Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros en texte intégral28Dossier : Les échanges en matière...Atlantic Knowledge Transfer. U.S....

Dossier : Les échanges en matière de droit pénal entre les États-Unis et l’Europe

Atlantic Knowledge Transfer. U.S. Criminal Law in 19th Century Germany

Sylvia Kesper-Biermann

Résumés

L’article examine le transfert d’idées juridiques des États-Unis vers l’Allemagne tout au long du xixe siècle. D’une part, il décrit les acteurs et les voies du transfert de connaissances. D’autre part, il examine, à l’aide d’exemples choisis, quelles idées, quels textes et quelles expériences nord-américains ont été perçus et discutés en Allemagne. Il s’avère qu’il faut distinguer deux phases avec des priorités différentes dans la réception, à savoir une première phase des années 1830 aux années 1850 et une deuxième phase au tournant du xxe siècle.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 B. Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik. Öffentlicher Vortrag auf der Versammlung der Interna (...)
  • 2 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik, p. 3.
  • 3 Cf. M. Henze, “Crime on the Agenda. Transnational Organizations 1870-1955”, Historisk Tidsskrift,10 (...)

1“Do I need to justify asking you to take a look with me [...] at the criminal policy of the North American Union?” the Frankfurt criminal law professor Berthold Freudenthal rhetorically asked his audience in September 19061. On the other side of the Atlantic, he said, many of the proposals discussed in Germany had already been implemented, and therefore it would be an “invaluable opportunity” to “compare the different systems by looking into American conditions”2. This example shows that the United States of America were an important point of reference for German criminal law scholarship in the long 19th century, from around 1800 to the outbreak of World War I. The look across the Atlantic involved the transfer of knowledge, but also the adoption of individual elements into the legislation. The present article will trace these transnational conversations in the period from the early nineteenth to the early twentieth century, leaving out the prison system, because this field had its own discourse contexts and arenas3. The transfer of legal ideas from North America to Germany during this period has not yet been systematically investigated in German-language research. There are only references to individual persons or topics – perhaps because the importance of the U.S.A. for the development of German criminal law and in particular for the codification of criminal law has mistakenly not been considered to be particularly significant.

2This article first provides a brief overview of the development of criminal law in Germany in the course of the long 19th century and presents some methodological considerations. Second, actors and paths of knowledge transfer from the United States to Germany are described. Third, I address those North American ideas, texts, and experiences that were perceived and discussed in Germany. A final conclusion summarizes the results.

I. Penal law and criminal procedure in Germany in the long 19th century. Overview and methodological remarks

  • 4 Cf. S. Kesper-Biermann, Einheit und Recht. Strafgesetzgebung und Kriminalrechtsexperten in Deutschl (...)
  • 5 Cf. T. Vormbaum, A Modern History of German Criminal Law, Heidelberg et al., Springer, 2014, p. 47- (...)

3Penal law and criminal procedure were central topics of public and jurisprudential discourse in Germany during the long 19th century. Already since the second half of the 18th century, the existing criminal law was considered outdated, inexpedient and in urgent need of reform. This crisis of legitimacy led to intensive discussions about what a fundamentally new criminal law should look like in the form of codifications. In the course of this, individual German states started intensive legislative activities that culminated in the passage of penal codes, especially between 1830 and 18514. In some cases, these contained both criminal law and criminal procedure. For the most part, however, a reorganization of criminal procedure, i.e., the introduction of the so-called reformed criminal proceedings (reformierter Strafprozess), was not carried out in the German states until the middle of the century. The liberal movement, however, had been demanding proceedings based on the principles of publicity, orality, and arraignment, as well as the introduction of public prosecution services and jury courts since the beginning of the 19th century. The most politically explosive issue was the introduction of trial by jury, because it was perceived as being directly linked to the political order. In the course of the revolution of 1848/49, jury courts were finally introduced in almost all German states5.

  • 6 R. F. Wetzell, “Penal reform in Imperial Germany: Conflict and compromise”, The Limits of Criminolo (...)

4After the German Empire had been founded as a nation state in 1871, criminal law was unified in the Reich Criminal Code (Reichsstrafgesetzbuch) of 1871 as well as in the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure (Reichsstrafprozessordnung) of 1877. Soon, however, these codes proved to be not only outdated when confronted with new challenges in the economy and society, but also unsuccessful in terms of effectively fighting crime when looking at crime statistics. At this point, a new generation of criminal law scholars appeared on the scene, replacing those who had dominated until the 1860s. Initiated by representatives of positivist criminology, in Germany called the “modern school” or “comprehensive study of criminal law” (gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft), an intensive reform discussion about new concepts of criminal policy set in. Although this did not lead to fundamental redesigns of codified penal law in Germany before World War I, it did induce extensive reform work on the Reich Criminal Code and the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure, which began in the early 20th century, as well as changes in individual issues6.

  • 7 S. Kesper-Biermann, “Transnationale Zirkulation strafrechtlicher Sicherheitskonzepte. Staatsverbrec (...)
  • 8 J.-L. Halpérin, “Doctrinal ciculations in criminal law 1764-1914”, Comparative Legal History, 11, 2 (...)

5In all these discussions and legislative activities, the ideas and legislations regarding criminal law in foreign countries were observed closely. Even though the focus was on European countries, the scholars’ attention was also directed towards the U.S.A., but to varying degrees and in different ways (see II). The perception and (non-)consideration of criminal law knowledge from other (national) contexts followed various considerations and logics. These included, e.g., whether the social and economic conditions were considered to be comparable and the foreign law worthy of adaption or even exemplary. In 1846, for example, the St. Petersburg law professor Heinrich Robert Stoeckhardt complained that German legal scholars, including those who dealt with comparative law, were ignoring Russian criminal law as a whole. In fact, the few articles on this topic in criminal law journals mainly emphasized the differences between the two countries and characterized the conditions in the Tsarist Empire, also in the field of criminal law and criminal justice, as backward compared to (Western) Europe7. Conversely, as Jean-Louis Halpérin recently pointed out, the very extensive German-language criminal law literature of the 19th century was primarily read in Germany itself, and only a small proportion of it was known in other European countries. In this context, he speaks of a “phenomenon of isolation” concerning the German discourse8.

  • 9 Cf. J.-L. Halpérin, “Une histoire transnationale des idées juridiques?”, Clio@Themis. Revue électro (...)
  • 10 E.g. Entanglements in Legal History. Concepts, Methods, Challenges, ed T. Duve, Frankfurt, Max Plan (...)
  • 11 E.g. N. Hakim and A. Monti, “Histoire de la pensée juridique et analyse bibliométrique: l’exemple d (...)
  • 12 E.g. Halpérin, “Doctrinal circulations”.

6Thus, intricate processes of circulation and transfer characterized criminal law discussions and legislation in 19th century Germany and Europe. The intertwining of various factors, which could promote, but also inhibit or prevent exchange, contributed to a complex (non-)globalization of legal concepts during this period9. For some years now, legal history research has been increasingly dedicated to this field of research and is particularly concerned with the questions as to the suitability of methodological approaches for conducting transnational legal history research and to the scope and limits of the results obtained in this way10. Recent works have applied, for instance, quantitative methodology and digital humanities in order to trace the trajectories of cross-border intellectual exchange as well as the lines of connection and patterns of reasoning that structure the discourse11. To this end, they analyzed bibliographical quotations, citations and references. In this context, the importance of translations and the presence of foreign-language books in libraries, of correspondence and travel for the writing of a transnational history of legal ideas has been emphasized12.

  • 13 Ibidem, p. 149.
  • 14 Max-Planck-Institut für Rechtsgeschichte und Rechtstheorie, Juristische Zeitschriften des 19. Jahrh (...)
  • 15 C. Strupp, German Americana, 1800-1955. A comprehensive bibliography of German, Austrian and Swiss (...)

7This article only looks at a section of the multi-layered and constantly changing circulation processes by limiting itself, as explained at the beginning, to the perception of U.S. criminal law within German criminal law scholarship. Even with regard to this limited object of study, this paper can only provide an overview in view of the amount of criminal law literature written during this period and does not claim to be a complete survey of the sources. Jean-Louis Halpérin estimates that over 20,000 titles existed in the 19th century, more than half of which originated in Germany13. For this reason, an exemplary approach based on a qualitative evaluation was chosen in order to identify not only which ideas from the U.S.A. were received, but also how they were framed, classified and evaluated from a German perspective. To this end, the digitally accessible collection of legal journals published between 1800 and 1918 by the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory in Frankfurt am Main was searched. It contains 75 law journals, which have been the preferred medium for academic discourse since the late 18th century, and in turn form a selection of the more than 600 new journals founded during the 19th century14. Moreover, the bibliography of German-language books and dissertations on the U.S.A. from 1800 to 1955 compiled by the German Historical Institute in Washington D.C. was used as a basis15. The lecture by Frankfurt criminal law professor Berthold Freudenthal (1872-1929) mentioned at the beginning can serve as a case study of reception around 1900. Finally, with criminal law scholar Carl Anton Josef Mittermaier (1787-1867) and the International Union of Penal Law (1889-1914), those persons and organizations were examined more closely that are already known from the research literature as central actors in the transnational circulation of legal knowledge.

II. Actors and ways of transfer

  • 16 C. Schnurmann, Brücken aus Papier. Atlantischer Wissenstransfer in dem Briefnetzwerk des deutsch-am (...)
  • 17 M. Hettinger, “Mittermaier: Leben und Wirkung”, Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaier und der reformierte S (...)
  • 18 Cf. Riemer, Netzwerk.
  • 19 Schnurmann, Brücken aus Papier, p. 339-353.

8With regard to transatlantic conversations, two phases can be discerned in the nineteenth century, each characterized by its own actors and paths of transfer. First, from the 1830s to the 1850s, personal correspondence between individual jurists proved to be essential. In the United States, German emigrants played a crucial role. The most important person in the transfer of knowledge during this period was Francis Lieber (1798-1872), born in Berlin and emigrated to the United States in the late 1820s because of political persecution. He was appointed professor of history and political economics at South Carolina College (Columbia) in 1835 and joined the faculty of Columbia College, New York City, in 185716. On the German side, the key position was held by the criminal law scholar Carl Anton Josef Mittermaier (1787-1867), a politically active professor in Landshut, Bonn, and Heidelberg17. Mittermaier built an international network of over 2,200 correspondents worldwide, writing and receiving an estimated 1,400 letters per year18. The exchange with Francis Lieber began around 1830 and lasted for about 30 years; both exchanged at least 140 letters. Francis Lieber used his contacts within the United States to provide Mittermaier with up-to-date information and printed matter. In this transatlantic transfer of knowledge, he sent the Heidelberg professor legal literature, as well as legislative projects at both the state and federal levels. Mittermaier was primarily interested in legal texts as well as in interpretations and explanations by leading U.S. jurists such as Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853). Via Lieber, Mittermaier also subscribed to the North American Jurist and Law Magazine and received information from other journals such as The Monthly Law Reporter19.

  • 20 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Das englische, schottische und nordamerikanische Strafverfahren. Im Zusammenh (...)
  • 21 E.g. Mittermaier, “Ueber den gegenwärtigen Standpunkt der Strafgesetzgebung mit Prüfung der Fortsch (...)
  • 22 C. J. A. Mittermaier, “Die neueste wissenschaftliche Bearbeitung des Strafrechts in Nordamerika”, K (...)
  • 23 The journal is accessible online via the collection of 19th century legal journals of the Max Planc (...)
  • 24 E.g. “Einiges über Strafgesetzgebung in Nordamerika. Auszug aus einem Briefe Hrn. John Pickering, E (...)

9Mittermaier made these materials from the U.S. accessible to the German-speaking (professional) public via monographs. They included the volume The English, Scottish and North American Criminal Procedure. In connection with the political, moral and social conditions and detailing the practice of law from 185120. Far more numerous were his journal articles, however. They formed his central medium for disseminating information about North American criminal law. Worth mentioning are, for example, the series of articles on Criminal Legislation in its Further Development and on the State of Criminal Legislation in the leading criminal law journals (Neues) Archiv des Criminalrechts (1798-1857) and the Annalen der deutschen und ausländischen Criminal-Rechts-Pflege (1828-1855)21. The articles usually referred to several foreign countries; beyond that, some appeared solely on the situation in North America, for example, The Latest Scientific Treatment of Criminal Law in North America of 1856 in the last issue of the Kritische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des Auslands (1829-1856)22. The journal was edited by Mittermaier himself together with Heinrich Albert Zachariä (1806-1875), professor of law in Göttingen since 1835, and a number of mainly European colleagues. From the 1840s on, the editorial board also included U.S.-American jurists such as Luther Cushing (1803-1856), John Pickering (1777-1846), Joseph Story (1799-1845), and Charles Sumner (1811-1874) from Boston23. In some cases, Mittermaier also printed excerpts from letters addressed to him or to his colleagues24. His main intention was to present the foreign material rather than to analyze it. Thus, it was primarily a collecting activity and not a systematic form of comparative criminal law as it was to become characteristic of the period after the turn of the century.

  • 25 W. Frisch, “Franz v. Liszt – Werk und Wirkung”, Die Schule Franz von Liszts. Sozialpräventive Krimi (...)
  • 26 Henze, Crime on the Agenda.
  • 27 Cf. Strupp, German Americana, p. 397-403. One example is P. F. Aschrott, Aus dem Strafen- und Gefän (...)
  • 28 Cf. P. Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem. Eine Darstellung des Systems zur Besserung (...)

10In the second phase around 1900, however, both the framework conditions and the persons involved in the transatlantic transfer changed. The criminal law scholars active in the first half of the 19th century had died and a new generation had taken their place. First and foremost was the criminal law scholar Franz von Liszt (1851-1919), who held professorships in Marburg, Halle, and Berlin25. Although the exchange of letters continued to be relevant, improved transportation and communication conditions facilitated travel and allowed for frequent face-to-face meetings on an international level26. Thus, the number of criminal law study visits from Germany to the United States increased, especially at the beginning of the 20th century27. In 1903, for example, professor Liszt offered students of his seminar a prize of 1,000 marks to be used for a trip to study the reformatory system in the U.S.A. The results should then be reported on. Paul Herr, later attorney at law in Hamm, was successful and published the findings of his seven months stay in 190728.

  • 29 S. Kesper-Biermann, “Die Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenscha (...)
  • 30 “Vorwort”, Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts. Vorarbeiten zur d (...)
  • 31 Wetzell, “Franz v. Liszt”, p. 225.
  • 32 Radzinowicz, The Roots, p. 9.

11Furthermore, international congresses were able to establish themselves as central, regularly convening forums for cross-border exchange and transfer. The International Union of Penal Law (Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung), founded in 1889 by Franz von Liszt, the Dutch professor of criminal law Gerard Anton van Hamel (1842-1917) and Benoît Adolphe Georges Prins (1845-1919), professor of criminal law in Brussels, was particularly vital for the discussion of criminal law issues in Germany29. Its main task was to organize international conferences. Between 1889 and 1913, a total of twelve such events were held at intervals of one to four years, mainly in European capitals. A total of around 45 topics were discussed; the vast majority dealt with criminal policy issues. Franz von Liszt and others argued in 1908 that legal relations were becoming more and more international, therefore related needs and aspirations emerged in all “civilized nations” (Kulturvölker). Consequently, the development of German criminal law had to be seen as part of the general development of law30. This reflects, on the one hand, the need for international, including transatlantic knowledge transfer, but on the other hand also contemporary eurocentric and colonial thought patterns. According to Richard Wetzell, the role of the International Union of Penal Law “as a forum and network of the transnational criminal law reform movement [...] can hardly be overestimated”31. Overall, the organization can be characterized as an essentially Central and Northern European affair. People from non-European regions of Asia and South America made up only around two percent of its membership. This, together with the middle-class social background, led the English criminologist Sir Leon Radzinowicz to qualify the Union as “a kind of a comfortable established élitist European club”32.

  • 33 J. A. van Hamel, “The International Union of Criminal Law”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology(...)
  • 34 Ibid., p. 23.
  • 35 Ibid., p. 27.
  • 36 Mitteilungen der Internationalen Kriminalistischen Vereinigung, 21 vols., 1889-1914.
  • 37 K. Härter, “Zweckgedanke, Social Defence and Transnational Criminal Law. Franz von Liszt and the Ne (...)

12The U.S.A. were only marginally represented with about ten members out of more than a thousand in the early 20th century. In 1910, an American group was founded with Charles Richmond Henderson (1848-1915), professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, as president33. Henderson was well connected with Germany, where he had spent six months at the University of Leipzig studying economics, statistics, and pedagogy in 1901. But the American group never gained considerable significance because continental European, including German, and Anglo-Saxon penal jurisprudence were perceived as being very different, as Dutch lawyer Joost Adriaan van Hamel (1880-1964) put it in 1911. Whereas Anglo-Saxon penal jurisprudence “kept away from purely theoretical reasonings and was influenced mostly by realistic views”, on the European continent “the blinding lights of metaphysical philosophy and abstract thinking have ever been pouring into the domains of criminal jurisprudence”34. Still, the conferees discussed a wide range of innovations and developments on the North American continent, since “so far as practical institutions are concerned, the International Union has found American experience of great value”35. The conference proceedings were published in the Reports of the International Union of Penal Law36; in addition, the Journal for the comprehensive study of criminal law (Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft), a foundation of Liszt in 1881, took over the function of transferring knowledge from the now discontinued journals from the first half of the 19th century37. Finally, the International Union of Penal Law embarked on comparing criminal law in a large-scale project.

  • 38 Die Strafgesetzgebung der Gegenwart in rechtsvergleichender Darstellung, ed. Internationale Krimina (...)
  • 39 Strafgesetzbuch des Staates New-York vom 26. Juli 1881 (in Kraft seit 1. Dezember 1882). Kapitel 67 (...)
  • 40 Radzinowicz, The Roots, p. 24 (emphasis in original).
  • 41 Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts. Vorarbeiten zur deutschen St (...)
  • 42 Goldschmidt, “Strafen (Haupt- und Nebenstrafen) und verwandte Maßregeln unter Berücksichtigung der (...)

13The Union collected penal legislations with a comprehensive, global scope. The collaboration of many international scholars was needed, because every chapter should be written by a citizen of the respective state. As a result, two volumes of A Comparative Examination of Contemporary Penal Legislation were published in 1894 and 1899, respectively. The second volume comprised non-European law and Harvard professor Joseph Henry Beale (1861-1943) wrote the article on the United States38. The Comparative Examination was accompanied by a series of non-German penal codes in German translation (Außerdeutsche Strafgesetzbücher in deutscher Übersetzung) that started in 1881. As early as 1884, the criminal code of the State of New York of 1881 was published39. The next step was a systematic comparison of the collected materials. The results were published between 1905 and 1909 in the monumental 16 volume Comparative Study of German and Foreign Penal Law, assessed as the “magnum opus of criminal science” by Leon Radzinowicz40. This time it was prepared under the auspices of the German Federal Department of Justice whom it served as a preliminary for the envisaged criminal law reform41. Volume 4 contained a chapter on the United States, written by Paul Herr. It served as an appendix to the chapter on penalties since U.S. penal law was not systematically considered in the Comparative Study42. Translations played no part in this context, as English was a familiar language to German legal scholars.

III. Central ideas and texts

  • 43 J. M. F. Birnbaum, “Ueber nordamericanische Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft im Allgemeinen, ins (...)
  • 44 C. J. A. Mittermaier, “Nordamerikanisches Strafrecht und Strafverfahren”, Kritische Zeitschrift für (...)
  • 45 A. Parise, “Codification of the Law in Louisiana. Early Nineteenth Century Oscillation Between Cont (...)
  • 46 Mittermaier, “Nordamerikanisches Strafrecht”, p. 175 (emphasis in original).
  • 47 Birnbaum, “Ueber nordamericanische Gesetzgebung”, p. 268.

