Correspondence

AuthorStephen Schafer
Published date01 January 1960
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00577.x
Date01 January 1960
CORRESPONDENCE
To
the Editor,
The MODERN
LAW
REVIEW.
Sir,
The writer of the letter published in your November number, in commenting
on my brief article on “Some Basic Principles of Hungarian Criminal Law,”
has mainly argued from the mere wording of the laws. However, the meaning
of
words in Hungarian criminal law does not always conform with their
conventional meaning but is to be found in their interpretation.
It
seems
to
be rather difficult to argue from
a
purely
legal
basis about another
legal
system which is
so
strongly subject to constantly changing political rcquire-
mcnts and where “the bellicose Bolshevik Party mind must be embodied in the
science of criminal law, too” (quoted from the official Hungarian edition of
the Soviet textbook of criminal law, published in
1961,
p.
10).
As
I
pointed
out in my article, the words exist there
as
frames only,
to
be filled in with
a
content which conforms to reason. Your correspondent’s observations have
not moved me to alter the views that
I
expressed in that article.
Apart from this, actual errors have appeared in the letter. Among others
and the most important of all, the official edition of the Hungarian “Legal
Rules in Force’’ clearly shows the skeleton character of the Act No.
V
of
1878,
all the essential parts of which have been replaced by the new rules.
On the other hand,
I
welcome any resumption of activity in “the science
of criminology.”
As
far
as I
know, since
1961
Criminology
has
not been
taught and has really not been accepted
as
a
science but has been handled
like some heresy.
20 Denbigh Road,
London, W.11.
STEPHEN
SCIIAFER.
112

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT