Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Insignificance Principle between Germany and Brazil: a Cautionary Tale on Legal Imports

  • Published:
Criminal Law Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The discussion of the so-called bagatelle crimes has led jurists of some Ibero-American jurisdictions to develop the insignificance principle theory, which roughly states that conducts with a low degree of harmfulness do not constitute crimes even when all other prerequisites are satisfied. In Brazil, where it has arguably been most successful, the insignificance principle has purported to be an import of the German Geringfügigkeitsprinzip, originally devised by German criminal jurist Claus Roxin. We will start by comparing the two versions of the principle, emphasizing the possible misunderstandings in the conceptual importation. Then, we will analyse the consequences for the general crime theory of this problematic reception. Finally, we intend to bring to light some of the apparent impasses involved in the application of the insignificance principle. Given that the insignificance principle theory has been developed mostly by a literature focused on practitioners, our main purpose is to take stock of its state and contribute to stimulating a scholarly scrutiny on the matter. We conclude that, despite the confusion with its German namesake and the still unresolved technicalities, the insignificance principle theory has led to an interesting reflection on the relations between fundamental criminal legal principles inherent of the constitutional state and general crime theory. A more solid theoretical basis for excluding from the scope of criminal law conducts that pose little to no threat to society can improve the protection of individual and personal rights within the framework of the principle of human dignity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Lena Foljanty, ‘Legal Transfers as Processes of Cultural Translation: On the Consequences of a Metaphor’ (2015) 9 Max Planck Institute for European Legal History Research Paper Series <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2682465> accessed 04 February 2021.

  2. As mentioned above, the insignificance principle is part of criminal law science in several Ibero-American countries. However, the analysis of its theorization in Spanish-speaking countries exceeds the purpose of this work. We are also not aware of any critical analysis, of the kind that we intend to do for Brazil, targeted on the insignificance principle literature in Spanish. Its popularity in the hispanophone world can, however, be demonstrated with the indication of a sample of literature from a few countries: Roberto E. Spinka, El Principio de la Insignificancia o Bagatela: una Solución de Base Legal o de Justicia Abstracta? (Marcos Lerner 1986); Julio E. S. Virgolini, ‘El Art. 31 de la Lei de Vinos y un Caso de Aplicación del Principio de la Insignificancia en la Afetación del Bien Juridico’ (1984) 7/25-28 Doctrina Penal: Teoria y Prática en las Ciencias Penales 333; Julio E. S. Virgolini, ‘Las Lesiones Levisimas: un Caso de Atipicidad por Insignificancia’ (1985) 8/29-32 Doctrina Penal: Teoria y Prática en las Ciencias Penales 119; Gustavo Vitale, Principio de Insignificancia y Error (Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad Nacional Del Comahue 1988); José Luis Guzmán Dalbora, ‘La Insignificancia: Especificación y Redución Valorativas en el Ámbito de lo Injusto Tipico’ (1996) 14 Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Criminais 41; Enrique Ulises García Vitor, La Insignificancia en el Derecho Penal: los Delitos de Bagatela: Dogmática, Política Criminal y Regulación Procesal del Principio (Hammurabi 2000); Araceli Manjón-Cabeza Olmeda, ‘Venta de Cantidades Mínimas de Droga: Insignificancia y Proporcionalidade. Bien Jurídico y (Des) Protección de Menores e Incapazes’ (2003) 56/1 Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales 45; Fernando Sequeros Sazatornil, ‘El Principio de Insignificancia y su Irrelevancia en el Tráfico Ilegal de Drogas: Análisis del “Injusto de Bagatela”’(2004) 1 La Ley: Revista Jurídica Española de Doctrina, Jurisprudencia y Bibliografía 1561; Alberto Suárez Sánchez, Delitos contra el Patrimonio Económico (2nd edn, Universidad Externado de Colombia 2013) 598, where the insignificance principle is listed as one of the ‘Causas de exclusión del injusto penal en los delitos contra el patrimonio económico’; Hugo Arnaldo Bruera; Matilde Marina Bruera, ‘Derecho penal y Garantías Individuales’ (Editorial Juris 1997) 1–7, whose chapter one is titled ‘Falta de tipo por la insignificancia de la lesión al bien jurídico protegido’. In Portugal, the insignificance principle seems not to have received any measurable attention by the legal community.

  3. On the relevant concept of legal dogmatics for the civil law system, see Åke Frändberg, The Legal Order: Studies in the Foundations of Juridical Thinking (Springer 2018) 273–274 and Christian Bumke, Rechtsdogmatik: eine Disziplin und ihre Arbeitsweise. Zugleich eine Studie über das rechtsdogmatische Arbeiten Friedrich Carl von Savignys (Mohr Siebeck 2017).