14Which central ideas, texts and experiences from the U.S.A. reached Germany and circulated there? In the first phase, an intensive transfer of knowledge did not begin until the 1830s, according to the criminal law professor Johann Michael Franz Birnbaum (1792-1877). In 1833, he explained that “few of the American legal writings actually intended for this purpose, or indeed any legal writings at all, are known on the European continent, and even fewer have been used thoroughly”. Although the United States had long been referred to as a “model state”, especially in political proposals for improvement, a scientifically informed and detailed reception of penal law had not taken place43. According to Mittermaier, even 20 years later, this was partially due to the fact that in the United States existed no criminal jurisprudence comparable to the one in Europe. “There is no scientific discussion of the principles of criminal law, no derivation of principles from the individual legal claims and laws, no scientific criticism of the laws”44. Accordingly, in the transfer of knowledge, books and journal articles from, for example, the North American Jurist and Law Magazine were discussed, but criminal legislation played a disproportionately more important role. This was most likely due to the fact that during this period the codification of penal law in Germany was on the agenda of criminal law scholars and governments. At the interface between science and legal policy, Mittermaier was particularly interested in legislative projects, and especially in codifications. He attached particular importance to the criminal code for Louisiana drafted by Edward Livingston (1764-1836), which most closely resembled the German law codes45. Moreover, he was in direct contact with Livingston through Francis Lieber’s mediation. “Livingston’s codes and the motifs contain a treasure trove of legislative art”, he declared in 185346. The differing, republican form of government was no obstacle to this, as Birnbaum had already remarked as early as 1833: “I myself believe that many principles of the American legal system can be applied with benefit in Europe even without changing the basic monarchical principle”47.

  • 48 [G. L.] Holzinger, Die Schwurgerichte in Württemberg. Dargestellt nach Anleitung des Gesetzes vom 1 (...)
  • 49 E.g. Tittmann, Ueber Gerichtsverfassung.
  • 50 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Erfahrungen über die Wirksamkeit der Schwurgerichte in Europa und Amerika. Üb (...)
  • 51 M. Langer, “The Long Shadow of the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Categories”, The Oxford Handbook o (...)
  • 52 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Das englische, schottische und nordamerikanische Strafverfahren im Zusammenha (...)
  • 53 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Die Todesstrafe nach den Ergebnissen der wissenschaftlichen Forschungen, der (...)

15This was especially true for criminal procedure. Towards the middle of the century, with the changes in criminal procedure in the German states, it became the focus of transnational conversations. Some authors, such as jurist Georg Leonhard Holzinger (1801-1850) from Württemberg, compared the recently passed state laws on the reform of criminal proceedings, in particular on the introduction of jury courts, with the institutions in those nations where they already had a longer tradition48. Hence, the U.S.A. were often mentioned in conjunction with England and comparisons were made with French or Belgian criminal procedural law49. Mittermaier concerned himself in particular with the jury, taking into account the different views that existed about it in North America50. This view of U.S. criminal procedure was part of a fundamental theoretical conceptualization that emerged in the first half of the century and has been significantly influenced by Mittermaier himself51. It differentiated between an Anglo-American criminal procedure described as “accusatorial” and a continental European criminal procedure described as “inquisitorial”. Both were conceived as independent systems that could be compared and contrasted. In this perspective, which stayed unchanged well into the 20th century, the criminal procedural law of the U.S.A. came mainly into focus as a variant of the accusatory system. Because its origin was seen in England, the main focus around the middle of the century was on English law. According to Mittermaier, North American criminal procedure was a “logical development” from this starting point and less oriented towards traditions and customs52. Last but not least, the (abolition of the) death penalty in the U.S.A. received attention in Germany. Mittermaier considered, for instance in his monograph of 1862, the developments and experiences relating to this issue in the individual states of the U.S.A..53

  • 54 H. Reinke, “Kriminalpolitik im Kaiserreich”, Kriminalpolitik, ed. H.-J. Lange, Wiesbaden, Springer, (...)
  • 55 Härter, “Zweckgedanke”, p. 150-175.
  • 56 M. Pifferi, “Global Criminology and National Tradition. The Impact of Reform Movements on Criminal (...)
  • 57 Cf. A. Meyer-Reil, Strafaussetzung zur Bewährung. Reformdiskussion und Gesetzgebung seit dem Ausgan (...)
  • 58 Mitteilungen der Internationalen Kriminalistischen Vereinigung, 13, 1906, p. 19.

16In the second phase around 1900, primarily the representatives of the so-called “modern school” observed thoroughly the developments in the U.S. and introduced them into the “criminal law program debates”54 of the late German Empire. They placed emphasis on protecting society from criminals; instead of deterrence or atonement, the goal should be prevention through correction, possibly by rendering criminals harmless depending on their “capacity for correction” and dangerousness55. Franz von Liszt’s demands included the introduction of probation, the abolition of short-term imprisonment, the long-term incarceration of professional criminals, the creation of a special criminal law for juveniles, and the substitution of other sanctions for deprivation of liberty. These, together with the controversially debated indeterminate sentence, were to a large extent impulses from the United States56, although some of them were discussed with regard to their adoption in other European states, such as the introduction of conditional sentences in Belgium in 1888 and in France in 189157. The first congress of the International Union of Penal Law in Brussels in 1889, for instance, discussed conditional sentencing introduced in Belgium the previous year and adopted a resolution that recommended that the “legislators of all countries” should adopt the principle of suspending the execution of sentences on probation. It was simultaneously pointed out that consideration should be given to the respective regional or national circumstances and “to the feelings and cultural state of each people”58.

  • 59 Strupp, German Americana, p. 397-403.
  • 60 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik.
  • 61 As already mentioned, the prison system is not considered in this article and therefore the reforma (...)
  • 62 Vergleichende Darstellung, vol. 4, 1908, p. 471-506.
  • 63 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik.
  • 64 Cf. Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 403f.
  • 65 A. Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege in Amerika. Mit Ausführungen zur Deutschen Strafprozessreform, B (...)
  • 66 Ibid., p. 14.
  • 67 Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 124.
  • 68 Ibid., p. 366.

