In the trial against Christian B., a psychiatrist described him as a risk to the general public. Nevertheless, the court ruled: acquittal. What now?
When Christian B. hears that a verdict has been reached shortly after 10 a.m. on Tuesday in courtroom 141 of Braunschweig district court, he is familiar with the phrase. He has been “the defendant” many times in his life, more than a dozen times. His face looks gaunt, blotchy and unhealthily pale, his straight blond hair falls to one side and he wears light sideburns. He doesn’t get upset when things turn out differently for him than usual that day. Although the public prosecutor’s office considers B. to be “a highly dangerous psychopathic sadist”, he is acquitted. In the opinion of the chamber, B. could not be convicted of the crimes he was accused of. In case of doubt for the accused.
For some spectators, who leave the courtroom in a rage, this is incomprehensible. Because it would have made a lot of sense to them if the man from Würzburg, who grew up in difficult circumstances, had committed the five crimes for which he was charged. If B. had brutally raped three women in Portugal between 2000 and 2006. If he had masturbated in public in front of girls in Portugal in 2007 and 2017. The allegations had become even more explosive as the Braunschweig public prosecutor’s office has now also linked Christian B. to the case of the missing English girl Madeleine “Maddie” McCann, who also disappeared in Portugal in 2007 and whose fate is still unknown.
Christian B. has already been convicted of theft, forgery, drug trafficking and assault – as well as three sexual offenses. In 1994, he received a two-year juvenile sentence for sexual abuse of a child. To 15 months in prison in 2016 for child sexual abuse and possession of child pornography; among other things, he had abusively photographed the four-year-old daughter of a friend. And to seven years in prison in 2019 for the aggravated rape of a 72-year-old American woman in Portugal, which he is currently serving in a prison near Hanover.
Indications of disturbed sexual preferences
In the trial that has now ended, a psychiatrist dealt with the question of whether B. should be placed in preventive detention in the event of a conviction. He could only give a tentative diagnosis, the expert told the court after more than 30 days of hearings, as the accused had refused to talk to him. However, the diagnosis was clear: B. belonged in the “absolute top league of dangerousness”. With a probability of 30 to 50 percent, B. could reoffend within two years of his release from prison. According to the psychiatrist, almost all comparable convicted sex offenders have a better prognosis. Christian B.’s texts, in which he fantasizes about abusing children and women, provide indications that his sexual preferences are disturbed and partly sadistic and pedophilic.
How does an expert arrive at such an assessment? And how valid is it if the person in question refuses to cooperate?
Forensic psychiatrist Hartmut Pleines can report on the working methods of a court-appointed expert. He has been preparing expert reports on the state of mind of defendants since 1994, around 50 per year. Around ten of these also deal with the question of preventive detention. This can be ordered in the event of a conviction if, among other things, the overall assessment of the offender and his actions shows that he is dangerous to the general public due to a tendency to commit serious crimes.
Preventive detention is not a punishment
According to Pleines, the term “propensity” refers to a “biographically established tendency to commit crimes that is imprinted in one’s life history”. It manifests itself through the repetition of crimes, which even “negative sanctions”, i.e. imprisonment, have not changed. “But the tendency always has inner dimensions that point to the personality,” says the psychiatrist. These could be attitude patterns that point to the conscious affirmation of delinquency, i.e. delinquency. In order to assess this tendency, the specialist bases his reports “on his own comprehensive exploration in addition to the file situation”. In other words, the person he has to assess talks to him in detail. “The more information I have, the better the basis for my findings and therefore the more information I can provide in the expert opinion.” However, it also happens about three or four times a year that a person he is assessing refuses to talk to him.
Preventive detention is not a punishment for a crime, but a so-called corrective measure. It only comes into effect when a convicted person would actually be released after serving their sentence and is therefore a preventative measure. Custody must be clearly different from imprisonment. As a rule, those affected are in a group home and also have access to a PC and the Internet. They also have access to a comprehensive range of therapies.
Every year, a review must be carried out to decide whether or not to continue detention, which in extreme cases can last until the end of a person’s life. According to the Federal Statistical Office, 604 men and two women were in preventive detention as of March 31, 2023, which is a fairly small group. Whether this instrument is the right one for offenders with a high tendency to reoffend “is a matter for the courts, society and politicians alone to decide,” says Pleines. The therapeutic options for those in preventive detention have expanded significantly in recent years. The aim of therapy is to further develop a person’s offense-preventing strengths in a targeted manner and to work with them to develop a very clear perspective for a law-abiding life.
The acquittal means that preventive detention is out of the question for Christian B. If Tuesday’s verdict becomes final, he could be released in September 2025. The responsible enforcement chamber would only have the option of issuing him with certain instructions: the obligation to report to the police regularly, for example. Or to avoid certain places.
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann