Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2009).10.1017/CBO9780511804595CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ambos, K., ‘The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 9 (2015), 301–29.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., National Socialist Criminal Law: Continuity and Radicalization, Nomos (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries, revised edn, American Law Institute (1985).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J. and Horder, J., Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn, Oxford University Press (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Binding, K., Die Normen und ihre Übertretung. Eine Untersuchung über die rechtmäßigen Handlungen und die Arten des Deliktes, Vol. 1: Normen und Strafgesetze, 3rd edn, Meiner (1916).Google Scholar

Birnbaum, J., ‘Ueber das Erforderniß einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Begriff der Ehrenkränkung’, Archiv des Criminalrechts, Neue Folge (1834), 149–94.Google Scholar

Boyne, S., ‘German Prosecutors and the Rechtsstaat’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy, Cambridge University Press (2017), 138–74.Google Scholar

Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, P., Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar

Brodowski, D., ‘Quasi-Criminal Enforcement Mechanism in Germany: Past and Present’, in Franssen, V. and Harding, C. (eds.), Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Enforcement Mechanism in Europe, Hart (2022), 41–66.10.5040/9781509932894.ch-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brudner, A., Punishment and Freedom: A Liberal Theory of Penal Justice, Oxford University Press (2009).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207251.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chiao, V., Criminal Law in the Age of the Administrative State, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar

Cornford, A., ‘Rethinking the Wrongness Constraint’, Law & Philosophy, 36 (2017), 615–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crown Prosecution Service, Code for Crown Prosecutors, available at www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors.Google Scholar

Damaška, M., ‘The Reality of Prosecutorial Discretion: Comments on a German Monograph’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 29 (1981), 119–38.10.2307/839976CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dan-Cohen, M., ‘Defending Dignity’, in Dan-Cohen, M., Harmful Thoughts: Essays on Law, Self and Morality, Princeton University Press (2002), 150–71.10.1515/9781400825059CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeGirolami, M. O., ‘James Fitzjames Stephen: The Punishment Jurist’, in Dubber, M. D. (ed.), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 183–98.Google Scholar

Devlin, P., The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford University Press (1965).Google Scholar

Dubber, M. D., Victims in the War on Crime: The Use and Abuse of Victims’ Rights, New York University Press (2002).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Hart (2007).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., The Realm of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).10.1093/oso/9780199570195.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘“Abstract Endangerment”, Two Harm Principles, and Two Routes to Criminalisation’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 3 (2015), 131–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, J., ‘Harm Principles’, Legal Theory, 20 (2014), 253–85.10.1017/S135232521500004XCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, J., ‘Criminalization without Punishment’, Legal Theory, 23 (2017), 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engländer, A., ‘Revitalisierung der materiellen Rechtsgutslehre durch das Verfassungsrecht?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 127 (2015), 616–34.10.1515/zstw-2015-0031CrossRefGoogle Scholar

European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb), available at https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.Google Scholar

Farmer, L., Making the Modern Criminal Law: Criminalization and Civil Order, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Feinberg, J., Doing and Deserving, Princeton University Press (1970), 95–118.Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., Harm to Others, Oxford University Press (1984).Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., Offense to Others, Oxford University Press (1985).Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., Harm to Self, Oxford University Press (1986).Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford University Press (1988).Google Scholar

Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 1st edn, Giessen, Heyer (1801), available at www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10394279?page=1.Google Scholar

Gardner, J. and Shute, S., ‘The Wrongness of Rape’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, 4th Series, Oxford University Press (2000), 193–217.10.1093/oso/9780198268581.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greco, L., Lebendiges und Totes in Feuerbachs Straftheorie: Ein Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen strafrechtlichen Grundlagendiskussion, Duncker & Humblot (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greco, L., ‘Verfassungskonformes oder legitimes Strafrecht? Zu den Grenzen einer verfassungsrechtlichen Orientierung der Strafrechtswissenschaft’, in Brunhöber, B., Höffler, K., Kaspar, J. et al. (eds.), Strafrecht und Verfassung, Nomos (2013), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gross, H., A Theory of Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (1979).Google Scholar

Harcourt, B., ‘The Collapse of the Harm Principle’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90 (1999), 109–94.10.2307/1144164CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harcourt, B., ‘Mill’s On Liberty and the Modern “Harm to Others” Principle’, in Dubber, M. D. (ed.), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 163–81.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., Law, Liberty, and Morality, Stanford University Press (1963).10.1515/9781503620612CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (1994).Google Scholar

Hassemer, W., ‘The Harm Principle and the Protection of “Legal Goods” (Rechtsgüterschutz)’, in Simester, A. P., Neumann, U. and Du Bois-Pedain, A. L. (eds.), Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch, Hart (2014), 187–204.Google Scholar

Hirsch, P.-A., Das Verbrechen als Rechtsverletzung: Subjektive Rechte im Strafrecht, Duncker & Humblot (2021).10.3790/978-3-428-58172-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 10th edn, Oxford University Press (2022).10.1093/he/9780192897381.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hörnle, T., Grob anstößiges Verhalten: Strafrechtlicher Schutz von Moral, Gefühlen und Tabus, Vittorio Klostermann (2005).Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘P J A von Feuerbach and His Textbook of the Common Penal Law’, in Dubber, M. D. (ed.), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 119–40.Google Scholar

Husak, D. N., ‘Applying Ultima Ratio’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2 (2005), 535–45.Google Scholar

Husak, D. N., Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Husak, D. N., ‘Polygamy: A Novel Test for a Theory of Criminalization’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E. et al. (eds.), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 213–31.Google Scholar

Jareborg, N., ‘Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio)’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2 (2005), 521–34.Google Scholar

Jehle, J., Strafrechtspflege in Deutschland, 7th edn, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (2019).Google Scholar

Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar

Kaspar, J., Verhältnismäßigkeit und Grundrechtsschutz im Präventionsstrafrecht, Nomos (2014).10.5771/9783845243009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, C., ‘Declaring Crimes’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37 (2017), 741–69.10.1093/ojls/gqx005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kremnitzer, M., Steiner, T. and Lang, A. (eds.), Proportionality in Action, Cambridge University Press (2020).10.1017/9781108596268CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kumm, M. and Walen, A., ‘Human Dignity and Proportionality: Deontic Pluralism in Balancing’, in Huscroft, G., Miller, B. W. and Webber, G. (eds.), Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge University Press (2014), 67–89.10.1017/CBO9781107565272.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lacey, N., ‘Historicising Criminalisation: Conceptual and Empirical Issues’, Modern Law Review, 72 (2009), 936–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lang, A. F. and Wieder, A. (eds.), Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, Edward Elgar (2017).10.4337/9781783477357CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com. No. 304, 2006).Google Scholar

Law Commission,Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts (CP 195, 2010).Google Scholar

Marx, M., Zur Definition des Begriffs ‘Rechtsgut’. Prolegomena einer materialen Verbrechenslehre, Heymanns (1972).Google Scholar

Mill, J. S., On Liberty, Parker (1859).Google Scholar

Mir, Puig, S., ‘Der Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz als Verfassungsgrundlage der materiellen Grenzen des Strafrechts’, in Herzog, F. and Neumann, U. (eds.), Festschrift für Winfried Hassemer zum 70. Geburtstag, C. F. Müller (2010), 521–34.Google Scholar

Moore, M. S., Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1993).Google Scholar

Moore, M. S., Placing Blame: A Theory of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar

Moore, M. S., ‘A Tale of Two Theories’, Criminal Justice Ethics, 28 (2009), 27–48.10.1080/07311290902831284CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, M. S. ‘Liberty’s Constraints on What Should Be Made Criminal’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E. et al. (eds.), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 182–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murphy, J. G., Punishment and the Moral Emotions: Essays in Law, Morality, and Religion, Oxford University Press (2012).10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199764396.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murphy, J. G. and Hampton, J., Forgiveness and Mercy, Cambridge University Press (1988).10.1017/CBO9780511625121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Persak, N., Criminalising Harmful Conduct, Springer (2007).Google Scholar

