Preventive detention

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The preventive detention (outside legal texts as safekeeping called) is a custodial measure of reform and prevention in German criminal law . Its purpose is to protect the general public from dangerous criminals and thus has a preventive function . It is regulated by law in the general part in § 66 , § 66a , § 66b and § 66c of the Criminal Code (StGB). The regulation of preventive detention in the Criminal Code was issued by the Federal Constitutional Court on May 4, 2011 in the version valid at that time Declared unconstitutional and was reformed with effect from June 1, 2013.

In contrast to imprisonment, preventive detention is only linked to the danger that the offender poses to the general public. This danger must be determined in a prognosis and must have previously expressed itself in a particularly serious criminal offense.

Like normal criminal detention , preventive detention has so far been carried out in general penal institutions . The detainees in preventive detention are granted more relief from detention, as their stay is not linked to their guilt, but the detainee in preventive detention is only there to protect the general public. He makes a special sacrifice for the general public , since he has already fully served his sentence before starting preventive detention. Since its decision of February 5, 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court has therefore demanded that the time spent in preventive detention should differ positively from the execution of a sentence (“distance requirement”). This requirement tries to implement § 66c StGB.


Preventive detention can be ordered by the court

  1. in adults
    1. be ordered in the judgment ( Section 66 StGB),
    2. reserved in the judgment ( Section 66a StGB),
    3. be arranged later ( § 66b of the Criminal Code and Art. 316e EGStGB i. V. m. § 66b StGB i. d. F. of 18 April 2007)
  2. in adolescents
    1. reserved in the judgment ( Section 106 (3) and (4 ) JGG ),
    2. can be ordered retrospectively ( Section 106 Paragraphs 5 and 6 JGG), namely when placement is declared as having been completed in accordance with Section 63 StGB
  3. in adolescents
    1. reserved in the judgment ( Section 7 (2))
    2. can be ordered retrospectively ( Section 7, Paragraph 4 of the JGG), namely in the event of a declaration of completion of placement in accordance with Section 63 of the Criminal Code.

In addition, for "old cases", i.e. H. Criminal offenses committed before May 31, 2013 continue to be subject to the regulations on preventive detention that were in effect until then, “if the person concerned has a mental disorder and specific circumstances in his person or behavior indicate a high risk that he will commit the most serious violent or sexual offenses as a result of this disruption ”(Section 316 f (2) sentence 2 EGStGB). This applies in particular to young people and adolescents for whom preventive detention could also be ordered retrospectively up to May 31, 2013 (Section 7 (2) JGG old version or Section 106 (2) JGG old version).

Preventive detention is ordered alongside a custodial sentence, which is always served first. The competent court (Penal Enforcement Chamber) examines before the end of the execution whether the execution of the placement can be suspended on probation . In this case, management supervision comes into play .

The possibility of a subsequent order of preventive detention introduced in 2004 was declared on January 13, 2011 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to be contrary to human rights. In December 2010, however, the Bundestag had already decided to revise the law of preventive detention, in which the imposition of subsequent preventive detention on adults is dispensed with in the future. Subsequent preventive detention, however, has not ceased entirely: Firstly, persons who were accommodated in the penal system (psychiatric hospital) in accordance with Section 63 of the Criminal Code may subsequently be transferred to preventive detention if the psychiatric measure has been declared completed ( Section 66b of the Criminal Code, formerly Section 66b (3) of the Criminal Code). Second, the new regulation according to Art. 316e EGStGB does not apply to old cases, i. H. for offenses committed before January 1, 2011, for which preventive detention is to be ordered, the old legal situation is decisive. Thirdly, the regulations on subsequent preventive detention for adolescents and young people have not been affected. In view of the case law, the federal legislature (or again the European Court of Human Rights) will have to examine the extent to which the subsequent preventive detention can last.


The execution of preventive detention was regulated in the third section of the Prison Act (StVollzG). After the federalism reform, all federal states not only passed their own penal enforcement laws, but separate preventive detention laws (e.g. Art. 159 ff. BayStVollzG, §§ 94 ff. HmbStVollzG, §§ 107 ff. NJVollzG).

Preventive detention should be carried out separately from the execution of a normal prison sentence ( Section 140 (1) StVollzG). To make this possible, either independent prisons or separate departments can be set up within a correctional facility. The aim of the placement is, on the one hand, safe custody for the protection of the general public ( § 129 sentence 1 StVollzG), on the other hand, to support the person in custody so that he can integrate himself into life in freedom ( § 129 sentence 2 StVollzG). In order to counteract the damage caused by long-term deprivation of liberty, a person in preventive detention is granted certain “concessions” in relation to prisoners. He is allowed to use his own clothes, linen and bedding ( § 131 , § 132 StVollzG); his personal needs should be taken into account when designing the detention rooms and carrying out care measures. In order to prepare for the release (if it is planned), the detainee may be granted special leave of up to one month ( Section 134 of the StVollzG). Otherwise, however, the general provisions on the execution of the prison sentence ( Section 130 StVollzG) remain .


The placement in preventive detention is basically unlimited, which, according to a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on February 5, 2004, is in accordance with the constitution.

At least every year, starting with the first day of the placement, it must be checked whether there is still a risk that the detainee will commit unlawful acts outside of the execution ( Section 67e (2) StGB). If this is not the case, then further enforcement is suspended and supervision of conduct takes place (maximum five years). If the decision is not revoked during the period of supervision , the placement is considered to have been completed. If the court rejects the suspension, the deadline starts again.

After ten years, the court declares the preventive detention measure to have been completed, provided there is no risk that the detainee will commit serious criminal offenses through which the victims are seriously or physically harmed ( Section 67d (3) StGB). If preventive detention continues, the check is carried out every 9 months from this point in time ( Section 67e (2) StGB). When the preventive detention measure is carried out, supervision of conduct takes place for at least two years. This is intended as a legal rule; Whether this is also done in practice is unknown due to the lack of statistical data on the length of the stay.

The detainee can also be referred by the court to a psychiatric hospital or to a rehab facility if this better supports his rehabilitation . A return to preventive detention can be ordered if the transfer was unsuccessful or if rehabilitation is better promoted in preventive detention.


Historical approaches

Today's preventive detention was introduced at the beginning of the Nazi era as part of the reform and security measures by the law against dangerous habitual criminals of November 24, 1933 ( RGBl. I 995). As part of the Enabling Act , some provisions were repealed by the Allies early after 1945 , for example the form of subsequent preventive detention and emasculation (Section 42 k StGB old version) were abolished, whereas the majority of the rest were classified as harmless and not specifically National Socialist. The Allied Control Council was of little interest in the fact that the law against dangerous habitual criminals came into existence under the Enabling Act, i.e. without parliamentary control. The few repealed passages were justified on the basis of ethical and constitutional concerns.

Other models of preventive detention existed much earlier: For example, Ernst Ferdinand Klein , initiator of the Prussian Land Law , spoke out in 1794 that “thieves and other criminals, who could be dangerous because of their depraved inclinations because of their common nature, should also follow suit not released until they have shown how they can feed themselves in an honest manner ”.

However, the law passed could not be implemented; the crime rate rose contrary to the assumption that repeat offenders were deterred by an uncertainly long prison term. The historical relevance can be seen more in the formulation, which for the first time is very similar to today's wording.

Design after Carl Stooss

A far more influential draft was the preliminary draft of a Swiss penal code in 1893, designed by Carl Stooss .

The following articles are particularly indicative of this design:

Art. 23: Recidivists are held in custody for 10 to 20 years (Art. 40). The custody takes place in a building that is used exclusively for this purpose ...