17As the bibliography of German Americana shows, the first decade of the 20th century constituted a heyday of German interest in North American penal law: it lists a total of 14 works59. By and large, this period was about a bunch of ideas and their legislative or practical implementation, less about individual (legislative) texts or works. The lecture by Frankfurt criminal law professor Berthold Freudenthal (1872-1929) mentioned at the beginning can serve as a case study of this reception. Freudenthal had undertaken a study visit to the United States in 1905 and reported on his findings under the title American Criminal Policy (Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik). The lecture was published in the Reports of the International Union of Penal Law as well as an independent treatise, so it can be assumed that it was widely disseminated in Germany60. The “supreme question” he pursued was what the United States did to avoid recidivism, in his opinion the ultimate goal of all criminal policy. In this context, he advocated the indeterminate sentence and conditional or provisional release (release on parole). As institutions particularly worthy to adopt in Germany, he elaborated on, first, reformatories or the reformatory system61, as well as, second, probation and, third, juvenile courts. These were also the three topics that were dealt with in detail two years later in the Comparative Study62. In addition to his personal view, Freudenthal saw it as a great advantage that in Germany one could profit from the experiences already available in the United States and decide on that basis what to adopt63. Therefore, North America served in many ways as a model for the representatives of German positivist criminology64. Judge Adolf Hartmann in 1906 even called the United States “the classic country of the International Union of Penal Law”65. The whole new direction within European criminal law was, according to him, a matter of “unrecognized repercussions of American intellectual life (Geistesleben) on Europe”66. However, the view remained unchanged that, “in general, theory is not the strong side of the American”67. According to Paul Herr, the task of the German jurisprudence was thus a scientific systematization of the U.S. practical experiences, which could then be translated into calls for action adapted to the situation in Germany68.

  • 69 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik, p. 18-19.
  • 70 J. M. Baernreither, Jugendfürsorge und Strafrecht in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Ein Beitr (...)
  • 71 Cf. Meyer-Reil, Strafaussetzung, p. 13-36.
  • 72 Ibid., p. 37-51.
  • 73 Cf. also Aschrott, Aus dem Strafen- und Gefängnißwesen.
  • 74 Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege, p. III-V, 6f.
  • 75 Ibid., p. 1.
  • 76 Ibid., p. 15.

18As for probation, it was introduced in the U.S.A. in the 1860s, Freudenthal explained, and was practiced in many states, with Massachusetts being the home and model state of this institution69. According to Austrian jurist and politician Joseph Maria Baernreither (1845-1925), probation was not merely an element of criminal procedure but represented “an entirely new conception of the relationship of society to those individuals who have brought themselves into conflict with the moral and social order”. He pointed out differences to the controversial German discussion on this topic70. In Germany, the term conditional sentencing (bedingte Verurteilung) was used to refer to all institutions that allowed the court to spare an offender the sentence or its enforcement if he or she behaved well for a certain period of time71. There was a consensus among proponents that only the execution of the sentence could be the object of a suspended sentence. The American model of suspended sentencing and the associated separation between conviction and sentence, which was based on the design of jury trials that assigned the conviction to the jury and the sentence to the judge, was alien to German criminal procedure. Beginning in 1895, individual German states started to introduce a form of suspended sentence called conditional pardon (bedingte Begnadigung); in 1903, common principles among the individual states were adopted. The final remission of the sentence did not occur automatically as a legal consequence of the absence of a further conviction, but required good conduct (gute Führung) and a separate act of amnesty by the sovereign72. Judge Adolf Hartmann who went on a study trip to North America in 1904 and 1905 explained that the origins of this idea were not to be found in Europe, but in the United States. He also drew on the mid-19th-century interest of Mittermaier in criminal procedure73, especially the jury, and had traveled expressly with the aim of finding “new suggestions and new ideas and points of view for German reform issues” in this field. “What does America have to say to the world?”, was his leading question. In his opinion, future-oriented answers to the current pressing questions of penal law could only be found in the youthful U.S.A., not in the old, traditional Europe74. In contrast to the first half of the 19th century, England could no longer serve as a point of reference from this perspective in matters of criminal proceedings – even if the judge was confronted with considerable doubts as to whether the U.S.A. could really be regarded as a model75. He readily conceded that American conditions were “so non-European” that they could not be transferred directly, but rather, ways of adaptation must be sought76.

  • 77 Cf. D. Oberwittler, Von der Strafe zur Erziehung? Jugendkriminalpolitik in England und Deutschland (...)
  • 78 E. Fuchs, “From punishment to education. The international debate on juvenile penal reform before W (...)
  • 79 K. Laubenthal et al., Jugendstrafrecht, Berlin – Heidelberg, Springer, 2015, p. 13, https://doi.org (...)
  • 80 S. J. Barrows, Children’s Courts in the United States. Their Origin, Development, and Results. Repo (...)
  • 81 Cf. Henze, “Crime on the Agenda”, p. 377-378; Fuchs, “From punishment to education”, p. 115-116.
  • 82 Barrows, Children’s Courts, p. IX. For the establishment of juvenile courts in the U.S. cf. B. C. F (...)
  • 83 Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 8; see also Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege, p (...)
  • 84 Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege, p. 274.
  • 85 Cf. Laubenthal, Jugendstrafrecht, p. 13.
  • 86 Cf. Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 4f.; Fuchs, “From punishment to education” (...)
  • 87 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik, p. 20-21.

19Juvenile delinquency appeared to be a particular issue in Germany that was to be addressed with innovations in criminal law77. Demands for specialized juvenile courts were supported by a broad movement of jurists, legal practitioners, social workers, medical practitioners and psychiatrists78. The U.S.A. was the central point of reference in this reform debate79. A work frequently mentioned in this context was Samuel June Barrows’ Children’s Courts in the United States of 190480. Barrows (1845-1909), American representative to the International Prison Commission in 1895, 1900, and 1905, had prepared the collection of reports on various children’s courts throughout the U.S. for this institution. Founded in 1872, the International Prison Commission served as an important forum for the exchange of ideas and practices, especially with regard to the international congresses it organized every five years for 400 to 600 participants81. From 1895 onwards, a special section was dedicated to children and juveniles. In the introduction to the reports, Barrows claimed in 1904 that the introduction and establishment of juvenile courts were “the most notable development in judicial principles and methods in the United States within the past five years” and continued: “Never perhaps has any judicial reform made such rapid progress”82. This view obviously was shared in Germany when Paul Herr among others stressed that “in this respect the Americans are at the forefront of progress towards the best in the field of criminal law and the penal system” and that they can serve as a model for other countries83. Adolf Hartmann claimed that the children’s courts combined almost everything that was new and interesting in American criminal justice84. However, even more important for the transfer of knowledge from North America to Germany than Barrows’ book proved the reports from the numerous study trips of jurists who described the experiences with the juvenile courts for a German speaking audience with regard to their transfer to German conditions85. According to Paul Herr, a particularly important feature was one of the guiding principles in U.S. juvenile courts: education should take the place of punishment86. Freudenthal emphasized in particular the fact that in the U.S. the connection between delinquency and social problems had been recognized and the juvenile court judge was becoming the “center of juvenile welfare”. Moreover, he stressed the American belief that “there should be no community of young people with old criminals”87.

  • 88 Ibid., p. 21.
  • 89 Ibid., p. 22.
  • 90 Ibid., p. 23.
  • 91 Cf. Laubenthal, Jugendstrafrecht, p. 13.
  • 92 Fuchs, “From punishment to education”, p. 120.
  • 93 Laubenthal, Jugendstrafrecht, p. 15.
  • 94 K. Gies, “Das Jugendgerichtsgesetz von 1923”, Göttinger Rechtszeitschrift, 1, 2018, p. 20; cf. Laub (...)

