It doesn’t matter if it is murder, burglary or hand-bag theft: We expect the perpetrator to be investigated and punished and we also expect the (potential) victim to be protected and compensated. This requirement must also be met even when it concerns a “punishable act by someone in authority” – meaning that the perpetrator themselves represents the state, as is the case with violation of justice by police officers.
The victims of violation however establish that this – legally formulated – requirement is not fulfilled when it concerns violation from police officers. The consequential punishment and sanctioning of violation only takes place in a few cases.
In many cases the expectation of gaining justice for violation fails to materialise because the victim and witnesses fail to write a report about it or even fail to complain about it. There are two main reasons for the lack of reports from victims:
Firstly, those affected think that there is little chance that their report will be successful in helping them to gain justice for what has happened. On the one hand, many of those affected have a general mistrust towards the government and its institute and this feeling of mistrust is strengthened due to their experiences of violation from police officers. On the other hand, it is often quite hard to prove what has happened: Where there seems to be a lack of independent witnesses on the one side, on the other side there are counter-reports from police officers.
Secondly, there are further looming disadvantages for those affected and for possible witnesses: When the victim produces a report about violation from a police officer, the police officer in question produces their own report of events almost immediately. And so the violation is afterwards legitimised by means of a report claiming resistance against police officers. In addition, those affected by the violation and also the witness (against which there is often slander and false reason for suspicion) are intimidated by a counter- report. This is supported by the fact that a report from a police officer, because of resistance, is not often refuted – especially when it coincides with what other police officers report.
While German nationals mostly only have to fear a fine for a counter-report, for refugees this represents an essential threat. A conviction can lead to “measures to end their residency”, that is, the deportation of the person affected. Migrants who come into Germany illegally have to be prepared for deportation even if they only try to show that there has been some violation against them. In the past, in the deportation prison Grünau in Berlin, it has been a frequent occurance that people affected by violation and even some witnesses to the violation have been deported shortly after submitting a report about it. In addition to that, refugees frequently report of increased discrimination in the foreign office after they have reported violation by police officers. This structural victimisation of refugees is particularly grave when people consider that migrants are victims of police violation of justice.
When victims of violation do actually decide to submit a report despite the terrible consquences that they could face, there is still no guarantee that this will lead to an explanation and punishment for the violation. The investigations of the Public Prosecution Service are mostly met by a lack of interest, which leads back to the fact that the Public Prosecution Service and the police force have a tight mutual dependancy on each other and also collaborate together. In order for the victim to have a real chance of gaining justice they have to find witnesses and evidence themselves. If they cannot produce this then it is their word against the word of one or more police officers, in the majority of these cases the Public Prosecution Service does not carry on with the proceedings. Only then does the person affected by the violation have the possibility of a complaints procedure. This is however only successful in a few cases.
In comparison, the disciplinary conviction for violation is poor: a disciplinary procedure is only initiated in the minority of cases. If it does actually come down to disciplinary proceedings then the investigations carried out by police officers against their own colleagues is not very intensive in the majority of cases.
The result of this structure of disciplinary and legal non-punishment and non-sanctioning of violation is clear: It only leads to legal proceedings against the police officer in the minority of cases. A conviction seldomly occurs, and even when there is a conviction, the perpetrator only has to reckon with a monetary fine. Here are the statistics for Berlin from 1995 to 2004 as an example: Only 1.3 percent of cases were taken to court and only 0.4 procent resulted in a police officer being convicted.
The shockingly low figures of cleared and sanctioned cases show that a thug in uniform has little or nothing to fear. A conviction for violation represents an absolute exception. The independent supervision of police officers and places for citizens (and police officers) to complaint are just as lacking as the protection and support available for victims and witnesses.
© Anti-Diskriminierungsbüro (ADB) Berlin e.V.
Ausstellung: „Vom Polizeigriff zum Übergriff”
www.polizeigriff.de