Berlin's Constitutional Court Rebukes Senate Over Refusal to Reveal Knife Attack Suspects' Names
Court Regarding AfD: Reevaluation of Request Required
Let's lob some cold, hard truths your way. In 2023, Berlin saw a whopping 3482 knife attacks - yikes! An AfD parliamentarian wanted the Senate to spill the beans on the 20 most common first names of German knife-wielding suspects. But, the Senate didn't budge, citing privacy concerns. The judges, however, weren't having it.
In a divided decision, the Berlin Constitutional Court pronounced that the Senate must reconsider its stance on the issue. The Senate's argument about potential identifications hitting a brick wall with the court, as it seemed implausible. The Senate had overstepped its bounds, infringing upon the constitutionally guaranteed interrogation right.
While four judges dissented, insisting that releasing the list would violate human dignity and perpetuate discrimination, the majority ruled in favor of transparency. The court's decision was solely based on initial arguments submitted at the start of the proceedings, disregarding additional concerns raised later about the supposed "devaluation" of German citizens with supposed migrant backgrounds.
In essence, an AfD lawmaker named Marc Vallendar sought data on all Berlin knife crimes in 2023. The Senate partly complied, but balked at parting with the list of most common German first names of suspects. Oddly enough, the German Police Union reported 3412 knife attacks the previous year, dropping 2% compared to 2021. A staggering 58.1% of those suspects weren't German citizens.
Sources: ntv.de, mpa/AFP
- AfD
- Knife Attacks
- Berlin
- Judgments
- Political Debates
- The political debate surrounding knife attacks in Berlin intensified as an AfD lawmaker, Marc Vallendar, called for the Senate to disclose the 20 most common first names of German knife-wielding suspects, under the policy-and-legislation of general news.
- Despite the Senate's initial refusal, citing employment policy concerns, the Berlin Constitutional Court, delving into the realm of policy-and-legislation, crime-and-justice, and politics, ruled that the Senate should reconsider, favoring transparency over potential privacy invasions or discrimination.