20In his lecture, Freudenthal systematized the existing U.S. juvenile courts based on their organizational structure and distinguished the following types: In Indianapolis, the juvenile court judge worked exclusively in the juvenile court; in Chicago he also acted as a judge in other areas of law, and in Philadelphia and Boston each judge was only assigned to the juvenile court for a certain period of time. He reasoned, “the first way of filling the post is obviously the best”88. This led Freudenthal to his conclusion and to three recommendations what Germany could learn and adopt from the U.S. model. First, in line with the general position of positivist criminology, he noted that North America was strongly pushing back against imprisonment as a punishment. “Transferred to German conditions, this would initially mean replacing the conditional suspension of sentence with a conditional conviction”, he argued and voted for making provisional release a regular part of the penal system89. Second, retributive and corrective punishment were to be meted out to different groups of criminals, with the latter being considered above all for juveniles capable of improvement. Third, he urgently recommended the establishment of juvenile courts as “centers for delinquent and neglected youths” which would be possible immediately and without great difficulty90. In fact, on this point he was proved right. As early as 1908, special criminal divisions for juveniles were set up for the first time in Germany at the district courts of Frankfurt am Main, Cologne and Berlin, adapting the North American model91. Other cities soon followed suit. In Prussia, 212 youth courts were established until 191292. In the same year, a draft of a separate juvenile courts act was submitted to the Reichstag, but it was not passed before the outbreak of the First World War93. A federal juvenile court law was only passed after 1914, in the changed contexts of the Weimar Republic. The Reich Juvenile Courts Act (Reichsjugendgerichtsgesetz) of 1923 was based on the earlier considerations and has been described as a “revolution in German criminal law”94.

IV. Conclusion

  • 95 Mittermaier, “Nordamerikanisches Strafrecht”, p. 173.

21“The study of North American criminal law is of great importance to anyone who wishes to become thoroughly acquainted with progresses in the art of lawmaking”, declared criminal law professor Carl Josef Anton Mittermaier in 185395, thus characterizing the transatlantic conversations between the United States and Germany in the long 19th century. Neither different legal traditions nor different forms of government and constitution appeared to be a fundamental obstacle. German interest focused less on North American criminal jurisprudence than on legislation, individual institutions and the experiences made with them. The glance at the U.S. took place primarily in the context of reform initiatives within Germany. Two phases can be distinguished, which were characterized by different forms, but also by different functions of knowledge transfer. A first deeper engagement with U.S. criminal law began in the 1830s and lasted until the 1850s. It mainly consisted of personal correspondence between individual jurists and took place in the context of the codification of penal law and the reform of criminal procedure in the individual German states. The U.S. served less as a model to be emulated than as a foil against which one could discuss one’s own reform plans in comparison with other, European criminal law systems.

22This changed around 1900 in the context of the emergence of positivist criminology, the so-called school dispute (Schulenstreit), and the preparation of changes to the Reich Criminal Code (Reichsstrafgesetzbuch) and the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure (Reichsstrafprozessordnung) in Germany. Facilitated travel then allowed frequent face-to-face meetings on an international level with an increased number of criminal law study visits from Germany to the United States. Moreover, international congresses were able to establish themselves as central, regularly convening forums for cross-border exchange and transfer. During this period, North American institutes such as probation and juvenile courts functioned, at least among representatives of the “modern school”, as models for German criminal law and criminal procedure. During this period, specific implementations or influences on legislation in Germany can be identified, because many challenges were seen as similar. The First World War then interrupted the international exchange and transatlantic conversations.

Haut de page

Notes

1 B. Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik. Öffentlicher Vortrag auf der Versammlung der Internationalen Kriminalistischen Vereinigung, Landesgruppe Deutsches Reich, am 8. September 1906, Berlin, Guttentag, 1907, p. 3. All German quotations have been translated into English by the author.

2 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik, p. 3.

3 Cf. M. Henze, “Crime on the Agenda. Transnational Organizations 1870-1955”, Historisk Tidsskrift,109, 2009, https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/5642; The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, eds. N. Morris and D. J. Rothman, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997; L. H. Riemer, Das Netzwerk der “Gefängnisfreunde” (1830-1872). Karl Josef Anton Mittermaiers Briefwechsel mit europäischen Strafvollzugsexperten, Frankfurt, Klostermann, 2005.

4 Cf. S. Kesper-Biermann, Einheit und Recht. Strafgesetzgebung und Kriminalrechtsexperten in Deutschland vom Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Reichsstrafgesetzbuch von 1871, Frankfurt, Klostermann, 2009.

5 Cf. T. Vormbaum, A Modern History of German Criminal Law, Heidelberg et al., Springer, 2014, p. 47-98.

6 R. F. Wetzell, “Penal reform in Imperial Germany: Conflict and compromise”, The Limits of Criminological Positivism. The Movement for Criminal Law Reform in the West, 1870-1940, ed. M. Pifferi, London – New York, Routledge, 2022, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429323713-3; Vormbaum, A Modern History, p. 109-142.

7 S. Kesper-Biermann, “Transnationale Zirkulation strafrechtlicher Sicherheitskonzepte. Staatsverbrechen in den Kodifikationsarbeiten für ein russisches Strafgesetzbuch (1801-1845)”, Dynamiken der Sicherheit in Russland im Zeitalter von Revolution und Restauration (1790-1840), eds. C. Dietze, I. Iwanov and N. Katzer, Berlin – Boston, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2025, p. 457-485 (forthcoming).

8 J.-L. Halpérin, “Doctrinal ciculations in criminal law 1764-1914”, Comparative Legal History, 11, 2023, p. 150, https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2023.2270387.

9 Cf. J.-L. Halpérin, “Une histoire transnationale des idées juridiques?”, Clio@Themis. Revue électronique d’histoire du droit, 14, 2018, https://doi.org/10.35562/cliothemis.751.

10 E.g. Entanglements in Legal History. Concepts, Methods, Challenges, ed T. Duve, Frankfurt, Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, 2014.

11 E.g. N. Hakim and A. Monti, “Histoire de la pensée juridique et analyse bibliométrique: l’exemple de la circulation des idées entre la France et l’Italie à la Belle Époque”, Clio@Themis. Revue électronique d’histoire du droit, 14, 2018, https://doi.org/10.35562/cliothemis.763.

12 E.g. Halpérin, “Doctrinal circulations”.

13 Ibidem, p. 149.

14 Max-Planck-Institut für Rechtsgeschichte und Rechtstheorie, Juristische Zeitschriften des 19. Jahrhunderts. Digitale Sammlung Zeitschriften 1800-1918, https://www.lhlt.mpg.de/bibliothek/zeitschriften-1800-1918. The collection is accessible at https://dlc.mpg.de/partner/mpilhlt/.

