Veranstaltungsarchiv

Veranstaltungsarchiv

This workshop aims to discuss the potential relevance of averse socio-environmental factors under theories and doctrines of criminal responsibility. For the purposes of the workshop, averse socio-environmental conditions include past and ongoing averse socio-environmental conditions, such as extreme socio-economic deprivation, chronic exposure to violence, physical and psycho­log­ical abuse, and social isolation. [mehr]
Der im Bundeskabinett abgestimmte und am 24. August veröf­­fent­lich­te Gesetzentwurf zur „Triage“ intensivmedizinischer Be­hand­lung im Fall pandemiebedingter Ressourcenknappheit wird von Wissenschaftler*innen aus Medizin, Ethik und Recht deutlich kriti­siert. Der Gesetzentwurf schließt aus, bereits laufende lebens­erhal­tende Therapien bei sehr schlechter Erfolgsaussicht zuguns­ten der Behandlung von Menschen mit einer besseren Überlebens­chance zu beenden. Vertreter zahlreicher medizinisch-wissenschaftlicher Fachgesellschaften und Juristinnen und Juristen hatten diese Regelung bereits im Vorfeld kritisiert, da sie die Anwendung des Kriteriums der Überlebenswahrscheinlichkeit erschwert und zu mehr vermeidbaren Todesfällen führt. [mehr]

About the Nature and Value of Conceptual Legal Scholarship

Gastvortrag
The lecture pursues two goals. First, Christian Bumke aims to compare how German legal doctrine and a pluralistic approach, known as the “New Private Law Theory” in the USA, can be used to think about and work with the law. Bumke will argue that, while there are considerable differences between the two, they can be understood as two variants of the same general approach towards legal scholarship, which he calls “conceptual legal scholarship”. His second goal consists in developing a reflection on methodol­ogy. For this purpose, he examines the differences within con­cep­tual legal scholarship. He wishes to show that very different academic activities are pursued both within legal doctrine and New Private Law scholarship. Bumke will make a distinction between two different types of conceptual legal scholarship. On the one hand, there are approaches that aim to explain a certain legal phenomenon; on the other hand, one finds approaches that aim to understand the law’s normative content. He will argue that differentiating between the two perspectives is important because they respond to different expectations and have to conform to different standards. [mehr]

Pressekonferenz anlässlich der Eröffnung des kriminologischen Virtual-Reality-Forschungslabors (MAXLab Freiburg)

Einladung zur Pressekonferenz anlässlich der Eröffnung des kriminologischen Virtual-Reality-Forschungslabors (MAXLab Freiburg) am Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht. [mehr]

Verdeckte Ermittlungen – Vergleichende Perspektiven (externe Veranstaltung)

Vortrag im Rahmen der Humboldt International Criminal Law Discussion Group

Rights in Criminal Law – Exploring the Role of Individual Entitlements in Criminal Law

Interdisciplinary Conference
In this international three-day conference, the Institute of Philoso­phy Graz together with the Max Planck Institute Freiburg invites renowned experts in the philosophy of law and criminal law theory to debate the meaning and scope of the concept of individual rights in criminal law. [mehr]

National Legal Traditions and European Criminal Justice

Gastvortrag
  • Datum: 25.05.2022
  • Uhrzeit: 17:00 - 19:00
  • Vortragender: Dr. Renaud Colson
  • Dr. Renaud Colson is Associate Professor at the Law & Political Science Faculty of the University of Nantes (France) and Honorary Lecturer at Cardiff University. He holds a Diploma in Legal Studies (Cardiff University), a Master’s degree in legal theory (Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles and Katholieke Universiteit Brussels), a Master’s degree in private law and a PhD in legal history (University of Nantes). He has written on a variety of subjects including comparative law, drug policy and criminology. His last monograph deals with The trans­for­mation of criminal justice: A comparison of France and England and Wales (2011). He has since then edited three collec­tions: Les drogues face au droit (Presses universitaires de France, 2015), EU Criminal Justice and the Challenges of Diversity: Legal Cultures in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2016), and European Drug Policies: The Ways of Reform (Routledge, 2017).
  • Ort: Freiburg – via Zoom (link see below)
  • Gastgeber: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht
  • Kontakt: c.hillemanns@csl.mpg.de
The lecture will examine how questions of cultural difference be­tween Member States’ legal traditions are being constructed, ad­dressed, and resolved in the development of the European Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice. It will explore some of the paths that may be followed by the EU in seeking to cope with national diversity in the field of criminal justice, and provides some in­sights into various forms of legal and cultural resistance offered by Member States to the European harmonization process. The lecture is held against the background that the expanding ambi­tions of the European Union on criminal matters have been met with increasing hostility to deeper European integration. This sheds light on the growing potential for conflict between ever expanding EU law on the one hand and national legal traditions on the other, while EU primary law emphasizes the need to accommodate national diversity within the European framework. [mehr]

Implicit Law and Adjudication in Hard Cases

Gastvortrag
  • Datum: 11.05.2022
  • Uhrzeit: 17:00 - 19:00
  • Vortragender: Prof. Dr. Kevin Toh
  • Kevin Toh is the Professor of Philosophy of Law at the Faculty of Laws, University College London. He was previously an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy, San Francisco State University, and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy, Indiana University in Bloomington. He has also held visiting positions at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh, the University of Texas School of Law, and University College and the Centre in Ethics and Philosophy of Law at the University of Oxford. Toh is the author of numerous articles in philosophy of law, ethics, and constitutional theory, and is a co-editor of Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays in Metaethics and Jurisprudence (OUP 2019).
  • Ort: Freiburg – via Zoom (link see below)
  • Gastgeber: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht
  • Kontakt: c.hillemanns@csl.mpg.de
Interpretive practices of courts and other adjudicative bodies indicate that the law of any community comprises not only (i) an explicit part that consists of enactments, judicial decisions, and settled legal practices, but also (ii) an implicit part which judges rely on in adjudicating novel issues not addressed by any part of the explicit law. Legal positivists have in general been resistant to recognizing implicit law, while natural law theorists have conceived implicit law in moralized terms. Both views appear to be discredited when checked against considered interpretative judgments. This lecture broaches a new way of conceiving implicit law by exploiting two analogies: (i) an analogy between implicit law and implied fictional truths – i.e. what are true in a work of fiction but are not explicitly specified as such by the author or artist; and (ii) an analogy between the interpretive principles that we rely on to generate implied fictional truths (what are often called “principles of generation” in philosophical aesthetics), and the principles that we rely on to construct counterfactual scenarios for a variety of purposes – e.g. in explaining and predicting each other’s thoughts and behavior, in our backward-looking moral emotions such as regret and relief. The two aforementioned analogical arguments suggest that the principles we rely on to generate implicit law are deep-seated and fundamental features of our psychological makeup. The overall implication that this paper teases out is that the implicit law of any legal system is neither a set of moral principles as natural law theorists argue, nor a set of principles that we agree on or manufacture as legal positivists conceive laws in general. Instead of being a product of human making, the implicit law of any legal system is likely a product of human makeup. [mehr]

Sanktionen im Sozialrecht – Existenzminimum und Menschenwürde im Spannungsverhältnis zu Mitwirkungspflichten und fiskalischen Interessen

Gastvortrag
  • Datum: 16.03.2022
  • Uhrzeit: 14:00 - 15:30
  • Vortragender: Dr. Martin Kühl
  • Dr. Martin Kühl ist Vorsitzender Richter am Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen und leitet derzeit einen Senat, der u.a. für Angele­gen­heiten der Sozialhilfe und des Arbeitsförderungsrechts zuständig ist. Er war viele Jahre Lehrbeauftragter an der Universität Duisburg-Essen, ist Dozent am Deutschen Anwaltsinstitut und Autor zahlreicher sozialrechtlicher Fachveröffent­li­chun­gen. Martin Kühl hat an der Universität Freiburg Rechtswissenschaften studiert und war neben seinem Referendariat 1991/1992 als wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am damaligen Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht tätig. 2006 promovierte er an der Universität Freiburg zum Thema „Die Sperrzeit bei Arbeitsaufgabe“.
  • Hinweis: Die Anzahl der Teilnehmenden ist begrenzt und es herrscht Maskenpflicht. Anmeldung bitte bei C.Hillemanns@csl.mpg.de. An der Veranstaltung kann auch via Zoom teilgenommen werden (Zoom-Link s.u.).
  • Ort: Freiburg, Fürstenbergstr. 19
  • Raum: Seminarraum (F 113) | Gäste sind herzlich eingeladen!
  • Gastgeber: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht
  • Kontakt: c.hillemanns@csl.mpg.de
Sanktionen sind nicht nur ein Kernthema des Strafrechts. Auch in anderen Rechtsgebieten spielt die Sanktionierung von un­erwünsch­tem Verhalten eine zentrale Rolle. Der Referent wird die Rechtsnatur sozialrechtlicher Sanktionen – auch in Abgrenzung zum Strafrecht – in den verschiedenen Leistungsbereichen be­leuchten, auf das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen materieller Existenzsicherung und Möglichkeiten zur Einschränkung von Leistungsansprüchen eingehen und sich ausführlich mit dem Urteil des BVerfG vom 05.11.2019 zur teilweisen Verfas­sungs­widrigkeit von Sanktionen in der Grundsicherung für Arbeitsuchende beschäftigen. [mehr]

The Past, Present and Future of the International Criminal Court (externe Veranstaltung)

Online Panel Discussion and Book Launch

Ringvorlesung „Strafrecht in der Krise“ (externe Veranstaltung)

Podiumsdiskussion „Steuerungskraft des Strafrechts bei der Bewältigung von Krisen“
A Conversation on Emancipatory Criminalization and Carceral Feminism [mehr]

Why Outcomes Matter (And How They Do)

Gastvortrag
  • Datum: 17.11.2021
  • Uhrzeit: 18:00 c.t.
  • Vortragende: Dr. Antje du Bois-Pedain
  • Antje du Bois-Pedain is Professor of Criminal Law and Philosophy at the Faculty of Law and Director of the Centre for Penal Theory and Penal Ethics at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. She was trained as a lawyer in Germany, re­ceived her Dr. iur. from Humboldt University Berlin, and in the U.K. (Magister Juris, University of Oxford). She has been based at the University of Cambridge since 2001. One strand of her work addresses the philosophical foundations of state punish­ment and their significance for the application of law, and law reform. Here, recent collaborative work includes edited volumes on Criminal Law and the Authority of the State (2017), on Penal Censure: Engagements Within and Beyond Desert Theory (2019) and on Re-reading Beccaria: On the Contemporary Significance of a Penal Classic (forthcoming). Another major strand of her work is in criminal law theory and doctrine, often with a comparative or transnational dimension. Here, she has recently written on participation in crime and on criminal-law causation, and is currently exploring outcome responsibility, as well as conceptions and functions of recklessness and negligence.
  • Hinweis: Please note that 2G rules will apply. In case we cannot ensure social distancing (1.5 m), you will also be required to wear a mask. You may choose to join via Zoom (details are provided below).
  • Ort: Freiburg, Fürstenbergstr. 19
  • Raum: Seminarraum (F 113) | Gäste sind herzlich eingeladen!
  • Gastgeber: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht
  • Kontakt: c.hillemanns@csl.mpg.de
The problem of outcome responsibility, in criminal law, is the problem of providing a normative foundation for criminal-law practices that make outcomes relevant to criminal liability and sentencing – sometimes (as in the law of attempts) with relevant differences between intended and negligently-risked outcomes. My talk develops a conception of agency that can provide theoret­i­cal underpinning for these practices. As a first step, I defend the widely accepted view that producing an outcome (either as an in­tended or as a negligently-unlucky one) makes a difference: so long as the outcome can be imputed to the agent, it qualifies what the agent is responsible for. The object of assessment (“what D has done”) changes from “X activity” (minus the outcome) to “X activity with outcome”. Potentially much more contentious is the second step in my argument: the claim that how the outcome matters for our responsibility is affected by the ques­tion whether the outcome is the product of our intentions or whether it is the product of risks we have negli­gently created. This analysis explains many contentious features of the criminal law. However, it puts pressure on the justification for outcome-dependent crimes of negligence as such. For how can, on the assumption that we have a much less tight connection to negligently-risked outcomes than to intended ones, the criminal law’s prac­tice of making the occurrence of the outcome the linchpin for most offences of criminal negligence, be defended? [mehr]

Lab Experiments – An Overlooked Tool in the Box of Criminology

Gastvortrag
Good fences make good neighbours. The “naturalistic fallacy” is a particularly solid fence. It not only claims that the normative disci­plines need not worry about facts. It would actually be a category error if they care. Although at its core the law is a normative disci­­pline, it has not always been that hostile towards facts. But it used to have a rather loose attitude towards empirics. Often, any factual statement “that matters” has been accepted as a legitimate ele­ment of legal reasoning. A social scientist would likely disagree. A factual claim is not the same as empirical evidence, most im­portantly since correlation is not causation. Criminology defines itself as the social science concerned with crime and punishment. This invites a division of labour: to the extent that a normative conclusion in the area of criminal law rests on an empirical claim, it is for criminology to deliver the evidence. Yet what counts as evidence? To a relevant degree, this is not only a question of epistemology. It also is a matter of disciplinary culture. Historically, criminology defines itself as applied sociology. This historical root is a productive one. But it has led the discipline to largely ignore an im­portant source of evidence: experiments under the controlled conditions of the lab. Interestingly, in empirical legal studies, this method is much more established than in criminology, despite the fact that empirical legal studies are much more recent. The talk will explain why lab experiments could be helpful for criminology, and accordingly for the empirical grounding of criminal law, and will illustrate the power with experiments on crime and punishment. [mehr]

“Sexual Assault and Rape – What Can We Learn From and For Law Reform?”

Workshop unterstützt von Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung

Alles eine Frage der Perspektive? – Geschlechterbilder im Jurastudium

Vortrag
Es gilt die 3G-Regel. [mehr]

Taking Criminal Responsibility (externe Veranstaltung)

Oxford Seminars in Jurisprudence

Loss of Control – (un) acceptable emotions? (externe Veranstaltung)

University of Oxford Criminal Law Discussion Group
Mit Beginn des Wintersemesters startet an der Juristischen Fakultät der Universität Würzburg eine neue Veranstal­tungsreihe mit dem Titel „Werkbesichtigungen“. Darin soll – als Beitrag zur Herausbildung einer „inter­natio­na­len Strafrechtswissenschaft" – im Jahresrhythmus das Werk wissenschaftlich besonders anregender und viel­sei­tiger Kolleginnen und Kollegen mit internationalem Ruf beleuchtet und kritisch reflektiert werden. Die Veranstaltungsreihe beginnt mit der „Werkbesichtigung Albin Eser“. Die Veranstaltung kann online verfolgt werden. Der Link wird Ihnen nach Ihrer Anmeldung zugeschickt. [mehr]

Interpretationen als Hypothesen

Gastvortrag

Culpability, Consciousness, and Carrying on Regardless (externe Veranstaltung)

University of Oxford Criminal Law Discussion Group
Ringvorlesung des Deutschen Juristinnenbunds, Amnesty International und der WoMen* in Law HSG [mehr]

Beweisstandards, Fehlbarkeit und zweifelsfreie Überzeugungen

Gastvortrag
In ei­nem Lei­t­ur­teil zum Be­weis­maß hat der BGH 1970 aus­ge­führt, dass für die rich­ter­li­che Über­zeu­gung ein »Grad von Ge­wiss­heit« ge­for­dert sei, der un­ter­halb ei­ner »von al­len Zwei­feln frei­en Über­zeu­gung« lie­gen mag, aber über ei­ne bloß »an Si­cher­heit gren­zen­de Wahr­schein­lich­keit« hin­aus­geht. Ers­te­res for­de­re das Be­weis­recht nicht, Letz­te­res rei­che nicht aus (BGHZ 53, 245 ff.). Aus erkennt­nis­theo­re­ti­scher Sicht ist klä­rungs­be­dürf­tig, ob in die­sen en­gen Kor­ri­dor noch ein doxas­ti­scher Zu­stand hin­ein­passt. Im BGH-Ur­teil ist von der »Über­zeu­gung«, der »Wahr­heit ei­ner Behauptung« und dem er­for­der­li­chen »Grad an Ge­wiss­heit«, die Rede, aber der Be­griff des Wis­sens, in dem die­se Ele­men­te zu­sam­men­flie­ßen und auf­ein­an­der be­zo­gen wer­den, wird ver­mie­den. In der Er­kennt­nis­theo­rie ist um­strit­ten, ob die un­auf­heb­ba­re mensch­li­che Fehl­bar­keit mit der An­nah­me zu­sam­men­passt, dass Men­schen Wis­sen er­lan­gen kön­nen. Der Vor­trag skizziert die Grund­zü­ge ei­nes fal­li­bi­lis­ti­schen Wis­sens­be­griffs und ver­gleicht die Her­aus­for­de­rung, einen an­ge­mes­se­nen Kor­ri­dor für das Be­weis­maß zu spe­zi­fi­zie­ren, mit der er­kennt­nis­theo­re­ti­schen Her­aus­for­de­rung, die mensch­li­che Irr­tums­an­fäl­lig­keit mit dem Wis­sens­an­spruch zu ver­ein­ba­ren. [mehr]
The event is organized by the Research Network on Law and the Cognitive Sciences (LACS). In this seminar, Prof. Gregg Caruso (SUNY Corning) presents his monograph, “Rejecting Retributivism: Free Will, Punishment, and Criminal Justice” (CUP, 2021). The event takes place September 16th, 2021 at 5pm CEST (11am EDT). [mehr]

Language and the Law in the Age of Migration

Konferenz
5th ILLA General Conference [mehr]
Soapbox Science is an annual public science communication event that brings cutting-edge science to the public, in an accessible, fun, free and un-intimidating way. [mehr]

Foucault und das Recht

On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT
On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT [mehr]

Law as Culture – Zum Ansatz einer Medientheorie des Rechts

On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT
On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT [mehr]

Noncitizen Justice: The Criminal Case Processing of non-U.S. Citizens in Texas and California

Gastvortrag
Immigration enforcement is increasingly dependent on local criminal justice authorities, and yet basic questions on the criminal case processing of non-U.S. citizens in state and local jurisdictions remain unanswered. Leveraging uniquely rich case information on all felony arrests in California and Texas between 2006 and 2018, this article provides a detailed examination of the legal treatment of non-U.S. citizens from booking through sentencing. In both states, we find that non-U.S. citizens arrested for the same crime and with the same prior record are significantly more likely to be convicted and incarcerated than U.S. citizens. These unexplained citizenship gaps often exceed the observed disparities between white and minority defendants, but the results were not identical in both states. In line with the more rigid views towards migrant criminality in Texas, the case processing of foreign nationals is notably more severe there than in California at nearly every key decision point. These findings suggest that even in local criminal justice settings, citizenship is a unique and consequential axis of contemporary legal inequality. [mehr]

