Term and classification: Enforcement of penalties against the innocent
Die Enforcement of penalties against the innocent refers to the process in which a state judicial enforcement (for example, imprisonment, fines, or custodial measures) is carried out against a person whose innocence is revealed later or who is, in fact, innocent at the time of enforcement. This term encompasses all situations where an erroneous criminal conviction or a legally binding criminal judgment is enforced, which later objectively turns out to be substantively incorrect.
In the context of jurisprudence and the rule of law, it constitutes an especially serious form of state injustice, as it violates central principles such as the presumption of innocence and protection against wrongful punishment. The enforcement of penalties against the innocent is of great significance both from a human rights and rule-of-law perspective and poses particular challenges for state institutions in terms of prevention, correction, and compensation.
Legal basis of criminal enforcement
Requirements and function of criminal enforcement
Criminal enforcement primarily serves to implement legally imposed sanctions, especially the execution of court-imposed punishments and measures. The legal basis is formed by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) as well as the respective enforcement acts (Strafvollzugsgesetz – StVollzG, state enforcement laws).
Execution may only take place in principle if a final judgment exists. The binding effect of the judgment usually precludes a substantive review during enforcement itself; decisive is the formal existence of the judgment.
Limits of binding effect and correction mechanisms
Despite the principle of legal finality, criminal enforcement is also subject to legal limits. These arise particularly from:
- Reopening of proceedings (§§ 359 ff. StPO): Aiming to overturn wrongful judgments in light of new evidence or procedural faults. Reopening in favor of the convicted allows a previously enforced judgment to be corrected retrospectively.
- Right of pardon: The possibility of waiving ongoing enforcement for humanitarian or rule-of-law reasons.
- Enforcement suspension (§ 455 StPO): In cases of certain doubts about guilt or the person’s fitness for imprisonment, enforcement can be suspended or interrupted.
Causes of enforcement against the innocent
The causes for enforcement against the innocent are manifold and usually lie in the following areas:
Wrongful convictions and their origins
- Errors in evidence: Misinterpretations of traces, false witness statements, insufficient fact-finding.
- Procedural errors: Insufficient defense opportunities, incorrect evaluation of evidence, violation of procedural rights.
- Systemic factors: Overburdened judiciary, structural problems in investigations or court proceedings.
Limits of subsequent review
Even after the judgment becomes final, review regarding actual innocence remains limited because the legal system depends on finality. The possibilities for reopening are deliberately narrowly defined to ensure legal certainty.
Legal consequences and elimination of legal effects
Termination of enforcement
If the innocence of the convicted person is subsequently established, enforcement must be terminated without delay. As a rule, this occurs through discontinuation of enforcement or release from imprisonment. The basis for this is the lapse of criminal prosecution due to the absence of material guilt.
Rehabilitation and rehabilitation procedures
The legally binding determination of a wrongful conviction gives rise to a claim for rehabilitation. This includes:
- The formal declaration of innocence
- The deletion of corresponding entries in the Federal Central Register (BZR)
- Public measures to reintegrate the affected person into society
Compensation for wrongful deprivation of liberty
Statutory compensation claims
Das Criminal Compensation Act (StrEG) regulates state compensation in Germany for persons who suffered wrongful criminal prosecution measures, especially deprivation of liberty. According to § 1 StrEG, every person must be compensated who was deprived of liberty as a result of a subsequently annulled final judgment, provided that the proceedings were concluded in their favor and the cause was not attributable to their own intentional or grossly negligent conduct.
Amount and scope of compensation
Compensation includes:
- A daily rate for the deprivation of liberty suffered
- Compensation for financial losses due to enforcement
- Compensation for non-material damages (pain and suffering)
- Compensation for other disadvantages, such as social or professional disadvantages
Limits of compensation claim
There is no claim if the person concerned caused the enforcement by intentional or grossly negligent conduct, or if other statutory grounds for exclusion apply.
Human rights classification and international context
The enforcement of penalties against the innocent constitutes a serious intrusion into the rights guaranteed by Articles 5, 6, and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular the right to liberty and security as well as the right to a fair trial.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) explicitly recognizes that states must provide effective mechanisms for the correction and compensation of wrongful convictions and the resulting enforcement.
Prevention and measures to avoid enforcement against the innocent
Quality assurance in criminal proceedings
A range of mechanisms have been implemented to prevent enforcement against the innocent:
- Improvements in evidence collection and assessment
- More effective defense opportunities
- Extension of DNA analyses, witness questioning, and appeals
- Establishment of miscarriage-of-justice commissions to review old cases
Continuous monitoring and need for reform
Given the complexity of human error, the subject remains a continuous field for reform to minimize future cases of enforcement against the innocent.
Literature and further references
- Böhm, Strafrechtliche Wiederaufnahmeverfahren und Fehlurteile, 2017
- Emmert, Strafvollstreckung und Menschenrechte, NZSt 2021, 123
- Criminal Compensation Act (StrEG)
- Stuckenberg, Die strafrechtliche Rehabilitation, ZStW 2005, 732
Summary
Die Enforcement of penalties against the innocent describes a serious error in the rule of law, where state coercive measures are carried out despite a person’s innocence. Although there are extensive procedural and correction mechanisms in German criminal law, complete prevention remains impossible. The legislator responds on the basis of the Criminal Compensation Act with comprehensive compensation regulations and relies on preventive measures in criminal proceedings. The human rights dimension underscores the high importance attached to protection from wrongful enforcement.
Frequently asked questions
What legal options are available to challenge an enforced penalty order against an innocent person?
A person against whom a penalty order has become final and is already being enforced has, under German law, in particular the possibility of applying for a reopening of the proceedings pursuant to §§ 359 ff. StPO. This especially applies where new evidence is available that is suitable to prove the innocence of the person concerned, or if it subsequently becomes apparent that an obstruction of justice, such as through false witness testimony, has occurred. The application for reopening may be made either in the interest of the convicted person or in the public interest. In addition, legal remedies such as immediate complaint or objection are possible, provided that the deadlines have not yet expired and new decisive circumstances have become known. While the finality of the penalty order poses a significant hurdle, the law deliberately provides for exceptional cases to ensure the rule of law even in cases of obvious miscarriages of justice. In special cases, a petition for clemency may also be filed.
What conditions must be met for a reopening of criminal proceedings in favor of the innocent under § 359 StPO?
Reopening in favor of the convicted person requires the existence of one of the grounds for reopening listed therein. According to § 359 StPO, these are in particular newly discovered facts or evidence that are suitable to convince the court to acquit or impose a substantially milder sentence. Additionally, reopening may occur if a judge or lay judge involved in the decision was guilty of a criminal breach of duty that affected the verdict, or if the judgment is based on an intentional false testimony by a witness. The facts and evidence must have been unknown to the court in the original proceedings and be sufficiently relevant to bring about a different decision. The reopening procedure is strictly formalized and subject to high thresholds to exclude abusive applications, but it enables correction of wrongful convictions in exceptional cases.
What are the consequences for the affected person if enforcement is carried out against an innocent, and what legal claims exist?
As soon as it is established that a person was subject to enforcement without justification, that person is entitled to extensive compensation claims under the Act on Compensation for Criminal Prosecution Measures (StrEG). These include claims for compensation for deprivation of liberty as well as further material and immaterial damages incurred as a result of wrongful enforcement. The individual can also claim rehabilitation measures, such as deletion of criminal records and elimination of adverse consequences in professional and social matters. As a rule, this requires a final acquittal or termination of proceedings on the grounds of subsequently established innocence. Potential official liability claims against the state or involved officials are also conceivable, provided culpable conduct can be proven.
To what extent does the finality of a criminal judgment affect the possibilities for the innocent to defend themselves against enforcement?
Under German law, the finality of the judgment generally represents a significant formal obstacle to renewed review. Once finality has been reached, ordinary legal remedies such as appeal or revision are excluded. Nevertheless, German procedural law provides for explicit exceptions, such as the reopening of proceedings (§§ 359 ff. StPO) and other extraordinary legal remedies, to allow correction of particularly serious miscarriages of justice—such as enforcement against someone who is actually innocent. However, the requirements for admissibility of such proceedings are high, and proving actual innocence or new significant facts is of decisive importance. Nonetheless, even with final judgments, an innocent person may seek review to stop or overturn enforcement.
What role do new facts or evidence play in the context of enforcement against the innocent?
New facts or evidence are a central element for the successful reopening of proceedings in favor of the innocent. These are circumstances or material that were unknown to the court in the original proceedings and are demonstrably capable of leading to a different verdict (acquittal or milder sentence). Typical examples include new witness statements, forensic findings (e.g., DNA analyses), confessions by third parties, or the emergence of previously unknown exculpatory documents. Presenting such evidence in the reopening process is subject to strict formal requirements and must clearly demonstrate its potential decisive effect. The existence of new facts is often the most important starting point for innocent persons to challenge ongoing or already executed enforcement.
What deadlines and procedural requirements must be observed when contesting enforcement against the innocent?
Challenging enforcement via reopening proceedings is generally not subject to a limitation period, as long as the final conviction remains. Nevertheless, the application must be submitted in writing and substantiate the grounds for reopening, providing proof wherever possible (§ 366 StPO). For other legal remedies, such as objection to penalty orders or appeal/revision, strict deadlines apply (usually one week to one month from delivery of the judgment or penalty order). If these deadlines are missed, typically only the extraordinary reopening remains. Compliance with formal requirements, such as a sufficiently detailed application and the submission of new evidence in the original or as a certified copy, is mandatory for admissibility. Otherwise, the application may be rejected as inadmissible.
What role can the public prosecutor’s office play in enforcing the claims of innocent persons?
By law, the public prosecutor’s office is obliged to pursue indications of possible miscarriages of justice even after the conclusion of proceedings. If it becomes aware of new, exculpatory facts in favor of a convicted person, it must ex officio examine whether grounds for reopening exist. It can itself submit a reopening application to the disadvantage or benefit of the convicted person (§ 362 StPO). It is also a point of contact for compensation claims and, if applicable, for initiating considerations for clemency. Cooperation between defense attorneys, the judiciary, and the public prosecutor’s office is essential to effectively enforce the rights of innocent persons and to review wrongful convictions.