Art. 40: If a criminal who has repeatedly received prison sentences commits a new crime within 5 years of the execution of the last prison sentence, and if the court is convinced that the legal sentence cannot prevent him from further crimes, it shall transfer the criminal offense Convicts of the federal authority, which decides on the custody of recidivists. This authority collects information about the criminal's past life, his upbringing, his family circumstances, his income, his physical and mental health, as well as about the crimes he has committed and the sentences he has incurred. If the authorities consider it beyond doubt that the criminal would relapse again after the sentence has been executed, and if it appears advisable to render him harmless for a longer period of time, it will order his detention for a period of 10 to 20 years instead of the sentence. Otherwise the judgment remains in force. After 5 years, the authorities can order the convict's temporary release if he is being held for the first time and it can be assumed that he will no longer relapse.

The many parallels to today's § 66 StGB allow, at least speculatively, a connection between the two laws:

In both laws, for example, “custody” is described as an independent institution; its “clientele” are repeat offenders who are to remain in custody for a predetermined period of time which, however, can be extended or shortened depending on the inmate's assessment. In both cases they are subjected to an “overall assessment”, an assessment of the risk the prisoner poses to society. In the years that followed, similar proposals were developed in Germany both during the German Empire and the Weimar Republic . What they all have in common is that it only remained with draft laws.

National Socialist Legislation

It was only the National Socialists who implemented a proposal for preventive detention with the Customs Criminal Law of November 24, 1933 (RGBl. I 995). It is unclear whether they developed this independently or whether they adapted it.

Here, too, custody was only imposed in the case of multiple offenders:

"Section 20a: If someone who has already been convicted twice has forfeited a custodial sentence as a result of a new deliberate act and the overall assessment of the acts shows that he is a dangerous habitual criminal, so far as the new act is not threatened with a heavier punishment to be recognized on prison for up to five years and, if the new offense would be a crime even without this tightening of punishment, on prison for up to fifteen years. The aggravation of the penalties requires that the two previous convictions of a crime or willful misdemeanor have been given and that each has been sentenced to the death penalty, jail or prison of at least six months.

If someone has committed at least three deliberate acts and the overall assessment of the acts shows that he is a dangerous habitual criminal, the court can also increase the punishment for each individual offense to be judged, even if the other conditions mentioned in paragraph 1 are not met.

Section 42e: If someone is convicted as a dangerous habitual criminal in accordance with Section 20a, the court will order preventive detention in addition to the sentence if public security requires it. "

However, it did not stop at this level of punishment; A change in the law in 1941 released repeat offenders to the death penalty :

"Dangerous habitual criminals (Section 20a of the Criminal Code) and moral criminals (Sections 176 to 178 of the Criminal Code) are subject to the death penalty if the protection of the national community or the need for just atonement requires it."

Development until today

This law came to an end in 1949 with the abolition of the death penalty in the Federal Republic of Germany , however, § 20a and § 42e remained part of the penal code, while it was rejected as "fascist" in the GDR . In 1970 the law was fundamentally revised in the Federal Republic of Germany: Preventive detention was considered to be the strictest instrument of German criminal law against criminals; consequently, it should be determined very precisely who needs to be kept and who does not need it (anymore). For this purpose, as mentioned, offenders were subjected to an “overall assessment” in which not only the number of convictions, but also the length of the imprisonment and other - including personal - factors were taken into account. In 1975, Section 42e was renamed to Section 66 without any changes to the content, as it is today - with minor changes - in the Criminal Code.

In 1998, the previous maximum of ten years was deleted when preventive detention was ordered for the first time (Section 67d Paragraph 1 StGB old version). In the period that followed, the requirements for imposing preventive detention were gradually reduced by a large number of legislative changes. The public mood was fueled significantly by an interview with the then Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in Bild am Sonntag in 2001, in which Schröder demanded that sex offenders be “locked away - forever!” . Since then, the catchphrase of “locking away - forever” has been cited again and again in both negative and agreement when the question of preventive detention is discussed.

Until 2002 preventive detention could only be ordered in the criminal judgment itself. The possibility for the court to reserve preventive detention in the criminal judgment was introduced this year. The main aim of this change was to improve the protection of the population from dangerous sex offenders. The states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg had demanded that preventive detention could also be ordered retrospectively without reservation. This saw the bill of the red-green coalition not before, however.

Some federal states then passed their own laws that made preventive detention possible at a later date. In a decision of February 10, 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court declared this to be unconstitutional, since according to Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, the states are only responsible insofar as the federal government has not yet taken legislative action. Since the concerns of the constitutional guardians were exclusively of a formal nature, but not of a substantive nature, the “Law on the Introduction of Subsequent Preventive Detention” ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1838 ) came into force on July 23, 2004 .

On December 22, 2010 the German Bundestag resolved to reorganize the law of preventive detention, which came into force on January 1, 2011.

On May 4, 2011, the federal constitutional judges declared all regulations on preventive detention to be unconstitutional. The legislature was ordered to look for a new regulation by June 2013. Transitional regulations apply to so-called old cases.

On November 23, 2012, the Bundesrat approved the law on the implementation of the distance requirement for preventive detention, which had already been approved by the Bundestag on November 8 , and which is intended to comply with the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court of May 2011 and the European Court of Human Rights. The law came into force on June 1, 2013. Preventive detention now provides for intensive care to reduce the danger posed by the detainee to the general public as much as possible. In future, the courts will review whether therapeutic care is also offered to the extent required by the BVerfG. Nobody should have to be released just because they do not want or cannot be treated.

In August 2012, Henning Ernst Müller , professor of criminal law at the University of Regensburg , criticized the legal situation in Germany. Judge Johannes Leygraf criticized the fact that, despite the decline in the number of serious crimes, laws on preventive detention were tightened several times. This is populist.

In November 2012, the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court confirmed a ruling by the Karlsruhe Regional Court that the state of Baden-Württemberg had to pay 240,000 euros to four men because they had been in preventive detention for too long. The ruling could also affect 70 to 100 other cases.

Case law of the ECHR and the BVerfG

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on January 7, 2016 that the current German regulations on retrospectively extended preventive detention in connection with the Therapy Accommodation Act do not violate Articles 5 and 7 of the ECHR. Depending on the individual case, preventive detention should not be regarded as a punishment; the type and severity of the person in custody's mental disorder justified the legal and legally prescribed deprivation of liberty.

The ECtHR had previously ruled on December 17, 2009 that it violated Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if a person in preventive detention who was subject to preventive detention under Section 67d (1 ) of the German Penal Code ( old version) had to reckon with a maximum of ten years' preventive detention , is subsequently forced to indefinite preventive detention due to a change in the law ( Section 67d (3) of the German Penal Code). Art. 7 ECHR standardizes the legal principle “ No punishment without law ”. The decisive factor in this judgment is the view of the Court that preventive detention should be regarded as a “ punishment ”. He justified this with the fact that it differs only insignificantly from the prison sentence in its execution. According to this line of argument, subsequent preventive detention is invariably a violation of human rights because it is imposed without the detainee having committed a new crime. On January 13, 2011, the ECHR unanimously decided in a further decision that the subsequent preventive detention introduced in 2004 also violates Article 5 § 1 of the ECHR (right to freedom and security).

In implementing these rulings, German specialized courts made contradicting decisions on the permissibility of the continuation of custody. This involves the question of whether all those in custody concerned must be released immediately or whether the release may be refused in view of a further dangerousness established by experts. On December 22, 2010, the Bundestag passed the Therapy Accommodation Act (ThuG), which is intended to provide a legal basis for the further custody of the "old cases" to be released.

The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) had rejected constitutional complaints against the subsequent extension of preventive detention in a judgment of February 5, 2004. In the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on May 4, 2011, that the statutory provisions on preventive detention are unconstitutional and obliged the legislature to create constitutional regulations and redesign preventive detention by May 31, 2013 at the latest. With regard to the old cases, the enforcement courts must examine whether a high risk of the most serious violent or sexual offenses can be derived from specific circumstances in the person or behavior of the detainee and whether the detainee suffers from a mental disorder within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 ThUG . If these conditions are not met, the release of these persons in preventive detention must be ordered with effect from 31 December 2011 at the latest.

People in preventive detention whose preventive detention was subsequently extended are entitled to compensation under Article 5 (5) of the ECHR. In a judgment of April 24, 2012, the Karlsruhe Regional Court awarded EUR 500 per month . The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the compensation payments in September 2013. Art. 5 para. 5 ECHR grants a claim for compensation regardless of the fault of the public officials involved in arranging subsequent preventive detention.

The reserved preventive detention to § 66a DStGB mark considered by the Federal Constitutional Court is essentially in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the requirements for enforcement that the Federal Constitutional Court had named in its previous decision must also be met here.

Distance requirement

Distance requirement is a term used by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the context of its preventive detention jurisdiction. It describes the requirement of a clear difference between the design of the deprivation of liberty in the context of preventive detention as opposed to the deprivation of liberty in the context of the prison system. According to the court, this distance is necessary due to the incomparable constitutional basis of legitimation. Preventive detention serves the sole purpose of preventing future crimes, while imprisonment is a sanction for past crimes.

With a judgment of May 4, 2011 it was decided that all provisions of the StVollzG and the JGG do not meet the requirement of distance and are therefore unconstitutional. The regulations were nonetheless applicable until a new legal regulation came into force, taking into account the transitional provisions that the Federal Constitutional Court established at the same time as the judgment, until May 31, 2013 at the latest. The Bundestag and the state parliaments have reacted to this by means of (state) laws and amendments to the law that came into force on June 1, 2013.


The number of people in preventive detention reached its lowest point in 1984 at 182. Since then the trend has been increasing again. For comparison: 306 in 2003 and 350 in 2005. On March 31, 2010, 524 persons in preventive detention (including 3 women) were counted in German prisons. From 2010 to 2018, the number of people in preventive detention increased even further. In 2018, this form of imprisonment affected 566 people. So far, no meaningful data have been collected by the Federal Statistical Office or the Central Criminological Office for the duration of preventive detention. Since 2002, the latter has recorded all those released from the SV in the respective year and the length of their stay in the measure (most recently for 2005: survey by Axel Dessecker). It can be deduced from this that the persons released from preventive detention spent an average of 15 years in prison (if you add the custodial sentence and SV together). No figures are available about those who have not yet been released from preventive detention.

Developments in other countries

Some other states in the German-speaking area knew or are familiar with comparable regulations:

In Austria it is possible to be placed in an institution for dangerous recidivists ( Section 23 of the Austrian Criminal Code ). However, this form of accommodation is limited to a maximum of 10 years and, due to the extremely small number of those detained under Section 23 of the Criminal Code, is in fact a “dead right” (ie a legal norm that is hardly or never applied despite its existence).

The Switzerland has various types of storage , see custody in Switzerland .

Similar regulations have existed in various European countries since the 1920s (under the influence of Franz von Liszt and the International Criminal Police Association ). However, they were abolished almost everywhere after the Second World War as contrary to the rule of law. Lately, preventive detention, under different names, is on the rise again: for example, Forvaring (Denmark, Norway), Terbeschikkingstelling (Netherlands), preventive detention (New Zealand). In 2003 an “imprisonment for public protection” (IPP) was introduced in Great Britain. However, this was not a mere security measure, but an extended sentence for the purpose of security. However, this “imprisonment for public protection” was abolished in 2012 by the British coalition government without replacement.

While in Germany every criminal must have the prospect of a release, in some countries (for example most states of the USA) prison sentences of over 100 years can be ordered; these then fulfill the same function in the case of publicly dangerous offenders.

