In the wake of the Islamist attack at the edge of Berlin’s Christopher Street Day, politics are debating how to prevent such terror in the future. Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) has put three concrete proposals on the table: intensified surveillance of at‑risk individuals, preventive detention, and a tightening of juvenile justice. What do these measures involve, and what would change? Here are the key answers:
What is a “Gefährder” (or Gefährderin)?
The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) defines a “Gefährder” as someone who can be reasonably expected to commit politically motivated crimes of considerable significance. At present, the BKA classifies 410 people as Islamist Gefährder*innen, as a spokesperson confirmed. Based on investigations by WDR, NDR and the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the alleged CSD attacker Abdul Ballout was categorized as a Gefährder and was even rated by a BKA analysis tool as a “high‑risk person.” Dobrindt emphasized on ARD that the man was on the authorities’ radar. “In Berlin, technical surveillance was conducted,” the interior minister said. “Those measures were not enough to prevent this terrorist attack.”
What is being considered now?
Dobrindt therefore advocates stronger use of a “restriction of freedom of movement” through electronic ankle bracelets. His second point: “Preventive detention for Gefährder is something that, from my perspective, is absolutely necessary.” He said the aim is to ensure nationwide implementation. Furthermore, Dobrindt calls for: “We need rules that ensure Gefährder are not treated under juvenile criminal law and certainly not released on probation in freedom.” On the topic of ankle bracelets, it also appears that the SPD is on board: “That is a sensible addition to the toolkit,” said their interior policy expert, Sebastian Fiedler, on ARD.
What would change?
Both the possibility of monitoring Gefährder via ankle bracelets and the option of preventive detention already exist. The BKA Act allows electronic monitoring of a person’s whereabouts for a defined period, provided a concrete crime is anticipated or the likelihood of one is high. A court order is required. Preventive monitoring via an ankle bracelet is also possible under the states’ policing laws. According to a report in FAZ, by the end of June, 147 people nationwide wore electronic ankle bracelets. Of these, 18 were ordered under the states’ police laws. The remaining 128 were convicted criminals, for whom the bracelet is intended to prevent relapse.
The measure is therefore applied only relatively rarely. The same holds true for preventive custody. The BKA act does not provide for longer preventive detention, only very short terms. By contrast, Bavarian police law allows up to two months of custody with a court order. Other state police laws provide even less room. Dobrindt’s aim, then, is mainly to achieve a more uniform approach. That view is echoed by SPD figure Fiedler: “We don’t have a uniform federal and state police framework. The project would be sensible to lay out again, because the prerequisites for preventive detention vary greatly between the states.”
Könnten solche Änderungen Terror verhindern?
The criminologist Jörg Kinzig from Tübingen warns against placing too high an expectation on these changes. Referring to a broader use of the “electronic ankle bracelet,” he told the news agency that “if a person is determined to commit a crime, you have to be honest: the mere ankle bracelet will probably not deter him.” Even if the bracelet triggers an alert, there isn’t necessarily a police officer immediately beside the person to stop him.
Kinzig attributes the relatively infrequent use of the monitoring measure to the fact that an ankle bracelet is a significant encroachment on an individual’s fundamental rights, and that judges must examine such measures very carefully. When it comes to preventing threats, they face a central problem: “Do we have solid indications that this person poses a danger? How dangerous is this person? How high is the risk? In hindsight, it’s easy to say we should have known.”
On preventive detention, Kinzig says the situation is similar. “Despite danger assessments, most people do not commit serious crimes. The challenge is to identify those who will.” He is even more skeptical about tightening juvenile law so that Gefährder would generally fall outside of it. Courts can already apply adult criminal law to those aged 18 and over; in the 18-to-20-year-old group—the so‑called emerging adults—courts currently assess two criteria: “Is it a juvenile offense, or is there a maturity delay? If so, juvenile law can apply.” Making changes for a single group seems unnecessary, Kinzig argued.
