Term and Definition: Crime Prevention
Crime prevention refers to all measures, strategies, and instruments used by public and private entities with the objective of preventing, detecting, prosecuting criminal offenses, and minimizing their effects. The term encompasses both repressive and preventive approaches within the area of internal security. Crime prevention is subject in Germany and other constitutional states to strict legal requirements, particularly derived from the Basic Law, the Criminal Code (StGB), the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), as well as other specific regulations and international agreements.
Legal Foundations of Crime Prevention
Constitutional Framework Conditions
The implementation of measures for crime prevention must comply with fundamental rights, the separation of powers, and the principle of the rule of law. In particular, the Basic Law guarantees essential rights of defense against state intervention (§§ 1 to 19 GG), protects the presumption of innocence (Art. 20 para. 3, Art. 28 GG), and requires that government action is bound by law.
Criminal Code (StGB)
The StGB contains the substantive criminal offenses which are the focus of crime prevention. These include offenses against life, bodily integrity, sexual self-determination, property, the rule of law, as well as offenses protecting the state.
Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)
The StPO regulates the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of criminal offenses. It provides the legal basis for investigative measures, the course of criminal proceedings, and legal protection against measures of state authorities. Central procedural principles are the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the principle of public hearings, and the legality principle (§ 152 para. 2 StPO).
Other Relevant Legal Provisions
Additional laws are used for crime prevention, such as the Act on the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKAG), state police laws, the German Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG), the Weapons Act (WaffG), and the Residence Act (AufenthG), particularly regarding cooperation with international agencies or specific types of crimes.
Areas of Crime Prevention
Preventive Crime Prevention
Preventive measures aim to prevent crimes before they occur. Legal regulations arise from the state police laws and the BKAG, which set requirements for danger prevention, identity checks, surveillance, preventive detention, and traffic monitoring. Preventive measures must always be proportionate, suitable, necessary, and appropriate.
Key Difference: Danger Prevention vs. Criminal Prosecution
While preventive measures serve the purpose of danger prevention (defensive function), criminal prosecution addresses crimes that have already been committed (repressive function). The transition between these areas can be fluid and each is subject to different legal requirements and remedies.
Repressive Crime Prevention
Repressive crime prevention involves detecting, investigating, prosecuting, and sanctioning committed criminal offenses. Responsible authorities are primarily the police and law enforcement agencies (public prosecutor’s office, courts). Core elements are the investigation procedure, the filing of charges, the main proceedings, appeals, and finally the enforcement of criminal sanctions.
Particularities in the Area of Organized Crime and Counter-Terrorism
Special regulations, as found for example in the Act to Combat Organized Crime, the Anti-Terrorism Act, or the Constitutional Protection Act (BVerfSchG), allow authorities extended intervention powers. Examples include telecommunications surveillance under § 100a StPO, the use of confidential informants, or online searches. These procedures, however, are subject to particularly strict requirements and judicial oversight.
Procedures and Instruments of Crime Prevention
Investigative Measures
Classic measures include identity checks (§ 163b StPO), searches of persons and premises (§§ 102 et seq. StPO), seizure and securing of evidence (§§ 94 et seq. StPO), as well as telecommunications surveillance (§ 100a StPO). Interventions in fundamental rights are each subject to judicial authorization or specific statutory requirements.
Surveillance and Control Measures
Police surveillance of public spaces using video monitoring (§ 4 BPolG), dragnet controls, priority inspections, data screening (§ 98a StPO), and measures to combat cybercrime are firmly regulated within the rule-of-law surveillance structures and require clear statutory foundations.
International Cooperation
At the European level, police and judicial cooperation is regulated by instruments such as Europol, Eurojust, and the Schengen Information System (SIS). Interpol and international legal assistance under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (EU MRHÜbk) form the basis for transnational crime prevention.
Legal Protection and Oversight
All actions in the context of crime prevention are subject to comprehensive judicial and parliamentary oversight. Persons affected by investigative measures can seek recourse during criminal proceedings against unlawful measures (right of complaint, available legal actions). Data protection laws and the protection of fundamental rights must always be observed for every measure.
Critical Aspects and Legal Limits
Proportionality and Protection of Fundamental Rights
Measures for crime prevention are limited by fundamental rights, especially human dignity (Art. 1 GG), the right to personal liberty (Art. 2 para. 2 sentence 2 GG), the secrecy of telecommunications (Art. 10 GG), and the right to informational self-determination. Every measure must be examined for suitability, necessity, and appropriateness.
Sources of Abuse and Error
Illegal surveillance, impermissible control measures, or disproportionate interventions can render state actions unlawful. Rule-of-law oversight, transparency, and traceability must therefore always be ensured.
Summary
Crime prevention encompasses all legal measures for the prevention and prosecution of criminal offenses by state institutions. All interventions are founded on compliance with the rule of law and the principle of proportionality, as well as comprehensive protection of the affected persons’ fundamental rights. The continuous advancement of statutory regulations and international cooperation shapes the legal framework of this dynamic field of law.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is the cooperation between the police and the public prosecutor’s office regulated by law?
Cooperation between the police and the public prosecutor’s office is regulated in German law, in particular by the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). While the police act within the scope of hazard prevention and criminal prosecution, the public prosecutor’s office is obliged, according to § 152 para. 2 StPO, to prosecute criminal offenses under the legality principle. According to § 163 StPO, the police are tasked with investigating crimes and securing all evidence relevant to their clarification. However, in investigations, police officers generally act under the direction of the public prosecutor’s office, which can coordinate and, if necessary, order investigative measures as specified in § 161 StPO. A special case exists with emergency powers: In urgent situations, police officers may take certain actions without prior direction from the public prosecutor’s office, but must promptly inform them afterwards. Thus, the legal cooperation is characterized by a hierarchy in which the public prosecutor’s office acts as the authority in charge of investigations and the police are required to execute measures.
Under what conditions may surveillance measures for crime prevention be ordered?
Surveillance measures such as telephone monitoring or observation are allowed, due to their considerable interference with fundamental rights, particularly the right to informational self-determination, only under strict legal requirements. The permissibility of telecommunications surveillance is for example governed by § 100a StPO: it is permitted only in the case of certain serious offenses (catalog offenses) where sufficient factual indications exist and the measure is necessary for investigating the facts. In addition, ordering the measure generally requires a judicial decision (§ 100b StPO), except in cases of imminent danger. Observations without technical aids are possible in straightforward cases under § 163f StPO, while extended surveillance or those using technical means are subject to additional restrictions. A proportionality review is always required: the measure must be suitable, necessary, and appropriate. These legal hurdles are intended to safeguard personal rights and enable effective oversight.
What legal tools are available to seize assets obtained through criminal activities?
For purposes of crime prevention, German law provides a variety of measures for confiscating and siphoning off assets that originate from or are used for criminal acts. The main regulation is found in §§ 73 et seq. of the Criminal Code (StGB). Accordingly, both items acquired through crime and the value obtained (so-called value skimming) may be seized. Seizure is usually ordered by the court within the framework of criminal proceedings. Since the 2017 reform of the law on asset recovery, a reversal of the so-called gross principle has been introduced, according to which the entire gross amount is generally subject to seizure, regardless of any expenditures. In addition to criminal seizure, there are also civil-law possibilities for securing assets, for instance within the context of an attachment (§ 111d StPO) or preliminary freezing measures. The aim of these measures is to deprive criminals of illicit gains and reduce the incentive for committing crimes.
What role does the right to refuse testimony play in criminal investigations?
The right to refuse testimony under §§ 52-55 StPO is a key legal instrument to protect certain individuals from the obligation to testify against close relatives or themselves in criminal proceedings. Relatives of the accused, such as spouses, civil partners, fiancés, as well as parents and children, are permitted to refuse to testify. Additionally, there is a professional right to refuse testimony for various professions, including journalists, clergy, physicians, and attorneys (§ 53 StPO). Supplementing this is the right to refuse to provide information (§ 55 StPO) in order to protect against self-incrimination. The right to refuse testimony is of great significance, as it balances the tension between the duty to provide information and the protection of personal relationships or professional secrets and thus takes into account both individual fundamental rights and the public interest in effective law enforcement.
How is the lawful conduct of searches ensured?
The search of homes, business premises, or persons constitutes a serious interference with fundamental rights and must be based on legal grounds. The conditions are essentially laid down in §§ 102-105 StPO. As a rule, a search may only be conducted when there is an initial suspicion and requires a judicial order (§ 105 para. 1 sentence 1 StPO). Exceptions exist only in cases of imminent danger, where the public prosecutor’s office or, if this is also not possible, the police may take action. The conduct of the search must be proportionate and purposeful, i.e. it must be aimed at finding specific evidence. The affected person should be present if possible or a representative/expert should be involved. Additionally, a search protocol must be drawn up and handed to the affected person. The principle of proportionality applies here as well: unnecessary interventions and measures that are disproportionate to the reason for the search are unlawful and may lead to exclusion of evidence.
Under what conditions may an arrest warrant be issued for crime prevention?
An arrest warrant may be issued pursuant to § 112 StPO if there is strong suspicion of an offense and at least one of the grounds for detention specified – risk of flight (§ 112 para. 2 no. 2 StPO), risk of collusion (§ 112 para. 2 no. 3 StPO), or risk of recurrence (§ 112a StPO) – exists. In cases of particularly serious crimes, an arrest warrant may be issued based solely on the risk of recurrence. An arrest warrant generally requires a judicial order. The necessary application is usually submitted by the public prosecutor’s office. Additionally, the measure and its implementation must conform to the principle of proportionality; that is, pre-trial detention must not be disproportionate to the expected sentence or seriousness of the offense. The accused is particularly deserving of protection as deprivation of liberty constitutes the most severe interference with fundamental rights. The accused has the right to immediate judicial hearing and the opportunity to apply for judicial review of detention at any time.
