Post sponsored by

MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Deutschland –

Source: CDU CSU

Dear Mr President! Dear Colleagues! The Minister said it: when we talk about the judicial budget, the focus is not really on money, because it is by far the smallest budget that we are talking about this budget week. But it is about something very crucial: It is about laws and the way we live in our country, how we guarantee freedom and security and how we set the right framework conditions for this.

It was the former Federal President and President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Roman Herzog, who once said that the three essential tasks of the modern constitutional state, as it emerged in the 19th century, firstly is external security, i.e. national defense, and secondly Internal security, peace in society and, thirdly, the structure of society is everything that we can describe as social security and services of general interest. This makes it perfectly clear that the task of securing the inner peace of a society is central. It is the basis of legitimation for the state. It is also the basis for the state to gain acceptance and so that we can live as we do.

If you ask: “What are the basic requirements for this?”, The very first and most important answer is: the monopoly of violence and, as a result, the individual’s renunciation of violence, a functioning, well-developed legal system that sets rules and guard rails for a good life, and a functioning judiciary. This describes in a central way that what we are talking about in this section is constitutive for the way, for the quality, of how we live in our country. Therefore it cannot be rated highly enough. If the focus is on the monopoly of force, then it is all the more important and correct that the state nowhere leaves a blank space, that this monopoly of force cannot be undermined anywhere.

I believe that people don’t have exaggerated expectations. They do not expect that a highly trained police force, a well-equipped judiciary, can completely prevent crime, but there is a clear and legitimate expectation that we will do everything we can to ensure that we can live in our country in the greatest possible security. I want to document this with three examples. The first is how do we protect our children? Minister, you referred to the draft law on combating sexual violence against children and child pornography that you presented at the beginning of this summer. I have already said at this point that this is of course also a touchstone for how a civilized society manages to deal appropriately with the weakest, namely children, and to ensure adequate protection. Let me be frank: what you have presented is a quantum leap forward. We have often experienced this – regardless of whether it was Staufen, Lügde or Bergisch-Gladbach -: There was always outrage and indignation here in the house and also in the public debate, but we only made triple steps forward. This is now different for the first time.

It has been rightly said that an adjustment of the penalty framework not only has something to do with a general preventive effect, but of course also creates additional possibilities for investigation, says something about the limitation period and much more.

I would simply like to ask that we take a very careful look at the further legislative process: At what points can we do more if in doubt? We are having a good conversation there, guided by a common goal in the coalition. Let’s take a very close look. And there are definitely points with which we are not satisfied.

If, for example, someone is on probation and commits new, relevant offenses during this probation period, then this cannot lead to a new probation, but the prison sentence must follow immediately. It is imperative.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU)

We need instruments such as the electronic ankle cuff, which can help closely monitor perpetrators and thus ensure safety.

We have to ensure that those who commit criminal offenses for child abuse or child pornography are kept away from children in the future. Let’s take a look at the current legal situation: Such a relevant punishment is sometimes deleted from the extended certificate of good conduct after three years. That cannot be justified with anything, but also with nothing at all. It is right that we undertake something like this and ensure that such a person can no longer come into the vicinity of children permanently and that children are thus protected.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU)

Dear colleagues, this is a good example to make it clear that we want to enforce the state’s claim to clarification, design and monopoly on force.

Let me give you another example that shows that we have to keep pace with technological developments. That is the whole area of ​​cybercrime. For us, it’s about the equivalent in digital criminal law. The main regulations are from 2006. In 2006 we called 3G fast internet, Facebook was two years old, and Twitter and the iPhone were just being developed. We need to adapt in this area. If we look at the relevant regulations, whether that is data spying, data theft, sabotage, manipulation, hacking or whatever, it becomes clear: We are treating this as a minor offense, and that is no longer appropriate.

We should take a very close look at this: Where do we need to adjust the penalty framework? Where do we have to close gaps in criminal liability? I am thinking, for example, of digital trespassing as a catchphrase. And we have to look where we need investigative powers, where we have to create the necessary prerequisites, both in the repressive and preventive areas, so that investigative authorities, but also law enforcement authorities and security authorities, can keep pace with the powers they have in the analogue World can be transferred to the digital world. I think that is very important.

I would like to make one more point, the fight against organized crime. We have spoken here several times about the subject of clan crime, about the fact that there are efforts to establish parallel justice for justice of the peace and other things. There has to be a clear exclamation mark from the state that we do not accept such a thing. Our rights, our laws apply here, and we enforce them!

(Applause from the CDU / CSU – Fabian Jacobi [AfD]: That’s a completely new discovery! 2020! Innovative!)

This is true in the area of ​​organized crime as a whole, because we know very well that organized crime can ultimately not only be fought with the classic criminal law norms. We have to manage to interrupt and stop the flow of money. That is why it is right to deal intensively with the topic of money laundering, for example, and to look at what we need to change in order to become more effective in the future. But above all, of course, this must not ultimately lead to us creating new gaps. For this reason, the offense of negligence must not be removed from such a draft law; because today it is often the basis of condemnations. That must also be possible in the future. We do not want a deterioration, but an increase in effectiveness, because that is the key in the fight against organized crime.

Thank you very much.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU)


EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.

MIL Translation OSI