Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Climate Change (1)
- Climate Protection (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Theory (1)
- Criminal law exceptionalism (1)
- Critique (1)
- Dark sides of criminal laws (1)
- Ideological thoughtlessness (1)
- Ideology (1)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (5) (remove)
Vom 19. bis 21. September fand im Forschungskolleg Humanwissenschaften die bereits dritte Bad Homburg Conference statt. Die Konferenz zum Thema Künstliche Intelligenz brachte Perspektiven aus verschiedenen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen und der Praxis zusammen. Referentinnen und Referenten u. a. aus Informatik, Rechtswissenschaft, Medizin, Philosophie und Hirnforschung diskutierten mit Vertretern der gesellschaftlichen Praxis: Unternehmern, Industrievertretern, einem Kriminalhauptkommissar des Landeskriminalamts Hessen und einer Bürgerrechtsaktivistin und Politikberaterin aus den USA. Begrüßt wurden die Teilnehmer von ForschungskollegDirektor Prof. Dr. Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, der Vizepräsidentin der Goethe-Universität, Prof. Dr. Simone Fulda, dem Bürgermeister der Stadt Bad Homburg, Meinhard Matern, sowie der Hessischen Ministerin für Digitale Strategie und Entwicklung, Prof. Dr. Kristina Sinemus. Der Abschlusskommentar kam von Christoph Burchard, Professor für Straf- und Strafprozessrecht, Internationales und Europäisches Strafrecht, Rechtsvergleichung und Rechtstheorie an der Goethe-Universität. Der UniReport hatte Gelegenheit, mit Christoph Burchard nach der Konferenz zu sprechen.
Climate crimes – a critique
(2023)
This paper aims on taking a critical approach to the emerging debate on climate criminal justice, that is mostly about something labeled „climate criminal law“ („Klimastrafrecht“). The critique is directed at climate crimes intended to protect our habitable climate („Klimaschutzstrafrecht“) or to prevent climate change („Klimawandelpräventionsstrafrecht“) staged as transformational criminal law. “Fighting" climate change with climate crimes can lull us into deceptive certainties and by extension into perilous idleness; and it will do so if we think of climate protection essentially in terms of traditional criminal law. Climate crimes are based on the idea that we can counter climate change with the "sharpest sword" available to a polity (cf. the German and Continental European ultima-ratio principle) and that we can thereby also get hold of "the powerful". But these certainties rest on but normative (and at heart: liberal) doctrines, which are deceptive in having lost touch with the realities of the administration of criminal justice. They obscure that more effective measures are available to mitigate the climate crisis and that "the powerful" will likely be shielded with and by climate crimes. Therefore, the climate crimes approach to the climate crisis may just turn out to be (self-)appeasement. It obfuscates that more effective measures are likely necessary to avert impending crises. Our critique is therefore not "only" directed at the symbolic, but the dysfunctional and "dark side" of climate crimes.
Criminal law exceptionalism, or so I suggest, has turned into an ideology in German and Continental criminal law theory. It rests on interrelated claims about the (ideal or real) extraordinary qualities and properties of the criminal law and has led to exceptional doctrines in constitutional criminal law and criminal law theory. It prima facie paradoxically perpetuates and conserves the criminal law, and all too often leads to ideological thoughtlessness, which may blind us to the dark sides of criminal laws in action.