Thomas Mueller writes in his book: to know
"The assumption what can you trust someone and what not, is the greatest error and at best the basis for Prejudices. That error is the breeding ground in which it begins to grow the camouflage of falsehood. And see who thinks he can, what someone is able to do, the camouflage is not recognized and the potential victims is a classic lie become, namely his own. "An interesting statement from one of the most prominent Profiler Europe. I have this Quote selected because I am the current search of the Federal Constitutional Court after an ECHR-compliant revision of the law on preventive detention watch. The Federal Republic of Germany has in the opinion of Strasburger judge with the retroactive application of the § 67e para 3 of the Criminal Code as amended to remove the temporal limiting preventive detention violated the ECHR, Article 5 and Article 7.
exciting it is now because the scheme was already the subject of a decision of the Constitutional Court (2004) - and the judges were then come to exactly opposite results.
According to the Federal Constitutional Court is the absolute retroactivity ( Article 103, paragraph 2 GG ) on measures of reform and prevention, such as preventive detention that is not really applicable.
How difficult the problem really is, also discloses a rather blunt a press release dated 13/01/2011 BMI:
"For the future, ex post facto preventive detention largely abolished. Preventive detention has since 01.01.2011 in Criminal Case laid out or reserved. For offenders who were released under the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights adopted in 2009 or still are free to come, is the new therapy Accommodation Act, if they are still dangerous because of a mental disorder and identify two referees so they can be accommodated in appropriate facilities and be treated. And rightly so in the past, the hectic and incident-related repair work has been criticized in the system of preventive detention. Since 1998 the right of preventive detention was last around ten times. "The Second Division of the Federal Constitutional Court now negotiated constitutional complaints by four offenders . Two are opposed to the subsequent order of preventive detention, the other two attack the subsequent indefinite extension of preventive detention (the previous law limited to 10 years).
Here the hare is consistent with the pepper. As an example the case of Charles D. is the dilemma of justice outlined quite well. Several officials observe him in his brother's house around the clock. The life of the brother is a totally different matter. The fun will cost 25,000 euros per week. Money that could create more meaningful? Yes, damn again !
Kay Nehm, former federal prosecutor, calls this approach " stricter supervision of conduct " and, yes, it is a last resort. But what could be a stopgap replacement for this? How can a democratic society behaves correctly with respect to released offenders? Can they do that?
Other states do it just to lock people up to their natural death one. And even though the inmates in maximum security prisons after years of good conduct certain freedoms (for example, of work in the field - by the hour even completely unattended - or even in plants) have earned: freedom is not. They see their family (if after such periods even still exist) are rare, and if they do, they usually have not obtained approval for a few intimate hours. The dilemma of the contradiction between human dignity, violating the very same rule of law and the response to this violation will never be solved.
Unless humanity recalls Kant Or learn to cure mental illnesses. cure Verifiable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment