"Untersuchungshaftvermeidung bei Jugendlichen" (English shop)

Darstellung anhand des bayerischen Modellprojekts „Spurwechsel“ im Berufsbildungswerk Abensberg

The conversation with R. makes clear that he is a juvenile who has demonstrably recognised and made use of the opportunity offered to him by his removal from pre-trial detention and his admission to a facility for the avoidance of pre-trial detention. Even though he initially did not want to go there because of mistaken ideas about the facility, today, more than a year after his admission, he is still accommodated at the BBW in a follow-up measure and is endeavouring to bring his life back on track, among other things by resuming vocational training.

Even though R. described the solidarity among the pre-trial detainees as very good (“like brothers”), it nevertheless became clear that he suffered under pre-trial detention. More than once he emphasises how much he was troubled there by the fact that he could not look out of the window. Likewise, the lack of occupation for the juveniles in prison constituted a problem. The absence of persons of trust to whom the juveniles can turn with their problems and worries, as well as a certain “isolation”, also distinguishes the execution of pre-trial detention from accommodation in a youth welfare facility. R. also clearly expressed that life in the avoidance of pre-trial detention had been “more normal”.

In retrospect, it can be stated that the juvenile’s life changed in a positive way as a result of his accommodation in “Spurwechsel”. Today R. knows how he can deal with his problems without compensating for them by committing any offences. He has learned to talk to others about these problems and thus to find a solution. Not only have his plans for the future become more concrete, but through the provision of a training place at the BBW Abensberg, R. has already been able to realise his plans for the future to some extent.

Through the offer of various follow-up measures (such as the socio-therapeutic residential group and the boarding school) within the BBW Abensberg, R. was not simply left alone with his problems in his “old” life after his release from the avoidance of pre-trial detention; rather, he is gradually being guided back into freedom and a “normal” life under supervision. Trained carers continue to be at his side, advising him with his everyday worries and problems.

A further positive observation is that R. has not reoffended since his release from the avoidance of pre-trial detention. On the one hand, this may be due to the fact that, within the framework of the support services, the corresponding opportunities are lacking. Moreover, R. had also only offended once before.

Nevertheless, it also appears to play a role in this respect that he recognised his opportunity and was, in addition, shown alternative ways of solving his problems during his accommodation. For these reasons, a positive prognosis of future law-abiding conduct can indeed be made in R.’s case.

In summary, it can be stated that in R.’s case accommodation in a youth welfare facility for the avoidance of pre-trial detention proved to be a very sensible measure and one preferable to pre-trial detention in every respect. Even though it cannot be ruled out that R. would have brought his life back on the right track even if he had remained in pre-trial detention, it can nevertheless be assumed that the accommodation in “Spurwechsel” and the subsequent measures clearly favoured this positive development of the boy.