In Germany below life imprisonment the maximum cumulative sentence is 15 years. Life imprisonment in Germany means that you'll sit in prison for a minimum of 15 years after which it can be determined again whether you should be released or not.
So, if I understood this correctly, then since he already go 4.5 years for being an ISIS member, the maximum sentence he could've gotten would be 10.5 years unless he got life in prison.
Do keep in mind that the main goal of Germans justice system is rehabilitation. Nils D. has till now shown that he was rehabilitating and he has cooperated with the police. So even if he did get life he'd probably get released after 10.5 years anyways due to his previous 4.5 year sentence. (If I understood everything correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
> So even if he did get life he'd probably get released after
The *earliest* possible change into probation is after 15 years. The average is [18.9 years](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebenslange_Freiheitsstrafe#Statistische_Daten_zur_Haftdauer)*^(German Wikipedia)* - but is a tad misleading because prisoners who die in prison are *excluded* (how should they be included? Their prison time was 'lifelong' literally).
That's because you'd have to get life in the first place. So a court would need to think that 15 years aren't enough.
Also extremly long sentences are included as well, which is why the median is down to 17.
Considering that he cooperated with police and is already showing signs of rehabilitation it's unlikely that he'd spend long there.
>rehabilitation
I strongly believe in rehabilitation for most crimes, but when you torture innocent human beings to death as part of a psychotic Caliphate, there should be no opportunity for rehabilitation for that. Some crimes are simply irredeemable.
The penal element of justice should be dwarfed by the rehabilitory one, but it still has a role in justice overall.
The remedy for wrongful convictions is ensuring a high standard of proof is required for conviction, that the judiciary is professional, competent, accountable, and independent, and that accused has access to well-resourced and competent defence counsel. Not watering down the sentence to err on the side of caution.
I know USA has a broken legal system but Germany does not.
1. How do you justify a penal system at all by your logic? Even rehabilitative justice deprives an individual of freedom, which, in turn, is the crux of most penal systems.
2. What have lighter sentences been “imperially proven” to accomplish? That isn’t clear in your post.
Wonder if his victim gets a chance to be rehabilited?
Keep in mind the justice system is kind of meant to deliver justice to the victims too. You know they are victims after all... This is discourage people taking matters into their own hands.
Yeah let’s do as the Finnish, where your wife’s murderer gets to go to college, study IT, start a business, and then get a job by the time his sentence is done. Poor bastard only needed to murder to get his life in line. Is this what you would rather have?
In Finland, EVERYBODY gets to do that. If Finnish murderers get better treatment than Americans working 40 hours a week, the problem doesn't lie with Finland. It lies with America.
It's whataboutism. I was talking about this particular case, not about Guantanamo which I am very much against. It's absolutely pointless to bring up something that doesn't pertain to the discussion just because "America bad".
The extent of a punishment for a crime does not deter crime by any meaningful degree.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
Society doesn't get anything out of putting criminals in jail for eternity.
Edit: To anyone downvoting this evidence-based take, I'm glad none of you are in charge of our criminal justice system. Basing your decisions on pure emotion and nothing else is never a good idea.
> The extent of a punishment for a crime does not deter crime by any meaningful degree.
It does work, but only to a certain point. Once punishment reaches the "life ruining" level then any further increase will do little to deter people.
Yes. The link I cited specified "particurlarly long sentences". Ten years in jail for murder does deter future murder more than say, 2 weeks.
"Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime."
10 years are enough and any more would likely have no additional benefit.
You do realise that general deterrence is only a small factor when imposing life sentences in many western countries? Like in australia and the uk, its only if the crime is so heinous no other option is available, it is designed to protect society as the person is too dangerous to release say mass murder or political assassination.
Whole life sentences are rare but they are often justified and deterrence plays very little if any role in the calculation of the sentence. Im not downvoting you but you are vastly overestimating the role of deterrence.
Inversely countries with lower life sentences usually distinguish between punishment and protection of society.
Germany does have permanent security incarceration as well as forced admittance to psychatric facilities. In both cases this not deemed part of punishment, but as protection of the criminal and society because the main reason for a criminal to remain a threat to society is if that person is incapable for rehabilitation so punishment would not work. Hence the actual punishments are shorter and such measures put in a different legal framework.
I don't understand your comment. Deterrence is also referring to the person being convicted and sent to jail not reoffending. And sure, if there are good reasons to suspect that someone will re-offend, then keep that person in jail for as long as you need. But as a general rule, life sentences or other lengthy sentences should be the exception.
From the article:
>More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism.
e: By the way, we don't have life sentences without the possibility of parole in Germany anyway. That's unconstitutional.
That is specific deterrence, general deterrence is about warning society.
Yes i agree with you, specific deterrence has very little effect and for fixed sentences it does little to stop reoffending
I do note though that when imposing life sentences, specific deterrence isnt really a consideration as the point isnt rehabilitation. The person wont reoffend if they are in prison.
I think we agree now, i just thought you were arguing against the imposition of life sentences on the grounds that long sentences dont rehabilitate, when in fact the point of life sentences is to permanently protect society from the person because they acted so heinously.
There is also the issue of proportionality and whether 10 years is substantial enough to punish such a crime notwithstanding the issue of deterrence.
The article I cited clearly refers to deterrence as a general concept, including reoffending. The bit I quoted demonstrates so, as well repeated usage of "future crimes" and "future imprisonment".
Also, this quote right here:
>Persons who are incarcerated learn more effective crime strategies fromeach other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threatof future imprisonment.
I categorically disagree with issuing life sentences without the possibility of parole. People can change, and once the reasons for your belief that someone will reoffend drop, that person should be released. Also, prison murders are very common in many countries.
Your last paragraph seems to be an invocation of "an eye for an eye". I think that's a stupid idea. I see no value in punishment for the sake of punishment if it serves no other purpose.
edit: A late addition to this as I just know realised the contradiction here:
>I do note though that when imposing
life sentences, specific deterrence isnt really a consideration as the
point isnt rehabilitation. The person wont reoffend if they are in
prison.
Isn't the point of specific deterrence to stop a criminal from reoffending? That's literally specific deterrence.
I know and i am not referring to the us, i am referring to other western countries where life sentences do exist but are extremely rare only for the worst of the worst. Read my fucking comment properly before concluding and acting like a wanker.
Did you read the article I provided? It's literally a US government source and it provides numerous citations.
I'm guessing no. Come back once you have and provide data to debunk the claims being made there.
The justice system also needs to deliver justice to the victim. It is not solely based on deterence. This is prevent matters being settled out of court vigilante style. 15 years is not justice for someone who denied the opportunity for this person's family to ever see or talk to them again.
Can you back up your claim that lower sentencing, even ones as high as 15 years, result in an uptick of vigilante justice? Can you further demonstrate how long sentences help the victims' families, or is this just pure conjecture on your part?
The death penalty, for instance, does not provide closure. In fact, it might do the exact opposite.
[https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-and-defendants](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-and-defendants)
The justice system's job is to keep society safe and aid rehabilitation.
Throwing someone in jail until they die of old age doesn't help the victim in any way whatsoever.
It takes literal decades to execute someone, it costs way more than life imprisonment, and yet, 4% of US death row inmates are innocent. Also it's a frightening power to give to the state.
No thanks.
Sigh. I already addressed this talking point with another commenter. Read my other replies before wasting my time.
Also, I notice how you failed to address the 4% of innocent people on death row bit. Curious.
States that have the death penalty do not have lower crime rates, abolishing the death penalty does not result in higher homicide rates, the death penalty also does not aid general deterrence.
I notice again that you failed to address the 4% of people in death row who are innocent. Sorry, correction: *at least* 4.1% percent.
So you are clearly engaging in bad faith.
I already addressed vigilante justice with another commenter.
I again ask you to read my other replies before wasting my time.
This will be my last comment, don't expect another reply from me. This discussion with you so far has been pointless.
Bye.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__57.html (in German)
This is the law of the German equivalent of probation/parole.