See also


  • Michael Alex: Subsequent preventive detention - a constitutional and criminal policy debacle , Felix-Verlag, Holzkirchen 2nd edition 2013, ISBN 978-3-927983-81-6 .
  • Tillmann Bartsch: Preventive detention. Law, implementation, current problems. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2010, ISBN 978-3-8329-5427-7 (Giessen writings on criminal law and criminology, 36).
  • Stephan Beukelmann: Subsequent preventive detention for old cases: inventory , NJW Special 04/2011, p. 120.
  • Davina Bruhn: Preventive detention in juvenile criminal law. Publishing house Dr. Kovač, Hamburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-8300-5285-2 .
  • Axel Dessecker: Preventive detention in the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court . In: Journal for International Criminal Law Doctrine 2011, Issue 08/09, pp. 706–713 ( PDF; 112 kB ).
  • Annika Flaig: The subsequent preventive detention , Lang, Frankfurt am Main [u. a.] 2009, ISBN 978-3-631-57874-2 (Würzburger Schriften zur Kriminalwissenschaft, 30).
  • Jörg Kinzig: The reorganization of the law of preventive detention, NJW 4/2011, 177.
  • Christine Morgenstern: Sick - disturbed - dangerous: Who falls under § 1 Therapy Accommodation Act and Art. 5 Para. 1 lit. e ECHR? At the same time, comment on BVerfG, decision of September 15, 2011 - 2 BvR 1516/11 , Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 2011 (Issue 12), p. 974 ( PDF ).
  • Michael Pösl: Preventive detention in the focus of the BVerfG, EGMR and BGH , ZJS 02/2011, 132, online ( PDF; 199 kB ).
  • Helmut Pollähne; Irmgard Rode (ed.): Problems of unlimited deprivation of liberty. Life imprisonment, psychiatric accommodation, preventive detention. Lit Verlag, Berlin [u. a.] 2010, ISBN 978-3-643-10228-7 (series of publications by the Institute for Conflict Research, 32).
  • Thomas Ullenbruch / Kerstin Drenkhahn / Christine Morgenstern: Commentary on §§ 66 ff StGB. In: Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code, 2nd edition, 2012.
  • Till Zimmermann: The new law of preventive detention (without JGG) , HRRS 2013, 164 ( online ).


