Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T10:41:56.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Incompatible Contrasts? — Preventive Detention in Germany and the European Convention on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019


Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article will give an overview of the idea and history of origins of preventive detention and the legal changes in the German Criminal Code that underlie the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (17 December 2009). It will attempt an outlook by considering the prospective outcome of future law suits against German legal statutes relating to preventive detention, and will also describe the present situation and current legal recommendations, including the much-discussed alternative of detention in psychiatric wards. The article will close with a brief comparative look at the related legal problems arising in countries with a criminal law which is based on the establishment of personal guilt of the offender while facing public pressure to detain persons for protective reasons.

Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 


1 M. v. Germany, judgement of 17 December 2009. 5th Section, App. no. 19359/04, p. 27, para. 133.Google Scholar

2 v. Liszt, Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht, 3 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (ZStW) 1–47 (1883).Google Scholar

3 Preventive detention came into force in Sweden in 1927, The Netherlands in 1929, Norway in 1929, former Yugoslavia in 1929, Italy in 1930, Denmark in 1930, Belgium in 1930, Poland in 1932 and Finland in 1932, see, Bundestagsdrucksache 13/2859, p. 3.Google Scholar

4 See, Köhler, Die Aufhebung der Sicherungsmaβregeln durch die Strafgerechtigkeit, in: Festschrift für Günther Jakobs zum 70. Geburtstag 281 (Pawlik/Zaczyk ed., 2007).Google Scholar

5 Kinzig, Die Legalbewährung gefährlicher Rückfalltäter (2008), at 109.Google Scholar

6 Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt) Fachserie 10 Reihe 4.1, 2010: cBroker.cls?CSPCHD=00500001000048auyhlA00000081paYbJYmA7ILOqvNWZdg&cmspath=struktur,vollanzeige.csp&ID=1025820, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

7 For details of the quantity of preventive detention inmates see, the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (supra, note 6).Google Scholar

8 Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Sexualdelikten und sonstigen gefährlichen Straftaten, Bundesgesetzblatt 26 January 1998, part I no. 6, at 160:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

9 See, the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (supra, note 6).Google Scholar

10 Schüler-Springorum, Rechtliche Konsequenzen bei gefährlichen Taetern?, Recht und Psychiatrie 25 (1998).Google Scholar

11 See, p. 3 of the Statistic for Criminal Offences of the German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik) 2009, Zeitreihe 1987 BIS 2009, Grundtabelle 01, Bundeskriminalamt Wiesbaden:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

13 Böllinger/Pollähne, Nomos Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch (3. ed., 2010), § 66b para. 3.Google Scholar

14 Critically: Hassemer/Kargl, Nomos Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch (supra, note 13), § 2 para. 60.Google Scholar

15 In contrast to the Parole Board of England and Wales the executive courts of Germany are special chambers of the judiciary body and consist of judges only.Google Scholar

16 BVerfGE 109, 133 – 2 BvR 2029/01, Decision of 5 February 2004:, last accessed 22 September 2010. For further information see, Dünkel/van Zyl Smit, Preventive Detention of Dangerous Offenders Re-examined: A Comment on two decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG – 2 BvR 2029/01 of 5 February 2004 and BVerfG – 2 BvR 834/02 – 2 BvR 1588/02 of 10 February 2004) and the Federal Draft Bill on Preventive Detention of 9 March 2004, 5 German Law Journal 619 (2004): Scholar

17 BVerfGE 109, 133 (supra, note 16).Google Scholar

18 For further information see, Dűkel/van Zyl Smit (supra, note 16), at 622.Google Scholar

19 Reading as follows: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court (…).” Http://, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

20 ECHR (supra, note 1).Google Scholar

21 Decision of 22 December 2009 – 2 BvR 2365/09:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

22 Bundesverfassungsgericht, decision of 14 October 2004 – 2 BvR 1481/04 = BVerfGE 111, 307:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

23 For further information see, Grabenwarter, Wirkungen eines Urteils des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte – am Beispiel des Falls M. gegen Deutschland, Juristen Zeitung 857 (2010).Google Scholar

24 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, decision of 24 June 2010 – 3 Ws 485/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010; OLG Karlsruhe, decision of 15 July 2010 – 2 Ws 458/09:, last accessed 22 September 2010; OLG Hamm, decision of 6 July 2010 – 4 Ws 157/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010, and decision of 22 July 2010 – 4 decision of Ws 180/10, III—4 Ws 180/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

25 Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 12 May 2010 – 4 StR 577/09:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

26 Oberlandesgericht Celle, decision of 25 May 2010 – 2 Ws 169/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010; OLG Stuttgart, decision of 1 June 2010 – 1 Ws 57/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010; OLG Koblenz, decision of 7 June 2010 – 1 Ws 108/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010; OLG Nürnberg, decision of 24 June 2010 – 1 Ws 315/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010, and 7 July 2010 – 1 Ws 342/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010; OLG Köln, decision of 14 July 2010 – 2 WS 428/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010. See, also Bundesverfassungsgericht (supra, note 16).Google Scholar

27 Bundesgerichtshof, judgement of 9 March 2010 – 1 StR 554/09:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

28 § 121 Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Nr. 3 of the Judicature Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) as amended on 24 July 2010 (BGBI. IS. 976).Google Scholar

29 See, Oberlandesgericht Hamm, decision of 22 July 2010 – 4 Ws 180/10, III-4 Ws 180/10: http://openjur,de/u/54155.html, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

30 Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg, decision of 4 August 2010 – 1 Ws 404/10:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

32 Frankfurter Allgemeine FAZ.NET of 15 August 2010:, last accessed 22 September 2010; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 7 August 2010, 1–2.; of 30 July 2010:, last accessed 22 September 2010; see, also German Federal Government press conference of 4 August 2010:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

33 Süddeutsche Zeitung of 9 August 2010, at 2; Frankfurter Allgemeine FAZ.NET of 6 August 2010:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

35 According to the Germany law, detention is also possible if a mentally ill person poses danger only to herself. However, this is of no relevance in the present context.Google Scholar

36 World Heath Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems, 10th Revision, Second Edition, 2005:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

37 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Association, 2000.Google Scholar

38 Habermeyer et al., Kriminologische und diagnostische Merkmale von Häftlingen mit angeordneter Sicherungsverwahrung, Monatsschrift für Kriminologie 317 (2007), at 324; Kinzig, Die Gutachtenpraxis bei der Anordnung von Sicherungsverwahrung, Recht Psychiatrie 9 (1997); see also Puhlmann/Habermeyer, Die Sachverständigenexpertise im Spannungsfeld zwischen Justiz und Psychiatrie am Beispiel des Hangbegriffs des § 66 StGB (Sicherungsverwahrung), Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie 46 (2010).Google Scholar

39 See, for instance, Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 23 October 2007 – 4 StR 358/07:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

40 Habermeyer et al. (supra, note 38).Google Scholar

41 See, Habermeyer et al. (supra, note 38); Brewer-Smyth et al., Physical and sexual abuse, salivary Cortisol, and neurologic correlates of violent criminal behavior of female prison inmates, 55 Biological Psychiatry 21 (2004). Among the factors that can be seen to negatively impact a person's ability to adequate social behaviour, is nutrition, see Liu et. al, Malnutrition at Age 3 Years and Externalizing Behavior Problems at Ages 8, 11, and 17 Years, Am J Psychiatry 161 (2004).Google Scholar

42 See, Bundesgerichtshof (supra, note 39).Google Scholar

43 Caspi et al., Role of Genotype in the Cycle of Violence in Maltreated Children, 297 Science 851 (2002). For further information with respect to juridical aspects see, Merkel/Roth, Langzeitverwahrung von Gewalttätern, Humboldt Forum Recht, forthcoming, October 2010:, last accessed 22 September 2010; Merkel/Roth, Bestrafung oder Therapie? – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen staatlicher Sanktion unter Berücksichtigung der Hirnforschung, in: Hirnforschung – Chancen und Risiken für das Recht, 21 (Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Zürich ed., 2008).Google Scholar

