Penal Sanctions and Sanctioning Practice in the Federal Republic of Germany 1882

1. The Current System of Sanctions
1.1 The Present System of Legal Consequences under the Adult Penal Code (Figure 1)
1.1.1 Refraining from Punishment
According to Section 60 of the Penal Code, the court refrains from punishment regarding offenses in which the imposition of a penalty would ‚obviously not achieve its purpose‘, for example, a drunk driving accident that had serious consequences for the offender or near relatives of the offender. In such cases, the serious consequences partly make up for the guilt, so that no need for prevention exists.
Furthermore, the penalty can either be totally refrained from or it can be mitigated if the offender “makes an effort to compensate the victim (Reparation, Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich), makes good his deed, or seriously strives to make up for his deed” (Section 46a Nr. 1 of the Penal Code). It is also possible, that the offender compensates the victim through “considerable personal achievements” or a “personal renunciation” (Section 46a Nr. 2 of the Penal Code).
Furthermore, the Penal Code provides a number of further instructions for the possibility of a guilty verdict, in which the punishment is minimal – either because of the wrongfulness of the criminal offence and/or the guilt of the offender is strongly reduced (for example, Sections 139 paragraph 1, 174 paragraph 4 of the Penal Code; Sections 113 paragraph 4, 157 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Penal Code).

1.1.2 Admonition with Reservation to Impose Punishment
According to Sections 59-59c of the Penal Code, the court, besides the general verdict, can admonish the offender, determine the sentence and reserve the conviction to this punishment (Section 59 of the Penal Code).
The court determines a period of probation, imposes conditions and instructions, for example, the condition of making a contribution to a charitable organization or to federal treasury (Section 59a of the Penal Code). If the offender proves himself, he only receives the warning , but no punishment and no sentence (Section 59b of the Penal Code). If he does not prove himself, he will receive the reserved punishment.
The guilty verdict, the admonition, the conditions and instructions are meant to sanction, but not to punish, because the punishment is supposed to be reserved.

1.1.3 Punishments
1.1.3.1 Main Punishment
The Penal Code differentiates between main punishments and incidental punishments. The main punishments are imprisonment (Sections 38, 39 of the Penal Code) and fines (Sections 40 to 43 of the Penal Code). Incidental punishments include bans on driving (Section 44 of the Penal Code).

1.1.3.2 Imprisonment
The sentencing can be either for a certain amount of time or for life. The life sentence is inevitable with murder (Section 211 of the Penal Code) and genocide (Section 220a of the Penal Code). It can be imposed to punish the following crimes: for example, the preparation of a war of aggression, high treason, aggravated manslaughter, robbery resulting in death, extortionary attack upon motorists. Since the abolition of the death penalty in 1949, the life sentence is the harshest penalty in the German criminal justice system. The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) affirmed the constitutionality of the absolutely imposed lifelong sentence for murder, demanding however, a restricted interpretation of the elements of murder (Federal Constitutional Court Decision, BverfGE 45, 187). In 1981, through Section 57a of the Penal Code, the use of parole for life sentences was permitted after an offender served fifteen years.
The minimum length of imprisonment is one month and the maximum is fifteen years (Section 38 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). The short-term imprisonment (less than 6 months) is imposed in exceptional cases only (ultima ratio) and fines have to be imposed whenever possible (Section 47 of the Penal Code).
Sentences up to two years can be impended on probation. In case of imprisonment up to six months, the court can suspend execution of the sentence on probation if a positive social prognosis of the offender is expected (Section 56 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code). For punishments between six months and one year, the execution of the sentence cannot be suspended on probation if general deterrence (defense of the legal order) demands that it is not given (Section 56 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). Sentences between one and two years can be suspended under “special circumstances” (Section 56 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). The court determines the duration of the period of probation. It cannot exceed 5 years and cannot be less than 2 years (Section 56a of the Penal Code). The period of probation can be lengthened or shortened afterwards. Conditions and instructions can be given to the convicted offender. Conditions such as making a reparation for the damage caused by the act or paying a sum of money to a charitable institution or the treasury serve as satisfaction for the committed wrongdoing (Section 56b of the Penal Code). Instructions serve the purpose of preventing the convicted person from committing further criminal acts. As such, the supervision and guidance of a probation officer comes into consideration (Section 56d of the Penal Code). Further examples of instructions are “to comply with orders relating to abode, education, work or free time”, not to possess certain objects which can offer the opportunity or incitement to commit further criminal acts or to comply with obligations to provide maintenance (Section 56c of the Penal Code). The court modifies the conditions of the suspended sentence, or if that is not promising, revokes suspension of the sentence if the convicted person commits a criminal act during the period of probation (Section 56f of the Penal Code). The result is that the imposed imprisonment is henceforth enforced. Apart from that, the imposed punishment will be remitted (Section 56g of the Penal Code).
The offender receiving a determinate sentence, as well as someone serving a term of life imprisonment, have the opportunity to be released on probation (Sections 57, 57a of the Penal Code). The court suspends execution of the remaining portion of imprisonment for a term on probation if two-thirds of the sentence imposed, but at least 2 months, have been served and if the offender has a good prognosis. If the offender served half of his sentence, at least six months, it is possible for him to be paroled if special circumstances exist (Section 57 of the Penal Code). Even those offenders serving a life sentence have the chance to be released (Section 57a of the Penal Code). The court suspends execution of the remaining portion of imprisonment for life on probation if 15 years of the sentence have been served, no special gravity of the convicted person’s guilt requires further execution and a good prognosis exists in the sense laid out by Section 57 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code. The convict serving either a determinate sentence or a lifelong sentence must agree to be let out.

1.1.3.3 Fines
Fines are imposed in daily units (Section 40 of the Penal Code). The total fine derives from the number of daily units and the level of those units. The minimum amount of days amount to five, the maximum is usually 360 daily units, while the maximum for a cumulative sentence is 720 (Section 54 paragraph 2 sentence 2 of the Penal Code). The amount per day ranges from one to five thousand Euro (€). This system ensures that the fines have the same impact on offenders who committed the same crimes but have different financial situations. The convicted person is not expected to pay the fine immediately, he is granted ways to make the payment easier (a deferral of payment or payment by installments). Fines cannot be suspended. However, if someone has been sentenced to a fine up to 180 daily rates, the court can admonish him, determine the sentence and reserve the conviction to this punishment (Section 59 of the Penal Code).
If the fine is neither willingly paid, nor can be enforced, imprisonment is imposed as a substitute for a fine (Section 43 of the Penal Code). 1 daily rate is equal to 1 day in prison. If the convicted person agrees, he can do charitable work to erase the imprisonment.

1.1.3.4 Incidental Sanctions - Ban on Driving
The ban on driving (Section 44 of the Penal Code) is an incidental sanction, which can be imposed in addition to imprisonment or fines. It serves as a short-term warning. Unlike the withdrawal of the driving licence (Section 69 of the Penal Code), which is intended to remove unsuitable drivers from road traffic, those who receive the ban on driving retain their licenses. The ban on driving lasts from one month to three months, and is a ban from “driving any or a certain type of motor vehicles in traffic”.

1.1.4 Incidental Consequences
Incidental consequences are the loss of the right to hold public or elected office, the loss of the right to vote (Section 45 and following sections of the Penal Code) and the publication of the conviction (Sections 165, 200 of the Penal Code).

1.1.5 Measures (Section 11 paragraph 1 nr. 8 of the Penal Code)
1.1.5.1 Measures to Reform the Offender and Protect the Public
The German Penal Code knows different types of measures:
- the commitment to a psychiatric institution (Section 63 of the Penal Code)
- the commitment to an institution for withdrawal treatment (Section 64 of the Penal Code)
- the commitment to preventive custody - post imprisonment (Section 66 of the Penal Code)
- the supervision of conduct (Section 68 and following sections of the Penal Code)
- the withdrawal of the drivers‘ license (Section 69 and following sections of the Penal Code)
- the ban on occupation.
The principle of proportionality (Section 62 of the Penal Code) must be observed. A prognosis regarding the future dangerousness of the offender is necessary.

1.1.5.2 Further Measures
Further measures include forfeiture and confiscation. If an illegal act has been committed and if the perpetrator or accessory obtains a pecuniary benefit from the act, the court orders its forfeiture (Section 73 and the following sections of the Penal Code). Objects produced from an intentional criminal act or objects, which were designed or were used for its commission or preparation can be confiscated (Section 74 and the following sections of the Penal Code).

1.2 The Present Juvenile Justice System (Figure 2)
1.2.1 Juvenile Law as a Special Criminal Law for Youthful Offenders
With the 1923 introduction of the Act on Juvenile Courts, a specific criminal law for youthful offenders was created for the first time in Germany. The Act on Juvenile Courts includes juveniles (14 to 18 years old) and young adults (18 to under 21 years old). The youth-specific legal consequences set up in the Act on Juvenile Courts are only to be applied to an adolescent if either it is revealed that “ he was equal to a juvenile regarding moral and mental development at the time of the act” or it is indicated that “it was a juvenile delinquency” (Section 105 paragraph 1 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
The Act on Juvenile Courts has three forms of legal consequences, namely, educational measures, disciplinary measures and custodial sentences. Furthermore, there are also some of the incidental penalties prescribed in the adult criminal law, especially, the imposition of a ban on driving and some of the measures to reform the offender or protect the public (Sections 6 and 7 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).

1.2.2 The Present Juvenile Legal Consequences System
1.2.2.1 Educational Measures
The goal of these measures is not to punish, but to educate the offender. The two types of education measures are instruction (Section 10 of the Act on Juvenile Courts) and disciplinary guidance and reformatory education (Section 12 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
Instructions are “orders and prohibitions which guide the life of the juvenile and thereby further and secure his education”. The juvenile can be ordered to comply with instructions concerning the place of abode, to be supervised by a specific person, to participate in a social training course or to attempt to make good the injury done to the victim, etc. Especially emphasized is the instruction to undergo social-therapeutic treatment or treatment for drug addicts and alcoholics (Section 10 paragraph 2 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).

