3 ms·

Is it a misinterpretation of the article or does the chancellor actually have to "allow" or "disallow" an investigation? Aren't prosecutors completely independe

by mtgx 11y ago

Is it a misinterpretation of the article or does the chancellor actually have to "allow" or "disallow" an investigation? Aren't prosecutors completely independent in Germany?

germanier 11y ago
That specific law contains a clause which requires the federal government to give consent before the prosecution could go forward. Think of it that way: The law concerns the foreign relations of Germany which makes the federal government an affected party. But even apart from that the prosecution is part of the ministries of justice and answers to them (usually to the state level). However, it's really, really rare that they actually interfere with prosecution. I think it's similar in many countries. This case is not one of those by the way, as said above.
Tomte 11y ago
Prosecutors aren't independent in Germany. I thnk that's bad, but the idea is actually checks and balances: giving the executive a way to defend against an overreaching judiciary. Usually it's political suicide for politicians to interfere with prosecutors, there have been spectacular examples of that. Unfortunately, we've quite recently had a counterexample where the justice minister got under lots of pressure from a shitstorm-moved public and a violent felon walked free (Gustl Mollath).
- germanier 11y ago
  I know that this is off-topic, but Gustl Mollath did not walk free because of some interference but because he was explicitly ruled not-guilty and was completely rehabilitated by a court. The case then went up to the highest court which confirmed the ruling. He is not a felon in any meaning of that word.
  - Tomte 11y ago
    You're misinformed, but that's common. To the contrary: the court convicted him, but for procedural reasons he walked free. The lower court's acquittal was appealed (revision) by the defense and the prosecution. Since the prosecution had appealed the sentence could have been more severe (more than "nothing"). The justice minister then ordered the prosecution to withdraw its appeal. That means that the sentence could not be more severe. The higher court subsequently convicted and sentenced to "nothing", because of this procedural rule. As an aside: he is a violent felon. He has been legally bindingly convicted of having thrown his wife out of a car while driving. He has been convicted of domestic violence. As the prosecutor said in his plea: his claim that the well-documented bite marks on her neck were a result of falling out of the car is outlandish.
    - germanier 11y ago
      I did follow the case and I refuse to be called misinformed. The Landgericht Regensburg discharged him on factual, not procedural, grounds with the verdict from 14.08.2014. Only in the case from 12.8.2001 (the one with bite marks) did they discharge him on legal grounds as they ruled that he didn't fulfill the obligations of § 20 StGB (i.e. he was not convicted because he was might have been insane – which still means not guilty and not a felon, that's how the justice system works). Could you please cite which legally binding convictions there still are against him? As far as I know they all have been part of the above renewal case and a short search in a legal database seems to confirm that. I also have never heard of an order to withdraw an appeal nor can I find anything. She did order to renew the case, yes, but that is not the same.

by mtgx 11y ago

Is it a misinterpretation of the article or does the chancellor actually have to "allow" or "disallow" an investigation? Aren't prosecutors completely independent in Germany?

germanier 11y ago

That specific law contains a clause which requires the federal government to give consent before the prosecution could go forward. Think of it that way: The law concerns the foreign relations of Germany which makes the federal government an affected party. But even apart from that the prosecution is part of the ministries of justice and answers to them (usually to the state level). However, it's really, really rare that they actually interfere with prosecution. I think it's similar in many countries. This case is not one of those by the way, as said above.

Tomte 11y ago

Prosecutors aren't independent in Germany. I thnk that's bad, but the idea is actually checks and balances: giving the executive a way to defend against an overreaching judiciary. Usually it's political suicide for politicians to interfere with prosecutors, there have been spectacular examples of that. Unfortunately, we've quite recently had a counterexample where the justice minister got under lots of pressure from a shitstorm-moved public and a violent felon walked free (Gustl Mollath).

germanier 11y ago
I know that this is off-topic, but Gustl Mollath did not walk free because of some interference but because he was explicitly ruled not-guilty and was completely rehabilitated by a court. The case then went up to the highest court which confirmed the ruling. He is not a felon in any meaning of that word.
- Tomte 11y ago
  You're misinformed, but that's common. To the contrary: the court convicted him, but for procedural reasons he walked free. The lower court's acquittal was appealed (revision) by the defense and the prosecution. Since the prosecution had appealed the sentence could have been more severe (more than "nothing"). The justice minister then ordered the prosecution to withdraw its appeal. That means that the sentence could not be more severe. The higher court subsequently convicted and sentenced to "nothing", because of this procedural rule. As an aside: he is a violent felon. He has been legally bindingly convicted of having thrown his wife out of a car while driving. He has been convicted of domestic violence. As the prosecutor said in his plea: his claim that the well-documented bite marks on her neck were a result of falling out of the car is outlandish.
  - germanier 11y ago
    I did follow the case and I refuse to be called misinformed. The Landgericht Regensburg discharged him on factual, not procedural, grounds with the verdict from 14.08.2014. Only in the case from 12.8.2001 (the one with bite marks) did they discharge him on legal grounds as they ruled that he didn't fulfill the obligations of § 20 StGB (i.e. he was not convicted because he was might have been insane – which still means not guilty and not a felon, that's how the justice system works). Could you please cite which legally binding convictions there still are against him? As far as I know they all have been part of the above renewal case and a short search in a legal database seems to confirm that. I also have never heard of an order to withdraw an appeal nor can I find anything. She did order to renew the case, yes, but that is not the same.