44 BGH, decision of 14 January 2009 – 2 StR 565/08 = NStZ-RR 2009.Google Scholar

45 Badische Zeitung of 21 January 2010.Google Scholar

46 Burns/Swedlow, Right orbitofrontal tumor with pedophilia symptom and constructional apraxia sign, 60 Arch Neurol 437 (2003); see also Walter et. al, Pedophilia is Linked to Reduced Activation in Hypothalamus and Lateral Prefrontal Cortex During Visual Erotic Stimulation, 62 Biological Psychiatry 698 (2007).Google Scholar

47 An exception, however, needs to be made to cases of outstanding brutal aggressiveness or killing, like the case of Jürgen Bartsch, a young man who, during the years 1962–1966, killed four boys aged 8 to 12 in a beastly manner, trying to cut them apart while they were still alive and seeking sexual satisfaction while doing so. Here, the FCJ directed the Regional Court to deal with the question of guilt, see BGHSt 23, 176, 184.Google Scholar

48 Anderson et al., Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex, Nature Neuroscience 1032 (1999).Google Scholar

49 Habermeyer et al., (supra, note 38), at 327.Google Scholar

50 E.g. in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Berlin und Hessen, see, Landtags-Drucksache Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 4/1282 of 18 August 2004, at 5.Google Scholar

51 See, German Federal Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag), press release of 26 June 2010:,html; also see, of 29 August 2010: last accessed 22 September 2010 (supra note 34).Google Scholar

52 See, Ministry of Justice (supra, no. 12).Google Scholar

53 See, Guzzardi v. Italy, judgement of 6 November 1980, App. no. 7367/76, p. 23, para. 100.Google Scholar

54 See, X v. the United Kingdom, judgement of 5 November 1981. Series A no. 46, p. 17, para. 39.Google Scholar

55 Van Droogenbroeck, judgement of 24 June 1982. Series A no. 50, p. 16, para. 39.Google Scholar

56 See, with different arguments, also Laue, Die Sicherungsverwahrung auf dem europäischen Prüfstand, Juristische Rundschau 203 (2010); Müller, Die Sicherungsverwahrung, das Grundgesetz und die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Strafverteidiger 211 (2010).Google Scholar

57 See, Ministry of Justice (supra, note 12).Google Scholar

58 See, with different arguments, also Rzepka, Sicherheits- statt Rechtsstaat – Überblick und Anmerkungen zu bundles- und landesrechtlichen Konzepten einer nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung – Teil 2, Recht & Psychiatrie 208 (2003). But see, Pieroth, Gesetzgebungskompetenz- und Grundrechtsfragen der nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung, Juristen Zeitung 927 (2002); Kinzig, Das Gesetz zur Einführung der vorbehaltenen Sicherungsverwahrung, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3207 (2002); Renzikowski, Die nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung und die EMRK, Juristische Rundschau 273 (2004).Google Scholar

59 Same applies for prisons as well, since the penalty lies in the reduction of liberty of action only.Google Scholar

60 After the death of Skander Vogt, a 30 year old prisoner, chained and isolated 23 hours a day in the penal institution Bochuz VD, Switzerland has established a commission to observe the conditions of mentally ill prisoners in jail:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

61 The former chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schroeder, quoted with respect to child abusers: “Wegschließen” – “und zwar für immer” (Shut away – and that for all times), see, Focus Magazin of 18 February 2002:, last accessed 22 September 2010.Google Scholar

62 E.g. the US with the Washington's Sexually Violent Predator laws from 1990 and 1991, and Great Britain with the imprisonment for public protection under Section 225 and 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.Google Scholar