Due to the high risk of fatality, police officers in Germany are only permitted to use their firearms in extreme cases of necessity. At the same time, international and national studies indicate that a high proportion of people shot by police were in a state of mental health emergency (MHE). Critics argue that the police do not sufficiently take into account the contextual factors that contribute to aggressive behaviour in people with mental disorders. However, research on this topic remains insufficient, particularly in German-speaking countries.Based on press reports and a content analysis, 145 fatal police shootings were analysed that were recorded in the Cilip case database of the Institute for Civil Rights & Public Safety e.V. for the years 2015 through 2025. In 69 % of the cases, evidence of an MHE was found in the person who was shot. A comparison of scenarios with and without a MHE revealed systematic differences in context-related factors specific to the incident. The results support the view that individuals with a MHE, due to a presumed mental disorder, may experience cognitive and emotional overload, preventing them from safeguarding their own interests based on rational cost-benefit analyses. Consequently, a dominant, loud, and primarily force-oriented approach by the police may fail to achieve its intended effect. Instead, it may even fuel disastrous escalation processes, requiring other communication strategies in such situations.The findings can be used to develop and conduct specific training for operational scenarios involving armed individuals in a MHE, helping to better prepare police officers. Further research incorporating additional data sources could provide an even deeper understanding of the dynamics of escalating incidents and enable preventive measures to be taken.
Zusammenfassung Anfeindungen und Übergriffe auf politische Amts- und Mandatstragende sind in vielen Demokratien ein ernstzunehmendes Phänomen mit Folgen für Betroffene, demokratische Prozesse und Institutionen. Aufbauend auf dem objektiven Deprivationskonzept untersucht dieser Beitrag aus Makroperspektive, inwiefern objektive sozialräumliche Deprivation mit Politisch motivierter Kriminalität gegen Politiker*innen auf Gemeindeebene in Deutschland zusammenhängt. Auf Grundlage polizeilicher Hellfelddaten aus den Jahren 2019 bis 2023 werden Prävalenz und Inzidenz entsprechender Straftaten als konzeptionell unterscheidbare Facetten desselben Phänomens getrennt mittels Regressionsmodellen analysiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen ein weitgehend gegenläufiges Muster: Sozioökonomische Deprivation ist signifikant positiv mit der Prävalenz, jedoch negativ und nicht signifikant mit der Inzidenz assoziiert. Infrastrukturelle Deprivation, geringe Wahlbeteiligung und sozialstrukturelle Deprivation zeigen hingegen signifikant negative Zusammenhänge mit der Prävalenz, aber signifikant positive Zusammenhänge mit der Inzidenz. Zudem zeigen sich deutliche regionale Unterschiede: Im Vergleich zur Referenzregion West-/Norddeutschland zeigt sich für Ostdeutschland sowohl bei der Prävalenz als auch bei der Inzidenz ein signifikant positiver Zusammenhang, für West-/Süddeutschland hingegen ausschließlich bei der Inzidenz. Die Befunde deuten darauf hin, dass verschiedene Dimensionen objektiver sozialräumlicher Deprivation nicht einheitlich, sondern je nach Facette unterschiedliche, teils gegenläufige Zusammenhänge mit Politisch motivierter Kriminalität gegen Politiker*innen aufweisen können.
Since strong teaching lays the foundation for strong science, this article focuses on the importance of criminology as a subject in law studies. Empirical research was conducted to determine how and where criminology is embedded in the curricula of degree programs. Ensuring a consistent course offering requires the subject to be broadly institutionalized across the faculties. Accordingly, the extent of this institutionalization was also determined. Since all data was collected in both 2020 and 2025, it is possible to draw comparisons and identify trends. In addition, explanations are attempted, challenges identified, areas for action highlighted, and possible solutions discussed. The article thus also contributes to the debate on the state of criminology in Germany ongoing since 2012. (Albrecht, Quensel & Sessar, 2012, S. 385 ff.).
The article examines the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the selectivity of criminal social control and argues that these technologies not only reproduce but qualitatively transform existing selection mechanisms. While current debates primarily focus on issues such as technical fallibility, human oversight, and fundamental rights, the article shifts attention to structural selectivity - namely, the question of which spaces, individuals, and types of offenses come into the focus of criminal justice authorities. Drawing on various fields of application - including intelligent suspicion generation, biometric identification, and algorithmic data analysis - the article demonstrates that AI is already shaping key stages of the criminal process, particularly the generation of suspicion and investigative practices. In doing so, existing spatial and personal patterns of selectivity are reinforced, for example through the concentration of technological surveillance in specific locations and the use of selectively composed databases. At the same time, attention is shifting toward & raquo;technology-compatible & laquo; offenses that can be efficiently detected and processed through automated systems. Moreover, the use of AI introduces a new quality of selectivity: scaling effects intensify selective mechanisms, while algorithmic decision-making increasingly obscures their underlying causes. Biases in training data and differing error rates may further reinforce discriminatory outcomes. Overall, the article concludes that AI leads to an amplification, shift, and obfuscation of selective criminal enforcement. Given limited resources, selectivity remains unavoidable; however, there is a risk that it will be driven more by technological possibilities than by deliberate, substantive criteria. The article therefore calls for recognizing selectivity as a central dimension in the discourse on AI in criminal justice.
