Franz Exner

This article is about the criminologist Franz Exner. For the physicist Franz Serafin Exner, also known in literature as Franz Exner, and his father, the philosopher Franz Serafin Exner , see there.

Franz Exner

Franz Exner (born August 9, 1881 in Vienna , † October 1, 1947 in Munich ) was an Austrian - German criminologist and criminal lawyer . Alongside Edmund Mezger , Hans von Hentig and Gustav Aschaffenburg, he was one of the leading representatives of German-language criminology during the Weimar Republic and the time of National Socialism . At the time of the Weimar Republic, Exner made pioneering work in the field of German-language criminal sociology . On the other hand, the extent of his rapprochement with Nazi ideology and the extent of his entanglement within criminal biology at the time of National Socialism are still controversial .

Life

Childhood and adolescence, private life

Exner came from a family of scholars. His father Adolf Exner , professor of law (1841–1894), and his sister Marie Exner (mother of the zoologist and Nobel Prize winner Karl von Frisch ) had a deep friendship with Gottfried Keller . His grandfather Franz Serafin Exner , professor of philosophy in Vienna, was an important Austrian school reformer.

After he had been privately taught in his first four school years, Exner attended the " Schottengymnasium " in Vienna, from which he graduated in 1900 with the Matura . After a voluntary year in the Austro-Hungarian military , Exner studied law in Vienna and Heidelberg . He completed his studies after the three then usual state examinations in 1906 with the promotion of Dr. jur. This was followed directly by Franz Exner's legal traineeship, during which he was able to gain first practical experience as a candidate for the office of judge in Vienna. During his legal clerkship, he took leave of this for a one-year study visit (1907-1908) for the purpose of academic work at the criminalistic seminar of the criminal law reformer Franz von Liszt in Berlin .

In 1910 Franz Exner married Marianne Freiin von Wieser, the daughter of an Austrian professor and trade minister. Two children Adolf (1911–1941) and Nora (married von Braun, born 1914) reached adulthood, a third daughter died as a toddler. Marianne Exner suffered from depression and committed suicide in Vienna in 1920. The death of his wife and the mother of their children hit Franz Exner hard; he did not remarry.

Immediately after the outbreak of World War I , on August 2, 1914, Franz Exner was drafted as a lieutenant in the reserve to his regiment, which was cantoned in Salzburg during peacetime, and was stationed on the Dolomite front, where he took part in several heavy battles in the Mountain War 1915–1918 and received several awards has been. At the end of 1916, Exner was released for deployment at home with the rank of first lieutenant. The war experiences had a decisive influence on him and repeatedly influenced his further career.

Professional career

Exner became a private lecturer in Vienna in 1910 and then held professorships in Czernowitz (1912), Prague (1916), Tübingen (1919) and Leipzig (1921). On April 1, 1933, he accepted an appointment as professor for criminal law , criminal procedural law and criminology at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich .

In Exner's first semester in Munich it turned out that Franz Exner could not provide the “Aryan proof” required by the Professional Civil Service Act of April 7, 1933. As a so-called "front-line fighter" of the First World War, Exner remained in office for the time being, regardless of the grandmother complained of. Exner then became a member of the Association of National Socialist German Jurists, which had replaced the previous professional associations (from 1936: Nazi Legal Guardian Association ) and was not politically disadvantageous on record; only his distanced relationship to National Socialism was noted in the personal files as was his “Jewish descent”. His remaining in the apprenticeship company remained in jeopardy, however, as the standards were repeatedly tightened until the end of the war and so-called mixed Jewish people who had previously been tolerated were dismissed. In March 1941 Franz Exner survived such a follow-up examination, but was dismissed from the university's administrative board shortly afterwards. Since Exner had never belonged to the NSDAP , he kept his Munich professorship in contrast to many of his academic colleagues even in the course of the " denazification " that took place after May 8, 1945, during which he was classified as politically "unencumbered". When he died in 1947, he was one of the few well-known criminologists who had researched and taught under four different political systems - from the Austrian Danube Monarchy to the Weimar Republic and the “ Third Reich ” to the time of the Allied occupation.

Also worth mentioning are Exner's contacts with American criminology, in particular with Edwin H. Sutherland , with whom he had been correspondence since the late 1920s. During the summer semester of 1934 Exner undertook a study trip to the USA lasting several months, where he met Sutherland, Thorsten Sellin and Ernest W. Burgess in person. He then processed his experience of the American penitentiary system and its criminological research in a literary way in his criminalistic report on a trip to America (published in 1935 in the magazine for the whole of criminal law , ZSTW).

Franz Exner had been a member of the Austrian national group of the International Criminological Association (IKV) since 1911 . Exner was the editor of the Kriminalistische Abhandlungen (1926–1941) and since 1936 - together with the lawyer Rudolf Sieverts and the medical doctors Johannes Lange , Hans Reiter and Hans Bürger-Prinz - co-editor of the monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform (from 1937 monthly for criminal biology and criminal law reform ). In 1937 Exner was the third chairman of the " Criminal Biological Society ", an organization promoting interdisciplinary cooperation between academic forensic science, criminal biological investigative practice and administrative authorities. In 1945/46, together with Hermann Jahrreiß , he defended Colonel General Alfred Jodl , a member of the General Staff and the High Command of the Wehrmacht, who had been accused as a major war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials .

plant

overview

Franz Exner's criminal science work is in the tradition of his two academic criminal law teachers: the “modern” or “sociological” criminal law school of Franz von Liszt and the Swiss criminal lawyer and criminal politician Carl Stooß , whose ideas Exner developed independently. After completing his habilitation with Carl Stooß through a fundamental work on the subject of criminal law and legal philosophy on “the nature of negligence ”, he devoted himself mainly to criminal policy and criminological topics.