  4. General crime theory (allgemeine Verbrechenslehre) is the core of criminal law thought in Germany and, given this abovementioned influence on other civil law countries, is partially to blame for the difficulties in translating into English several criminal law systems. As regards general crime theory, George Fletcher appears to think along the same lines: ‘The theme of German theory has been to develop what is called a Verbrechenslehre – a theory on the nature of criminal offenses abstracted from the particularities of legislation. The ideas and concepts spawned by this theoretical effort are often foreign to the Anglo-Saxon ear; some of them resist translation into English. Others, such as the notions of excuse and justification, bear a systemic significance far beyond that which they enjoy in Anglo-American theory. George P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2000) 407. For an introduction into general crime theory, see Johannes Wessels, Werner Beulke, and Helmut Satzger, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil: Die Straftat und ihr Aufbau (52nd edn C.F. Müller GmbH 2022) para 158–161, 180–637, and Tonio Walter, Der Kern des Strafrechts: die allgemeine Lehre vom Verbrechen und die Lehre vom Irrtum (Mohr Siebeck 2006).

  5. By statutory definition we refer to the concept of tipo penal, which – in Brazilian Portuguese legal jargon – designates each definition of criminal offenses made within a statute (codes or other pieces of legislation). A matching tipo penal is the most basic precondition for a given conduct to be considered a criminal offense. It is the equivalent of the German Tatbestand, a concept developed – in the criminal legal sense – by Ernst von Beling in the early 20th Century within his Tatbestandslehre. Its exact content varies according to the theoretical approach one chooses to adopt, but in today’s most accepted versions, it corresponds roughly to the common law doctrine of the elements of crimes. For an introduction to the concept in Portuguese, see André Luís Callegari, Teoria Geral do Delito e da Imputação Objetiva (3rd edn, Atlas 2014), 13, 87–146. About the concept in German, see Wessels, Beulke, and Satzger, supra note 4, para 180–393, and Walter, supra note 4, 51–80.

  6. Despite its importance, this aspect of the history of criminal law has received insufficient attention in specialized literature. See António Manuel Hespanha, ‘Da “Iustitia” à “Disciplina”: Textos, Poder e Política Penal no Antigo Regime’ in António Manuel Hespanha (ed), Justiça e Litigiosidade: História e Prospectiva (Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian 1993). Though referring more to the penitentiary system than to criminal law itself, the following classical studies are still useful to this subject: Georg Rusche and Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure (Transaction Publishers 2003), Dario Melossi and Massimo Pavarini, Carcere e Fabbrica: alle Origini del Sistema Penitenziario (XVI-XIX Secolo) (2nd edn, Il Mulino 1977), and Michel Foucault, Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison (Éditions Gallimard 1975).

  7. We refer here to the règlement de police in France and the Policeyordnungen in the German speaking territories, as well as their cognates in other regions.

  8. These ordinances, popular between the 16th and 18th Centuries, related to the protection of the internal order, or internal government, of the state. As they absorbed ever more aspects of public life, they slowly transformed into important means of government in the absolutist monarchies. In the 18th Century, in the German speaking territories, their study led to the so-called police science (Policeywissenschaft), a kind of applied social science of the internal government of the state whose content would later be dismembered and absorbed partly by public law (especially administrative law), administrative science (Verwaltungswissenschaft), political economy and, in what relates to social control and social disciplining, by criminal law. For a general overview on the relations between law and Policeywissenschaft in Germany, see Michael Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, vol 1: Reichspublizistik und Policeywissenschaft 1600 bis 1800 (Beck 1988). For the Policeywissenschaft in Portugal, see Airton L. C. L. Seelaender, ‘A “Polícia” e as Funções do Estado: Notas sobre a “Polícia” do Antigo Regime’ (2010) 49 Revista da Faculdade de Direito. Universidade Federal do Paraná 73; Airton L. C. L. Seelaender, Polizei, Ökonomie und Gesetzgebungslehre (Vittorio Klostermann 2003).

  9. Gesetzbuch über Verbrechen und schwere Polizey-Uebertretungen. Vol. 1: Von Verbrechen (2nd edn, K. K. Hof- und Staats-Aerarial-Druckerey 1815); Gesetzbuch über Verbrechen und schwere Polizey-Uebertretungen. Vol. 2: Von den schweren Polizey-Uebertretungen und dem Verfahren bey denselben (2nd edn, K. K. Hof- und Staats-Aerarial-Druckerey 1815).