Pettit, P., On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy, Cambridge University Press (2012).10.1017/CBO9781139017428CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ripstein, A., ‘Beyond the Harm Principle’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 34 (2006), 215–45.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2006.00066.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ripstein, A., Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy, Harvard University Press (2009).10.4159/9780674054516CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd edn, C. H. Beck (1994), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Roxin, C. and Greco, L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, C. H. Beck (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Sanders, A. and Young, R., ‘The Rule of Law, Due Process and Pre-Trial Criminal Justice’, Current Legal Problems, 47 (1994), 125–56.10.1093/clp/47.Part_2.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scoccia, D., ‘In Defense of “Pure” Legal Moralism’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 7 (2013), 513–30.10.1007/s11572-013-9239-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’, in Simester, A. P. (ed.), Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press (2005), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simester, A. P. and von Hirsch, A., Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalization, Hart (2011).Google Scholar

Stephen, J. F., Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 2nd edn, Elder and Co. (1874), available at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/stephen-liberty-equality-fraternity-1874-ed.Google Scholar

Stephen, J. F., History of the Criminal Law of England, Macmillan (1883).Google Scholar

Stewart, H., ‘The Limits of the Harm Principle’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 4 (2010), 17–35.10.1007/s11572-009-9082-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘The Constitutional Deficiencies of the German Rechtsgutslehre’, Oñati Socio-legal Series [online], 3 (2013), 31–41.Google Scholar

Tadros, V., Wrongs and Crimes, Oxford University Press (2016).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571376.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thorburn, M., ‘Criminal Law as Public Law’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. P. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2010), 21–43.Google Scholar

Thorburn, M., ‘Constitutionalism and the Limits of the Criminal Law’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E. et al. (eds.), The Structures of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 85–105.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644315.003.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomlin, P., ‘Retributivists! The Harm Principle Is Not for You!’, Ethics, 124 (2014), 272–98.10.1086/673437CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Humboldt, W., Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen, Reclam Verlag (2010; 1st edn of the unpublished manuscript from 1792 Breslau 1851).Google Scholar

Walen, A., ‘Criminal Law and Penal Law: The Wrongness Constraint and a Complementary Forfeiture Model’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 14 (2020), 431–46.10.1007/s11572-019-09515-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Welzel, H., Das Deutsche Strafrecht, 11th edn, de Gruyer (1969).10.1515/9783110897302CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wolfenden, J., Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, Cmnd 247, HMSO (1957).Google Scholar

Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Ambos, K., ‘Präterintentionalität und Erfolgsqualifikation’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, [2002], 455.Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, American Law Institute (1962).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1991).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. and Blake, M., ‘The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law’, Criminal Law Review, [1996], 306.Google Scholar

Austin, J., Lectures on Jurisprudence: Or the Philosophy of Positive Law, John Murray (1861–63).Google Scholar

Austin, J. and Austin, S., Lectures on Jurisprudence, 2nd edn, John Murray (1869), Vol. 3.Google Scholar

Baumann, J., Weber, U., Mitsch, W. and Eisele, J., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 13th edn, Gieseking (2021).Google Scholar

Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A. (eds.), Oxford University Press (1970).Google Scholar

Bohlander, M., ‘Transferred Malice and Transferred Defences: A Critique of the Traditional Doctrine and Arguments for a Change in Paradigm’, New Criminal Law Review, 13 (2010), 555.10.1525/nclr.2010.13.3.555CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caldwell, H. M., ‘The Prostitution of Lying in Wait’, University of Miami Law Review, 57 (2003), 311.Google Scholar

Clark, E. C., An Analysis of Criminal Liability, Cambridge University Press (1880).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., ‘The Obscure Intentions of the House of Lords’, Criminal Law Review, [1986], 771.Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Intention, Agency and Criminal Liability, Blackwell (1990).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., ‘The Circumstances of an Attempt’, Cambridge Law Journal, [1991], 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Hart (2007).Google Scholar

Duttge, G., ‘Vorsatz’, in Hilgendorf, E., Kudlich, H. and Valerius, B. (eds.), Handbuch des Strafrechts, C. F. Müller (2020), Vol. 2, 312.Google Scholar

Dyson, M., ‘Scrapping Khan’, Criminal Law Review, [2014], 445.Google Scholar

Dyson, M., Explaining Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2023).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘§ 15’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘§ 176’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘§ 184j’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘Vor §§ 13 ff.’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eldar, S., ‘The Limits of Transferred Malice’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 32 (2012), 633.10.1093/ojls/gqs027CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eschelbach, R., ‘§ 184j’, in Matt, H. and Renzikowski, J., Strafgesetzbuch, 2nd edn, Vahlen (2020).Google Scholar

Finnis, J., ‘Intention and Side-Effects’, in Frey, R. G. and Morris, C. W. (eds.), Liability and Responsibility: Essays in Law and Morals, Cambridge University Press (1991).Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1998).10.1093/oso/9780195121704.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frisch, W., Vorsatz und Risiko, Heymann (1983).Google Scholar

Frisch, W., Strafrecht, Vahlen (2022).Google Scholar

Frister, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar

Frister, H., ‘Vorsatzdogmatik in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, [2019], 381.Google Scholar

Gaede, K., ‘Auf dem Weg zum potentiellen Vorsatz?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 121 (2009), 239.Google Scholar

Geisler, C., Zur Vereinbarkeit objektiver Bedingungen der Strafbarkeit mit dem Schuldprinzip, Duncker & Humblot (1998).Google Scholar

Gericke, J. ‘§ 337’, in Barthe, C. and Gericke, J. (eds.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 9th edn, C. H. Beck (2023).Google Scholar

Glazebrook, P. R., ‘Should We Have a Law of Attempted Crime’, Law Quarterly Review, 85 (1969), 28.Google Scholar

Griew, E., ‘Consistency, Communication and Codification: Reflections on Two Mens Rea Words’, in Glazebrook, P. (ed.), Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville Williams, Stevens & Sons (1978), 62.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., ‘Intention and Punishment’, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (2008, 2nd impression).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199534777.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (2008, 2nd impression).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, G. and Schuster, F., ‘§ 267’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Herzberg, R. D., ‘Das Wollen beim Vorsatzdelikt und dessen Unterscheidung vom bewußt fahrlässigen Verhalten, Teil 2’, Juristenzeitung, 43 (1988), 635.Google Scholar

Hirsch, H. J., ‘Untauglicher Versuch und Tatstrafrecht’, in Schünemann, B. Achenbach, H., Bottke, W. et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 70. Geburtstag, De Gruyter (2001), 711.Google Scholar

Hohmann, O., ‘§ 231’, in Erb, V. and Schäfer, J. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2021).Google Scholar

Horder, J., ‘Intention in the Criminal Law: A Rejoinder’, Modern Law Review, 58 (1995), 678.10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02041.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horder, J., ‘Crimes of Ulterior Intent’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Oxford University Press (1996).Google Scholar

Horder, J., ‘Transferred Malice and the Remoteness of Unexpected Outcomes from Intentions’, Criminal Law Review, [2006], 383.Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Plädoyer für die Aufgabe der Kategorie “bedingter Vorsatz”’, Juristenzeitung, [2019], 440.10.1628/jz-2019-0159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoven, E. and Hahn, J., ‘Der Versuch des Wohnungseinbruchsdiebstahls’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, [2021], 588.Google Scholar

Joecks, W. and Kulhanek, T., ‘§ 16’, in von Heintschel-Heinegg, B. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Kargl, W., Der strafrechtliche Vorsatz auf der Basis der kognitiven Handlungstheorie, Peter Lang (1993).Google Scholar

Kaspar, J., ‘Sentencing Guidelines vs. Free Judicial Discretion: Is German Sentencing Law in Need of Reform?’, in Ambos, K. (ed.), Strafzumessung – Sentencing, Göttingen University Press (2020), 337.Google Scholar

Kenny, A. J. P., ‘Intention and Purpose in Law’, in Summers, R. S. (ed.), Essays in Legal Philosophy, Oxford University Press (1968).Google Scholar

Kindhäuser, U., ‘Gleichgültigkeit als Vorsatz?’, in Lagodny, O., Burkhardt, B., Gropp, W. et al. (eds.), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag, C. H. Beck (2005), 345.Google Scholar

