with contributions from:
Regina Ammicht Quinn, Alexandre Chitov, Caroline L. Davey, Jeffrey G. Gregro, Claudia Heinzelmann, Allan Y. Jiao, Svenja Kirbis, Erich Marks, Patricia M. Martin, Jeffry R. Phillips, Melissa H. Sickmund, Stephan Voß, Andrew B. Wootton, Jee-Young Yun
and the following Partner-Organisations:
Forum Verlag Godesberg GmbH 2017
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at www.dnb.de.
© Forum Verlag Godesberg GmbH, Mönchengladbach
All rights reserved.
Mönchengladbach 2017
Produced by: BoD – Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt
Printed in Germany
Print layout: Isabell Becker, Claudia Heinzelmann, Karla Marks
Coverdesign: Konstantin Megas, Mönchengladbach
978-3-942865-73-9 (print)
978-3-942865-74-6 (ebook)
The German Congress on Crime Prevention is an annual event that takes place since 1995 in different German cities and targets all areas of crime prevention: Administration, youth welfare, the judiciary, churches, local authorities, the media, politics, the police, crime prevention committees, projects, schools, the health system, organisations, associations and science. The desired effect is to present and strengthen crime prevention within a broad societal framework. Thus it contributes to crime reduction as well as to reducing the risk of becoming a victim. The reduction of fear of crime in the population is connected with that.
The main objectives of the congress are:
Since its foundation the German Congress on Crime Prevention has been opened to an international audience with a growing number of non-German speaking participants joining. Because prevention is more than a national concern and should be focused internationally this step seemed crucial. Bringing together not only German scientists and practitioners but also international experts in crime prevention and therefore developing a transnational forum to foster the exchange of knowledge and experience constitutes the main focus of this approach. To give the international guests a discussion forum, the Annual International Forum within the German Congress on Crime Prevention was established in 2007. For non-German guests this event offers lectures in English language as well as other activities within the German Congress on Crime Prevention that are translated simultaneously. International guests are able to play an active role by presenting poster or displaying information within the exhibition.
This ninth edition of “International Perspectives of Crime Prevention” includes the outcomes of the 10th Annual International Forum which took place within the 21st German Congress on Crime Prevention on the 6th and 7th of June 2016 in Magdeburg and gathered together about 3.000 people from the field of crime prevention in Germany and worldwide. The main topic of this congress was: “Prevention and Freedom: On the Necessity of an Ethical Discourse”.
The book starts with a short version of the Congress expertise on the main topic, written by Regina Ammicht Quinn. She offers an insight into the philosophical question about the tension between prevention and freedom concluding in a practical list of seven “points to consider”. This is followed by the written version of the opening speech to the Congress, held by Erich Marks.
The next section deals with the work of some of our international partner organisations and their work on prevention topics. The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit gGmbH (GIZ) is presenting several examples of preventive work on social cohesion and integration in different countries, which they had shown to the Congress-audience in Magdeburg. The European Forum on Urban Security (Efus), a network of about 250 European cities and regions, shows an overview of their current activities. The Korean Institute on Criminology (KIC) describes the mutual cooperation with the German Congress on Crime Prevention, which was confirmed by a memorandum of unterstanding in 2010. And finally the RAN Centre of Excellence gives a short report on the experience exchanges on the prevention of radicalisation they made during the Congress.
The main part of this book contains a range of topics presented during the international lectures of the Congress in Magdeburg.
Alexandre Chitov presents his study on the effects of the Buddhist religion in the Juvenile Justice System in Thailand. The potential of using drones for legal issues is explored by Jee-Young Yun (Republic of Korea).
Allan Y. Jiao and Jeffry R. Phillips give an insight into police auditing, police reform and the Federal Consent Decree in the United States. This is followed by three articles on the US-Juvenile Justice Reform Forum. Patricia M. Martin offers a short overview on the panel discussion during the Congress and the development of the Juvenile Justice Reform Forum. Melissa H. Sickmund is dealing with the New Juvenile Justice Data Project and Jeffrey G. Gregro describes the methodology called the Standardised Program evaluation Protocol more detailed.
