The criminal code in Austria that was replaced in 1974 went back to the codes of 1803 and 1854. Reforms of the previous code occurred one at a time over a century and a half. The complete revision of 1974 took 20 years to complete because of difficulties in reaching a consensus about the necessary reforms. The basic precept of the code finally adopted is that its task is only to protect the communal life of individuals in society. Guilt is understood as socially defined personal responsibility. Penalties express social-ethical reproach; the goal of penalties is special and general prevention. In contrast to German law, the Austrian reform is somewhat less likely to consider commission through omission grounds for lenience. It defines self-defense more broadly, contains legal definitions for 'intentional' and 'negligence,' and is more likely to judge errors about what is prohibited and certain emergency situations as extenuating circumstances. Austrian law also regards all offenders involved in joint criminal activities as subject to the same penalties and treats attempted crimes as subject to the same penalties as the completed offense. The most important reforms in practical terms relate to sanctions: the maximum prison term is 20 years, the life sentences are only for genocide, fines are paid according to the day rate system. In Austria as in Germany, sentencing is guided by the degree of criminal responsibility, and short-term imprisonment is to be replaced by fines and probation or partial parole. Special institutionalization is foreseen for mentally ill offenders, as well as for legally sane offenders who suffered from mental abnormalities at the time of their offenses. In both German and Austrian law, addicts and psychopaths are treated before imprisonment and dangerous recidivists after incarceration. In Austria, probation is only possible after treatment for addiction. Time limits have been set for institutional treatment. The success of the new code is difficult to evaluate after such a short time. The number of fines and institutional placements has increased, but a rising trend in property offenses and a falling trend in personal and sexual offenses are probably not connected to the new code. Reformers should now concentrate on revising procedural and correctional laws to assure the effectiveness of the new criminal code in practice. Notes are supplied.