Das nicht-formelle Unterhalb von Ökonomie, Politik, Staat

On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT
On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT [mehr]
The two-hour on­li­ne event will con­sist of a wel­co­me mes­sa­ge by Pro­fes­sor Ro­bert Spa­no (Pre­si­dent of the Eu­ro­pean Court of Hu­man Rights), in­tro­duc­to­ry re­marks by Pro­fes­sors An­drew As­hworth (Uni­ver­si­ty of Ox­ford), R A Duff (Uni­ver­si­ty of Stir­ling) and Lu­cia Zed­ner (Uni­ver­si­ty of Ox­ford), a brief pre­sen­ta­ti­on of the vo­lu­me’s con­tent by its edi­tors, a pa­nel dis­cus­si­on with the con­tri­bu­ting au­t­hors and a Q&A ses­si­on with the au­dience. The pa­nel dis­cus­si­on will be led by three aca­de­mic com­men­ta­tors, Pro­fes­sors Tat­ja­na Hörn­le (MPI-CSL, Frei­burg), Dou­glas Hu­sak (Rut­gers Uni­ver­si­ty) and Val­sa­mis Mit­si­legas (Queen Ma­ry Uni­ver­si­ty of Lon­don), who will com­ment on co­re aspects of the book and its chap­ters and pro­vi­de au­t­hors right of re­p­ly. Points of dis­cus­si­on will be ba­sed on the vo­lu­me’s in­di­vi­du­al con­tri­bu­ti­ons as such and al­so eva­lua­ted in the light of the spe­ci­al to­pic ‘Pro­por­tio­na­li­ty and Cri­mi­nal law in a State of Emer­gen­cy’. The aim is to high­light the re­le­van­ce of the book’s cen­tral to­pic to cur­rent emer­gen­cy is­su­es causing go­ver­n­ments and in­ter­na­tio­nal or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons to ad­opt high­ly in­tru­si­ve re­stric­ti­ve mea­su­res and new (oc­ca­sio­nal­ly ex­tre­me) se­cu­ri­ty and sur­veil­lan­ce re­gi­mes. [mehr]
Grea­ter so­cioe­co­no­mic in­e­qua­li­ty is as­so­cia­ted with hig­her cri­me ra­tes. If this as­so­cia­ti­on is cau­sal, it is un­cle­ar how the po­pu­la­tion-le­vel va­ria­ble, in­e­qua­li­ty, af­fects de­ci­si­ons to of­fend in in­di­vi­du­als’ heads. I will pre­sent a re­cent theo­re­ti­cal mo­del in which in­di­vi­du­als strive to re­main their re­sources abo­ve a thres­hold of de­spe­ra­ti­on that is set by their so­ci­al con­text. Grea­ter in­e­qua­li­ty means mo­re in­di­vi­du­als who are at or be­low this thres­hold. It be­co­mes ra­tio­nal for them to of­fend as a ris­ky stra­t­egy to leap cle­ar of it. This pro­du­ces a link bet­ween po­pu­la­ti­on-le­vel in­e­qua­li­ty and in­di­vi­du­al de­ci­si­on-ma­king. Mo­reo­ver, we show that in­cre­a­sing pu­nis­h­ment se­ve­ri­ty un­der the­se as­s­ump­ti­ons should not ge­ne­ral­ly ex­pec­ted to re­du­ce of­fen­ding. I pre­sent a fra­me­work for stu­dy­ing the as­s­ump­ti­ons and pre­dic­ti­ons of the mo­del in a mul­ti-player in­cen­ti­vi­zed eco­no­mic ga­me. Pre­li­mi­na­ry da­ta are con­sis­tent with the pre­dic­ti­ons of the mo­del. Ho­we­ver, they are al­so con­sis­tent with simp­ler but still re­le­vant hy­po­the­ses that do not use the as­s­ump­ti­on of a de­spe­ra­ti­on thres­hold, such as that loss com­pa­red to so­me men­tal re­fe­rence point leads to frus­tra­ti­on and an­ger. We are current­ly at­t­emp­ting to test bet­ween the­se al­ter­na­ti­ves. We ho­pe that the ex­pe­ri­men­tal fra­me­work, re­gard­less of which way the re­sults fall out, is use­ful for un­der­stan­ding an­ti­so­ci­al mo­ti­va­ti­ons. [mehr]

Wirtschaftsspionage - Noch mehr Risiko durch Home Office?

Podiumsdiskussion
Max-Planck-Impulse – Digitaler Expertentalk [mehr]

Rechtskämpfe – Eine historisch-materialistische Rechtspolitikanalyse

On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT
On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT [mehr]
– Roots of Responsibility ERC Project – [mehr]
On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT [mehr]

Marx meets Luhmann – Kritische Systemforschung in Rechtstheorie und Verfassungslehre

On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT
On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT [mehr]
On­li­ne-Vor­trags­rei­he: RECHT UND GE­SELL­SCHAFT [mehr]

Sociological Approaches to Legal Theory

Gastvortrag
This talk approaches core issues in contemporary legal philosophy from a sociologically informed standpoint. It begins by positioning sociological approaches in relation to legal philosophy, and then discusses, in turn, sociological jurisprudence (including holism and historicism), law as an artifact, and the social construction of law. Critical comments are welcome on this draft essay. [mehr]

Collaborative Dishonesty – A Meta-Study

Gastvortrag
Dishonesty is often a result of collaborative efforts. We present the first meta-study on collaborative dishonesty, reviewing 51,640 decisions, made by 3,264 individuals. Results reveal that: people lie more (i) in collaborative than in individual settings, (ii) when their partners lie, and (iii) in later stages of the interaction. [mehr]

“Sex Must be Voluntary”: Sexual Communication and the New Definition of Rape in Sweden

Gastvortrag
  • Datum: 31.03.2021
  • Uhrzeit: 18:00 - 20:00
  • Vortragende: Dr. Linnea Wegerstad (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Lund University / Sweden)
  • Lin­nea We­ger­stad has a De­gree of Doc­tor of Laws from Lund Uni­ver­si­ty. Her doc­to­ral the­sis ex­plo­res the con­cept of se­xu­al in­te­gri­ty through a his­to­ri­cal, theo­re­ti­cal, and doc­tri­nal ana­ly­sis of Swe­dish cri­mi­nal law. She has prac­ti­ced as a jud­ge in the ge­ne­ral courts for a few years and is now a se­ni­or lec­tur­er of cri­mi­nal law at Lund Uni­ver­si­ty. Her main field of re­se­arch is se­xu­al of­fen­ses and fe­mi­nist le­gal theo­ry. She is current­ly in­vol­ved in a re­se­arch pro­ject tit­led “The #Me­too Mo­men­tum and Its Af­ter­math: Cri­me Vic­tims’ Ju­sti­ce-See­king and So­cie­tal and Le­gal Re­spon­ses”, fun­ded by the Swe­dish Cri­me Vic­tim Com­pen­sa­ti­on and Sup­port Au­t­ho­ri­ty.
  • Ort: per Zoom
  • Gastgeber: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht
  • Kontakt: c.hillemanns@csl.mpg.de
Ma­ny coun­tries are in a pro­cess of re­pla­cing out­da­ted sex of­fen­se re­gu­la­ti­ons with laws that ac­cu­ra­te­ly cor­re­spond to mo­dern ideas about gen­der equa­li­ty, se­xu­al self-de­ter­mi­na­ti­on, and con­sen­su­al sex. One ex­am­ple is Swe­den, whe­re a law that de­fi­nes ra­pe ba­sed on a cri­te­ri­on of non­vo­lun­ta­ry par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on en­te­red in­to for­ce in 2018. This lec­ture pres­ents an ana­ly­sis of how ra­pe is un­der­stood in the new le­gal dis­cour­se in Swe­den, and I show that ra­pe is pre­sen­ted as a mat­ter of choi­ce and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on in se­xu­al si­tua­ti­ons. I argue that the new ra­pe law sends a cle­ar mes­sa­ge about what sex should be — na­me­ly, vo­lun­ta­ry — but does not ac­cu­ra­te­ly de­s­cri­be the cri­me and the be­ha­vi­or that de­ser­ves cri­mi­nal cen­su­re. I con­clu­de that a les­son from Swe­den is that fu­ture ra­pe law re­forms may be­ne­fit from em­pi­ri­cal know­led­ge of how peo­ple com­mu­ni­ca­te in se­xu­al si­tua­ti­ons. [mehr]
Roundtable presentations & discussion [mehr]

Triage – Priorisierung intensivmedizinischer Ressourcen unter Pandemiebedingungen (externe Veranstaltung)

Vorträge und Podiumsdiskussion
FORUM BIOETHIK [mehr]
The de­ba­te over dif­fe­rences in U.S. and Eu­ro­pean speech rights is a per­en­ni­al is­sue. But, the emer­gence of pri­va­te so­ci­al me­dia platforms – and their do­mi­nance – has gi­ven the is­sue a new dimension and a new sen­se of ur­gen­cy. What is the ro­le and responsibility of the state and pri­va­te com­pa­nies in terms of monitoring and pre­ven­ting ha­te speech? Whe­re is the di­vi­ding line between free speech and cen­sor­ship? [mehr]
61. Junge Tagung Öffentliches Recht [mehr]

Das strafrechtliche Doppeleheverbot – § 172 StGB im Spannungsverhältnis von Kultur und Strafrecht

