In der deutschen Ausgabe der German American Law Journal fragt Clemens Kochinke, ob der Begriff “in dubio pro reo” auch international verwendet wird:
bq. Als Nichtstrafrechtler, der beim Verfassen eines Blogberichts soeben den Begriff ohne Zweifel verwandte, frage ich mich nach fruchtloser Internet-Recherche, ob diese Regel tatsächlich im anglo-amerikanischen Bereich unbekannt ist. Oder kommt er der Presumption of Innocence gleich? Das ist der Grundsatz, den Amerikaner oft nur in den USA, nicht im Rest der Welt vermuten.
Stimmt, es scheint vor allem in den USA, vielleicht auch in England, ein verbreiteter Irrtum zu sein, dass das deutsche (usw.) Strafrecht kein Unschuldsprinzip kennt.
Zum Begriff: für mich ist es nur deutsch. Es ist auch ein Beispiel dafür, dass ein Übersetzer nicht glauben sollten, lateinische Begriffe könnten unverändert übernommen werden.
In the German edition of the German American Law Journal, Clemens Kochinke asks whether the expression ‘in dubio pro reo’ (in cases of doubt, decide in favour of the accused) is purely German or civil law: he encounters it in English texts on the Internet.
I am no expert, but I first met this term when I first read about German law, and I don’t see it as English. It’s a good example to show that Latin phrases in one language cannot simply be taken over unthinkingly in a translation.
I did a Google search on “in dubio pro reo” defendant to get examples of the phrase in English texts. Of the first fifty hits, 49 were clearly in situations related to civil law – German, Dutch or Spanish legal systems. One was an unofficial UN text relating to Dusko Tadic’s sentence (my italics):
bq. Finally, the Trial Chamber notes that Count 8 of the Amended Indictment charged Dusko Tadic alternatively with two distinct offences, namely torture or inhuman treatment, and that the Appeals Chamber, in convicting Dusko Tadic on this Count, did not specify in respect of which of the two offences it found him guilty. As a consequence, an ambiguity undoubtedly exists. Under these circumstances, the Trial Chamber has applied the principle of in dubio pro reo (which states that any ambiguity must accrue to the defendants advantage), and has imposed sentence in respect of the lesser offence of inhuman treatment.
I assume that one of the judges came from a civil-law system.
A Google search on “in dubio pro reo” site:uk is even more conclusive: only six hits and none apply to English law. (I don’t suggest that Google is a perfect concordance, but it is useful for a general impression).
The Deutsches Rechts-Lexikon, which is like Creifelds on steroids, was most helpful. It expands the phrase: ‘In dubio pro reo (iudicandum es)’. It says that German law has a Schuldgrundsatz (principle that the defendant must be guilty/blameworthy) and an Unschuldsvermutung (presumption of innocence), and that ‘in dubio pro reo’ is developed from these. So it cannot be the exact equivalent of the common-law presumption of innocence. It applies only at the end of a criminal trial when all the evidence has been presented. (There is a lot more).
The Tadic quote above translates it as ‘any ambiguity must accrue to the defendant’s advantage’. Some dictionaries have ‘the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt’.