For the european area Caroline L. Davey and Andrew B. Wootton (UK) are discussing the prospects for EU-funded security research. Furthermore two projects form Germany are presented: A digital platform supporting stakeholders performing municipal work on integration is introduced by Svenja Kirbis and the outcomes of a symposion on the prevention of violence, which has taken place in Berlin, are described by Stephan Voß and Erich Marks.
The 21. German Congress on Crime Prevention concluded with a “Magdeburger Declaration” founded on the Congress Expertise on the main topic and the debate on the spot. This declaration summarises results and recommendations. You can find it at the end of this book.
We hope to find a broad audience, interested in the upcoming events of the Annual International Forum as well as the German Congress on Crime Prevention. For more information please visit our website at http://www.gcocp.org.
Claudia Heinzelmann and Erich Marks
Prevention means to look ahead, to think ahead, and to act in a matter of prudence for the future.
The German Congress on Crime Prevention 2016 takes up the challenge of grand words in its title: prevention, freedom, ethics. Let me just dwell on this title for a moment: How do these three grand words relate to each other?
Freedom, on a basic level, is the possibility to choose between different options in different spheres of life and different circumstances. In a more radical sense, freedom is self-determination; Kant uses the word “Selbstgesetzlichkeit”, self-legality, autonomy (Kant 1785/1956). Freedom is always – if we listen to Rosa Luxemburg – the freedom of those who dissent (Luxemburg 1922/1983, 359), and love of freedom is, according to the German poet Heinrich Heine, born in 1797, a flower in the dungeon (“Kerkerblume“) (Heine 1972), which shines most brightly where it is absent. And the fight for freedom, the protection of freedom and the obtaining of freedom aren’t always easy; thus Henrik Ibsen, 19th-century Norwegian playwright and poet, reminds us that one should “never put on his best trousers in order to fight for freedom” (Ibsen 1882/1907, 277).
By combining prevention with such a charged term like freedom, the third of the grand words, ethics, is implicitly present. I am thankful that you are willing to include and make explicit a new and stubborn perspective here – the ethical perspective. And while prevention means looking, thinking and acting towards the future, I will, as a start, look to the past in order to see how people long before us have been looking ahead.
– Odysseus (1) –
In the fifth book of the “Odyssey” Homer describes how Circe warns Ulysses about the sirens, which already have lured many seamen into disaster with their bewitching chant. Therefore, Ulysses closes the ears of this comrades with beeswax and lets himself get tied to the mast of his ship with a rope since he wants to listen to the legendary chant of the sirens and survive at the same time. And he does succeed in this way (Elster 2000; Rosen 2004; Ammicht Quinn 2014, 277-296, 279).
What are we supposed to learn from this story, which stems from the turn of the 8th to the 7th millennium B.C. and therefore stands at the beginning of the European written cultural history?
In order to achieve particular goals, we apparently have to accept certain restrictions – including restrictions of freedom. Facing a deadly threat like the sirens, it would be very unwise not to adopt appropriate precautions. Only due to the successful preventive measures, Ulysses was able to listen to the chant of the sirens and survive at the same time. The outcome of the story, however, does not only depend on our acceptance of the inconveniences or restrictions of the security measures. There are three additional conditions which have to be met: One needs information about the nature, location and extent of the danger and the nature of security one aims to gain; there has to be a technical artefact of high quality – in this case a rope that isn´t likely to tear; and one needs reliable and capable people, since Ulysses’ life depends on his fellows´ abilities to fetter him, on the knots holding together until the threat is over; and on the trust that they will release him again.
What does ethics do?
Ethics is the critical reflection and critical analysis of a person’s and a society’s morals and moral codes.
Ethics is a theory of human action characterized by the basic oppositions between good and bad, right and wrong, but also the “good life” or the “failing life”. On one level, this is the question concerning the right action in conflict or dilemma situations and on another level the question concerning the “good life“, which time and again means: In which society do we want to live?
