Source: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis/sanks04_eng.htm
Timestamp: 2016-05-28 00:02:54
Document Index: 205455382

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 242', '§45', '§ 60', '§43', 'Art. 103', '§ 17', '§ 59', '§27', '§ 47', '§ 153', '§ 153', '§ 153', '§ 153', '§ 153', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 47', '§27', '§ 47', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 47', '§ 27', '§ 242', '§45', '§45', '§45', '§ 45', '§ 47', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 316', '§ 316', '§306', '§ 316']

[GS:: C:\kidat\kis2004\sanks04.htm 31.07.2006 31.07.2006 17:08:0
KIS The Konstanz Repository on Crime and Sanctioning website: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis/ Wolfgang
Heinz: Penal Sanctions and Sanctioning Practice in the Federal Republic of Germany 1882 – 2004
Version: 1/2006
I. The Current System of Sanctions
1. The Current System of Sanctions
1.1 The Present System of Legal Consequences under the Adult Penal Code (Figure 1)
1.1.1 Refraining from Punishment
1.1.2 Admonition with Reservation to Impose Punishment
1.1.3 Punishments
1.1.3.1 Main Punishment
1.1.3.2 Imprisonment
1.1.3.3 Fines
1.1.3.4 Incidental Sanctions - Ban on Driving
1.1.4 Incidental Consequences
1.1.5 Measures (Section 11 paragraph 1 nr. 8 of the Penal Code)
1.1.5.1 Measures to Reform the Offender and Protect the Public
1.1.5.2 Further Measures
1.2 The Present Juvenile Justice System (Figure 2)
1.2.1 Juvenile Law as a Special Criminal Law for Youthful Offenders
1.2.2 The Present Juvenile Legal Consequences System
1.2.2.1 Educational Measures
1.2.2.2 Disciplinary Measures
1.2.2.3 Juvenile Punishment
II. The Development of the Sanctions Practice in Germany (1882 – 2004)
1. Formal and Informal Sanctions in the Adult Criminal Law and Juvenile Criminal Law
1.1 The Driving Back of Custodial Sanctions in favor of Non-Custodial Sanctions
1.2 The Increasing Significance of Informal Sanctions and the Shifting of Sanctions Competency to the Prosecution
2. Informal Sanctions
3. Formal Sanctions
3.1 The Increasing Significance of Fines
3.2 The Driving Back of Imprisonment
3.2.1 The Decrease in the Imposition of Short-Term Imprisonment
3.3 The Increasing Significance of the Sentence Being Impended on Probation and Probation Service
3.4 The Insignificance of the Further Non Custodial Sanctions – Refraining From Punishment and Admonition With Reservation to Impose Punishment
3.5 Pre-trial detention
OVERVIEW: Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Penal Consequences
Figure 2: Penal Consequences (Juvenile Penal Law s) 22
Figure 3: Total Development of Sanctioning Practice
Figure 4: Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders, absolute values (Timeline) Figure 5: Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders, as Percentages of the Total of Sanctioned Offenders Table 1: Judgments and Convictions under General Penal Law and under Juvenile Penal Law, 1976 – 2003, all offences Former West Germany with West Berlin, since 1994 including East Berlin 42
Table 2: Judgments under General Penal Law by Type of Decision, 1976-2003; all offences All former West German States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin 43
Table 3: Judgments under Juvenile Penal Law by Type of Decision, 1976-2003; all offences All former West German States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin 44
Figure 6: Offenders Informally and Formally Sanctioned under General Penal Law 46
Figure 7: Development of Sentencing Practice under General Penal Law 46
Figure 8: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law 4
Figure 9: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law, by States, 2003 48
Figure 10: The Development of Sanctioning Practice under General Penal Law (Timeline) 49
Figure 11: Fines by Number of Days (Timeline) Note: Fines under German Penal Law are calculated by the individual’s earnings on a per diem basis 5
Figure 12: Fines by Amount of Per Diem Earnings (Timeline) 51
Figure 13: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law: Total Custodial Sentences (Timeline) 54
Figure 14: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law: Unconditional Custodial Sentences (Timeline) 5
Figure 15: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law in Relation to All Individuals Sanctioned 56
Figure 16: Suspension Rate of Custodial Sentences awarded under General Penal Law 58
Figure 17: Conditional Probations after Previous Conviction of the Probationer. Under General Penal Law 60
Figure 18: Probation supervision ended through probation of previously convicted probationers 60
Figure 19a: Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law 63
Figure 19b: Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law 63
Figure 20: Remanded Prisoners by Type of Sanction (General Penal Law) (Timeline) 64
Figure 21: Offenders Sentenced in Youth Court (Timeline) 65
Figure 22: Under Juvenile Penal Law Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders 65
Figure 23: The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults (Timeline) 66
Figure 24: The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults, by Offence 67
Figure 25: Diversion Rates (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under Juvenile Penal Law 68
Figure 26: Development of Sanctioning Practice in Juvenile Penal Law 69
Figure 27: Rates of Diversion of German Youths (at the Time of the Decision-making) for Small Property Offences (§ 242, 247, 248a StGB are the only Offences) that were Dependant on Prior Convictions, by State (1994) 71
Figure 28: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) in Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2002. Rates of diversion by public prosecutor and by the courts under §§45, 47 JGG with respect to informally and formally sanctioned offenders, by State 71
Figure 29: Rates of Diversion in Juvenile Penal Law, by State 72
Figure 30: The Development of Sanctioning Practice under Juvenile Penal Law 73
Figure 31: Non-custodial Sanctions under Juvenile Penal Law 74
Figure 32: Offenders Sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law to Disciplinary Measures (Timeline) 75
Figure 33: Offenders Sentenced to Disciplinary Measures under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline) 76
Figure 34: Offenders Sentenced to Conditions under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline) 76
Figure 35: Offenders Sentenced to Youth Detention under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline) 77
Figure 36: Length of Youth Sentences (Timeline) 78
Figure 37: Length of Youth Sentences (Timeline) 79
Figure 38: Rates of Suspension of Juvenile Custodial Sentences 80
Figure 39: Probation/Parole Completed by Offenders with Previous Convictions 81
Figure 40: Probation Supervision Ended Through Parole 81
Figure 41: Offenders Remanded in Custody, by Type of Sanction (Juvenile Penal Law) 83
Figure 42: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law 84
Figure 43: Custodial Sentenced under Juvenile and Under General Penal Law (Timeline) 84
Figure 44: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline) 85
Figure 45: Prisioners in Western European States 86
Table 4: Judgments Resulting in Custodial Sentences for Security and Rehabilitation, 1976 – 2003 Former West Germany with West Berlin, since 1995 including East Berlin 88
Table 5a: Offenders Convicted for Crimes or Misdemeanors and Sentenced to Custodial Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany with Berlin 2003. Absolute values 89
Table 5b: Offenders Convicted for Crimes or Misdemeanors and Sentenced to Custodial Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany with Berlin 2003. (In percent of offenders convicted) 90
Table 6a: Non-cupable Convicted Offenders Sentenced to Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany inlcuding Berlin, 2003 91
Table 6b: Semi-cupable Convicted Offenders Sentenced to Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany inlcuding Berlin, 2003 92
Table 7: Revocation of Driver’s Licence and Driving Bans Due to Traffic Offences Former West Germany with Berlin-West, since 1994 including Berlin-East 94
Table A1: Under Juvenile Penal Law Informally or Formally Sanctioned Offenders. Comparison of the results of the „converted“ counts to the „real“ counts in the public prosecuter statisctics. Federal Republic of Germany (former West Germany and Berlin), 1998 109
Table A2: Under General Penal Law Informally or Formally Sanctioned Offenders. Comparison of the results of the „converted“ counts to the „real“ counts in the public prosecuter statisctics. Federal Republic of Germany (former West Germany and Berlin), 1998 110
Table A3: Calculation of the Impact of the Transfer of the „Converted“ Counts into „Real“ Conclusions Drawn about Sanctioning Practice under Juvenile Penal Law. Federal Republic of Germany (former West Germany and Berlin), 1998 111
Table A4: Calculation of the Impact of the Transfer of the „Converted“ Counts into „Real“ Conclusions Drawn about Sanctioning Practice under General Penal Law. Federal Republic of Germany (former West Germany and Berlin), 1998 112
According to Section 60 of the Penal Code, the court refrains from punishment regarding offenses in which the imposition of a penalty would ‚obviously not achieve its purpose‘, for example, a drunk driving accident that had serious consequences for the offender or near relatives of the offender. In such cases, the serious consequences partly make up for the guilt, so that no need for prevention exists.
Furthermore, the penalty can either be totally refrained from or it can be mitigated if the offender “makes an effort to compensate the victim (Reparation, Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich), makes good his deed, or seriously strives to make up for his deed” (Section 46a Nr. 1 of the Penal Code). It is also possible, that the offender compensates the victim through “considerable personal achievements” or a “personal renunciation” (Section 46a Nr. 2 of the Penal Code).
Furthermore, the Penal Code provides a number of further instructions for the possibility of a guilty verdict, in which the punishment is minimal – either because of the wrongfulness of the criminal offence and/or the guilt of the offender is strongly reduced (for example, Sections 139 paragraph 1, 174 paragraph 4 of the Penal Code; Sections 113 paragraph 4, 157 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Penal Code).
According to Sections 59-59c of the Penal Code, the court, besides the general verdict, can admonish the offender, determine the sentence and reserve the conviction to this punishment (Section 59 of the Penal Code).