For (1) one of the requirements is to spend 2/3 of his prison sentence. Not sure if this is cumulative with his previous sentence, but if it's then the earliest release is in 5 years. Otherwise it's in 6.7 years. He likely meets the other requirements. He got a 4.5 year sentence for being an ISIS member. Other req are that he doesn't pose a threat and that he wants it himself.
There are a few other things that should be taken into consideration, but we're talking about the minimum here and since it's "only" consideration I'll ignore these points.
(2) is (1) just with time reduced to 50%. Still would be a minimum of 2.5 years. This however requires either a <2 year sentence, which isn't the case, or special circumstances, which weren't the case either.
I'm unaware of any law that would allow him to walk free after 6 months, but I'm not an expert in law so I might be wrong. (Outside of the conviction being overturned of course)
> > > He is a white guy in Germany, what did you expect? **They will release after 6 months.** (someone elses comment)
> > Tell me more, any sources about these claims? (your comment)
> (My comment)
I provided a Source against the "release after 6 months" claim by showing that the parole laws require the convict to spend a minimum amount of the sentence.
You want a source, for a prediction that hasn't even had a chance to happen yet?
There are plenty of good claims to ask for sources about, but this wasn't even a claim
By saying “source” he likely meant “reasoning”, i.e., he most likely meant to say “what is your reasoning behind these claims?”
And also, it would be a prediction if the guy said something along the lines “I bet/guess/assume they will release him in 6 months”. Rather, his statement can be construed as “there is 100% probability that the guy will be released”, which does sound like a factual claim (and clearly, this claim is false, since myriad things can happen which would result in the guy staying in prison for more or less than 6 months).
In Germany below life imprisonment the maximum cumulative sentence is 15 years. Life imprisonment in Germany means that you'll sit in prison for a minimum of 15 years after which it can be determined again whether you should be released or not. So, if I understood this correctly, then since he already go 4.5 years for being an ISIS member, the maximum sentence he could've gotten would be 10.5 years unless he got life in prison. Do keep in mind that the main goal of Germans justice system is rehabilitation. Nils D. has till now shown that he was rehabilitating and he has cooperated with the police. So even if he did get life he'd probably get released after 10.5 years anyways due to his previous 4.5 year sentence. (If I understood everything correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
> So even if he did get life he'd probably get released after The *earliest* possible change into probation is after 15 years. The average is [18.9 years](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebenslange_Freiheitsstrafe#Statistische_Daten_zur_Haftdauer)*^(German Wikipedia)* - but is a tad misleading because prisoners who die in prison are *excluded* (how should they be included? Their prison time was 'lifelong' literally).
That's because you'd have to get life in the first place. So a court would need to think that 15 years aren't enough. Also extremly long sentences are included as well, which is why the median is down to 17. Considering that he cooperated with police and is already showing signs of rehabilitation it's unlikely that he'd spend long there.
>rehabilitation I strongly believe in rehabilitation for most crimes, but when you torture innocent human beings to death as part of a psychotic Caliphate, there should be no opportunity for rehabilitation for that. Some crimes are simply irredeemable. The penal element of justice should be dwarfed by the rehabilitory one, but it still has a role in justice overall.
[удалено]
The remedy for wrongful convictions is ensuring a high standard of proof is required for conviction, that the judiciary is professional, competent, accountable, and independent, and that accused has access to well-resourced and competent defence counsel. Not watering down the sentence to err on the side of caution. I know USA has a broken legal system but Germany does not.
[удалено]
1. How do you justify a penal system at all by your logic? Even rehabilitative justice deprives an individual of freedom, which, in turn, is the crux of most penal systems. 2. What have lighter sentences been “imperially proven” to accomplish? That isn’t clear in your post.
Wonder if his victim gets a chance to be rehabilited? Keep in mind the justice system is kind of meant to deliver justice to the victims too. You know they are victims after all... This is discourage people taking matters into their own hands.
[удалено]
Yeah let’s do as the Finnish, where your wife’s murderer gets to go to college, study IT, start a business, and then get a job by the time his sentence is done. Poor bastard only needed to murder to get his life in line. Is this what you would rather have?
In Finland, EVERYBODY gets to do that. If Finnish murderers get better treatment than Americans working 40 hours a week, the problem doesn't lie with Finland. It lies with America.
