The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany

Thomas Weigend

University of Cologne

Jenia Iontcheva Turner

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law

January 7, 2014

German Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2014
SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 180

In a long-awaited judgment, the German Constitutional Court in 2013 upheld the constitutionality of the 2009 German law authorizing the negotiation of criminal judgments between the court and the parties. In this Article, we provide background on recent developments in “plea bargaining” law and practice in Germany and offer a critique of the Court’s decision.

The Court attempted to rein in negotiated judgments by giving the statute a literal reading, emphasizing the limitations it places on negotiations, and strictly prohibiting any consensual disposition outside the statutory framework. The Court builds its judgment on the notion that the search for truth, the proportionality of punishment, and transparency of negotiations are important values in criminal justice and that they must be respected even in the context of negotiated cases. The Court also attempts to retain control over the enforcement of its judgment by indicating that it may need to revisit the legislation’s constitutionality if courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys continue to ignore the statutory provisions as interpreted by the Court. The Court therefore deserves praise for attempting to regulate and limit the practice of negotiated judgments. As we discuss in the Article, this is especially true if one compares the efforts of the Federal Constitutional Court to the hands-off approach of the United States Supreme Court with respect to plea bargaining.

At the same time, the Court arguably bypassed the more fundamental issues that a system of “plea bargaining” raises in the context of German criminal justice. The Court may also have failed to sufficiently consider the practical effects of its ruling on everyday negotiations in German courts. Finally, the Court probably is too optimistic in assuming that it is possible to make practitioners abide by a set of technical rules created by judicial fiat for a practice that is basically built on the consent of the parties and judges.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 16

Keywords: German Constitutional Court, negotiated judgments, plea bargaining, criminal procedure, guilty pleas, confessions, comparative criminal procedure

JEL Classification: K14, K19, K42, K49

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: January 8, 2014 ; Last revised: January 12, 2016

Suggested Citation

Weigend, Thomas and Turner, Jenia Iontcheva, The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany (January 7, 2014). German Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2014; SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 180. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2375914

Contact Information

Thomas Weigend
University of Cologne ( email )
Cologne, 50923
Jenia Iontcheva Turner (Contact Author)
Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 750116
Dallas, TX 75275
United States

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 657
Downloads: 131
Download Rank: 163,039

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.454 seconds