Cat King Fall

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A well-known decision by the Federal Court of Justice from 1988, which deals with important areas of criminal law with perpetration , participation and error of prohibition , is called the “ Katzenkönigfall” .

facts

According to the determination of the regional court in Bochum , the three defendants Peter P., Barbara H. and Michael R. lived together in a “ neurotic network of relationships” characterized by “ mysticism , false knowledge and misbelief” . In doing so, Peter P. and Barbara H. succeeded in convincing the easily influenced police officer Michael R. of the existence of a "cat king" who has embodied evil and threatened the world for thousands of years.

When Barbara H. found out in 1986 that her ex-boyfriend was married to a woman named Annemarie N., she and Peter P. decided to use Michael R.'s superstitions to kill Annemarie N. She played Michael R., the "Katzenkönig" demanded a human sacrifice in the form of Annemarie N. If the "Katzenkönig" did not receive this sacrifice, Michael R. would have to leave her and humanity or at least millions would be destroyed by people. Michael R. knew about the criminal liability of the action demanded of him, however, despite a remorse of conscience, accepted it to ward off a supposed “danger to millions of people”.

Peter P. gave Michael R. his knife and advised him to stab Annemarie N. with it from behind in her flower shop. Then Michael R. entered the flower shop on July 30, 1986 and pretended to buy roses. Then he stabbed the unsuspecting and defenseless Annemarie N. twelve times in the neck, face and body. When third parties rushed to help, he abandoned his victim, but expected his death. Annemarie N. survived, however, seriously injured.

Judgment of the regional court in Bochum

Criminal liability of the R.

The jury found R. guilty of attempted insidious murder . He stabbed N. with his own hands and with the intention of killing, taking advantage of her innocence and defenselessness . He only ended the attempt when he believed that the crime would still be successful.

A withdrawal from the attempt did not take place because R. had made no efforts to avert success.

R. could not rely on self-defense or emergency aid, as neither he nor others were exposed to a current attack by N.

His appeal to a justifiable state of emergency also failed, since there was in fact no present danger. In this respect, R. was in error about the justification situation. This could not benefit him, however, since in the justifying emergency, “life against life” cannot be weighed against each other.

With R. there was therefore an error in the prohibition , but only an avoidable one. As a police officer, it was possible for him, taking into account his individual abilities, to recognize the wrong estimate.

In the case of R., experts ruled out nonsense and a pathological mental disorder . However, he has a "highly abnormal personality". This and the "successful work of convincing the accused H. and P." led R. at the time of the crime into a delusional certainty, which can be characterized as another serious mental abnormality .

However, R. still had the insight to recognize his actions as injustice, and was not deprived of his ability to control. Therefore, the criminal chamber assumed a considerably reduced culpability in his favor . His sentence was therefore reduced to nine years in prison .

Criminal liability of P. and H.

The defendants P. and H. were not convicted as instigators but as indirect perpetrators of attempted murder. They had committed the act by someone else , whereby the court did not accuse them of malice, but of low motivation, and sentenced both of them to life imprisonment .

Revision procedure of the Federal Court of Justice

All three defendants challenged the judgment of the regional court because of factual deficiencies, with Barbara H. limited the challenge to the sentence.

The Federal Court of Justice found errors only in the sentencing for all three defendants. The criminal chamber did not take an overall view of the circumstances of the offense and the personality of the perpetrators, in which the essential test-related circumstances, namely proximity to the completion of the act, the dangerousness of the attempt and the criminal energy expended, are of particular importance. It may have escaped the fact that the contributions of H. and P. were not balanced, as H. was the driving force to which P. subordinated himself, albeit in his own interest. She also did not adequately examine a reduction in sentence according to Section 23 (3) StGB, due to the personality abnormalities of the defendants H. and P. and their peculiar network of relationships. Her personality deficiencies did not lead to a reduced criminal liability according to § 21 StGB, but would have to be taken into account when determining the sentence.

