Icon: enlarge
Newspaper rack in Cologne (archive image)
Photo: Martin Gerten / picture alliance / dpa
Ton high
Just as an example to get you started: The victim of the traffic accident in Berlin, known as the "Ku'damm Raser", was described in almost all press reports as "Senior" or "the pensioner in the jeep".
Neither was entirely wrong, but neither was it entirely
lege artis
.
The silly (professional) designation "senior" is close to "grandpa" and belongs in the pain ointment and prostasta-dominated evening-before-night advertising, not in reports of the most serious acts of violence.
The victim was 69 years old and a doctor by profession.
Even in the right-wing press, the man was consistently called "the driver, a pensioner".
This is interesting insofar as retirees, as we know, are either traveling or "at risk of old-age poverty" (question: Are they threatened or poor?), Freshly in love or lonely and tired of life, in top shape or particularly "vulnerable" to viruses and speeders , Quarantine.
Small-minded parasites or typical victims - it depends on what the report is about and where we are aiming.
The vehicle in which the killed driver from Ku'damm sat was called "Jeep".
This is not a generic name, but a brand of the American Chrysler Group LLC (Fiat Chrysler Group).
Most are familiar with its original form in connection with the joy of the liberation of the Germans from the reign of terror of the tiny Nazi minority by John Wayne and his friends.
Wayne stood up from the seats of a "Willys MB 1/2 ton 4x4 truck" called a "Jeep", mostly as a "Colonel";
Occasionally Hardy Kruger went along.
A jeep is for men, still small and cute, a toy from the time when girls wanted petticoats and boys wanted girls with an outer wave.
Thomas Fischer, arrow to the right
Born in 1953, is a legal scholar and was Chairman of the 2nd Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice.
He is the author of an annually revised standard short commentary on the criminal code and numerous other specialist books.
Therefore, the
victim of
a murderous
rage
could only have sat in a "Jeep", but not in an SUV, although "Jeep" comes from "GP" ("general purpose") and SUV from "sports utility", which is believed to be the same thing can.
In 99 percent of the cases we hear of, the perpetrators of the "lawn" are in "powerful" cars, occasionally also in "high-horsepower", "lowered" or "expensive" cars.
You can, of course, commit all of their crimes in the senior citizens' cars and do so, but according to the prevailing opinion today it feels better when reading if you suspect all the reviews in the first sentence.
It's worst when speeders are out and about in SUVs.
These vehicles, according to the knowledge of those 60 percent of all Germans who have completed a private degree in psychology, cries for help from severe personality disorders that have turned tinny, the anti-social and misanthropic elements are so attached to the compulsively black sheet that they also visit the hairdresser twice a week, as well as a Labrador puppy and two blonde angels in the cargo area of the Cayenne, GLS, Q8 or X7, it can no longer pull it out of the darkness into the light.
SUVs (the "Sächsische Zeitung" called them in 2019 on the occasion of a fatal accident in Berlin "sports off-road vehicle", which brings the lawn and the tank-like even closer together) are, that is well known, always "heavy".
The "Süddeutsche" also raved about a terrible accident (November 26th, 2019): "The impact must have been like the impact of a huge projectile. The BMW X5 weighs around two tons. And it is 128 kilometers per hour when it is unbraked crashes into the small car in front of him ... The Opel Corsa ... is catapulted 100 meters across the intersection ... After the impact, the force of the SUV is so great that it pushes a boulder before it becomes wedged between a parked car and a house wall. "
Not bad!
"Huge Projectile"!
Two tons!
Boulder moved!
Incidentally, an Opel Corsa with four adults on board weighs 1.5 tons.
Newton and I suspect that it will not fly 100 meters even after the impact of a 130-moving BMW.
However, the facts are dire enough.
Why do you have to open it up with a senseless tendency that turns victims and perpetrators into mere (visual) material for an inexpensive purpose?
In Mönchengladbach, a car driver was sentenced to a suspended sentence for negligent homicide (WDR, September 7, 2020) because she ran over a schoolgirl while slowly reversing.
Your SUV weighed, so we read, "just under three tons".
That was probably the "gross vehicle weight limit".
It has not been established that it had any influence on the accident.
Incidentally, the permissible total weight of a Mercedes C-Class is well over two tons, while the VW Golf is 1.8 tons.
In all cases, this is too difficult for pedestrians.
In another Berlin case (the BGH overturned the conviction for attempted murder on October 10, 2019; Az. 4 StR 96/19) the "speeder" was in one with "at least 53 km / h" (hello, sentence of doubt!) 30 zone on the way and passed a red light.
The Berlin Regional Court made the 53 "at least 75 km / h" and determined (in an also unexplained way) that the defendant had hit two pedestrians and seriously injured them, although he had clearly seen them in front of him.
"Rbb24" was the repeal of the erroneous first judgment with the beautiful headline "Turf in the 30 zone: No attempted murder?"
as well as worth the report, according to "psychologists and psychiatrists", the victims could be re-traumatized if they were interrogated again.
Note: Better to be wrongly judged once than heard correctly twice!
Fast
In all cases, it is (for me) not about the result, but about pointing out how extremely unclear the reporting is often shaped by pre-assumptions and pre-judgments.
This is not meant to be a general accusation from journalists.
The boring sham discussion about whether "blanket" judgments against "the press" are presented, meant or not, justified or not, reduces the problem until it disappears in the gossip.
Not every criticism of a hospital contains inadmissible "blanket judgments" against "all doctors"; not every criticism of the judiciary must be omitted because of prohibited "general suspicions".
The problem actually touches on very fundamental questions: The entanglement and mixing of several change movements: 1) Complete chaos of communication authorship;
2) the advance of entertainment formats into reporting;
3) loss or degradation of competence;
4) Shortening attention spans.
These are only four of the ten structural changes journalism has experienced in the last 20 years, accompanied by constant acceleration, economic decline, professional insecurity, and economic concentration.
In my opinion, this should be discussed in a much more open, public and radical manner.
But since it is the media themselves that have to organize it, a lot splashes around in unnecessary defensive and profiling battles, committee speeches and "expert" talks that steer clear of their own noses like the German Medical Association does about the pharmaceutical industry.
Since we are currently in the mood and tendencies: The Administrative Court (VG) Düsseldorf ruled on September 14, 2020 that the Düsseldorf District Court had the name in a press release about the indictment against a former professional athlete for the acquisition, possession and provision of child and youth pornography of the accused.
As a justification, the VG stated that the accused had made a confession during the preliminary investigation and did not announce that he wanted to revoke it (Az. 10 L 1721/20; Rn. 68 et seq.).
That is nicely said and legally not objectionable.
I mention it for another reason: the professional soccer player with the famous name has no criminal record.
As the VG has emphasized, he has a large number of social merits and commitments.
As far as one could read, the allegation relates to obtaining and owning 300 pornographic files and forwarding them to a few people.
During the preliminary investigation, the accused behaved "cooperatively" and "made a confession".
As you will remember, this is an almost classic situation for issuing a penalty order (Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
A prison sentence of up to one year can be imposed without a public main hearing if the execution is suspended on probation;
A suspension can be linked to very substantial conditions and far-reaching instructions.
Many hundreds of thousands of procedures are dealt with in this way each year.
The accused M. is - regardless of what comes out in the proceedings - burdened by the public event to a high degree;
the foreseeable media annihilation goes beyond anything that could be appropriate in terms of state punishment.
We do not want to forget: He is accused of having committed an offense for which the law
threatens
a
maximum sentence
of three or five years
in the most serious cases, with multiple criminal records and tens of thousands of disseminated data
- as much as for simple theft or as for simple assault.
Having child or youth pornographic content is immoral, and (maybe) dangerous.
But it is not a legitimate reason to completely destroy a person's social existence.
It is not known why an indictment was brought and not a request for a penalty order was made;
nor should it be discussed speculatively here.
The VG Düsseldorf formulated somewhat cryptic allusions about the "public interest" and the "media interest" as well as about the fact that the accused could be judged differently because of the accused's social engagement.
The latter is an interesting utilization of guilt-reducing aspects!
It was noteworthy that in the broad coverage, as far as can be seen, not a single medium asked the question of whether the decision to bring an indictment was appropriate and why it had been made, and what advantages a public hearing would bring to the public interest and disadvantage to the accused .
Only the "Bild" had a nose and asked: "Did he (with his confession) want to avoid a main hearing?"
The rest of the media forest celebrated the decision of the VG practically as a public communication about a confession (and guilt).
The thing that the VG was about in terms of media law, on the other hand, was hardly worth a few lines.
Pity!
And once again an example that for "being critical" it is not enough to have any "beliefs" or vague hunch.
Milligrams secret
The Russian citizen and opposition politician Navalny was poisoned in Russia.
