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.

Murder in England and Germany: definitions

I am just going to put a few facts down here because I haven’t got time to research much right now.

bq. Strafgesetzbuch § 211. Mord. (1) Der Mörder wird mit lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe bestraft.
(2) Mörder ist, wer
aus Mordlust, zur Befriedigung des Geschlechtstriebs, aus Habgier oder sonst aus niedrigen Beweggründen,
heimtückisch oder grausam oder mit gemeingefährlichen Mitteln oder
um eine andere Straftat zu ermöglichen oder zu verdecken,
einen Menschen tötet.
§ 212. Totschlag. (1) Wer einen Menschen tötet, ohne Mörder zu sein, wird als Totschläger mit Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren bestraft.
(2) In besonders schweren Fällen ist auf lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe zu erkennen.
§ 213. Minder schwerer Fall des Totschlags. War der Totschläger ohne eigene Schuld durch eine ihm oder einem Angehörigen zugefügte Mißhandlung oder schwee Beleidigung von dem getöteten Menschen zum Zorn gereizt und hierdurch auf der Stelle zur Tat hingerissen worden oder liegt sonst ein minder schwerer Fall vor, so ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu zehn Jahren.
§ 216 Tötung auf Verlangen. (1) Ist jemand durch das ausdrückliche und ernstliche Verlangen des Getöteten zur Tötung bestimmt worden, so ist auf Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren zu erkennen.
(2) Der Versuch ist strafbar.

Translation from German Federal Ministry of Justice – also available at German Law Archive:

bq. Section 211 Murder
(1) The murderer shall be punished with imprisonment for life.
(2) A murderer is, whoever kills a human being out of murderous lust, to satisfy his sexual desires, from greed or otherwise base motives, treacherously or cruelly or with means dangerous to the public or in order to make another crime possible or cover it up.
Section 212 Manslaughter
(1) Whoever kills a human being without being a murderer, shall be punished for manslaughter with imprisonment for not less than five years.
(2) In especially serious cases imprisonment for life shall be imposed.
Section 213 Less Serious Case of Manslaughter
If the person committing manslaughter was provoked to rage by maltreatment inflicted on him or a relative or a serious insult by the person killed and was thereby immediately torn to commit the act, or in the event of an otherwise less serious case, the punishment shall be imprisonment from one year to ten years.
Section 214, 215 (repealed)
Section 216 Homicide upon Request
(1) If someone is induced to homicide by the express and earnest request of the person killed, then imprisonment from six months to five years shall be imposed.
(2) An attempt shall be punishable.

bq. England and Wales.
Murder is unlawful homicide with malice aforethought.
The actus reus of homicide is killing a human being under the Queen’s peace.

bq. USA
In the USA, most states divide murder into first-degree murder and second-degree murder. In some states, first-degree murder carries the death penalty.
These are both murder, so both require malice aforethought.
First-degree murder is usally defined as a murder that was wilful (US willful), deliberate and premeditated, often called murder in cold blood; murder caused by the use of poison, torture, explosives or ambush; or killings committed in the course of certain felonies, usually arson, burglary, robbery, rape and mayhem.