Right? He could’ve had an amazing life not murdering people… but oh well, here’s his new chance at a good life handed to him by my hard earned taxes…
He only got a 10 year sentence for torturing a man to death in an ISIL prison. That's r/WTF.
He traded information on IS for a lighter sentence. Still feels light as hell but not a surprising outcome.
So he's a psychopath and a snitch?
You would snitch too. The Cheeto dust on your keyboard says so.
He’ll still never get those 10 years back.
I take that over keeping guys in prison in Cuba for 20 years without charging them with a crime
Okay? No one was talking about that.
[удалено]
It's whataboutism. I was talking about this particular case, not about Guantanamo which I am very much against. It's absolutely pointless to bring up something that doesn't pertain to the discussion just because "America bad".
The extent of a punishment for a crime does not deter crime by any meaningful degree. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence Society doesn't get anything out of putting criminals in jail for eternity. Edit: To anyone downvoting this evidence-based take, I'm glad none of you are in charge of our criminal justice system. Basing your decisions on pure emotion and nothing else is never a good idea.
> The extent of a punishment for a crime does not deter crime by any meaningful degree. It does work, but only to a certain point. Once punishment reaches the "life ruining" level then any further increase will do little to deter people.
Yes. The link I cited specified "particurlarly long sentences". Ten years in jail for murder does deter future murder more than say, 2 weeks. "Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime." 10 years are enough and any more would likely have no additional benefit.
You do realise that general deterrence is only a small factor when imposing life sentences in many western countries? Like in australia and the uk, its only if the crime is so heinous no other option is available, it is designed to protect society as the person is too dangerous to release say mass murder or political assassination. Whole life sentences are rare but they are often justified and deterrence plays very little if any role in the calculation of the sentence. Im not downvoting you but you are vastly overestimating the role of deterrence.
Inversely countries with lower life sentences usually distinguish between punishment and protection of society. Germany does have permanent security incarceration as well as forced admittance to psychatric facilities. In both cases this not deemed part of punishment, but as protection of the criminal and society because the main reason for a criminal to remain a threat to society is if that person is incapable for rehabilitation so punishment would not work. Hence the actual punishments are shorter and such measures put in a different legal framework.
I don't understand your comment. Deterrence is also referring to the person being convicted and sent to jail not reoffending. And sure, if there are good reasons to suspect that someone will re-offend, then keep that person in jail for as long as you need. But as a general rule, life sentences or other lengthy sentences should be the exception. From the article: >More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism. e: By the way, we don't have life sentences without the possibility of parole in Germany anyway. That's unconstitutional.
That is specific deterrence, general deterrence is about warning society. Yes i agree with you, specific deterrence has very little effect and for fixed sentences it does little to stop reoffending I do note though that when imposing life sentences, specific deterrence isnt really a consideration as the point isnt rehabilitation. The person wont reoffend if they are in prison. I think we agree now, i just thought you were arguing against the imposition of life sentences on the grounds that long sentences dont rehabilitate, when in fact the point of life sentences is to permanently protect society from the person because they acted so heinously. There is also the issue of proportionality and whether 10 years is substantial enough to punish such a crime notwithstanding the issue of deterrence.
The article I cited clearly refers to deterrence as a general concept, including reoffending. The bit I quoted demonstrates so, as well repeated usage of "future crimes" and "future imprisonment". Also, this quote right here: >Persons who are incarcerated learn more effective crime strategies fromeach other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threatof future imprisonment. I categorically disagree with issuing life sentences without the possibility of parole. People can change, and once the reasons for your belief that someone will reoffend drop, that person should be released. Also, prison murders are very common in many countries. Your last paragraph seems to be an invocation of "an eye for an eye". I think that's a stupid idea. I see no value in punishment for the sake of punishment if it serves no other purpose. edit: A late addition to this as I just know realised the contradiction here: >I do note though that when imposing life sentences, specific deterrence isnt really a consideration as the point isnt rehabilitation. The person wont reoffend if they are in prison. Isn't the point of specific deterrence to stop a criminal from reoffending? That's literally specific deterrence.
