Legal Insanity and Related Doctrines

doi:10.1017/9781009038126.004

4 - Legal Insanity and Related Doctrines

German and US Law Compared

from Part I - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2025

Johannes Kaspar and

Stephen J. Morse

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg August Universität Göttingen
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Köln

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter explores legislative time limits on the prosecution of crime in civil and common law jurisdictions. It addresses the rationales for barring the prosecution of old crimes and undertakes a comparative analysis of three jurisdictional groupings: Continental Europe (with a focus on Germany and France), the Commonwealth (with a focus on England and Wales) and the United States (with a focus on federal law). The analysis identifies comparable features in limitation doctrine across jurisdictions while revealing how the theory and practice of statutes of limitation differs markedly in different legal systems. In broad terms, Continental systems codify general and categorical time limits on the prosecution of offences; Commonwealth systems tend not to have any statutory time bars on the prosecution of offences other than minor offences; and in the United States, most offences, other than the most serious, are subject to statutory limitation periods. The chapter concludes by drawing together the points of comparison between the three jurisdictional groupings, commenting on their distinctions and similarities.

Keywords

culpability principle of guilt measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation responsibility diminished capacity mitigation folk psychology mental disorder intellectual disability intoxication involuntary civil commitment

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume III
, pp. 96 - 137

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009038126.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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).10.3790/978-3-428-47834-7CrossRef Google 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-2015-0002CrossRef Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Guilt and Choice in Criminal Law Theory: A Critical Assessment’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 4 (2016), 1–24.CrossRef Google 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-2015-0033CrossRef Google 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.744CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Morse, S. J., Advanced Introduction to Substantive Criminal Law, Edward Elgar (2023).CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.