Victim dogmatic approach
The victimodogmatic approach assumes that people can fall out of the scope of protection of criminal law norms through gullibility, a lack of risk assessment, etc.
Someone who pays, for example, money for a distance healing by a self-proclaimed faith healer , in this view, does not become a victim of fraud, since it is not the task of criminal law to protect even the very gullible.
Arguments can (probably) z. B. draw from the private autonomy or the general freedom of action . In addition, especially in the example, it can be assumed that the victim does not see himself as such at all.
criticism
The victimodogmatic approach has few supporters. The prevailing view is that criminal law is also there to protect gullible people.
The victimodogmatic approach can e.g. B. oppose positive and negative general prevention (punitive purpose) . In the example case, one can state that the intensity of the deception by the perpetrator is capable of continuing, but this must not result in the perpetrator being exempt from punishment.
Individual evidence
- ↑ so z. B. Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part 1 §13 Rn 21 . CH Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-57046-9 .
literature
- Petra Wittig : The factual behavior of fraud: A norm-analytical approach . Vittorio Klostermann, 2005, ISBN 3-465-03355-8 , p. 311-316, 364 f . ( in Google Books ).
