Comparative Criminal Procedure
Show Less

Comparative Criminal Procedure

Edited by Jacqueline E. Ross and Stephen C. Thaman

This Handbook presents innovative research that compares different criminal procedure systems by focusing on the mechanisms by which legal systems seek to avoid error, protect rights, ground their legitimacy, expand lay participation in the criminal process and develop alternatives to criminal trials, such as plea bargaining, as well as alternatives to the criminal process as a whole, such as intelligence operations. The criminal procedures examined in this book include those of the United States, Germany, France, Spain, Russia, India, Latin America, Taiwan and Japan, among others.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 14: The emergence of foreign intelligence investigations as alternatives to the criminal process: a view of American counterterrorism surveillance through German lenses

Jacqueline E. Ross


In the United States, as in Germany, efforts to counter terrorist threats make use of the government’s intelligence-gathering powers alongside the criminal process. But the division of labor between the two differs across legal systems. Germany, unlike the United States, differentiates such powers according to whether they implicate the preventive or reactive prerogatives of the state. In contrast to the United States, Germany strictly separates intelligence operations from criminal investigations by assigning the former exclusively to its intelligence services and the latter exclusively to its state and federal police agencies. This division is constitutionally mandated by the principle of separation, which has been a cornerstone of Germany’s post-war security architecture. In order to prevent dangerous concentrations of power in its executive branches, Germany’s post-war constitutional design prohibits intelligence agencies from conducting interrogations, making arrests, or exercising other coercive powers, while the police may not gather or analyze intelligence outside the confines of their mandate to prevent and prosecute crimes.A further distinction between the ‘preventive’ and ‘repressive’ prerogatives of the police themselves derives from constitutional norms that require judicial and prosecutorial oversight of police investigations that are used to generate evidence for criminal prosecutions and thus to justify deprivations of liberty through use of criminal sanctions.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.