Spiegel online reports that Armin Meiwes (known as Armin M. in the German articles) has been convicted of voluntary manslaughter (Totschlag). He’s been sentenced to eight years and six months in prison. It was not murder because the court did not establish ‘niedrige Beweggründe’ (base motives) as required under German law.

The photo used (DPA) has a bit of a Neanderthal look about it. Meiwes usually looks better than that.

The German lawyers always suggest a judgment and sentence. The defence counsel suggested Tötung auf Verlangen (mercy killing at the request of the person killed); the prosecution said it was murder, carried out for sexual titillation.

This is a decision that is bound to be reported abroad too. Let’s look at the BBC News version.

bq. The defence had sought a verdict of illegal euthanasia, carrying a far shorter sentence of six months to five years, on the grounds that it had been a “killing on request”.
But while rejecting the defence’s argument, the court also ruled that Meiwes had had no “base motives” for the crime and settled on a manslaughter verdict, as Judge Volker Muetze told the packed courtroom.

I suppose most people will understand that it is voluntary, not involuntary, manslaughter involved, but still, translating Totschlag simply as manslaughter seems sloppy to me (I may be alone here). Euthanasia also omits the idea of the victim’s request, but that is added at the end of the sentence.

bq. The case could make legal history in a country which has no laws against cannibalism.

Aargh! I am so tired of reading that Germany has no laws against cannibalism. How many countries have?

bq. Dressed in a dark suit and tie, Meiwes sat impassively as the verdict was read out in court.

Ah, but was his lawyer wearing a white tie?

Now, The Independent (on the front page, the story is mysteriously listed under ‘UK News’).

bq. Prosecutors called Meiwes a “human butcher” who acted simply to “satisfy a sexual impulse” and had sought a life sentence for murder.
His defense argued that since the victim had volunteered to be killed and eaten, the crime should be classified a mercy killing, which carries a five-year maximum penalty.

I prefer ‘satisfy a sexual impulse’ (part of the German definition of murder) to the BBC’s ‘sexual murder’. But when did we British start spelling ‘defence’ with an S?

The Guardian presents an audio report. ‘ quite liked ‘killing on demand’. I don’t think anyone told the reporter how to pronounce ‘Meiwes’, which was coming over as ‘Mieweis’. The written report is somewhat similar to that of The Independent.

After consulting the New York Times, I abandoned the project, as I was getting the impression that all the reports were based on one account.

The English section of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports today that a new online magazine, Litrix.de – German Literature Online – is going to present excerpts, specimen translations (whatever that is) and book reviews – in both German and English.

About 2,000 works of fiction written in English are translated into German every year, but only about 40 German titles into English (hmm, I wonder why that is?!)

A jury will select 30 works a year and 20 pages of each of these will be translated and presented. This sounds like an excellent idea, depending on what the jury choose, of course.

Uwe Timm, Am Beispiel meines Bruders /My Brother’s Example is up there already.

Many thanks to Gail Armstrong of openbrackets for the link.

I found I was writing less and less German and including more and more pictures of Fürth in this blog. I therefore decided to divert some material into a special Fürth blog.

Der Fürth blog – Fürther Freiheiten – ist wirklich zweisprachig.

The blog is in English and German. The texts aren’t always identical, especially when a text I’m referring to is available in German and not in English.

I have mixed feelings about the project. What I have been doing is giving impressions of life here to people outside Germany, even though many of my entries were meant for translators and lawyers inside Germany. The Fürth blog is of more narrow interest, mainly to people actually in Fürth, and as an outsider I may not have so much to say to them. I have copied over many past entries from Transblawg, and occasionally a future entry may be duplicated, but on the whole the two will be separate.

Handakte WebLAWg reports that there is a portal for legal terminology and translation matters on the Saarbrücken JIPS website.

