By Gunnar Schupelius
Gunnar Schupelius believes that there is a good deal to be said for lowering the age limit for child criminal responsibility in the case of capital crimes.
After the murder of 12-year-old Luise in Freudenberg, a debate about criminal responsibility broke out. Two girls, aged 12 and 13, have confessed to the crime. They cannot be convicted because they are not criminally responsible.
The Criminal Code speaks of the “child’s innocence”, which applies up to the age of 14. In other countries this limit is lower, in France it is 13 years, in the Netherlands it is 12 years and in England it is 10 years.
The CDU and AfD are calling for the age limit in Germany to be lowered to twelve. “Even 12 and 13-year-olds know that you are not allowed to kill,” said CDU legal expert Günter Krings of the picture on Sunday.
The age limit for criminal responsibility in Germany was raised from 12 to 14 100 years ago – with the argument that compulsory schooling ended at this age. To date, there is no scientific evidence that speaks for or against this age limit.
Federal Minister of Justice Buschmann (FDP) sees no need for action: “There are already means to react to serious acts of violence by children under the age of 14”. He means educational measures, accommodation in a home.
These means exist and in the event of theft or minor physical injury they are certainly sufficient. But what about capital crimes?
A legal investigation after a murder has nothing to do with mercilessness or revenge. In the case of juvenile and even adult offenders, individual peculiarities are taken into account in the verdict. Unlike other crimes, murder cannot be redeemed anyway. No victim comes alive because the perpetrator goes to jail.
But criminal proceedings make the incredible scope of the crime visible to everyone. And a punishment of whatever kind is at least an attempt to restore the destroyed balance between victim and perpetrator.
In addition, follow-up actions can be averted. Here is an example: In July 2019, an 18-year-old was raped and seriously injured in a forest near Mühlheim an der Ruhr by three 14-year-olds and two 12-year-olds.
One of the perpetrators had already committed sexual violence ten months earlier, but because he was under 14, he was not punished. Had he been brought to justice after the first crime, he might not have continued his criminal career so cruelly.
Do we honestly think the boy didn’t know not to hurt others? That is very unlikely. A child knows just as well by the age of twelve what is violence and what is murder as when it is eight, ten or fourteen.
If a murder still doesn’t go to court because the perpetrators are children, then the crime remains in the dark. This is also the case in Freudenberg: we know little about the motive and the course of events.
There is some argument in favor of lowering the age limit for criminal responsibility in the case of capital crimes. In any case, the court decides on the criminal maturity of the perpetrator and on the type and scope of the punishment.
Is Gunnar Schupelius right? Call: 030/2591 73153 or email: [email protected]
Read all of Gunnar Schupelius’ columns here