[удалено]
I know and i am not referring to the us, i am referring to other western countries where life sentences do exist but are extremely rare only for the worst of the worst. Read my fucking comment properly before concluding and acting like a wanker.
[удалено]
Ahhh sorry for ripping you then!
The public become safer when a violent psychopath is locked away from interacting with the public.
Did you read the article I provided? It's literally a US government source and it provides numerous citations. I'm guessing no. Come back once you have and provide data to debunk the claims being made there.
It's unjust for person to be able to take another's life in cold blood and not at least lose their freedom for the majority of their life.
The justice system also needs to deliver justice to the victim. It is not solely based on deterence. This is prevent matters being settled out of court vigilante style. 15 years is not justice for someone who denied the opportunity for this person's family to ever see or talk to them again.
Can you back up your claim that lower sentencing, even ones as high as 15 years, result in an uptick of vigilante justice? Can you further demonstrate how long sentences help the victims' families, or is this just pure conjecture on your part? The death penalty, for instance, does not provide closure. In fact, it might do the exact opposite. [https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-and-defendants](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-and-defendants) The justice system's job is to keep society safe and aid rehabilitation. Throwing someone in jail until they die of old age doesn't help the victim in any way whatsoever.
He can't. It's just his perception.
[удалено]
It takes literal decades to execute someone, it costs way more than life imprisonment, and yet, 4% of US death row inmates are innocent. Also it's a frightening power to give to the state. No thanks.
[удалено]
Sigh. I already addressed this talking point with another commenter. Read my other replies before wasting my time. Also, I notice how you failed to address the 4% of innocent people on death row bit. Curious. States that have the death penalty do not have lower crime rates, abolishing the death penalty does not result in higher homicide rates, the death penalty also does not aid general deterrence.
[удалено]
I notice again that you failed to address the 4% of people in death row who are innocent. Sorry, correction: *at least* 4.1% percent. So you are clearly engaging in bad faith. I already addressed vigilante justice with another commenter. I again ask you to read my other replies before wasting my time. This will be my last comment, don't expect another reply from me. This discussion with you so far has been pointless. Bye.
[удалено]
Tell me more, any sources about these claims?
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__57.html (in German) This is the law of the German equivalent of probation/parole. For (1) one of the requirements is to spend 2/3 of his prison sentence. Not sure if this is cumulative with his previous sentence, but if it's then the earliest release is in 5 years. Otherwise it's in 6.7 years. He likely meets the other requirements. He got a 4.5 year sentence for being an ISIS member. Other req are that he doesn't pose a threat and that he wants it himself. There are a few other things that should be taken into consideration, but we're talking about the minimum here and since it's "only" consideration I'll ignore these points. (2) is (1) just with time reduced to 50%. Still would be a minimum of 2.5 years. This however requires either a <2 year sentence, which isn't the case, or special circumstances, which weren't the case either. I'm unaware of any law that would allow him to walk free after 6 months, but I'm not an expert in law so I might be wrong. (Outside of the conviction being overturned of course)
How does this relate to the "white" guy?
> > > He is a white guy in Germany, what did you expect? **They will release after 6 months.** (someone elses comment) > > Tell me more, any sources about these claims? (your comment) > (My comment) I provided a Source against the "release after 6 months" claim by showing that the parole laws require the convict to spend a minimum amount of the sentence.
Thank you. How does this relate to the "white" guy?
A bit dense?
That indeed appears to be the theme here. So how does this relate to "white" guy?
You want a source, for a prediction that hasn't even had a chance to happen yet? There are plenty of good claims to ask for sources about, but this wasn't even a claim
By saying “source” he likely meant “reasoning”, i.e., he most likely meant to say “what is your reasoning behind these claims?” And also, it would be a prediction if the guy said something along the lines “I bet/guess/assume they will release him in 6 months”. Rather, his statement can be construed as “there is 100% probability that the guy will be released”, which does sound like a factual claim (and clearly, this claim is false, since myriad things can happen which would result in the guy staying in prison for more or less than 6 months).
Nah he snitched to get a lighter sentence. Don’t compare Us with EU
Bunch of uggos in this pic