Talk:Attempt (German penal code)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Review

@WeWake, could you elaborate on what you mean by discussing this particular matter in a secondary/tertiary resource? Much of what is cited is legal commentary (as seen in the German article here). For example, Fn. 1 is this book. Those are generally considered secondary sources, at least in the way I believe the term to be usually used. :) FortunateSons (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No idea where to draw the line here. But that those sources are all eligible for quoting by law students might be taken as argument that those are nearer to primary sources than secondary sources. They are at least very different in nature to a newspaper article. The whole article feels more like a part of a jurisprudential debate than an encyclopedia article. 82.207.195.243 (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. In the context of laws and cases, analysis of it is almost always considered a secondary sources, with primary sources primarily being court decisions and arguably legislative materials (BT-Drs.). FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Sub-article and disambiguation

I think this article is a sub-article of Attempt and should be mentioned at Attempt (disambiguation), too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SonOfYoutubers talk 03:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

(
)
  • Source: NK-StGB/Engländer, 6. Aufl. 2023, StGB § 23 Rn. 10, 11 ("Über die fakultative Strafmilderung nach Abs. 2 hinausgehend sieht Abs. 3 für den grob unverständigen Versuch die Möglichkeit vor, die Strafe gem. § 49 Abs. 2 nach freiem Ermessen zu mildern oder ganz v. Strafe abzusehen. Dem Vorschlag des AE, den grob unverständigen Versuch stets straffrei zu stellen, ist der Gesetzgeber nicht gefolgt. Unter Verweis auf ein – v. BGH in einer späteren Entsch. freilich gerade nicht anerkanntes – Bsp. (→Rn. 13) argumentiert er, es gebe auch in diesem Bereich strafbedürftige Fälle, so dass es einer „flexiblen Lösung“ bedürfe.34 Das lässt sich zwar kriminalpolitisch kritisieren,35 ist aber de lege lata als gesetzgeberische Entscheidung hinzunehmen. In der Entscheidungspraxis der Gerichte ist die Regelung nahezu bedeutungslos. Nach § 153b StPO kann die StA einschlägige Fälle mit Zustimmung des zuständigen Gerichts einstellen. Beim grob unverständigen Versuch handelt es sich um einen Unterfall des untauglichen Versuchs (→§ 22 Rn. 98 f.). Das ergibt sich schon aus der Formulierung „dass der Versuch … überhaupt nicht zur Vollendung führen konnte“. Auch hier ist daher die Abgrenzung zum Wahndelikt zu beachten (→§ 22 Rn. 100 ff.). Fraglich ist, ob bereits das modale Adverb „überhaupt“ den Anwendungsbereich des Abs. 3 auf bestimmte Fälle des untauglichen Versuchs begrenzt.36 Bemühungen zwischen unterschiedlichen Graden der Untauglichkeit zu differenzieren – etwa zwischen einem absolut und einem bloß relativ untauglichen Versuch – haben sich freilich als nicht erfolgreich erwiesen.37 Auch der gesetzgeberische Begründungsgedanke, als grob unverständig sollten nur solche Versuche in Betracht kommen, „in denen weder eine konkrete noch eine abstrakte Gefährdung“38 bestehe, bietet kein brauchbares Abgrenzungskriterium, da dies für den untauglichen Versuch generell zutrifft.39 Das maßgebliche Unterscheidungskriterium ist daher der grobe Unverstand.40 Keine Zustimmung verdient der Vorschlag, auf den mit Eventualvorsatz begangenen Versuch § 23 Abs. 3 analog anzuwenden.41 Weder ist die Interessenlage vergleichbar noch besteht eine planwidrige Regelungslücke.42 Selbiges gilt auch für die vorgeschlagene analoge Anwendung auf Delikte mit vorgelagerter Vollendung, so etwa bei der Urkundenfälschung, wenn die hergestellte unechte Urkunde nur aus einer grob unverständigen Sicht zur Täuschung im Rechtsverkehr geeignet ist.")
    • Reviewed:
Created by FortunateSons (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

FortunateSons (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC).

    General eligibility:

    Policy compliance:

    Hook eligibility:

    • Cited: Yes
    • Interesting: Yes
    • Other problems: Yes
    QPQ: Done.

    Overall: Earwig picks up a 9.1%, which is “violation unlikely”, and since the article specifically quotes its source in most of those instances, its passable. Source is official German code; primary, but still reliable. Article was created in draftspace in December 2024, but was accepted 7 days and 9 hours ago, which I believe is good enough. Interesting, and there was a typo of ‘success’ in the hook (fixed it), so otherwise, I say . Roast (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC) 17:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

    This hook has been pulled from prep over a concern of primary sources without reopening the nom. Discussed in a few places: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_207#Prep_3_(27_June), User_talk:Gatoclass#Legal_commentary, User_talk:FortunateSons#Attempt_(German_penal_code), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_483#Is_German_Legal_commentary_a_secondary_source?. —Kusma (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

    • Just to comment on the "primary sources" issue: The sources here are all secondary sources; the legal commentaries are basically like legal textbooks/collections of precedent. These would be acceptable for a German law student (who does not interpret the law texts, but reports on how legal authorities understand the text to clarify meaning and debate around it). I am going to return this to the /Approved page. —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

    Translation?

    I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems to me that what I'm reading here is a meticulous and responsible translation done by a German whose English is very good - but not as good as their German. There are a number of places where I'm mostly confident that I understand, but that are accidentally ambiguous in English. It might be that what I'm noticing is the use of words that are correctly translated according to standard dictionaries, but are unusual for this context.

    But I'm also aware that writing about the law may require certain words, so I hesitate to change the article because I'm not familiar with the requirements. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

    @TooManyFingers, thank you for your kind words. This isn’t a translation of the (much larger) German article, but I definitely took some inspiration from it. Would you be willing to name the specific instances? Or feel free to change them yourself, and I'll take a look that none of the specific words were lost? FortunateSons (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    @FortunateSons I've made some edits, and placed them in
    My sandbox
    where they won't hurt anything. Please feel free to do what you want with this - especially because I've probably introduced errors of law. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, this totally slipped through the cracks. I'll try to implement your changes and ping you once I'm done :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
    @TooManyFingers Done, what do you think? Thank you very much for the help! FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
    Oh! I thought you had decided it wasn't a good idea!
    This looks great to me (though obviously from my previous comments I don't know how things are done in Germany and I don't know law). Thank you! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
    No, I just got taken out by the boring kind of law and my desire to graduate, though that part is still a work in progress. :( FortunateSons (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

    Related Articles

    Wikiwand AI