Who is a terrorist and who is just mentally ill? This is often difficult to clarify for people from crisis areas. Judges and appraisers are overwhelmed. Nevertheless, the problem is kept quiet on the political side, says Gunnar Schupelius.
What do we call a killing spree and what do we call a terrorist attack? Who can decide which acts of violence result from mental illness and which do not?
The Berlin district court decided this question in a spectacular case. On January 31, the Iraqi Sarmad A. (31) was sentenced to indefinite stay in a psychiatric clinic as mentally ill and not responsible.
A year and a half ago, on the evening of August 19, 2020, Sarmad A., a rejected asylum seeker, was driving his Opel Astra on the city highway in Schöneberg. At high speed, he intentionally rammed cars and three motorcyclists. Three people were seriously injured. One of them is severely disabled today.
As Sarmad A. got out of his car, he shouted “God is great” and “All will die” in Arabic, then rolled out a prayer rug. He called himself a “martyr” on Facebook.
Interior Senator Geisel (SPD) spoke of an attack “out of Islamist motivation, coupled with psychological motives of the perpetrator”.
The regional court saw it as proven that Sarmad wanted to kill A. However, he is not guilty, he acted “in delusion”. The court was also unable to identify any “Islamic motivation”. However, “religious and Islamist elements” were “included” in the man’s delusion.
► Read all of Gunnar Schupelius’ columns here
This distinction draws our attention to a major problem: the judges rely on expert opinions, but the experts are inevitably overwhelmed. Because the boundaries between radicalization without delusion, which leads to violence, and pure delusion, which also leads to violence, are difficult to recognize.
The professor for security studies at King’s College in London, Peter Neumann, speaks of a “mixture of mental abnormalities on the one hand and extremist rhetoric (…) on the other hand”. It is difficult to judge whether the perpetrator is a terrorist “or someone who primarily has mental health problems.”
It is particularly difficult to distinguish between migrants who come from crisis areas. Lars Rückheim from the Terrorism Department at the Federal Criminal Police Office explains it this way: “Many of these people have had traumatic experiences there that are potentially capable of triggering corresponding disorders and illnesses.”
Sarmad A. came from a crisis area, as did the Afghan Abdul Malik A. (29), who wanted to murder the resident Regina G. (58) in Wilmersdorf on September 4 with a knife. Today she is paralyzed on one side.
Abdul Malik A. was both: mentally disturbed and incited by Islamist propaganda.
So what to do? Hard to say. But if you take in as many people as Germany does, you should at least not hide such problems and certainly not deny them.
Is Gunnar Schupelius right? Call: 030/2591 73153 or email: [email protected]