Ethics and security
Ethics is a specific perspective on security among other perspectives. But it is a crucial perspective, because it places security within the context of quests for the right action and the good life. Activities, measures, and techniques related to security are not simply “neutral”. They entail preconditions and effects that require ethical reflection since they are related to questions of the individual good life and a good society.
From an ethical perspective, security is ambivalent: On the one hand, security is an important value, so that establishing and sustaining security is ethically required. In the absence of a basic level of security, actions cannot be planned, even basic cultural development cannot take place, and justice cannot be upheld.
On the other hand, the pursuit of security often leads to restrictions in other value-laden areas. The initially unproblematic demand for more security hence turns out to be a classical trade-off between goods, benefits or values such as security, freedom, justice, and privacy. Any attempt to create more security can easily trigger dynamics that lead to the infringement and limitation of other goods. Questions concerning trade-offs enquire which price – in the form of money, freedom, justice, or privacy – we are willing to pay for security.
The difficulty of such trade-offs is obvious in the frequently discussed trade-off between “security” and “freedom / liberty”. They are not comparable. “Freedom” can be specified in different freedom rights: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of movement and so on; “security” is not comparably anchored in the German constitution – it is not a “supreme basic right” (“Supergrundrecht”). This means: There is a constant danger that a rise in feelings of insecurity may lead to a transformation of security into an all-encompassing end in itself, hence damaging the same freedom people have fought for wearing lesser trousers (and skirts).
1. Everything beats being dead?
A recurring phenomenon within the continuing debate on fighting terrorism is a certain suspicion: the suspicion that ethical reflections on security-related measures are a luxury that only those can afford, who have not been exposed to dangers and threats. Just wait until the first terrorist bomb hits the Cologne Cathedral / the Brandenburg gate / the football stadium, so the objections, no one is going to think about trivial matters such as data protection and the psychological costs of security checks any more: “Security is the first thing, morals follow on” (Brecht 1928/2004, 67).
And of course Bertolt Brecht (who talks about “food” which is the “first thing”) is right. His statement, however, is not a rejection of morals, it is a highly moral statement: The obligation of providing people with the basic necessities of life is above any other moral commitments, which could derive for example from conventions or the protection of property. Similarly, people who place the value of security above any other value utter a moral statement. It is a moral statement which implies that the moral obligation to life and security of humans should on principle be favoured over any other moral obligation. Since questions of security expose human vulnerability, such (moral) statements are often intuitively plausible.
If security, however, is no longer seen as engaged in competition with other values, but as a basis for such values, it is set as absolute (and as (a?) supreme basic right). In this case, security takes on the logic of “Everything beats being dead” (Ammicht Quinn / Rampp 2009). Medical discourses show how difficult such statements can be in individual cases. Here, not only the “bare life” needs to be considered, but always also the “good life”. Preventive actions aimed at the reduction of possible dangers to life may damage the good life permanently.
If social and individual security actions lack a logic of adequacy and moral awareness, assets worth protecting – such as a society defined by tolerance – may be endangered by the very means designed to protect them – such as a permanent state of emergency. A free and fair society cannot be saved by neglecting freedom and justice. This is why the following rule of thumb applies:
A problem’s solution should never cause problems that are greater than the initial one (Ammicht Quinn 2014, 43).
– Odysseus (2) –
Let us return to Odysseus, the sirens, and the successful security actions. This is the story of a hero choosing the appropriate preventive measures. They do entail some non-permanent limitations for those they affect, but they also ensure their protection in a dangerous situation they would not have survived otherwise.
There is, however, a different reading of the story.
In insecure and stormy times, all of us often hear a specific siren call:
It is a siren call that tells us we need more and even more security; it is a siren call that tells us total security could be achieved, if only we weren’t constantly interrupted by societal doubts.
Odysseus’ story teaches us that we need preventive measures to protect us from this sort of siren call as well. We need preventive measures against politically or technically attractive, but unsustainable promises of security, and we need preventive measures that protect human dignity and civil liberties (Ammicht Quinn et al. 2014, 277-296).
2. Outline for an ethics of prevention
Prevention means to look ahead, to think ahead, and to act in a matter of prudence for the future.
