Comment by andrewla | Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewla | Hacker News Reader

On the face of it, this sounds very bad. I can't find confirmation that this is happening outside of the statements of the "letzte generation" group itself [1], and the article states as much.

The statement from the Munich police [2] says that protesters were taken into custody for their acts, namely blockading traffic. The length of the detention was apparently extended by the district court, but the statement does not give a reason for it. Presumably it's connected to the belief that they will continue to carry out similar acts if released.

I'm a bit conflicted here; if someone is being detained pre-trial for a crime, then "they are going to crime again" is a totally valid reason to hold them without bail pending trial. But it's not clear whether that is what is happening here.

Although I am writing from a US perspective, I don't think I'm saying anything that is really specific to US law; this is more my general feelings around the limitations of police authority and how it intersects with civil liberties.

I don't know if my understanding is correct, but I can't find direct evidence that the "preventative detention" law is actually being applied here -- I don't see any evidence of stormtroopers raiding people's houses and taking them into custody; just people who have already committed (minor) crimes being detained past the point of what some people would consider reasonable.

[1] https://letztegeneration.org/blog/2023/09/liebe-und-wut-brie...

[2] https://www.polizei.bayern.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/0...

> The length of the detention was apparently extended by the district court, but the statement does not give a reason for it.

I don't think that that's what happened. The newspiece states quite clearly that the suspects were kept in jail as a preventative measure, in complete accordance with Germany's regional law.

The controversial part was that arguably the length of the preventive jail stay contrasts with the jail terms that the suspects are facing, and other regional courts determined shorter preventive jail terms.

I think that this is an issue where the court had to draw a line in the sand within the boundaries specified by the law. The court had a group of people known for conducting criminal acts and determined that the likelihood that they would continue their criminal activity if they would be released was almost certain. The court had to make a call, and had to choose between being responsible for allowing criminals to repeat their crimes, or ensure they wouldn't by keeping them in preventive jail.

From news article :

> Diese Form des Freiheitsentzuges ist umso problematischer, da den Protestierenden, sollten sie für eine Blockade verurteilt werden, keine Haft droht. Die entsprechenden Verfahren enden regelmäßig lediglich mit Geldstrafen.

The crime they might have committed usually doesn't even result in jail time, only fines. Hence why such long detention seems especially unjustified.

The article lays out a factual description of the detention law, and lays out the description of the so-far detained members of the group, but fails to connect the two. Nothing in the police report indicates that the law was applied, just a reference to the district court extending the detention period, but no link or reference to the specifics of whether the district court applied the law.

I don't know if the German press is held to different standards than the US press, but in the US this would set off red flags for me because it makes a very strong implication without explicitly stating it and provides no evidence for the implied connection.

> Die entsprechenden Verfahren enden regelmäßig lediglich mit Geldstrafen.

This is plain wrong. Repeat offenders in this matter have been sentenced to jail time, in excess of the two months of possible preventative arrest: https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/kleber-aktivisten-letzte-g...

I find it less clear what exactly the article is alleging.

It refers to a police practice, and says that a judge can extend it further, but the press release says that the police did not apply this practice. And no information is given about what the substance of the district court's decision was.

But all that said, my initial read on the article, "put a total of 27 supporters of the group in prison" is that the police are grabbing innocent people and putting them in preventative detention, but that does not appear to be supported by the article. Rather they are being held for minor crimes (which I don't think anyone is contesting that they committed) and being kept there (the article says "prison" but I don't know whether Germany has the same distinction at the US between prison and jail/pre-trial detention).

> I'm a bit conflicted here; if someone is being detained pre-trial for a crime, then "they are going to crime again" is a totally valid reason to hold them without bail pending trial. But it's not clear whether that is what is happening here.

Not a lawyer, but doesn't this depend on whether or not it is a violent crime? Someone who may murder again should be treated differently than someone who may shoplift again.

Legally, this depends on jurisdiction. From the standpoint of what's better for society, I agree with you.

Not speaking to law, but in principle this seems like a case-by-case decision that (in the US) I would expect a judge to make. I would expect a competent judge to weigh the societal cost of the crime vs the probability of re-committing it vs the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence.

For violent crimes it swings pretty hard on the societal cost of the crime (but maybe be mitigated if the crime was one of passion or if the motive was clear and not likely to result in a re-commission).

For jaywalking it swings pretty hard in the other direction.

For crimes where there is a victim but no violence, it would depend on the specifics of the case in question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com