prof. dr. joerg kinzig the german model of long-term detention university of tuebingen/germany...
TRANSCRIPT
Prof. Dr. Joerg Kinzig
The German modelof long-term detention
University of Tuebingen/Germany
Roundtable on 'Actual life sentence'Organized by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee in
Budapest
Heinrich Pommerenke
• Germany‘s longest prisoner• Served a sentence of 49 years• Died in a prison hospital at the
age of 71.
• Terms as long as this one are not the rule but possible.
I Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
II Brief overview of Imprisonment in Germany
Types of Sanctions in the German Penal Code
Punishments Measures
FinesPrison
SentencesStationary Measures
Mental Hospital Order
Custodial Addiction Treatment
Preventive Detention
II Brief overview of Imprisonment in Germany
Different Types of Imprisonment 2008
Prison sentence;
53250
Youth imprisonment;
6110
Other reasons for detention;
1678
Remand custody; 11709
Preventive detention; 456
73 %8 %
1%2%
Total prison population: 73203
16 %
II Brief overview of Imprisonment in Germany
Duration of Prison Terms
1965 1970 1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 20070
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
total
up to 9 months
9 months to 2 years
more than 2 years to 5 years
5 years to 15 years
life long
II Brief overview of Imprisonment in Germany
Sentences of Life Imprisonment
1965 1970 1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 20070
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
life long
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
Mandatory Punishment for Murder
§ 211 of the Penal CodeMurder under specific aggravating circumstances
(1) Whosoever commits murder under the conditions of this provision shall be liable to imprisonment for life.
(2) A murderer under this provision is any person who kills a person for pleasure, for sexual gratification, out of greed or otherwise base motives, by stealth or cruelly or by means that pose a danger to the public or in order to facilitate or to cover up another offence.
III Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Challenge from State Court of Verden
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Challenge from State Court of Verden
Constitutional issues brought forward by the Verden Court
• Psychological damages caused by very long prison terms contravene the guarantee of human dignity in article 1 of the German constitution.
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Challenge from State Court of Verden
Constitutional issues brought forward by the Verden Court
• Psychological damages caused by very long prison terms contravene the guarantee of human dignity in article 1 of the German constitution.
• The constitutional right of freedom cannot be taken away for life.
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Challenge from State Court of Verden
Constitutional issues brought forward by the Verden Court
• Psychological damages caused by very long prison terms contravene the guarantee of human dignity in article 1 of the German constitution.
• The constitutional right of freedom cannot be taken away for life.
• The mandatory life sentence in section 211 makes it impossible to consider mitigating circumstances which is a violation of the principle of equality before the law.
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Challenge from State Court of Verden
Constitutional issues brought forward by the Verden Court
• Psychological damages caused by very long prison terms contravene the guarantee of human dignity in article 1 of the German constitution.
• The constitutional right of freedom cannot be taken away for life.
• The mandatory life sentence in section 211 makes it impossible to consider mitigating circumstances which is a violation of the principle of equality before the law.
• The concept of life sentence violates the most important goal of a punishment to reintegrate the offender into the community.
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Challenge from State Court of Verden
Constitutional issues brought forward by the Verden Court
• Psychological damages caused by very long prison terms contravene the guarantee of human dignity in article 1 of the German constitution.
• The constitutional right of freedom cannot be taken away for life.
• The mandatory life sentence in section 211 makes it impossible to consider mitigating circumstances which is a violation of the principle of equality before the law.
• The concept of life sentence violates the most important goal of a punishment to reintegrate the offender into the community.
• The existing system of pardons for lifers is not regulated by law.
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Reasoning
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
• Freedom to introduce legislation is limited
- by the inviolability of the dignity of man (article 1)- by the principle of equality (article 3), - the rule-of-law principle and- the principle of a welfare state.
Reasoning
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
• Freedom to introduce legislation is limited
- by the inviolability of the dignity of man (article 1)- by the principle of equality (article 3), - the rule-of-law principle and- the principle of a welfare state.
• Principle of proportionality:
Every punishment has to be in reasonable proportion - to the gravity of the offence and- personal guilt of the offender.
• Inhumane and degrading punishments have to be forbidden.
Reasoning
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
Reasoning
„It is […] the duty of the state to maintain the fundamental requirements of the individual that account for a humane living.
Thus, it would be incompatible with human dignity if the state took away a person‘s freedom without there being at least the chance of that person ever regaining his freedom.“
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
„It is […] the duty of the state to maintain the fundamental requirements of the individual that account for a humane living.
Thus, it would be incompatible with human dignity if the state took away a person‘s freedom without there being at least the chance of that person ever regaining his freedom.“
„(This chance, has to be) concrete and realizable in principle. For it is a violation of human dignity if the prisoner has to give up all hope of ever regaining his freedom regardless of any developments of his personality.”