Kindhäuser, U. and Hilgendorf, E., Strafgesetzbuch: Lehr- und Praxiskommentar, 8th edn, Nomos (2020).Google Scholar

Koriath, H., Grundlagen der strafrechtlichen Zurechnung, Duncker & Humblot (1994).Google Scholar

Kudlich, H., ‘Versuch’, in Hilgendorf, E., Kudlich, H. and Valerius, B. (eds.), Handbuch des Strafrechts, C. F. Müller (2020), Vol. 2, § 57.Google Scholar

Kühl, K., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Vahlen (2017).10.15358/9783800655748CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lamond, G., ‘Coercion, Threats and the Puzzle of Blackmail’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Clarendon Press (1996).Google Scholar

Law Commission, Working Paper No. 31: Codification of the Criminal Law: General Principles. The Mental Element in Crime, HMSO (1970).Google Scholar

Law Commission, A Criminal Code for England and Wales: Volume 1, Report and Draft Criminal Code Bill, HMSO (1989).Google Scholar

Li, Y., ‘Die neuere BGH-Rechtsprechung zum Versuchsbeginn bei Auf- und Einbruchdiebstahl’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, [2021], 430.Google Scholar

Murmann, U., ‘§ 22’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2021), Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Murmann, U., ‘vor § 22’ in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2021), Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Norrie, A. W., ‘After Woollin’, Criminal Law Review, [1999], 532.Google Scholar

Puppe, I., ‘§ 15’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch. Kommentar, 6th edn, Nomos (2023).Google Scholar

Rengier, R., Erfolgsqualifizierte Delikte und verwandte Erscheinungsformen, Mohr Siebeck (1986).Google Scholar

Robinson, P. H., Criminal Law, Aspen Law & Business (1997).Google Scholar

Roxin, C. and Greco, L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil I, 5th edn, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Royal Commission on Criminal Laws, Fourth Report (1839) Parl. Pap.Google Scholar

Royal Commission on Criminal Laws, Seventh Report (1843) Parl. Pap.Google Scholar

Schneider, H., ‘§ 212’, in Erb, V. and Schäfer, J. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2012).Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Why Distinguish Intention from Foresight’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Clarendon Press (1996).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198260578.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Intoxication Is Never a Defence’, Criminal Law Review, [2009], 3.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., Fundamentals of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2021).10.1093/oso/9780198853145.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, J. C., ‘Commentary on Nedrick’, Criminal Law Review, [1986], 742.Google Scholar

Smith, K. J. M., Lawyers, Legislators and Theorists: Developments in English Criminal Jurisprudence, 1800–1957, Clarendon Press (1998).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198257233.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, J. R., ‘Murder in the Dark: A Glimmer of Light?’, Cambridge Law Journal, [1986], 366.10.1017/S0008197300118264CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stephen, J. F., History of the Criminal Law of England, Macmillan (1883), Vol. II.Google Scholar

Sternberg-Lieben, D. and Schuster, F., ‘§ 15’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Stroud, D. A., Mens Rea or Imputability under the Law of England, Sweet & Maxwell (1914).Google Scholar

Stuckenberg, C.-F., Vorstudien zu Vorsatz und Irrtum im Völkerstrafrecht, de Gruyter (2007).10.1515/9783110921953CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sullivan, G. R., ‘Intent, Subjective Recklessness and Culpability’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 12 (1992), 38.10.1093/ojls/12.3.380CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vogel, J. and Bülte, J., ‘§ 15’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Vogel, J. and Bülte, J., ‘§ 18’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Vogel, J. and Bülte, J., ‘Vor § 15’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Zwischen Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 93 (1981), 657.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Richtlinien für die Strafzumessung’, in Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät (ed.), Festschrift der Rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakultät zur 600-Jahr-Feier der Universität zu Köln, Heymann (1988), 579.Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘Constructive Malice Revived’, Modern Law Review, 23 (1960), 605.Google Scholar

Williams, G., The Mental Element in Crime, Magnes Press (1965).Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘The Lords and Impossible Attempts or Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?’, Cambridge Law Journal, [1986], 33.10.1017/S0008197300115764CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, G., ‘The Mens Rea for Murder: Leave It Alone’, Law Quarterly Review, 105 (1989), 387.Google Scholar

Wright, R. S., Draft of a Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure for the Island of Jamaica, HMSO (1877).Google Scholar

Zaibert, L., Five Ways Patricia Can Kill Her Husband: A Theory of Intentionality and Blame, Open Court (2005).Google Scholar

American Law Institute, ‘§ 4.01’, in Model Penal Code & Commentaries, American Law Institute (1962, 1985).Google Scholar

Baltzer, U., ‘Wie frei ist die freie Beweiswürdigung des Gerichts bei der Bewertung psychiatrisch-psychologischer Sachverständigengutachten?’, in Dessecker, A. and Sohn, W. (eds.), Festschrift für Rudolf Egg, Kriminologische Zentralstelle (2013), 11 ff.Google Scholar

Dubber, M. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Fischer, T., ‘§ 63 StGB’, in Strafgesetzbuch mit Nebengesetzen, C. H. Beck (2023), 70.Google Scholar

Frister, H., Die Struktur des ‘voluntativen Schuldelements’: Zugleich Eine Analyse Des Verhältnisses Von Schuld und Positiver Generalprävention, Duncker & Humblot (1993).10.3790/978-3-428-47834-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hillenkamp, T., ‘Strafrecht ohne Willensfreiheit? Eine Antwort auf die Hirnforschung’, Juristische Zeitschrift, 7 (2005), 313–20.Google Scholar

Hillenkamp, T.,‘Hirnforschung, Willensfreiheit und Strafrecht: Versuch einer Zwischenbilanz’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 127 (2015), 10–96.10.1515/zstw-2015-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Guilt and Choice in Criminal Law Theory: A Critical Assessment’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 4 (2016), 1–24.10.15845/bjclcj.v4i1.1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaspar, J., ‘Die Zukunft der Zweispurigkeit nach den Urteilen von Bundesverfassungsgericht und EGMR’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 127 (2015), 654–90.10.1515/zstw-2015-0033CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaspar, J., ‘§ 20 StGB’, in Satzger, H., Schluckebier, W. and Werner, R. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 5th edn, Carl Heymanns (2024).Google Scholar

Kaspar, J., ‘§ 63 StGB’, in Satzger, H., Schluckebier, W. and Werner, R. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 5th edn, Carl Heymanns (2024).Google Scholar

Kaspar, J., ‘Free Will for (Almost) Everyone? Problems of a Restrictive Normative Approach to the Insanity Defense’, in Hellwege, P. and Soniewicka, M. (eds.), Law and Interdisciplinarity, Mohr Siebeck (2024), 411–23.Google Scholar

Kaspar, J. and Höffler, K., ‘Warum das Abstandsgebot die Probleme der Sicherungsverwahrung nicht lösen kann’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 87–115.Google Scholar

Kaspar, J. and Stübner, S., ‘A German Perspective’, in van der Wolf, M. (ed.), Safeguarding the Quality of Forensic Assessment in Sentencing, Routledge (2022), 146–74.Google Scholar

Krehl, C., ‘Schuld und Verfassung’, in Hoven, E. and Fischer, T. (eds.), Schuld, Nomos (2017), 123–36.Google Scholar

Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., ‘§ 63 StGB’, in Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, C. H. Beck (2023), 30.Google Scholar

Morse, S. J., ‘Diminished Rationality, Diminished Responsibility’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 1 (2003), 289–308.Google Scholar

Morse, S. J., ‘The Non-Problem of Free Will in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology’, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25 (2007), 203–20.10.1002/bsl.744CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Morse, S. J., Advanced Introduction to Substantive Criminal Law, Edward Elgar (2023).10.4337/9781789906820CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neumann, U., ‘Die Schuldlehre des Bundesgerichtshofs: Grundlagen, Schuldfähigkeit, Verbotsirrtum’, in Roxin, C. and Widmaier, G. (eds.), 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof: Festgabe aus der Wissenschaft, De Gruyter (2000), Vol. IV, 83–109.Google Scholar