Gastvortrag
  • Datum: 27.01.2021
  • Uhrzeit: 18:00 - 19:30
  • Vortragender: Dr. Tom Langerhans (Richter, Berlin)
  • Tom Lan­ger­hans stu­dier­te Rechts­wis­sen­schaf­ten mit dem Schwer­punkt »Grund­la­gen des Rechts« in Ham­burg (Bu­ce­ri­us Law School) und Pa­ris (Sciences Po). An­schlie­ßend pro­mo­vier­te er an der Hum­boldt-Uni­ver­si­tät zu Ber­lin zu ei­nem straf­recht­li­chen The­ma. Sein Re­fe­ren­da­ri­at ab­sol­vier­te er un­ter an­de­rem im Bun­des­mi­nis­te­ri­um der Jus­tiz und für Ver­brau­cher­schutz in der Ab­tei­lung für Grund­rech­te. Nach sei­nem Zwei­ten Staats­exa­men ar­bei­te­te er pro­mo­ti­ons­be­glei­tend als Rechts­an­walt im Be­reich Da­ten, Me­di­en und Tech­no­lo­gie. Seit En­de 2019 ist Tom Lan­ger­hans als Rich­ter in Ber­lin tä­tig.
  • Ort: per Zoom
  • Gastgeber: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht
  • Kontakt: c.hillemanns@csl.mpg.de
Straf­ge­set­ze zum Schutz kul­tu­rel­ler Vor­stel­lun­gen oder Ta­bus ge­ra­ten zu­neh­mend un­ter Druck. Das gilt auch für das straf­recht­li­che Dop­pel­ehe­ver­bot. Seit­dem das Sit­ten­ge­setz als Be­grün­dungsres­sour­ce weg­ge­fal­len ist, stellt sich die Fra­ge neu, wie der Ge­setz­ge­ber die Kri­mi­na­li­sie­rung von Po­ly­ga­mie recht­fer­ti­gen kann. Der Er­klä­rungs­ver­such, die Norm schüt­ze die staat­li­che Ehe­ord­nung, ist ein Zir­kel­schluss, aus dem nicht folgt, wes­halb das zi­vil­recht­li­che Ein­ehe­ge­bot ei­ner straf­recht­li­chen Ab­si­che­rung be­darf. In dem Vor­trag wer­den, auch mit Blick auf die in­ter­na­tio­na­le De­bat­te, mög­li­che Schutz­gü­ter von § 172 StGB vor­ge­stellt und hin­sicht­lich ih­rer le­gi­ti­ma­to­ri­schen Trag­fä­hig­keit kri­tisch hin­ter­fragt. Un­ter Be­rück­sich­ti­gung des Ge­bots der Be­grün­dungs­neu­tra­li­tät wird im Wei­te­ren un­ter­sucht, in­wie­fern der sym­bo­li­sche Ge­halt und der pa­ter­na­lis­ti­sche Cha­rak­ter der Norm mit der deut­schen Straf­rechts­dog­ma­tik ver­ein­bar ist. Im Er­geb­nis for­dert der Re­fe­rent, die Dop­pel­ehe zu ent­kri­mi­na­li­sie­ren. [mehr]
Die Be­kämp­fung der Geld­wä­sche in Deutsch­land und Eu­ro­pa muss weit­rei­chend re­for­miert wer­den. Der ge­gen­wär­ti­ge Rechts­rah­men ist in wei­ten Tei­len nicht ge­eig­net, die Ak­ti­vi­tä­ten Or­ga­ni­sier­ter Kri­mi­na­li­tät ein­zu­däm­men. Dies ist das Er­geb­nis ei­nes mehr­jäh­ri­gen For­schungs­pro­jek­tes des Max-Planck-In­sti­tuts zur Er­for­schung von Kri­mi­na­li­tät, Si­cher­heit und Recht in Frei­burg. Nach Un­ter­su­chun­gen in meh­re­ren eu­ro­päi­schen Län­dern und un­ter­stützt von zahl­rei­chen Be­hör­den hat das In­sti­tut Vor­schlä­ge er­ar­bei­tet, mit de­nen kri­mi­nel­le Fi­nanz­flüs­se künf­tig wirk­sa­mer un­ter­bun­den wer­den kön­nen. [mehr]

KÖNNTE ALLES ANDERS SEIN? Alternativen zum Strafvollzug und Prävention

Eine Veranstaltung im Rahmen des Projekts „Strafraum“. [mehr]

Die Polizei: Freund und Helfer oder Feindbild?

Digitales Mittagsgespräch
Die Ausschreitungen in Stuttgart und Frankfurt zeugen von einer neuartigen Gewaltbereitschaft gegenüber der Polizei. Männer und Frauen in Uniform sind im wahrsten Sinne zur Zielscheibe ge­wor­den. Bedarf es vor dem Hintergrund einer wachsenden medialen wie körperlichen Angriffslust auf Polizisten einer anderen, entschlosseneren „Politik der inneren Sicherheit“ in deutschen Großstädten? Oder sollte vermehrt auf Deeskalation gesetzt und die liberale Kultur in der Polizei stärker betont werden? Nach einem kurzen Statement unserer Gäste, dem CDU Innenexperten Armin Schuster MdB und dem Rechtswissenschaftler Prof. Dr. Ralf Poscher, laden wir Sie zu einem offenen Dialog ein. [mehr]
Online-Diskussion via Zoom in englischer Sprache mit Dr. Nicole Hirschfelder, Universität Tübingen, und Esther Earbin, J.D., Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht. [mehr]
International spring course – 12th edition "Criminal Law, Religion and Security" [mehr]
Prof. em. Dr. Klaus F. Röhl über den Vor­trag: Die Post­mo­der­ne hat das Den­ken und Ar­gu­men­tie­ren mit Di­cho­to­mi­en in Ver­ruf ge­bracht. Zu­mal die großen Di­cho­to­mi­en von Ob­jekt und Sub­jekt, Kör­per und Geist, Sein und Sol­len sind ihr ob­so­let. In­so­fern hat das The­ma einen epis­te­mo­lo­gi­schen oder, wenn man so will, phi­lo­so­phi­schen Hin­ter­grund. Auf die­sem Hin­ter­grund wuchs ei­ne Kri­tik an Recht und Rechts­wis­sen­schaft und nicht zu­letzt die Ge­sell­schafts­kri­tik des Fe­mi­nis­mus. Das al­les wer­de ich nicht ganz aus­spa­ren. Aber im Vor­der­grund ste­hen die Tra­di­ti­on und der hand­werk­li­che oder tech­no­lo­gi­sche Um­gang mit Ge­gen­be­grif­fen, Di­cho­to­mi­en und Al­ter­na­ti­ven in der Ju­rispru­denz. Auf die­se Ebe­ne bin ich auf­merk­sam ge­wor­den, als ich vor nun­mehr bald 20 Jah­ren nach Mög­lich­kei­ten der Vi­sua­li­sie­rung ju­ris­ti­scher Be­griff­lich­kei­ten such­te. Von dort führ­te der Weg in die sei­ner­zeit noch im Ent­ste­hen be­grif­fe­ne Rechts­di­dak­tik. Er­in­nert wer­den soll aber auch an Jür­gen Rö­digs Buch über »Die Denk­form der Al­ter­na­ti­ve in der Ju­rispru­denz«. Als Sprung­brett zu So­zio­lo­gie und Ge­sell­schafts­kri­tik dient dann der To­pos der Asym­me­trie der Un­ter­schei­dung. Ein prak­ti­sches Bei­spiel bie­tet die Ge­schlech­ter­dif­fe­renz. [mehr]

The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War

Gastvortrag
According to the standard view of rights, rights are not absolute. Sometimes, to save some, it is permissible to do things that would normally violate rights but that, under the circumstances, merely infringe them. The function of rights, on this standard view, is at most to raise a kind of moral barrier to their neglect. Moreover, even if an agent has sufficient moral reason to get over that barrier, she will presumably have wronged the right-holder. The only way, according to the standard theory, to do what would normally wrong a right holder, without actually wronging the person, is if she has waived or forfeited her right. I will argue that much of this standard picture is wrong. I argue for a different model—the mechanics of claims—according to which rights are the output of a balance of claims, an output which describes what is ultimately permissible. Rights infringement is, on this view, a misleading, morally distorting idea. Rather, we need to focus on how different kinds of claims interact, and what makes claims stronger or weaker. Forfeiture is only part of that picture, a part that is over-emphasized in the standard view. As for the state, I will argue that through its law-making and regulatory power, it has an important role in fixing certain kinds of substantive rights. It sets, within limits, what count as legitimate expectations. Nonetheless, the state’s power is substantially limited by substantive rights. Although the state has certain unique powers, it remains an agent confronting other agents in a space of rights. It is within this framework that I argue we should think carefully about when defensive force may permissibly be used. [mehr]
Spea­kers and dis­cus­si­on mo­de­ra­tors: Prof. em. Ant­ony Duff (keyno­te), Prof. Hans-Jörg Al­brecht, Prof. Ili­as Ana­gno­sto­pou­los, Prof. Lo­re­na Bach­mai­er, Dr. Em­ma­nouil Bil­lis, Prof. em. Mi­cha­el Bo­the, Prof. Johan Boucht, Prof. em. Ne­stor Coura­kis, Prof. Mar­kus Dubber (tbc), Prof. Tho­mas El­holm, Ema­nue­la-Chia­ra Gil­lard, LL.M., Prof. Tat­ja­na Hörn­le, Prof. John Jack­son, Dr. Kon­stan­ze Jar­vers (tbc), Dr. Nan­dor Knust, Prof. Claes Ler­nes­tedt, Prof. Rus­sell Mil­ler, Prof. Val­sa­mis Mit­si­legas (tbc), Prof. Chri­stos My­lo­no­pou­los, Dr. Va­gia Po­ly­zoi­dou, Prof. Ralf Po­scher, Prof. Ju­li­an Roberts, Prof. Jon Pet­ter Rui, Prof. Ul­rich Sie­ber, EC­tHR-Jud­ge Robert Spa­no, Prof. Ri­chard Vog­ler, Prof. em. Tho­mas Wei­gend, and Prof. Lu­cia Zed­ner. [mehr]
The workshop will provide a forum for bilateral dialogue between German and Chinese legal scholars, dealing with some most interesting topics in the field of cybercrime. [mehr]
Zur Redakteursansicht