Reasoning
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
• The Court accepted the notion of a treatment-oriented imprisonment.
Aim of the imprisonment: Principle of resocialization.
“To enable the prisoner to lead a life without crime in the future” (section 2 of the New Prison Act from 1976)
Reasoning
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
• The Court accepted the notion of a treatment-oriented imprisonment.
Aim of the imprisonment: Principle of resocialization.
“To enable the prisoner to lead a life without crime in the future” (section 2 of the New Prison Act from 1976)
• It is made clear by the Court that those rules also apply to prisoners sentenced to life:
Reasoning
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
• The Court accepted the notion of a treatment-oriented imprisonment.
Aim of the imprisonment: Principle of resocialization.
“To enable the prisoner to lead a life without crime in the future” (section 2 of the New Prison Act from 1976)
• It is made clear by the Court that those rules also apply to prisoners sentenced to life:
“The prison institutions have the duty to strive towards the resocialization, to preserve the prisoners’ ability to cope with life and to counteract the negative effects of incarceration and destructive personality changes that go with it.”
Reasoning
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
§ 57 a
1) The court shall grant conditional early release from a sentence of imprisonment for life under an operational period of probation, iffifteen years of the sentence have been served;the particular seriousness of the convicted persons guilt does not require its continued enforcement; andthe requirements of § 57(1) 1st sentence Nos 2 and 3 are met.
The conditions to which reference is made in No. 3 are that
2 the release is appropriate considering public security interests; and3 the convicted person consents.
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
2007 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
“(If fifteen years of the sentence have been served) and the particular seriousness of the convicted person’s guilt does not require its continued enforcement, it adds weight to the claim of the prisoner to guarantee his human dignity and his personality. Higher demands are to be made on the reliability of the prognosis (of his dangerousness) […]”.
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
1. Overview
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20080
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Mental HospitalsCustodial Addiction TreatmentPreventive Detention
Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20070
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
New O rd erin g s Detain ees
Persons in Mental Hospitals & Custodial Addiction Treatments
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
Previous Conviction 1
Imprisonment
Prognosis ofdangerousness
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Possibility of second preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
Previous Conviction 2
End of full prison sentence
2. Preventive Detention
2. Preventive Detention
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
Previous Conviction 1
Imprisonment
Prognosis ofdangerousness
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Possibility of second preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
Previous Conviction 2
End of full prison sentence
2. Preventive Detention
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
Previous Conviction 1
Imprisonment
Prognosis ofdangerousness
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Possibility of second preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
Previous Conviction 2
End of full prison sentence
2. Preventive Detention
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
Previous Conviction 1
Imprisonment
Prognosis ofdangerousness
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Possibility of second preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
Previous Conviction 2
End of full prison sentence
2. Preventive Detention
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
Previous Conviction 1
Imprisonment
Prognosis ofdangerousness
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Possibility of second preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
Previous Conviction 2
End of full prison sentence
2. Preventive Detention
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
Previous Conviction 1
Imprisonment
Prognosis ofdangerousness
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Possibility of second preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
Previous Conviction 2
End of full prison sentence
2. Preventive Detention
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
Previous Conviction 1
Imprisonment
Prognosis ofdangerousness
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Possibility of second preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
Previous Conviction 2
End of full prison sentence
German Law today (simplified)
End of full prison sentence
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Prognosis ofdangerousness
Ordering of preventive detention
2. Preventive Detention
Initial Crime
Only a Vision?
Preventive detention
Prognosis of dangerousness
Ordering of preventive detention
2. Preventive Detention
Only a Vision?
• Minority Report – 2002 science fiction movie by Steven Spielberg
2. Preventive Detention
2. Preventive Detention
Orderings of Preventive Detention 1980-2005
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 20050
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
19801985
19901995
19961997
19981999
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
DetaineesOrderings
People in Preventive Detention
2. Preventive Detention
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
Original Study: „Preventive Detention Put to Test“ (published in 1996) Data Collection : Summer 1993
Reconviction of Dangerous Recidivists:Study Design and Methods
318 persons
sentenced to preventive detention
in 1981-1990 in threeGerman states
Original Study: „Preventive Detention Put to Test“ (published in 1996) Data Collection : Summer 1993
318 persons
sentenced to preventive detention
in 1981-1990 in threeGerman states
Reconviction of Dangerous Recidivists:Study Design and Methods
183 persons convicted in 1988-1990 (severe sexual or violent offences),
although they fulfilled the formal requirements
not sentenced to preventive detention
Original Study: „Preventive Detention Put to Test“ (published in 1996) Data Collection : Summer 1993
318 persons
sentenced to preventive detention
in 1981-1990 in threeGerman states
Reconviction of Dangerous Recidivists:Study Design and Methods
183 persons convicted in 1988-1990 (severe sexual or violent offences),
although they fulfilled the formal requirements
not sentenced to preventive detention
Follow-Up Studyanalysis of their actual criminal career (2002 and later on)
Source: Federal Criminal Records Bureau
Main Results of the Study
Sample and deceased detainees
Survey 1994
Survey 2002
died/older than
90Sample
Total 318 318 32 286
older than 90
1
Main Results of the Study
Sample and deceased detainees
Survey 1994
Survey 2002
died/older than
90Sample
Total 318 318 32 286
older than 90
died in Prison
died after release
unexplained
1 12 13 6
Main Results of the Study
Sample and deceased detainees
Survey 1994
Survey 2002
died/older than
90Sample
Total 318 318 32 286
older than 90
died in Prison
died after release
unexplained
1 12 13 6
Main Results of the Study
Sample and deceased detainees
Survey 1994
Survey 2002
died/older than
90Sample
Total 318 318 32 286
Rec(2003)23 Council of Europe
“in order to allow terminally ill prisoners to die with dignity, consideration should be given to releasing them so that they may be cared for and die outside prison”
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
Status of the 286 Preventive Detainees
released11540%
Status of the 286 Preventive Detainees
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
released11540%
released but wanted by
prosecution135%
Status of the 286 Preventive Detainees
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
in preventive detention
10436%
released11540%
released but wanted by
prosecution135%
Status of the 286 Preventive Detainees
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
in other institutions
135%
in preventive detention
10436%
released11540%
released but wanted by
prosecution135%
Status of the 286 Preventive Detainees
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
in other institutions
135%
released but wanted by
prosecution135%
released11540%
in preventive detention
10436%
in prison41
14%
Period of time the 115 preventive detainees have been released
2320,0%
5447,0%
97,8%
1815,7%11
9,6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
up to 1 year 1 to 3 years 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years over 10years
7767,0%
Period of time the 115 preventive detainees have been released
2320,0%
5447,0%
97,8%
1815,7%11
9,6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
up to 1 year 1 to 3 years 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years over 10years
7767,0%
Period of time the 115 preventive detainees have been released
2320,0%
5447,0%
97,8%
1815,7%11
9,6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
up to 1 year 1 to 3 years 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years over 10years
7767,0%
134 Persons who have been Ordered Preventive Detention on Probation
49,8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Sexual
Offe
nders
Robber
s
Man
slay
ers
Thieve
s
Frauds
ters
Other
sTota
l
134 Persons who have been Ordered Preventive Detention on Probation
68,3%
49,8%
70,0%72,2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Sexual
Offe
nders
Robber
s
Man
slay
ers
Thieve
s
Frauds
ters
Other
sTota
l
134 Persons who have been Ordered Preventive Detention on Probation
68,3%
49,8%
70,0%72,2%
21,6%
48,4%47,5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Sexual
Offe
nders
Robber
s
Man
slay
ers
Thieve
s
Frauds
ters
Other
sTota
l
Revocation of the Ordering of Preventive Detention on Probation
(n=134) 35,1%
n=47
0%
20%
40%
Sexual
Offe
nders
Robber
s
Man
slay
ers
Thieve
s
Frauds
ters
Other
sTota
l
Revocation of the Ordering of Preventive Detention on Probation
(n=134)
35,7%n=10
35,1%n=4728,6%
n=2
30,8%n=425,0%
n=219,4%n=6
48,9%n=23
0%
20%
40%
60%
Sexual
Offe
nders
Robber
s
Man
slay
ers
Thieve
s
Frauds
ters
Other
sTota
l
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
End of full prison sentence
German Law prior to 1998
Initial Crime
After 10 years:Automatic release
Imprisonment Preventive detention
Ordering of preventive detention
End of full prison sentence
German law after 1998If a person has spent ten years in preventive detention, the court shall declare the measure terminatedif there is no danger that the detainee will, owing to his criminal tendencies, commit serious offences resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims
0
10
20
30
Relapse
Release
Automatic Release after ten years despite Negative Prognosis
610
6
22
0
10
20
30
Relapse
Release
Automatic Release after ten years despite Negative Prognosis