15 C. Strupp, German Americana, 1800-1955. A comprehensive bibliography of German, Austrian and Swiss books and dissertations on the United States, Washington, German Historical Institute, 2005.

16 C. Schnurmann, Brücken aus Papier. Atlantischer Wissenstransfer in dem Briefnetzwerk des deutsch-amerikanischen Ehepaars Francis und Mathilde Lieber, 1827-1872, Münster, Lit, 2014, p. 37-154.

17 M. Hettinger, “Mittermaier: Leben und Wirkung”, Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaier und der reformierte Strafprozess, eds. A. Koch, C.-F. Stuckenberg and W. Wohlers, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2022, p. 1-28.

18 Cf. Riemer, Netzwerk.

19 Schnurmann, Brücken aus Papier, p. 339-353.

20 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Das englische, schottische und nordamerikanische Strafverfahren. Im Zusammenhange mit den politischen, sittlichen und socialen Zuständen und in den Einzelnheiten der Rechtsübung, Erlangen, Ferdinand Enke, 1851.

21 E.g. Mittermaier, “Ueber den gegenwärtigen Standpunkt der Strafgesetzgebung mit Prüfung der Fortschritte derselben nach den neuesten Entwürfen für Nordamerika, England, Belgien, Toskana, Preußen, Mecklenburg, Hamburg”, Archiv des Criminalrechts, 32, 1851, p. 125-162, 279-315, 415-444 and 589-624.

22 C. J. A. Mittermaier, “Die neueste wissenschaftliche Bearbeitung des Strafrechts in Nordamerika”, Kritische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des Auslands, 28, 1856, p. 466-472.

23 The journal is accessible online via the collection of 19th century legal journals of the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory in Frankfurt am Main, https://dlc.mpg.de/toc/mpirg_escidoc_87170/1/.

24 E.g. “Einiges über Strafgesetzgebung in Nordamerika. Auszug aus einem Briefe Hrn. John Pickering, Esq. in Boston”, Kritische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des Auslandes, 10, 1838, p. 134-141. Mittermaier explained that this letter had been addressed to law professor Amos in London who shared a copy with him: “The clarity of presentation in the letter of one of America’s most distinguished jurists gives it a more general value” (p. 134).

25 W. Frisch, “Franz v. Liszt – Werk und Wirkung”, Die Schule Franz von Liszts. Sozialpräventive Kriminalpolitik und die Entstehung des modernen Strafrechts, eds. A. Koch and M. Löhnig, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, p. 1-26; R. F. Wetzell, “Franz von Liszt und die internationale Strafrechtsreformbewegung”, ibid., p. 207-227.

26 Henze, Crime on the Agenda.

27 Cf. Strupp, German Americana, p. 397-403. One example is P. F. Aschrott, Aus dem Strafen- und Gefängnißwesen Nordamerikas. Rückblicke auf eine Studienreise. Vortrag gehalten in der Juristischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin am 9. März 1889, Hamburg, Verlagsanstalt und Druckerei, 1889.

28 Cf. P. Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem. Eine Darstellung des Systems zur Besserung jugendlicher Verbrecher in Strafrecht, Strafprozeß und Strafvollzug (The Reformatory System) in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Ergebnisse einer Studienreise und zugleich ein Beitrag zur Reform der deutschen Strafgesetzgebung, Berlin – Stuttgart – Leipzig, Kohlhammer, 1907.

29 S. Kesper-Biermann, “Die Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaftsbeziehungen und Politik im Strafrecht 1889-1932”, Die Internationalisierung von Strafrechtswissenschaft und Kriminalpolitik (1870-1930). Deutschland im Vergleich, eds. S. Kesper-Biermann and P. Overath, Berlin, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2007, p. 85-107; E. Bellmann, Die Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung (1889-1933), Frankfurt, Lang, 1994; L. Radzinowicz, The Roots of the International Association of Criminal Law and their Significance. A Tribute and a Re-assessment on the Centenary of the IKV, Freiburg, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationals Strafrecht, 1991.

30 “Vorwort”, Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts. Vorarbeiten zur deutschen Strafrechtsreform, ed. auf Anregung des Reichs-Justizamtes von den Professoren K. Birkmeyer et al., vol. 4, Berlin, Otto Liebmann, 1908, p. V-VII.

31 Wetzell, “Franz v. Liszt”, p. 225.

32 Radzinowicz, The Roots, p. 9.

33 J. A. van Hamel, “The International Union of Criminal Law”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2, 1911, p. 22-27.

34 Ibid., p. 23.

35 Ibid., p. 27.

36 Mitteilungen der Internationalen Kriminalistischen Vereinigung, 21 vols., 1889-1914.

37 K. Härter, “Zweckgedanke, Social Defence and Transnational Criminal Law. Franz von Liszt and the Network of Positivist Criminology (1871-1918)”, GLOSSAE. European Journal of Legal History, 17, 2020, p. 155.

38 Die Strafgesetzgebung der Gegenwart in rechtsvergleichender Darstellung, ed. Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung, vol. 1, “Das Strafrecht der Staaten Europas”, ed. F. von Liszt, Berlin, Otto Liebmann, 1894; vol.  2, “Das Strafrecht der außereuropäischen Staaten”, ed. F. von Liszt, Berlin, Otto Liebmann, 1899; J. H. Beale, “Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika”, ibid., vol. 2, p. 195-220.

39 Strafgesetzbuch des Staates New-York vom 26. Juli 1881 (in Kraft seit 1. Dezember 1882). Kapitel 676 der Gesetze von 1881, [Berlin, 1884].

40 Radzinowicz, The Roots, p. 24 (emphasis in original).

41 Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts. Vorarbeiten zur deutschen Strafrechtsreform, ed. auf Anregung des Reichs-Justizamtes von den Professoren K. Birkmeyer et al., 16 vols., Berlin, Otto Liebmann, 1905-1909.

42 Goldschmidt, “Strafen (Haupt- und Nebenstrafen) und verwandte Maßregeln unter Berücksichtigung der den Inhalt der Strafe bestimmenden Grundsätze des Strafvollzugs. Mit einem Beitrage über Strafenwesen und Strafvollzug in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Von Rechtsanwalt Dr. Herr, Hamm”, Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts, vol. 4, Berlin, 1908, p. 471-506.

43 J. M. F. Birnbaum, “Ueber nordamericanische Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft im Allgemeinen, insbesondere über das Criminalrecht der nordamericanischen Freistaaten”, Kritische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des Auslands, 5, 1833, p.  255f.

44 C. J. A. Mittermaier, “Nordamerikanisches Strafrecht und Strafverfahren”, Kritische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des Auslands, 25, 1853, p. 173-200, quotation p. 176; cf. also C. T. Tittmann, Ueber Gerichtsverfassung, Strafrecht und Strafproceß in den Vereinigten Staaten von Nordamerika. Mit vergleichenden Blicken auf das englische und französische Untersuchungsverfahren, Dresden – Leipzig, Arnoldische Buchhandlung, 1848, p. 54.