Papathanasiou, K., ‘Neurobiologische Befunde vs. Strafrechtliches Schuldprinzip’, in Bock, S., Harrendorf, S. and Ladiges, M. (eds.), Strafrecht als interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft, Nomos (2015), 53–74.Google Scholar

Parry, J., Criminal Mental Health and Disability Law, Evidence and Testimony, American Bar Association (2009).Google Scholar

Rauxloh, R., ‘Insanity in German Criminal Law’, in Mackay, R. and Brookbanks, W. (eds.), The Insanity Defence: International and Comparative Aspects, Oxford University Press (2022), 247–73.Google Scholar

Schiemann, A., Unbestimmte Schuldfähigkeitsfeststellungen: Verstoß der §§ 20, 21 StGB gegen den Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz nach Art. 103 II GG, LIT Verlag (2012).Google Scholar

Schreiber, H. L. and Rosenau, H., ‘Rechtliche Grundlagen der psychiatrischen Begutachtung’, in Dreßing, H. and Habermeyer, E. (eds.), Psychiatrische Begutachtung, Elsevier Health Sciences (2020), 89–152.Google Scholar

Schünemann, B., ‘Die Bedeutung der “Besonderen persönlichen Merkmale” für die strafrechtliche Teilnehmer- und Vertreterhaftung’, Jura, 2 (1980), 568–83.Google Scholar

Statistisches Bundesamt, ‘Strafverfolgung’, Fachserie 10, Reihe 3, 2021 (2022), available at www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Staat/Justiz-Rechtspflege/Publikationen/Downloads-Strafverfolgung-Strafvollzug/strafverfolgung-2100300217004.pdf.Google Scholar

Steadman, H. J., Monahan, J., Dvoskin, J. et al., Before and after Hinckley: Evaluating Insanity Defense Reform, Guilford Press (1993).Google Scholar

Streng, F., ‘Schuldfähigkeit und Maßregelanordnung’, in Harrendorf, A., Dessecker, S. and Höffler, K. (eds.), Angewandte Kriminologie: Justizbezogene Forschung, Göttingen University Press (2019), 89 ff.Google Scholar

Verrel, T., Schuldfähigkeitsbeurteilung und Strafzumessung bei Tötungsdelikten, Wilhelm Fink Verlag (1995).Google Scholar

Zaluski, W., ‘The Personalist Objection against the Volitional Component of the Insanity Defense’, in Hellwege, P. and Soniewicka, M. (eds.), Law and Interdisciplinarity, Mohr Siebeck (2024), 397–410.Google Scholar

Abegg, J. F. H., Verjährung rechtskräftig erkannter Strafen, Maruschke & Berendt (1862).Google Scholar

Andrews, N. H., ‘Reform of Limitation of Actions: The Quest for Sound Policy’, Cambridge Law Journal, 57 (1998), 589–610.10.1017/S0008197398003067CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anwart, H., ‘Strafprozess im stahlharten Gehäuse der Vergangenheit’, JuristenZeitung, 77 (2022), 715–22.Google Scholar

Asholt, M., Verjährung im Strafrecht, Mohr Siebeck (2016).10.1628/978-3-16-153472-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, T. E., ‘Some Procedural Aspects of the Statute of Limitations’, Columbia Law Review, 27 (1927), 157–76.10.2307/1113772CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beccaria, C., ‘Crimes and Punishments’, in Farrer, J. A. (tr.), Crimes and Punishments: Including a New Translation of Beccaria’s ‘Dei delitti e delle pene’, Chatto & Windus (1880).Google Scholar

Beck, S., ‘Does Age Prevent Punishment? The Struggles of the German Juridical System with Alleged Nazi Criminals: Commentary on the Criminal Proceedings against John Demjanjuk and Heinrich Boere’, German Law Journal, 11 (2010), 347–65.10.1017/S2071832200018563CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, T. Payne & Son (1789).10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beswick, S. ‘Marching against Dicey’s Rule of Law’, UK Constitutional Law Blog, 19 October 2020, available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/10/19/samuel-beswick-marching-against-diceys-rule-of-law/.Google Scholar

Beswick, S., ‘Error of Law: An Exception to the Discoverability Principle?’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 57 (2021), 295–341.10.60082/2817-5069.3578CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bieber, M., ‘Meeting the Statute or Beating It: Using John Doe Indictments Based on DNA to Meet the Statute of Limitations’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150 (2002), 1079–98.10.2307/3312927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Binding, K., Handbuch des Strafrechts, Duncker & Humblot (1885), Vol. 1.10.3790/978-3-428-56147-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloy, R., Die dogmatische Bedeutung der Strafausschließungs- und Strafaufhebungsgründe, Duncker & Humblot (1976).10.3790/978-3-428-43707-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, D., ‘Die Strafrechtliche Verfolgungsverjährung’, Juristische Schulung (2006).Google Scholar

Boizard, M., Choquet, J. P. and Gautron, V., La crise des institutions de l’oubli, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar

Cabezas, C., Prescrizione del reato: tra antica eredità e moderne sfide politico-criminali, PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Trento (2014).Google Scholar

Campagna, N., Strafrecht und unbestrafte Straftaten: philosophische Überlegungen zur strafenden Gerechtigkeit und ihren Grenzen, Steiner (2007).Google Scholar

Cerrada Moreno, M., Prescripción e imprescriptibilidad de los delitos: orígenes, fundamentos, naturaleza jurídica, J. M. Bosch (2018).10.2307/j.ctvr33ckbCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corman, C. W., Limitation of Actions, Little, Brown (1991), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Danet, J., ‘La préscription de l’action publique, un enjeu de politique criminelle’, Archives de politique criminelle, 28 (2006), 73–93.10.3917/apc.028.0073CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danet, J., Grunvald, S., Herzog-Evans, M. et al., Prescription, amnistie et grâce en France, Université de Nantes (2006).Google Scholar

Difonzo, J. H., ‘In Praise of Statutes of Limitations in Sex Offense Cases’, Houston Law Review, 41 (2004), 1205–80.Google Scholar

Doyle, D., ‘Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview’, Congressional Research Service, RL31253 (2017).Google Scholar

du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Penal Desert and the Passage of Time’, in du Bois-Pedain, A. and Bottoms, A. (eds.), Penal Censure: Engagements within and beyond Desert Theory, Hart (2019).10.5040/9781509919819CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckhardt, S. I., Überlange Verfahrensdauer und Verhältnismäßigkeit, Nomos (2020).10.5771/9783748904595CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eichmüller, A., ‘Die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Bilanz und Weichenstellungen’, in Bainczyk, M. and Kubiak-Cyrul, A. (eds.), State’s Responsibility for International Crimes, Franz Steiner Verlag (2021).Google Scholar

Ernsdorff, G. M. and Loftus, E. F., ‘Let Sleeping Memories Lie? Words of Caution about Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Cases of Memory Repression’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 84 (1993), 129–74.10.2307/1143888CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fyfe, S. and Heinze, A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2022), Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Gledhill, K., ‘Custody Time Limit Cases: Practical Problems and Unresolved Issues’, Judicial Review, 3 (1998), 171–3.10.1080/10854681.1998.11427017CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldstein, S., ‘Criminal Statutes of Limitations: Time Limits for State Criminal Charges’, LawInfo, 2 June 2022, available at www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-statute-limitations-time-limits.html.Google Scholar

Gropp, W. and Sinn, A., ‘Landesbericht Deutschland’, in Hochmayr, G. and Gropp, W. (eds.), Die Verjährung als Herausforderung für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen: Entwicklung eines Harmonisierungsvorschlags, Nomos (2021).Google Scholar

Guzmán Dalbora, J., ‘Crímenes internacionales y prescripción’, in Ambos, K., Malarino, E. and Woischnik, J. (eds.), Temas actuales del derecho penal internacional, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (2005).Google Scholar

Heinze, A. and Fyfe, S., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Hendricks, A., ‘Tolling Justice’, Ohio State Law Journal, 85 (2024), 471–527.Google Scholar

Hochmayr, G., ‘A Comparative Analysis of Statutes of Limitation’, in Hochmayr, G. and Gropp, W. (eds.), Die Verjährung als Herausforderung für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen: Entwicklung eines Harmonisierungsvorschlags, Nomos (2021).10.5771/9783748926535CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hochmayr, G. and Gropp, W., Die Verjährung als Herausforderung für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen: Entwicklung eines Harmonisierungsvorschlags, Nomos (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hörnle, T. ‘Sollen Verjährungsfristen für den sexuellen Missbrauch von Minderjährigen verlängert werden?’, Goltdammer’s Archiv, 157 (2010), 388–98.Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Verfolgungsverjährung: Keine Selbstverständlichkeit’, in Festschrift für Werner Beulke zum 70. Geburtstag, C. F. Müller (2015).Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., Klingbeil, S. and Rothbart, K., ‘Sexueller Missbrauch von Minderjährigen: Notwendige Reformen im Strafgesetzbuch’, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (2014), available at https://hoernle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Gutachten_Strafrecht-2.pdf.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. and Johnstone, J., ‘Statutes of Limitation in the United Kingdom’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 3887–906.Google Scholar

Kok, R., Statutory Limitations in International Criminal Law, TMC Asser Press (2007).10.1007/978-90-6704-513-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar

Law Commission, Codification of the Criminal Law: Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (1977).Google Scholar

Law Commission of India, ‘Indian Penal Code’, Report No. 42 (1971).Google Scholar

Law Reform Commission of Canada, ‘Crimes against the State’, Working Paper 49 (1986).Google Scholar

Loening, R., ‘Die Verjährung’, in Birkmeyer, K., van Calker, F. and Frank, R. (eds.), Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts, Verlag von Otto Liebmann (1908).Google Scholar

Lonati, S., ‘A Comparative Study of the Relationship between Time and Criminal Justice: The New Face of Criminal Statutes of Limitations in Italy’, European Criminal Law Review, 9 (2019), 253–87.10.5771/2193-5505-2019-3-300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lonati, S., ‘To Know through Diversity: Statutes of Limitations in the Main Contemporary Legal Systems: An Introduction’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 3659–68.Google Scholar

Loughlin, M., ‘Rechtsstaat, Rule of Law, l’Etat de Droit’, in Foundations of Public Law, Oxford University Press (2010).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256853.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lourié, S., Die Kriminalverjährung, Schlettersche Buchhandlung (1914).Google Scholar

McCall Smith, A., ‘Time, Guilt and Forgiveness’, in Christodoulidis, E. and Veitch, S. (eds.), Lethe’s Law Justice Law and Ethics in Reconciliation, Hart (2001).Google Scholar

McGee, A., Limitation Periods, 8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell (2018).Google Scholar

McGee, A. and Scanlan, G., ‘Constructive Knowledge within the Limitation Act’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 22 (2003), 248–64.Google Scholar

Mew, G., The Law of Limitations, 3rd edn, LexisNexis (2016).Google Scholar

Michel, J., ‘La réforme de la prescription pénale: le débat parlementaire’, Les Cahiers de la Justice, 4 (2016), 629–38.Google Scholar

Mitsch, W., ‘§ 78’, in Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Monson, A., ‘The West German Statute of Limitations on Murder: A Political, Legal, and Historical Exposition’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 30 (1982), 605–25.10.2307/840011CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Note, ‘The Statute of Limitations in Criminal Law: A Penetrable Barrier to Prosecution’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 102 (1954), 630–53.Google Scholar

Note, ‘The Statute of Limitations in a Criminal Case: Can It Be Waived?’, William & Mary Law Review, 18 (1977), 823–40.Google Scholar

Note, ‘Waiver of the Statute of Limitations in Criminal Prosecutions: United States v. Wild’, Harvard Law Review, 90 (1977), 1550–7.Google Scholar

Note, ‘Time Limits for Charges: State Criminal Statutes of Limitations’, FindLaw (2020), available at www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html.Google Scholar

Pedreira, F. M., ‘Breve referencia a la historia de la prescripción de las infracciones penales: especial consideración de la problemática surgida en el Derecho Romano a través de dos aportaciones fundamentales’, Revista de Derecho de la UNED (2007), 435–44.10.5944/rduned.2.2007.10937CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Penney, S., Rondinelli, V. and Stribopoulos, J., Criminal Procedure in Canada, 2nd edn, LexisNexis (2018).Google Scholar

Powell, L., ‘Unraveling Criminal Statutes of Limitations’, American Criminal Law Review, 45 (2008), 115–55.Google Scholar

Ragués i Vallès, R., Prescripción Penal, Atelier (2004).Google Scholar

Ripstein, A., ‘The Rule of Law and Time’s Arrow’, in Austin, L. M. and Klimchuk, D. (eds.), Private Law and the Rule of Law, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. and Dagan, N., ‘The Evolution of Retributive Punishment: From Static Desert to Responsive Penal Censure’, in du Bois-Pedain, A. and Bottoms, A. (eds.), Penal Censure: Engagements within and beyond Desert Theory, Hart (2019).Google Scholar

Saliger, S., ‘§ 78’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H. U. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch, Nomos (2017).Google Scholar

Sambale, A., Die Verjährungsdiskussion im Deutschen Bundestag, Dr Kovac (2002).Google Scholar

Santhanam, L., ‘Why Do State Laws Put an Expiration Date on Sex Crimes?’, PBS NewsHour, 28 November 2017.Google Scholar

Satzger, H., ‘Die Verjährung im Strafrecht’, Juristische Ausbildung, 43 (2012), 433–43.Google Scholar

Savvidis, C., Court Delay and Human Rights Remedies: Enforcing the Right to a Fair Hearing ‘Within a Reasonable Time’, Routledge (2016).10.4324/9781315574493CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shaw, J. and Porter, S., ‘Constructing Rich False Memories of Committing Crime’, Psychological Science, 1 (2015), 291–301.10.1177/0956797614562862CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shuman, D. W. and McCall Smith, A., Justice and the Prosecution of Old Crimes, American Psychological Association (2000).Google Scholar

Sieber, U., Javers, K. and Silverman, E. (eds.), National Criminal Law in a Comparative Legal Context, Vols. 5.1 and 5.2: Grounds for Rejecting Criminal Liability, Duncker & Humblot (2016).Google Scholar

Sprack, J. and Engelhardt-Sprack, M. (eds.), A Practical Approach to Criminal Procedure, 16th edn, Oxford University Press (2019).10.1093/oso/9780198843566.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Titus, D., Mittal, R., Manchanda, A. and Mulazzi, L., ‘Statute of Limitation for Criminal Prosecution in India’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 4129–49.Google Scholar

Tourret, A., ‘N° 3540 – Rapport sur la proposition de loi de MM. Alain Tourret et Georges Fenech portant réforme de la prescription en matière pénale (2931)’ (2016).Google Scholar

Turner, J. and Weigend, T., ‘Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Vitiello, M., ‘Expanding Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes: Bad Public Policy’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2022), 4093–127.Google Scholar

Vogler, R., ‘Why Is There No Statute of Limitations for Criminal Cases in England and Wales?’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 3907–22.Google Scholar

von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A. and Roberts, R. V., Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy, Hart (2009).Google Scholar

von Liszt, F., Lehrbuch des Deutschen Strafrechts, Guttentag Verlagsbuchhandlung (1900).10.1515/9783111541310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’, Ethics, 103 (1992), 4–28.10.1086/293468CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘Redressing Historic Injustice’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 52 (2002), 135–60.10.2307/825930CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yue, X., The Role of the Statute of Limitations in the Harvey Weinstein Saga, JETLaw (2018).Google Scholar

Zedner, L. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Due Process’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2019).Google Scholar

Zimmermann, S., Strafrechtliche Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung und Verjährung, Iuscrim (1997).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., Principles of Criminal Law, 6th edn, Oxford University Press (2009).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘A New Generation of Omissions Offences?’, Criminal Law Review, [2018], 354–64.Google Scholar

Beale, S. and Safwat, A., ‘What Developments in Western Europe Tell Us about American Critiques of Corporate Criminal Liability’, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 8 (2005), 89–162.10.1525/nclr.2004.8.1.89CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, U., Gegengifte: die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit, Suhrkamp (1988).Google Scholar

