A. Indictment in juvenile criminal proceedings
Literature: Schaffstein / Beulke, juvenile criminal law; Böhm, From the recent case law on juvenile criminal law, NStZ 1997, 480; Ostendorf, The German Juvenile Criminal Law - Between Upbringing and Repression, StV 1998, 297; Keizer, Basic Cases on Juvenile Criminal Law, JuS 2002,981; Gehb / Drange, adolescents in criminal law - quo vaditis ?, DRiZ 2004,188;
The indictment in juvenile criminal proceedings must comply with the special provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. Before deciding on a formal charge, there is usually a generous check as to whether one of the numerous recruitment options exists, possibly under appropriate youth care requirements (wood or bicycle course). If juvenile punishment is to be expected, the youth public prosecutor with special educational skills or the chairman of the juvenile court should question the accused before the indictment is brought (Section 44 JGG), a provision which, however, is seldom handled in this way. The results of the investigation should refrain from branding deficiencies in the upbringing by the parents or giving the young person advice on the reasons for which he was convicted of his crimes. The speed-up requirement is of particular importance in juvenile criminal proceedings for educational reasons (BGH StV 1999,661). The young person develops quickly. A youth sentence that is only served years later can no longer sufficiently influence development and is perceived as unjust.
Juvenile courts are the juvenile judge, the juvenile jury court and the youth chamber. When deciding on the opening, the youth chamber is ranked higher than the courts of the same order responsible for general criminal matters (Section 209 a). It negotiates jury proceedings against young people and adolescents (BGH NStZ 1996, 346) and youth protection matters if the regional court is competent.
A defense attorney should be appointed from one year of waiting for a sentence, § 68 JGG (KG StV 1998, 325). The legal guardians are also involved in the process. You are to have the last word in the main hearing, among other things (BGH StV 1999,656).
Example of an indictment before the juvenile court:
Saarbrücken public prosecutor's office Saarbrücken, May 20, 1996
23 Js 506/96
The student Adalbert Rüttel, born on January 18, 1981 in Püttlingen, resident, 66498 Köllerbach, Berschweilerstraße 5, single, German,
- Legal representatives: Hans and Amalie Rüttel, Berschweilerstr. 5, Köllerbach,
-Defender: Lawyer Dr. Hartmann, Völklingen
on February 29th, 1996 in Völklingen
as a young person with a sense of responsibility
to have forced another to act through violence against one person in order to unjustly enrich oneself,
by forcing the twelve-year-old student Simon Meier in the Kühlbornstrasse in Völklingen near the Geschwister Scholl grammar school with several fist blows in the face on the morning of February 29, 1996 around 7.55 to hand him his pocket money of 1.50 € in order to pay it himself consume,
Misconduct (crime) against §§ 255,253 Abs. 1 StGB, 1,3 JGG
(see indictment in adults)
Essential result of the investigation
(see text above)
Opening of the main proceedings before the district court - Saarbrücken youth lay judge.
B. Transport Indictment: Example
Saarbrücken public prosecutor's office Saarbrücken, 9/11/1996
68 Js 389/96
The driver Richard Trunkenbold, born on March 12, 1962 in Landsweiler / Lebach, Saarlouis district, residing in Lammsbräustraße 2, 66297 Bierbach, single, German,
- Driving license confiscated on the day of the incident, driving license provisionally withdrawn by order of the Saarlouis Local Court of 13.6.1996 5 Gs 376/96 Bl. 27 d.A.,
- Defense counsel: Attorney I. Scharf, Völklingen,
on June 11th, 1996 in Schwalbach
negligently to have driven a vehicle in traffic (§§ 315 to 315d) although he was not able to drive the vehicle safely due to the consumption of alcoholic beverages and to have proven to be unsuitable for driving a motor vehicle as a result of this act,
by driving his passenger car, brand Borgward P 122, official registration number SLS-AV 501, on the district road to Schwalbach at around 23.35, although his blood alcohol content was 1.86% o and he could have recognized that he was unable to drive,
Offense against Sections 316, Paragraphs 1, 2, 69, 69a of the Criminal Code.
Evidence. possibly result of the investigation and application as usual
In this case it is important that the time and place of the act is described so precisely that it cannot be confused with other drunk driving by the same accused under any circumstances, i.e. that the subject of the proceedings and the extent of the legal force are clearly established (OLG Saarbrücken decision of 16 July 1982 Ss 38/82)