The court determines a period of probation, imposes conditions and instructions, for example, the condition of making a contribution to a charitable organization or to federal treasury (Section 59a of the Penal Code). If the offender proves himself, he only receives the warning , but no punishment and no sentence (Section 59b of the Penal Code). If he does not prove himself, he will receive the reserved punishment.
The guilty verdict, the admonition, the conditions and instructions are meant to sanction, but not to punish, because the punishment is supposed to be reserved.
The Penal Code differentiates between main punishments and incidental punishments. The main punishments are imprisonment (Sections 38, 39 of the Penal Code) and fines (Sections 40 to 43 of the Penal Code). Incidental punishments include bans on driving (Section 44 of the Penal Code).
The sentencing can be either for a certain amount of time or for life. The life sentence is inevitable with murder (Section 211 of the Penal Code) and genocide (Section 220a of the Penal Code). It can be imposed to punish the following crimes: for example, the preparation of a war of aggression, high treason, aggravated manslaughter, robbery resulting in death, extortionary attack upon motorists. Since the abolition of the death penalty in 1949, the life sentence is the harshest penalty in the German criminal justice system. The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) affirmed the constitutionality of the absolutely imposed lifelong sentence for murder, demanding however, a restricted interpretation of the elements of murder (Federal Constitutional Court Decision, BverfGE 45, 187). In 1981, through Section 57a of the Penal Code, the use of parole for life sentences was permitted after an offender served fifteen years.
The minimum length of imprisonment is one month and the maximum is fifteen years (Section 38 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). The short-term imprisonment (less than 6 months) is imposed in exceptional cases only (ultima ratio) and fines have to be imposed whenever possible (Section 47 of the Penal Code).
Sentences up to two years can be impended on probation. In case of imprisonment up to six months, the court can suspend execution of the sentence on probation if a positive social prognosis of the offender is expected (Section 56 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code). For punishments between six months and one year, the execution of the sentence cannot be suspended on probation if general deterrence (defense of the legal order) demands that it is not given (Section 56 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). Sentences between one and two years can be suspended under “special circumstances” (Section 56 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). The court determines the duration of the period of probation. It cannot exceed 5 years and cannot be less than 2 years (Section 56a of the Penal Code). The period of probation can be lengthened or shortened afterwards. Conditions and instructions can be given to the convicted offender. Conditions such as making a reparation for the damage caused by the act or paying a sum of money to a charitable institution or the treasury serve as satisfaction for the committed wrongdoing (Section 56b of the Penal Code). Instructions serve the purpose of preventing the convicted person from committing further criminal acts. As such, the supervision and guidance of a probation officer comes into consideration (Section 56d of the Penal Code). Further examples of instructions are “to comply with orders relating to abode, education, work or free time”, not to possess certain objects which can offer the opportunity or incitement to commit further criminal acts or to comply with obligations to provide maintenance (Section 56c of the Penal Code). The court modifies the conditions of the suspended sentence, or if that is not promising, revokes suspension of the sentence if the convicted person commits a criminal act during the period of probation (Section 56f of the Penal Code). The result is that the imposed imprisonment is henceforth enforced. Apart from that, the imposed punishment will be remitted (Section 56g of the Penal Code).
The offender receiving a determinate sentence, as well as someone serving a term of life imprisonment, have the opportunity to be released on probation (Sections 57, 57a of the Penal Code). The court suspends execution of the remaining portion of imprisonment for a term on probation if two-thirds of the sentence imposed, but at least 2 months, have been served and if the offender has a good prognosis. If the offender served half of his sentence, at least six months, it is possible for him to be paroled if special circumstances exist (Section 57 of the Penal Code). Even those offenders serving a life sentence have the chance to be released (Section 57a of the Penal Code). The court suspends execution of the remaining portion of imprisonment for life on probation if 15 years of the sentence have been served, no special gravity of the convicted person’s guilt requires further execution and a good prognosis exists in the sense laid out by Section 57 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code. The convict serving either a determinate sentence or a lifelong sentence must agree to be let out.
Fines are imposed in daily units (Section 40 of the Penal Code). The total fine derives from the number of daily units and the level of those units. The minimum amount of days amount to five, the maximum is usually 360 daily units, while the maximum for a cumulative sentence is 720 (Section 54 paragraph 2 sentence 2 of the Penal Code). The amount per day ranges from one to five thousand Euro (€). This system ensures that the fines have the same impact on offenders who committed the same crimes but have different financial situations. The convicted person is not expected to pay the fine immediately, he is granted ways to make the payment easier (a deferral of payment or payment by installments). Fines cannot be suspended. However, if someone has been sentenced to a fine up to 180 daily rates, the court can admonish him, determine the sentence and reserve the conviction to this punishment (Section 59 of the Penal Code).
If the fine is neither willingly paid, nor can be enforced, imprisonment is imposed as a substitute for a fine (Section 43 of the Penal Code). 1 daily rate is equal to 1 day in prison. If the convicted person agrees, he can do charitable work to erase the imprisonment.
The ban on driving (Section 44 of the Penal Code) is an incidental sanction, which can be imposed in addition to imprisonment or fines. It serves as a short-term warning. Unlike the withdrawal of the driving licence (Section 69 of the Penal Code), which is intended to remove unsuitable drivers from road traffic, those who receive the ban on driving retain their licenses. The ban on driving lasts from one month to three months, and is a ban from “driving any or a certain type of motor vehicles in traffic”.
Incidental consequences are the loss of the right to hold public or elected office, the loss of the right to vote (Section 45 and following sections of the Penal Code) and the publication of the conviction (Sections 165, 200 of the Penal Code).
The German Penal Code knows different types of measures:
- the commitment to a psychiatric institution (Section 63 of the Penal Code)
- the commitment to an institution for withdrawal treatment (Section 64 of the Penal Code)
- the commitment to preventive custody - post imprisonment (Section 66 of the Penal Code)
- the supervision of conduct (Section 68 and following sections of the Penal Code)
- the withdrawal of the drivers‘ license (Section 69 and following sections of the Penal Code)
- the ban on occupation.
The principle of proportionality (Section 62 of the Penal Code) must be observed. A prognosis regarding the future dangerousness of the offender is necessary.
Further measures include forfeiture and confiscation. If an illegal act has been committed and if the perpetrator or accessory obtains a pecuniary benefit from the act, the court orders its forfeiture (Section 73 and the following sections of the Penal Code). Objects produced from an intentional criminal act or objects, which were designed or were used for its commission or preparation can be confiscated (Section 74 and the following sections of the Penal Code).
With the 1923 introduction of the Act on Juvenile Courts, a specific criminal law for youthful offenders was created for the first time in Germany. The Act on Juvenile Courts includes juveniles (14 to 18 years old) and young adults (18 to under 21 years old). The youth-specific legal consequences set up in the Act on Juvenile Courts are only to be applied to an adolescent if either it is revealed that “ he was equal to a juvenile regarding moral and mental development at the time of the act” or it is indicated that “it was a juvenile delinquency” (Section 105 paragraph 1 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
The Act on Juvenile Courts has three forms of legal consequences, namely, educational measures, disciplinary measures and custodial sentences. Furthermore, there are also some of the incidental penalties prescribed in the adult criminal law, especially, the imposition of a ban on driving and some of the measures to reform the offender or protect the public (Sections 6 and 7 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
The goal of these measures is not to punish, but to educate the offender. The two types of education measures are instruction (Section 10 of the Act on Juvenile Courts) and disciplinary guidance and reformatory education (Section 12 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
Instructions are “orders and prohibitions which guide the life of the juvenile and thereby further and secure his education”. The juvenile can be ordered to comply with instructions concerning the place of abode, to be supervised by a specific person, to participate in a social training course or to attempt to make good the injury done to the victim, etc. Especially emphasized is the instruction to undergo social-therapeutic treatment or treatment for drug addicts and alcoholics (Section 10 paragraph 2 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
Disciplinary measures are admonitions, conditions and juvenile detention.
- By the admonition, the wrongfulness of the act shall be insistently impressed upon the juvenile (Section 14 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
- Conditions are the obligation “to make restitution to the best of his ability for the damage caused by the act, to personally apologize to the injured party, to work or to pay an amount for the benefit of a charitable organization” (Section 15 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
- Juvenile detention as a custodial sentence serves as a warning. It can be in the form of free time detention, short-time detention (4 days maximum) or long-term detention (between one and four weeks) (Section 16 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
Juvenile punishment is the deprivation of liberty in a juvenile confinement facility. It is imposed if “due to the detrimental inclinations of the juvenile as revealed by the act, corrective disciplinary actions or means of correction are not sufficient for education or, if due to the seriousness of the guilt, punishment is required” (Section 17 paragraph 2 of the Act on Juvenile Courts). Juvenile punishment is to be assessed in such a way that the required correctional effect is possible (Section 18 paragraph 2 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
The minimum term of juvenile punishment is 6 months, the maximum term is 5 years (for juveniles). If the act involves a felony for which the provisions of the general criminal law provide a maximum sentence of more than 10 years of imprisonment, the maximum term is 10 years (Section 18 paragraph 1 of the Act on Juvenile Courts). For young adults, the maximum is always 10 years (Section 105 paragraph 3 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
The Act on Juvenile Courts knows several types of suspension of juvenile punishment on probation: the suspension of imposition of juvenile punishment (Section 27 of the Act on Juvenile Courts), the suspension of the sentence (Section 21 of the Act on Juvenile Courts), the suspension of the remaining juvenile punishment for a definite period (Section 88 of the Act on Juvenile Courts) and the so called “Vorbewährung” according to Section 57 of the Act on Juvenile Courts, where the court postpones the final decision on the suspension on probation for several months.
It is the characteristic of the sentencing practice of the last 115 years in Germany that the custodial sentences have been forced back in favor of non-custodial sentences, namely fines (Figure 3).
In 1882, at the beginning of the statistical time frame, the share of unconditional sentences of imprisonment amounted to 76.8 %. Only 22.2 % of those convicted received fines. The share of those sentenced to the death penalty amounted to 0.03 %; in the following years this fluctuated between 0.01 and 0.05 % (1939). In 1950, the first year with statistical results for West Germany, the share of prison sentences was still at 39.1 %. In 2004, only 8.3 % of all persons convicted received an unconditional prison sentence. Of all the adults and juveniles who were sentenced in 2004, 69.6 % received a fine. If one considers also those cases that were discharged, which would have been sentenced in 1882, then today only 3.7 % of all those sanctioned are sent to prison.
Informal sanctions have an increasing significance and a shift of sanctions competence from the judge to the prosecutor can be seen. The sanctions practice freely accepted the means of diversion; refraining from punishment (Section 60) and admonition with reservation to impose punishment (Section 59 of the Penal Code) remained practically meaningless. The increase of sanctionable persons was absorbed by ending the court case with a discharge. Because of this the absolute number of those convicted could remain approximately constant (Figure 4). Today, less than half of all sanctionable persons are finally sanctioned; the share of sentenced offenders of those who are sanctionable (and were actually sanctioned) decreased from 63.7 % in 1981 to 44.3 % in 2004 (Figure 5).
The bearers of these informal sanctions are mainly the prosecutors. At the beginning of the 80s, just short of two thirds of all the informal sanctions were pronounced through the prosecution; this portion has grown to about 85.0 %. In 2004, there were about 839.000 people whose proceedings were discharged by the prosecution in accordance with Sections 153, 153a, 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 45 of the Act on Juvenile Courts and about 934.000 people were either formally sanctioned or their proceedings were discharged by the court in accordance with Sections 153, 153a, 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 47 of the Act on Juvenile Courts. That means that 47.3 % of all informal and formal sanctions were imposed by the prosecution.
Informal sanctions exist not only in the juvenile justice system, but are also quantitatively significant in the adult justice system. Despite the increase in the amount of sanctioned people, the number of those convicted remains about constant, due to the increasing use of discharges (Sections 153, 153a 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure) (Figure 6). Relatively speaking, the portion of people formally sanctioned compared to all people sanctioned (informally and formally) is declining. In 1981, 66 % were formally sanctioned, whereas in 2004 only 47.6 % were formally sanctioned (Figure 7).
All German states ("Laender") show an increase in the rate of diversion. However, the differences between the diversion rates of the states vary and will over time increase even more (Figure 8). The span of the rates of diversion amounts to 11 % in 1981 and over 20.0 % in 2004. The diversion rates 2004 (without Schleswig-Holstein) range from 42.4 % in Baden-Württemberg to 67.8 % in Bremen. That means that out of 100 proceedings in Baden-Württemberg, approx. 41 were discharged, 59 people were convicted; in Bremen less than 40 were convicted.
There are not only differences between the states regarding whether there is a discharge, but also how it is discharged (Figure 9). In Bavaria discharges are rather rare (2004: 42.5 %), and when it is the case, conditions or instructions are usually applied. In contrast, stands Saarland, where the most proceedings are discharged, and when they are usually discharged without conditions or instructions. It was 2.6 times as probable that criminal proceedings were discharged without consequences in Saarland than it was in Bavaria in 2004.
Fines owe their increasing significance above all to the Laws Regarding Fines of 1924 as well as to the Criminal Law Reform of 1969, through which short-term imprisonment was driven back in favor of fines (Section 47 of the Penal Code).
Fines are now the predominant punishment. Since the Criminal Law Reform of 1969, more than 80 % of those convicted per year receive just a fine; in 2004, of the 670.279 convicted adults, 540.209 (80.6 %) of those received only fines (Figure 10). It is important to note that since 1970 the fines could hold such a high share of over 80 %, despite the increase of diversion during the last decades. Fines are imposed for traffic offenses, for mild and medium offenses of classic criminality, for crimes against the environment and for breaches of laws for foreigners.
About 236.000 discharges according to Section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, about 17.000 fines imposed as disciplinary measures in Juvenile Criminal Law and 58.274 sentences being impended on conditional probation, which usually involves paying a fine, must be added to the about 540.000 fine sentences in 2004. This shows the significance of fines in the present criminal justice system.
Despite the dominance of the fines as opportunities for driving back the short-term imprisonment (Section 47 of the Penal Code), it is not as widely used as it would be possible. The practice gave up some of its original extreme reserve against the fines exceeding 30 daily units (Figure 11), but still relinquishes the use of fines with short-term imprisonment of between 3 to 6 months. Although it is possible to impose fines from 5 daily units to 360 daily units (Section 40 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code), the majority of daily unit fines (1976: 78.2 %, 2003: 50.6 %) did not exceed 30 daily units and was therefore no competition for short-term imprisonment (the minimum penalty is one month – Section 38 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). In 2001 merely 45.1 % of fines ranged between 31 and 90 daily units. Therefore, about 94.3 % of all fines remain in the lower quarter of the range of sentences, only 0.5 % of all fines were for more than 180 daily units.
It is also not fully made use of the entire range of daily unit rates. The initial reservation was given up for fines at a rate of more than 25 € (1976: 4.9 %, 2004: 25.7 %), but the share of fines at a rate of 20 German Marks increased at the same time (1976: 29.7 %, 1999: 33.0 %) (Figure 12). But merely 1.9 % of those sentenced to fines pay more than 51 € per day. However, it has to be assumed that more than 1.3 % of those sentenced have a monthly net income (Section 40 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code) of more than 3.000 German Marks, especially if motoring offenses or fraudulent manipulation of trade and tax laws are concerned.
An incentive to paying the fines was and is the enforcement of a prison sentence (Section 43 of the Penal Code). The share of those serving time in prison because of not having paid their fine has increased since the 70s, even though the courts support payment by installments. According to empirical surveys almost a third of all fines are paid by installments. In recent years between 8 and 9 % of those sentenced to a fine spent some time in prison to make up for at least a portion of their fine. This is probably due to the decreasing economic situation including unemployment.
In 1967, before the Criminal Law Reform, every third judgement imposed a prison sentence up to six months, in 2004 it was only every tenth judgement that imposed a prison sentence. This considerable drop in favor of fines is the most lasting success of the 1969 Criminal Law Reform. Nevertheless, the strive for short-term imprisonment as an exception was in vain. In 2004, 35.0 % of all prison sentences were shorter than 6 months (Figure 13). It is a question of assessment, whether the goal of the lawmakers of 1969 to impose short-term prison sentences only as the “ultimate ratio” was reached.
The short-term imprisonment that is not impended on probation has not become an exception as well (Figure 14). It was driven back to one tenth of its scope of 1968, but nearly 28 % of all prison sentences not impended on probation are shorter than six months.
The enforcement of short-term imprisonment is not at all the exception. The goal of the Criminal Law Reform was to not only reduce the imposition but also the enforcement of short-term imprisonment, because of its hindrance to resocialisation. This has only been partially reached. The number of enforced short-term sentences raised significantly, because of unintentional incidental penalties imposed by enforcing other sanctions.
Such incidental unintended penalties are due to
- the enforcement of imprisonment as a substitute (Section 43 of the Penal Code),
- the revocation of suspension of the sentence (Section 56 and following Sections of the Penal Code),
- the suspension of the remaining sentence of imprisonment for a term on probation (Section 57 of the Penal Code) and
- the credit for pretrial confinement (Section 51 of the Penal Code).
In 1967/68 about 137.000 persons were imprisoned for under 6 months, and in 1981/82 there were still 66.400, which is several times as much as the 10.000 persons a year that are sentenced to an unconditional short-term imprisonment.
3.2.2 The Relative Consistency of Medium and Short-Term Imprisonment
With regard to sentences according to the adult criminal law, more medium and long-term sentences are imposed today than at the beginning of the 70s. The extension of the sentence being impended on probation to areas of offenses that can be punished up to two years, merely resulted in a consistent number of unconditional prison sentences. The portion of prison sentences ordered in the verdict is today nearly as large as it was before the Criminal Law Reform: in 1960 2.1 % of the persons sentenced received prison sentences without probation of more than one year and in it was 2.6 %.
As from 1981, the statistics refer to the “persons sanctioned” (the persons who were either sentenced or whose proceedings were discharged in accordance with Sections 153, 153a, 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This shows that the share of imposed prison sentences slightly decreased (1981: 11.7 %, 2004: 9.1 %). Since 1993, however, the share slightly increases. This is due to a significant decline in the portion of prison sentences of up to 12 months. The portion of prison sentences of more than 12 months remained constant in the 80s, since then, there was a slight increase (Figure 15).
