A woman was killed and 31 people were injured, some critically: the perpetrator, a 21-year-old man, was already known to the security authorities. The attack at the CSD in Berlin touches on a sensitive issue in our society. In the wake of serious acts of violence, there is a growing need for swift answers, clear consequences and the greatest possible security. At the same time, evidence from both academic research and practical experience shows that simple explanations often fall short.
A key point of criticism in the current debate centres on the perpetrator’s previous conviction under the Juvenile Criminal Justice Act. Many people are asking why a man who was 20 at the time was not tried under adult criminal law.
In fact, the Juvenile Courts Act provides for a case-by-case assessment for so-called ‘young adults’ aged between 18 and 21, explains Prof. Dr Markus Enser from the Faculty of Social and Health Sciences at OTH Regensburg. Courts must assess whether a person has already attained the maturity of an adult or whether there is still a so-called delay in maturity. In the perpetrator’s case, according to media reports, the competent Tiergarten Local Court concluded that the juvenile justice system should apply. Factors taken into account in the decision included the fact that the defendant was still living with his mother, had not completed any vocational training, and that his behaviour in court suggested that his personal development was not yet complete.
Why the court applied the juvenile justice system
For Prof. Dr Markus Enser, it is precisely this classification that is important for conducting the current discussion objectively. The educational scientist has been working for more than 25 years with children and young people who pose a significant risk to themselves or others, and prepares expert reports for family courts. “Many people automatically associate juvenile criminal law with more lenient treatment. But that is not the case. The decisive factor is, first and foremost, the legally prescribed assessment of each individual case, which takes into account the personal and moral maturity of young people,” says Prof. Dr Enser.
In his view, the case raises the fundamental question of how a society deals with young people who stand out due to a propensity for violence, criminal offences or extremist behaviour. For years, the researcher has observed a growing need for intensive therapeutic and educational support for young people who pose a significant risk to themselves or others. At the same time, there is a nationwide shortage of specialised facilities, care places and qualified staff. Anyone wishing to strengthen prevention must therefore also create the necessary structures.
The question of how vulnerable young people come to be drawn into such developments in the first place is at the heart of the research conducted by Prof. Dr Mehmet Kart of OTH Regensburg. The expert on Islamist radicalisation emphasises that radicalisation processes usually begin long before any potential criminal offence is committed. The researcher warns against seeking individual causes or simplistic explanatory models. Rather, research shows that radicalisation can develop from a complex interplay of various risk factors. These include, for example, experiences of exclusion, unstable social relationships, life crises or first-hand experiences of violence. At the same time, so-called protective factors play a crucial role: stable family and friendship relationships, reliable support figures, social participation and democratic education. The absence of protective factors increases vulnerability, but is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for radicalisation.
What protects young people from extremism
“Anyone wishing to prevent serious acts of violence in the long term must therefore take action much earlier. Prevention work creates precisely those protective factors that make young people more resilient to extremist ideologies,” says Prof. Dr Kart.
In his view, schools, youth support services, families and counselling centres play a key role in this regard. They are often the first places where problematic developments become apparent. At the same time, he warns against hasty generalisations and stigmatisation. Not every provocative statement or religious orientation is an indication of radicalisation. What is crucial, he says, is a nuanced approach and professional support where risks are actually identified.
The researchers therefore argue that the current debate should not be narrowed down to the question of higher penalty thresholds. Serious acts of violence require a consistent response from the rule of law. At the same time, there needs to be a discussion on how to reach at-risk young people at an earlier stage, prevent radicalisation processes and strengthen prevention structures. After all, the crucial question does not arise only after a crime has been committed. It begins long before that.
