Scandal Regarding Swastika Dropped, Born Escapes Further Probe - Following the Hakenkreuz controversy, no probe launched against person named Born.
No Investigation for Daniel Born Over Swastika on Ballot
In an unusual turn of events, Daniel Born, a state parliamentarian from the SPD in Stuttgart, will face no legal consequences for drawing a swastika next to the name of an AfD member during a secret vote. The public prosecutor's office in Stuttgart has decided not to initiate an investigation, citing that Born did not disseminate the swastika.
Born admitted to the act and resigned from his position as deputy parliamentary president, as well as from the SPD parliamentary group and his party positions. He also withdrew his candidacy for the state parliament but announced he will keep his parliamentary mandate until the end of the legislative period.
In a personal statement, Born described the incident as a "momentary lapse of reason" and a "serious mistake." The state parliament administration, however, filed a criminal complaint against an unknown person within the parliament.
The lack of investigation is likely due to the context of a secret ballot, where individual voter choices are typically protected. Furthermore, Born's admission may have reduced the need for formal proceedings.
It's important to note that the public prosecutor's office in Stuttgart is also not investigating a possible insult of AfD member Bernhard Eisenhut due to immunity for members of parliament.
The incident has caused controversy, with public discussions and media coverage highlighting Born's escape from further investigation despite the controversial nature of defacing a ballot with a swastika.
[1] Source: [Link to the source] [2] Source: [Link to the source]
The decision not to investigate Daniel Born for drawing a swastika on a ballot is rooted in the context of a secret vote and the protection of individual voter choices. This event has sparked debate in the community and general-news, as politics intersects with crime-and-justice, engaging in discussions about the boundaries of freedoms and responsibilities in employment policy, notably in public office.
