Translations of German statutes

There are two good places on the Web to search for English translations of German statutes: the German Law Archive and Carob (not a blog) – at Carob, click on the words ‘German Laws’ at the top of the page.

You can’t rely on the quality of the translations. If a statute is not there, it’s worth trying a search engine – there are often new translations somewhere to be found.

Sometimes it’s worth having a translation in book form. My favourite translation of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) is by Simon Goren – latest edition 1994, covering the German text in January 1992. The University of Hull has some excerpts from an earlier (1975) edition with two co-authors.

I also have the Commercial Code and the Code of Civil Procedure translated by Goren. At one time it occurred to me to wonder if he was still translating, and I then found an obituary (pdf file by Kathleen Carrick:

Goren was born in 1913 and died in 2000. He was a Hungarian Jew who emigrated to Turkey, followed by Palestine, Israel, and in 1959 the United States.

bq. Born in Hungary, Professor Goren escaped the despotism of Nazi Germany
by immigrating to Turkey and then to Palestine, where he earned a Diploma of
Law from the British Mandatory Government’s Law School in Jerusalem. Simon
was a prosecutor and attorney in Israel until he immigrated to the United States in
1959. In the U.S. he became a librarian, obtaining his M.L.S. from Columbia
University in 1960. Simon’s first position in his new profession of law librarianship
was at the law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, and Hamilton in New York
City. In 1964 Simon joined the staff at the Cornell University School of Law as
an assistant law librarian. After three years at Cornell, he was hired by the Western
Reserve University School of Law in 1967, where he served as Law Librarian and
Professor of Law until he retired in 1983. At his retirement, CWRU awarded him
the title of Professor Emeritus in recognition of his service and scholarship.

Lawyers and haiku

David Giacalone (formerly of Ethicalesq?) has fortunately reopened, as giacalone’s Haiku Bar & Grill. On December 7th he had an entry on lawyers and haiku. He says haiku is the perfect form for the busy lawyer, and it doesn’t have to be 17 syllables if it’s not in Japanese. Here is one of his:

bq. scraping the windshield
first snowfall without you
and our garage
…….[dag, 12/02/03]

(I have a feeling the wording has changed from ‘that garage’ to ‘the garage’ to ‘our garage’, but perhaps it’s an optical illusion). Giacalone has also written a Primer on English-language Haiku. A haiku resources page gives many other links.

Translating terms for bodily harm

A few days ago, Carob (Not a Blog) had an entry on the German terms ‘gefährliche Körperverletzung’ (literally ‘dangerous bodily harm’) and ‘schwere Körperverletzung’ (literally ‘serious bodily harm’).

It was speculated that in many contexts, it would be natural to translate one of these as ‘grievous bodily harm’, at all events for the UK. Regardless of how precise the match was between the German term and the English term, it would be natural to take the most common English more-or-less equivalent.

As Carob is ‘(Not a Blog)’, I am not sure what its policy on acknowledged copying is, so I will just copy the whole thing here and see if they sue me.

bq. As with so many legal terms, there seem to be two schools of thought on translating these, with unfamiliar or familiar expressions flagging similarities or differences between the German law concepts and their counterparts in English-speaking jurisdictions.

bq. The unofficial translation of the Strafgesetzbuch provided by the Bundesministerium der Justiz highlights the differences, with dangerous bodily injury for gefährliche Körperverletzung and serious bodily injury for schwere Körperverletzung.

bq. Focusing on similarities, the German-Indian Extradition Treaty
(annexed here to this April’s extradition bill) has malicious wounding for gefährliche Körperverletzung and grievous bodily harm for schwere Körperverletzung.

bq. In instances like this, I’ve come round to favouring the familiar English terms where the context is relatively far removed from the nitty-gritty of German criminal law — as with my current example, which is a passing mention of recent crime trends in an article targeting the general public. A case report or similar would, I think, call for different treatment, possibly using the Ministry terminology cited above.

I could go on about this for many pages (perhaps people have stopped reading already). But here are a few points.

1. I agree there often seem to be two religious schools of legal translators: a) sounding more ‘native English’ or b) doing more justice to German law at the risk of sounding weird. I tend to the latter.

2. I also have a sliding scale, as I suppose everyone does, of how similar terms have to be before I’ll translate one by the other. For instance, I’ve never translated Rechtsanwalt as solicitor, although if it was a client’s practice to do so, I would. (After all, who cares, in this particular case?)

3. However, I completely agree on favouring familiar English terms where the context is more general. Obviously the target reader makes all the difference. Why should I translate the name of a criminal court dealing with a murder case at first instance with any precision in a newspaper article? The venue may be of interest, but if you just write ‘court’, the story itself makes it clear what kind of court it’s going to be.

4. I would not trust the German Federal Ministry of Justice’s translation of the Criminal Code without further research, based on previous experience.

5. I still don’t think we can avoid research, especially if two terms are being referred to. Looking at the German-Indian Extradition Treaty, the German terms are given opposite the English ones, so no confusion can arise.

6. Do the general public have more trouble with serious / dangerous bodily injury than with malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm? I think bodily harm and bodily injury, and also physical injury, are all terms widely used in criminal law (personal injury being a civil-law term).

7. Superficial research indicates a close similarity in meaning between GBH and schwere Körperverletzung. Körperverletzung and bodily harm both include the effects of obscene phone calls, incidentally. In English law, malicious wounding does not require a wound (i.e. breaking the skin). Malicious means intentional.

8. Gefährliche Körperverletzung, at a quick glance, has no close equivalent in English law. Dangerous refers to the means used (gun, knife, foot wearing shoe!), ambush, attack by several people or danger to life. This would encourage me to write dangerous rather than malicious. (There are some interesting terms for intention in English law, and malicious is one of them – you don’t have to be sneering to do something maliciously in the legal sense).

9. So we come back to each legal translator reinventing the wheel because materials are not reliable.

Murder in England and Germany: note

This is a very brief note, following from the comments on the earlier entry.

Looking at the definitions is not enough – you need to look at textbooks too. Really, legal translation seems like reinventing the wheel every time. Maybe there are Dr. Phil. theses out there comparing the various criminal offences in common law and German systems. Comparative law books tend to give criminal law short shrift.

Anyway, the English and German definitions are both weird, but the courts have developed complex systems of assessing homicide based on those definitions.

The German definition dates from 1942 or thereabouts. Before then, the definition of murder was based on premeditation. It must have been more similar to the English definition.

This German definition defines not murder but ‘the murderer’. It is based on the idea that people can be fundamentally bad. It is also based on evil acts. Thus if you kill someone who is asleep, you are acting heimtückisch – treacherously – and it is murder.

In English law, malice aforethought means the form of mens rea (subjektiver Tatbestand) that makes something murder. It doesn’t imply cold-blooded premeditation. If you kill someone in a fight and just before killing you want either to kill him or to hurt him very seriously, that is murder in English law – but I don’t think it is in German law. It would be the equivalent of voluntary manslaughter there.

In English law, there are defences and justifications. In German law, there are also defences and justifications. In both systems, you can be incapable of murder for reasons of age or mental state.

What I don’t know is the significance in the present case of the part of the German definition of murder ‘to satisfy his sexual desires’. Would this be enough, even with the consent of the victim? I would need to know more about German law to answer that.

Perhaps a comparison will be made somewhere in the next weeks.