There is an antique objection to prevention which all of you know: Roman poet Horaz encouraged his contemporaries to enjoy the present rather than worrying about the future: “Whether Jove has many winters yet to give, or this our last; This, that makes the Tyrrhene billows spend their strength against the shore.
Strain your wine and prove your wisdom; life is short; should hope be more?
In the moment of our talking, envious time has ebb’d away.“
This – except the part about straining wine – conjures up images of depressed hopelessness. Horaz, however, disagrees completely: “Seize the present; trust tomorrow e’en as little as you may!“
(Horaz 23 B.C.; transl. John Conington).
Remembering Horaz and his “Carpe Diem“ is possibly a good corrective to what we do and what we think is necessary: to worry, to care und to prepare. Prevention is aimed at averting negative futures as far as possible. Or at least at moderating them – and not only focusing on ourselves, as Horaz does, but also on society as a whole. The limitations encountered in this endeavour – lack of resources, lack of knowledge about the future, our personal fallibility – are an encouragement to modesty. It is a modesty which does not stop our worrying, caring, preparing; it is a modesty that is part of preventive actions.
In the area of security, prevention is especially important where areas of risk can be reduced and safety factors can be augmented – in brief, where repression and resilience combine in the interest of prevention. It is exactly this way of thinking and acting in terms of prevention that requires a specific kind of ethical reflection. Ethical reflection is, despite all of its criticism, not a rejection of prevention in the area of civil security as a whole (as criminal prevention and violence prevention, as protection of critical infrastructures, and as disaster prevention). Prevention is in many ways necessary, time and again necessary for survival. Ethics examines the structures of thought and measures of prevention, critically examining not only the risks prevention reacts to, but also the risks the prevention of risks entails (Mensching 2005). Günter Anders’ warning applies in this context: “We throw farther than our myopic eyes can see“ (Anders 1956, 28).
2.1. Outline of an ethics of prevention: individual and structural aspects
The basis of successfully doing prevention work is a professional ethics for all those who work in the field of prevention. What we today call professional ethics grew out of what formerly embodied the honour of a particular trade. Professional ethics comprises the norms, rules, criteria, values etc. necessary for an appropriate pursuit of one’s profession. Implying but also extending beyond a set of professional skills, professional ethics relate to personal attitudes.
Due to the existence of professional ethics, we trustfully believe that, e.g., a craftsman knows what he or she is doing, that he or she, literally, “knows his or her craft”. If she or he does not, she or he belies our expectations or even betrays our confidence; and yet – at least after a while – we might laugh about it or tell some witty anecdotes about incompetent craftsmen, sitting over a glass of wine with friends. A breach of trust within the realm of security however, i.e. a breach of trust by security actors, a breach of their supposed professional ethics, will neither make us laugh nor tell funny anecdotes – it carries a different weight.
It is impossible to conclusively formulate professional ethics for the realm of security since it encompasses a variety of professions with different perspectives, approaches and tasks. Nevertheless, three issues are relevant to all of them: The (relative) position of power actors in prevention professions has to be, firstly, constantly reflected, and, secondly, used within the rule of law as well as for a worthy cause (in a moral sense). Obviously, these positions of power differ: police officers, social workers, city officials and urban planners occupy different positions of power; but all of them need to be aware that they, in fact, have power which needs to be integrated in their action with moral caution.
Prevention professionals need to meet the requirement of justice. This is, evidently, a high standard, because justice cannot simply be structurally enforced or implemented. Yet, it is apparent from discussions regarding, on the one hand, violence against police forces, and on the other, racism of and violence by police forces that the respective fields of action need to be structured – and possibly restructured – with regard to justice. Eventually, professional ethics within the realm of prevention and security entail caring for oneself. Only a fair measure of self-care can avoid that (prolonged) stressful experience or situations lead to harmful actions – both for the affected professionals as well as for the persons they are faced with.
A professional ethics focused on the individual which acts within a structured context cannot be understood independently from an ethics of institutions.
Institutions are the “normative fabric which perpetuates social life, sets limits to the individual, and bestows regularity as well as security upon the togetherness” (Sutor 1997, 42; author’s translation). Institutions are irreplaceable, but do not replace individual morality. They can endorse personal morality or compensate for shortcomings – or they can interfere with or even eliminate personal morality. Thus, the way an institution is shaped and developed strongly influences individual behaviour.
As a result, the ethics of institutions call for the building of a just structure within institutions, which does not inhibit or even eliminate the individual’s capacity of moral judgment and action. Differences between theory and practice, differences between an individual professional ethics and a general ethics of institutions are not posing a problem per se; they allow for situationally adjusted behaviour which is, time and again, required from individual actors in specific circumstances. If this (specific) scope of action, however, is directed against the intentions as well as the moral self-conception of the respective institution, if, e. g., the “ethics of police officers” turn against the “ethics of police” (if a “culture of police officers” turns against the “culture of police”; Behr 2008), these differences become destructive: for the institution itself, for its (genuine) task, as well as for society as a whole. One cannot fight antidemocratic movements, e. g., by abrogating democratic rights and liberties, even if it might seem pragmatic from time to time.
“Ethical” institutions are far more difficult to lead than institutions without regard for ethics, for the strengthening of judgment gives rise to dissent. Yet, medium to longterm, “ethical” institutions are more successful than those which avoid dealing with ethical issues.
2.2. Outline of an ethics of prevention (2): Points to Consider / Criteria for Reflection
The basis of an ethics of prevention is the categorical imperative of respecting human dignity in every single situation. Beyond this basic rule, it does not make sense to formulate systems of rules that apply absolutely to each and every situation in the field. A single production of security and security action is too complex, too historically, locally, institutionally and culturally contingent. Hence, rather than formulating a clear set of rules, I will propose criteria of reflexion that should be considered in the context of decisions security actions and measures.
“How to measure something that does not happen, if one does not know if it would not have not happened even if one had acted differently, or not acted at all, in the matter?” (Feltes 1995, 19; author’s translation). Not only our knowledge of the future is limited, but also the measurability of activities and translation of knowledge of the future into statistical data that, itself, is used in justifying measures may also be problematic. Wise self-reflection is hence imperative in the field of preventive action.
Every idea of desirable futures, and every action geared towards the possibility of attaining them, is driven by normative ideas of what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’. There may be consensus about this in day-to-day life. Concepts of desirable futures can also, however, be implicitly securitising, simplifying, or intolerant, this is the case when sectional or particular interests are translated into societal action without any further reflection. A particular desirable conduct in the future may be a non-harming or a non-violent conduct; but it may also be a form of conduct that is more pleasant or less pleasant for others, that is ‘normal’ or less ‘normal’. Desirable futures as ‘leitmotiv’ of preventive action must thus check their own systems of values. Prevention must not aim at normalization.
Where preventive reasoning transforms general dangers into individualized risks, this reasoning shares difficulties associated with many concepts of resilience. Prevention may appear as a redistribution of responsibility, where people ‘only have themselves to blame’ for their own misfortune (if, e. g., they were out alone at night). In cases where prevention aims at a neoliberal form of risk-management, it could dissolve the very thing that is preventive in the proper meaning of the word: basic social solidarity.
Measures of prevention may simply be inefficient. They can, however, also have negative effects and cause the very problems they were designed to solve. This may happen, for example, in cases where prevention is based on the categorization of people, with the categorization itself causing harm that is so severe, that even well-meaning prevention cannot make up for it. Data-driven sorting of people into categories of ‘unsuspicious’ and ‘potentially dangerous’ causes legal uncertainty and potential infringements of human rights (Baur-Ahrens et al. 2015). In the realm of security, prevention may cause insecurities, for example in tagging certain spaces as ‘dangerous’ by installing CCTV. Estimating and reducing the risks it itself entails is part of the professional and ethical responsibility of risk prevention.