Web links

Individual evidence

  1. German legal texts only use preventive detention; Otherwise, the variant of safe custody occurs, both in national newspapers and in academic texts as well as in legal literature, e.g. B. Andreas Zimmermann , Protection of Fundamental Rights between Karlsruhe and Strasbourg , Berlin / New York 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-029669-3 , pp. 7 / 26 / 27 ; Christina Müting, Sexual Coercion; Rape (§ 177 StGB). Reform discussion and legislation since 1870 , Berlin / New York 2010, ISBN 978-3-11-024794-7 , pp. 112 / 195 / 234 / 236 ; Lars S. Otto, Exams from the law of state organization. With the fundamentals of constitutional procedural law and methodology , Berlin / Heidelberg 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-22892-6 , pp. 120 / 443
  2. Law on the federal implementation of the distance requirement in the law of preventive detention of December 11, 2012 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2425)
  3. BVerfG, judgment of February 5, 2004 2 BVR 2029/01 .
  4. Chamber decision Haidn v. Germany (English, PDF) from January 13, 2011
  5. ^ Strasbourg judges reprimand Germany , in: FAZ of January 13, 2011.
  6. a b Act on the reorganization of the law of preventive detention and accompanying regulations ( Federal Law Gazette 2010 I p. 2300 ) and its amendments
  7. BVerfG, judgment of February 5, 2004 - 2 BvR 2029/01 - , BVerfGE 109, 133 .
  8. See Radbruch, Rechtssphilosophie , 4th edition, p. 336; BVerfGE 6, 389.
  9. On the Enabling Act, see Blasius, dealing with incurables , p. 134.
  10. Tobias Mushoff: Punishment - Measure - Preventive Detention . A critical examination of the relationship between guilt and prevention. Eds. Regina Harzer, Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M. 2008, p. 25 ; see. Laubenthal, ZStW 116 (2004), 703 (735); Rzepka R & P 2003, 191 (192).
  11. Jörg Kinzig (1996), p. 8.
  12. ^ Carl Stooss (1893), p. 49.
  13. Jörg Kinzig (1996), p. 17.
  14. Jörg Kinzig (1996), p. 20.
  15. Cf. Stefan Braum: Subsequent preventive detention : In dubio pro securitate? , in: Journal for Legal Policy 2004, p. 105.
  16. ^ Picture on Sunday, July 8th, 2001.
  17. for example August Greiner: Locking up and forever? , in: Kriminalistik 2001, p. 650 f .; Erardo Christoforo Rautenberg: Lock up forever !? , in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, p. 2608 ff .; Steffen Hudemann: Lock up and forever? , in: Der Tagesspiegel from February 3, 2007.
  18. Press release of the BVerfG No. 31/2011 of May 4, 2011, Az. 2 BvR 2365/09 and 2 BvR 740/10 (preventive detention I), as well as Az. 2 BvR 2333/08, 2 BvR 571/10 - 2 BvR 1152/10 (preventive detention II) .
  19. a b BVerfG, judgment of the Second Senate of May 4, 2011 - 2 BvR 2365/09 u. a.
  20. Law on the federal implementation of the distance requirement in the law of preventive detention (BR-Drs. 689/12) - ( Memento of October 19, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 266 kB)
  21. ^ Quote from the press release of the Federal Ministry of Justice of November 23, 2011: Clear the way for reform of preventive detention ( Memento of October 19, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
  22. Comment on the judgment of the LG Regensburg from August 3, 2012 ( Memento from March 5, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
  23. Beate Lakotta: "Dangerousness is a construct" . In: Der Spiegel . No. 24 , 2013, ISSN  0038-7452 , p. 42-44 .
  24. ↑ People in ex-custody receive 240,000 euros ,, November 29, 2012
  25. ^ Judgment on preventive detention : 73,000 euros for twelve years of injustice ,, April 24, 2012
  26. ECHR on safe custody: subsequent custody may be permissible. Legal Tribune Online, January 7, 2016, accessed January 9, 2016 .
  27. ^ Jost Müller-Neuhof: Prison: Therapy detention for sex offenders is permitted. Der Tagesspiegel, January 8, 2016, accessed on January 9, 2016 .
  28. European Court of Human Rights: "Subsequent extension of preventive detention beyond the maximum permissible duration at the time of the offense not justified", press release No. 970, December 17, 2009 .
  29. ECHR, judgment of December 17, 2009, 19359/04 - M. vs. Germany - .
  30. ^ European Court of Human Rights: "German courts should not have ordered prisoner's detention for preventive purposes retrospectively" , press release No. 16 of January 13, 2011 on the judgment in the Haidn vs. Germany ( PDF , English; 167 kB).
  31. ECHR, judgment of January 13, 2011, 6587/04 - Haidn vs. Germany - .
  32. Therapy Accommodation Act full text
  33. BVerfG, judgment of February 5, 2004 2 BVR 2029/01
  34. ↑ The state must compensate those who have been detained , Focus of April 24, 2012.
  35. BGH v. September 19, 2013, Az .: III ZR 405/12, III ZR 406/12, III ZR 407/12 and III ZR 408/12
  36. a b BVerfG, decision of June 20, 2012, Az. 2 BvR 1048/11, on .
  37. a b Grischa Merkel: On the compatibility of the reserved preventive detention with the European Convention on Human Rights , discussion of the BVerfG, decision of June 20, 2012, Az. 2 BvR 1048/11, ZIS 10/2012, p. 521 ( PDF ).
  38. BVerfG, judgment of February 5, 2004 - 2 BVR 2029/01 .
  39. BVerfG, judgment of May 4, 2011 - 2 BVR 2365/09
  40. Feest / Lesting (eds.), Commentary on the Prison Act, Neuwied 2012, p. 769
  41. Federal Statistical Office: Prisoners by sex, age and type of prison, probable length of prison , 2008
  42. Prison. Retrieved November 10, 2019 .
  43. Axel Dessecker: Life imprisonment, preventive detention and placement in a psychiatric hospital . Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  44. ^ HM Prison Service - Life Sentenced Prisoners ( Memento from May 28, 2010 in the Internet Archive ), ( English ), accessed on May 11, 2010.
  45. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 , ( English ), accessed September 27, 2013.
  46. Prison forever? The dispute over preventive detention - ( Memento from March 19, 2013 in the Internet Archive )