1.2.2.2 Disciplinary Measures
Disciplinary measures are admonitions, conditions and juvenile detention.
- By the admonition, the wrongfulness of the act shall be insistently impressed upon the juvenile (Section 14 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
- Conditions are the obligation “to make restitution to the best of his ability for the damage caused by the act, to personally apologize to the injured party, to work or to pay an amount for the benefit of a charitable organization” (Section 15 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
- Juvenile detention as a custodial sentence serves as a warning. It can be in the form of free time detention, short-time detention (4 days maximum) or long-term detention (between one and four weeks) (Section 16 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).

1.2.2.3 Juvenile Punishment
Juvenile punishment is the deprivation of liberty in a juvenile confinement facility. It is imposed if “due to the detrimental inclinations of the juvenile as revealed by the act, corrective disciplinary actions or means of correction are not sufficient for education or, if due to the seriousness of the guilt, punishment is required” (Section 17 paragraph 2 of the Act on Juvenile Courts). Juvenile punishment is to be assessed in such a way that the required correctional effect is possible (Section 18 paragraph 2 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
The minimum term of juvenile punishment is 6 months, the maximum term is 5 years (for juveniles). If the act involves a felony for which the provisions of the general criminal law provide a maximum sentence of more than 10 years of imprisonment, the maximum term is 10 years (Section 18 paragraph 1 of the Act on Juvenile Courts). For young adults, the maximum is always 10 years (Section 105 paragraph 3 of the Act on Juvenile Courts).
The Act on Juvenile Courts knows several types of suspension of juvenile punishment on probation: the suspension of imposition of juvenile punishment (Section 27 of the Act on Juvenile Courts), the suspension of the sentence (Section 21 of the Act on Juvenile Courts), the suspension of the remaining juvenile punishment for a definite period (Section 88 of the Act on Juvenile Courts) and the so called “Vorbewährung” according to Section 57 of the Act on Juvenile Courts, where the court postpones the final decision on the suspension on probation for several months.

II. The Development of the Sanctions Practice in Germany (1882 – 2004)
1. Formal and Informal Sanctions in the Adult Criminal Law and Juvenile Criminal Law
1.1 The Driving Back of Custodial Sanctions in favor of Non-Custodial Sanctions
It is the characteristic of the sentencing practice of the last 115 years in Germany that the custodial sentences have been forced back in favor of non-custodial sentences, namely fines (Figure 3).
In 1882, at the beginning of the statistical time frame, the share of unconditional sentences of imprisonment amounted to 76.8 %. Only 22.2 % of those convicted received fines. The share of those sentenced to the death penalty amounted to 0.03 %; in the following years this fluctuated between 0.01 and 0.05 % (1939). In 1950, the first year with statistical results for West Germany, the share of prison sentences was still at 39.1 %. In 2004, only 8.3 % of all persons convicted received an unconditional prison sentence. Of all the adults and juveniles who were sentenced in 2004, 69.6 % received a fine. If one considers also those cases that were discharged, which would have been sentenced in 1882, then today only 3.7 % of all those sanctioned are sent to prison.

1.2 The Increasing Significance of Informal Sanctions and the Shifting of Sanctions Competency to the Prosecution
Informal sanctions have an increasing significance and a shift of sanctions competence from the judge to the prosecutor can be seen. The sanctions practice freely accepted the means of diversion; refraining from punishment (Section 60) and admonition with reservation to impose punishment (Section 59 of the Penal Code) remained practically meaningless. The increase of sanctionable persons was absorbed by ending the court case with a discharge. Because of this the absolute number of those convicted could remain approximately constant (Figure 4). Today, less than half of all sanctionable persons are finally sanctioned; the share of sentenced offenders of those who are sanctionable (and were actually sanctioned) decreased from 63.7 % in 1981 to 44.3 % in 2004 (Figure 5).
The bearers of these informal sanctions are mainly the prosecutors. At the beginning of the 80s, just short of two thirds of all the informal sanctions were pronounced through the prosecution; this portion has grown to about 85.0 %. In 2004, there were about 839.000 people whose proceedings were discharged by the prosecution in accordance with Sections 153, 153a, 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 45 of the Act on Juvenile Courts and about 934.000 people were either formally sanctioned or their proceedings were discharged by the court in accordance with Sections 153, 153a, 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 47 of the Act on Juvenile Courts. That means that 47.3 % of all informal and formal sanctions were imposed by the prosecution.

2. Informal Sanctions
Informal sanctions exist not only in the juvenile justice system, but are also quantitatively significant in the adult justice system. Despite the increase in the amount of sanctioned people, the number of those convicted remains about constant, due to the increasing use of discharges (Sections 153, 153a 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure) (Figure 6). Relatively speaking, the portion of people formally sanctioned compared to all people sanctioned (informally and formally) is declining. In 1981, 66 % were formally sanctioned, whereas in 2004 only 47.6 % were formally sanctioned (Figure 7).
All German states ("Laender") show an increase in the rate of diversion. However, the differences between the diversion rates of the states vary and will over time increase even more (Figure 8). The span of the rates of diversion amounts to 11 % in 1981 and over 20.0 % in 2004. The diversion rates 2004 (without Schleswig-Holstein) range from 42.4 % in Baden-Württemberg to 67.8 % in Bremen. That means that out of 100 proceedings in Baden-Württemberg, approx. 41 were discharged, 59 people were convicted; in Bremen less than 40 were convicted.
There are not only differences between the states regarding whether there is a discharge, but also how it is discharged (Figure 9). In Bavaria discharges are rather rare (2004: 42.5 %), and when it is the case, conditions or instructions are usually applied. In contrast, stands Saarland, where the most proceedings are discharged, and when they are usually discharged without conditions or instructions. It was 2.6 times as probable that criminal proceedings were discharged without consequences in Saarland than it was in Bavaria in 2004.

3. Formal Sanctions
3.1 The Increasing Significance of Fines
Fines owe their increasing significance above all to the Laws Regarding Fines of 1924 as well as to the Criminal Law Reform of 1969, through which short-term imprisonment was driven back in favor of fines (Section 47 of the Penal Code).
Fines are now the predominant punishment. Since the Criminal Law Reform of 1969, more than 80 % of those convicted per year receive just a fine; in 2004, of the 670.279 convicted adults, 540.209 (80.6 %) of those received only fines (Figure 10). It is important to note that since 1970 the fines could hold such a high share of over 80 %, despite the increase of diversion during the last decades. Fines are imposed for traffic offenses, for mild and medium offenses of classic criminality, for crimes against the environment and for breaches of laws for foreigners.
About 236.000 discharges according to Section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, about 17.000 fines imposed as disciplinary measures in Juvenile Criminal Law and 58.274 sentences being impended on conditional probation, which usually involves paying a fine, must be added to the about 540.000 fine sentences in 2004. This shows the significance of fines in the present criminal justice system.
Despite the dominance of the fines as opportunities for driving back the short-term imprisonment (Section 47 of the Penal Code), it is not as widely used as it would be possible. The practice gave up some of its original extreme reserve against the fines exceeding 30 daily units (Figure 11), but still relinquishes the use of fines with short-term imprisonment of between 3 to 6 months. Although it is possible to impose fines from 5 daily units to 360 daily units (Section 40 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code), the majority of daily unit fines (1976: 78.2 %, 2003: 50.6 %) did not exceed 30 daily units and was therefore no competition for short-term imprisonment (the minimum penalty is one month – Section 38 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). In 2001 merely 45.1 % of fines ranged between 31 and 90 daily units. Therefore, about 94.3 % of all fines remain in the lower quarter of the range of sentences, only 0.5 % of all fines were for more than 180 daily units.
It is also not fully made use of the entire range of daily unit rates. The initial reservation was given up for fines at a rate of more than 25 € (1976: 4.9 %, 2004: 25.7 %), but the share of fines at a rate of 20 German Marks increased at the same time (1976: 29.7 %, 1999: 33.0 %) (Figure 12). But merely 1.9 % of those sentenced to fines pay more than 51 € per day. However, it has to be assumed that more than 1.3 % of those sentenced have a monthly net income (Section 40 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code) of more than 3.000 German Marks, especially if motoring offenses or fraudulent manipulation of trade and tax laws are concerned.
An incentive to paying the fines was and is the enforcement of a prison sentence (Section 43 of the Penal Code). The share of those serving time in prison because of not having paid their fine has increased since the 70s, even though the courts support payment by installments. According to empirical surveys almost a third of all fines are paid by installments. In recent years between 8 and 9 % of those sentenced to a fine spent some time in prison to make up for at least a portion of their fine. This is probably due to the decreasing economic situation including unemployment.

3.2 The Driving Back of Imprisonment
3.2.1 The Decrease in the Imposition of Short-Term Imprisonment
In 1967, before the Criminal Law Reform, every third judgement imposed a prison sentence up to six months, in 2004 it was only every tenth judgement that imposed a prison sentence. This considerable drop in favor of fines is the most lasting success of the 1969 Criminal Law Reform. Nevertheless, the strive for short-term imprisonment as an exception was in vain. In 2004, 35.0 % of all prison sentences were shorter than 6 months (Figure 13). It is a question of assessment, whether the goal of the lawmakers of 1969 to impose short-term prison sentences only as the “ultimate ratio” was reached.
The short-term imprisonment that is not impended on probation has not become an exception as well (Figure 14). It was driven back to one tenth of its scope of 1968, but nearly 28 % of all prison sentences not impended on probation are shorter than six months.
The enforcement of short-term imprisonment is not at all the exception. The goal of the Criminal Law Reform was to not only reduce the imposition but also the enforcement of short-term imprisonment, because of its hindrance to resocialisation. This has only been partially reached. The number of enforced short-term sentences raised significantly, because of unintentional incidental penalties imposed by enforcing other sanctions.
Such incidental unintended penalties are due to
- the enforcement of imprisonment as a substitute (Section 43 of the Penal Code),
- the revocation of suspension of the sentence (Section 56 and following Sections of the Penal Code),
- the suspension of the remaining sentence of imprisonment for a term on probation (Section 57 of the Penal Code) and
- the credit for pretrial confinement (Section 51 of the Penal Code).
In 1967/68 about 137.000 persons were imprisoned for under 6 months, and in 1981/82 there were still 66.400, which is several times as much as the 10.000 persons a year that are sentenced to an unconditional short-term imprisonment.

