3 ms·

> The length of the detention was apparently extended by the district court, but the statement does not give a reason for it. I don't think that that's what ha

by rewmie 3y ago

> The length of the detention was apparently extended by the district court, but the statement does not give a reason for it. I don't think that that's what happened. The newspiece states quite clearly that the suspects were kept in jail as a preventative measure, in complete accordance with Germany's regional law. The controversial part was that arguably the length of the preventive jail stay contrasts with the jail terms that the suspects are facing, and other regional courts determined shorter preventive jail terms. I think that this is an issue where the court had to draw a line in the sand within the boundaries specified by the law. The court had a group of people known for conducting criminal acts and determined that the likelihood that they would continue their criminal activity if they would be released was almost certain. The court had to make a call, and had to choose between being responsible for allowing criminals to repeat their crimes, or ensure they wouldn't by keeping them in preventive jail.

loupol 3y ago
From news article : > Diese Form des Freiheitsentzuges ist umso problematischer, da den Protestierenden, sollten sie für eine Blockade verurteilt werden, keine Haft droht. Die entsprechenden Verfahren enden regelmäßig lediglich mit Geldstrafen. The crime they might have committed usually doesn't even result in jail time, only fines. Hence why such long detention seems especially unjustified.
- andrewla 3y ago
  The article lays out a factual description of the detention law, and lays out the description of the so-far detained members of the group, but fails to connect the two. Nothing in the police report indicates that the law was applied, just a reference to the district court extending the detention period, but no link or reference to the specifics of whether the district court applied the law. I don't know if the German press is held to different standards than the US press, but in the US this would set off red flags for me because it makes a very strong implication without explicitly stating it and provides no evidence for the implied connection.
- c4mpute 3y ago
  > Die entsprechenden Verfahren enden regelmäßig lediglich mit Geldstrafen. This is plain wrong. Repeat offenders in this matter have been sentenced to jail time, in excess of the two months of possible preventative arrest: https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/kleber-aktivisten-letzte-generation-gefaengnis-strafe-haft-monatelang-rekordstrafe-klima-92217695.html https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/kleber-aktivisten-letzte-g...
andrewla 3y ago
I find it less clear what exactly the article is alleging. It refers to a police practice, and says that a judge can extend it further, but the press release says that the police did not apply this practice. And no information is given about what the substance of the district court's decision was. But all that said, my initial read on the article, "put a total of 27 supporters of the group in prison" is that the police are grabbing innocent people and putting them in preventative detention, but that does not appear to be supported by the article. Rather they are being held for minor crimes (which I don't think anyone is contesting that they committed) and being kept there (the article says "prison" but I don't know whether Germany has the same distinction at the US between prison and jail/pre-trial detention).

by rewmie 3y ago

loupol 3y ago

From news article : > Diese Form des Freiheitsentzuges ist umso problematischer, da den Protestierenden, sollten sie für eine Blockade verurteilt werden, keine Haft droht. Die entsprechenden Verfahren enden regelmäßig lediglich mit Geldstrafen. The crime they might have committed usually doesn't even result in jail time, only fines. Hence why such long detention seems especially unjustified.

andrewla 3y ago
The article lays out a factual description of the detention law, and lays out the description of the so-far detained members of the group, but fails to connect the two. Nothing in the police report indicates that the law was applied, just a reference to the district court extending the detention period, but no link or reference to the specifics of whether the district court applied the law. I don't know if the German press is held to different standards than the US press, but in the US this would set off red flags for me because it makes a very strong implication without explicitly stating it and provides no evidence for the implied connection.
c4mpute 3y ago
> Die entsprechenden Verfahren enden regelmäßig lediglich mit Geldstrafen. This is plain wrong. Repeat offenders in this matter have been sentenced to jail time, in excess of the two months of possible preventative arrest: https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/kleber-aktivisten-letzte-generation-gefaengnis-strafe-haft-monatelang-rekordstrafe-klima-92217695.html https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/kleber-aktivisten-letzte-g...

andrewla 3y ago

I find it less clear what exactly the article is alleging. It refers to a police practice, and says that a judge can extend it further, but the press release says that the police did not apply this practice. And no information is given about what the substance of the district court's decision was. But all that said, my initial read on the article, "put a total of 27 supporters of the group in prison" is that the police are grabbing innocent people and putting them in preventative detention, but that does not appear to be supported by the article. Rather they are being held for minor crimes (which I don't think anyone is contesting that they committed) and being kept there (the article says "prison" but I don't know whether Germany has the same distinction at the US between prison and jail/pre-trial detention).