The perpetrators were allegedly Russians.
As a result, the Chancellor said, serious questions arose for the leadership of Russia, and for about three days without ceasing, politicians who were believed to be in contemplative quarantine came forward with precise, globally lucid opinions about how to stand up for this Could avenge crimes against Russia.
The most sensible, actually the only thing that came into consideration after intensive reflection was the repeal (let's say: the break) of the contract on "North Stream 2": "We", said parties, ministers, those who will want or have been, as well as editors everywhere, "Russia" now has to show that this is not possible.
May one ask carefully: What does an attempted murder of a Russian in Russia by Russians have to do with the German government, the corporate consortium "North Stream 2" and even the entire German population?
Should it seriously be claimed that the federal government, out of sheer love of justice, should loosen ten or a few billion euros more in tax-financed damages in order to punish a foreign state for committing a crime against one of its own citizens in its territory?
Morally, of course, is the very best, at least as credible and admirable as the tirelessly proclaimed struggle of the academic precariat for the refugees from Moria.
But: When will "we" terminate the treaties with the other 100 countries in which the same or worse has happened in the last six months?
Which cooperations with China were stopped immediately?
Why are contracts with India, USA, Brazil and Turkey not terminated?
Why are the racist governments in Hungary and Poland supported?
Why don't "we" want to ask a few "serious questions" - and ultimately answer them ourselves?
display
Title: On Punishment: Law and Security in a Democratic Society
Editor: Droemer HC
Number of pages: 384
Author: Fischer, Thomas
Buy for € 22.99
Price query time
18.09.2020 5:18 p.m.
No guarantee
Icon: Info
Order at AmazonIcon: amazon
Order from ThaliaIcon: thalia
Product reviews are purely editorial and independent.
Via the so-called affiliate links above, we usually receive a commission from the dealer when making a purchase.
More information here
To put it another way: Could it be the truth and nothing but the fact that the federal government, morally tough as we know it, is considering to force the demolition of "North Stream 2", because presumably either an officially controlled Russian secret service or one out of control Russian secret service or anyone who wants to look like a Russian secret service who poisoned a Russian opposition politician in Russia?
Answer: It can be, but it cannot be either.
We don't know, and our vague guesses don't matter.
The decisive factor is: I haven't heard or read the question in the German media.
Everyone talks about morality, nobody about who is blackmailing whom here, and why.
That is seriously suspicious.
Weight loss
One last, following on from last week's column.
I once did a quick search engine run for mothers, fathers and parents who completely or almost killed their children.
A lot has come together in 18 months of press review!
In reality, of course, even more so;
but many cases do not make it into the national media.
The usual "shaking to death" by nervously overexcited producers and / or their partners mostly only makes it into the local press;
and also the "slipping hand", which leads to falls against the notoriously nearby radiators and there to a fracture of the skull, does not arouse national editorial staff.
For the big story more has to be offered:
"Mother throws five-year-olds down the stairs twice" (Düren)
"Boy dies of thirst - seven and a half years imprisonment for his mother" (Mönchengladbach)
"Children banned in wheelchairs" (for fraudulent motives) - eight years imprisonment (Lübeck)
Mother stabs her baby's head with scissors and leaves him in a meadow (Augsburg)
Mother lets her partner beat her six-year-old daughter to death (Neubrandenburg)
Mother abuses son with burning cigarette (Bad Reichenhall)
Married couple kill children with hammer and knife (Darmstadt)
As I said, this is just a very random selection.
It is interesting to read and compare the respective reports.
Almost everything occurs on the "tendency" level: from pitying the "overwhelmed" mother to the "brutal partner" and the "horror deed".
Nevertheless, it seems astonishing how quickly the cases disappear from attention again.
Have the plush toys and bouquets been disposed of and the question "How did that happen?"
Asked by all at least once, the cases and fates fall from memory, and the next case, which is certain to come, is "the worst" again.
That too is normal and inevitable.
It would be all the more important to deal as broadly and openly as possible with this culture of message processing and message design right from the start.
To do this, the media themselves would have to expect consumers to do this and actually engage in an
open
exchange, instead of simply repeating the devastation of communication that they complain about in specialty programs and feature sections at the same time.
Even uneducated or intellectually undemanding people have a right to be treated with truthfulness and respect.
One must not betray the meaning of language by ascribing insignificance to it and no longer arguing about meanings, but about effects.
Icon: The mirror