"Both defendants have made themselves punishable!"
Created: 11/25/2022, 2:00 p.m
By: Klaus D. Treude
After the public prosecutor's office and the two lawyers held their pleas on Wednesday, the verdict is expected for next Tuesday.
© Tom Otto
Memmingen – The fact that the two accused farmers Johann H. (68) and his son Florian H. (25) from Bad Grönenbach, against whom the Memmingen district court has been hearing since the summer for numerous violations of the Animal Welfare Act, have committed criminal offenses is not known Question.
Not only did the public prosecutor see it that way in the main hearing last Wednesday, but also the defendants' defense attorneys - even if their assessments differed.
prosecutor Dr.
In his pleading, Daniel Theurer first summarized and evaluated the various facts with which the two defendants were accused.
The entire scenario came to life again, at least to some extent.
For example, the older defendant was accused of dehorning several cattle without sufficient anesthesia.
A vet should have done that.
He caused the animals prolonged, massive, significant pain.
The two farmers have also made themselves punishable in the other violations of the Animal Welfare Act that the two farmers are accused of by not providing sick animals with the necessary veterinary care.
According to Theurer, refraining from doing so weighs just as heavily as taking action.
He wanted to give the younger accused (25) credit for not having a criminal record and having made a confession.
He also thinks he is overwhelmed by the extent of the entire situation.
He thinks that the young man has not had the time to change his behavior fundamentally since the first allegations became known.
What speaks against him, however, is that he caused the animals pain.
In his view, a fine is out of the question.
The public prosecutor demanded two years and ten months imprisonment for Florian H.
The prosecutor credited the elderly defendant with his ailing health.
On the other hand, it would speak against him that he had caused the animals considerable pain and had already received fines twice for violating the Animal Welfare Act.
The public prosecutor demanded two years and six months imprisonment for him, and a fine was out of the question here as well.
Suspension of prison sentences on probation is not an option, nor are lower penalties possible.
Theurer also called for a five-year ban on keeping and caring for cattle for both defendants.
Lost control
Maximilian Pauls, lawyer for the younger defendant, however, pleaded for a prison sentence of one year and eight months, which should also be suspended on probation.
His comprehensive confession "of his own free will" must be taken into account in the amount of the sentence.
His client spontaneously made it clear several times that he regretted the incidents.
He had his back to the wall and had refrained from defensive measures.
Sometimes he didn't understand what was happening.
Florian H. is a young person whose existence is now threatened.
He has no criminal record and his age (22) at the time of the crime must also be taken into account.
For years, no such violations were found in the company, "but then massively".
It must also be taken into account
You also have to consider the stressful situation on the farm.
There was a lack of staff, there were financial problems, letters were not opened (anymore).
You've lost control.
Added to this is the heavy burden placed on his client by the lengthy court proceedings and the reporting in the media.
After all, the law considers an omission - i.e. "doing nothing" - to be less important than an active action, which must have an impact on the penalty.
The ban on keeping and caring for animals should be limited to two and a half years.
"Conduct not punishable"
There is no question that the older defendant, Johann H., also committed crimes, said his lawyer Alexander Chasklowicz.
He made it clear why he didn't think the evidence regarding cattle dehorning was very meaningful.
Johann H. probably gave an anesthetic before the dehorning, albeit an unsuitable one, and administered a remedy to relieve the pain as part of the aftercare.
Yes, his client did not completely stun the animals and caused them pain.
This is illegal behavior, but according to the lawyer, it is not punishable.
His client is sorry, he knows he is wrong.
Besides, how would you know if the pain inflicted was significant?
The evidence is unclear.
Before the ruins of life
As for the punishment, Chasklowicz said: omission can only be punished if it is equivalent to active action.
At least his client should be punished more leniently.
He was fully confessed "as far as it was possible for him" and admitted to mistakes.
His admission speaks for him that he was "completely shocked" by the pictures shown in the trial, that he had not embellished anything in the taking of evidence and that he was fully aware of the injustice he had committed.
He is now, at the age of 68, "in front of the ruins of his life".
He's done his whole life and now he feels useless.
His client had failed, was no longer in control of the situation, everything had simply become too much for him.
The frequent checks after the grievances in his company became known would have put a strain on him, and there were also financial and health problems,
the fear of a possible prison sentence and the media pressure as well as the question of how to proceed.
H.'s actions, the lawyer emphasized, are not an expression of anti-animal attitudes.
also read
Serious accident on the A96: car collided with a tree
Murder trial in Memmingen ended
For Johann H. it would be the first conviction to imprisonment, so far only fines had been imposed on him.
One should not set an example, he pleads with the 68-year-old for a shorter sentence of one year and four months.
Since the social prognosis is favorable, he also considers the suspension of the possible sentence to be appropriate, concluded Chasklowicz.
The verdict falls on Tuesday, November 29th.
Also visit the Memminger KURIER on Facebook!