Sting surgery

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sting operation is a police or intelligence operation in which a suspect is encouraged to commit a criminal act by feigning framework conditions in order to collect evidence for a criminal case. For example, an informant, agent (see Agent Provocateur ) or civilian police officer can offer a suspect illegal weapons, drugs, explosives, or special materials for sale, or obtain the necessary financial resources, licenses, tickets, identification documents or technical information to base this on to be able to arrest his own behavior. Such operations are not permitted in some countries, or only to a limited extent.

criticism

The main problem with such operations is that in individual cases it is not necessarily clear whether the suspect is actually acting for his or her own reasons or whether the operation is the first to induce the criminal act. For example, because the respective person (e.g. due to a lack of contact persons or knowledge) would not be able to do this on their own, or the hurdles such as the effort, taking into account the risk of criminal prosecution, would be too great for the person to actually work out such plans in detail , procure explosives, weapons, etc. on their own initiative, and carry out the plan. As a result, the question arises from a criminal and moral point of view whether it is not a question of seduction or incitement to commit a crime. Human Rights Watch, for example, accuses the United States of inciting mentally unstable people to criminal acts only through excessive sting operations.

Application in Germany

In Germany it is forbidden by law to incite a person to commit a crime or to attempt to do so ( Section 30 of the Criminal Code, Section 26 of the Criminal Code). Nevertheless, the Federal Court of Justice is of the opinion that if tempted by undercover investigators, the proceedings should not be discontinued per se (eg GA 1975, 333, 334). If undercover agents are used without adequate justification, the penalty for the resulting criminal offense can be reduced (1st Senate of the BGH, 1 StR 148/84 - 23 May 1984).

The current German case law shows weaknesses in this regard (see below under "Reasons, B, II.") (BGH judgment of November 18, 1999, BGH 1 StR 221/99 - (LG Munich)). In it the court sets under "Principles, 2." based on: "Even exceeding the limits of the permitted use of the Lockspitzer does not lead to a procedural obstacle of its own" due to the forfeiture of the state's claim to punishment "due to contradicting behavior (st. Rspr., processor)."

The court mentions the police regulations (see III., Paragraph 54 + 55). According to them, »there is still no crime provocation if a TP [note: confidant of the police, alternatively undercover investigator, VE] simply asks a third party without any other influence whether he can obtain narcotics. Likewise, there is no provocation if the TP only exploits the clearly recognizable willingness to commit or continue criminal offenses. The TP, on the other hand, acts as a provocative lure if she has a stimulating effect on the perpetrator beyond the mere "participation" in the direction of arousing willingness to act or intensifying the planning of the crime (cf. Rieß JR 1985, 45, 47; Hanack in LR StPO 25th edition to § 163 marginal note 66) «

In the specific case, the accused refused to be provoked by the police three times; only after the fourth attempt, considerable time and considerable financial temptation, did he take care of relevant contacts (which he apparently did not have before) and procured the requested drugs . See under reasons of judgment u. a .: »The regional court convinced itself that the initiative for the drug business came from the TP alone and that the accused only found himself willing to take part after the fourth attempt. (...) Also of "considerable weight was the persistent crime provocation by a lure spy, which was in no way encouraged by the defendant in the initial phase"

Nevertheless, the court decided that even in such a case, “legal requirements not being met” to intervene, i. e.g. in the case of persons who B.

  • are not under initial suspicion and
  • who are unlikely to commit a particular crime, or
  • who reject the act several times

entrapment with a lure spike and “enticing into a crime” through sting operations still leads to punishment.

Reason: The right to a fair trial according to Article 6 , Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the HRC is violated, since the law of the European Convention on Human Rights is valid in this country. Nevertheless, it is the case that this circumstance (non-existent legal requirements only intervention) does not lead to a remission of the penalty. Such a lure deployment was ultimately "in the interest of combating serious criminal offenses" and in the judgment only to be seen as a "reason for the alleviation of punishment independent of guilt".

This legal situation requires: The question of whether the crime would have ever taken place without the sting operation and spying on the accused is not considered. If, if the legal limits of such "operations" are exceeded, no corresponding criminal prosecution of the investigators or police "confidants" (especially secret service employees?) Can be expected, legal support and application of the Sting operation can be made in this country - also beyond the legal limits - be assumed.

Publicly known sting operations

  • Case of Rezwan F., who was sentenced to 17 years in prison in the USA. Quote from "DiePresse.com": »Undercover agents of the US Federal Police FBI had set a trap for the graduate physicist. The investigators posed to him as an al-Qaida supporter and provided F. with a model airplane, explosive dummies and handguns. The FBI grabbed it when the man tried to stow a new shipment from his alleged accomplices in a warehouse. According to investigators, the al-Qaida supporter wanted to steer model airplanes filled with explosives into the dome of the Capitol and into the US Department of Defense. "
  • BGH 1 StR 221/99 - judgment v. November 18, 1999 ( Regional Court Munich I ). Case of a man of Italian nationality who was approached by a person of trust in the German police and who was asked several times (four times) about drugs, but who refused three times. However, since he was offered considerable sums of money by the police confidant, he finally tried to do the business.

literature

  • Kären M. Hess, Christine M. Orthmann, Henry Lim Cho: Criminal investigation. 10th Edition, Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2013. ISBN 978-1-285-66746-1 Limited preview in Google Book Search
  • Larry J. Siegel, Joseph J. Senna: Introduction to criminal justice. 12th edition, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010. ISBN 978-0-495-09541-5 limited preview in Google Book Search

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Human Rights Watch accuses FBI of inciting terrorism. Die Zeit , July 21, 2014, accessed on March 29, 2018 .
  2. ↑ Attack with model airplane: 17 years imprisonment - An al-Qaida supporter wanted to steer model airplanes filled with explosives into the dome of the Capitol and into the US Department of Defense. , DiePresse.com , November 2, 2012
  3. ↑ FBI prevents attack with model airplane , Frankfurter Rundschau , September 29, 2011