The outcome of a rape trial which saw just one out of nine perpetrators sent to prison for their part in the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl has rocked Germany – after the verdict was handed down last week.
The case saw nine men go on trial for the rape of a 15-year-old girl in a park in the city of Hamburg in September 2020. The men, aged between 19 and 23, were all found guilty after a trial which lasted almost 100 days at the youth chamber of Hamburg District Court.
However, just one of the men received a jail sentence – with the man, now 19, sentenced to two years and nine months in a juvenile prison without parole. Eight others found guilty in the trial, which spanned 18 months, were given juvenile sentences lasting one to two years with probation of pre-parole, therefore avoiding time in jail.
The sentencing means that the court reserves the decision on the execution of the sentence for a later date – which depends upon the development of the accused.
A tenth defendant in the trial was acquitted last week, while another had been acquitted of all charges back in April.
The court heard that none of the defendants had committed sexual offences before or had previously faced youth sentences.
The men were aged between 17 and 23 years old at the time of the attack, in Hamburg’s Stadtpark. The court heard how the perpetrators had taken advantage of the teenager, who showed “significant symptoms” of alcohol intoxication during a local festival held in the grounds of the city park on the night of the assault, 19th September 2020.
The violent rape took place in a bush while the teenage girl was heavily intoxicated, the trial heard, with the entire attack lasting two and a half hours.
The perpetrators were from different nationalities, with the Hamburg Senate hearing that while four of those involved were German, others came from a variety of countries. One German news outlet reported that the remaining seven suspects were from Iran, Libya, Poland, Egypt and Kuwait.
In an indication of national uproar sparked by the verdict, the Association of judges in Hamburg has come out in strong condemnation of the “harassment” of the judge who handed down the sentence in the case.
“The Hamburg Judges’ Association, as the union of Hamburg judges and prosecutors, is appalled by the intolerable harassment of a colleague who, in this difficult case, fulfilled the task assigned to her by the Basic Law,” the association in the Northern German city said in a statement.
Spiegel, reporting on the trial, noted how the case caused “a stir and outrage nationwide” when it took place over three years ago. The newspaper notes how, after attending the party on the festival meadow of the park, which had become a popular meeting place during Covid regulations, the teenager was led into a bush, with one of the men stealing her mobile phone and purse.
The newspaper details how the men took advantage of the teenager while she was heavily intoxicated, with a number of men raping her. The court heard that the gang rape was captured in two videos, however both videos were deleted shortly after the attack, and “were not available to either the investigators or the court.”
In the verdict, emphasis was drawn to the complex nature of the case and the evidence provided – with statements provided by more than 90 witnesses, some of whom had seen the video footage, and a number of experts.
There were no “immediate” witnesses, but rather, the only objective evidence in the case was DNA traces, in the sperm from nine of the defendants found on the underage victim.
The public prosecutor’s office had demanded sentences of one year and three months to three years for nine defendants. However, the defence has asked for all ten defendants to be acquitted, according to Spiegel.
Hamburger Morgenpost, a German tabloid, reported on comments made by a female psychiatrist Dr Nahlah Saimeh, who said in an interview with Spiegel that the defendants in the case could have been influenced by their migration experience.
“The origin is important to consider when it pushes the perpetrators to the edge of society and social integration is not possible,” the German psychiatrist said.
“This could happen through difficulties with language, unemployment or problems with the housing situation, coupled with a “feeling mix of anger, grief, powerlessness, depression, fantasies of magnitude as a compensation attempt to cope with one’s own misery and addictive substance consumption.
“Disorderly, unprepared migration experiences and socio-cultural homelessness increase the risk of addictions and also of psychosis. At the same time, the risk of becoming a criminal also increases,” the psychiatrist and author told a German news magazine.
She said that sex can serve as a “means to release frustration and anger.”
“The victim becomes a pure instrument of one’s own sexual satisfaction. It is about an immediate need, opportunity, inner conviction and the right of the strongest,” Saimeh said.
In the interview, when questioned about a rise in sexual offences, Dr Saimeh acknowledged that from 2017 to 2022, there was a doubling of reported sexual offences in Germany. In relation to the rise, she referenced “a disorderly migration movement” which means some are living “on the social edge of society, culturally, linguistically, and socially completely uprooted” – adding, “It is not really surprising that this also promotes crime risks.”
Her comments have, however, resulted in anger, and have been labelled online by several commentators as “sick,” “demented,” and “a betrayal.”
German politician Georg Pazderski was among those who highlighted the psychiatrist’s comments:
https://twitter.com/Georg_Pazderski/status/1731722278960857388?s=20
The verdict, meanwhile, has triggered shock and furore in Germany, having been described in recent days as “incredible.”
In the wake of the controversial verdict, the Judges Association of Hamburg said that social media attacks relating to the judgement represented “a direct attack on the rule of law” and “democratic structures.” Defending the verdict, it said in a statement that the provincial court had “gathered a large amount of evidence in a complex procedure and, as a result, reached a well-founded verdict.”
The verdicts were representative of some of “the harshest sanctions under juvenile law,” the association said in the statement.
It went on to describe reactions – which in some cases were “marked by an anti-immigrant undertone” and “veiled calls for violence,” amounted to “hate speech” from those with no knowledge regarding “the background of the case,” juvenile law or probation sentences.