3.3 The Increasing Significance of the Sentence Being Impended on Probation and Probation Service Today the sentence being impended on probation is used as a rule. The portion of sentences being impended on probation according to Section 56 of the Penal Code more than doubled in the last 40 years (1954: 30.2 %, 67.2 %). Currently, three fourths (1996: 73.9 %) of sentences up to two years are suspended on probation. For prison sentences between one and two years the suspension on probation is the rule (2004: 71.1 %) rather than the exception – at least since the second half of the 80s (Figure 16). Conditions and instructions are applied more and more. In 2004, 63.5 % of suspensions on probation had conditions attached, and 57.1 % had instructions attached. Very often it is made use of a probation officer to look after the sentenced person. However, the number of probation officers in the last few years did not increase as much as the number of people put on probation under the charge of a probation officer. This resulted in an increase of about 70 charges per probation officer. Through the steady shift on informal sanctions and fines, there is an increasing number of “problematic cases” to which prison sentences and suspension on probation have to be applied. These “problematic cases” are persons who had already been sentenced at least once previously as well as persons who had already been placed under the supervision of a probation officer. The data from the probation statistics show that the use of suspension on probation is successful, at least regarding the judicial decision of revocation or remission. There was no increase in the rate of revocation. Instead, there was a meaningful increase in the share of especially at-risk subjects (Figure 17) and a significant increase in the remission rate, namely, by those thought to be especially at risk (Figure 18). The suspension on probation is recalled in less than one fourth (1997: 31.3 %) of the cases according to the adult criminal law. 3.4 The Insignificance of the Further Non Custodial Sanctions – Refraining From Punishment and Admonition With Reservation to Impose Punishment
Both the refraining from punishment and the admonition with reservation to impose punishment that were carried out through the Criminal Law Reform of 1969 remain quantitatively meaningless. In 2004, 388 people were refrained from punishment (0.06 % of those sentenced). The number of admonitions with reservation to impose punishment has quintupled since 1975 (1975: 956 people with admonition; 2004: 6.642), but overall this sanction remained quantitatively meaningless in view of the simple means according to Section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In 1999, 5.194 people (0.8 % of those sentenced) received an admonition with reservation to impose punishment.
Pre-trial detention is an infringement on the basic rights of the individual, that is legitimized through the goals of procedure and execution, and is limited by the principle of assumed innocence. Because of the infringement on the basic constitutional rights, the need for effective prosecution must be weighed against the right and claim to freedom of the individual. Pre-trial detention is not ordered when it is disproportionate to the significance of the matter and the punishment likely to be imposed (Section 122 paragraph 1 sentence 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
The expectation that the rate of pre-trial detention would decrease parallel to the decrease in custodial sanctions was not fulfilled. The rate of pre-trial detention for persons sentenced according to adult criminal law remained constant; it was not until the middle of the 80s that the rate decreased significantly to 3.7 %, mostly under the influence of science and public debate; since 1990 it increased (1999: 5.0%), mainly as a reaction to crimes committed by foreigners (Figure 19). Only in the recent two years, the pre-trial detention rate has seen a moderate decline (2004: 4.0 %).
Of those having served time in pre-trail detention only every other adult convicted (2004: 52.9%) received a prison sentence without probation (Figure 20). A considerable portion of those convicted experience imprisonment in its most dissocializing form, i.e pre-trial detention.
Figure 1: Penal Consequences Penal Consequences (from the StGB)
Refrain from sentencing § 60 Warning reserving the possibility of sentencing
�� 59-59c Penalties Main penalties Custodial sentence � 38 Sentence suspended on probation �� 56-56g Unconditional custodial sentence Fine � 40 Incidental penalties*) Driving Ban � 44 Conditions/Incidental consequences Deprivation of the capacity to hold a public/elected office, and of the right to vote �� 45ff Publication of the conviction �� 165; 200 Measures (� 11 I Nr.
8) Measures for security and rehabilitation Custodial measures Commitment to a psychiatric ward � 63 Commitment to an institution for the treatment of substance abuse � 64 Commitment to protective custody � 66 Non-custodial measures Parole supervision of conduct upon release
�� 68-68g Revocation of a Driver’s License
�� 69-69b Ban on practicing a profession �� 70-70b Forfeiture �� 73-73e Seizure �� 74, 75 Rendering Useless (of writings) � 74d
*) §43a StGB (confiscation of property) was declared incompatible with Art. 103 II GG by the BVerfG on 20.03.2002 -2BvR 794/95 (BVerfGE 105, 135ff)
[overview] Figure 2: Penal Consequences (Juvenile Penal Law s)
Consequences (Juvenile Penal Law s)
Refrain from sentencing � 60 Main penalties Corrective measures � 9 JGG Instructions � 10 JGG Parenting orders � 12
JGG Institutional correctional training � 12 JGG Disciplinary measures � 13 JGG Warning � 14 JGG Charges � 15 JGG - Restitution - Apology - Labour - Monetary sum Youth detention � 16 JGG - Break time detention - Short-term detention - Long-term detention
Youth custody � 17 JGG Suspension of a sentence
� 27 JGG in cases of youth custody due to destructive tendencies
Imposition of youth custody § 17 JGG due to:
- Destructive tendencies - SEVERITY of the offence
Suspension on probation - “Pre-probation” � 57 JGG - “Judgment” probation � 21 JGG Unconditional youth custody Incidental penalties Driving Ban � 44 StGB Measures (� 11 I Nr.
8) Measures for security and rehabilitation �� 7 JGG, 61 ff StGB Custodial measures
Commitment to a psychiatric ward � 63 Commitment to an institution for the treatment of substance abuse � 64 Non-custodial measures Parole supervision of conduct upon release
�� 68-68g Revocation of a Driver’s License �� 69-69b Other measures Forfeiture �� 6 JGG, 73-73e
StGB Seizure �� 6 JGG, 74, 75
StGB Rendering Useless (of writings) �� 6 JGG,
74d StGB
c:\kidat\kisSV.prFigure 3: Total Development of Sanctioning Practice
Total Development of Sanctioning Practice
German Reich and Federal Republic of Germany, 1882-2003 (former West Germany and Berlin)
Proportions are of convictions under general and juvenile penal law
(white) Other
(green) Fine
(yellow) Conditional custodial sentences (probation/parole)
(red) Unconditional custodial sentences
Total convictions for crimes and misdemeanors
Not shown: death penalty (0.01-0.03%) Total culpable offenders (until 1923: older than 12, since 27.2.1923: older than 14)
Figure 4: Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders, absolute values (Timeline)
Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders
Federal Republic of Germany, 1981-2004
Formally sanctioned offenders, proceedings dismissed with conditions/unconditionally in absolute values (in thousands)
Absolute values, in thousands
(white) by the public prosecutor, unconditionally (dotted) by the public prosecutor, with conditions
(striped) Discharge by the court
(black) Formally sanctioned offenders
Figure 5: Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders, as Percentages of the Total of Sanctioned Offenders
Federal Republic of Germany, 1981-2003 (former West German states)
Formally sanctioned offenders, proceedings dismissed with conditions/unconditionally (without Discharges under the BtMG [Controlled Substances Legislation]), in percentages out of the total of sanctioned offenders
(white) by the public prosecutor, unconditionally (light gray) by the public prosecutor, with conditions
(dark gray) Discharge by the court
(black) Formally sanctioned offenders (Convicted offenders: those sentenced under §§ 59, 60 StGB, §27 JGG)
Table 1: Judgments and Convictions under General Penal Law and under Juvenile Penal Law, 1976 – 2003, all offences
Former West Germany with West Berlin, since 1994 including East Berlin
$(Quelle c:\kidat\Abgeurteilte ab 1976.xls)
Year Total judgements Percent of judgments under general penal law out of total judgments Percent of judgments under juvenile penal law out of total judgments Total convictions Percent of convictions out of total jugments Percent of convictions under general penal law out of total judgments under general penal law Percent of convictions under juvenile penal law out of total judgments under juvenile penal law (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1976 839.679 83,2 16,8 699.339 83,3 84,8 76,0 1977 882.855 82,3 17,7 722.966 81,9 83,6 73,9 1978 917.532 81,0 19,0 739.044 80,5 82,6 71,7 1979 906.232 79,8 20,2 718.779 79,3 81,8 69,5 1980 928.906 79,1 20,9 732.481 78,9 81,6 68,5 1981 952.091 78,1 21,9 747.463 78,5 81,5 67,9 1982 981.083 77,6 22,4 772.194 78,7 81,8 68,1 1983 998.208 77,8 22,2 784.657 78,6 81,9 67,1 1984 966.339 78,9 21,1 753.397 78,0 81,3 65,4 1985 924.912 80,2 19,8 719.924 77,8 81,0 65,1 1986 908.652 81,7 18,3 705.348 77,6 80,4 65,1 1987 890.666 82,9 17,1 691.394 77,6 80,1 65,5 1988 903.211 83,5 16,5 702.794 77,8 80,3 65,0 1989 888.089 85,1 14,9 693.499 78,1 80,6 64,0 1990 878.305 86,1 13,9 692.363 78,8 81,3 63,3 1991 869.195 86,8 13,2 695.118 80,0 82,5 63,4 1992 883.056 87,3 12,7 712.613 80,7 83,1 64,2 1993 931.051 87,8 12,2 760.792 81,7 84,2 63,7 1994 936.459 87,7 12,3 765.397 81,7 84,5 62,2 1995 937.385 86,7 13,3 759.989 81,1 84,0 61,7 1996 944.324 86,2 13,8 763.690 80,9 83,9 62,2 1997 960.334 85,6 14,4 780.530 81,3 84,3 63,3 1998 974.187 85,1 14,9 791.549 81,3 84,4 63,3 1999 940.683 84,6 15,4 759.661 80,8 83,7 64,5 2000 908.261 84,0 16,0 732.733 80,7 83,7 64,7 2001 890.099 83,6 16,4 718.702 80,7 83,6 66,2 2002 893.005 82,8 17,2 719.751 80,6 83,6 66,1 2003 911.848 83,2 16,8 736.297 80,7 83,7 66,3 2004 958.259 83,6 16,4 775.802 81,0 83,7 67,1 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (Hrsg.): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 1976-2003
Table 2: Judgments under General Penal Law by Type of Decision, 1976-2003; all offences; All former West German States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin.
Year Total judgments Total convicted Total not convicted. Sentence of disciplinary measures without supervision Acquittal with a sentence of disciplinary measures Refrained from sentencing Discharge of the proceedings without accompanying disciplinary measures Acquittal without a sentence of disciplinary measures Value Value in %
of (1) (4) in % of (1) in % of (1) in % of (1) in %
of (1) in %
of (4) in % of (1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1976 698.703 592.154 84,8 106.549 0,03 0,02 0,13 10,6 69,5 4,5 1977 726.375 607.307 83,6 119.068 0,03 0,01 0,08 11,8 71,9 4,5 1978 743.542 614.252 82,6 129.290 0,03 0,01 0,06 12,8 73,8 4,4 1979 723.247 591.543 81,8 131.704 0,03 0,02 0,06 13,7 75,0 4,4 1980 735.170 599.832 81,6 135.338 0,03 0,01 0,06 14,0 75,8 4,4 1981 743.788 605.946 81,5 137.842 0,03 0,01 0,05 14,3 77,3 4,1 1982 761.078 622.434 81,8 138.644 0,03 0,01 0,04 14,2 78,1 3,9 1983 776.655 636.105 81,9 140.550 0,03 0,01 0,05 14,3 78,8 3,7 1984 762.100 619.800 81,3 142.300 0,03 0,02 0,04 14,9 79,5 3,7 1985 741.861 600.798 81,0 141.063 0,03 0,01 0,05 15,1 79,6 3,8 1986 742.193 597.028 80,4 145.165 0,03 0,01 0,06 15,7 80,2 3,8 1987 737.932 591.321 80,1 146.611 0,03 0,01 0,04 16,0 80,4 3,8 1988 754.560 606.103 80,3 148.457 0,03 0,01 0,04 15,9 80,8 3,7 1989 755.367 608.548 80,6 146.819 0,04 0,01 0,07 15,8 81,1 3,6 1990 756.285 615.089 81,3 141.196 0,04 0,01 0,07 15,2 81,7 3,3 1991 754.420 622.390 82,5 132.030 0,05 0,01 0,09 14,3 81,6 3,1 1992 771.107 640.774 83,1 130.333 0,05 0,01 0,07 13,8 81,7 3,0 1993 817.044 688.128 84,2 128.916 0,04 0,01 0,05 12,9 82,0 2,7 1994 820.841 693.432 84,5 127.409 0,05 0,01 0,04 12,8 82,2 2,7 1995 813.055 683.258 84,0 129.797 0,04 0,01 0,06 13,1 81,9 2,8 1996 814.344 682.844 83,9 131.500 0,05 0,01 0,05 13,2 81,9 2,8 1997 821.706 692.723 84,3 128.983 0,06 0,00 0,07 12,9 82,0 2,7 1998 828.913 699.548 84,4 129.365 0,06 0,00 0,09 12,8 81,9 2,7 1999 795.483 666.059 83,7 129.424 0,06 0,00 0,08 13,4 82,4 2,7 2000 763.307 638.893 83,7 124.414 0,07 0,00 0,05 13,5 82,7 2,7 2001 744.122 622.027 83,6 122.095 0,08 0,00 0,06 13,6 82,8 2,7 2002 739.555 618.269 83,6 121.286 0,08 0,01 0,04 13,7 83,3 2,6 2003 758.667 634.735 83,7 123.932 0,07 0,00 0,04 13,6 83,0 2,7 2004 801.037 670.279 83,7 130.758 0,09 0,00 0,05 13,6 83,3 2,6 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (Hrsg.):
Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 1976-2004.
Table 3: Judgments under Juvenile Penal Law by Type of Decision, 1976-2003; all offences
All former West German States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin.
. Total judgments Total convicted Total not convicted Sentence of disciplinary measures without supervision Transfer to Family Court Total discharges of the proceedings Of that: discharge under § 47 JGG Acquittal (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) N N in %
von (1) N in %
von (1) in %
von (1) in
% von (4) in %
von (1) 1976 140.976 107.185 76,0 33.791 0,03 0,04 20,8 86,8 15,8 66,0 3,1 1977 156.480 115.659 73,9 40.821 0,03 0,02 23,1 88,5 18,1 69,3 2,9 1978 173.990 124.792 71,7 49.198 0,02 0,02 25,4 89,7 20,3 71,9 2,9 1979 182.985 127.236 69,5 55.749 0,02 0,02 27,7 90,9 22,8 74,8 2,7 1980 193.736 132.649 68,5 61.087 0,02 0,01 29,0 91,8 24,4 77,4 2,5 1981 208.303 141.517 67,9 66.786 0,02 0,01 29,5 92,0 25,1 78,2 2,5 1982 220.005 149.760 68,1 70.245 0,01 0,02 29,7 92,9 25,4 79,6 2,2 1983 221.553 148.552 67,1 73.001 0,02 0,02 30,7 93,3 26,5 80,4 2,2 1984 204.239 133.597 65,4 70.642 0,01 0,01 32,3 93,5 26,3 76,0 2,2 1985 183.051 119.126 65,1 63.925 0,01 0,02 32,6 93,4 27,1 77,6 2,3 1986 166.459 108.320 65,1 58.139 0,02 0,02 32,6 93,2 28,2 80,7 2,3 1987 152.734 100.073 65,5 52.661 0,02 0,01 32,1 93,0 27,5 79,9 2,4 1988 148.651 96.691 65,0 51.960 0,01 0,01 32,6 93,2 27,6 78,9 2,4 1989 132.722 84.951 64,0 47.771 0,02 0,01 33,5 93,2 28,2 78,2 2,4 1990 122.020 77.274 63,3 44.746 0,02 0,02 34,3 93,5 28,7 78,4 2,4 1991 114.775 72.728 63,4 42.047 0,03 0,02 34,2 93,3 28,8 78,6 2,4 1992 111.949 71.839 64,2 40.110 0,02 0,01 33,4 93,3 28,3 78,9 2,3 1993 114.007 72.664 63,7 41.343 0,02 0,01 33,8 93,2 28,2 77,9 2,4 1994 115.618 71.965 62,2 43.653 0,03 0,01 35,3 93,5 29,6 78,3 2,4 1995 124.330 76.731 61,7 47.599 0,02 0,01 35,6 93,0 30,7 80,2 2,7 1996 129.980 80.846 62,2 49.134 0,02 0,03 35,3 93,5 30,5 80,6 2,4 1997 138.628 87.807 63,3 50.821 0,03 0,01 34,1 93,1 29,3 79,8 2,5 1998 145.274 92.001 63,3 53.273 0,02 0,02 34,3 93,5 29,7 81,1 2,4 1999 145.200 93.602 64,5 51.598 0,02 0,02 33,1 93,1 28,6 80,4 2,4 2000 144.954 93.840 64,7 51.114 0,02 0,02 32,7 92,8 28,6 81,0 2,5 2001 145.977 96.675 66,2 49.302 0,03 0,01 31,3 92,5 27,2 80,6 2,5 2002 153.450 101.482 66,1 51.968 0,02 0,01 31,1 91,7 26,9 79,3 2,8 2003 153.181 101.562 66,3 51.619 0,02 0,02 30,8 91,4 26,4 78,3 2,9 2004 157.222 105.523 67,1 51.699 0,03 0,10 30,1 91,4 26,1 79,5 2,7 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt
(Hrsg.): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik
1976-2004. $(Quelle: c:\kidat\Abgeurteilte ab
1976.xls) [overview] Figure 6: Offenders Informally and Formally Sanctioned under General Penal Law
Offenders Informally and Formally Sanctioned under General Penal Law
(dotted) Sanctioned under § 153 unconditionally
(striped/dotted) Sanctioned under §§ 153, 153 b (Court) unconditionally
(hatched) Sanctioned under § 153 with conditions imposed
(striped) Sanctioned under § 153a (Court) with conditions imposed
(black) Formally Sanctioned
Figure 7: Development of Sentencing Practice under General Penal Law
Development of Sentencing Practice under General Penal Law
Percentages are of offenders sentenced under general penal law
(white – upper) Discharge by the public prosecutor
(white – lower) Discharge by the court
(red) Formally sanctioned offenders (percent)
(dotted) Fine
(striped) Suspended custodial sentences
(gray) Unconditional custodial sentences
Figure 8: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law
Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law, 1981-2003
Proportions of Discharges by public prosecutors and courts under §§ 153, 13a, 153b StPO are of the informally and formally sanctioned Mitte: mean average
$(Quelle Diversion_2004_ Grundtabelle.xls) Figure 9: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law, by States, 2003
Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law, by States, 2003
Proportion of conditional/ unconditional discharges to those informally and formally sanctioned
(white) formall sanctioned
Diversion rate (in percent)
(dark grey) informally sanctioned with charges
(light grey) informally sanctioned without charge
[overview] Figure 10: The Development of Sanctioning Practice under General Penal Law (Timeline)
The Development of Sanctioning Practice under General Penal Law (Timeline)
Convictions, Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003 (former West German States and Berlin)
(blue) Fine
(grey) on probation
(dark grey) unconditional
Figure 11: Fines by Number of Days (Timeline) Note: Fines under German Penal Law are calculated by the individual’s earnings on a per diem basis
Fines by Number of Days (Timeline)
Federal Republic of Germany 1975-2003
Proportions based on fines issued under General Penal Law
Figure 12: Fines by Amount of Per Diem Earnings (Timeline)
Fines by Amount of Per Diem Earnings (Timeline)
Fines amounting to more than 360 days worth of per diem earnings are not included in the prosecution statistics.
