Jochen Goerdeler studied law in Frankfurt am Main till 1996. He started his legal clerkship in Wiesbaden till 1999. After that, he was a Judicial Officer in the Green parliamentary party in the German Bundestag, Berlin, till 2002. Since 2002 he has been the chief executive officer of DVJJ, Hannover.

Question.- As director of the DVJJ, what would you highlight as the main objectives and basic principles of your organisation?

Answer.- The DVJJ is an interdisciplinary organization, mainly of practitioners like social workers, judges, prosecuters etc. But also scientific personnel, researchers and professors in criminal law, educational sciences or criminology are members of the DVJJ. So one of our main objectives is to strengthen the professionalism by offering opportunities for the exchange between and within the professions as well as between practice and science. As one of our basic principles I would like to point out the firm belief that the reaction on delinquent acts of young people must focus on the best chances for social re-integration. Punishment might be necessary as a reaction on severe criminal acts for reasons of social peace – but concerning law violations by young people, we believe that the individual educational purposes must have priority. Therefore, one of our main objectives is to promote the idea and conception of alternative sanctions and measures to support young convicts as well as the victims.

Q.- What sort of activities and programmes have been carried out by your organisation at the national and international level, since it was set up.

A.- The organization was founded 91 years ago – so I must apologize that I cannot give you a somewhat complete overview. To my point of view, the most important activity in the history of the DVJJ was in early years, when it initialized and shaped the introduction of the German Juvenile Justice Act, that was set into force in 1923 and – of course with changes – still is. This determined also the political identity of the DVJJ: ever since the association takes part in discussions on the development of juvenile justice in Germany and beyond.
In the late 80s, DVJJ supported efforts to establish educational measures and alternative sanctions in the juvenile penal law. These efforts resulted finally in the First Amending Law of the Juvenile Justice Act that was passed by parliament unamously 1990 and that – among other changes - introduced victim-offender-mediation, social trainings and other educational measures, broadened the possibilities for diversion and made it more difficult to impose pre-trial-imprisonmend on minors. At the same time, the whole juvenile welfare system was set on new grounds, including the way the youth welfare office reacts on delinquency and participates in criminal procedures against young persons. However in legal terms the cooperation of the two systems – juvenile justice and youth welfare – is still not regulated sufficiently. So this is one topic that keeps us busy and in which we are currently very involved.

In recent years, we ran a government financend commission for the reform of juvenile criminal law in 2001 and 2002. Most of our proposals were also backed by the German Judicial Assembly, but unfortunatly not by the federal legislator since the political atmosphere has changed tremendously in the past years.

After a ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 2006 that forced the Bundesländer to pass special laws for the enforcement of the Juvenile Custodial Sentence (Youth Sentence), we engaged intensivly in the 16 simoultanously running legislation-projects. They were all passed by the end of last year and set into force at january 1st 2008. So we are curious now if any real changes can be observed in the practical work of the youth prisons.

Q.- What kind of activities has been developed by your organisation in the field of minor’s legal assistance? From your experience, what are the intervention pattern needed to prevent future minor criminal behaviour?

A.- In the view of the DVJJ, the legal assistance of minors in criminal procedures is a crucial point. We believe that assistance by a lawyer must be guaranteed by law, if pre-trial-imprisonment shall be imposed (this is already the case) and if a prison sanction is to be expected.
Aside from the assistance by a lawyer, the youth welfare office is obliged to assist a minor in criminal procedures, too. Its duty is the social assistance during the proceedings, and to offer help to the young person and his family to overcome the situation that might have let to a deviant lifestyle. It is not entitled to advice the young accused in legal questions.

I believe that we need a broad scope of possibilities to react on delinquent behaviour of young persons, including the possibility not to react in a formal way. Indeed in most cases, especial with minor offences or first-time-offenders, a diversion will be the best and most effective way to reduce recidivism. In other cases the offence shows a need for educational interventions. It is primarily the duty of the youth welfare system to offer educational help to the minor and also to his family, so we need a good, professional cooperation between the institutions of the youth welfare service and the juvenile justice. In general the sanctions and sentences of the juvenile justice must be oriented primarily on the best chances for social (re-) integration and must observe the principle of the lowest intervention necessary. This is especially valid where imprisonment can’t be avoided.

Q.- In which historic context did the criminal legislation for minors see the light in Germany and which are the principles of the penal legislation for minors in force?

A.- As mentioned the Juvenile Justice Act was set into force 1923, after a long time of debate, and it is still the basis of our current juvenile penal law. The Nazis amended it and made it useable for their ideology (reducing the age of criminal liability to 12 years, allowing the death-sentence and introducing the youth arrest as a specific form of short time imprisonment, thought as a warning to young offenders with good character). It was re-established without most of the Nazi-changes in 1953 (but the arrest was kept in force).

Before the introduction of the Juvenile Justice Act, minors were liable to the general criminal law and the procedural law, with a mandatory reduction of prison sentences. The Juvenile Justice Act established a specific procedural law, introducing special youth courts and prosecutors and ensuring the involvement of and cooperation with the youth welfare system. It re-defined the rule of criminal liability and substituted the sanctions of the general criminal law by a special sanction system including e.g. non-custodial educational measures. The age of criminal liability was set to 14 years of age, and the Juvenile Justice Act was – and still is – to be applied on juveniles (14 till 17) and young grown-ups (18 till 20).

The latest amendment came last year, when a new § 2 JGG was introduced, that now for the first time constitutes that the use of the juvenile penal law must aim on the prevention on recidivism and social integration and that measures and procedures must be enforced in an educational manner. (This has always been a fundamental principle of juvenile penal law but it was not yet spelled out in the law.)

Q.- Which position holds the law concerning the deprivation of the minor’s liberty? How many minors are deprived of liberty in Germany today and in which proportion regarding to the numbers of judged cases.

A.- Currently some 6000 persons are being held in youth prisons. Although they are called “youth prisons” because the youth sentence is being enforced in such prisons, only around 10 per cent of the prisoners are minors, the great majority are young adults from 18 till 24. Prisoners above this age are being placed in prisons for adults.

During the past years around two thirds of all cases were closed by diversion by the state prosecutors, hence without formal accusation to court. Since the beginning of the century every year roughly between 17,200 and 17,800 juveniles and young adults were sentenced to conditional or unconditional youth sentence. Since the number of convicted juveniles and young adults increased from around 94,000 in 2000 to over 105,000 the ratio of youth sentences declined from almost 19 per cent of all convictions to 16,5 per cent. Additionally almost 20,000 young persons were sentenced to youth arrest – a short term imprisonment up to four weeks - in 2004. These figures have increased by more than the half since 1990. Furthermore, over 500 juveniles and more than 13,000 young adults are currently imprisoned in pre-trial detention (on the average at a specific reference day).

According to the juvenile justice act, youth sentence is only possible if other sanctions or measures are insufficient to react on “harmful tendencies” that became evident through the committed offence, or if necessary for reasons of guilt retaliation. It is also more restrictive on the imposement of the pre trial detention than the general penal law. But obviously the caution of the law is ineffective in praxis, since the ratio of juveniles hold in pre-trial detention per 100,000 inhabitants is about the same as for grown-ups, while it is more than three times as high for young adults between 18 and 20.

Q.- Regarding the juvenile justice systems classification models made by James Dignan, ‘The Welfare Model’, ‘The Justice Model’, ‘The Minimum Intervention Model’, ‘The Restorative Justice Model’, which is, for you, the one similar to the German system and which is the law’s philosophy?

A.- The German system seams to be a mixture of the “Welfare Model”, “Justice Model” and “Minimum Intervention”. Although it contains elements of restorative justice (victim-offender-mediation as a way to diversion and as conviction possibility) this is clearly not the main character of the German youth penal law system. Maybe it is described best as a form of Justice Model that involves the youth welfare institutions and observes the principle of minimum intervention.

Q.- In which social context has the current Act been modified and how these reforms have influenced the right of the minor offender?

A.- The last modification was initiated by the ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court that forced the Länder to introduce laws on the enforcement of the youth senctence. My impression was that most of the Länder dealt with the topic in a very responsible and engaged manner. But still: the overall conclusion is that the new laws are – in no case – really progressive, reform oriented and emancipative ones. At the best, they don´t undermine present standards, but quite obviously they try to avoid (necessary but) expensive changes in the prison regimes. The ruling also led to the mentioned new § 2 that could turn out to be a real stepping stone for a more progressive handling of youth penal law (although: I am a bit sceptical that it will change a lot).

Q.- What is the situation regarding juvenile violence in Germany? Various incidents that have appeared in the press concerning juvenile violence have caused European Governments to plan or modify the national legislation using a more repressive approach. What is the situation in Germany?

A.- Although it is clearly wrong to claim that Germany has an outraging problem of youth violence, this is the impression evoked by the current political debate. Especially conservative politicians and parties tend to toughen-up the juvenile criminal law. Statistical data of recorded offences committed by children, juveniles and young grown-ups shows an overall declination in the past years. Violent offences appear to be an exception: their ratio per 100 000 inhabitants (juveniles and young adults) increased steadily since the nineties. But criminological research studies (self reported delinquency and victim questionnaires) strongly suggest that these figures result mainly from a greater awareness towards violent behaviour and a greater readiness of the public to report such incidences.

Q.- What are the alternative programmes or resources to the deprivation of the minor’s liberty?

A.- Theoretically there are the following possibilites:
- Instead of pre-trial imprisonment the juvenile can be placed in youth welfare homes (that not necessarily need to be secured against unallowed getaway). Although this possibility has a clear priority by law, it is not very well accepted by judges, and such a placement still is a rare exception to the rule.
- The alternative sanctions that were established in 1990 also clearly aimed at avoiding imprisonment. They are well accepted in theory, but the courts use them rather as an add-on in the combination with working hours or youth arrest instead of a possibility to avoid youth arrest or even youth sentence.

Q.- Which psychotherapeutic resources are available for minor offenders with psychic disorders?

A.- There are different possibilities. One is that in severe cases, instead or aside of a criminal sanction a placement in a psychiatric hospital can be imposed. In minor cases, the court can impose an order to attend a psychotherapeutic treatment. And of course, if a prisoner shows psychological disorders, he has to be treated. Since a great number of young prisoners show such disorders I am not sure if the appropriate treatment can be reached in every case.

Q.- What is the importance and role given to the minor’s socioprofessional reinsertion? Do any specific measures or programmes exist? If so, did these programmes have any influence on recidivism rates?

A.- On the one hand, there are such programmes, and I believe they are of great importance. For example, in every youth prison you will find programmes for prisoners to finish an apprenticeship especially for handcraft job branches. There is indeed emperical evidence that prisoners who finished an apprenticeship or achieve a school degree have far better chances for the life outside the prison walls and lower recidivism rates.

On the other hand, there is the general problem that the unemployment rate is very high among young people, especially when they have a rather poor educational background and other disadvantages (e.g. imprisonment) in their biography. My personal believe is that one of our greatest problems is the highly selective school system that distributes the chances on jobs, carriers and and social participation in general at a very early age after only four years in primary school.

Q.- What is the training level of the professionals who work specially with minors in conflict with the law?

A.- Very divers. One can meet very engaged and highly qualified judges and prosecuters in courts and prosecution offices - but I am afraid that too many of them are not well enough qualified on the special aspects of juvenile penal law and the specific social competences and requirements. The problem is that youth judges and prosecuters in many cases are in these offices for a rather short period of time, before they take the next step in their judicial carreer, maybe as a judge on commercial law. In the youth welfare service, we need specialized social workers for the participation in criminal proceedings, but in a lot of communities, the social administrations prefers the “integration” of this duty in the general duty of the youth welfare office, so that every social worker additionaly participates in the criminal proceedings if his client is being prosecuted. Also the circumstances in a lot of education- and integration-projects are not very well because of financing shortage. The jobs are often only for short terms and are not paid very well. So sometimes there is a high fluctuation and frustration among social workers.

Q.- What is the biggest hope for the future of juvenile justice in Germany?

A.- The BIGGEST? My answer is: a specialized juvenile justice branch in the court system guaranteeing that judges are in charge for long enough periods; sufficient personnel in courts, prosecution service, prisons and especially in the youth welfare service, so that judges, prosecuters and social workers do have the necessary time to deal with each young person; enough offers for alternative sanctions in the whole republic, so that judges at least cannot argue that other then custodial sanctions are not available. But I believe the best improvement would be a more tolerant and social public atmosphere towards young persons in trouble and a general political mood that focusses rather on social integration than on punishment and a mere security perspective.