Sicherungsverwahrung

The author, chairman of a criminal enforcement court and a criminal court, explains the current legal situation following the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on preventive detention. He describes the judicial requirements of psychiatric or psychological assessment and the judical understanding of the term ??mental disorder?? under these circumstances.     

Perspektivenwechsel bei der Sicherungsverwahrung

The author critically describes the recent measures for extension of preventive detention. He refers to the contrast to the actual development in crime and it would appear that the politics of law no longer react to the real state of the danger of the situation but to that produced by the media. Preventive detention shows signs of changing from a last resort to a standard punishment and therefore comes if nothing else into conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights.     

Langzeituntergebrachte in der Sicherungsverwahrung

Due to the decision of the European Court for Human Rights, up to mid-2010 the courts of execution had to decide about the release of offenders who had been imprisoned for more than 10 years in preventive detention. This in fact was problematic because preventive detention was limited to a maximum of 10 years at the time of conviction. In all of these cases preventive detention persisted due the assumed high dangerousness of those affected. Regarding the 11 cases that had to be decided by the provincial High Court of Hamm, Germany in 2010, the completion of the detention has been concluded in all cases. The majority of these cases will be described briefly in order to illustrate the different case constellations which led to long-term detention. Moreover these cases serve to demonstrate the difficulties which can arise when trying to evaluate or predict future dangerousness.     

Die Entwicklung der Gesetzgebung zur Sicherungsverwahrung und die damit verbundenen Auswirkungen auf ihre Klientel

Initially, the article gives a short overview over the expansions of preventive detention the legislator has made in recent years. Secondly, prosecution statistics as well as statistics on enforcement of sentences are analyzed focusing on the effects the change in legislation has on the number and structure of preventive detainees. Hereafter, the author presents the central results of an own study titled ‘Reconviction of Dangerous Recidivists’. These results further the conclusion that there is a considerable amount of persons falsely classified as dangerous amongst today’s preventive detainees.