allgemeiner Rechtslehre: zugleich eine Auseinandersetzung mit Andreas Hoyer: Strafrechtsdogmatik nach Armin Kaufmann

Joachim Renzikowski
ARSP: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy
Vol. 87, No. 1 (2001), pp. 110-125
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23680155
Page Count: 16
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Normentheorie als Brücke zwischen Strafrechtsdogmatik und Allgemeiner Rechtslehre: zugleich eine Auseinandersetzung mit Andreas Hoyer: Strafrechtsdogmatik nach Armin Kaufmann
Preview not available

Abstract

In German criminal law science the term „Normentheorie“ (theory of norms) is associated with Karl Binding. Binding founded his system of criminal law on the differentiation between primary rules of conduct, adressed to citizens, and secundary rules of sanctions, adressed to court of law. Andreas Hoyer follows with his seminal book about „Strafrechtsdogmatik nach Armin Kaufmann. Lebendiges und Totes in Armin Kaufmanns Normentheorie“ this tradition of legal philosophy. Simultaneously he breaks with the conventional dualistic concept of norms accepting only rules of sanctions. Moreover his concept of „alethic norms“ banishes the terms „duty“ and „right“ from jurisprudence. Therefore he explaines crime along the lines of purchase order („robbery costs five years“) and uses it as a basis for a new system of criminal law. The main objection against Hoyer is the difficulty of drawing a distinction between taxation and punishment. Hoyer also neglects the function of law to provide orientation independent from sanctions. He ignores that the penal law code is an accessory law code: Penal laws threaten those who break the rules of the community with punishment — and therefore presuppose these rules and do not create them. Finally looking at the victim of a crime shows that he/she would hardly agree with a contract disadvantaging him/her.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[110]
    [110]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
111
    111
  • Thumbnail: Page 
112
    112
  • Thumbnail: Page 
113
    113
  • Thumbnail: Page 
114
    114
  • Thumbnail: Page 
115
    115
  • Thumbnail: Page 
116
    116
  • Thumbnail: Page 
117
    117
  • Thumbnail: Page 
118
    118
  • Thumbnail: Page 
119
    119
  • Thumbnail: Page 
120
    120
  • Thumbnail: Page 
121
    121
  • Thumbnail: Page 
122
    122
  • Thumbnail: Page 
123
    123
  • Thumbnail: Page 
124
    124
  • Thumbnail: Page 
125
    125