  10. Concerning police science, see footnote 8. The influence of the theoreticians of police science on the 18th-century criminal law debate is an eloquent testimony of its importance to the formation of that period’s criminal law knowledge. Sonnenfels, long before writing the 1803 Austrian penal code, had contributed decisively to the debate about torture in Austria. On the relations between criminal law and police science in Sonnenfels, see Giorgio Rebuffa, ‘Scienza del Governo e Problema Penale nell’Opera di Joseph von Sonnenfels’ in Aldo De Maddalena; Ettore Rotelli; Gennaro Barbarisi (eds), Economia, Istituzioni, Cultura in Lombardia nell’Età di Maria Teresa, vol 2: Cultura e Società (Società editrice il Mulino 1982), 957–967. On the other hand, the case of Cesare Beccaria seems to be more nuanced. His first academic position was precisely as chair holder of cameralism (Kameralwissenschaft or scienze camerali in Italian), a wider 18th-century academic field that encompassed police science. But he used this position to introduce the physiocratic thought in Italy, as seem in his ‘Plan of instruction for the chair of cameralism, or civil economy’. Bearing in mind that physiocracy was the first step toward the obsolescence of cameralism and police science in the economic terrain and considering also that the disciplinary elements of Beccaria’s criminal legal thought seem to come from the French proto-utilitarianism (Helvetius, mainly), it appears to be questionable to suppose that Beccaria’s criminal law system was strictly within the police science tradition, as does Bernard E. Harcourt, ‘Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments: a Mirror on the History of the Foundations of Modern Criminal Law’ in Markus D. Dubber (ed), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2014). See (Cesare Beccaria, ‘Piano d’istruzioni per la cattedra di scienze camerali o sia di economia civile’ in Cesare Beccaria, Opere (Sergio Romagnoli ed, Sansoni, 1958). On the relations between Beccaria, cameralism, and modern economics, see Sophus A. Reinert, The Academy of Fisticuffs: Political Economy and Commercial Society in Enlightenment Italy (Harvard University Press 2018), and Wolfgang Rother, ‘The Beginning of Higher Education in Political Economy in Milan and Modena: Cesare Beccaria, Alfonso Longo, Agostino Paradisi’ in Mordechai Feingold (ed), History of Universities, vol. 19/1 (Oxford University Press 2004).

  11. Código Criminal do Império do Brasil (Carlos Antonio Cordeiro ed, Typ. De Quirino de Irmão, 1861).

  12. See, for instance, “Das” Strafgesetz über Verbrechen, Vergehen und Uebertretungen, die Strafgerichts-Competenz-Verordnungen und die Press-Ordnung vom 27. Mai 1852 für das Kaiserthum Oesterreich (kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei 1853). This nomenclature was adopted in Germany and Switzerland as well. In the latter, the Übertretungen are still part of the penal code.

  13. No wonder these offenses are also called ‘crimes of mere conduct’ in Brazil. In Italy, the same expression (reati di mera condotta) is used with a different, broader meaning, but it is generally understood that most of the contravvenzioni belong within this classification.

  14. [Paul Johann] Anselm [Ritter von] Feuerbach, Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts (Heyer 1847) 45ss.

  15. Goldschmidt received his habilitation in 1901 from the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin (today Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin). His thesis is based, to a large extent, on extensive comparative legal-historical research that seeks precisely in the police infractions the origin of the intersection between criminal law and administrative law. To this end, his dissertation is an excellent example of the historical school of law’s modus operandi, seeking to extract from the historical process itself a theory intrinsic in the legal experience and elaborate it systematically. Thus, the part about the legal-historical bases (subdivided in ‘The administrative epoch’ and ‘The legal period’) is followed by the part titled ‘Attempt of a Theory of Administrative Penal Law’. See James Paul Goldschmidt, Das Verwaltungsstrafrecht: eine Untersuchung der Grenzgebiete zwischen Strafrecht und Verwaltungsrecht auf rechtsgeschichtlicher und rechtsvergleichender Grundlage (Carl Heymanns Verlag 1902).

  16. On the concept of constitutional state that we refer to, see Christian Starck, Der demokratische Verfassungsstaat: Gestalt, Grundlagen, Gefährdungen (Mohr Siebeck 1995); Giuseppe Morbidelli, ‘La Costituzione’ in Giuseppe Morbidelli et al (eds), Diritto Pubblico Comparato (Giappichelli 2004) 27–72; Roberto Toniatti, ‘La Democrazia Costituzionale Repubblicana’ in Carlo Casonato (ed), Lezioni sui Principi Fondamentali della Costituzione (Giappichelli 2010) 35–81.

  17. It is often said that John Stuart Mill established the harm principle in his work On Liberty. For instance, Malcolm Thorburn, ‘Constitutionalism and the Limits of the Criminal Law’, in R. A. Duff, Lindsay Farmer, S. E. Marshall, Massimo Renzo, Victor Tadros (eds), The Structures of the Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011) 85. Mill does refer, in this work, to the prevention of ‘harm to others’ as the only thing that justifies that power ‘be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community’. See John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (John Gray and G. W. Smith eds, Routledge 2003) 30. However, he does not elaborate – at least, not explicitly – this idea as a principle and practically does not refer to criminal law in this work. In a more substantive analysis, Harcourt has denied Mill’s status as the creator of the criminal law harm principle. See Bernard E. Harcourt, ‘Mill's On Liberty and the Modern “Harm to Others” Principle’ in Markus D. Dubber (ed), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2014) 163–182. In any case, one could still argue that the harm principle of criminal law was derived, in the beginning, from Mill’s ideas, even though it acquired different meanings later on. Such statement could be ascertained or refuted only through research on the criminal law publications that first mentioned the principle. In today’s debate, on the other hand, the definition of its content and scope seems to escape the limitations imposed by Mill’s thought. See Nina Persak, Criminalising Harmful Conduct: The Harm Principle, its Limits and Continental Counterparts (Springer Science & Business Media 2007) and Joel Feinberg, Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 1984).

