skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 202797 Find in a Library
Title: Principles of Criminal Procedure and Post-Modern Society: Contradictions and Perspectives
Author(s): Klaus Volk Ph.D.
Date Published: 2003
Page Count: 18
Sponsoring Agency: Prof. Dr. Klaus Volk
80539 Munich, Germany
Sale Source: Prof. Dr. Klaus Volk
Professor stoke he place 2
80539 Munich,
Germany (Unified)
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: Germany (Unified)
Annotation: This document explores the relationship between criminal procedure and criminal law in Germany.
Abstract: The fundamental principles of criminal procedure continue to be truth, justice, and peace under law, in Germany. This article defines truth as the coincidence of a mental impression of an event and the event itself; suggests that within Germany’s criminal law, the importance of the procedural norm of fairness may compensate in cases where there is a deficit in truth; and indicates that the participation of lay participants in Germany’s criminal justice system has no identifiable consequence and that trials in Germany are much less important than is the investigation of a crime. Focusing of the principles of immediacy and orality, the article indicates that while these principles were once central to the search for truth in Germany, now these principles are less important than an accused person’s right to defend changes against him or herself. Noting that secret investigations often burden the accused, the author contends that Parliament’s abolishment of the accused’s right to petition the court to take evidence in summary procedures is scandalous in Germany. The author argues that evidentiary prohibitions often deal with information that has been illegally obtained by law enforcement authorities or with legal information that may often injure the rights of an accused person. Discussing the principle “Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare,” the author contends that legislators are supposed to make certain that an accused person’s right to silence does not stand in the way of a conviction, but that this does not always work out in practice. Considering the issues of the burden of proof and “in dubio pro reo,” the author suggests that the accused has no duty to bring self-incriminating evidence to authorities and that the burden of proof resides with the German State. The current relationship between Germany’s procedural and substantive laws demonstrate the need for a convergence of these differing principles.
Main Term(s): Criminal law; Germany
Index Term(s): Burden of proof; International law; Right to counsel; Right to Due Process; Right to fair trial; Right to speedy trial; Rights of the accused
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.