Second judgment of the regional court in Bochum

The renegotiation before the jury, which lasted from January 10 to 18, 1989, then led to milder sentences. Barbara H. was sentenced to a prison term of 14 years, Peter P. to a prison term of eleven years and Michael R. to a prison term of eight years.

Meaning and consequences of the judgment

The judgment has led to considerable discussion in the legal literature. In particular, the figure of indirect perpetrators when a person in front who is not innocent is deployed has not yet been conclusively clarified.

Single receipts

  1. ↑ BGH , judgment of the 4th criminal senate of September 15, 1988, Az. 4 StR 352/88, BGHSt 35,347 - Katzenkönig .
  2. ↑ Section 211 (2), 2nd group, 1st alternative StGB - "A murderer is who [...] insidiously [...] kills a person." - i. V. m. Section 23, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code - “Attempting a crime is always punishable [...].” - and Section 12, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code - “Crimes are unlawful acts with a minimum imprisonment of one year or more. "
  3. ↑ Section 24, Paragraph 1 - “Anyone who voluntarily gives up the further execution of the act or prevents its completion will not be punished for attempting. If the act is not completed without the intervention of the person withdrawing, he will be punished if he voluntarily and seriously tries to prevent the completion. "
  4. ↑ Section 32, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code - "Self-defense is the defense that is necessary to ward off a current unlawful attack on yourself or another."
  5. ↑ Section 34 of the Criminal Code - “Anyone who commits an act in a present, not otherwise avertable danger to life, limb, freedom, honor, property or another legal asset in order to avert the danger from himself or another, is not acting unlawfully, if at the weighing up of the conflicting interests, namely the legal interests concerned and the degree of the threats threatening them, the protected interest substantially outweighs the impaired. However, this only applies if the act is an appropriate means of averting the danger. "
  6. ↑ Section 17 of the Criminal Code - "If the perpetrator lacks the insight to do injustice when committing the act, he acts without guilt if he could not avoid this error. If the perpetrator was able to avoid the mistake, the punishment can be reduced in accordance with Section 49 (1). "
  7. ↑ § 20 4. Alternative StGB - "Who acts without guilt, who is unable to see the wrong of the act or to act according to this insight because of another [...] mental abnormality when committing the day ."
  8. ↑ § 21 StGB - "If the ability of the perpetrator to see the wrongful act or to act according to this insight is considerably reduced for one of the reasons specified in § 20 when committing the act , the punishment according to § 49 Paragraph 1 can be reduced become."
  9. ↑ Section 49, Paragraph I of the Criminal Code - “(1) The life imprisonment is not replaced by imprisonment for less than three years. (2) In the case of early imprisonment, a maximum of three quarters of the threatened maximum may be recognized. In the case of a fine, the same applies to the maximum number of daily rates. (3) The increased minimum imprisonment is reduced in the case of a minimum of ten or five years to two years, in the case of a minimum of three or two years to six months, in the case of a minimum of one year to three months, otherwise the legal minimum. "
  10. ↑ Section 26 of the Criminal Code - "An instigator is punished like a perpetrator who has deliberately designated another for the deliberately committed illegal day."
  11. ↑ Section 25 (1) of the Criminal Code - "Anyone who commits the crime himself or through someone else is punished as a perpetrator."
  12. ↑ § 211 para. 2, 1st group, 4th alternative - "A murderer is who [...] for low motives [...] kills a person."

literature

  • Hans Kudlich: Katzenkönig & Co. - Paranormal before the criminal courts. In: JuristenZeitung. Vol. 59, 2004, p. 72 ff. (Inaugural lecture at the Bucerius Law School )
  • Joachim Kretschmer: The superstitious error in its criminal irrelevance. In: Legal review. 2004, p. 444 ff.
  • Reinhard Merkel : The king of cats from the Möhnesee . In: Die Zeit No. 39/1988 of September 23, 1988.
  • Reinhard Merkel: Helpless: the court . In: Die Zeit No. 5/89 of January 27, 1989.