Debt interlocut

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schuldinterlokut in Criminal means the division of the main hearing in recognition proceedings and punishment procedures. First, evidence of guilt or innocence is raised and a decision is made with an interlocutory judgment ("interlocut"). Only in the case of guilt is evidence taken of circumstances that affect the amount of the penalty .

For accused who have been acquitted , this division has the advantage that details from private life that are relevant to the sentencing, such as any previous convictions, curriculum vitae, income and childhood, do not necessarily reach the public. For the defense, the division of the proceedings has the advantage that, in the case of an application for acquittal, they do not have to weaken their own arguments in the pleading with statements on the penalty in the event of a conviction (so-called defender's dilemma). If the main hearing is divided into two parts, the defense can initially obtain an acquittal, e.g. B. due to lack of evidence . In the second part of the procedure, after the evidence has been provided, she then has the opportunity to plead without contradiction and comprehensively on all points of the sentencing. In the case of a uniform main hearing with a single plea, however, the defense may have to forego any statements on the punishment in the plea. Because it is contradicting on the one hand to assert that the accused did not commit the act and on the other hand to demand an appropriate punishment for the (not committed) act.

The interlocutor of guilt is not provided for in the German Code of Criminal Procedure , but for example in US procedural law ( jury verdict or court's findings in contrast to Sentencing and Judgment ; see e.g. Rule 32 (k) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ), optionally also in Section 256 Paragraph 2 of the Austrian and Art. 342 of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure .

Even the ancient Roman law knew in Legisaktionenverfahren and form process a separation between fact-finding and legal consequence determination. However, the admissibility of the action was first confirmed in court ( in iure ) by the litis contestatio (settlement of the dispute) by the court magistrate ( praetor ), the possible legal consequences determined and a judge ( iudex ) appointed, while only in the second part with the judge ( apud iudicem ) through the point of fact it has been decided and accordingly Absolutio (acquittal) or condemnatio (sentence) according to the previous determination of the judgment made municipal authorities.

See also

literature