Release
610
6
22
2 42
8
0
10
20
30
Relapse
Release
Automatic Release after ten years despite Negative Prognosis
Relapse Release
Minor Relapse
6 Persons
No Relapse
14 Persons
Serious Relapse
2 Persons
Automatic release after ten yearsdespite Negative Prognosis
Proportion of the 286 Detainees Convicted Again
not convicted again
(n=148)51,7% convicted
again(n=138)48,3%
Delinquency of the 138 Detainees Convicted Again
Offences in Violation of the Narcotics Law
21424,9%
Theft/Embezzlement
14817,2%
Fraud Offences134
15,6%
Road Traffic Offences
8710,1%
Delinquency of the 138 Detainees Convicted Again
Road Traffic Offences
8710,1%
Fraud Offences134
15,6%
Robbery/Extortion
445,1%
Theft/Embezzlement
14817,2%
Battery51
5,9%
Homicide4
0,5%
Sexual Offences
404,7%
Others138
16,0%
Offences in Violation of the Narcotics Law
21424,9%
Criminal Career of the 162 Persons of the Control Group
Proportion of the 162 Persons of the Control Group Convicted Again
not convicted again(n=24)14,8%
convicted again
(n=138)85,2%
Delinquency of the 138 Persons of the Control Group Convicted Again
Offences in Violation of the Narcotics Law
38629,8%
Theft/Embezzlement
21716,7%
Fraud Offences1098,4%
Road Traffic Offences
1158,9%
Delinquency of the 138 Persons of the Control Group Convicted Again
Road Traffic Offences
1158,9%
Fraud Offences1098,4%
Robbery/Extortion
856,5%
Theft/Embezzlement
21716,7%
Battery81
6,2%
Homicide1
0,1%Sexual Offences
856,5%
Others218
16,8%
Offences in Violation of the Narcotics Law
38629,8%
OutlineI. Introduction: The case of Heinrich Pommerenke
II. Brief overview of the German sanction systemand the use of prison sentences
III. Imposition and execution of life imprisonment in Germany
1. The 1977 Ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court
2. The regulations on conditional early release from life imprisonment (s. 57a German Criminal Code)
IV. Other indefinite sanctions: Measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation
1. Overview
2. Preventive Detention
3. Main results of an empirical study of preventive detention
V. Conclusion
V Conclusion
1. The German Federal Constitutional Court has confirmed the constitutionality of the sentence of life imprisonment in 1977.
V Conclusion
1. The German Federal Constitutional Court has confirmed the constitutionality of the sentence of life imprisonment in 1977.
2. However, the guarantee of the human dignity (art. 1 of the German Constitution) requires that every prisoner still has a concrete and realizable chance to regain his freedom.
V Conclusion
1. The German Federal Constitutional Court has confirmed the constitutionality of the sentence of life imprisonment in 1977.
2. However, the guarantee of the human dignity (art. 1 of the German Constitution) requires that every prisoner still has a concrete and realizable chance to regain his freedom.
3. In Germany courts shall grant conditional early release from life sentence if
a) fifteen years of the sentence have been served;
b) the particular seriousness of the convicted person’s guilt does not require its continued enforcement; and
c) the convicted person is not dangerous any more.
V Conclusion
1. The German Federal Constitutional Court has confirmed the constitutionality of the sentence of life imprisonment in 1977.
2. However, the guarantee of the human dignity (art. 1 of the German Constitution) requires that every prisoner still has a concrete and realizable chance to regain his freedom.
3. In Germany courts shall grant conditional early release from life sentence if
a) fifteen years of the sentence have been served;
b) the particular seriousness of the convicted person’s guilt does not require its continued enforcement; and
c) the convicted person is not dangerous any more.
4. The number or prisoners detained in mental hospitals has increased; preventive detention has been extended and broadened repeatedly over the last ten years.
V Conclusion
1. The German Federal Constitutional Court has confirmed the constitutionality of the sentence of life imprisonment in 1977.
2. However, the guarantee of the human dignity (art. 1 of the German Constitution) requires that every prisoner still has a concrete and realizable chance to regain his freedom.
3. In Germany courts shall grant conditional early release from life sentence if
a) fifteen years of the sentence have been served;
b) the particular seriousness of the convicted person’s guilt does not require its continued enforcement; and
c) the convicted person is not dangerous any more.
4. The number or prisoners detained in mental hospitals has increased; preventive detention has been extended and broadened repeatedly over the last ten years.
5. A follow-up examination of the criminal career of preventive detainees in Germany has shown that a large part of the detainees released on probation did not suffer a relapse.
V Conclusion
1. The German Federal Constitutional Court has confirmed the constitutionality of the sentence of life imprisonment in 1977.
2. However, the guarantee of the human dignity (art. 1 of the German Constitution) requires that every prisoner still has a concrete and realizable chance to regain his freedom.
3. In Germany courts shall grant conditional early release from life sentence if
a) fifteen years of the sentence have been served;
b) the particular seriousness of the convicted person’s guilt does not require its continued enforcement; and
c) the convicted person is not dangerous any more.
4. The number or prisoners detained in mental hospitals has increased; preventive detention has been extended and broadened repeatedly over the last ten years.
5. A follow-up examination of the criminal career of preventive detainees in Germany has shown that a large part of the detainees released on probation did not suffer a relapse.
6. The reliability of decisions based on prognoses of dangerousness is questionable.
