Peter Knoll’s property is easily accessible

nYes, Montesquieu, he surely did not know/nothing about the existence of Nolirich. In addition to these curious verses from a booklet designed by students, Peter Knoll’s newly opened estate (1926 to 1982) contains numerous printed manuscripts, drafts, photographs and extensive correspondence. Born in Basel, he was not only in contact with well-known German-speaking lawyers in That time; he socialized in the same way with Dürnmatt and Frisch, the publisher Siegfried Unseld or the sociologist Helmut Schelsky – who reproduced a lengthy excerpt from a letter from Noll in an article.In their interaction, the documents salute a large part of university, contemporary, and legal history.

Despite its breadth, the surviving correspondence is very incomplete. With regard to the Zaire Armed Forces, for example, only the two letters that the recently deceased Karl-Heinz Bohrer addressed to Peter Knoll survived, but not his responses. In his second letter, the then head of the literature department thanked him for agreeing to write a review and adds an apology: “If I didn’t know you had already written twice for FAZ, it was probably because I wasn’t around these days. Read my own newspaper carefully, at least not the out-of-domain portion and the magazine.” literary”.

Knoll’s article on political penal law reform, which appeared in this newspaper in February 1967, illustrates his virtues as a lawyer and designer in exemplary fashion. He, who saw the first task of law in the criticism of power, also posed the question of valid laws before the question of real conditions: “What is the main problem which gave rise to legislative act as the motive of the problem?” Latest stats: “Represented by the staggering disparity between the number of police investigations into political criminal cases and the number of convictions.”

Communication of officials and experiences with laws

This access is characteristic of the later author “Gesetzwesenlehre”, who throughout his life as a researcher pushed for better thought and informed legislation and sought closer cooperation with criminology. In the article, Knoll quotes from fellow criminal law, Gunther Stratenworth, as well as Pericles’ funeral speech or the private communication of a “high-ranking federal official” on counterintelligence issues. By the way, as noted by his Frankfurt colleague Klaus Ludersen, “a kind of encyclopedia of legal-philosophical, legal, social and legal-theoretical problems” was created. These unexpected cross-references lead to conclusions that seem to be being spoken at present: “The mosaic theory of jurisprudence, according to which known facts, if systematically collected and assembled, can form a secret through this systematic connection, is in the light that the technology of The computer is an anachronism.” Without ignoring the autonomy and self-immobility of the political system, Knoll called for the restriction or even the abolition of state crimes. Another step in this direction was taken only three years ago when Article 103 of the Criminal Code, which made insulting the royal subject a punishable offense, was repealed. It is up to the law.