The judgment of the experts on the reform of the enforcement of measures is differentiated: The criminal policy network welcomes the plans for the accommodation of mentally ill lawbreakers – as far as is known – in principle, but points out that significantly more money and staff are required for a success. The plan to be able to “brief” terrorists as recidivists for ten years is viewed critically. For Judge President Sabine Matejka the draft goes “too far”.
The government is planning that terrorists can also be classified as “dangerous recidivists” and that they can be “housed” in high-security departments for up to ten years after their imprisonment has been served.
The requirements for being classified as a “dangerous recidivist” should, however, be “drastically” reduced compared to the existing paragraph 23 of the Criminal Code – for all criteria: age (not 24, but 19 years), threat of punishment (18 instead of 24 months), already served Detention and frequency of offenses. In the case of terrorist acts, one relevant conviction (and not two) should be able to lead to classification as a “recidivist”.
Especially with young people there is “a massive question of proportionality,” said Matejka to the APA. This would allow a 19-year-old who was once convicted of a similar offense under juvenile law to be sent for ten years.
The assessment of whether the legal requirements are met would be “extremely difficult”: If there was only one similar act – unlike in the case of burglary for years – it would probably be “a bit like reading tea” whether there is a “tendency to criminal acts”. Matejka thinks it makes more sense to include the terrorist offenses in the existing catalog of recidivism determination – and to apply the same existing criteria for all.
The criminal policy network – which includes not only the judges ‘association but also the bar association, the defense lawyers’ association, the White Ring, the Neustart association and criminal law experts – calls into question the meaning of this “occasional legislation”. The Zerbes Commission appointed by the Interior Minister did not consider such a reform necessary. “The reasons why the said terrorist attack could not be prevented lie in multiple state failures. It is inappropriate to introduce an additional sanction on this occasion,” it said in a statement.
“In the right direction”, according to Matjeka, however, the basic concept of the Minister of Justice for the accommodation of the mentally ill. But of course it depends on the specific design. And it is also important here whether the necessary funds are made available. Too little money and too few staff “has been the biggest problem so far”, earlier reform projects – the content of which had already been fixed – had failed due to insufficient funding, recalled Matejka.
The implementation of the measures is cost-intensive, quality and quantity are in a reciprocal relationship: “The more inmates there are in the implementation of measures, the less likely it is to receive high-quality treatment. The less high-quality the treatment, the longer the pause time.” In order to curb the sharp increase in the number of inmates – from 495 to 1,365 within 20 years – “to increase security for society and to protect the basic and human rights of the mentally ill”, sufficient financial and human resources are required, the criminal policy network also held firmly.
–
