The legal politicians of the Union faction would like to tighten up criminal and civil law in several areas in order to better protect women in particular from acts of violence. The legal policy spokesman, Günter Krings (CDU), has drawn up a corresponding draft law. It is to be introduced in the Bundestag in the coming weeks and has been made available to WELT.
According to this, certain homicide, bodily harm and sexual offenses are to be punished more severely in the future. In addition, the use of electronic ankle bracelets for violent offenders is to be regulated uniformly across the country. Up to now, violent offenders who have been banned from contact can only be electronically monitored using ankle bracelets in some federal states. Legal problems arise if they travel to another federal state.
We are experiencing “a dramatic increase in family and domestic violence,” said Krings, referring to the recently published “domestic violence” situation report for 2023. It is “unbearable that 155 women were killed by their partners or ex-partners in 2023.” The police crime statistics also confirm the perception that violent crime is increasing significantly overall. “The increasing brutalization of our society is alarming.” According to Krings, politicians “can no longer accept” this.
One far-reaching proposal concerns the tightening of the murder law. Up to now, the killing of a person is only considered murder if certain characteristics of murder are met. This is the case, for example, if the perpetrator acts “insidiously” or “cruelly”.
The draft law now proposes an extension. In future, anyone who kills their victim “by exploiting physical superiority” will also be considered a murderer. It is rightly considered “particularly reprehensible, despicable and cowardly to attack a weak, helpless and defenceless person,” the justification states. This is already reflected in some parts of criminal law. “However, this aspect has not yet been taken into account in cases of murder, aggravated robbery and dangerous bodily harm.”
This legal situation therefore leads to questionable situations. For example, the killing of a tied up and defenseless victim does not constitute murder in itself. The same applies to the killing of defenseless infants. Femicides, in which a physically superior man kills his partner, are often punished as manslaughter because the classic characteristics of murder are missing, according to the Union. The aspect of exploiting physical superiority has not yet been taken into account in cases of aggravated robbery and dangerous bodily harm. “Appropriate changes should be made.”
This is relevant for the length of the sentence. In contrast to manslaughter, murder is punishable by life imprisonment. Under certain circumstances, the sentence can be suspended after 15 years. “Aggravated robbery” is accompanied by a prison sentence of at least three years, in contrast to “robbery”, for which the minimum sentence is one year.
The Union’s legal experts also propose increasing the penalty for gang rape. Currently, a joint rape is punishable by at least two years’ imprisonment. In future, coercion committed jointly will be punishable by at least three years, and gang rape by at least five years.
Bodily harm committed with a weapon or a knife will in future be punished as a crime. In this case, a prison sentence of one to 15 years is threatened. The current sentence ranges from six months to ten years. In addition, tougher penalties are planned for stalking, among other things.
Krings complains that he has no understanding of why the federal government has so far been indifferent to the issue of violent crimes. “Neither Justice Minister Buschmann nor Interior Minister Faeser have made any useful proposals of their own. Anyone who only makes vague announcements or cheap appeals to the courts is clearly not taking the suffering of the victims seriously.” The Union faction, on the other hand, is concerned with “the protection of those affected and trust in the protective and punitive constitutional state,” says Krings. “Only with consistent action can we successfully stand up to radical political forces.”
The proposed changes are likely to cause controversy – especially with regard to the murder paragraph. On the one hand, experts and politicians have long seen a certain gender inequality in the penal code.
A prime example is the “murder of a domestic tyrant”: a physically inferior woman who has been abused by her partner for years kills her husband in his sleep in desperation. Because she killed him “treacherously”, the conditions for murder are met. But if the man had killed his wife in an argument by exploiting his physical superiority, the act would probably only be considered manslaughter. “The murder law discriminates against women,” said the then Federal Minister of Justice Heiko Maas (SPD) in the “Stuttgarter Zeitung” in 2014. A change such as the one now proposed by the legal politicians of the Union faction could ensure more justice here.
On the other hand, there have recently been proposals to liberalize criminal law rather than tighten it. In the autumn, for example, the German Bar Association (DAV) argued for a reform of homicide offences as a whole. If the perpetrator is solely responsible for the crime, the conditions for murder should be met; if the victim is also partly to blame for the conflict, it should be considered manslaughter. The sentence should also be adjusted. According to the DAV, murder should no longer necessarily be punished with a life sentence, but instead only with a minimum of ten years – as in cases of “domestic tyrant murder”.
Federal Justice Minister Heiko Buschmann (FDP) recently proposed modernizing the language of the murder paragraph, as the idea of a “murderer” as a certain type of person is outdated. However, no changes to the content are planned. The definition of the characteristics of murder dates back to the 1940s. They have been the subject of repeated criticism, but they still apply.