Excuse perpetrators other perpetrators

Burhoff online blog

a) A mitigation of punishment according to § 46a No. 1 StGB presupposes that the perpetrator, in an effort to achieve a compromise with the victim, has made amends for the offense “in whole or for the most part” or has at least seriously strived for this goal. This basically requires a communicative process between the perpetrator and the victim, in which the perpetrator's efforts are an expression of the assumption of responsibility and the victim must accept the perpetrator's performance as a peace-making compensation. The reparation must be aimed at a comprehensive compensation of the consequences caused by the criminal act (see BGH, decision of 25 July 1995 - 1 StR 205/95, BGHR StGB § 46a reparation 1; judgment of 31 May 2002 - 2 StR 73 / 02, NStZ 2002, 646; judgment of August 27, 2002 - 1 StR 204/02, NStZ 2003, 29, 30).

b) A reparation in this sense is far removed from the findings. In principle, it does not stand in the way of an affirmation of the requirements of Section 46a No. 1 StGB if a victim makes the compensation easy for the perpetrator in such a way that he does not place high demands on the level of reparation efforts and quickly seeks reconciliation. is riding (BGH, decision of February 22, 2001 - 3 StR 41/01, StV 2001, 457). However, in view of the throwing of the knife, which at least abstractly endangers the life of the injured party, it does not seem obvious that the mere apology of the accused, even if the injured party accepted it, brought about a comprehensive reconciliation between the perpetrator and the victim. The defendant himself stated in his statement that reconciliation after the incident did not initially succeed, but rather took place a year later and that the relationship with his brother continues to be “not the best”, even if one gets along again. There is nothing to suggest that this - evidently still not unencumbered - relationship between the brothers would have changed through the apology expressed later in the main hearing in the sense of a comprehensive reconciliation. Against this background, the district court did not have to feel compelled to deal with a mitigation of sentences according to §§ 46a, 49.1 of the Criminal Code, simply because of the excuse. A violation of the duty to provide information (Section 244, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which would have led to further findings and possible compensation for damages, has not been reprimanded (cf. BGH, decision of August 2, 2012 - 3 StR 276/12, BGHR StGB § 46a reparation 10). "