Böse, M., ‘Strafbarkeit juristischer Personen: Selbstverständlichkeit oder Paradigmenwechsel im Strafrecht’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 126 (2014), 132–65.10.1515/zstw-2014-0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braithwaite, J., ‘White Collar Crime’, Annual Review of Sociology, 11 (1985), 1–25.10.1146/annurev.so.11.080185.000245CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bratton, W. W., ‘Enron and the Dark Side of Shareholder Value’, Tulane Law Review, 76 (2002), 1275–361.Google Scholar

Buell, S. W., ‘The Blaming Function of Entity Criminal Liability’, Indiana Law Journal, 81 (2006), 473–537.Google Scholar

Buell, S. W. ‘Why Do Prosecutors Say Anything? The Case of Corporate Crime’, North Carolina Law Review, 96 (2018), 823–58.Google Scholar

Child, J. J., Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R. et al., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 8th edn, Bloomsbury Publishing (2022).Google Scholar

Coase, R. H., ‘The Nature of the Firm’, in Williamson, O. E. and Winter, S. G. (eds.), Origins, Evolution, and Development, Oxford University Press (1993).Google Scholar

Dannecker, G., ‘Zur Notwendigkeit der Einführung kriminalstrafrechtlicher Sanktionen gegen Verbände: Überlegungen zu den Anforderungen und zur Ausgestaltung eines Verbandsstrafrechts’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 148 (2001), 101–30.Google Scholar

Dsouza, M., ‘The Corporate Agent in Criminal Law: An Argument for Comprehensive Identification’, Cambridge Law Journal, 79 (2020), 91–119.10.1017/S0008197320000021CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ewing, J., ‘Volkswagen Reaches Deal in U.S. over Emissions Scandal’, New York Times (2016), available at www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/business/international/volkswagen-emissions-settlement.html.Google Scholar

Ewing, J., Faster, Higher, Farther: The Inside Story of the Volkswagen Scandal, Transworld Publishers (2017).Google Scholar

Fisse, B. and Braithwaite, J., Corporations, Crime and Accountability, Cambridge University Press (1993).Google Scholar

Garrett, B. L., Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Cooperations, Harvard University Press, Belknap Press (2014).Google Scholar

Gau, D., ‘Record US Fine Ends Siemens Bribery Scandal’, The Guardian (2008), available at www.theguardian.com/business/2008/dec/16/regulation-siemens-scandal-bribery.Google Scholar

Gobert, J., ‘Corporate Criminality: Four Models of Fault’, Legal Studies, 14 (1994), 393–410.10.1111/j.1748-121X.1994.tb00510.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gobert, J., ‘Corporate Criminality: New Crimes for the Times’, Criminal Law Review, [1994], 722–34.Google Scholar

Gobert, J. and Punch, M., Rethinking Corporate Crime, Cambridge University Press (2003).Google Scholar

Grieger, J., ‘Korruption und Kultur bei der Siemens AG: Eine Handlungs-Struktur-Analyse‘, in Graeff, P., Schröder, K. and Wolf, S. (eds.), Der Korruptionsfall-Siemens: Analysen und praxisnahe Folgerungen des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises von Transparency International Deutschland, Nomos (2009), 111–39.Google Scholar

Henssler, M., Hoven, E., Kubiciel, M. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Grundfragen eines modernen Verbandssanktionenrechts: Tagungen und Kolloquien, Nomos (2017).10.5771/9783845285351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henssler, M., Hoven, E., Kubiciel, M. et al., ‘Kölner Entwurf eines Verbandssanktionengesetzes’, Neue Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- Steuer- und Unternehmensstrafrecht, 1 (2018), 1–10.Google Scholar

Henssler, M., Hoven, E., Kubiciel, M. et al., ‘Das Gesetz zur Sanktionierung verbandsbezogener Straftaten’, in Kubiciel, M. (ed.), Neues Unternehmensstrafrecht ante portas: Auswirkungen auf Unternehmen und Rechtsanwaltschaft, Nomos (2020), 153–76.Google Scholar

Jahn, M., ‘Ermittlungen in Sachen Siemens/SEC’, Strafverteidiger, 1 (2009), 41–6.Google Scholar

Jahn, M., ‘“There Is No Such Thing as Too Big to Jail” – zu den verfassungsrechtlichen Einwänden gegen ein Verbandsstrafgesetzbuch unter dem Grundgesetz’, in Jahn, M., Schmitt-Leonardy, C. and Schoop, C. (eds.), Das Unternehmensstrafrecht und seine Alternativen, Nomos (2016), 53–87.10.5771/9783845257563-53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jahn, M. and Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Und jetzt noch mal mit Integrität: Gegen Korruption und Betrug in der Wirtschaft hilft keine gesetzliche Wohlfühlpackung’, Sueddeutsche Zeitung (2020), available at www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/forum-und-jetzt-noch-mal-mit-integritaet-1.4888888.Google Scholar

Jahn, M. and Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Kernfragen der rechtspolitischen Diskussion um Unternehmenssanktionen in der 20. Legislaturperiode – same same but different?’, Der KONZERN (2021), 350–8.Google Scholar

Jahn, M., Schmitt-Leonardy, C. and Schoop, C., ‘Unternehmensverantwortung für Unternehmenskriminalität: “Frankfurter Thesen”’, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrecht, 1 (2018), 27–31.Google Scholar

Jefferson, M., ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in the 1990s’, Journal of Criminal Law, 64 (2000), 106–22.Google Scholar

Jefferson, M., ‘Review of P Almond’s Corporate Manslaughter and Regulatory Reform’, Criminal Law Review, 2 (2014), 162–5.Google Scholar

Khanna, V. S., ‘Corporate Liability Standards: When Should Corporations Be Held Criminally Liable’, American Criminal Law Review, 37 (2000), 1239–83.Google Scholar

Korte, M., ‘Unternehmensstrafrecht bei Ordnungswidrigkeiten?’, in Czerwenka, B., Korte, M. and Kübler, B. M. (eds.), Festschrift zu Ehren von Marie Luise Graf-Schlicker, De Gruyter (2018), 525–40.Google Scholar

Krems, K.-H., ‘Der NRW-Entwurf für ein Verbandsstrafgesetzbuch: Gesetzgeberische Intention und Konzeption’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 1 (2015), 5–10.Google Scholar

Kutschaty, T., ‘Unternehmensstrafrecht: Während Deutschland noch debattiert, hat der Rest Europas beim Thema Unternehmensstrafrecht längst gehandelt’, Deutsche Richterzeitung, 91 (2013), 16–17.Google Scholar

Laufer, W. S., ‘A Very Special Regulatory Milestone’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 20 (2017), 392–428.Google Scholar

Laufer, W. S., ‘The Missing Account of Progressive Corporate Criminal Law’, New York University Journal of Law and Business, 14 (2017), 71–142.Google Scholar

Law Commission, Involuntary Manslaughter (Law Com. No. 237, 1996).Google Scholar

Law Commission, Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts (Law. Com. CP No. 195, 2010).Google Scholar

Law Commission, Corporate Criminal Liability: A Discussion Paper (2021).Google Scholar

Lederman, E., ‘Models for Imposing Corporate Criminal Liability: From Adaption and Imitation toward Aggregation and the Search for Self-Identity’, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4 (2000), 641–708.10.1525/nclr.2000.4.1.641CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lichtblau, E. and Dougherty, C., ‘Siemens to Pay $1.34 Billion in Fines’, New York Times (2008), available at www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/business/worldbusiness/16siemens.html?mcubz=0.Google Scholar

Luhmann, N., Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisationen, Duncker & Humblot (1964).Google Scholar

Martin, S. L., ‘Compliance Officers: More Jobs, More Responsibility, More Liability’, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 29 (2015), 169–98.Google Scholar

Mays, R., ‘Towards Corporate Fault as the Basis of Criminal Liability of Corporations’, Mountbatten Journal of Legal Studies, [1998], 31–67.Google Scholar

O’Neil, B., Giles, E., McEvoy, S. et al., ‘Reform of the UK Identification Doctrine – Significant Expansion of Corporate Criminal Liability for Economic Crimes’, A&O Shearman (2023), available at www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/blogs/investigations-insight/reform-of-the-identification-principle-significant-expansion-to-corporate-criminal-liability-for-economic-crimes.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 16th edn, Oxford University Press (2021).10.1093/he/9780198849704.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Osterloh, F., ‘Strafrechtsdogmatische und strafprozessuale Probleme bei der Einführung und Umsetzung einer Verbandsstrafbarkeit: Untersuchung des Entwurfs eines Gesetzes zur Einführung der strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit von Unternehmen und sonstigen Verbänden’, inaugural dissertation, University of Frankfurt am Main (2016), available at https://d-nb.info/1108410987/34.Google Scholar

Papendick, U., ‘Unternehmensstrafrecht’, Manager Magazin (2014), available at www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/artikel/nrw-justizminister-kutschaty-will-unternehmensstrafrecht-in-deutschland-a-945221-2.html.Google Scholar

Roxin, C., Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2006), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Saliger, F., Tsambikakis, M., Mückenberger, O. et al. (eds.), Münchner Entwurf eines Verbandssanktionengesetzes, Nomos (2019).10.5771/9783748904670CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sarch, A. F., Criminally Ignorant: Why the Law Pretends We Know What We Don’t, Oxford University Press (2019).10.1093/oso/9780190056575.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Satzger, H., ‘“Schwarze Kassen” zwischen Untreue und Korruption: Eine Besprechung des Urteils BGH – 2 StR 587/07 (Siemens-Entscheidung)’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 6 (2009), 297–306.Google Scholar

Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Das interpretatorische Konstrukt “Unternehmen” hinter der “Unternehmenskriminalität”’, in Kempf, E., Lüderssen, K. and Volk, K. (eds.), Unternehmensstrafrecht, De Gruyter (2012), 111–52.Google Scholar

Schmitt-Leonardy, C., Unternehmenskriminalität ohne Strafrecht? C. F. Müller (2013).Google Scholar

Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Zurück in die Zukunft? Zur neuen alten Diskussion um die Unternehmensstrafe und zu dem immer noch unzureichenden Verständnis des Problems’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 1 (2015), 11–22.Google Scholar

Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Eine Alternative zum Unternehmensstrafrecht: der Folgenverantwortungsdialog’, in Jahn, M., Schmitt-Leonardy, C. and Schoop, C. (eds.), Das Unternehmensstrafrecht und seine Alternativen, Nomos (2016), 251–306.10.5771/9783845257563-251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Kollektive Schuld? – Zur “Schuld” von Unternehmen’, in Fischer, T. and Hoven, E. (eds.), Schuld: Baden-Badener Strafrechtsgespräche, Nomos (2017), Vol. 3, 311–17.Google Scholar

Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Originäre Verbandsschuld oder Zurechnungsmodell?’, in Henssler, M., Hoven, E., Kubiciel, M. et al. (eds.), Grundfragen eines modernen Verbandssanktionenrechts: Tagungen und Kolloquien, Nomos (2017), 71–96.10.5771/9783845285351-71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Criminal Responsibility for Corporate Crimes in Germany? The Never Ending Story to Finally Get (to) the Corporate Actor’, in Matiaske, W., Alewell, D. and Leßmann, O. (eds.), The ‘Betrieb’ as Corporate Actor, Nomos (2022), 46–59.10.5771/9783957103963-46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schünemann, B., Unternehmenskriminalität und Strafrecht: Eine Untersuchung der Verantwortlichkeit der Unternehmen und ihrer Führungskräfte nach geltendem und geplantem Straf- und Ordnungswidrigkeitenrecht, Carl Heymanns (1979).Google Scholar

Schünemann, B., ‘Plädoyer zur Einführung einer Unternehmenskuratel’, in Schünemann, B. (ed.), Unternehmenskriminalität, Deutsche Wiedervereinigung, Carl Heymanns (1996), Vol. III, 129–42.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P. and Sullivan, G. R., ‘On the Nature and Rationale of Property Offences’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. P. (eds.), Defining Crimes, Oxford University Press (2005), 168–95.Google Scholar

Sullivan, G. R., ‘The Attribution of Culpability to Limited Companies’, Cambridge Law Journal, 55 (1996), 515–46.10.1017/S0008197300100492CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vogel, J., ‘Unrecht und Schuld in einem Unternehmensstrafrecht’, in Kempf, E., Lüderssen, K. and Volk, K. (eds.), Unternehmensstrafrecht, De Gruyter (2012), 205–16.Google Scholar

von Freier, F., Kritik der Verbandsstrafe, Duncker & Humblot (1988).Google Scholar

von Freier, F., ‘Zurück hinter die Aufklärung: Zur Wiedereinführung von Verbandsstrafen’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 156 (2009), 98–116.Google Scholar

von Liszt, F., Lehrbuch des deutschen Strafrechts, 10th edn, De Gruyter (1900).10.1515/9783111541310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Rosen, R., ‘Zielkonflikt – Unerwünschte Nebenfolgen eines Unternehmensstrafrechts’, in Kempf, E., Lüderssen, K. and Volk, K. (eds.), Unternehmensstrafrecht, De Gruyter (2012), 263–70.Google Scholar

Wells, C. K., Corporations and Criminal Responsibility, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2001).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267935.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wells, C. K., ‘Corporate Crime: Opening the Eyes of the Sentry’, Legal Studies, 30 (2010), 370–90.10.1111/j.1748-121X.2010.00158.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wells, C. K., ‘Corporate Criminal Liability: A Ten Year Review’, Criminal Law Review, 12 (2014), 849–78.Google Scholar

Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.), Participation in Crime: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Ashgate (2013), 323–39.Google Scholar

Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.), Defences: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Ashgate (2014), 227–39.Google Scholar

Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.), Consent: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Routledge (2017), 262–79.Google Scholar

Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.), Homicide in Criminal Law: A Research Companion, Routledge (2019), 245–63.Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault and Related Offences, Tentative Draft No. 6 (April 2022).Google Scholar

Augsberg, S., ‘Der Anthropozentrismus des juristischen Personenbegriffs – Ausdruck überkommener (religiöser) Traditionen, speziesistischer Engführung oder funktionaler Notwendigkeiten?’, Rechtswissenschaften, 7 (2016), 338–62.Google Scholar

Barmash, P., Homicide in the Biblical World, Cambridge University Press (2009).Google Scholar

Barry, J., ‘The Child en Ventre sa Mere’, American Law Journal, 14 (1941), 351–7.Google Scholar

Binder, G. and Chiesa, L., ‘The Puzzle of Inciting Suicide’, American Criminal Law Review, 56 (2019), 65–133.Google Scholar

Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England, Books 1–4 (1765 ff.).Google Scholar

Broome, J., ‘What Is Your Life Worth?’, Daedalus, 137 (2008), 49–56.10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cavalieri, P., The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights, Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar

Chang, H. Y., ‘A Brief History of Anglo-Western Suicide: From Legal Wrong to Civil Right’, Southern University Law Review, 46 (2018), 150–94.Google Scholar

Cholbi, M., ‘Suicide’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 edn), available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/suicide/.Google Scholar

CNN Editorial Research, ‘Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts’, CNN.com (updated 26 May 2022), available at www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/physician-assisted-suicide-fast-facts/index.html.Google Scholar

Coke, E., The Third Part of Institutes of the Laws of England, Lawbook Exchange Ltd (1644, 2012).Google Scholar

Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, Council of Europe Treaty Series – No. 210 (2011).Google Scholar

Dackweiler, R.-M., ‘Rechtspolitische Konstruktionen sexueller Verletzungsoffenheit und Verletzungsmächtigkeit: Zur Verrechtlichung von Vergewaltigung in der Ehe in der Schweiz und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, in Koher, F. and Pühl, K. (eds.), Gewalt und Geschlecht: Konstruktionen, Positionen, Praxen, Springer (2003), 43–66.10.1007/978-3-663-10174-1_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Derrick, J. H., ‘Criminal Liability for Death of Another as Result of Accused’s Attempt to Kill Self or Assist Another’s Suicide’, American Law Reports 40, 4th edn (originally published in 1985), 702.Google Scholar

Dias, E., ‘Inside the Extreme Effort to Punish Women for Abortion’, New York Times, 1 July 2022, available at www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/us/abortion-abolitionists.html?referringSource=articleShare.Google Scholar

Dorff, E. N., Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics, Jewish Publication Society (2003).Google Scholar

Dreier, H., ‘Grenzen des Tötungsverbotes – Teil 2’, JuristenZeitung, 62 (2007), 317–72.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom, Alfred A. Knopf (1993).Google Scholar

Eser, A. and Sternberg-Lieben, D., ‘Tötung auf Verlangen’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019), 2136–43.Google Scholar

Eser, A. and Sternberg-Lieben, D., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 211 ff.’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019), 2055–96.Google Scholar

Eser, A. and Weißer, B., ‘Schwangerschaftsabbruch’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019), 2172–84.Google Scholar

Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, ‘Gott ist ein Freund des Lebens’ (1989), available at www.ekd.de/gottistfreund_1989_vorwort.html.Google Scholar

Francione, G. L., Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation, Columbia University Press (2008).Google Scholar

Freedman, E. B., Redefining Rape: Sexual Violence in the Era of Suffrage and Segregation, Harvard University Press (2015).Google Scholar

Goldenring, J. M., ‘The Brain-Life Theory: Towards a Consistent Biological Definition of Humanness’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 11 (1985), 198–204.10.1136/jme.11.4.198CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Greasley, K., Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality and Law, Oxford University Press (2017).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766780.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gropp, W. and Wörner, L., ‘Schwangerschaftsabbruch’, in Sander, G. M. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, Band 4, §§ 185–262, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2021), 873–910.Google Scholar

Grünewald, A., ‘Anmerkung zu BGH: Geburtsbeginn bei Kaiserschnitt – Berliner Zwillingsfall’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 74 (2021), 649–50.Google Scholar

Harp, K. L. H. and Bunting, A. M., ‘The Racialized Nature of Child Welfare Policies and the Social Control of Black Bodies’, Social Politics, 27 (2020), 258–81.10.1093/sp/jxz039CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hoff, J. and in der Schmitten, J., ‘Kritik der “Hirntod”-Konzeption. Plädoyer für ein menschenwürdiges Todeskriterium’, in Hoff, J. and in der Schmitten, J. (eds.), Wann ist der Mensch tot? Rowohlt (1994), 153–255.Google Scholar

Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).10.1093/he/9780198753070.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jäger, C., ‘Wer zu spät kommt, den bestraft das Gericht’, Juristische Arbeitsblätter, 53 (2021), 342–5.Google Scholar

Jansen, S., ‘Pflichtenkollision bei Triage Entscheidungen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 16 (2021), 155–69.Google Scholar

Johnson, S., ‘Suicide Still Treated as a Crime in at Least 20 Countries, Report Finds’, The Guardian, 9 September 2021, available at www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/sep/09/suicide-still-treated-as-a-in-at-least-20-countries-report-finds.Google Scholar

Kant, I., Metaphysik der Sitten, Zweiter Teil: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre, Ethische Elementarlehre, 2nd edn, Friedrich Nicolovius (1803).Google Scholar

Kirchgaessner, S., ‘No-Exception Laws, Once Too Harsh Even for Anti-Abortion Republicans, Gain Traction across US’, The Guardian, 6 May 2022, available at www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/no-exception-rape-incest-anti-abortion-laws-republicans-us.Google Scholar

Klee, E., ‘Euthansie’ im Dritten Reich: Die ‘Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens’, 3rd edn, Fischer (2018).Google Scholar

Luper, S., Philosophy of Death, Cambridge University Press (2009).10.1017/CBO9780511627231CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMahan, J., The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life, Oxford University Press (2002).10.1093/0195079981.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merkel, R., ‘Schwangerschaftsabbruch’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U., Paeffgen, H.-U. and Saliger F. (eds.), NomosKommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 6th edn, Nomos (2023), 2281–356.Google Scholar

Nagel, T., ‘Death ’ (1970) 4 Noûs 73–80.10.2307/2214297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neumann, U., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu § 211’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), NomosKommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Nomos (2017), 1703–90.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 16th edn, Oxford University Press (2021).10.1093/he/9780198849704.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rabe Smolensky, K., ‘Defining Life from the Perspective of Death: An Introduction to the Forced Symmetry Approach’, University of Chicago Legal Forum (2006), 41–85.Google Scholar

Rachels, J., The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality, Oxford University Press (1986).Google Scholar

Ramsey, C. B., ‘Restructuring the Debate over Fetal Homicide Laws’, Ohio State Law Journal, 67 (2006), 721–82.Google Scholar

Raspé, C., Die tierliche Person. Vorschlag einer auf der Analyse der Tier-Mensch-Beziehung in Gesellschaft, Ethik und Recht basierenden Neupositionierung des Tieres im deutschen Rechtssystem, Duncker & Humblot (2013).10.3790/978-3-428-53972-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rixen, S., Lebenschutz am Lebensende: Das Grundrecht auf Leben und die Hirntodkonzeption, Duncker & Humblot (1999).10.3790/978-3-428-49727-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rojas, R. and Mzezewa, T., ‘After Tense Debate, Louisiana Scraps Plan to Classify Abortion as Homicide’, New York Times, 12 May 2022, available at www.nytimes.com/2022/05/12/us/louisiana-abortion-bill.html.Google Scholar

Romanis E., C., ‘Challenging the “Born Alive” Threshold: Fetal Surgery, Artificial Wombs, and the English Approach to Legal Personhood’, Medical Law Review, 28 (2020), 93–123.Google ScholarPubMed

Romanni, R., ‘Technology Promises to Change the Meaning of Death – at Least for Some’, Washington Post, 19 August 2022, available at www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/08/19/organex-yale-death-definition-medical-disparities/.Google Scholar

Rosenau, H., ‘Vorbemerkungen vor §§ 211 ff’, in Cirener G., Radtke H., Rissing-van Saan R., Rönnau T. and Schluckebier W. (eds.), Leipziger Kommentar. StGB. Band 11, §§ 211–31, 13th edn, De Gruyter (2023), 1–102.Google Scholar

Schneider, H., ‘Totschlag’, in Sander, G. M. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, Band 4, §§ 185–262, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2021), 764–845.Google Scholar

Schneider, H., ‘Tötung auf Verlangen’, in Sander, G. M. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, Band 4, §§ 185–262, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2021), 873–910.Google Scholar

Schneider, H., ‘Vorbemerkung zu § 211‘, in Sander, G. M. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, Band 4, §§ 185–262, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2021), 425–567.Google Scholar

Shah, M. K., ‘Inconsistencies in the Legal Status of an Unborn Child: Recognition of a Fetus as Potential Life’, Hofstra Law Review, 29 (2001), 931–69.Google ScholarPubMed

Sherwood, H., ‘Appeal Court Overturns Forced Abortion Ruling’, The Guardian, 24 June 2019, available at www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/catholic-church-hits-out-at-court-over-abortion-ruling.Google Scholar

Singer, P., Practical Ethics, 3rd edn, Cambridge University Press (2011).10.1017/CBO9780511975950CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stephen, J. F., A Digest of the Criminal Law, 7th edn, Macmillan (1926).Google Scholar

Tännsjö, T., Taking Life: Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing, Oxford University Press (2015).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190225575.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tuerkheimer, D., ‘Conceptualizing Violence against Pregnant Women’, Indiana Law Journal, 81 (2006), 667–771.Google Scholar

Veatch, R. M., ‘Definitions of Life and Death: Should There Be Consistency?’, in Shaw, M. W. and Doudera, A. E. (eds.), Defining Human Life: Medical, Ethical and Legal Considerations, Aupha Press (1983), 99–113.Google Scholar

Velleman, J. D., ‘A Right of Self‐Termination?’, Ethics, 109 (1999), 606–28.10.1086/233924CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wigglesworth, A., ‘With a Woman in Prison for a Stillbirth, California’s Murder Law Is Tested’, Los Angeles Times, 16 December 2020, available at www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-16/adora-perez-appeal-stillborn-murder-charge.Google Scholar

Williams, G., The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, Alfred A. Knopf (1957).Google Scholar