German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/187, pp. 23551-23552.
Good morning, Herr President. Right honorable colleagues.
This topic is so unappealing that one wishes that it need be
dealt with less often. Children are the weakest members of our society, those
most in need of a defense to which ordinarily all other groups have risen. Yet
in the final consequence, children for us are the ultimo ratio. For without
them, there is no future and the best, sustainable, equalized, correctly speaking
society would cease to exist.
Claudia
Roth (Greens-Augsburg): Oje!
Yes, Frau Lambrecht, you have finally become active. Yet for
much too long have you hesitated, and even justified that the sexual abuse of
children remained an offense, instead of being evaluated as a crime. Now then
the hectic Aktionismus; since the criticism,
and from the AfD, simply was much too loud.
Michael
Grosse-Böhmer
(CDU/CSU): I certainly have heard nothing of it!
– Then take a look at the internet, what was written there
in June.
You sell the draft law as a comprehensive assessment. Na ja, those of the youth office, for
example, would necessarily receive more disposable means. Since naturally the
worst of offenses can occur in the pastel painted quarters of professors, yet
certainly in the problematic neighborhoods it must all the more be able to
demand access to families. Child and youth aid cooperation obligations, as
demanded by the Greens in their motion, are well and good; yet this does not
help if in practice the sails are struck for the least little crisis of cultural
conflict. Sexual violence against children is to be elucidated and dealt with as
equally offensive in all directions and in every milieu.
The government’s draft concentrates on the fair upgrade of offenses.
And the clarification that there is to be permitted no sexual use of children,
in which the term “abuse” will be abolished, is naturally completely correct. There
are, however, in the policies of the Green movement, also other points of view.
Reform of judicial procedures, training of youth and family
magistrates, qualifications for procedural assistants, all of that is to the
good, quite clearly. However, on which account sexualized violence without
bodily contact, thus when the child only must witness, will without
re-qualification be more lightly penalized, troubles me and is incomprehensible
to me. The psychic damage quite clearly appears to belong as a decisive
element.
Why only one year’s sentence for these swapping service
operators? Today’s digital possibilities now all the more call up the worst of
the perpetrators. We know the cases in Lügde
and Münster where that was marked. An extra offense with a significantly higher
minimal sentence would have been sensible here. The CSU is already going in the
right direction.
Frau Lambrecht, you are again working simply as driven. I
would have – you of course are not listening – wished for more verve there; for
example, the prohibition of serial probations. There is an AfD draft law on
that. Do not continue to grasp this with forceps. It would be wonderful here to
be able to accompany. You yourself are now proceeding – as you write in the
draft law – to produce more probations by means of harder sentences. Congratulations.
With our draft law, that would not have been so.
We also demand, for example, a sex offender registry which
is open to public inspection. There is for long something similar in the U.S.A.
That would have been a brave advance; that also of course pertains to us. We
also require more IT people for the police. If we can then provide that the
police, youth authorities and judges in our country are treated less like children
and no longer placed under a general suspicion, then such legal initiatives may
also display some effect.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