  18. Johann Michael Franz Birnbaum’s Über das Erforderniß einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens (‘On the necessity of a violation of a right to the concept of crime’) is frequently mentioned as the origin of the German legal good (Rechtsgut) theory. This understanding has been challenged, mainly because the discretion that Birnbaum assigns to the legislator in the definition of a legal good is too wide to work as an effective limitation of its criminalizing prerogative. See Markus D. Dubber, Grounding Criminal Law: Foundational Texts in Comparative-Historical Perspective in Markus D. Dubber (ed), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2014) 11–13. Consequently, Birnbaum’s Rechtsgut was fundamentally different in content from the Rechtsgut popularized in the second half of the 20th Century. See Johann Michael Franz Birnbaum, ‘Über das Erforderniß einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens’ in Johann Michael Franz Birnbaum, Zwei Aufsätze (José Luis Guzmán Dálbora and Thomas Vormbaum eds, LIT Verlag, 2011). On Birnbaum, see also in the same edition Thomas Vormbaum, ‘Birnbaum und die Folgen’ in Johann Michael Franz Birnbaum, Zwei Aufsätze (José Luis Guzmán Dálbora and Thomas Vormbaum eds, LIT Verlag 2011). On the history of the legal good theory in German criminal law, see the classic Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut" (Helbing & Lichtenhahn 1962).

  19. The names adopted in Portuguese (princípio da lesividade), Spanish (principio de lesividad), and Italian (principio di lesività, though principio di offensività is the more favoured expression, but with no difference in meaning) seem to be directly inspired by the name harm principle. Their translation back into English could be harmfulness principle. In their respective vernacular literature, the principle is repeatedly defined in reference to legal goods. See Israel Domingos Jorio, Latrocínio: a Desconstrução de um Dogma: da Inconstitucionalidade à Inexistência do Tipo Penal (Editora del Rey 2008) 47; Antonio Garcia-Pablos, Derecho Penal: Introducción (Servicio de Publicaciones de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid 1995) 265; Serena Maresca and Lucia Nacciarone, Compendio di Diritto Penale: Parte Generale e Speciale (Maggioli Editore 2014) 60. For a comparative analysis of harm principle and Rechtsgut, see Petra Wittig, ‘Rechtsgutstheorie, “Harm Principle” und die Abgrenzung von Verantwortungsbereichen’ in Roland Hefendehl; Andrew von Hirsch; Wolfgang Wohlers (eds), Die Rechtsgutstheorie: Legitimationsbasis des Strafrechts oder dogmatisches Glasperlenspiel? (Nomos 2003) 239–243. For a conscious and insightful attempt to merge the contributions of both traditions in the construction of an area of criminal law dogmatics, see Kai Ambos, ‘The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance Between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles. A Second Contribution Towards a Consistent Theory of ICL’ (2015) 9 Criminal Law and Philosophy: An International Journal for Philosophy of Crime, Criminal Law and Punishment 301.

  20. Hans Welzel, Das Deutsche Strafrecht: eine systematische Darstellung (11th edn Walter de Gruyter Verlag 1969) 4–6; Claus Roxin, Kriminalpolitik und Strafrechtssystem (Walter de Gruyter 1973) 24.

  21. Justus Krümpelmann, Die Bagatelldelikte: Untersuchungen zum Verbrechen als Steigerungsbegriff (Duncker und Humblot 1966), and Eduard Dreher, ‘Die Behandlung der Bagatellkriminalität’ in Günter Stratenwerth et al (eds), Festschrift für Hans Welzel zum 70. Geburtstag (Walter de Gruyter 1974) 917–940.

  22. We refer here to the elements of the so-called tripartite crime structure, also known as tripartite concept of crime. As part of German general crime theory, the concept of crime (Verbrechensbegriff) or crime structure (Verbrechensaufbau) defines the necessary attributes that every conduct needs to possess in order to be considered a crime. It was adopted by Brazilian criminal jurists together with the bulk of general crime theory, where it is best known as analytical concept of crime (conceito analítico de delito). The most accepted version is the abovementioned tripartite crime structure (dreigliedriger Verbrechensaufbau), which defines crime as having necessarily three attributes (conformity with the statutory definition, unlawfulness, and culpability) whose meanings will be commented upon opportunely. For an introduction to the dreigliedriger Verbrechensaufbau see Walter, supra note 4, 51–214.

  23. For example, Diomar Ackel Filho, who assures that ‘no tocante à origem, não se pode negar que o princípio já vigorava no direito romano, onde o pretor não cuidava, de modo geral, de causas ou delitos de bagatela, consoante a máxima contida no brocardo de minimis non curat praetor’. See Diomar Ackel Filho, ‘O Princípio da Insignificância no Direito Penal’ (1988) 94 Revista Jurisprudencial do Tribunal de Alçada Criminal de São Paulo 72, 73. See also Ivan Luiz da Silva, Princípio da Insignificância no Direito Penal, (Juruá 2010) 87; Lidia Losi Daher Zacharyas, ‘Princípio da Insignificância no Direito Penal’ (2012) 2 Revista Jurídica da Escola Superior do Ministério Público de São Paulo 245, 247.

  24. Augustini Barbosae, Tractatus Varii (Borde, Philippe & Arnaud, Laurent & Rigaud, Claude, 1660) 102.

  25. Roxin, supra note 20.

  26. As this one edited in Argentina: Claus Roxin, Política Criminal y Sistema del Derecho Penal (2nd edn, Hammurabi 2002). Among those who ascribe the theory to Roxin are, eg, Maurício Antônio Ribeiro Lopes, Princípio da Insignificância no Direito Penal: Analise à Luz da Lei 9.099/95: Juizados Especiais Penais e da Jurisprudência Atual, vol 2 (Revista dos Tribunais 1997) 45; Luiz Flávio Gomes and Antonio García-Pablos de Molina, Direito Penal: Parte Geral (Revista dos Tribunais 2007) 316; Luiz Flávio Gomes, Princípio da Insignificância e Outras Excludentes de Tipicidade (Revista dos Tribunais 2009) 52–53; Zacharyas, supra note 23, 247. Another one is Felipe da Costa Lorenzi, ‘O princípio da insignificância: fundamentos e função dogmática: uma leitura à luz do funcionalismo de Claus Roxin’ (2015) 57 Revista de Estudos Criminais. Porto Alegre 205, 206, 218, who makes a vague reference to the paper Verwerflichkeit und Sittenwidrigkeit as the ‘first time’ the principle was mentioned as ‘a general principle’ (p. 206), but – like the others – ends up analysing only the Kriminalpolitik and Roxin’s subsequent works.

  27. Claus Roxin, Política Criminal e Sistema Jurídico-Penal (Renovar 2002).

  28. Claus Roxin, ‘Verwerflichkeit und Sittenwidrigkeit als unrechtsbegründende Merkmale im Strafrecht’ (1964) 40 Juristische Schulung 373, 373–381, 1964. The paper was republished in Claus Roxin, ‘Verwerflichkeit und Sittenwidrigkeit als unrechtsbegründende Merkmale im Strafrecht’ in Claus Roxin, Strafrechtliche Grundlagenprobleme (Walter de Gruyter 1972) 184–208.

  29. An exception is Marco Antonio Santos Reis, ‘O que há de Significativo na Insignificância?’ (2016) 62 Revista do Ministério Público do Rio de Janeiro 115.

  30. Roxin, ‘Verwerflichkeit und Sittenwidrigkeit als unrechtsbegründende Merkmale im Strafrecht’ in Strafrechtliche Grundlagenprobleme, supra note, 193.

  31. For instance Luiz Flávio Gomes, ‘Delito de Bagatela: Princípios da Insignificância e da Irrelevância Penal do Fato’ (2001) 1 Revista Diálogo Jurídico 1, who cites Roxin’s work through Zaffaroni’s Tratado de Derecho Penal.

  32. On page 74 in the above-mentioned Spanish translation and page 24 in the German version. The work seems to be Klaus Tiedemann, ‘Die mutmaßliche Einwilligung, insbesondere bei Unterschlagung amtlicher Gelder’ (1970) 45 Juristische Schulung 108.

  33. ‘Strafgesetzbuch-StGB’.

  34. Normative Merkmale or normative Tatbestandsmerkmale are elements of the statutory definition of an offense that require a legal and value assessment to be ascertained, as opposed to the descriptive elements (or deskriptive Merkmale). See Wessels, Beulke, and Helmut, supra note 4, para 195–197. In this sense, besides being one of the sub-structures of the tripartite crime structure (see note 22), the unlawfulness (or Rechtswidrigkeit) is a value concept (Wertbegriff) whose content is found – in principle – in the law itself, or more precisely in the contrariety of the conduct to the entire body of the law.

  35. Unlawfulness, or Rechtswidrigkeit, is the second element of the German tripartite crime structure (dreigliedriger Verbrechensaufbau). It consists in the absence of any Rechtfertigungsgrund, a concept that in turn roughly corresponds to the common law concept of justification. For an introduction on Rechtswidrigkeit, see Wessels, Beulke, and Helmut, supra note 4, para 394–616.

  36. The complete translation would be as follows: ‘(1) Anyone who unlawfully coerces a person to act, tolerate an action, or refrain from acting by means of violence or threats of a sensitive evil is punished with imprisonment for up to three years or with a fine. (2) The act is unlawful if the use of violence or the threat of evil is to be considered reprehensible for the intended purpose’. The original reads as follows: ‘(1)Wer einen Menschen rechtswidrig mit Gewalt oder durch Drohung mit einem empfindlichen Übel zu einer Handlung, Duldung oder Unterlassung nötigt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft. (2) Rechtswidrig ist die Tat, wenn die Anwendung der Gewalt oder die Androhung des Übels zu dem angestrebten Zweck als verwerflich anzusehen ist.’ See Strafgesetzbuch 1871 § 240 (Germ.) Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__240.html

  37. While the translation of Tatbestandsirrtum (as ‘mistake of fact’) is quite straightforward, the translation of Verbotsirrtum into common law terms is a little more challenging. Literally, it means ‘prohibition mistake’ and is more than the mere ignorance of the law, but the ignorance of the possible unlawfulness of the conduct. In practical terms, it is roughly equivalent to the concept of unavoidable mistake of law, which is used in some national legal systems and has been welcomed into international criminal law. See Annemieke Van Verseveld, Mistake of Law: Excusing Perpetrators of International Crimes (Springer Science & Business Media 2012). The distinction between Tatbestandsirrtum and Verbotsirrtum is seen by some as problematic in general, and not only for that specific offense. See, for instance, Walter, supra note 4, 389–421.

  38. Roxin himself approaches the complex question of the Gesetzesbestimmtheit of the statutory definition of criminal offenses in the Kriminalpolitik. Roxin, supra note 20, 23.

  39. Roxin, ‘Verwerflichkeit und Sittenwidrigkeit als unrechtsbegründende Merkmale im Strafrecht’ in Strafrechtliche Grundlagenprobleme, supra note 28, 192. See Hellmuth Mayer, ‘Die gesetzliche Bestimmtheit der Tatbestände’ in Materialien zur Strafrechtsreform, vol 1: Gutachten der Strafrechtslehrer (Bundesminister der Justiz 1954) 259ss, 267ss. See also Rolf-Peter Calliess, Dialogisches Recht: Beiträge zur Rechtstheorie und zu den Grundlagen des Strafrechts im demokratischen und sozialen Rechtsstaat (Mohr Siebeck 2005) 115–116, 123–124, and Michael Köhler, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil (Springer-Verlag 2013) 88–89.

  40. The other principles are the Unlawfulness Principle (Rechtswidrigkeitsprinzip), the Principle of the Weighting of Goods (Güterabwägungsprinzip), the Principle of the Priority of State Coercion (Prinzip des Vorranges staatlicher Zwangsmittel), the Principle of the Lack of Connection (Prinzip des mangelnden Zusammenhanges), the Autonomy Principle (Autonomieprinzip). Roxin, ‘Verwerflichkeit und Sittenwidrigkeit als unrechtsbegründende Merkmale im Strafrecht’ in Strafrechtliche Grundlagenprobleme, supra note 28, 184–208, 193–194. We decline the task of describing the content of each of these principles since it exceeds our purpose here. See – besides their creator’s above cited text – also Wilfried Küper, Strafrecht Besonderer Teil: Definitionen mit Erläuterungen Grundbegriffe des Rechts (8th edn, CF Müller 2012) 244–245.

  41. Luís Greco and Alaor Leite, ‘Claus Roxin, 80 anos’ in Claus Roxin, Novos Estudos de Direito Penal (Alaor Leite ed, Luís Greco et al trs, Marcial Pons 2014), 31.

  42. In the original, it is said that ‘Hierher gehört ferner das sog. Geringfügigkeitsprinzip, das es bei den meisten Tatbeständen gestattet, bagatellarische Beeinträchtigungen von vornherein auszuscheiden [...]’ Roxin, supra note 20, 24. In the Spanish translation: ‘A esto pertenece además el llamado principio de la insignificancia, que permite en la mayoría de los tipos excluir desde un principio daños de poca importancia [...]’ Roxin, supra note 26, 73–74.

  43. Strafprozeßordnung 1877 § 153 (Germ.) Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__153.html.

  44. Since the 1960s, the old Übertretungen started being converted into Vergehen or into Ordnungswidrigkeiten (administrative offences) until 1974, when the remaining ones were revoked and the tripartite system was finally abolished. See the introduction to the law of Ordnungswidrigkeiten by Wolfgang Mitsch, Recht der Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Springer-Verlag 2013) 18.

  45. The most extensive studies in German about the subject still seem to be Krümpelmann, supra note 21, and Dreher, supra note 21, 917–940.

  46. In the original: ‘O conceito de delito de bagatela não está na Dogmática jurídica. Nenhum instrumento legislativo ordinário ou constitucional o define ou o acata formalmente, apenas podendo ser inferido na exata proporção em que se aceitam limites para interpretação constitucional e das leis em geral. É de criação exclusivamente doutrinária e pretoriana, o que se faz justificar estas como autenticas fontes do direito [...].’ Lopes, supra note 26, 45.

  47. Ivan Luiz da Silva, Princípio da Insignificância no Direito Penal (2nd edn, Juruá 2011) 79.

  48. Gomes and Molina, supra note 26, 231.

  49. Lopes, supra note 26, 79; Zacharyas, supra note 23, 247; Reis, supra note 29, 116.

  50. We refer here to the fragmentary character of criminal law, an idea that has been around since at least the early 1900’s – see Karl Binding, Lehrbuch des Gemeinen Deutschen Strafrechts, Besonderer Teil, Vol. 1 (2nd edn, Engelmann 1902) 20, and Welzel, supra note 20, 6 – but has gained traction after WWII. See Roxin, supra note 20, 24.