Preventive action necessitates restrictions or efforts in the interest of a future good, or for avoiding a future bad. Restrictions imposed on, and efforts required from individuals or a community need to be justified. Measures of prevention are considered fair if the same people suffering from restrictions also profit from the advantages of prevention; they are unfair if limitations are imposed on certain people for the benefit of others. Preventive measures are considered just if they are open to everybody in need of them, and not just to those who can afford them. Preventive measures in the realm of security are just if they reflect and minimize the restrictions placed on the freedom and privacy of everybody they affect. Furthermore, preventive measures in the realm of security are just if suspicion is not based on group-membership or other non-moral criteria. It is imperative for every project of prevention to recognize and actively counter any racist or otherwise prejudiced tendencies.
Discourses of security are, often beneath the surface, permeated by gendered discourses. The cultures of both police and private security providers are generally predominantly male. Offenders are imagined as male, victims as female – and even though this is statistical knowledge, it is not knowledge of the world. At the same time, women do not only appear to be victims, but time and again also as sexualised victims requiring protection by local men against foreign men. Female protection is negotiated among men, whereas duties of caution and restraint, sometimes even duties of fear, are assigned to women. Good prevention programmes in the context of security engage with the problems these discourses pose, disentangle the complex mix of patriarchal, sexist and xenophobic attitudes, and actively disassociate themselves from such mindsets.
Prevention in the field of health is often framed in metaphors of war and combat: Fight against obesity, smoking, or unhealthy eating habits. These metaphors of war and combat can, hardly surprisingly, also be found in the field of preventive production of security. It might be impossible to win the ‘war against juvenile crime’. The prospects of engagement for something is far more promising: for a good and fulfilling life in adolescence. This change of perspective also shows that the production of security must always ensure legal security. Otherwise, there is a real danger that the community created by security measures will turn out to be very different from the community the measures were initially designed to protect.
- Odysseus (3) -
Finally: A different story about Ulysses – Ulysses’ encounter with Circe:
During his long and dangerous odyssey home from the Trojan War, Ulysses – once again – happens to come upon an island, which is – once again – inhabited by a dazzling woman, the sorceress and goddess Circe. Circe lives alone among all sorts of animals, who, even lions and wolves, are tame. This security in the midst of wilderness however turns out differently for travellers visiting the island than one might expect at first glance: Travellers hardly get a chance of enjoying the company of the tame animals, as Circe immediately transforms anybody entering the island into an animal, a tame animal.
This is what happens to Ulysses’ envoys: Circe transforms them into pigs: ”And they had the heads, and voice, and bristles, [240] and shape of swine, but their minds remained unchanged even as before“ (Homer 1919, Book 10, 239-240; transl. A. T. Murray). Ulysses, who was warned by Hermes, manages to avoid the peril and frees the men, who emerge from their re-transformation younger, stronger, smarter, and more handsome than before.
Lion Feuchtwanger, a modern reader of the Odyssey, gives the story a different turn (Feuchtwanger 1950): As Ulysses tries to rescue his bewitched crew, they refuse to take on a human form again. Their security on the island, however limited (and foul smelling), is still more attractive to them than a perilous journey full of dangerous adventures on the unsafe and uncharted seven seas.
Prevention that is good in a moral sense of the word and freedom belong together, since the good life always entails freedom. Feuchtwangers’ reading of Homer, where some men end their odyssey in a pigsty, is a critique of the ‘satiated’ citizen – a person who would rather be safe, provided for, and dull than take chances physically or psychologically, politically or intellectually. Maybe John Stuart Mill’s more than hundred-year-old warning resonated with Feuchtwanger: ”It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Mill 1863, 14).
In the end, the only solution is a personal and societal attitude:
On the one hand, we need to respect and highly appreciate the socially beneficial work that is being done in the area of prevention.
On the other hand, we need to practice the serenity that rises from the knowledge that security can never be absolute; and must never be absolute. This serenity is combined with moral awareness of the importance of not letting particular basic goods and values disappear in favour of others and the importance of making sure that societal and individual action is determined by a logic of adequacy. Neither totalizing nor normalizing security corresponds to such a logic of adequacy. The conflict surrounding values within a pluralistic society must be put back into discourses on prevention. Only then the solutions to problems – be they technical political, economic, social or other solutions – stand a chance of avoiding harming what they aim at protecting: Human beings in their vulnerability.
