Weisungen zur Schuldenregulierung im Rahmen der §§ 56 c I, II Nr.1 und 56 d StGB in der strafrechtlichen Praxisdissertation
Аннотация: The research deals with the fact that the Order for the purpose of rehabilitation and settlement integrated into the StGB and which is possible as such: Order of the economic relations was granted only very sporadically by the judges responsible for the suspension of sentence on probation within the last three and a half decades. This Order is to see in context of the reform of the penal code in the 50ies and 60ies of the 20th century and here preferably while respecting the legal institutes probation / probation service . Within the scope of the norms of the article 20 and 28 GG (German Basic Law) as well as in the regulations of the (Youth) Penal Code a theoretical pre-Work should be done among others. The legal institutes standing in connection with the economic renovation, such aswere worked on. Among others the § 56 c I, II No. 1 StGB is seen as a basis of the debts conditional rehabilitation. The reason why this legally granted possibility is applied only to that minor extent, as far as this is evident, has not been worked on up to now. The attempt was made from various sources and researches to find out the cause. For this purpose a questionnaire survey was carried out. All indications found emanate from the fact that the sanitation measures, in general assessed as required, are very work-intensive and normally the necessary processing capacities are not available. All statements indicate that necessary means for the realization of such Orders are not provided by the politics and for that reason the administrative bodies refrain from imposing such Orders. Any literature published regarding this issue, which was especially published until two decades ago (within the last five years as far as evident four monographs were published), lets recognize that application of the aforesaid Orders represent a multi-dimensional problem. From the themes of this study probation-relevant area of the probationers can be deduced, such as: the socialisation carried out, including school-related and professional education, the physical mental state, the economic, work-related and resident-related conditions as well as the relationships (partnerships) and the delinquency, including their monitoring and the social-pedagogic counselling. The application of the Orders has been determined to the lowest application quota by the judges, so that as a consequence only small successes can be anticipated. This failure therefore does not actually surprise, rather than the fact, that the leading surveying probationers are by the way again under-represented, and therefore the successes of probation continues to sink because of the relevant Orders. In this context it attracts attention that the ratio between the probationers and probation officer, though ambivalent, turns out to be relatively stable, trustful and resistant against criteria of revocation. Although the confidence of the probationers to the probation officer comes to its limits, the relationship is still favourable while considering under extremely difficult situation and the probationers who were quite annoyed by the appointment of a probation officer at their side at the beginning of the probation time, have then recognized, that the probation officer ma! de his contribution to avoid a revocation. Also it seems that the probationers reduce their clash with authority in their relationship to the probation officer in the course of the cooperation. The theses propagated in the past decades regarding the influence of debts on the liability to punishment could not be proved. Nor the studies presented up to date gave the result that the accumulation of debts necessarily leads to (new) offences, nor has the contrary been the case. The current empirical results of foreign and own studies make clear that the non-application of the Orders regarding the regulation of the economic conditions can be though considered critically and about their extension including the actual need for change has to be discussed. It was the goal of this study to discuss the possibilities in practice for a redemption of debts and to take up the cudgels for someone, that the possibility of Order in § 56 c I, II No. 1 StGB in future will no longer be treated as a stepchild of the penal judicature and despite of the alleged grant of priority it is in realty neglected by the politics and consciously hidden unused in the codification. It this context there has been no success to restrict the criminality problems of the convicted offenders. Here it is not important, whether the given punishment is carried out with or without imprisonment. Both reactions do obviously not have a prophylactic effect and are therefore it is applied by the administrative judicature also for the punishment of offenders normally who were noticed repeatedly deviant, whereas according to statistics the large majority of the judgments are punished with fines. The probation service is seldom applied, apart from juveniles, teenagers an! d young adults, for first offenders respectively for the persons already punished. According to the reality in justice there is no counselling of offenders sentenced to a fine which exceeds a minimum of social work. However, the combination of detention and counselling supervision with timely and sufficient staffed application could be taken off some criminal career and prevent new offences.
Год издания: 2007
Авторы: Albrecht Kleinöder
Ключевые слова: Criminal Law and Policy
Открытый доступ: hybrid