The Munich I public prosecutor’s office has filed an appeal with the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe in the case of football coach Vito L. (name changed), who was convicted of rape and sexual assault. As the authority explained at the SZ’s request, its application was about “ordering preventive detention as a measure of reform and security.” The Youth Chamber of the Munich I Regional Court did not order this in its judgment.
According to the court, the 47-year-old man had raped and abused young people at a club in the Munich district over a period of six years. As a coach, Vito L. was extremely popular with the young footballers and he offered them physiotherapy to relax their muscles. According to the verdict, he regularly brought the young people into a changing room. He had set up a lounger there and the doors were locked. Most of the victims had never received physical therapy before and the trainer explained that manipulations in the intimate area would also promote blood circulation.
During a legal discussion, those involved in the trial agreed that if the defendant confessed, he should not be sentenced to more than eight years. This could save the injured party a statement in court and a confrontation with the perpetrator. The deal went through. At the same time, however, the court also gave legal advice that preventive detention was an option. But she did not impose this in the verdict.
Judge Stephan Kirchinger emphasized that the defendant “has a tendency to commit these acts again and again.” And: “We also see that the defendant is still dangerous.” What is particularly striking is that he did not give any explanation about his motivation. Despite all this, the chamber ultimately came to the conclusion that the defendant “is no longer dangerous” after serving the seven years and six months imprisonment imposed on him.
An assessment that the public prosecutor apparently did not share. She has now filed an appeal. The main issue is preventative detention, said spokeswoman Anne Leiding. In addition, an alternative application has been submitted for the reservation of preventive detention. This means that after the prison sentence has been served, the imposition of preventive detention will be reconsidered. The defense has also appealed against the verdict.