[overview] Figure 13: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law: Total Custodial Sentences (Timeline)
Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law, 1970-2003
Total Custodial Sentences
Proportions based on all custodial sentences imposed under General Penal Law
(grey) >24 months
(navy) 12-24 months
(light blue) 6-12 months
(white) under 6 months
Figure 14: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law: Unconditional Custodial Sentences (Timeline)
Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law, 1970-2004 Unconditional Custodial Sentences
[Zur�ck zur �bersicht] Figure 15: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law in Relation to All Individuals Sanctioned
Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal, 1981-2004
Proportions are in relation to those informally and formally sanctioned under General Penal Law (red) >24 months
(blue) 12-24 months
(green) 6-12 months
(grey) under 6 months
[overview] Figure 16: Suspension Rate of Custodial Sentences awarded under General Penal Law
Suspension Rate of Custodial Sentences awarded under General Penal Law, 1970-2004
Proportions in relation to the custodial sentences open to suspension
(blue) >12-24 months
in percent, in relation to all custodial sentences open to suspension
Figure 17: Conditional Probations after Previous Conviction of the Probationer. Under General Penal Law
Previous conviction(s) and
(dark grey) - previously under probation/parole supervision
(grey) – previously without probation/parole supervision
(white) not previously convicted
Year probation ended
*since 1992 not including Hamburg
Figure 18: Probation supervision ended through probation of previously convicted probationers
(green) without previous convictions
(black) total
(blue) total previously convicted (including those under probation or parole supervision)
(red) previously under probation or parole supervision
Year probation ended Federal Republic of Germany, since 1995 including all of Berlin, since 1992 not including Hamburg Figure 19a: Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law
Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law
Federal Republic of Gemany (the former West Germany and Berlin) 1975-2003. Rates are of offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law/ under general penal law
(blue) General penal law
(red) Juvenile penal law
Juvenile penal law
Source: Konstanz Repository of Research on Crime and Sentencing at www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis
Figure 19b: Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law
Federal Republic of Gemany (the former West Germany and Berlin) 1975-2003. Rates are of all offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law/ under general penal law
Source: Konstanz Respoitory of Research on Crime and Sentencing at www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis
Figure 20: Remanded Prisoners by Type of Sanction (General Penal Law) (Timeline)
Remanded Prisoners by Type of Sanction (General Penal Law)
Rates are of all offenders sentenced under general penal law who were remanded in custody prior to sentencing
(white) Detention
(light grey) Fine
(grey) Conditional custodial sentence
(dark grey) Unconditional custodial sentence
Rate remanded in custody
Figure 21: Offenders Sentenced in Youth Court (Timeline)
Offenders Sentenced in Youth Court, 1955-2003
Absolute values of juveniles (14-18) and young adults (18-21) sentenced (under general and juvenile penal law) (absolute values, in thousands)
(white) Juveniles
(grey) Young Adults sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law
(dark grey) Young Adults sentenced under General Penal Law
until 1960 excluding Saarland and West Berlin Figure 22: Under Juvenile Penal Law Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders
Under Juvenile Penal Law Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders
Offenders sentenced, persons discharged conditionally/unconditionally as absolute values (in thousands)
(grey) § 45 I, II new version (public prosecutor)
(white) § 45 III new version (public prosecutor)
(grey) § 47 JGG (Court)
(dark grey) Formally Sanctioned
*Offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law and persons with decisions under §27 JGG
Figure 23: The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults (Timeline)
The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults Percentages of young adults sentenced under General and under Juvenile Penal Law, 1955-2003
(white) Young adults sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law
(grey) Young adults sentenced under General Penal Law
Former States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin. Until 1960 excluding Saarland and West Berlin.
Figure 24: The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults, by Offence
The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults Rates of young adults sentenced under Juvenile and under General Penal Law in 2004; by offence Young adults sentenced under
(white) General Penal Law
(white) Juvenile Penal Law
I.	Offences Against the Public Order
II.	Sexual Offences
III.	Offences Against the Person
1.	16 Offences Against Life
2.	17 Assault and Battery
IV.	Theft and Appropriation
V.	Robbery and Blackmail
VI.	other Property Offences
VII.	Offences Against Public Safety, Environmental Crimes
VIII.	Traffic Offences
Total Offences excluding Traffic Offences
Offence Types I-IX and subtypes as dictated by the Criminal Proceedings Statistics. Former West German States and Berlin
[overview] Figure 25: Diversion Rates (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under Juvenile Penal Law Diversion Rates (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2004
Percent, in relation to the total of under juvenile penal law formally and informally sentenced offenders
(white) formally sanctioned
(blue) diversion rate (in percent)
diversion under
(dark grey) § 47 JGG
(grey) § 45 III JGG (light grey) § 45 I, II JGG
Figure 26: Development of Sanctioning Practice in Juvenile Penal Law Development of Sanctioning Practice in Juvenile Penal Law BRD: The former West Germany (since 1995 including all of Berlin)
Percentages are of the total of informally and formally sanctioned juvenile offenders § 45 JGG, § 47 JGG: forms of diversion (administrative and judicial) permitted under the JGG (Juvenile Penal Code)
§ 27 JGG: a form of probation where the sentence is determined by the offender’s conduct in a time of pre-sentencing probation permitted under the (Juvenile Penal Code)
formell sanktioniert %: percentages formally sanctioned
Erziehungsmaßregeln/ambulante Zuchtmittel: (non-)custodial disciplinary actions or parenting orders
Jugendarrest: juvenile detention sentences
bed. (bedingte) Jugendstrafe: suspended juvenile custodial sentences
Unbedingte Jugendstrafe: juvenile custodial sentences without probation
Diversionsrate: rate of diversion
Figure 27: Rates of Diversion of German Youths (at the Time of the Decision-making) for Small Property Offences (§ 242, 247, 248a StGB are the only Offences) that were Dependant on Prior Convictions, by State (1994)
(white) First Recorded Offence
(light grey) Second Recorded Offence
(dark grey) Third and Higher Recorded Offence
Source: Data is from the Federal Central Registry and the Juvenile Registry, for decisions made in 1994. German youths (at the time of the decision-making), per decision (including numerous decisions made for the same offender)
Figure 28: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) in Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2002. Rates of diversion by public prosecutor and by the courts under §§45, 47 JGG with respect to informally and formally sanctioned offenders, by State
[C:\rfs2003\jobs\JGG1994-1.sps;
C:\rfs2003\jobs\JGG1994-1.xls : [NEU EDALTJ<18 D] (GS) 29.03.2005 13:01:23] Diversion Rates ((Public Prosecutor and Courts) in Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2002
Rates of diversion by public prosecutor and by the courts under §§45, 47 JGG with respect to informally and formally sanctioned offenders, by State
Hamburg: Data for §45 estimated for 1990; in 1984/1985 underestimated due to error
*Average, all States
Figure 29: Rates of Diversion in Juvenile Penal Law, by State
Rates of Diversion in Juvenile Penal Law, by State, 2003
Rates of diversion by public prosecutor and courts under §§ 45, 47 JGG with respect to the total of informally and formally sanctioned offenders
Diversion Rate Juvenile Penal Law
(dark grey) § 47 JGG (Court)
(grey) § 45 III
(light grey) § 45 I, II
*excluding SH
*excluding ST
Former States/ 4 New States
Figure 30: The Development of Sanctioning Practice under Juvenile Penal Law The Development of Sanctioning Practice under Juvenile Penal Law Formal sanctions, Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates are of offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law (dark gray) institutional correctional training
(white) noncustodial disciplinary actions / parenting orders
(dotted) noncustodial disciplinary measures as regulated by the JGG
(light hatched) suspended juvenile custodial sentences
(black) juvenile custodial sentences without probation
(dark hatched) juvenile detention sentences
Rate of custiodial treatment (youth prison without probation + youth dentention + residential welfare education)
Rate of suspension: youth prision sentence with probation Figure 31: Non-custodial Sanctions under Juvenile Penal Law
Offenders Sentenced to Non-Custodial Sentences under Juvenile Penal Law
Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates in relation to non-custodial sanctions as the harshest sentence
(white) non-custodial disciplinary actions/ parenting orders
(light grey) non-custodial disciplinary measures
(grey) conditional youth custod
[overview] Figure 32: Offenders Sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law to Disciplinary Measures (Timeline)
(Total) Offenders Sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law to Disciplinary Measures
Rates in relation to total disciplinary measures imposed
(dark grey) institutional correctional training
(light grey) parenting orders
(white) instructions
Figure 33: Offenders Sentenced to Disciplinary Measures under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)
(Total) Offenders Sentenced to Disciplinary Measures under Juvenile Penal Law
(white) Warning
(black) Conditions
(grey) Youth Detention
Figure 34: Offenders Sentenced to Conditions under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)
Offenders Sentenced to Conditions under Juvenile Penal Law
Rates in relation to total conditions imposed as disciplinary measures
(pale yellow) Compensation
(yellow) Apology
(teal) Work service/ Apology
(green) Work service
(black) Fine
Figure 35: Offenders Sentenced to Youth Detention under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)
Offenders Sentenced to Youth Detention under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)
Rates in relation to total Youth Detentions
(white) Break time detention
(grey) Short-term detention
(dark grey) Long-term detention
Figure 36: Length of Youth Sentences (Timeline)
Length of Youth Sentences Imposed under Juvenile Penal Law, 1950-2003
Total youth sentences; Rates in relation to total sentencing under Juvenile Penal Law
(white) indeterminate length
(lined) determinate length (length not specified)
(black) >24 months
(dark grey) 12-24 months
(grey) 6-12 months
(light grey) 6 months
Figure 37: Length of Youth Sentences (Timeline)
Length of Youth Sentences Imposed under Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2004
Total youth sentences of a certain length. Rates in relation to under Juvenile Penal Law informally and formally sanctioned offenders.