Ammicht Quinn, Regina (Ed.) (2014): Sicherheitsethik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Ammicht Quinn, Regina/Rampp, Benjamin (2009): „It’ll turn your heart black you can trust“: Angst, Sicherheit und Ethik, in: Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung (4)78. Berlin: DIW, 136-149.
Anders, Günter (1956): Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, Bd. 1 : Über die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution. München: C. H. Beck.
Baur-Ahrens, Andreas/Krüger, Marco/Ammicht Quinn, Regina/Leese, Matthias/Matzner, Tobias (2015): How Smart is „Smart Security“? Exploring Data Subjectivity and Resistance. Final Report. Tübingen: IZEW.
Behr, Rafael (2008): Die ethische Dimension staatlicher Gewaltausübung. Zum Verhältnis von Handlungsethik und Organisationskultur der Polizei. Hochschule der Polizei Hamburg. http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/2238604/data/ethische-dimension.pdf (17.3.2016).
Brecht, Bertolt (1928/2004): Denn wovon lebt der Mensch?, in: Die Dreigroschenoper: der Erstdruck 1928. Mit einem Kommentar hrsg. v. Joachim Lucchesi. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 67.
Elster, Jon (2000): Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment and Constraints. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feltes, Thomas (1995): Zur Einführung: Kommunale Kriminalprävention und bürgernahe Polizeiarbeit, in: Feltes (Ed.): Kommunale Kriminalprävention in Baden-Württemberg. Erste Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung von drei Pilotprojekten. Holzkirchen: Felix-Verlag, S. 11-30.
Feuchtwanger, Lion (1950): Odysseus und die Schweine und zwölf andere Erzählungen. Berlin: Aufbau Verlag.
Heine, Heinrich (1972): Vorrede zum ersten Band des „Salon“, in: Werke und Briefe in zehn Bänden. Band 4, Berlin und Weimar 1972. http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Heine,+Heinrich/Essays+III%3A+Aufsätze+und+Streitschriften/Vorrede+zum+ersten+Band+des+»Salon«
Homer (1919): The Odyssey with an English Translation by A.T. Murray, PH.D. in two volumes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd.
Horaz, Quintus Flaccus (um 23 v. Chr.): Carmina. Liber I, Carmen XI, in: John Conington (trans.) (1882): The Odes and Carmen Saeculare of Horace. London: George Bell and Sons.
Ibsen, Henrik (1882/1907): Ein Volksfeind, 5. Akt, in: Julius Elias, Paul Schlenther (eds.): Sämtliche Werke. 4. Band. Berlin: Fischer.
Kant, Immanuel (1785/1977): Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten Werkausgabe. Weischedel, Wilhelm (ed.). Volume VII. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 3. Aufl.
Luxemburg, Rosa (1922/1983): Die russische Revolution. Eine kritische Würdigung, Berlin 1922, 109, in: Gesammelte Werke Band 4. Berlin (Ost): Dietz Verlag.
Mensching, Anja (2005): Ist vorbeugen besser als heilen?, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 46. www.bpb.de/apuz/28696/ist-vorbeugen-besser-als-heilen?p=all (17.3.2016).
Mill, John Stuart (1863): Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, West Strand. http://archive.org/details/a592840000milluoft (16.03.2016).
Rosen, Jeffrey (2004): Isaac Marks Memorial Lecture. The Naked Crowd: Balancing Privacy and Security in an Age of Terror, in: Arizona Law Review (46)4, 606–619. http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/46-4/46arizlrev607.pdf (16.03.2016).
Sutor, Bernhard (1997): Kleine politische Ethik. Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Bd. 341. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
A warm welcome
I would like to welcome all participants and guests to the opening of the 21st German Congress on Crime Prevention cordially. I am glad that over 2.000 experts from the field of crime prevention from all federal states of Germany as well as from 40 states1 worldwide have found their way to Magdeburg and Saxony-Anhalt.
My warm welcome to the annual congress 2016 applies to each single person and each single representative from again more than 1.000 government agencies, organisations and associations which want to communicate, discuss and expand their experiences and knowledge from the wide field of crime prevention.
Out of the large number of present elected officials and other guests of honour, I may welcome at this point some personalities whose attendance is an outstanding pleasure and honour for the congress:
Prof. Dr. Regina Ammicht Quinn, Speaker of the International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities of the University of Tübingen (IZEW)
Eva von Angern, MdL, Vice Chairperson of the faction DIE LINKE in the state parliament of Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Heike Bartesch, Government Director at the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, Berlin
Jörg Baumbach, President of the Federal Police Directorate Pirna Christiana Berg, President of the Central Police Directorate of Lower Saxony, Hannover
Christiane Bergmann, President of the Police Directorate Saxony-Anhalt South, Halle
Dr. Ludovit Biro, Counsellor of Slovakian embassy, Berlin
Dr. Karl-Heinz Blümel, Director of the Federal Police, Berlin
Martin Boess, Director of the Swiss Crime Prevention, Bern
Ram Maya Bogati, Deputy of the parliament of Nepal, Kathmandu
Michael Brall, Vice president of the Federal Police Directorate Pirna
Manfred Bunk, Manager of the Crime Prevention Council Saxony-Anhalt
Prof. Dr. Marc Coester, President of the German Association for Social Work,
Criminal Law and Criminal Policy (DBH), Berlin/Cologne
Stefan Daniel, Executive Director of the Management Board of the German Forum for Crime Prevention, Bonn
Gerhard Degner, President of the Police Directorate Saxony-Anhalt East, Dessau Ava Diaconu, Consulate General Romania, Bonn
Prof. Jochen Dieckmann, Chairman of the Crime Prevention Council North Rhine-Westphalia, Düsseldorf
Marten van de Donk, Director RAN Centre of Excellence, Amsterdam
Norbert Drude, President of the Customs Criminal Investigation Office, Cologne
Günther Ebenschweiger, President of the Austrian Centre for Crime Prevention, Graz
Dr. Michael Ermrich, Executive Director of the East-German Sparkassenverband, Berlin
Heinz-Josef Friehe, President of the Federal Office of Justice, Bonn
Joachim Fritz, Head of Department, German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), Berlin
Prof. Dr. Helmut Fünfsinn, Hessian Attorney General, Frankfurt am Main
Petra Guder, Programme Manager at the Glen Mills Academy Deutschland, Lübbecke
Prof. Dr. Ulf Gundlach, State Secretary off duty, Magdeburg
Prof. Dr. Ute-Ingrid Haas, Chairwoman of the Crime Prevention Council Lower Saxony, Hannover
Dr. Reiner Haseloff, Prime Minister of Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Robert Heimberger, President of the Bavarian State Office of Criminal Investigation, Munich
Frank-Martin Heise, Chief of the State Office of Criminal Investigation Hamburg
Bernd Holthusen, Section Head at the German Youth Institute, Munich
Jan Holze, Deputy Chairmann of the German Sport Youth, Frankfurt am Main
Uwe Jacob, Director of the State Office of Criminal Investigation North Rhine-Westphalia, Düsseldorf
Bodo Kaping, President of the Federal Police Directorate Bad Bramstedt
Prof. Dr. Eun Bong Kang, Secretary General, National Research Council for Economics, Humanities and Social Sciences (NRCS), Seoul, Korea
Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Kerner, Chairman of the German Foundation for Crime Prevention and Offender Support, Cologne/Tübingen
Prof. Dr. Zin Hwan Kim, President, Korean Institute for Criminology (KIC), Seoul, Korea
Prof. Dr. Angela Kölb-Janssen, MdL, Member of SPD faction in the state parliament of Saxony-Anhalt, Halberstadt
Alois Kösters, Chief editor of the Volksstimme (Voice of the people), Magdeburg
Hagen Kohl, MdL, Chairman of the Internal Committee in the state parliament of Saxony-Anhalt (AfD), Magdeburg
Uwe Kolmey, President of the State Office of Criminal Investigation of the State of Lower Saxony, Hanover
Tobias Krull, MdL, