@article{2014:christoph:die_nic,
title = {Die „nicht mehr ganz so große“ Kronzeugenregelung},
year = {2014},
note = {This aid to comprehending and prevention has been well known within
the legal system of the Federal Republic of Germany for a long time.
It has been used to date to its widest extent within the "principal
witness regulation" of § 46b of the Criminal Code (StGB). It endowed
courts with the power to afford offenders mitigation or dispensation
in sentencing even if the actions revealed by them had no connection
which those they had themselves undertaken. After what was less than
four years, the standard was subjected to reform via the 46th Criminal
Justice Amending Law. By introducing the necessity for there being
coherence between an act of serving as a principal witness and that of
providing clarification, the broad field of application of the
regulation has been narrowed. In this way, the legislative body
wished, among other considerations, to afford greater significance to
the principle of guilt predominating in the assessment of penalty and
the level of trust invested by the population in the inviolability of
the legal system. The present piece deals critically with the reform
of § 46b of the Criminal Code (StGB) and of the definition of the
term of coherence. To this end, the concept of coherence is examined
in terms of its definition to date before the reform is subjected to a
critical appraisal in terms of its effectiveness and implementation.
The attempt is then made to arrive at a distinct interpretation of the
requirement for coherence according to § 46b Criminal Code (StGB).},
journal = {KritV Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft},
pages = {82--95},
author = {Christoph, Stephan},
volume = {97},
number = {2}
}