  51. Gomes, supra note 31, 2, 4, 10, 18; Paulo Queiroz, Do Caráter Subsidiário do Direito Penal (Del Rey 1998) 120, 125; Reis, supra note 29, 116, 133; Zacharyas, supra note 23, 247–248; Lorenzi, supra note 26, 216–218.

  52. Odone Sanguiné, ‘Observações sobre o Princípio da Insignificância’ (1990) 3/1 Fascículos de Ciências Penais 36, 47; Lopes, supra note 26, 65; Reis, supra note 29, 116, 119, 135; Gomes, supra note 31, 10, 17; Zacharyas, supra note 23, 247, 253.

  53. Welzel, supra note 20, 55–57.

  54. Gomes, supra note 31, 8; Zacharyas, supra note 23, 247, 252; Sanguiné, supra note 52, 36–50; Lopes, supra note 26, 118; Reis, supra note 29, 117.

  55. In the original: ‘o jus puniende (sic) só se encontra legitimado quando tiver por função reprimir condutas materialmente lesivas ao bem jurídico atacado’. Lopes, supra note 26, 86.

  56. See footnote 5.

  57. In Brazilian Portuguese legal jargon, tipicidade designates one of the sub-structures of the tripartite crime structure (see footnote 22). It refers to the attribute of conforming to the statutory definition of a criminal offense (tipo penal), first requisite for a given conduct to be considered a crime. Thus, it will be translated here as conformity with the statutory definition for lack of a meaningful cognate. More traditional crime theory only considers one kind of tipicidade, which corresponds to the formal one. The introduction of the material conformity consists, as said above, in an innovation. Tipicidade is the equivalent of the German Tatbestandsmäßigkeit. For an introduction to the concept in Portuguese, see Callegari, supra note 5, 36, 87–146. For an introduction to the concept in German, see Wessels, Beulke, and Helmut, supra note 4, para 180–393.

  58. See footnote 22.

  59. The adjective atípica, in Brazilian Portuguese legal jargon, is used to describe a conduct that lacks conformity with the statutory definition of a criminal offence and, therefore, does not have tipicidade. It is the equivalent of the German expressions nicht tatbestandsgemäß, nicht tatbestandsmäßig or, less commonly, tatbestandlos. In Portuguese, see Callegari, supra note 5, 87–146. In German, see Wessels, Beulke, and Helmut, supra note 4, para 180–393.

  60. The adjective típica, in Brazilian Portuguese legal jargon, is used to describe a conduct that possesses conformity with the statutory definition of a criminal offence and, therefore, has tipicidade. It is the equivalent of the German expressions tatbestandsgemäß or tatbestandsmäßig. In Portuguese, see Callegari, supra note 5, 36, 87–146. In German, see Wessels, Beulke, and Helmut, supra note 4, para 180–393.

  61. In the original: ‘O juízo de tipicidade, para que tenha efetiva significância e não atinja fatos que devem ser estranhos ao direito penal, por sua aceitação pela sociedade ou dano social irrelevante, deve entender o tipo na sua concepção material, como algo dotado de conteúdo valorativo, e não apenas sob seu aspecto formal, de cunho eminentemente diretivo. Para dar validade sistemática à irrefutável conclusão político-criminal de que o direito penal só deve ir até onde seja necessário, não se ocupando de bagatelas, é preciso considerar materialmente atípicas as condutas lesivas de inequívoca insignificância para a vida em sociedade. A concepção material do tipo, em conseqüência, é o caminho cientificamente correto para que se possa obter a necessária descriminalização de condutas que, embora formalmente típicas, não são mais objeto de reprovação social, nem produzem danos significativos aos bens jurídicos protegidos pelo direito penal.’ Carlos Vico Mañas, O Princípio da Insignificância como Excludente da Tipicidade no Direito Penal (Saraiva 1994) 53–54; Silva, supra note 23, 80; Gomes and Molina, supra note 26, 236–237; Gomes, supra note 31, 10, 21.

  62. The neologism ‘periculosity’ was introduced into English-speaking criminal literature from the criminological thought of the Italian positivist school. The term appears to have been abandoned in English, but its counterparts in the criminal law of Romance language-speaking countries (periculosidade, pericolosità, peligrosidad) are still used.

  63. In the original: ‘a) mínima ofensividade na conduta; b) nenhuma periculosidade social da ação; c) reduzido grau de reprovabilidade do comportamento; d) inexpressividade da lesão jurídica provocada.’ Gomes, supra note 26, 71. In a similar way, regarding specifically the crime of theft, Cleber Masson, Código Penal Comentado (2nd edn, Método 2014) 614.

  64. By culpability we refer to the concept of culpabilidade, which – in Brazilian Portuguese legal jargon – designates the third element of the tripartite crime structure. It is the equivalent of the German Schuld. Its nature and content varies according to different theoretical approaches, but in its more popular version – the purely normative culpability (rein normativer Schuldbegriff) by Hans Welzel – it is understood as a judgement of disapproval on the fact. It contains three elements (1- criminal responsibility, 2- potential knowledge of the unlawfulness, and 3- demandability of a different conduct), which can be eliminated by exculpation causes (roughly similar to the excuses of common law). In its previously dominant understanding, the so-called psychological culpability (psychologischer Schuldbegriff), it resembled more the common law concept of culpability, as found – for instance – in the US Model Penal Code. For an introduction about the concept in Portuguese, see Callegari, supra note 5, 36, 175–195. About the concept in German, see Wessels, Beulke, and Helmut, supra note 4, para 618–720 and Walter, supra note 4, 108–161.

  65. Habeas Corpus 118853/ES, Supremo Tribunal Federal, 1º turma (2014) Rel. Min. Luiz Fux. (Braz.). https://jurisprudencia.stf.jus.br/pages/search?base=acordaos&sinonimo=true&plural=true&page=1&pageSize=10&queryString=Habeas%20Corpus%20118853%2FES&sort=_score&sortBy=desc.

  66. See Martin Saal, Das Vortäuschen einer Straftat (§145 StGB) als abstraktes Gefährdungsdelikt (Dunckler und Humblot 1996) 116ss, especially the section titled ‘Geringfügigkeit als negatives Tatbestandsmerkmal’.

  67. In the original: ‘[…] os delitos de bagatela poderiam ser aquelas infrações que individualmente consideradas produzem lesão ou perigo de lesão de escassa repercussão social, razão pela qual não se justifica uma reação jurídica grave. [...] Assim também algumas manifestações delituosas não muito graves, punidas com pena de reclusão (como é o caso de alguns crimes patrimoniais de pouca monta cometidos sem violência ou grave ameaça).’ Lopes, supra note 26, 47–48.

  68. In the original: ‘Eine Mißhandlung ist nicht jede, sondern nur die erhebliche Beeinträchtigung des körperlichen Wohlbefindens; [...] Als „Gewalt“ sollte nicht jede geringfügige, sondern nur eine nachhaltige Behinderung gelten, so wie auch eine Drohung „empfindlich“ sein muß, um die Schwelle der Kriminalität zu überschreiten.’ Roxin, supra note 20, 24.

  69. In the original: ‘Auch macht nur eine streng rechtsgutsbezogene, auf den jeweiligen Unrechtstyp abstellende Auslegung deutlich, warum Geringfügigkeiten teils tatbestandlos sind und oft schon durch den Gesetzeswortlaut ausgeschieden werden, zum Teil aber auch, wie etwa Bagatelldiebstähle, den Tatbestand zweifelsfrei erfüllen: Eigentum und Gewahrsam werden auch durch den Diebstahl geringfügiger Gegenstände schon verletzt, während in anderen Fällen das Rechtsgut erst bei einer gewissen Intensität der Berührung beeinträchtigt wird.’ Claus Roxin, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil (4th edn, C. H. Beck 2006) 299. In general crime theory, the German term Unrechtstyp refers to the fusion of the conformity with the statutory definition (Tatbestandsmäßigkeit) with the unlawfulness (Rechtswidrigkeit). In other words, it is the hypothetical description (normally not found in any statute) of a conduct that conforms to a statutory definition of a crime (Tatbestand) and does not conform to any justification (Rechtfertigungsgrund), such as the right of self-defence (Notwehr). It corresponds to the terms tipo do injusto (in Portuguese) and tipo dell'illecito (in Italian). In English, we opted to refer to it as ‘definition of the illicit’.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study or to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. Instead, the corresponding research activities have been carried out during the author’s research hours in their capacity as university professor and with the material and equipment made available by their employer university for general research purposes.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Graduate Program in Law, Instituto Cesumar de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação – ICETI, UniCesumar, Avenida Guedner 1610, Maringá, PR, 87050-900, Brazil

    Alexander de Castro

Authors
  1. Alexander de Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander de Castro.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The author also declares that they do not have any financial or non-financial interests to disclose and certifies that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

The author hereby declares that all accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been observed in the conduction of the research activities that resulted in this manuscript. The research upon which this manuscript is based did not involve human participants, nor animals. Furthermore, no personal sensitive or confidential information is revealed in the text.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

*Professor of Criminal Law and Legal History at the Faculty of Law and Graduate Program in Law of UniCesumar, Avenida Guedner 1610, Maringá, PR 87050-900, Brazil. Researcher at the Instituto Cesumar de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação – ICETI. E-mails: alex.de.castro@hotmail.com, alexander.decastro@unicesumar.edu.br.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Castro, A. The Insignificance Principle between Germany and Brazil: a Cautionary Tale on Legal Imports. Crim Law Forum (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-024-09480-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-024-09480-4

Search

Navigation