exclusive
Relaxed prison sentences help offenders reintegrate into society after prison. But the penal system is being handled increasingly more rigidly, partly out of fear. This is shown by new studies and research from Contrasts.
“I want to become a normal part of this society again!” That’s what Christian Twachtmann says, he has been in the Werl prison in Sauerland since 2017 and has been in preventive detention since 2021. That means: There is no release date for him.
His time in prison began with a total of five years in prison, at the end of which he was sent to open prison – but from there he escaped. He then robbed three banks and ended up in prison again – this time for seven years. “Unprepared,” as he says, he was released and once again robbed the bank for which he was imprisoned. For this he received seven years in prison followed by preventive detention.
For the majority of prisoners it is actually the case that anyone who commits a crime will become a criminal again. This emerges from the Federal Ministry of Justice’s recidivism statistics, which are compiled every three years. According to this, the recidivism rate for prisoners after three years in prison is quite stable at around 46 percent. After twelve years this is 66 percent. A third of these perpetrators are sentenced again to prison sentences without parole.
Open enforcement – actually the norm
A tried-and-tested method for successful reintegration is open prison, in which offenders are, for example, accommodated outside the institution in shared accommodation, can do regular work during the day and maintain contact with their families. Section 10 of the Prison Act (StVollzG) also prescribes this form of accommodation as a rule. State laws, which have replaced the federal law since 2006, have mostly adopted the regulation or view closed and open enforcement as having equal status. Only Bavaria, Hesse, Lower Saxony and Saarland legally give priority to closed prisons.
A current comparative study commissioned by the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science has now come to the conclusion that “people from open prisons were significantly less likely to be re-sentenced to an unconditional prison sentence.” More open enforcement reduces recidivism rates. The fact that someone – like Christian Twachtmann – relapses in open prison is the exception. Only in one case in 10,000 do late returns, attempted escapes or crimes occur, according to a previously unpublished study by scientists Frieder Dünkel and Stefan Harrendorf from the University of Greifswald ARDPolitics magazine Contrasts available exclusively.
The great fear of judicial politics
However, only one of these rare cases has the potential to prevent more consistent easing for all the others, says former prison director and lawyer Thomas Galli: “Ultimately, I’m always on the safe side if I simply say that a prisoner doesn’t get an exit. ” The only thing that can cost a justice minister his chair is “if something bad happens in prison.” That is the “great fear of judicial politics”. Galli is now considered a prominent critic of Germany’s increasingly rigid prison system.
The consequence: The number of easing restrictions has declined sharply nationwide in recent years. They are an essential part of the open or closed prison system and are considered preparation for release. The aim is to maintain or establish social contacts outside of prison, making reintegration and a life free of punishment easier. According to Dünkel and Harrendorf, the number of long-term exits alone fell by around two thirds from 2003 to 2021.
“In the prison there is more of a de-socialization,” says former prison director Thomas Galli – little visiting time, hardly any outside contact. “For most of the day, prisoners are with other prisoners. This is the opposite of socialization.”
Fewer Relaxation of detention
Contrary to all scientific findings on rehabilitation, the proportion of those serving their sentences in open prisons is decreasing. That comes from one Contrasts-Queries with the state ministries of justice. While in 2012 the ratio of open to closed enforcement nationwide was 14.2 percent, in 2022 it was only 11.6 percent.
Lower Saxony in particular recorded a significant drop from 16.4 percent in 2017 to 10.1 percent last year. The leader in open enforcement is North Rhine-Westphalia with 28.7 percent, while Hesse is at the bottom with 1.6 percent.
Complaints before Federal Constitutional Court
The earliest possible release, as the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerG) prescribes for preventive detention, is made impossible by inadequate rehabilitation, criticizes preventive detention Christian Twachtmann. Together with 75 other prisoners at the Werl JVA, he has lodged a complaint with the BVerG for release because rehabilitation measures are not being implemented: “There is law and order, and that is exactly what is lacking here. This is costing our freedom.”
Resocialization measures also include therapy. If no tailored therapies are offered, inmates cannot be treated successfully. Without successful therapy, there is no loosening of detention. And without parole in the relaxation of sentence, there is no chance of release. The North Rhine-Westphalia Ministry of Justice admits there is a lack of staff in the Werl prison, but when asked, denies this Contrasts these grievances: “The legal requirements for the implementation of preventive detention are fully observed in the correctional facility.”
“Dismissal in no way prepared”
Christian Twachtmann, who is in preventive detention, hopes for at least partial success. He has already won five times before the Federal Constitutional Court on other detention complaints. The criminal law expert and professor at the Dortmund University of Applied Sciences, Christine Graebsch, dealt with Twachtmann’s case. She holds the prison system partly responsible for his escape and relapse; after all, the correctional facility “did not prepare him for release in any way at the time.” The consequence: “Six months later, he relapsed again according to the textbook, practically textbook.”
The basic problem with enforcement, says Graebsch in an interview Contrasts, is that no one wants to take responsibility if something happens during the period of execution, but also “no one holds the enforcement responsible if something happens afterwards because the release was not properly prepared.” Mistakes in easing restrictions would always be noticed and picked up in the media. “But the other mistake, which is much more common, namely that people are locked up even though they are not dangerous, no one notices except those affected.” They hardly have a lobby either.
You can see more on this topic in the program Contrasts today at 9:45 p.m. on Erste or in the ARD media library.