Criminalization theory originally supports restriction of criminal law’s border. The question which has been risen is whether the construction of existing theories is about the interests and goals or rights? Examination of German doctrines “Legal Interests” which are goal-oriented and ...
Read More
Criminalization theory originally supports restriction of criminal law’s border. The question which has been risen is whether the construction of existing theories is about the interests and goals or rights? Examination of German doctrines “Legal Interests” which are goal-oriented and the comparison of it with current theory in the English-American philosophy – i.e. harm principle that inherently is behavior-oriented – clearly shows that: although this principle provides that the only or the most pivotal criteria for the criminal intervention of state is to prevent from harming others, German doctrines justify such an intervention on the basis of goals and protectable legal interests; since such theory has been based on violation of “right”. Even though, during the course of evolution, the concept of “Gut” has been gradually replaced by violation of interest in the German theory, understanding the legal interest under the circumstance of contradiction and opposition is truly based on the concept and theory of right. On the other hand, although the harm principle is originally based on the concept of harm, its foundation on the “interest” – albeit in the context of utilitarianism– drew it close to the German doctrines. However, growth of German theory in the context of philosophy of “right” provided a considerable distinction from measurement of interests inspired by utilitarianism in harm principle.
