Aspect of German law
Under the German penal code, , there are two sections relating to homicide:
Background.
The current form of § 211 StGB was created in 1941 by Nazi jurist Roland Freisler. Before that the differentiation between (murder) and (killing) was that was killing "with consideration" () and Totschlag without (StGB 1871–1941). Before 1871 there was no united German state and therefore no common penal code. Many German states defined (murder) as killing "with consideration" and without—similar to other continental European countries (today for example the Netherlands). Consideration is similar to, though not same as, premeditation. While premeditation only means that there is forethought or a plan, consideration is defined as a psychological state of mind, in which the criminal is consciously weighing the motives for and against the crime. Under this concept a homicide that was not planned in advance or at least taken into account in advance by the criminal could not be considered to be murder () under German law (nor would it constitute premeditation). Those were only punished as a grave case of . Furthermore, there were disputes as to when and how the consideration should have taken place—before the crime, while committing the crime, e.g. Therefore, this differentiation was considered too vague. The reform was oriented on discussions for the reform of the Swiss StGB, which made the same distinction. It took over the idea and mainly also the wording of the reform commission for the Swiss StGB headed by Carl Stoss in 1896. Also the new differentiation between Mord and Totschlag contains problems. This led to ongoing discussions in the legal community about the wording, the interpretation and also about a reform of the law. There are especially disputes about the question when a motive is to be considered as a base motive and when it should be considered as treacherous (or "by stealth").
If the victim of a killing "earnestly" wanted to be killed (for example, when suffering an incurable disease) the crime would be (killing on demand, § 216 StGB) which would result in 6 months to 5 years in prison (usually suspended) – basically, mercy killing. It however requires that the perpetrator was—solely or mainly—motivated by this demand. In 2002, there was a cannibal case in which the offender, Armin Meiwes, claimed that the victim wanted to be killed. The court convicted him of , since they did not see the qualifications of a murder. Both prosecution and defense appealed, the prosecution in order to reach a verdict of murder, the defense in order to reduce the charge to killing on demand. The German Federal Court of Justice, the highest German court of appeal, eventually convicted him of murder because, while the victim did want to be killed, there was still the base motive of cannibalism.
If the killing was due to negligence it is punished according to § 222 StGB as (negligent homicide or manslaughter). Many cases in this field are car accidents due to negligence that result in the death of a person.
If the death is a negligent consequence of an intended act of violence, it is classified as (infliction of bodily harm with deadly outcome—§ 227 StGB).
The penalty is a prison sentence of 3 to 15 years. The crime of fatal injuries, corresponds to the classic "preterintention" homicide: similar to the Anglo-Saxon Felony-Murder (for example, « If John commits a felony, a serious crime, and Jim's death results from this, John is responsible for the most serious form of homicide (murder) even if Jim's death was neither foreseen nor foreseeable by him», It's a homicide praeter intentionnel), to homicide "praeter-intentionnel" (art. 222-7 French penal code), to homicide "preterintenzionale" (art. 584 Italian penal code).
Penalties.
The penalty for is life imprisonment. Parole may be granted after a minimum of 15 years; typically after 18 years but 23 years or longer in serious cases. In the formulation of the law as of 1941, until the abolition of the death penalty in 1949, death was the mandatory sentence for "Mord", with "special cases" being punished with a life sentence in a house of correction, effectively making the sentence discretionary to the judge. "Totschlag" was punished from a relatively lenient prison sentence of five years up to a life sentence.
The penalty for (intentional homicide, otherwise) is currently five to fifteen years in prison and in especially grave cases life imprisonment (minimum sentence 15 years). Life sentences for are rare as such an offence would typically qualify as (§ 211).
In lesser cases (, § 213) of the prison sentence is one to ten years. The law itself gives one example for a minor case: the killing due to the provocation of the killed person, e.g. if the killed person has beaten the offender or one of his relatives or has severely insulted them and the killer acted under the influence of great anger. Thus, the lesser case of roughly corresponds to common-law voluntary manslaughter.
The criteria for.
The qualifying circumstances are categorized into three groups:
The first and third group are related to the criminal (), the second to the crime ().
Base motives.
The law mentions three examples for base motives, all else fall under the catchall clause of "another base motive":
Other base motives are all other motives that are on the lowest level, detestable and despicable. The basis for this value judgment is the opinion of the domestic legal community. This has to be decided case by case, taking into account each crime and the personality of the criminal. However, certain criteria were developed. One is the idea that there has to be a gross disproportion between the reason for the crime and the result of the crime. Also the mentioned base motives or purposes in § 211 StGB are used to check whether another motive can be considered as base: Killing out of little or no reason is considered close to murderous lust. Killing to arouse the sexual desire is equal to the mentioned killing "to satisfy the sexual desire". Killing out of envy of the economic success of another person or in order to be able to marry a rich woman is seen as equal to greed. Killings in order to cover up a misdemeanor or an embarrassing situation are seen as close to the motive "to cover up another crime" (§ 211 II 3 Group). Examples: Killing of the wife in order to get another wife, xenophobia, killing in order to avoid to pay a fine, honour killings.