The portal is an initiative of three professors (for law and IT, translation of Romance languages, and Russian) and Karl-Heinz Freigang, well known to translators in Germany for his work and seminars on computer-aided translation.

There are already a lot of links. I found a reference to a book I don’t know, Wolfram Aigner (University of Linz) Einführung in die englische Rechtssprache, but it is badly let down by the second part of its title: introduction into legal English.

bq. 15 wichtige Bereiche des Rechts- und Wirtschaftslebens wie zB betreffend das Recht allgemein, öffentliches Recht, Privat-, Straf-, Verfahrens-, Handels-, Vertragsrecht bis hin zum Versicherungs- und Steuerrecht werden behandelt.
Original englischsprachige Texte führen den Leser/die Leserin rasch in den jeweiligen Themenbereich ein und ermöglichen ihm/ihr auf dem jeweiligen Fachgebiet als kompetente/r Gesprächspartner/in in englischer Sprache aufzutreten.
Zur leichteren Lesbarkeit des Textteiles werden unmittelbar anschließend seltener vorkommende Worte bzw. Fachausdrücke ins Deutsche übersetzt. Am Ende eines jeden Kapitels findet sich ein umfangreiches Verzeichnis zum Themenbereich gehöriger Termini bzw. einschlägige Redewendungen und Phrasen.
Der Anhang enthält ua ein Glossar in dem eine Reihe spezifischer Fachausdrücke aus dem anglo-amerikanischen Rechtsbereich erklärt werden, sowie unter der Überschrift “Key Words” eine umfangreiche Auflistung und Übersetzung ins Englische wichtiger Begriffe aus Recht und Wirtschaft.
1. Auflage 2003
250 Seiten, 17 x 24 cm, broschiert,
ISBN 3-85487-457-X
SBNr. 115.472

I’m curious about it, but it is obviously just a collection of texts milked for vocabulary, and the quality of the two-languages glossary is anyone’s guess. The editor’s name is German, and perhaps the English part of the title was her idea.

I am also a bit personally miffed as they have a reference to an article in the MDÜ about legal terminology which was full of errors, by someone with no knowledge of law, and should never have appeared.

Richard Schneider, in the Nachrichtenportal, reported (in German) on January 24th about slow court proceedings in Südtirol /Trentino-Alto Adige.

Dr. Karl Zeller, an Italian MP, complained at the beginning of the legal year:

bq. „Das Gericht in Bozen ist eine der wenigen Institutionen in Südtirol, die nicht funktionieren.“ Um die Verfahren zu beschleunigen, sei einerseits mehr Justizpersonal erforderlich, aber andererseits müsse auch Schluss mit dem „Luxus“ sein, jedes einzelne Aktenstück zu übersetzen. Das solle nur noch für Urteile und richterliche Anordnungen gelten. Wer eine Übersetzung anderer Schriftstücke wünsche, müsse diese selbst anfordern – auf eigene Kosten.

bq. (The court in Bolzano does not work well. To accelerate proceedings, more personnel are needed, and we must also put an end to the luxury of translating every single document on the file. Only judgments and judicial orders should be translated. Anyone who wants another document translated should have to request this and pay for it).

Italian and German have equal rights in the area (see website of chamber of lawyers (in German or Italian)).

bq. Der Bürger, welcher einer Straftat beschuldigt wird, ist berechtigt, sich bei der Einvernehmung seiner Sprache zu bedienen. Wer als Zeuge in einem Gerichtsverfahren vorgeladen wird, kann seine Aussagen in der Muttersprache tätigen, auch wenn diese nicht der Verfahrenssprache entspricht. Auch im Zivilverfahren besteht die Möglichkeit der freien Sprachwahl.

(See earlier entry on the proceedings about Ötzi / the Iceman)

Those charged with a criminal offence may use their own language when examined ( bei der Einvernehmung – an Austrian term). Witnesses may speak their own language even if that is not the language of the proceedings. There is a right to free choice of language in civil proceedings too.