Exner campaigned for a continuation of the criminal law reform inspired by Franz von Liszt and Carl Stooß. In contrast to von Liszt, who advocated the concept of a “preventive protective punishment” - and thus a single-track criminal penalty system, Exner suggested - based on ideas from Carl Stooß - that the criminal justice system should be two-pronged: the system of repressive punishments was an independent one To compare the system of special preventive "security means". In this respect, Exner was a pioneer of today's criminal law, which is based on this very distinction between "penalties" and "measures" (called "security means" by Exner).

As a criminologist, Exner viewed crime both on the macro level as a general social phenomenon ("the crime in the life of society", or from 1939: "in the life of the national community") and on the micro level as an expression of the personality of the individual perpetrator. For Exner, the respective act was then a product resulting in a complex way from system and environmental factors : What becomes of a person's "system" depends on the one hand on the "environment" around them, on the other hand the nature and mode of action of the respective "environment" also to think again as influenced by the "facility". During the Weimar Republic, Exner initially emphasized the priority of social causes for the development of crime. Later, the “investment factors” moved much more into the foreground, displacing Exner's assumption that crime is in many ways also caused by social causes, but never completely.

Exner as a criminal sociologist

During the Weimar Republic, Franz Exner is seen as the most important representative of the emerging German-language criminal sociology. On a larger scale, Exner dealt with sociological issues for the first time in 1919 ( social and state criminal justice ). This was followed by the extensive treatise "War and Criminality" (1926) as well as critical studies on the preventive effects of the death penalty ( murder and death penalty in Saxony , 1929) and on empirical judicial research ( studies on the sentencing practice of the German courts , 1931). A summary and conceptual fixation of the criminal sociology then took place in his article "Kriminalsoziologie", written around 1932/33, which appeared in 1936 in the second volume of the then authoritative concise dictionary of criminology . Exner took the term “criminal sociology” in this last-mentioned publication surprisingly broadly for the time. He contrasted the "criminal sociology in the narrower sense" with a "criminal sociology in the broader sense":

Exner's definition of “criminal sociology in the narrower sense” can already be viewed as quite innovative for the time: He viewed criminal sociology as a value-free factual science. Your task is to describe the crime as a social phenomenon and to explain it in its social condition. This approach corresponded to the paradigm of an etiological (causal) criminology. Before Franz Exner, however, no German-speaking criminologist had presented a similar definition of the sociology of criminals that referred purely to the social causes of crime. Franz von Liszt, for example, who had already described crime as a "social phenomenon", had understood criminal sociology to be a kind of major discipline including criminal anthropology. The freedom of values ​​of the discipline was by no means undisputed. At the same time, Wilhelm Sauer - like Franz Exner criminal lawyer and criminologist - saw it as the task of criminal sociology to contribute to the ethicalization of criminal law; it (the KS) is a "not for but against the criminal" advocating, therefore expressly not value-free, science.

Finally, beyond the framework drawn by Franz von Liszt, Exner then proceeded with “criminal sociology in the broader sense”. The intention was to partially turn the criminal-sociological investigation program away from the “perpetrator” and the “act” towards dealing with the social and state references to the phenomenon of crime. The instances of social control and “society” should be analyzed on an equal footing with the actions of “criminals” as objects of criminological research. This (planned) expansion of the criminological object area was unique in the German-speaking area at the time.

The “Sociology of Crime Prosecution” was assigned the task of empirical research into the criminal justice system and the people working in it (judges, public prosecutors, etc.). In this context, his study of the sentencing practice of the German courts (1931) must be regarded as an early contribution to criminological research on justice. Based on an analysis of judicial statistical material from the years 1880 to 1927, Exner found in this study considerable changes in the penalties imposed and a divergence in the legal and judicial penalties. Exner attributed the differences between legal and judicial assessment to the fact that the judicial view, in contrast to the legal, is moralizing in the sense of an ethic of "everyday life". Following on from Max Weber's expression, Exner summed up that judicial action is essentially “traditional, not rational”. In addition, a “sociology of the conception of crime” should work out how the “society” judges the crime and reacts to criminal acts in order to be able to scientifically compare this point of view with the state approach. Exner had already done this in his first essay, Social and State Criminal Justice from 1919. At the time, he came to the conclusion that the social and state assessments of certain crimes (especially, but not only with regard to political offenses and negligence) differed considerably from one another. In contrast to the state, "society" tends towards a moralizing, retaliatory justice. She pays much more attention to details of the internal attitude towards the crime, which are more or less indifferent to the state's claim to punishment, and is sometimes even benevolent towards the political criminals.

By opening up such a broad field of research for criminal sociology as early as the early thirties, Exner anticipated the demands of the " critical criminology " and the labeling approach that only emerged in the German-speaking countries in the 1960s . Richard Wetzell therefore drew the conclusion that Exner must have been aware of the "partial social construction of the crime phenomenon" even then. However, this view can be countered by the fact that Exner continued to be interested in the practical application of his research results in criminal policy. For Exner's life, criminal sociology remained an - albeit largely autonomous - “auxiliary science of criminal law”. Exner's "broad understanding of criminal sociology" is therefore not to be assumed to have any critical intentions.

During the reign of National Socialism, Exner did not fall back on the questions of the KS in the broader sense. The corresponding chapters of his main work "Criminal Biology", published in 1939, were limited to the aetiological questions of "Criminal sociology in the narrower sense". In addition, Exner dedifferentiated his criminal-sociological approach by dropping the term “social condition” and replacing it with the more indefinite expression “environmental condition”. All innovative components of his criminal sociology were lost again in this way.

Exner's methodological and legal philosophical approach

Methodologically, Franz Exner orientated himself on the southwest German neo-Kantianism as well as on the neo-Kantian sociology of Max Weber .

In particular, Exner's insistence on a fundamental dichotomy of being and ought to be , according to which a "ought" can never be derived from "being" is influenced by Neo-Kantian principles . This basic thesis of Exner implies at the same time a methodological independence of criminology (science of what "what is") compared to criminal law science (science of what "should be"). In this context, Exner explicitly referred to the science of the Neo-Kantian Heinrich Rickert : As a science that strives for general laws, criminology in Rickert's sense is a nomothetical (based on scientific principles of knowledge) discipline.

Exner explicitly tied in with Max Weber's scientific teaching. His aim was to transfer his method of an "understanding sociology" to criminal sociology and psychology. In his textbook, he therefore considered it the most important task of criminology to "understand a crime empathetically" by grasping the subjective meaning that the perpetrator attached to his crime. Elsewhere, too, Exner leaned on various ideas of Max Weber, in particular on his distinction between “traditional” and “rational” actions (in the study of the sentencing practice of the German courts , see above in the text). Exner's efforts in this regard, however, stalled halfway. Whole areas of “understanding sociology”, especially the one that is typical of this fundamental, ideal approach , were not taken up at all by Exner.

With his reference to neo-Kantian basic theses, Exner was almost alone in the German-speaking area at the time of National Socialism: Hans Kelsen , whose “ pure legal theory ” is based on the philosophy of neo-Kantianism, emigrated to the USA . Gustav Radbruch , who also represented a neo-Kantian legal philosophy, had already lost his chair in 1933 for political reasons and between 1933 and 1945 officially only dealt with politically harmless topics. The majority of National Socialist legal theorists (explicitly in particular Hans Welzel , Karl Larenz and Georg Dahm ) rejected the philosophy of Neo-Kantianism on the grounds that the "essence of the German national community " (i.e. its "being") with its order (i.e. a "should") ) has grown together. In their view, a separation between “to be and should” should therefore be rejected as “un-German” and artificially.

In legal philosophy, Exner took a utilitarian approach. One of his core theses is that justice and expediency basically coincide. However, he makes a temporal difference between the two terms: What is now viewed as "just" may earlier have been viewed as "merely expedient". In this respect, what is considered “just” today is what is “useful” from yesterday. Insofar as criminal law falls back on moral ideas, it should never do so for mere moral reasons, but for “considerations of expediency”, since a criminal law that ignores the moral views of society cannot be sufficiently “expedient” due to a lack of social acceptance. To this extent consistent, Exner advocated a purely preventive (more precisely: general preventive) criminal theory and rejected any conceptual connection between punishment and retribution . This position of criminal theory, which he had advocated since 1912 at the latest, was represented by Exner until the end of his life, regardless of any changes in the political system.

Exner's work in National Socialism

General

In the years after 1933, Exner turned away from predominantly criminal sociological theses towards at least also criminal anthropological and “racially” based theses. Exner's argument at the time of the “Third Reich”, however, by no means completely ignored sociological questions. He always tried to portray the phenomenon of crime as a result of systemic and environmental causes. In addition, he emphasized that even what he believed to be “constitutional” dispositions to commit crimes were in turn partly environmental - based on the environmental influences that were decisive for previous generations. Therefore, in a review of the first edition of Exner's main work - "Criminal Biology" - Edmund Mezger was able to establish in 1939 that Exner's favorite discipline was evidently criminal sociology . It is also striking that the criminal biology in the Journal of the entire criminal jurisprudence under the heading Kriminalsoziologie and not under the heading also present Kriminalbiologie reviewed was. With regard to his behavior on specific questions of the National Socialist criminal policy, Exner is attested consistently with restraint in the secondary literature. He criticized uncritical references to the so-called " healthy popular feeling ", which he wanted to see put on an empirical basis. He spoke out in favor of a rational basis for criminal policy and criticized the purely "emotional" and emphatically irrational directions of National Socialist criminal policy, such as those represented by Georg Dahm , Friedrich Schaffstein and Roland Freisler .

Nevertheless, he now more frequently postponed criminal-sociological aspects in favor of “ racial ” or individual-genetically based criminal anthropological justification patterns after he had justified the overwhelming part of the development of crime with environmental changes in the twenties. In his essay “Volkscharakter und Verbrechen” (1938), he traced what he called “ Negro crime ” at the expense of social origins to “racial” causes and rejected the possibility of interpreting the phenomenon in a milieu-oriented manner as insufficiently explanatory. The reasoning in the corresponding chapters of his main work was somewhat more differentiated, but largely identical.

Criminological textbook: criminal biology in its basics

Exner's criminological textbook Criminal Biology in its Basics was first published in 1939. According to Richard Wetzell and Karl Peters, it was the most important German-language criminological textbook since Gustav Aschaffenburg's Das Verbrechen und seine Kampf , the third edition of which was last published in 1923. Forensic biology summarized the state of research in criminology at that time and was divided into the parts "System and Environment", "The crime in the life of the national community", "The perpetrator", "The deed" and "Applied criminal biology". In an introductory chapter, Exner reaffirmed the scientific independence of criminology from criminal law, which had already been emphasized in earlier publications (see above: Exner's methodological and legal-philosophical approach ). He also acknowledged a core problem of criminology that still exists today: the difficulties that arise for the discipline of criminology , which is based on scientific principles of knowledge, from the changing concept of crime (Exner's example: the impunity or criminal liability of homosexuality within different legal systems). However, he declared the difficulties solvable, since a largely consistent core criminal law could be peeled out.

The contemporary reviewer Hans Walter Gruhle - a psychiatrist - criticized the title of the work. In choosing the title of criminal biology, Exner was guided by trends that are otherwise scientifically unjustified. The title of "criminal biology", the Exner had chosen for his major work, is also misleading since Exner not criminal biology and criminal anthropology equated. He took the term “criminal biology” broadly and understood it to mean the entirety of criminal sociological, criminal anthropological and criminal psychological research, i.e. the discipline that is now commonly referred to as criminology . He described the problem of whether the facility or the environment deserved priority from a criminal aetiological perspective as very complex and did not commit to either one or the other.

All editions of the criminal biology , including the posthumously published third edition, contained racist passages. In the first two editions of "Kriminalbiologie" from 1939 and 1944 he traced the "criminality of the Jews " back to its "unchangeable nature" several times. These passages are interpreted as openly anti-Semitic even by the historian Richard Wetzell, who otherwise emphasizes the moderate character of the work . Exner also spoke - in all editions, including the third from 1949 - of a "neglect of the Gypsy tribes ". The criminal biology appeared in 1949 under the title Kriminologie in a version that was only cleared of the statements dealing with the "criminality of the Jews". Even in this post-war version he made explicit reference to the racist research of Robert Ritter - whose “hereditary studies” served the Nazis as a justification for persecuting and murdering “Gypsies” and “Gypsy hybrids”. In 1949 , Exner described the Yeniche as "wandering good-for-nothing and vagabonds" who "in their antisociality, even with blood mixing, would not know how to deny their 'blow'". However, the racist passages only took up a small part of the work. The chapters that dealt with the criminogenic “disposition” of the perpetrator, in addition to the above sections, mainly related to individual genetic factors in which the concept of “race” played no role.

Exner and the Community Aliens Act

In 1943, Exner, like his Munich faculty colleague Edmund Mezger, was involved in the preparations for the “ Law on the Treatment of Community Foreigners ” (often referred to as Community Foreigners Act) planned by the Reich Ministry of Justice . This law should be the ongoing deliveries to the SS (d. H. Consignments in concentration camps) of in-correctional Jews, Roma, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and non-Jewish Germans, who for more than eight years ' imprisonment had been convicted, according to the so-called Put final victory in law. Exner's collaboration can be reconstructed on the basis of an exchange of letters dated from March to June 1943 between the Ministerialrat in the Reich Ministry of Justice Otto Rietzsch and the two professors Edmund Mezger and Franz Exner. He commented on the drafts in their current version, commented on Edmund Mezger's suggestions in this regard and also introduced his own suggestions for wording in the process of preparing the law. The criminal law historian Muñoz-Conde, who focused on Edmund Mezger's role in the creation of the law, raised serious allegations against both Edmund Mezger and Franz Exner in this context. Precisely because of their scientific reputation, they were in a position to give the eugenic selection of people, cast in legal form, the academic and legal legitimation through the “Community alien law”.

A more recent study does not deny Exner's involvement in the draft legislation, but emphasizes that Exner - in contrast to Edmund Mezger - took a rather critically distant position in the preparation of the law. His correspondence with the Reich Ministry of Justice documented that Exner - according to Lorenz / Scheerer - "was diligent in terms of the language, but was critical of the matter" at the constitutionally questionable vagueness of the planned law. Exner had criticized both the “scope for arbitrariness opened up with regard to the vagueness of the terms” and the level of the planned sanctions in the draft law. The authors of the study particularly emphasize what they consider to be the “astonishingly sharp tone” of this criticism. For the first time, they base their theses on an - initially still provisional - evaluation of Franz Exner's estate, which was only discovered in 2004, and on a more detailed analysis of his correspondence with the Reich Ministry of Justice.

Despite Exner's criticism of some of the formulations of the drafts, the competent Ministerialrat Rietzsch was satisfied with his collaboration on the Community Foreigners Act. Just like Mezger, Exner had made valuable suggestions for the version of the draft law approved by the Reich Minister of Justice. Rietsch therefore instructed the Reichshauptkasse in a letter dated May 24, 1943 to pay out 1,000 Reichsmarks each to Edmund Mezger and Franz Exner as an expense allowance for their work. In the same letter he described Mezger and Exner as "currently our best experts on criminal biology". The exact wording of the text is

"[...] Both gentlemen, who are currently our best experts on forensic biology and who have written authoritative works in this field, have dealt with the draft in detail and given valuable suggestions for the version, which the police officers and lecture now have of the Minister have agreed. [...] "

criticism

Overall, the role of Exner in National Socialism is assessed very differently. When in the 1980s the discussion about the role of criminology and individual criminologists in the Nazi state began, Exner was accused of losing the title of his textbook - 1939 (1st edition) and 1944 (2nd edition) Criminal Biology , 1949 (3rd edition) then criminology  - adapted to the general political weather conditions and to have adapted the discipline of “criminology” to the individual needs of the criminal justice system to the point of arbitrariness. In this context, Exner was also accused of having limited his scientific self-criticism in the post-war edition to omitting the racist passages about the crime of Jews.

Ina Pfennig is also critical. In view of the socio-political demands of other forensic biologists, the figure of Exner may still seem relatively harmless - he tried not to completely lose sight of the connection between disposition, environment and personality. However, his scientific work has shown a continuous development from his studies initially oriented towards criminal law and criminal sociology to later fully regime-compliant statements in "criminal biology". The direct use and abuse of criminological theories by the Nazi state could not and should not remain hidden.

Richard Wetzell's assessment was quite different. Exner always attached importance to a neutral scientific point of view and judged the criminal etiological importance of the two factors “facility” and “environment” as balanced overall. Like many of his specialist colleagues, Exner did "normal science" during the time of National Socialism - largely uninfluenced by political currents.

Imanuel Baumann recently opposed Wetzell's thesis of the politically harmless “normal science”. It was precisely the results of a methodically strictly scientific procedure without “crude biological determinism ” (Baumann) that were of interest for the National Socialist criminal policy. Baumann therefore particularly criticizes Exner's membership in the "Criminal Biological Society", which sought close cooperation between representatives of the "forensic mainstream" - as Franz Exner was -, the " Reich Health Office " and other administrative bodies.

Quotes from Franz Exner

“The war was the strongest conceivable confirmation of the predominant influence external conditions, economic conditions, in short the milieu, have on the development of crime, because from a criminalist point of view, the war was nothing more than a rapid milieu shift with equally gigantic criminal consequences. We see from this that the best criminal policy will always be a good social policy. "

- Exner as a criminal sociologist, 1926 : "War and Crime", p. 14

“If that is correct (Exner had previously referred to, in his view,“ racial ”differences between the populations of northern and southern Italy), the relationship to the climate that was emphasized earlier will probably be done away with. We are dealing with biologically different people with socially different behavior. "

- Exner as a criminal anthropologist, 1939 : “Volkscharakter und Verbrechen”, p. 412

“The delinquency of Jews has some very clear characteristics, and the question can only be: Can they be traced back to the racial characteristics of the Jew? This has been denied by some […]. Indeed, the overall picture of Jewish delinquency is strikingly in line with the basic characteristics of Jewish nature. Just as the Jews use their heads more than their hands in their social behavior, so it is also in their anti-social behavior. […] The fact that Jews in other countries seem to show a similar criminal offense also speaks in favor of the assumption of racially determined crime against the Jews. "

- Exner as an anti-Semite, 1944 : "Kriminalbiologie", 2nd edition, p. 58 f.

“ Lombroso and his successors [...] came to the assumption of an anthropological type of“ criminal ”. - A good part of these observations did not stand up to verification. [...] The concept of crime comes from the world of human values, its content changes according to peoples and times. Therefore it is absolutely impossible to make generally valid statements about the physique of "the criminal". [...] So says v. Rohden that 'nowadays there is almost nothing left of Lombroso's criminal morphology'. "

- Exner as a critic of Lombroso, 1944 : "Kriminalbiologie", 2nd ed., P. 151 f.

Fonts

• The defamation by false advertisement. In: Five Criminal Law Treatises. Dedicated to Carl Stooß. Vienna 1907, pp. 58–75.
• The essence of negligence. Leipzig and Vienna 1910.
• What is criminal policy? In: Austrian Journal for Criminal Law. 30, 1912, pp. 275-282.
• The theory of securing means. Berlin 1914.
• The criminal policy of the Swiss draft criminal law. In: Swiss Journal for Criminal Law. 30, 1917, pp. 189-201.
• Social and state criminal justice. In: Journal for the entire field of criminal law. 40, 1919, pp. 1-29.
• About justice in terms of punishment. Tubingen 1920.
• The reforming and safeguarding measures in the German draft of 1919, taking into account the Swiss draft of 1918. In: Swiss journal for criminal law. 34, 1921, pp. 183-198.
• Justice and Justice. Leipzig 1922.
• The psychological classification of criminals. In: Swiss Journal for Criminal Law. 38, 1925, pp. 1-22.
• War and crime. Leipzig 1926.
• On the practice of sentencing. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 17, 1926, pp. 365-374.
• War and crime in Austria. Vienna 1927.
• The implementation of the corrective and protective measures. In: Lothar Frede, Max Grünhut (ed.): Reform of the penal system. Critical contributions to the official draft of a penal law. Berlin, Leipzig 1927.
• Criminal Law and Morals. In: 44th yearbook of the prison society of the province of Saxony and Anhalt. 1928, pp. 19-44.
• Murder and the death penalty in Saxony, 1855–1927. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 20, 1929, pp. 1-17.
• The Borstal system. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 21, 1930, pp. 473-480.
• Unit: The fight against professional crime. In: Communications of the International Criminological Association, New Series. 5, 1931, pp. 34-56.
• On the clinical method in criminology lessons. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 22, 1931, pp. 613-616.
• Studies on the sentencing practice of the German courts. Leipzig 1931.
• The Reich criminal statistics for 1930. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 24, 1933, pp. 424-426.
• Development of the Administration of Criminal Justice in Germany. In: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 24, 1933/1934, pp. 248-259.
• American Criminal Law Against Customs Crimes. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 25, 1934, pp. 436-440.
• The system of safeguarding and improving measures according to the law of November 24, 1933. In: Journal for the entire criminal law science. 53, 1934, pp. 629-655.
• Judge, prosecutor and accused in criminal proceedings in the new state. In: Journal for the entire field of criminal law. 54, 1935, pp. 1-14.
• Criminal report on a trip to America. In: Journal for the entire field of criminal law. 54, 1935, pp. 345-393 and pp. 511-543.
• Criminal Sociology. In: A. Elster, H. Lingemann: Concise dictionary of criminology. Volume 2. Berlin, Leipzig 1936, pp. 10-26.
• Tasks of criminology in the new realm. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 27, 1936, pp. 3-16.
• Comments on Stumpfl: Hereditary disposition and crime. Criminal observations. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 27, 1936, pp. 336-339.
• with Johannes Lange : The two basic problems of criminology. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 27, 1936, pp. 353-374.
• About relapse predictions. In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform. 27, 1936, pp. 401-409.
• The prognosis for relapse criminals. In: Communications of the Criminal Biological Society. 5, 1937, pp. 43-54.
• Comments on the above article by Dr. H. Trunk on "Social prognoses for prisoners". In: Monthly for criminal biology and criminal law reform. 28, 1937, pp. 227-230.
• The Reich Crime Statistics from 1934 and the development of crime since the national revolution. In: Monthly for criminal biology and criminal law reform. 29, 1938, pp. 336-343.
• The destitute hikers before the criminal courts. In: Bayerischer Landesverband für Wanderdienst, Munich (Hrsg.): The non-settled person. A contribution to the redesign of the spatial and human order in the Greater German Reich. Munich 1938, pp. 89-95.
• National character and crime. In: Monthly for criminal biology and criminal law reform. 29, 1939, pp. 404-421.
• Expert opinion on the topic: Organization of crime prevention in the different countries. In: Roman Congress of Criminology. Berlin 1939, pp. 303-308.
• Forensic biology. Hamburg 1939. 2nd edition 1944. 3rd edition: Criminology. Berlin 1949.
• The regulation for the protection against juvenile felons. In: Journal for the entire field of criminal law. 60, 1941, pp. 335-353.
• How do you recognize the dangerous habitual criminal? In: German Justice. 11, 1943, pp. 377-379.
• Change of heart in the latest development of punishment. In: Festschrift for Eduard Kohlrausch. 1944, pp. 24-43.
• Criminal Procedure Law. Berlin, Heidelberg 1947.

literature

About Franz Exner

• Edmund Mezger:  Exner, Franz. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 4, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1959, ISBN 3-428-00185-0 , p. 700 ( digitized version ).
• Karl Peters: Franz Exner. In: Ferdinand Elsener (Hrsg.): Life pictures for the history of the Tübingen law faculty. Tübingen 1977, pp. 153-164.
• Ina Pfennig: Criminal Biology in National Socialism - The Example of Franz Exner. In: Hermann Nehlsen, Georg Brun (Hrsg.): Munich legal historical studies on National Socialism. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Vienna 1996, pp. 225-255.
• Sebastian Scheerer, Doris Lorenz: On the 125th birthday of Franz Exner (1881–1947). In: Monthly for criminology and criminal law reform . 89, 2006, pp. 436-454.
• Andrea Elisabeth Sebald: The criminal biologist Franz Exner (1881-1947). A scientist's tightrope walk through the era of National Socialism. Frankfurt am Main 2008, ISBN 978-3-631-57975-6 .
• Walter Fuchs: Franz Exner (1881-1947) and the community alien law. On the barbarization potential of modern criminal science. Lit, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-8258-1990-3 .
• Thorsten Kruwinnus: The narrow and broad understanding of the sociology of crime at Franz Exner. A comparative work-immanent preliminary study. Lit, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-643-10162-4 .

On the history of criminology and the history of criminal law

• Eberhard Schmidt: Introduction to the history of the German criminal justice system. 3. Edition. Goettingen 1965.
• Franz Streng : The contribution of criminology to the emergence and justification of state injustice in the Third Reich. In: Monthly for criminology and criminal law reform. 76, 1993, pp. 141-168.
• Richard F. Wetzell: Inventing the Criminal. A History of German Criminology 1880-1945. Chapel Hill, London 2000.
• Imanuel Baumann: On the trail of crime. A history of criminology and criminal policy in Germany 1880–1980. Göttingen 2006, especially pp. 55–113.

Web links

• Literature by and about Franz Exner in the catalog of the German National Library
• Franz Exner in the professorial catalog of the University of Leipzig

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Irmgard Smidt (Ed.): From Gottfried Keller's happy time. The poet in correspondence with Marie Exner and Adolf Exner. Stäfa, Gut, Berlin 1981.
2. ↑ See on this and all other biographical details: Sebastian Scheerer and Doris Lorenz: On the 125th birthday of Franz Exner . In: Monthly for criminology and criminal law reform . 89 (2006), pp. 436–454 and Andrea Elisabeth Sebald: The criminal biologist Franz Exner. A scientist's tightrope walk through the era of National Socialism , Frankfurt a. M. 2008.
3. ↑ Doris Lorenz: 145 years of "Exnerei". Family and life of the criminal lawyer and criminologist Franz Exner (1881–1947). A biographical sketch. Diss. Hamburg 2013, pp. 257–289.
4. ↑ Andrea Elisabeth Sebald: The criminal biologist Franz Exner (1881-1947). A scientist's tightrope walk through the era of National Socialism. Frankfurt am Main 2008, pp. 42–43.
5. ↑ Doris Lorenz: 145 years of "Exnerei". Family and life of the criminal lawyer and criminologist Franz Exner (1881–1947). A biographical sketch. Diss. Hamburg 2013, pp. 177–186.
6. ↑ Andrea Elisabeth Sebald: The criminal biologist Franz Exner (1881-1947). A scientist's tightrope walk through the era of National Socialism. Frankfurt am Main 2008, pp. 57, 62-70.
7. ↑ Andrea Elisabeth Sebald: The criminal biologist Franz Exner (1881-1947). A scientist's tightrope walk through the era of National Socialism. Frankfurt am Main 2008, pp. 67-70, 325-326.
8. ↑ For the persecution of Jewish mixed race see Beate Meyer: Jüdische Mischlinge. Racial Politics and Persecution Experience 1933-1945. Hamburg 3rd edition 2007 pp.
9. ↑ Andrea Elisabeth Sebald: The criminal biologist Franz Exner (1881-1947). A scientist's tightrope walk through the era of National Socialism. Frankfurt am Main 2008, pp. 69-70.
10. ↑ Imanuel Baumann: The crime on the track, A history of criminology and criminal policy in Germany 1880-1980 . Göttingen 2006, p. 96.
11. ↑ Regarding Exner's classification as a “Liszt student” cf. Monika Frommel : Prevention models in the German discussion of the purpose of punishment - relationships between legal philosophy, dogmatics, legal policy and empirical sciences . Berlin 1987, especially pp. 25–31 and p. 83.
12. ↑ Cf. on this Franz Exner: The theory of security means . Berlin 1914.
13. ↑ Franz Exner, Kriminalbiologie , 2nd edition, Hamburg 1944, p. 35.
14. ↑ cf. Franz Exner: War and Crime . Leipzig 1926, p. 14: "The war was the strongest possible confirmation of the overwhelming influence (...) the milieu has on the development of crime (...)."
15. ^ Richard Wetzell: Inventing the Criminal, A History of German Criminology 1880-1945 . Chapel Hill / London 2000, p. 116: "[Exner was] Germany's preeminent criminal sociologist".
16. ↑ See Richard Wetzell: Inventing the Criminal , Chapel Hill and London 2000, p. 116: "A remarkably broad conception".
17. ^ ^{A b c} Franz Exner: Kriminalsoziologie . In: A. Elster, H. Lingemann (Hrsg.): Concise dictionary of criminology . Volume 2, Berlin and Leipzig 1936, pp. 10-26, pp. 10 f.
18. ↑ See Thorsten Kruwinnus, The narrow and the wide understanding of criminal sociology in Franz Exner. A comparative work-immanent preliminary study , Berlin 2009, p. 28 ff.
19. ↑ See e.g. B. Franz von Liszt: Criminal Law Essays and Lectures , Volume Two, Berlin 1905, p. 78: “ By criminal sociology, I understand the scientific research into crime as a manifest phenomenon [...]. In this sense, what I do not need to go into any further here, the term includes what is known as criminal anthropology. "
20. ^ Wilhelm Sauer: Kriminalsoziologie , Berlin 1933, p. VI.
21. ↑ Thorsten Kruwinnus: The narrow and the broad understanding of the criminal sociology in Franz Exner. A comparative work-immanent preliminary study , Berlin 2009, pp. 41–44.
22. ^ Richard Wetzell: Inventing the Criminal - A History of German Criminology, 1880-1945 . Chapel Hill and London 2000, p. 116.
23. ↑ Thorsten Kruwinnus: The narrow and the broad understanding of the criminal sociology in Franz Exner. A comparative work-immanent preliminary study. Berlin 2009, pp. 49-52.
24. ↑ ^{a b} cf. B. Franz Exner: criminal biology . 2nd Edition. Hamburg 1944, p. 11.
25. ^ Franz Exner: Kriminalsoziologie. In: A. Elster, H. Lingemann (Hrsg.): Concise dictionary of criminology . Volume 2, Berlin and Leipzig 1936, pp. 10–26, p. 26.
26. ^ Franz Exner: Kriminalbiologie . 2nd Edition. Hamburg 1944, p. 16 f.
27. ↑ Thorsten Kruwinnus: The narrow and the broad understanding of the criminal sociology in Franz Exner. A comparative work-immanent preliminary study , Berlin 2009, p. 105.
28. ↑ Cf. Karl Larenz: German renewal of law and legal philosophy . Tübingen 1934; Hans Welzel: Naturalism and philosophy of values ​​in criminal law . Mannheim-Berlin-Leipzig 1935, especially p. 41 ff .; Georg Dahm: Crime and Facts . In: Karl Larenz (Ed.): Basic questions of the new jurisprudence. Berlin 1935, pp. 62-107.
29. ^ Cf. Franz Exner: About justice in punishment . Tubingen 1920.
30. ↑ See Franz Exner: Criminal Law and Moral . In: 44th yearbook of the prison society of the province of Saxony and Anhalt. 1928, p. 29.
31. ↑ Franz Exner: The theory of security means . Berlin 1914, p. 25 ff.
32. ↑ See Exner's essay Was ist Kriminalpolitik . In: Austrian Journal for Criminal Law. 1912, pp. 275-282.
33. ↑ Last time explicitly in this sense Exner: Change of meaning in the latest development of punishment . In: Festschrift for Eduard Kohlrausch . 1944, pp. 24-43.
34. ^ ^{A b} See instead of many documents: Franz Exner: Kriminalbiologie , 2nd edition. Hamburg 1944, pp. 32-39.
35. ^ Edmund Mezger: Kriminalbiologie (review). In: Journal of the Academy for German Law . (1940), pp. 29-30.
36. ↑ Hellmut v. Weber: Franz Exner, criminal biology in its basics (review). In: Journal for the entire field of criminal law . 59, pp. 681-685 (1940).
37. ↑ Cf. only the statements made by Ina Pfennig, who is otherwise critical of Exner, in: Kriminalbiologie im Nationalsozialismus - Das example Franz Exner . In: Hermann Nehlsen, Georg Bruhn (Ed.): Munich legal historical studies on National Socialism . Frankfurt a. M. u. a. 1996, pp. 225-255, here p. 254.
38. ^ Franz Exner: The tasks of criminology in the "new realm" . In: Monthly for criminal psychology and criminal law reform . 27 (1936), p. 1 ff.
39. ^ Franz Exner: People's character and crime . In: Monthly for criminal biology and criminal law reform . 29 (1939), pp. 404-421.
40. ^ Franz Exner: Kriminalbiologie . 2nd Edition. Hamburg 1944, pp. 43-44. Exner emphasizes here somewhat more strongly than in the essay Volkscharakter und Verbrechen the entangled “investment-environmental aspect” of the problem.
41. ^ Richard Wetzell: Inventing the Criminal. A History of German Criminology 1880-1945 . Chapel Hill and London 2000, p. 214; Karl Peters: Franz Exner. 1881-1947 . In: Ferdinand Elsener (Hrsg.): Life pictures for the history of the Tübingen law faculty . Tübingen 1977, pp. 153-164, pp. 162 ff.
42. ^ Franz Exner: Kriminalbiologie . 2nd Edition. Hamburg 1944, pp. 12-14.
43. ↑ Hans Walter Gruhle: The research and treatment of crime in the years 1938-1940 . In: progress in neurology, psychiatry and their border areas 14 (1942), pp. 123–168, here p. 124.
44. ↑ This is also emphasized by Karl Peters, in: Karl Peters: Franz Exner. 1881-1947 . In: Ferdinand Elsener (Ed.), Pictures of Life on the History of the Tübingen Faculty of Law . Tübingen 1977, pp. 153-164, here p. 162.
45. ^ Franz Exner: Kriminalbiologie . 2nd Edition. Hamburg 1944, p. 20.
46. ^ Compare only Franz Exner: Kriminalbiologie . 2nd Edition. 1944, p. 31 ff., In particular p. 33: The relationship between the system and the environment is thus characterized by “as well as”, not by a strict “either-or” [...].
47. ^ Richard Wetzell: Inventing the Criminal. A History of German Criminology 1880-1945 . Chapel Hill / London 2000, p. 216.
48. ↑ Volker Berbüsse: The image of "the gypsy" in German-language criminological textbooks since 1949. A first inventory . (PDF; 356 kB) In: Wolfgang Benz (Hrsg.): Yearbook for Research on Antisemitism , Vol. 1, Frankfurt a. M. 1992, pp. 117-151.
49. ^ Franz Exner: Criminology . 3. Edition. Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg 1949, p. 115.
50. ^ Compare only Franz Exner: Kriminalbiologie , 2nd edition. 1944, pp. 126-253 (“Der Täter”), where Exner only deals with the individual genetic makeup of the perpetrator, without just using the concept of “race”.
51. ↑ On the drafts for a community alien law cf. Wolfgang Ayaß (edit.): “Community strangers”. Sources on the persecution of "anti-social" 1933–1945 , Koblenz 1998.
52. ^ ^{A b} Francisco Muñoz-Conde: Edmund Mezger and the criminal law of his time. ( PDF, p. 9–14, p. 11. ( Memento from July 22, 2007 in the Internet Archive ))
53. ^ Kai Naumann: Prison execution in the Third Reich and thereafter. ( Memento of the original from December 16, 2004 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
54. ↑ According to Muñoz-Conde, the working draft for the “Community Alien Law” was “primarily Mezger's work” (Francisco Muñoz-Conde: The Other Side of Edmund Mezger: His Participation in the Draft of the “Community Alien Law” (1940–1944). In: Yearbook der legal contemporary history, vol. 3. Baden-Baden 2001/2002, pp. 237-258, p. 244).
55. ↑ Sebastian Scheerer, Doris Lorenz: For the 125th birthday of Franz Exner. In: Monthly magazine for criminology and criminal law reform 89 (2006), pp. 436–455, here p. 449.
56. ↑ Doris Lorenz, Sebastian Scheerer: For the 125th birthday of Franz Exner. P. 450.
57. ^ Letter from Ministerialrat Rietsch of May 24, 1943, in: BArch, R 22/943; the specific letter of May 24, 1943: [p. 333] 12/3-VIIIa² 916/43 (333) (346).
58. ↑ These accusations were made primarily by Franz Streng. Explicitly Franz Streng: The contribution of criminology to the emergence and justification of state injustice in the Third Reich. In: Monthly for criminology and criminal law reform. 76 (1993), pp. 141-168, pp. 162 f. See also Marlies Dürkop: On the function of criminology in National Socialism. In: Udo Reifner, BR Sonnen (ed.): Criminal justice and police in the Third Reich. Frankfurt a. M. u. New York 1984, pp. 97-120 as well as the assessment of Ina Pfennig, in: Ina Pfennig: Kriminalbiologie im Nationalozialismus - Das example Franz Exner. In: Hermann Nehlsen, Georg Bruhn (Ed.): Munich legal historical studies on National Socialism. Frankfurt a. M. u. a. 1996, pp. 225-255, which, however, also (on p. 254) points out that Exner never took a one-sided criminal biological standpoint.
59. ^ Ina Pfennig: Criminal Biology in National Socialism - The Example of Franz Exner. In: Hermann Nehlsen, Georg Bruhn (Ed.): Munich legal historical studies on National Socialism. Frankfurt a. M. u. a. 1996, pp. 225-255, p. 254.
60. ^ Richard Wetzell: Inventing the Criminal - A History of German Criminology, 1880-1945. Chapel Hill / London 2000, pp. 220, 221.
61. ↑ Imanuel Baumann: On the trail of crime. A history of criminology and criminal policy in Germany 1880–1980. Göttingen 2006, p. 93.
62. ↑ Imanuel Baumann: On the trail of crime. A history of criminology and criminal policy in Germany 1880–1980. P. 96.
63. ↑ In the third edition of his main work, which appeared posthumously in 1949, Exner had removed these passages without comment. An explanation for this has not yet been provided by research in the history of criminology.

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on June 5, 2007 in this version .