3.2.2 The Relative Consistency of Medium and Short-Term Imprisonment
With regard to sentences according to the adult criminal law, more medium and long-term sentences are imposed today than at the beginning of the 70s. The extension of the sentence being impended on probation to areas of offenses that can be punished up to two years, merely resulted in a consistent number of unconditional prison sentences. The portion of prison sentences ordered in the verdict is today nearly as large as it was before the Criminal Law Reform: in 1960 2.1 % of the persons sentenced received prison sentences without probation of more than one year and in it was 2.6 %.
As from 1981, the statistics refer to the “persons sanctioned” (the persons who were either sentenced or whose proceedings were discharged in accordance with Sections 153, 153a, 153b of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This shows that the share of imposed prison sentences slightly decreased (1981: 11.7 %, 2004: 9.1 %). Since 1993, however, the share slightly increases. This is due to a significant decline in the portion of prison sentences of up to 12 months. The portion of prison sentences of more than 12 months remained constant in the 80s, since then, there was a slight increase (Figure 15).

3.3 The Increasing Significance of the Sentence Being Impended on Probation and Probation Service
Today the sentence being impended on probation is used as a rule. The portion of sentences being impended on probation according to Section 56 of the Penal Code more than doubled in the last 40 years (1954: 30.2 %, 67.2 %). Currently, three fourths (1996: 73.9 %) of sentences up to two years are suspended on probation. For prison sentences between one and two years the suspension on probation is the rule (2004: 71.1 %) rather than the exception – at least since the second half of the 80s (Figure 16).
Conditions and instructions are applied more and more. In 2004, 63.5 % of suspensions on probation had conditions attached, and 57.1 % had instructions attached. Very often it is made use of a probation officer to look after the sentenced person. However, the number of probation officers in the last few years did not increase as much as the number of people put on probation under the charge of a probation officer. This resulted in an increase of about 70 charges per probation officer.
Through the steady shift on informal sanctions and fines, there is an increasing number of “problematic cases” to which prison sentences and suspension on probation have to be applied. These “problematic cases” are persons who had already been sentenced at least once previously as well as persons who had already been placed under the supervision of a probation officer.
The data from the probation statistics show that the use of suspension on probation is successful, at least regarding the judicial decision of revocation or remission. There was no increase in the rate of revocation. Instead, there was a meaningful increase in the share of especially at-risk subjects (Figure 17) and a significant increase in the remission rate, namely, by those thought to be especially at risk (Figure 18). The suspension on probation is recalled in less than one fourth (1997: 31.3 %) of the cases according to the adult criminal law.

3.4 The Insignificance of the Further Non Custodial Sanctions – Refraining From Punishment and Admonition With Reservation to Impose Punishment
Both the refraining from punishment and the admonition with reservation to impose punishment that were carried out through the Criminal Law Reform of 1969 remain quantitatively meaningless. In 2004, 388 people were refrained from punishment (0.06 % of those sentenced). The number of admonitions with reservation to impose punishment has quintupled since 1975 (1975: 956 people with admonition; 2004: 6.642), but overall this sanction remained quantitatively meaningless in view of the simple means according to Section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In 1999, 5.194 people (0.8 % of those sentenced) received an admonition with reservation to impose punishment.

3.5 Pre-trial detention
Pre-trial detention is an infringement on the basic rights of the individual, that is legitimized through the goals of procedure and execution, and is limited by the principle of assumed innocence. Because of the infringement on the basic constitutional rights, the need for effective prosecution must be weighed against the right and claim to freedom of the individual. Pre-trial detention is not ordered when it is disproportionate to the significance of the matter and the punishment likely to be imposed (Section 122 paragraph 1 sentence 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
The expectation that the rate of pre-trial detention would decrease parallel to the decrease in custodial sanctions was not fulfilled. The rate of pre-trial detention for persons sentenced according to adult criminal law remained constant; it was not until the middle of the 80s that the rate decreased significantly to 3.7 %, mostly under the influence of science and public debate; since 1990 it increased (1999: 5.0%), mainly as a reaction to crimes committed by foreigners (Figure 19). Only in the recent two years, the pre-trial detention rate has seen a moderate decline (2004: 4.0 %).
Of those having served time in pre-trail detention only every other adult convicted (2004: 52.9%) received a prison sentence without probation (Figure 20). A considerable portion of those convicted experience imprisonment in its most dissocializing form, i.e pre-trial detention.

***

Figure 1: Penal Consequences

Penal Consequences (from the StGB)

Refrain from sentencing § 60

Warning reserving the possibility of sentencing §§ 59-59c

Penalties

Main penalties

Custodial sentence § 38

Sentence suspended on probation §§ 56-56g

Unconditional custodial sentence

Fine § 40

Incidental penalties*)

Driving Ban § 44

Conditions/Incidental consequences

Deprivation of the capacity to hold a public/elected office, and of the right to vote §§ 45ff

Publication of the conviction §§ 165; 200

Measures (§ 11 I Nr. 8)

Measures for security and rehabilitation

Custodial measures

Commitment to a psychiatric ward § 63

Commitment to an institution for the treatment of substance abuse § 64

Commitment to protective custody § 66

Non-custodial measures

Parole supervision of conduct upon release §§ 68-68g

Revocation of a Driver’s License §§ 69-69b

Ban on practicing a profession §§ 70-70b

Forfeiture §§ 73-73e

Seizure §§ 74, 75

Rendering Useless (of writings) § 74d

*) §43a StGB (confiscation of property) was declared incompatible with Art. 103 II GG by the BVerfG on 20.03.2002 -2BvR 794/95 (BVerfGE 105, 135ff)

[overview]

Figure 2: Penal Consequences (Juvenile Penal Law s)

Consequences (Juvenile Penal Law s)

Refrain from sentencing § 60

Main penalties

Corrective measures § 9 JGG

Instructions § 10 JGG

Parenting orders § 12 JGG

Institutional correctional training § 12 JGG

Disciplinary measures § 13 JGG

Warning § 14 JGG

Charges § 15 JGG
- Restitution
- Apology
- Labour
- Monetary sum

Youth detention § 16 JGG
- Break time detention
- Short-term detention
- Long-term detention

Youth custody § 17 JGG

Suspension of a sentence § 27 JGG

in cases of youth custody due to destructive tendencies
Imposition of youth custody § 17 JGG due to:
- Destructive tendencies
- SEVERITY of the offence

Suspension on probation
- “Pre-probation” § 57 JGG
- “Judgment” probation § 21 JGG

Unconditional youth custody

Incidental penalties

Driving Ban § 44 StGB

Measures (§ 11 I Nr. 8)

Measures for security and rehabilitation §§ 7 JGG, 61 ff StGB

Custodial measures

Commitment to a psychiatric ward § 63

Commitment to an institution for the treatment of substance abuse § 64

Non-custodial measures

Parole supervision of conduct upon release §§ 68-68g

Revocation of a Driver’s License §§ 69-69b

Other measures

Forfeiture §§ 6 JGG, 73-73e StGB

Seizure §§ 6 JGG, 74, 75 StGB

Rendering Useless (of writings) §§ 6 JGG, 74d StGB

[overview]

c:\kidat\kisSV.prFigure 3: Total Development of Sanctioning Practice

Total Development of Sanctioning Practice
German Reich and Federal Republic of Germany, 1882-2003 (former West Germany and Berlin)
Proportions are of convictions under general and juvenile penal law

(white) Other
(green) Fine
(yellow) Conditional custodial sentences (probation/parole)
(red) Unconditional custodial sentences

Total convictions for crimes and misdemeanors
Not shown: death penalty (0.01-0.03%)
Total culpable offenders (until 1923: older than 12, since 27.2.1923: older than 14)

Figure 4: Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders, absolute values (Timeline)

Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders
Federal Republic of Germany, 1981-2004
Formally sanctioned offenders, proceedings dismissed with conditions/unconditionally in absolute values (in thousands)
Absolute values, in thousands

Discharge
(white) by the public prosecutor, unconditionally
(dotted) by the public prosecutor, with conditions

(striped) Discharge by the court
(black) Formally sanctioned offenders

Figure 5: Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders, as Percentages of the Total of Sanctioned Offenders

Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders
Federal Republic of Germany, 1981-2003 (former West German states)
Formally sanctioned offenders, proceedings dismissed with conditions/unconditionally (without Discharges under the BtMG [Controlled Substances Legislation]), in percentages out of the total of sanctioned offenders

Discharge
(white) by the public prosecutor, unconditionally
(light gray) by the public prosecutor, with conditions

(dark gray) Discharge by the court
(black) Formally sanctioned offenders (Convicted offenders: those sentenced under §§ 59, 60 StGB, §27 JGG)

Table 1: Judgments and Convictions under General Penal Law and under Juvenile Penal Law, 1976 – 2003, all offences
Former West Germany with West Berlin, since 1994 including East Berlin

$(Quelle c:\kidat\Abgeurteilte ab 1976.xls)

Year	Total judgements	Percent of judgments under general penal law out of total judgments	Percent of judgments under juvenile penal law out of total judgments	Total convictions	Percent of convictions out of total jugments	Percent of convictions under general penal law out of total judgments under general penal law	Percent of convictions under juvenile penal law out of total judgments under juvenile penal law
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
1976	839.679	83,2	16,8	699.339	83,3	84,8	76,0
1977	882.855	82,3	17,7	722.966	81,9	83,6	73,9
1978	917.532	81,0	19,0	739.044	80,5	82,6	71,7
1979	906.232	79,8	20,2	718.779	79,3	81,8	69,5
1980	928.906	79,1	20,9	732.481	78,9	81,6	68,5
1981	952.091	78,1	21,9	747.463	78,5	81,5	67,9
1982	981.083	77,6	22,4	772.194	78,7	81,8	68,1
1983	998.208	77,8	22,2	784.657	78,6	81,9	67,1
1984	966.339	78,9	21,1	753.397	78,0	81,3	65,4
1985	924.912	80,2	19,8	719.924	77,8	81,0	65,1
1986	908.652	81,7	18,3	705.348	77,6	80,4	65,1
1987	890.666	82,9	17,1	691.394	77,6	80,1	65,5
1988	903.211	83,5	16,5	702.794	77,8	80,3	65,0
1989	888.089	85,1	14,9	693.499	78,1	80,6	64,0
1990	878.305	86,1	13,9	692.363	78,8	81,3	63,3
1991	869.195	86,8	13,2	695.118	80,0	82,5	63,4
1992	883.056	87,3	12,7	712.613	80,7	83,1	64,2
1993	931.051	87,8	12,2	760.792	81,7	84,2	63,7
1994	936.459	87,7	12,3	765.397	81,7	84,5	62,2
1995	937.385	86,7	13,3	759.989	81,1	84,0	61,7
1996	944.324	86,2	13,8	763.690	80,9	83,9	62,2
1997	960.334	85,6	14,4	780.530	81,3	84,3	63,3
1998	974.187	85,1	14,9	791.549	81,3	84,4	63,3
1999	940.683	84,6	15,4	759.661	80,8	83,7	64,5
2000	908.261	84,0	16,0	732.733	80,7	83,7	64,7
2001	890.099	83,6	16,4	718.702	80,7	83,6	66,2
2002	893.005	82,8	17,2	719.751	80,6	83,6	66,1
2003	911.848	83,2	16,8	736.297	80,7	83,7	66,3
2004	958.259	83,6	16,4	775.802	81,0	83,7	67,1

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (Hrsg.): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 1976-2003

Table 2: Judgments under General Penal Law by Type of Decision, 1976-2003; all offences;
All former West German States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin.

Year	Total judgments	Total convicted		Total not convicted.	Sentence of disciplinary measures without supervision	Acquittal with a sentence of disciplinary measures	Refrained from sentencing	Discharge of the proceedings without accompanying disciplinary measures		Acquittal without a sentence of disciplinary measures
	Value	Value	in % of (1)	(4)	in % of (1)	in % of (1)	in % of (1)	in % of (1)	in % of (4)	in % of (1)
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)
1976	698.703	592.154	84,8	106.549	0,03	0,02	0,13	10,6	69,5	4,5
1977	726.375	607.307	83,6	119.068	0,03	0,01	0,08	11,8	71,9	4,5
1978	743.542	614.252	82,6	129.290	0,03	0,01	0,06	12,8	73,8	4,4
1979	723.247	591.543	81,8	131.704	0,03	0,02	0,06	13,7	75,0	4,4
1980	735.170	599.832	81,6	135.338	0,03	0,01	0,06	14,0	75,8	4,4
1981	743.788	605.946	81,5	137.842	0,03	0,01	0,05	14,3	77,3	4,1
1982	761.078	622.434	81,8	138.644	0,03	0,01	0,04	14,2	78,1	3,9
1983	776.655	636.105	81,9	140.550	0,03	0,01	0,05	14,3	78,8	3,7
1984	762.100	619.800	81,3	142.300	0,03	0,02	0,04	14,9	79,5	3,7
1985	741.861	600.798	81,0	141.063	0,03	0,01	0,05	15,1	79,6	3,8
1986	742.193	597.028	80,4	145.165	0,03	0,01	0,06	15,7	80,2	3,8
1987	737.932	591.321	80,1	146.611	0,03	0,01	0,04	16,0	80,4	3,8
1988	754.560	606.103	80,3	148.457	0,03	0,01	0,04	15,9	80,8	3,7
1989	755.367	608.548	80,6	146.819	0,04	0,01	0,07	15,8	81,1	3,6
1990	756.285	615.089	81,3	141.196	0,04	0,01	0,07	15,2	81,7	3,3
1991	754.420	622.390	82,5	132.030	0,05	0,01	0,09	14,3	81,6	3,1
1992	771.107	640.774	83,1	130.333	0,05	0,01	0,07	13,8	81,7	3,0
1993	817.044	688.128	84,2	128.916	0,04	0,01	0,05	12,9	82,0	2,7
1994	820.841	693.432	84,5	127.409	0,05	0,01	0,04	12,8	82,2	2,7
1995	813.055	683.258	84,0	129.797	0,04	0,01	0,06	13,1	81,9	2,8
1996	814.344	682.844	83,9	131.500	0,05	0,01	0,05	13,2	81,9	2,8
1997	821.706	692.723	84,3	128.983	0,06	0,00	0,07	12,9	82,0	2,7
1998	828.913	699.548	84,4	129.365	0,06	0,00	0,09	12,8	81,9	2,7
1999	795.483	666.059	83,7	129.424	0,06	0,00	0,08	13,4	82,4	2,7
2000	763.307	638.893	83,7	124.414	0,07	0,00	0,05	13,5	82,7	2,7
2001	744.122	622.027	83,6	122.095	0,08	0,00	0,06	13,6	82,8	2,7
2002	739.555	618.269	83,6	121.286	0,08	0,01	0,04	13,7	83,3	2,6
2003	758.667	634.735	83,7	123.932	0,07	0,00	0,04	13,6	83,0	2,7
2004	801.037	670.279	83,7	130.758	0,09	0,00	0,05	13,6	83,3	2,6

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (Hrsg.): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 1976-2004.

Table 3: Judgments under Juvenile Penal Law by Type of Decision, 1976-2003; all offences
All former West German States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin.

	Total judgments	Total convicted		Total not convicted	Sentence of disciplinary measures without supervision	Transfer to Family Court	Total discharges of the proceedings		Of that: discharge under § 47 JGG		Acquittal
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)
	N	N	in % von (1)	N	in % von (1)	in % von (1)	in % von (1)	in % von (4)	in % von (1)	in % von (4)	in % von (1)
1976	140.976	107.185	76,0	33.791	0,03	0,04	20,8	86,8	15,8	66,0	3,1
1977	156.480	115.659	73,9	40.821	0,03	0,02	23,1	88,5	18,1	69,3	2,9
1978	173.990	124.792	71,7	49.198	0,02	0,02	25,4	89,7	20,3	71,9	2,9
1979	182.985	127.236	69,5	55.749	0,02	0,02	27,7	90,9	22,8	74,8	2,7
1980	193.736	132.649	68,5	61.087	0,02	0,01	29,0	91,8	24,4	77,4	2,5
1981	208.303	141.517	67,9	66.786	0,02	0,01	29,5	92,0	25,1	78,2	2,5
1982	220.005	149.760	68,1	70.245	0,01	0,02	29,7	92,9	25,4	79,6	2,2
1983	221.553	148.552	67,1	73.001	0,02	0,02	30,7	93,3	26,5	80,4	2,2
1984	204.239	133.597	65,4	70.642	0,01	0,01	32,3	93,5	26,3	76,0	2,2
1985	183.051	119.126	65,1	63.925	0,01	0,02	32,6	93,4	27,1	77,6	2,3
1986	166.459	108.320	65,1	58.139	0,02	0,02	32,6	93,2	28,2	80,7	2,3
1987	152.734	100.073	65,5	52.661	0,02	0,01	32,1	93,0	27,5	79,9	2,4
1988	148.651	96.691	65,0	51.960	0,01	0,01	32,6	93,2	27,6	78,9	2,4
1989	132.722	84.951	64,0	47.771	0,02	0,01	33,5	93,2	28,2	78,2	2,4
1990	122.020	77.274	63,3	44.746	0,02	0,02	34,3	93,5	28,7	78,4	2,4
1991	114.775	72.728	63,4	42.047	0,03	0,02	34,2	93,3	28,8	78,6	2,4
1992	111.949	71.839	64,2	40.110	0,02	0,01	33,4	93,3	28,3	78,9	2,3
1993	114.007	72.664	63,7	41.343	0,02	0,01	33,8	93,2	28,2	77,9	2,4
1994	115.618	71.965	62,2	43.653	0,03	0,01	35,3	93,5	29,6	78,3	2,4
1995	124.330	76.731	61,7	47.599	0,02	0,01	35,6	93,0	30,7	80,2	2,7
1996	129.980	80.846	62,2	49.134	0,02	0,03	35,3	93,5	30,5	80,6	2,4
1997	138.628	87.807	63,3	50.821	0,03	0,01	34,1	93,1	29,3	79,8	2,5
1998	145.274	92.001	63,3	53.273	0,02	0,02	34,3	93,5	29,7	81,1	2,4
1999	145.200	93.602	64,5	51.598	0,02	0,02	33,1	93,1	28,6	80,4	2,4
2000	144.954	93.840	64,7	51.114	0,02	0,02	32,7	92,8	28,6	81,0	2,5
2001	145.977	96.675	66,2	49.302	0,03	0,01	31,3	92,5	27,2	80,6	2,5
2002	153.450	101.482	66,1	51.968	0,02	0,01	31,1	91,7	26,9	79,3	2,8
2003	153.181	101.562	66,3	51.619	0,02	0,02	30,8	91,4	26,4	78,3	2,9
2004	157.222	105.523	67,1	51.699	0,03	0,10	30,1	91,4	26,1	79,5	2,7

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (Hrsg.): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 1976-2004.

[overview]

Figure 6: Offenders Informally and Formally Sanctioned under General Penal Law

Offenders Informally and Formally Sanctioned under General Penal Law
Federal Republic of Germany, 1981-2003 (former West German states)
Formally sanctioned offenders, proceedings dismissed with conditions/unconditionally in absolute values (in thousands)
Absolute values, in thousands

(dotted) Sanctioned under § 153 unconditionally
(striped/dotted) Sanctioned under §§ 153, 153 b (Court) unconditionally
(hatched) Sanctioned under § 153 with conditions imposed
(striped) Sanctioned under § 153a (Court) with conditions imposed
(black) Formally Sanctioned

Figure 7: Development of Sentencing Practice under General Penal Law

Development of Sentencing Practice under General Penal Law
Percentages are of offenders sentenced under general penal law

(white – upper) Discharge by the public prosecutor
(white – lower) Discharge by the court
(red) Formally sanctioned offenders (percent)
(dotted) Fine
(striped) Suspended custodial sentences
(gray) Unconditional custodial sentences

Figure 8: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law

Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law, 1981-2003
Proportions of Discharges by public prosecutors and courts under §§ 153, 13a, 153b StPO are of the informally and formally sanctioned

Mitte: mean average

Figure 9: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law, by States, 2003

Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under General Penal Law, by States, 2003
Proportion of conditional/ unconditional discharges to those informally and formally sanctioned

(white) formall sanctioned
Diversion rate (in percent)
(dark grey) informally sanctioned with charges
(light grey) informally sanctioned without charge

[overview]

Figure 10: The Development of Sanctioning Practice under General Penal Law (Timeline)

The Development of Sanctioning Practice under General Penal Law (Timeline)
Convictions, Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003 (former West German States and Berlin)
Absolute values

Thousands

(blue) Fine
Custodial Sentences
(grey) on probation
(dark grey) unconditional

Figure 11: Fines by Number of Days (Timeline)

Note: Fines under German Penal Law are calculated by the individual’s earnings on a per diem basis

Fines by Number of Days (Timeline)
Federal Republic of Germany 1975-2003
Proportions based on fines issued under General Penal Law

Figure 12: Fines by Amount of Per Diem Earnings (Timeline)

Fines by Amount of Per Diem Earnings (Timeline)
Federal Republic of Germany 1975-2003
Proportions based on fines issued under General Penal Law

Fines amounting to more than 360 days worth of per diem earnings are not included in the prosecution statistics.

[overview]

Figure 13: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law: Total Custodial Sentences (Timeline)

Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law, 1970-2003
Total Custodial Sentences
Proportions based on all custodial sentences imposed under General Penal Law

(grey) >24 months
(navy) 12-24 months
(light blue) 6-12 months
(white) under 6 months

Figure 14: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law: Unconditional Custodial Sentences (Timeline)

Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law, 1970-2004 Unconditional Custodial Sentences
Proportions based on all custodial sentences imposed under General Penal Law

(grey) >24 months
(navy) 12-24 months
(light blue) 6-12 months
(white) under 6 months

[Zurück zur Übersicht]

Figure 15: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal Law in Relation to All Individuals Sanctioned

Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General Penal, 1981-2004
Total Custodial Sentences
Proportions are in relation to those informally and formally sanctioned under General Penal Law

(red) >24 months
(blue) 12-24 months
(green) 6-12 months
(grey) under 6 months

[overview]

Figure 16: Suspension Rate of Custodial Sentences awarded under General Penal Law

Suspension Rate of Custodial Sentences awarded under General Penal Law, 1970-2004
Proportions in relation to the custodial sentences open to suspension

(blue) >12-24 months
(green) 6-12 months
(grey) under 6 months

Suspension rate
in percent, in relation to all custodial sentences open to suspension

Figure 17: Conditional Probations after Previous Conviction of the Probationer. Under General Penal Law

Previous conviction(s) and
(dark grey) - previously under probation/parole supervision
(grey) – previously without probation/parole supervision
(white) not previously convicted

Year probation ended
*since 1992 not including Hamburg

Figure 18: Probation supervision ended through probation of previously convicted probationers

(green) without previous convictions
(black) total
(blue) total previously convicted (including those under probation or parole supervision)
(red) previously under probation or parole supervision

Year probation ended
Federal Republic of Germany, since 1995 including all of Berlin, since 1992 not including Hamburg

Figure 19a: Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law

Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law
Federal Republic of Gemany (the former West Germany and Berlin) 1975-2003. Rates are of offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law/ under general penal law

(blue) General penal law
(red) Juvenile penal law

General penal law
Juvenile penal law

Source: Konstanz Repository of Research on Crime and Sentencing at www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis

Figure 19b: Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law

Offenders Remanded in Custody under Juvenile Penal Law and under General Penal Law
Federal Republic of Gemany (the former West Germany and Berlin) 1975-2003. Rates are of all offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law/ under general penal law

(blue) General penal law
(red) Juvenile penal law

General penal law
Juvenile penal law

Source: Konstanz Respoitory of Research on Crime and Sentencing at www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis

Figure 20: Remanded Prisoners by Type of Sanction (General Penal Law) (Timeline)

Remanded Prisoners by Type of Sanction (General Penal Law)
Federal Republic of Germany 1975-2003
Rates are of all offenders sentenced under general penal law who were remanded in custody prior to sentencing

(white) Detention
(light grey) Fine
(grey) Conditional custodial sentence
(dark grey) Unconditional custodial sentence

Rate remanded in custody

Figure 21: Offenders Sentenced in Youth Court (Timeline)

Offenders Sentenced in Youth Court, 1955-2003
Absolute values of juveniles (14-18) and young adults (18-21) sentenced (under general and juvenile penal law) (absolute values, in thousands)

(white) Juveniles
(grey) Young Adults sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law
(dark grey) Young Adults sentenced under General Penal Law

until 1960 excluding Saarland and West Berlin

Figure 22: Under Juvenile Penal Law Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders

Under Juvenile Penal Law Informally and Formally Sanctioned Offenders
Offenders sentenced, persons discharged conditionally/unconditionally as absolute values (in thousands)

(grey) § 45 I, II new version (public prosecutor)
(white) § 45 III new version (public prosecutor)
(grey) § 47 JGG (Court)
(dark grey) Formally Sanctioned

*Offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law and persons with decisions under §27 JGG

Figure 23: The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults (Timeline)

The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults
Percentages of young adults sentenced under General and under Juvenile Penal Law, 1955-2003

(white) Young adults sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law
(grey) Young adults sentenced under General Penal Law

Former States including West Berlin, since 1995 including Berlin. Until 1960 excluding Saarland and West Berlin.

Figure 24: The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults, by Offence

The Application of Criminal Law to Young Adults
Rates of young adults sentenced under Juvenile and under General Penal Law in 2004; by offence

Young adults sentenced under
(white) General Penal Law
(white) Juvenile Penal Law

I. Offences Against the Public Order
II. Sexual Offences
III. Offences Against the Person
1. 16 Offences Against Life
2. 17 Assault and Battery
IV. Theft and Appropriation
V. Robbery and Blackmail
VI. other Property Offences
VII. Offences Against Public Safety, Environmental Crimes
VIII. Traffic Offences
IX. Others

Total Offences
Total Offences excluding Traffic Offences

Offence Types I-IX and subtypes as dictated by the Criminal Proceedings Statistics. Former West German States and Berlin

[overview]

Figure 25: Diversion Rates (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under Juvenile Penal Law

Diversion Rates (Public Prosecutor and Courts) under Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2004
Percent, in relation to the total of under juvenile penal law formally and informally sentenced offenders

(white) formally sanctioned
(blue) diversion rate (in percent)
diversion under
(dark grey) § 47 JGG
(grey) § 45 III JGG
(light grey) § 45 I, II JGG

Figure 26: Development of Sanctioning Practice in Juvenile Penal Law

Development of Sanctioning Practice in Juvenile Penal Law
BRD: The former West Germany (since 1995 including all of Berlin)
Percentages are of the total of informally and formally sanctioned juvenile offenders

§ 45 JGG, § 47 JGG: forms of diversion (administrative and judicial) permitted under the JGG (Juvenile Penal Code)
§ 27 JGG: a form of probation where the sentence is determined by the offender’s conduct in a time of pre-sentencing probation permitted under the (Juvenile Penal Code)

formell sanktioniert %: percentages formally sanctioned
Erziehungsmaßregeln/ambulante Zuchtmittel: (non-)custodial disciplinary actions or parenting orders
Jugendarrest: juvenile detention sentences
bed. (bedingte) Jugendstrafe: suspended juvenile custodial sentences
Unbedingte Jugendstrafe: juvenile custodial sentences without probation
Diversionsrate: rate of diversion

Figure 27: Rates of Diversion of German Youths (at the Time of the Decision-making) for Small Property Offences (§ 242, 247, 248a StGB are the only Offences) that were Dependant on Prior Convictions, by State (1994)

(white) First Recorded Offence
(light grey) Second Recorded Offence
(dark grey) Third and Higher Recorded Offence

Source: Data is from the Federal Central Registry and the Juvenile Registry, for decisions made in 1994. German youths (at the time of the decision-making), per decision (including numerous decisions made for the same offender)

Figure 28: Rates of Diversion (Public Prosecutor and Courts) in Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2002. Rates of diversion by public prosecutor and by the courts under §§45, 47 JGG with respect to informally and formally sanctioned offenders, by State

[C:\rfs2003\jobs\JGG1994-1.sps; C:\rfs2003\jobs\JGG1994-1.xls

Diversion Rates ((Public Prosecutor and Courts) in Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2002
Rates of diversion by public prosecutor and by the courts under §§45, 47 JGG with respect to informally and formally sanctioned offenders, by State

Hamburg: Data for §45 estimated for 1990; in 1984/1985 underestimated due to error
*Average, all States

Figure 29: Rates of Diversion in Juvenile Penal Law, by State

Rates of Diversion in Juvenile Penal Law, by State, 2003
Rates of diversion by public prosecutor and courts under §§ 45, 47 JGG with respect to the total of informally and formally sanctioned offenders

Diversion Rate Juvenile Penal Law
(dark grey) § 47 JGG (Court)
(grey) § 45 III
(light grey) § 45 I, II

*excluding SH
*excluding ST

Former States/ 4 New States

Figure 30: The Development of Sanctioning Practice under Juvenile Penal Law

The Development of Sanctioning Practice under Juvenile Penal Law
Formal sanctions, Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates are of offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law

(dark gray) institutional correctional training
(white) noncustodial disciplinary actions / parenting orders
(dotted) noncustodial disciplinary measures as regulated by the JGG
(light hatched) suspended juvenile custodial sentences
(black) juvenile custodial sentences without probation
(dark hatched) juvenile detention sentences

Rate of custiodial treatment (youth prison without probation + youth dentention + residential welfare education)
Rate of suspension: youth prision sentence with probation

Figure 31: Non-custodial Sanctions under Juvenile Penal Law

Offenders Sentenced to Non-Custodial Sentences under Juvenile Penal Law
Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates in relation to non-custodial sanctions as the harshest sentence

(white) non-custodial disciplinary actions/ parenting orders
(light grey) non-custodial disciplinary measures
(grey) conditional youth custod

[overview]

Figure 32: Offenders Sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law to Disciplinary Measures (Timeline)

(Total) Offenders Sentenced under Juvenile Penal Law to Disciplinary Measures
Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates in relation to total disciplinary measures imposed

(dark grey) institutional correctional training
(light grey) parenting orders
(white) instructions

Figure 33: Offenders Sentenced to Disciplinary Measures under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)

(Total) Offenders Sentenced to Disciplinary Measures under Juvenile Penal Law
Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates in relation to total disciplinary measures imposed

(white) Warning
(black) Conditions
(grey) Youth Detention

Figure 34: Offenders Sentenced to Conditions under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)

Offenders Sentenced to Conditions under Juvenile Penal Law
Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates in relation to total conditions imposed as disciplinary measures

(pale yellow) Compensation
(yellow) Apology
(teal) Work service/ Apology
(green) Work service
(black) Fine

Figure 35: Offenders Sentenced to Youth Detention under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)

Offenders Sentenced to Youth Detention under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)
Federal Republic of Germany 1950-2003
Rates in relation to total Youth Detentions

(white) Break time detention
(grey) Short-term detention
(dark grey) Long-term detention

Figure 36: Length of Youth Sentences (Timeline)

Length of Youth Sentences Imposed under Juvenile Penal Law, 1950-2003
Total youth sentences; Rates in relation to total sentencing under Juvenile Penal Law

(white) indeterminate length
(lined) determinate length (length not specified)
(black) >24 months
(dark grey) 12-24 months
(grey) 6-12 months
(light grey) 6 months

Figure 37: Length of Youth Sentences (Timeline)

Length of Youth Sentences Imposed under Juvenile Penal Law, 1981-2004
Total youth sentences of a certain length. Rates in relation to under Juvenile Penal Law informally and formally sanctioned offenders.

(green) 6-12 months
(blue) 12-24 months
(grey) 6 months
(black) >24 months

Figure 38: Rates of Suspension of Juvenile Custodial Sentences

Rates of suspension of suspendible juvenile custodial sentences , 1960 .. 2003
Rates are of each length of suspendible juvenile custodial sentences

The percentages are of all suspendible juvenile custodial sentences

Figure 39: Probation/Parole Completed by Offenders with Previous Convictions

Previously convicted
(dark grey) and previously under probation/parole supervision
(grey) without probation/parole supervision
(white) no previous convictions

Year probation/parole completed
*since 1992 excluding Hamburg

Figure 40: Probation Supervision Ended Through Parole

Probation/Parole in percent

(green) no previous convictions
(black) total
(blue) all previously convicted (including probationary/parole sentences)
(red) previously convicted, probationary/parole sentences

Year probation/parole completed
Federal Republic of Germany (former States, since 1995 including Berlin); since 1992 excluding Hamburg

[overview]

Figure 41: Offenders Remanded in Custody, by Type of Sanction (Juvenile Penal Law)

Offenders Remanded in Custody, by Type of Sanction (Juvenile Penal Law)
Federal Republic of Germany 1975-2003
Percentages are of the total of offenders sentenced under juvenile penal law who were remanded in custody pending trial

(black): disciplinary actions / parenting orders
(white): disciplinary measures measures as regulated by the JGG
(light gray): suspended juvenile custodial sentences
(dark grey): juvenile custodial sentences without probation

Rate remanded in custod

[overview]

Figure 42: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law

Juvenile Penal Law:
(pale pink) Youth detention
(pale pink) 6-12 months
(red) 12-24 months
(red) >24 months

General Penal Law
(pale blue) under 6 months
(pale blue) 6-12 months
(blue) 12-24 months
(blue) >24 months

General 2003 Juvenile
Penal Law

Figure 43: Custodial Sentenced under Juvenile and Under General Penal Law (Timeline)

(light blue) Total custodial sentences under 6 months
(blue) Conditional custodial sentences of 6 months and longer
(dark blue) Unconditional custodial sentences of 6 months and longer
(light red) Youth detention
(red) Conditional youth custody
(dark red) Unconditional youth custody

J: Juvenile Penal Law
A: General Penal Law

Figure 44: Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law (Timeline)

Length of Custodial Sentences Imposed under General and under Juvenile Penal Law 1981-2003

Total custodial sentences of over 6 months, excluding youth detentions of uncertain //UNDETERMINED length
Rates in relation to informally and formally sanctioned offenders

(dark blue) >24 months A
(blue) 12-24 months A
(light blue) 6-12 months A
General Penal Law

(dark red) >24 months J
(red) 12-24 months J
(light red) 6-12 months J
Juvenile Penal Law

J: Juvenile Penal Law
A: General Penal Law

[overview]

Figure 45: Prisioners in Western European States

Prisioners in Western European States
Total prisoners. Rates of imprisonment are per 100,000 inhabitants. As of: 1.9.2003

Iceland
Norway
Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Ireland
Ireland
Sweden
Greece
Belgium
France
Germany
Austria
Italy
The Netherlands
Spain
Portugal
England & Wales

Table 4: Judgments Resulting in Custodial Sentences for Security and Rehabilitation, 1976 – 2004
Former West Germany with West Berlin, since 1995 including East Berlin

Year	Judgments
	Total	Sentences including custodial measures (col. 4, 7, 10)		Committed to
				Psychiatric Ward			Rehabilitation Clinic			Secure custody
				Total		Unfit to stand trial	Total		Unfit to stand trial	Secure custody
	N	N	% von (1)	N	% von (2)	N	N	% von (2)	N	N	% von (2)
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)
1976	839.679	874	0,10	410	46,9	258	404	46,2	62	60	6,9
1977	882.855	869	0,10	389	44,8	201	429	49,4	49	51	5,9
1978	917.532	895	0,10	377	42,1	251	483	54,0	64	35	3,9
1979	906.232	984	0,11	370	37,6	229	570	57,9	50	44	4,5
1980	928.906	992	0,11	366	36,9	233	585	59,0	48	41	4,1
1981	952.091	956	0,10	395	41,3	232	504	52,7	33	57	6,0
1982	981.083	965	0,10	408	42,3	240	519	53,8	49	38	3,9
1983	998.208	968	0,10	420	43,4	268	521	53,8	49	27	2,8
1984	966.339	974	0,10	427	43,8	256	511	52,5	44	36	3,7
1985	924.912	990	0,11	425	42,9	267	526	53,1	43	39	3,9
1986	908.652	994	0,11	410	41,2	248	544	54,7	41	40	4,0
1987	890.666	1.040	0,12	391	37,6	235	610	58,7	47	39	3,8
1988	903.211	1.095	0,12	447	40,8	249	616	56,3	28	32	2,9
1989	888.089	1.086	0,12	428	39,4	252	631	58,1	56	27	2,5
1990	878.305	1.089	0,12	432	39,7	276	626	57,5	48	31	2,8
1991	869.195	1.236	0,14	474	38,3	324	724	58,6	72	38	3,1
1992	883.056	1.397	0,16	553	39,6	337	810	58,0	60	34	2,4
1993	931.051	1.304	0,14	467	35,8	307	810	62,1	79	27	2,1
1994	936.459	1.505	0,16	551	36,6	358	914	60,7	49	40	2,7
1995	937.385	1.361	0,15	559	41,1	345	757	55,6	28	45	3,3
1996	944.324	1.548	0,16	628	40,6	410	874	56,5	38	46	3,0
1997	960.334	1.901	0,20	739	38,9	464	1.116	58,7	46	46	2,4
1998	974.187	1.892	0,19	770	40,7	454	1.061	56,1	40	61	3,2
1999	940.683	1.955	0,21	709	36,3	466	1.191	60,9	43	55	2,8
2000	908.261	2.085	0,23	758	36,4	497	1.267	60,8	48	60	2,9
2001	890.099	2.234	0,25	790	35,4	512	1.370	61,3	52	74	3,3
2002	893.005	2.452	0,27	864	35,2	557	1.532	62,5	45	56	2,3
2003	911.848	2.585	0,28	876	33,9	536	1.643	63,6	34	66	2,6
2004	958.259	2.642	0,28	968	36,6	666	1.609	60,9	52	65	2,5
Change 1976-2004
in percent	14,1	202,3		136,1			298,3			8,3
Total	118.580	1.768		558			1.205			5

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgung 1976-2004.

	Total convicted	Sentenced to custodial measures
	Total convicted	Total	Committed to a psychiatric ward	of that: not culpable	Rehabilitation clinic	Secure custody
Total Offences	958.259	2.642	968	666	1.609	65
Sexual Offences (§§ 174-184b)	9.894	256	161	67	69	26
Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 211-222)	1.290	202	123	91	65	14
- murder (§ 211)	171	13	8	4	4	1
- attempted murder (§§ 211, 22)	123	30	15	13	10	5
- manslaughter (§§ 212, 213)	514	157	100	74	49	8
Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 223-231)	97.970	577	325	261	250	2
- battery (§ 224)	37.760	378	222	169	156	0
- actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (§ 227)	82	19	2	2	16	1
Theft and Appropriation (§§ 242-248c)	185.550	285	44	24	240	1
- Burglary including home burglaries (§§ 243 I, 244 I Nr. 3)	19.892	157	28	16	128	1
- Theft in other serious cases (§ 243 I Nr. 2-7)	6.612	23	3	1	20	0
- Armed theft (§ 244 I 1)	1.933	24	3	2	21	0
- Organised gang thefts (§ 244 I 2)	944	6	1	0	5	0
Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (§§ 249-255, 316a)	13.014	425	95	68	315	15
- Robbery (§ 249)	3.816	76	30	22	44	2
- Serious Robbery (§ 250)	2.201	125	20	11	99	6
- Robbery resulting in death (§ 251)	25	0	0	0	0	0
Deception Offences and Dishonesty (§§ 263-266b)	165.029	63	20	12	40	3
Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 306-323c [without § 316a])	5.726	223	140	95	81	2
Traffic	223.784	113	13	12	100	0

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2004. Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.

	Total convicted	Sentenced to custodial measures (in % of offenders convicted)
	Total convicted	Total	Committed to a psychiatric ward	of that: not culpable	Rehabilitation clinic	Secure custody
Total Offences	958.259	0,28	0,10	68,8	0,17	0,01
Sexual Offences (§§ 174-184b)	9.894	2,59	1,63	41,6	0,70	0,26
Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 211-222)	1.290	15,66	9,53	74,0	5,04	1,09
- murder (§ 211)	171	7,60	4,68	50,0	2,34	0,58
- attempted murder (§§ 211, 22)	123	24,39	12,20	86,7	8,13	4,07
- manslaughter (§§ 212, 213)	514	30,54	19,46	74,0	9,53	1,56
Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 223-231)	97.970	0,59	0,33	80,3	0,26	0,00
- battery (§ 224)	37.760	1,00	0,59	76,1	0,41	0,00
- actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (§ 227)	82	23,17	2,44	100,0	19,51	1,22
Theft and Appropriation (§§ 242-248c)	185.550	0,15	0,02	54,5	0,13	0,00
- Burglary including home burglaries (§§ 243 I, 244 I Nr. 3)	19.892	0,79	0,14	57,1	0,64	0,01
- Theft in other serious cases (§ 243 I Nr. 2-7)	6.612	0,35	0,05	33,3	0,30	0,00
- Armed theft (§ 244 I 1)	1.933	1,24	0,16	66,7	1,09	0,00
- Organised gang thefts (§ 244 I 2)	944	0,64	0,11	0,0	0,53	0,00
Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (§§ 249-255, 316a)	13.014	3,27	0,73	71,6	2,42	0,12
- Robbery (§ 249)	3.816	1,99	0,79	73,3	1,15	0,05
- Serious Robbery (§ 250)	2.201	5,68	0,91	55,0	4,50	0,27
- Robbery resulting in death (§ 251)	25	0,00	0,00	0,0	0,00	0,00
Deception Offences and Dishonesty (§§ 263-266b)	165.029	0,04	0,01	60,0	0,02	0,00
Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic) (§§ 306-323c [without § 316a])	5.726	3,89	2,44	67,9	1,41	0,03
Traffic	223.784	0,05	0,01	92,3	0,04	0,00

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2004. Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.

Table 6a: Non-cupable Convicted Offenders Sentenced to Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence.
Former West Germany inlcuding Berlin, 2004.

	Convicted Offenders		Non-culpable Offenders
	Total	of that:	Total	not committed		committed		committed to
				N	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders		in % of non-culpable convicted offenders	Psychiatric Ward	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders	Rehabilitation Clinic	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders
				N	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders		in % of non-culpable convicted offenders	Psychiatric Ward	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders	Rehabilitation Clinic	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)
Total Offences	958.259	0,1	906	188	20,8	718	79,2	666	73,5	52	5,7
Sexual Offences (§§ 174-184b)	9.894	0,7	73	5	6,8	68	93,2	67	91,8	1	1,4
Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 211-222)	1.290	7,1	92	0	0,0	92	100,0	91	98,9	1	1,1
- murder (§ 211)	171	2,3	4	0	0,0	4	100,0	4	100,0	0	0,0
- attempted murder (§§ 211, 22)	123	10,6	13	0	0,0	13	100,0	13	100,0	0	0,0
- manslaughter (§§ 212, 213)	514	14,6	75	0	0,0	75	100,0	74	98,7	1	1,3
Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 223-231)	97.970	0,3	305	27	8,9	278	91,1	261	85,6	17	5,6
- battery (§ 224)	37.760	0,5	194	11	5,7	183	94,3	169	87,1	14	7,2
- actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (§ 227)	82	3,7	3	1	33,3	2	66,7	2	66,7	0	0,0
Theft and Appropriation (§§ 242-248c)	185.550	0,0	44	11	25,0	33	75,0	24	54,5	9	20,5
- Burglary including home burglaries (§§ 243 I, 244 I Nr. 3)	19.892	0,1	20	1	5,0	19	95,0	16	80,0	3	15,0
- Theft in other serious cases (§ 243 I Nr. 2-7)	6.612	0,1	4	0	0,0	4	100,0	1	25,0	3	75,0
- Armed theft (§ 244 I 1)	1.933	0,2	3	1	33,3	2	66,7	2	66,7	0	0,0
- Organised gang thefts (§ 244 I 2)	944	0,0	0	0	0,0	0	0,0	0	0,0	0	0,0
Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (§§ 249-255, 316a)	13.014	0,6	77	2	2,6	75	97,4	68	88,3	7	9,1
- Robbery (§ 249)	3.816	0,6	22	0	0,0	22	100,0	22	100,0	0	0,0
- Serious Robbery (§ 250)	2.201	0,5	12	1	8,3	11	91,7	11	91,7	0	0,0
- Robbery resulting in death (§ 251)	25	0,0	0	0	0,0	0	0,0	0	0,0	0	0,0
Deception Offences and Dishonesty (§§ 263-266b)	165.029	0,0	17	5	29,4	12	70,6	12	70,6	0	0,0
Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§306-323c [without 316a])	5.726	3,0	173	68	39,3	105	60,7	95	54,9	10	5,8
Traffic Offences	223.784	0,0	72	56	77,8	16	22,2	12	16,7	4	5,6

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2004 - Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.

Table 6b: Semi-cupable Convicted Offenders Sentenced to Security and Rehabilitative Measures, by Type of Offence.
Former West Germany inlcuding Berlin, 2004.

	Convicted Offenders		Semi-culpable Offenders
	Total	of that:	Total	not commited		commited		committed to
	Total	of that:	Total	N	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders	N	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders.	Psychiatric Ward	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders	Rehabilitation Clinic	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders	Secure custody	in % of non-culpable convicted offenders
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)
Total Offences	958.259	2,11	20.234	19.175	94,8	1.059	5,2	299	1,5	749	3,7	11	0,1
Sexual Offences (§§ 174-184b)	9.894	5,73	567	433	76,4	134	23,6	94	16,6	36	6,3	4	0,7
Offences against Life (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 211-222)	1.290	15,97	206	128	62,1	78	37,9	32	15,5	42	20,4	4	1,9
- murder (§ 211)	171	8,77	15	8	53,3	7	46,7	4	26,7	3	20,0	0	0,0
- attempted murder (§§ 211, 22)	123	15,45	19	13	68,4	6	31,6	2	10,5	2	10,5	2	10,5
- manslaughter (§§ 212, 213)	514	32,30	166	102	61,4	64	38,6	26	15,7	36	21,7	2	1,2
Offences Against the Person (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 223-231)	97.970	5,48	5.367	5.173	96,4	194	3,6	62	1,2	131	2,4	1	0,0
- battery(§ 224)	37.760	6,16	2.327	2.199	94,5	128	5,5	52	2,2	76	3,3	0	0,0
- actual or grievous bodily harm resulting in death (§ 227)	82	36,59	30	19	63,3	11	36,7	0	0,0	10	33,3	1	3,3
Theft and Appropriation (§§ 242-248c)	185.550	2,85	5.280	5.134	97,2	146	2,8	20	0,4	126	2,4	0	0,0
- Burglary including home burglaries (§§ 243 I, 244 I Nr. 3)	19.892	6,69	1.331	1.251	94,0	80	6,0	12	0,9	68	5,1	0	0,0
- Theft in other serious cases (§ 243 I Nr. 2-7)	6.612	7,83	518	504	97,3	14	2,7	2	0,4	12	2,3	0	0,0
- Armed theft (§ 244 I 1)	1.933	12,26	237	226	95,4	11	4,6	1	0,4	10	4,2	0	0,0
- Organised gang thefts (§ 244 I 2)	944	3,50	33	28	84,8	5	15,2	1	3,0	4	12,1	0	0,0
Robbery, Blackmail, Attacking a driver with intent to rob (§§ 249-255, 316a)	13.014	8,33	1.084	876	80,8	208	19,2	26	2,4	180	16,6	2	0,2
- Robbery (§ 249)	3.816	7,13	272	243	89,3	29	10,7	8	2,9	21	7,7	0	0,0
- Serious Robbery (§ 250)	2.201	10,04	221	152	68,8	69	31,2	9	4,1	58	26,2	2	0,9
- Robbery resulting in death (§ 251)	25	16,00	4	4	100,0	0	0,0	0	0,0	0	0,0	0	0,0
Deception Offences and Dishonesty (§§ 263-266b)	165.029	0,39	649	623	96,0	26	4,0	8	1,2	18	2,8	0	0,0
Offences Against Public Safety (excluding Traffic Offences) (§§ 306-323c [without § 316a])	5.726	6,10	349	274	78,5	75	21,5	45	12,9	30	8,6	0	0,0
Traffic Offences	223.784	1,28	2.867	2.834	98,8	33	1,2	1	0,0	32	1,1	0	0,0

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 2003. Paragraphs (§) are of the StGB unless otherwise noted.

[overview]

Table 7: Revocation of Driver’s Licence and Driving Bans Due to Traffic Offences
Former West Germany with Berlin-West, since 1994 including Berlin-East

	Judgments on Traffic Offences	Revocation of Driver’s Licence/ Driving Bans	(2) in % of (1)	Revocation of Driver’s Licence			Driving Ban
	Judgments on Traffic Offences	Revocation of Driver’s Licence/ Driving Bans	(2) in % of (1)	% / (2) Revocation and additional ban	% / (1) Judgments on traffic offences	For more than 6 months % /Revocation of Driver’s Licence	% / (1)	1 month % / driving ban	>1 to 2 months % / driving ban	>2 to 3 months % / driving ban
Year	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)
1976	351.574	183 751	52,3	89,0	46,5	68,7	6,5	30,1	23,2	46,7
1977	374.538	198 214	52,9	88,6	46,9	69,2	7,0	30,7	22,9	46,5
1978	387.581	206 869	53,4	88,2	47,1	69,4	7,3	29,8	22,5	47,7
1979	381.314	203 272	53,3	87,4	46,6	70,2	8,0	29,2	21,9	48,9
1980	392.184	215 057	54,8	86,2	47,3	71,0	9,0	27,0	19,9	53,1
1981	385.595	213 307	55,3	85,2	47,1	71,3	9,8	26,1	19,4	54,5
1982	373.189	213 210	57,1	84,0	48,0	72,5	10,9	23,8	18,9	57,2
1983	365.742	214 832	58,7	83,7	49,1	74,1	11,4	23,2	18,3	58,4
1984	343.235	206 413	60,1	83,2	50,0	74,9	12,1	23,5	17,6	58,9
1985	318.797	196 082	61,5	83,0	51,1	74,7	12,4	23,3	17,8	59,0
1986	309.334	190 242	61,5	83,6	51,4	74,5	12,0	23,2	17,6	59,2
1987	301.403	185 909	61,7	83,5	51,5	74,9	12,1	24,5	17,7	57,8
1988	303.725	189 839	62,5	83,7	52,3	75,9	12,1	24,6	17,7	57,7
1989	302.033	190 696	63,1	84,2	53,2	76,3	11,7	24,4	17,4	58,2
1990	301.967	194 232	64,3	84,5	54,4	76,7	11,6	24,3	17,7	58,0
1991	302.242	200 015	66,2	85,4	56,5	75,3	11,1	24,3	17,9	57,8
1992	299.783	195 486	65,2	85,6	55,8	74,1	10,7	24,4	17,2	58,3
1993	299.253	193 035	64,5	85,5	55,2	75,4	10,7	24,7	16,8	58,5
1994	298.928	194 309	65,0	86,3	56,1	75,7	10,1	25,1	16,1	58,7
1995	298.010	192 542	64,6	86,1	55,6	76,7	10,2	25,8	16,0	58,3
1996	286.727	188.016	65,6	85,3	55,9	77,3	11,0	27,1	16,3	56,5
1997	282.490	188.723	66,8	85,2	56,9	77,9	11,2	27,8	16,6	55,6
1998	267.957	179.070	66,8	84,5	56,4	79,0	11,7	27,4	15,7	56,9
1999	243.426	161.814	66,5	83,6	55,6	79,1	12,4	28,2	16,5	55,3
2000	238.454	156.717	65,7	82,6	54,3	79,3	13,0	30,9	16,6	52,6
2001	229.610	150.891	65,7	82,1	53,9	78,2	13,4	31,3	16,9	51,8
2002	224.562	146.700	65,3	81,2	53,0	77,9	14,0	32,4	16,7	50,9
2003	222.894	144.234	64,7	81,1	52,5	78,0	14,0	34,1	16,9	49,0
2004	223.784	143.929	64,3	80,9	52,0	77,5	14,0	33,9	17,0	49,1

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (publisher): Rechtspflege. Fachserie 10. Reihe 3: Strafverfolgungsstatistik 1976-2004.

[overview]

Table A1: Under Juvenile Penal Law Informally or Formally Sanctioned Offenders.
Comparison of the results of the „converted“ counts to the „real“ counts in the public prosecuter statisctics.
Federal Republic of Germany (former West Germany and Berlin), 1998

Offenders informally sanctioned under § 45 JGG	Public Prosecutor’s Statistics recorded number of proceedings, converted to offenders	Public Prosecutor’s Statistics recorded number of offenders	Relative over- /underestimate (Estimation error)
Baden-Wurttemberg	20398	22285	-8,5%
Bavaria	19877	22271	-10,7%
Berlin	9469	11206	-15,5%
Bremen	2324	2641	-12,0%
Hessen	11 414	12 684	-10,0%
Niedersachsen	16 160	18 713	-13,6%
Nordrhein-Westfalen	39204	45010	-12,9%
Rheinland-Pfalz	8940	9695	-7,8%
Saarland	2 159	2 438	-11,4%
Sum (converted)	129 943	146 943	-11,6%

Conversion and Adjustment to	Conversion	Adjustment due to estimation error
Hamburg	9814	11 110
Schleswig-Holstein	7172	8 079
Sum (converted)	16 986	19 188
Sum of under § 45 JGG sanctioned offenders	146 929	166 131	-11,6%

	Offenders counted in the Criminal Proceedings Statistics	Offenders counted in the Criminal Proceedings Statistics
Offenders sanctioned under § 47 JGG	43211	43211
Formally sanctioned offenders (Convicted offenders & § 27 JGG)	93791	93791
Informally and formally sanctioned offenders 1998	283 931	303 133	-6,3%

Table A2: Under General Penal Law Informally or Formally Sanctioned Offenders.
Comparison of the results of the „converted“ counts to the „real“ counts in the public prosecuter statisctics.
Federal Republic of Germany (former West Germany and Berlin), 1998

Offenders informally sanctioned under §§ 153, 153a, 153b StPO	Public Prosecutor’s Statistics recorded number of proceedings, converted to offenders	Public Prosecutor’s Statistics recorded number of offenders	Relative over- /underestimate (Estimation error)
Baden-Wurttemberg	63427	64660	-1,9%
Bavaria	74030	75717	-2,2%
Berlin	38449	41025	-6,3%
Bremen	8193	8433	-2,8%
Hessen	52 215	53 203	-1,9%
Niedersachsen	63 833	67 138	-4,9%
Nordrhein-Westfalen	148256	154744	-4,2%
Rheinland-Pfalz	31938	32836	-2,7%
Saarland	9 110	9 355	-2,6%
Sum (converted)	489 450	507 111	-3,5%

Conversion and Adjustment to	Conversion	Adjustment due to estimation error
Hamburg	19316	20 296
Schleswig-Holstein	28106	29 352
Sum (converted)	47 422	49 648
Sum of under §§ 153, 153a, 153b StPO sanctioned offenders	536 872	556 759	-3,6%

	Offenders counted in the Criminal Proceedings Statistics	Offenders counted in the Criminal Proceedings Statistics
Offenders sanctioned (by the court) under §§ 153, 153a, 153b StPO	95784	95784
Formally sanctioned offenders (Convicted offenders & §§ 59,60 StGB)	705006	705006
Informally and formally sanctioned offenders 1998	1 337 662	1 357 549	-1,5%

Table A3: Calculation of the Impact of the Transfer of the „Converted“ Counts into „Real“ Conclusions Drawn about Sanctioning Practice under Juvenile Penal Law

	Values from the Criminal Proceedings Statistics	Values from the Public Prosecutor’s Statistics on proceedings, converted to offenders	Values from the Public Prosecutor’s Statistics on offenders	Relation of (2) to (3) in percent
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Discharge under §45 I, II JGG		135 263	153 144	88,32%
Discharge under §45 III JGG		11 597	12 988	89,29%
Informal sanctions under § 45 JGG		146 860	166 131	88,40%
Discharge under §47 JGG	43211
Informell Sanktionierte gesamt		190 071	209 342	90,79%
Formal sanctions	93791
Total informally and formally sanctioned		283 862	303 133	93,64%
Impact on the calculation of the diversion rate:
Diversionsrate 1998		66,96%	69,06%
Difference (in percentage points) due to changes in the method of calculation				Apparent gain: 2,10
to compare: diversion rate in 1997		67,10%
Difference (in percentage points) 1998 to 1997		-0,14

Impact on the calculation of the relation of offenders sentenced to custodial sentences (including youth custody on probation) to the total formally and informally sanctioned:
Youth custody on probation	10977	3,9%	3,6%
Unconditional youth custody	6243	2,2%	2,1%
Sum: total youth custody	17220	6,1%	5,7%
youth detention	16985	6,0%	5,6%	Apparent loss -0,4
Sum: youth custody and youth detention 1998	34205	12,0%	11,3%
Difference (in percentage points) due to changes in the method of calculation				Apparent loss -0,8
to compare: rate in 1997		11,9%
Difference (in percentage points) 1998 to 1997		+0,17	-0,6

	Values from the Criminal Proceedings Statistics	Values from the Public Prosecutor’s Statistics on proceedings, converted to offenders	Values from the Public Prosecutor’s Statistics on offenders	Relation of (2) to (3) in percent
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Discharge under § 153, 153b StPO		338 147	359 104	94,16%
Discharge under §153a StPO		198 725	197 655	100,54%
Informal sanctions under §§ 153, 153a, 153b StPO		536 872	556 759	96,43%
Discharge by the court under §§ 153, 153a, 153b StPO	95784
Total informally sanctioned		632 656	652 543	96,95%
Formally sanctioned offenders (Convictions including offenders with decisions made under §§59,60 StGB)	705006
Total informally and formally sanctioned		1 337 662	1 357 549	98,54%

Impact on the calculation of the diversion rate:
Diversion rate in 1998		47,30%	48,07%
Difference (in percentage points) due to changes in the method of calculation				Apparent gain *+0,77*
to compare: diversion rate in 1997		47,67%
Difference (in percentage points) 1998 to 1997		-0,37

Impact on the calculation of the relation of offenders sentenced to custodial sentences to the total formally and informally sanctioned:
Custodial sentence on probation	88271	6,6%	6,5%
Unconditional custodial sentence	41751	3,1%	3,1%
Sum: total custodial sentences	130022	9,7%	9,6%
Difference (in percentage points) due to changes in the method of calculation				Apparent loss -0,1
to compare: rate of custodial sentences in 1997		9,5%
Difference (in percentage points) 1998 to 1997		+0,2	+0,1

[overview]

* * *

Zitierhinweis:
Heinz, Wolfgang: Das strafrechtliche Sanktionensystem und die Sanktionierungspraxis in Deutschland 1882 - 2004
Internet-Publikation: Konstanzer Inventar Sanktionsforschung (KIS)
<www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis/sanks04.htm> Version 1/2006

* * *

Zur [Homepage des Verfassers] | Konstanzer Inventar: [KI] | [KIS] | [KIK] | [Kriminologische Links - Suchen und Finden]

last update: 31.7.2006 GS
problems? mail

31.7.2