Criminal Justice Essay Paper on Crime Witness in Relation to Germany’s Legal System

Crime witness in Relation to Germany’s Legal System

The German legal structure is different from the American but legal experts who have studied it generally concur that it is fair (Frase, & Weigend, 1995). The system offers numerous safeguards to make certain the impartiality of investigations and verdicts. Jury examination in Germany does not exist and hence adjudicators assume a more active function in court events. Under German regulations, the charged is assumed not guilty until proven culpable (Herrmann, 1991). A tribunal can comprise of one professional adjudicator or a combination of proficient judges. In small cases, there may be just a single specialized judge in charge. The first stage of a German criminal hearing is pre-trial examination to find out whether there is any basis for an official accusation. When the prosecutor finds out that there is a suitable basis for accusation, the case is moved to a suitable German court. In these courts, the presiding judge determines if the proof justifies a trial. The German policy of the Criminal process permits victims of a felony, or their survivors, the privilege to take part in the hearing as private prosecutors. They are normally represented by an advocate and may produce proof concerning the case. The suspect also has the right to be informed on time, in a language which he is aware of and comprehensively. He should also be notified about the aspect and grounds of the indictment against him. The defendant should also have ample time and facilities to set up his defense.

In a situation where a defendant is sentenced to a jail term, he will probably experience prison violence, which is rampant in the German’s prison system. The results of a study conducted from the Criminological Research foundation are appalling, pointing out acts of brutality on inmates (Albrecht, 1997). Inmates were compelled to take water blended with toothpaste to a point of vomiting. Other detainees were raped in dark paths and harassed by fellow prisoners. In 2006, an inmate at Siegburg detention center was dangled by his cellmates. When they were taken to court, the prisoners who were responsible for the act said they simply wanted to observe a man pass on. Almost 10% of the roughly 70,000 prisoners across Germany participated in the study. Some Law enforcement officers have constantly spoken of various pecking orders and designed power formations in detention centers. In accordance with jail guards, this hostility comes chiefly in the shape of extortion, typically matters to do with drug supply (Albrecht, 1997). Prisoners who fail to play along with the policies must face the so-called enforcers, usually in the form of numerous assailants.

 The code of equivalence stipulates that detainees should receive normal treatment as other people in the society. The aim of this concept is justice for the weak who ought not to be subjected to further retribution through denial of medical treatment. Nonetheless, this principle is hardly ever realized, partly because of scarce resources or because of disregard (Albrecht, 1997). As a result of its ruling of June 2009, the Federal Court enabled German authorization of the Lisbon truce. The fundamental principle in jeopardy in this circumstance is democracy, which necessitates that a satisfactory scope of resolutions vital for the citizen has to be set aside to a democratically elected assembly.

The court system in Germany should make much greater exploitation of non-custodial punishments, mainly for nonviolent offenses to condense overcrowding in the detention centers. Stipulations and practices inside prisons should be improved in order to rehabilitate prisoners in the right manner (Albrecht, 1997). Discretion in enforcement and trial, and sentencing practices should be a matter of concern.


Albrecht, H. J. (1997). Ethnic minorities, crime, and criminal justice in Germany. Crime and Justice, 31-99.

Frase, R. S., & Weigend, T. (1995). German criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: Similar problems, better solutions. BC Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 18, 317.

Herrmann, J. (1991). Bargaining Justice-A Bargain for German Criminal Justice. U. Pitt. L. Rev., 53, 755.