(grey) 6 months
Figure 38: Rates of Suspension of Juvenile Custodial Sentences
Rates of suspension of suspendible juvenile custodial sentences , 1960 .. 2003
Rates are of each length of suspendible juvenile custodial sentences
The percentages are of all suspendible juvenile custodial sentences
Figure 39: Probation/Parole Completed by Offenders with Previous Convictions
(dark grey) and previously under probation/parole supervision
(grey) without probation/parole supervision
(white) no previous convictions
Year probation/parole completed
*since 1992 excluding Hamburg Figure 40: Probation Supervision Ended Through Parole
Probation/Parole in percent
(green) no previous convictions
(blue) all previously convicted (including probationary/parole sentences)
(red) previously convicted, probationary/parole sentences
Federal Republic of Germany (former States, since 1995 including Berlin); since 1992 excluding Hamburg
Figure 41: Offenders Remanded in Custody, by Type of Sanction (Juvenile Penal Law) Offenders Remanded in Custody, by Type of Sanction (Juvenile Penal Law) Federal Republic of Germany 1975-2003
Percentages are of the total of offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law who were remanded in custody pending trial
(black): disciplinary actions / parenting orders
(white): disciplinary measures measures as regulated by the JGG
(light gray): suspended juvenile custodial sentences
(dark grey): juvenile custodial sentences without probation
Rate remanded in custod
Figure 42: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law
Juvenile Penal Law:
(pale pink) Youth detention
(pale pink) 6-12 months
(red) 12-24 months
(red) >24 months
(pale blue) under 6 months
(pale blue) 6-12 months
(blue) >24 months
General 2003 Juvenile
Penal Law Figure 43: Custodial Sentenced under Juvenile and Under General Penal Law (Timeline)
(light blue) Total custodial sentences under 6 months
(blue) Conditional custodial sentences of 6 months and longer
(dark blue) Unconditional custodial sentences of 6 months and longer
(light red) Youth detention
(red) Conditional youth custody
(dark red) Unconditional youth custody
J: Juvenile Penal Law
A: General Penal Law
Figure 44: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)
Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law 1981-2003
Total custodial sentences of over 6 months, excluding youth detentions of uncertain //UNDETERMINED length Rates in relation to informally and formally sanctioned offenders
(dark blue) >24 months A
(blue) 12-24 months A
(light blue) 6-12 months A
(dark red) >24 months J
(red) 12-24 months J
(light red) 6-12 months J
Figure 45: Prisioners in Western European States
Prisioners in Western European States
Total prisoners. Rates of imprisonment are per 100,000 inhabitants. As of: 1.9.2003
Table 4: Judgments Resulting in Custodial Sentences for Security and Rehabilitation, 1976 – 2004
Former West Germany with West Berlin, since 1995 including East Berlin
Year Judgments Total Sentences including custodial measures
(col. 4, 7, 10) Committed to Psychiatric Ward Rehabilitation Clinic Secure custody Total Unfit to stand trial Total Unfit to stand trial N N %
von (1) N %
von (2) N N %
von (2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1976 839.679 874 0,10 410 46,9 258 404 46,2 62 60 6,9 1977 882.855 869 0,10 389 44,8 201 429 49,4 49 51 5,9 1978 917.532 895 0,10 377 42,1 251 483 54,0 64 35 3,9 1979 906.232 984 0,11 370 37,6 229 570 57,9 50 44 4,5 1980 928.906 992 0,11 366 36,9 233 585 59,0 48 41 4,1 1981 952.091 956 0,10 395 41,3 232 504 52,7 33 57 6,0 1982 981.083 965 0,10 408 42,3 240 519 53,8 49 38 3,9 1983 998.208 968 0,10 420 43,4 268 521 53,8 49 27 2,8 1984 966.339 974 0,10 427 43,8 256 511 52,5 44 36 3,7 1985 924.912 990 0,11 425 42,9 267 526 53,1 43 39 3,9 1986 908.652 994 0,11 410 41,2 248 544 54,7 41 40 4,0 1987 890.666 1.040 0,12 391 37,6 235 610 58,7 47 39 3,8 1988 903.211 1.095 0,12 447 40,8 249 616 56,3 28 32 2,9 1989 888.089 1.086 0,12 428 39,4 252 631 58,1 56 27 2,5 1990 878.305 1.089 0,12 432 39,7 276 626 57,5 48 31 2,8 1991 869.195 1.236 0,14 474 38,3 324 724 58,6 72 38 3,1 1992 883.056 1.397 0,16 553 39,6 337 810 58,0 60 34 2,4 1993 931.051 1.304 0,14 467 35,8 307 810 62,1 79 27 2,1 1994 936.459 1.505 0,16 551 36,6 358 914 60,7 49 40 2,7 1995 937.385 1.361 0,15 559 41,1 345 757 55,6 28 45 3,3 1996 944.324 1.548 0,16 628 40,6 410 874 56,5 38 46 3,0 1997 960.334 1.901 0,20 739 38,9 464 1.116 58,7 46 46 2,4 1998 974.187 1.892 0,19 770 40,7 454 1.061 56,1 40 61 3,2 1999 940.683 1.955 0,21 709 36,3 466 1.191 60,9 43 55 2,8 2000 908.261 2.085 0,23 758 36,4 497 1.267 60,8 48 60 2,9 2001 890.099 2.234 0,25 790 35,4 512 1.370 61,3 52 74 3,3 2002 893.005 2.452 0,27 864 35,2 557 1.532 62,5 45 56 2,3 2003 911.848 2.585 0,28 876 33,9 536 1.643 63,6 34 66 2,6 2004 958.259 2.642 0,28 968 36,6 666 1.609 60,9 52 65 2,5 Change
1976-2004 in percent 14,1 202,3 136,1 298,3 8,3 Total 118.580 1.768 558 1.205 5 Source: Statistisches
Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgung
1976-2004. Table 5a: Offenders Convicted for Crimes or Misdemeanors and Sentenced to Custodial Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany with Berlin 2004. Absolute values.
Sentenced to custodial measures Total Committed to a psychiatric ward of that: not culpable Rehabilitation clinic Secure custody Total Offences 958.259 2.642 968 666 1.609 65 Sexual Offences (�� 174-184b) 9.894 256 161 67 69 26 Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 211-222) 1.290 202 123 91 65 14 -
murder (� 211) 171 13 8 4 4 1 - attempted murder (�� 211, 22) 123 30 15 13 10 5 - manslaughter (�� 212, 213) 514 157 100 74 49 8 Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 223-231) 97.970 577 325 261 250 2 -
battery (� 224) 37.760 378 222 169 156 0 - actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (� 227) 82 19 2 2 16 1 Theft and Appropriation (�� 242-248c) 185.550 285 44 24 240 1 -
Burglary including home burglaries (�� 243 I, 244 I Nr. 3) 19.892 157 28 16 128 1 - Theft in other serious cases (� 243 I Nr. 2-7) 6.612 23 3 1 20 0 - Armed theft (� 244 I 1) 1.933 24 3 2 21 0 -
Organised gang thefts (� 244 I 2) 944 6 1 0 5 0 Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (�� 249-255, 316a) 13.014 425 95 68 315 15 - Robbery (� 249) 3.816 76 30 22 44 2 - Serious Robbery (� 250) 2.201 125 20 11 99 6 - Robbery resulting in death (� 251) 25 0 0 0 0 0 Deception Offences and Dishonesty (�� 263-266b) 165.029 63 20 12 40 3 Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 306-323c [without § 316a]) 5.726 223 140 95 81 2 Traffic 223.784 113 13 12 100 0 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege.
Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2004. Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.
Table 5b: Offenders Convicted for Crimes or Misdemeanors and Sentenced to Custodial Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany with Berlin 2004. (In percent of offenders convicted)
Sentenced to custodial measures (in % of offenders convicted) Total Committed to a psychiatric ward of that: not culpable Rehabilitation clinic Secure custody Total Offences 958.259 0,28 0,10 68,8 0,17 0,01 Sexual Offences (�� 174-184b) 9.894 2,59 1,63 41,6 0,70 0,26 Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 211-222) 1.290 15,66 9,53 74,0 5,04 1,09 -
murder (� 211) 171 7,60 4,68 50,0 2,34 0,58 -
attempted murder (�� 211, 22) 123 24,39 12,20 86,7 8,13 4,07 - manslaughter
(�� 212, 213) 514 30,54 19,46 74,0 9,53 1,56 Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 223-231) 97.970 0,59 0,33 80,3 0,26 0,00 -
battery (� 224) 37.760 1,00 0,59 76,1 0,41 0,00 -
actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (� 227) 82 23,17 2,44 100,0 19,51 1,22 Theft and Appropriation (�� 242-248c) 185.550 0,15 0,02 54,5 0,13 0,00 -
Burglary including home burglaries (�� 243 I, 244 I
Nr. 3) 19.892 0,79 0,14 57,1 0,64 0,01 - Theft in other serious cases (� 243 I Nr. 2-7) 6.612 0,35 0,05 33,3 0,30 0,00 - Armed theft (� 244 I 1) 1.933 1,24 0,16 66,7 1,09 0,00 -
Organised gang thefts (� 244 I 2) 944 0,64 0,11 0,0 0,53 0,00 Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (�� 249-255,
316a) 13.014 3,27 0,73 71,6 2,42 0,12 - Robbery (� 249) 3.816 1,99 0,79 73,3 1,15 0,05 - Serious Robbery (� 250) 2.201 5,68 0,91 55,0 4,50 0,27 - Robbery resulting in death (� 251) 25 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,00 0,00 Deception Offences and Dishonesty (�� 263-266b) 165.029 0,04 0,01 60,0 0,02 0,00 Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic) (�� 306-323c [without § 316a]) 5.726 3,89 2,44 67,9 1,41 0,03 Traffic 223.784 0,05 0,01 92,3 0,04 0,00 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie
10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2004. Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.
