Lock them away – for ever and ever? The dangerous Boom of preventive detention

The difficulties in securing custody of, begin already with the name: While the criminal code speaks book from the backup storage, make the most of the media –

Lock them away – for ever and ever? The dangerous Boom of preventive detention

The difficulties in securing custody of, begin already with the name: While the criminal code speaks book from the backup storage, make the most of the media – to the daily show regularly falsely a security Deposit. Behind it a Freudian mistake hides itself well. Obviously, it is hoped by this legal institution is the preparation of a whole-of-society safety before the crime. (...)

started When I got my job at the beginning of the 1990s, the preventive detention – that you may think today that was scarcely possible – shortly before its abolition. The number of persons in preventive detention in German prisons had fallen to below 200, the annual orders had fallen below 30. In the Bundestag proposals were the removal of this measure from the penal code was demanded. In scientific articles was asked whether preventive detention was Dying.

The Boom of preventive detention

The criminal-political assessment of the performance of this sharp sword of criminal changed right then in the years 1996 and 1997, dramatically. After two sensational murder of children by previously convicted sex offender was asked the question of whether one can prevent these crimes through early detention of the persons concerned would have. From this time, preventive detention was booming. (...) About the author

Jörg Kinzig (geb. 20. December 1962 in Mannheim) is a German criminologist and Criminal law academics. Since 2011, he is Director of the Institute for criminology at the Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen.

Kinzig is the author of several books. In his latest book, "in the name of the people?", he analyzes the latest developments in crime and often represented views of Germany have judicial a "Cuddle". Kinzig father of three children is married, and lives in Tübingen.

The persons in preventive detention remains in accordance with the letter of the law (section 67d, Para. 2 p. 1 of the criminal code) as long as in prison, imprisoned until "it is to be expected that the housed outside of the coercive treatment will not commit substantial unlawful acts of more." For a decision on a dismissal is a look into the future in the Form of a crime forecasting is required. You can say that this person will commit any serious crimes more? And if such an assessment is almost possible: you have to be for this judgment? Or the sentence should apply, the former social democratic Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, had announced in the year 2001 the public effectively in the "Bild am Sonntag": In such cases, there should be "only one solution: Lock up – and forever!"? (...)

The preventive detention had from the outset two birth defects. Although no original fascist ideology, it was inserted only in the national socialist time in the year 1934 by the law against dangerous habitual criminals and Measures for the protection and improvement in the criminal law book. dpa / Carsten Rehder/archive A Security is held in custody in his jail cell (icon image)

This flaw is also a reason why only a few European countries with a backup storage, in accordance with the German style. Heavier, the weight of the second birth defect. Although no penalty, but only a fault-independent measure, not difference your prison for decades of imprisonment. In the 2010s the (not entirely serious, but Essentially accurate) quip, the only practical difference between imprisonment and preventive detention lies in the fact that prior to the commencement of the detention order the sign above the cell door will changed: Instead of "imprisonment" is now "preventive detention" was found to have it.

for a Long time, the preventive detention could only be ordered together with the judgment about the Crime. At the beginning of the 2000s, politicians of almost all parties fell into Crime and then on the following, at first glance, compelling idea: what would it be Like if you could take those prisoners – later – in preventive detention, which would be shortly before the end of their custodial sentence – and thus prior to their discharge from the prison, but still as dangerous should be considered? Thus, the retrospective preventive detention, was born, which took place in the year 2004 to enter into the criminal code.

The Strasbourg stop the signal

Many words of warning of Criminal law scholars and criminologists, this is a new concept related to retroactive detention was in breach of fundamental human rights, to which it is entitled also kept any backup, were beaten in the Wind. Finally, it was the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, and had to remind the Federal Republic of Germany of its obligations under the European Convention on human rights. He decided in the year 2009, subsequent forms of preventive detention violated, among other things, against the principle that a penalty should not be retroactively arranged or extended. (...) Private, The criminologist, and a criminal law scientist Jörg Kinzig

was the judgment of a Bang. Within a few months dozens of supposedly highly dangerous, but now wrongly imprisoned offenders had to be released from preventive detention. Many of them were monitored under a partially hysterical media Monitoring noise around the clock by flocks of police officials. From a stationary to a mobile preventive detention was not rare. I remember it well, how to this time, a redundant Ex-Held at one of my lectures, surrounded by police officers, at the University of Freiburg showed up and spoke to me. A bizarre Situation!

After all, what do you know, were all completed this extensive monitoring measures with the time gradually. Of the because of the Strasbourg judgment, so to speak, "Bang" redundant backup, only a small part of it was held back due; very few including to a more severe extent.

generally, it is as a result of various investigations, the dangerousness of offenders is significantly overestimated. Even if exact Numbers can't determine: It is plausible to assume that under-five persons in preventive detention, which it considers dangerous, not to exceed a is, the, entließe him from the accommodation, is actually difficult the return would be due. The great Dilemma: We don't know who exactly of the fives! (...)

carried On the search of the dangerous nature of

(...) alone the great media and public pressure in the case of any relapse, is quite understandable, of an intensified security think of all the decision-makers. Because of a request from a backup is kept on an Adhesive relief or even on a dismissal is rejected, will happen in the truest sense of the word: nothing. The person Concerned is detained in custody; courts and expert Advisory on the safe side. A severe relapse, however, after a dismissal, this means the "worst case": For the Recidivists, for the responsible for the decision the court and the authorised experts and, of course, and primarily for the concrete victim. dpa/Patrick Pleul overlooking the courtyard in the preventive detention of the JVA Brandenburg

Overall, the preventive detention is a difficult balancing act between the right of the company to be in front of serious crimes sufficiently protected, and the law of the (former) offender, after serving his fault actually, if often under strict conditions, the reintegration into society of released. Those who enter in this field the principle of "when In doubt, for safety", must be aware of the fact that the price of this strategy, in fact, harmless numbers, be it emphasized at this point again – innocent soul. (...)

Annoying and dishonest it is, if from the policy and in the Public in this context to give the impression that it is possible to determine when delinquent persons, whether and, if so, how hard you will fall off the wagon. This is despite all the advances in forecasting research, continue to be the case. (...)

notwithstanding this, the number of preventive detention inmates since the mid-1990s, more than tripled. Only 183 persons in preventive detention, were, in 1995, there were, on 31.03.2018, their 566. That "policy" or "justice" were too lax, so it can be evidenced by these Figures, no question. Whether the strategy of the expansion of preventive detention at the end has led to an actual or at least a perceived gain in safety, is of course an entirely different matter. Orell Füssli

Jörg Kinzig. the Still in the name of the people? On crime and punishment. , Orell Füssli Verlag, Zurich, approx. 112 pages, 10 euros.

On the Website of the publisher

order On Amazon

(note: In the case of a purchase through the provided Amazon order Link FOCUS Online receives a Commission.) Wave of lawsuits to roll over Germany decide now dishes, what comes next? FOCUS Online action wave rolled over Germany decide now dishes, what comes next?

Updated Date: 21 May 2020, 23:27

You need to login to comment.

Please register or login.