\n\u3010<\/strong>Co-host<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000School of Law and Graduate School of Law, Waseda University
\n\u3010<\/strong>Date and time<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000April 13, 2026 (Mon.), 15:00-17:30
\n\u3010<\/strong>Venue<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000Room 303, Bldg. 8, Waseda Campus
\n\u3010<\/strong>Presenter<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000Luis Greco (Professor, Humboldt University of Berlin)
\n\u3010<\/strong>Language<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000German (with interpretation)
\n\u3010<\/strong>Interpreter<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000Yu Amada (Aoyama Gakuin University)
\n\u3010<\/strong>Caretaker<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000Shin Matsuzawa (Research Staff, Institute of Comparative Law; Professor, Waseda University)
\n\u3010<\/strong>Audience<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong>\u3000Students, faculty and staff, and the general public are welcome to attend
\n\u3010Number of participants<\/strong>\u3011\u300025 \uff08including 10 students\uff09<\/p>\n
\u3010<\/strong>Abstract<\/strong>\u3011<\/strong><\/p>\n Professor Greco is one of the leading scholars in German criminal law. This is his fifth visit to Japan; he previously gave lectures at the Institute of Comparative Law, Waseda University in 2023 and 2025. In this lecture, using the theory and case law of Article 24 of the German Criminal Code as a starting point, Professor Greco will examine the following fundamental issues in criminal law theory: to what extent must a perpetrator\u2019s actions be carried out before they can be deemed to have \u201cprevented\u201d the completion of an offence, and how should we approach cases where the failure to complete the offence was due to chance? This lecture is expected to be a valuable opportunity for students, faculty and staff, and criminal law researchers to engage with a core issue of criminal law theory.<\/p>\n \u25c6There is no advance registration. Please come directly to the venue.<\/p>\n \u3010Event Report<\/strong>\u3011<\/p>\n On April 13(Mon.), 2026, the Public Lecture titled \u201eVerhindern der Vollendung\u201c: R\u00fccktritt und Zufall (\u201cPreventing the Completion of the Offense\u201d: Withdrawal and Chance) was held at Waseda University.<\/p>\n Professor Luis Greco is a leading figure in German criminal law. He has conducted extensive research across a wide range of areas, including the theory of attempted offenses, and has contributed to the revision of Professor Claus Roxin’s renowned comprehensive treatise.<\/p>\n In this lecture, Professor Greco discussed the reexamination of the elements for withdrawal in completed attempts under German criminal law, using \u201cchance,\u201d which intervenes when an attempted offense fails to reach completion, as a central theme.<\/p>\n At first, Prof. Greco explained that under German criminal law, withdrawal from an attempted crime is understood as a system that leads to exemption from punishment. In contrast, under Japanese criminal law (Article 43 of the Penal Code), there is a flexible framework that ranges from a reduction in punishment to an exemption from punishment. He pointed out that the design of the legal system in both countries influences how chance is evaluated. Next, he proposed focusing on what specifically \u201cpreventing the completion of the offense\u201d \u2015one of the forms of withdrawal in the German Penal Code\u2015means, and how much effort is required. Furthermore, he introduced the doctrinal disputes regarding the elements of withdrawal from attempted crime. He presented an overview in which the differences among the theories derive from divergent attitudes toward the extent to which chance is tolerated.<\/p>\n Following this, Prof. Greco introduced German precedents and provided concrete details on the extent to which the chance has been tolerated in the recognition of withdrawal. The six precedents were discussed in this lecture: the Baby Food Extortion Case (BGHSt 64,80), the Gas Valve Case (BGHSt 48,147), the Hospital Case (BGHSt 31,46), the Telephone Directory Case (BGH NJW 1986,1001), and the E-605 Case (BGH NStZ 1989,525).<\/p>\n Prof. Greco pointed out that arguments for withdrawal from a completed attempt often remain abstract, even when the rationale is discussed, and thus lack a decisive standard (an \u201cArchimedean point\u201d). Therefore, this leads to a situation in which both affirming and denying conclusions regarding the establishment of withdrawal can be drawn.<\/p>\n To address this, as a guide for determining whether the conduct constitutes a withdrawal in specific cases, Prof. Greco examined the issue through three types of arguments: the systematic theory, the doctrine of omission, and the doctrine of intent. In this lecture, he focused specifically on the doctrine of intent.<\/p>\n He constructed the standard from the perspective that an action could not be qualified as a withdrawal as long as the perpetrator maintains the intent to accept the result, even if there is an act of withdrawal. He proposed the \u201ctime-reversal test,\u201d which compares the attempt with the withdrawal by reversing their chronological order, holding that withdrawal is not established if there is no hesitation in affirming the intent even under the reversed scenario. Furthermore, he refined this idea along two axes: the availability of options at the given moment (the horizontal axis) and the overall rescue process (the vertical axis). He argued that the optimal action need not be the absolute best, but it must be at least incompatible with the existence of the intent.<\/p>\n In conclusion, Prof. Greco stated that withdrawal from a completed attempt is established only if the active conduct of the perpetrator contributes to preventing the completion of the offense. He further argued that in situations where others provide assistance, the perpetrator is required to take the best possible action under the specific circumstances or engage in conduct sufficient to negate the intent.<\/p>\n During the Q&A session, participants examined the limits of the establishment of withdrawal. This was explored by analyzing how Prof. Greco evaluated withdrawal conduct at different stages after the administration of poison (e.g., administering an antidote, calling an ambulance, or accompanying the victim to the hospital), and by comparing it with a Japanese court precedent (The Tokyo District Court, October 24, 1995, 1596 HANREI JIHO 129). The discussion was highly interactive from beginning to end, with Prof. Greco even throwing questions back to the audience, allowing everyone to deepen their understanding. He also warmly interacted with students during the break. The enthusiasm continued beyond the scheduled time, as participants approached him individually to ask questions after the session, marking a highly successful conclusion to the lecture.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \uff08Text\uff1a Haruka Nomura, ICL Research Assistant\uff09<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/folaw\/icl\/assets\/uploads\/2026\/03\/P1055212-610x435.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/folaw\/icl\/assets\/uploads\/2026\/04\/P1055214-610x371.jpg\")
<\/p>\n