Base methods.
The law considers three ways of committing a killing as base:
Treacherous killing.
The judiciary sees a killing as treacherous or by stealth if the perpetrator is consciously using the unsuspiciousness and defenselessness of the victim to attack them in a hostile attitude.
The perpetrator has to be aware of the fact that the victim is unaware of an attack and is defenseless. He has to act in a hostile attitude. With this definition mercy killings are excluded as well as suicide cases, in which the perpetrator wants to take a close person with him, in a situation of despair. The criterion of consciousness excludes cases in which the perpetrator acts in a heat of passion (affect) and therefore is not realizing that he kills a person that is unaware of the attack. However, an affect does not necessary exclude to consider the killing as treacherous. The criminal has to use the defenselessness "and" the unsuspiciousness. Only using the defenselessness is not enough. The courts require that the victim must have the ability to be suspicious. That is not the case, when the victim is unconscious or is a child below three years. However, in those cases the killing is treacherous, when the perpetrator uses the unsuspiciousness of the parents or other persons who take care of the person to commit the crime. A typical case of a treacherous killing is an attack from the back, out of hiding or the killing of a sleeping person. A person takes his unsuspiciousness from attack with him to sleep.
In the legal literature some furthermore require an especially despicable breach of trust—which however would exclude hideous attack outside a relationship of trust. This position is therefore considered as too restrictive. Furthermore, the criterion is very vague, since it is unclear what relationship would be considered relationships of trust (for example, should a subverted relationship, in which one of the partner regularly beats his spouse still be considered a relationship of trust). Others argue that the courts are forgetting the subjective element of the word treacherous. They point out that the German word consists of two elements: (by stealth) and (treacherous). would therefore mean (by stealth; treacherousness). They argue that the killing of a sleeping house tyrant, that is tyrannizing his family, is a killing by stealth but that it could not be considered as treacherous. However, they can not give a definition when a killing by stealth has to be considered as treacherous. They just point to certain cases they want to exclude from murder due to the mitigating circumstances. Therefore, this position is also considered as too vague by the courts. The judiciary maintains that also in those cases the perpetrator is usually aware and uses the unsuspiciousness and defenselessness of the person from attack in an hostile attitude. Therefore, they conclude that a killing by stealth is treacherous, when the perpetrator is aware of the unsuspiciousness and defenselessness of the person from attack in an hostile attitude. However, due to the specially circumstances the sentences is reduced according to § 49 I StGB to 3 to 15 years. Both positions have problems. The position of the literature gives no clear criteria to define the difference between treacherous killings () and . That leaves it to the judge to decide whether a killing committed by stealth still ought not to be considered as a treacherous murder due to special mitigating circumstances. Therefore, this position leads in fact to a negative type correction. Some in the literature advocate such a negative type correction. Negative type correction means, that the murder characteristics are necessary to sentence someone for murder, but that they are not final. In extraordinary circumstances the court may sentence just for Totschlag, if the case is atypical to the usual cases due to special mitigating circumstances. In the older literature some even suggest a positive type correction. That means that the murder characteristics are necessary to sentence someone for murder, but that additionally to fulfilling at least one of the characteristics the court has to assess the special damnability of the killing. However, the wording of § 211 StGB does not mention an additional criterion of a special damnability (positive type correction). The wording of § 211 StGB also does not indicate that under special mitigating circumstances the court may consider a crime as although it fulfills one of the characteristics of § 211 StGB (negative type correction). Therefore, positive and negative type correction are seen by the courts as not in accordance with the current law and are therefore rejected. The definition of the judiciary is clear. But also cases with special mitigating circumstances fall under this definition, for which the lifetime prison sentence is too hard. The judiciary milders the sentence according to § 49 I StGB. However, § 49 I StGB can only be used for mitigating circumstances defined by law, not generally for "lesser cases". Therefore, both positions can be criticized. However, some kind of correction is required to avoid a disproportionate punishment in cases with obviously extraordinary mitigating circumstances.
Examples for treacherous killing: killing with poison, killing of a sleeping person, killing from the back, surprise attack, but also trapping cases (to trap someone to go to another place (flat of the perpetrator, deserted area) in order to attack him there openly).
Cruel killing.
A killing is cruel when the perpetrator causes especially severe physical or mental pain to the victim (more than in usual cases of killing) out of a merciless attitude or cold-bloodedly. Example: A mother who led her child starve to death and planned that cold-bloodedly; sadistic torture to death; burning someone to death.
Killing with means dangerous to the public.
A killing that endangers life or limb of an unspecific number of other persons. There has to be a concrete danger. Example: laying fire in order to kill (usually leads to danger for fireman—therefore for life or limb of