The state should be held responsible if violent or sexual offenders relapse, who have been freed early or have been completely relaxed. This is what the National Council wants.
This brutal murder hit Switzerland: In 2013, Claude Dubois kidnapped the young Maria († 19) in a forest near Châtonnaye FR, where for several hours the pastor was tortured and eventually drowned with a belt. Dubois was convicted and detained.
Particularly shocking: Dubois fought with a limitation on housekeeping at the time of the act. Because he had already murdered before. In 1998, Dubois had raped and killed his ex-girlfriend. She could only kill Maria because the judiciary wanted to make him home-bound.
Another victory for Natalie Rickli
In such acts, the state must now observe. This required former SVP National Councilor and current Zurich Governor Natalie Rickli (42) – and the National Council decided to implement it.
The legal committee and the two councils had earlier approved Ricklis. The committee of the National Council then drafted a bill and sent it for consultation. However, the plan has met with wide rejection. As a result, the Commission has decided not to continue the work.
At the National Council, however, the majority saw it differently. He believes the state is ethically responsible. If authorities and judges have already decided that an offender can be released early, they will also have to take responsibility.
Today, the state is not responsible
Today, the Confederation or Cantons are generally responsible for damages caused by government officials in the exercise of their official duties. The premise is that an unauthorized act like a violation of a formal obligation has led to it. However, according to the Federal Supreme Court, the relief of the sentence or the conditional release is not illegal acts simply because they then prove to be false.
This has to be changed. The Legal Commission proposed state responsibility that operates independently of fault and tort. The provision is intended to apply to serious and dangerous offenses committed under an execution order.
During the consultation, all 25 cantons who participated opposed the account. FDP, GLP, and SP also declined the account.
From the standpoint of opponents, state responsibility could have a counterproductive effect: it is to be expected that very few openings will be granted in the future, they argue. Infringers will be released unprepared by custody, which increases the risk of relapse. The participants in the consultation raised several other objections. Some doubted constitutionality. (SDA / sf)