45 A. Parise, “Codification of the Law in Louisiana. Early Nineteenth Century Oscillation Between Continental European and Common Law Systems”, Tulane European & Civil Law Forum, 27, 2012, p. 140-146.

46 Mittermaier, “Nordamerikanisches Strafrecht”, p. 175 (emphasis in original).

47 Birnbaum, “Ueber nordamericanische Gesetzgebung”, p. 268.

48 [G. L.] Holzinger, Die Schwurgerichte in Württemberg. Dargestellt nach Anleitung des Gesetzes vom 14. August 1849 über das Verfahren in Strafsachen, welche vor die Schwurgerichtshöfe gehören, mit Erläuterungen, insbesondere unter Berücksichtigung seiner Quellen, und unter steter Vergleichung desselben mit dem englischen, nordamerikanischen, französischen und belgischen Strafprozesse so wie mit den neuesten Gesetzgebungen im Großherzogthum Hessen-Darmstadt, in den Königreichen Bayern, Preußen und Sachsen, im Kurfürstenthum Hessen, im Großherzogthum Baden, Stuttgart Tübingen, Cotta, 1849. Cf. also E. Brauer, Die deutschen Schwurgerichtsgesetze in ihren Hauptbestimmungen übersichtlich zusammengestellt, mit kurzem Hinweis auf fremdes, insbesondere französisches und englisches, auch schottisches und nordamerikanisches Recht, Erlangen, Ferdinand Enke, 1856.

49 E.g. Tittmann, Ueber Gerichtsverfassung.

50 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Erfahrungen über die Wirksamkeit der Schwurgerichte in Europa und Amerika. Über ihre Vorzüge, Mängel und Abhülfe, Erlangen, Ferdinand Enke, 1865.

51 M. Langer, “The Long Shadow of the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Categories”, The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, eds. M. D. Dubber and T. Hörnle, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199673599.013.0039.

52 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Das englische, schottische und nordamerikanische Strafverfahren im Zusammenhange mit den politischen, sittlichen und socialen Zuständen und in den Einzelnheiten der Rechtsübung, Erlangen, Ferdinand Enke, 1851, p. 25.

53 C. J. A. Mittermaier, Die Todesstrafe nach den Ergebnissen der wissenschaftlichen Forschungen, der Fortschritte der Gesetzgebungen und den Erfahrungen geprüft, Freiburg - Tübingen, Mohr, 1862.

54 H. Reinke, “Kriminalpolitik im Kaiserreich”, Kriminalpolitik, ed. H.-J. Lange, Wiesbaden, Springer, 2008, p. 15-23, quotation p. 15.

55 Härter, “Zweckgedanke”, p. 150-175.

56 M. Pifferi, “Global Criminology and National Tradition. The Impact of Reform Movements on Criminal Systems at the Beginning of the 20th Century”, Entanglements in Legal History. Conceptual Approaches, ed. T. Duve, Frankfurt, Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, 2014, p. 543-564.

57 Cf. A. Meyer-Reil, Strafaussetzung zur Bewährung. Reformdiskussion und Gesetzgebung seit dem Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts, Münster, Lit, 2006.

58 Mitteilungen der Internationalen Kriminalistischen Vereinigung, 13, 1906, p. 19.

59 Strupp, German Americana, p. 397-403.

60 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik.

61 As already mentioned, the prison system is not considered in this article and therefore the reformatories will not be discussed further.

62 Vergleichende Darstellung, vol. 4, 1908, p. 471-506.

63 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik.

64 Cf. Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 403f.

65 A. Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege in Amerika. Mit Ausführungen zur Deutschen Strafprozessreform, Berlin, Franz Vahlen, 1906, p. 13.

66 Ibid., p. 14.

67 Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 124.

68 Ibid., p. 366.

69 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik, p. 18-19.

70 J. M. Baernreither, Jugendfürsorge und Strafrecht in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Ein Beitrag zur Erziehungspolitik unserer Zeit, Leipzig, Dunker & Humblot, 1905, p. 123-125, quotation p. 123.

71 Cf. Meyer-Reil, Strafaussetzung, p. 13-36.

72 Ibid., p. 37-51.

73 Cf. also Aschrott, Aus dem Strafen- und Gefängnißwesen.

74 Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege, p. III-V, 6f.

75 Ibid., p. 1.

76 Ibid., p. 15.

77 Cf. D. Oberwittler, Von der Strafe zur Erziehung? Jugendkriminalpolitik in England und Deutschland (1850-1920), Frankfurt – New York, Campus, 2000, p. 66-73.

78 E. Fuchs, “From punishment to education. The international debate on juvenile penal reform before World War I”, Prospects, 45, 2015, p. 115, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-015-9342-5.

79 K. Laubenthal et al., Jugendstrafrecht, Berlin – Heidelberg, Springer, 2015, p. 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45027-7_2.

80 S. J. Barrows, Children’s Courts in the United States. Their Origin, Development, and Results. Reports prepared for the International Prison Commission, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1904.

81 Cf. Henze, “Crime on the Agenda”, p. 377-378; Fuchs, “From punishment to education”, p. 115-116.

82 Barrows, Children’s Courts, p. IX. For the establishment of juvenile courts in the U.S. cf. B. C. Feld, The Evolution of the Juvenile Court. Race, Politics and the Criminalizing of Juvenile Justice, New York, New York University Press, 2017.

83 Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 8; see also Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege, p. 274.

84 Hartmann, Die Strafrechtspflege, p. 274.

85 Cf. Laubenthal, Jugendstrafrecht, p. 13.

86 Cf. Herr, Das moderne amerikanische Besserungssystem, p. 4f.; Fuchs, “From punishment to education”, p. 115.

87 Freudenthal, Amerikanische Kriminalpolitik, p. 20-21.

88 Ibid., p. 21.

89 Ibid., p. 22.

90 Ibid., p. 23.

91 Cf. Laubenthal, Jugendstrafrecht, p. 13.

92 Fuchs, “From punishment to education”, p. 120.

93 Laubenthal, Jugendstrafrecht, p. 15.

94 K. Gies, “Das Jugendgerichtsgesetz von 1923”, Göttinger Rechtszeitschrift, 1, 2018, p. 20; cf. Laubenthal, Jugendstrafrecht, p. 15f.

95 Mittermaier, “Nordamerikanisches Strafrecht”, p. 173.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Sylvia Kesper-Biermann, « Atlantic Knowledge Transfer. U.S. Criminal Law in 19th Century Germany »Clio@Themis [En ligne], 28 | 2025, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2025, consulté le 23 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cliothemis/5726 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/13wwd

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search