Table 6a: Non-cupable Convicted Offenders Sentenced to Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany inlcuding Berlin, 2004. Convicted Offenders Non-culpable Offenders Total of that: Total not committed committed committed to N in % of non-culpable convicted offenders in % of non-culpable convicted offenders Psychiatric Ward in % of non-culpable convicted offenders Rehabilitation Clinic in % of non-culpable convicted offenders (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Total Offences 958.259 0,1 906 188 20,8 718 79,2 666 73,5 52 5,7 Sexual Offences (�� 174-184b) 9.894 0,7 73 5 6,8 68 93,2 67 91,8 1 1,4 Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 211-222) 1.290 7,1 92 0 0,0 92 100,0 91 98,9 1 1,1 -
murder (� 211) 171 2,3 4 0 0,0 4 100,0 4 100,0 0 0,0 - attempted murder (�� 211, 22) 123 10,6 13 0 0,0 13 100,0 13 100,0 0 0,0 - manslaughter
(�� 212, 213) 514 14,6 75 0 0,0 75 100,0 74 98,7 1 1,3 Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 223-231) 97.970 0,3 305 27 8,9 278 91,1 261 85,6 17 5,6 -
battery (� 224) 37.760 0,5 194 11 5,7 183 94,3 169 87,1 14 7,2 - actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (� 227) 82 3,7 3 1 33,3 2 66,7 2 66,7 0 0,0 Theft and Appropriation (�� 242-248c) 185.550 0,0 44 11 25,0 33 75,0 24 54,5 9 20,5 -
Burglary including home burglaries (�� 243 I, 244 I Nr. 3) 19.892 0,1 20 1 5,0 19 95,0 16 80,0 3 15,0 - Theft in other serious cases (� 243 I Nr. 2-7) 6.612 0,1 4 0 0,0 4 100,0 1 25,0 3 75,0 - Armed theft (� 244 I 1) 1.933 0,2 3 1 33,3 2 66,7 2 66,7 0 0,0 -
Organised gang thefts (� 244 I 2) 944 0,0 0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (�� 249-255, 316a) 13.014 0,6 77 2 2,6 75 97,4 68 88,3 7 9,1 - Robbery (� 249) 3.816 0,6 22 0 0,0 22 100,0 22 100,0 0 0,0 - Serious Robbery (� 250) 2.201 0,5 12 1 8,3 11 91,7 11 91,7 0 0,0 - Robbery resulting in death (� 251) 25 0,0 0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 Deception Offences and Dishonesty (�� 263-266b) 165.029 0,0 17 5 29,4 12 70,6 12 70,6 0 0,0 Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§306-323c [without 316a]) 5.726 3,0 173 68 39,3 105 60,7 95 54,9 10 5,8 Traffic Offences 223.784 0,0 72 56 77,8 16 22,2 12 16,7 4 5,6 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege.
Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2004 - Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.
Table 6b: Semi-cupable Convicted Offenders Sentenced to Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence. Former West Germany inlcuding Berlin, 2004.
Convicted Offenders Semi-culpable Offenders Total
of that: Total not commited commited committed to N in % of non-culpable convicted offenders N in % of non-culpable convicted offenders. Psychiatric Ward in % of non-culpable convicted offenders Rehabilitation Clinic in % of non-culpable convicted offenders Secure custody
in % of non-culpable convicted offenders (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Total Offences 958.259 2,11 20.234 19.175 94,8 1.059 5,2 299 1,5 749 3,7 11 0,1 Sexual Offences (�� 174-184b) 9.894 5,73 567 433 76,4 134 23,6 94 16,6 36 6,3 4 0,7 Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 211-222) 1.290 15,97 206 128 62,1 78 37,9 32 15,5 42 20,4 4 1,9 -
murder (� 211) 171 8,77 15 8 53,3 7 46,7 4 26,7 3 20,0 0 0,0 - attempted murder (�� 211, 22) 123 15,45 19 13 68,4 6 31,6 2 10,5 2 10,5 2 10,5 - manslaughter
(�� 212, 213) 514 32,30 166 102 61,4 64 38,6 26 15,7 36 21,7 2 1,2 Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 223-231) 97.970 5,48 5.367 5.173 96,4 194 3,6 62 1,2 131 2,4 1 0,0 - battery(� 224) 37.760 6,16 2.327 2.199 94,5 128 5,5 52 2,2 76 3,3 0 0,0 - actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (� 227) 82 36,59 30 19 63,3 11 36,7 0 0,0 10 33,3 1 3,3 Theft and Appropriation (�� 242-248c) 185.550 2,85 5.280 5.134 97,2 146 2,8 20 0,4 126 2,4 0 0,0 -
Burglary including home burglaries (�� 243
I, 244 I Nr. 3) 19.892 6,69 1.331 1.251 94,0 80 6,0 12 0,9 68 5,1 0 0,0 - Theft in other serious cases (� 243 I Nr. 2-7) 6.612 7,83 518 504 97,3 14 2,7 2 0,4 12 2,3 0 0,0 - Armed theft (� 244 I 1) 1.933 12,26 237 226 95,4 11 4,6 1 0,4 10 4,2 0 0,0 -
Organised gang thefts (� 244 I 2) 944 3,50 33 28 84,8 5 15,2 1 3,0 4 12,1 0 0,0 Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (�� 249-255, 316a) 13.014 8,33 1.084 876 80,8 208 19,2 26 2,4 180 16,6 2 0,2 - Robbery (� 249) 3.816 7,13 272 243 89,3 29 10,7 8 2,9 21 7,7 0 0,0 - Serious Robbery (� 250) 2.201 10,04 221 152 68,8 69 31,2 9 4,1 58 26,2 2 0,9 - Robbery resulting in death (� 251) 25 16,00 4 4 100,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 Deception Offences and Dishonesty (�� 263-266b) 165.029 0,39 649 623 96,0 26 4,0 8 1,2 18 2,8 0 0,0 Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic Offences) (�� 306-323c [without § 316a]) 5.726 6,10 349 274 78,5 75 21,5 45 12,9 30 8,6 0 0,0 Traffic Offences 223.784 1,28 2.867 2.834 98,8 33 1,2 1 0,0 32 1,1 0 0,0 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege.
Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2003. Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.
[overview] Table 7: Revocation of Driver’s Licence and Driving Bans Due to Traffic Offences
Former West Germany with Berlin-West, since 1994 including Berlin-East
Judgments on Traffic Offences
Revocation of Driver’s Licence/ Driving Bans (2) in % of (1) Revocation of Driver’s Licence Driving Ban % / (2)
Revocation and additional ban % / (1)
Judgments on traffic offences For more than 6 months % /Revocation of Driver’s Licence % / (1) 1 month % / driving ban >1 to 2 months % / driving ban >2 to 3 months % / driving ban Year (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1976 351.574 183 751 52,3 89,0 46,5 68,7 6,5 30,1 23,2 46,7 1977 374.538 198 214 52,9 88,6 46,9 69,2 7,0 30,7 22,9 46,5 1978 387.581 206 869 53,4 88,2 47,1 69,4 7,3 29,8 22,5 47,7 1979 381.314 203 272 53,3 87,4 46,6 70,2 8,0 29,2 21,9 48,9 1980 392.184 215 057 54,8 86,2 47,3 71,0 9,0 27,0 19,9 53,1 1981 385.595 213 307 55,3 85,2 47,1 71,3 9,8 26,1 19,4 54,5 1982 373.189 213 210 57,1 84,0 48,0 72,5 10,9 23,8 18,9 57,2 1983 365.742 214 832 58,7 83,7 49,1 74,1 11,4 23,2 18,3 58,4 1984 343.235 206 413 60,1 83,2 50,0 74,9 12,1 23,5 17,6 58,9 1985 318.797 196 082 61,5 83,0 51,1 74,7 12,4 23,3 17,8 59,0 1986 309.334 190 242 61,5 83,6 51,4 74,5 12,0 23,2 17,6 59,2 1987 301.403 185 909 61,7 83,5 51,5 74,9 12,1 24,5 17,7 57,8 1988 303.725 189 839 62,5 83,7 52,3 75,9 12,1 24,6 17,7 57,7 1989 302.033 190 696 63,1 84,2 53,2 76,3 11,7 24,4 17,4 58,2 1990 301.967 194 232 64,3 84,5 54,4 76,7 11,6 24,3 17,7 58,0 1991 302.242 200 015 66,2 85,4 56,5 75,3 11,1 24,3 17,9 57,8 1992 299.783 195 486 65,2 85,6 55,8 74,1 10,7 24,4 17,2 58,3 1993 299.253 193 035 64,5 85,5 55,2 75,4 10,7 24,7 16,8 58,5 1994 298.928 194 309 65,0 86,3 56,1 75,7 10,1 25,1 16,1 58,7 1995 298.010 192 542 64,6 86,1 55,6 76,7 10,2 25,8 16,0 58,3 1996 286.727 188.016 65,6 85,3 55,9 77,3 11,0 27,1 16,3 56,5 1997 282.490 188.723 66,8 85,2 56,9 77,9 11,2 27,8 16,6 55,6 1998 267.957 179.070 66,8 84,5 56,4 79,0 11,7 27,4 15,7 56,9 1999 243.426 161.814 66,5 83,6 55,6 79,1 12,4 28,2 16,5 55,3 2000 238.454 156.717 65,7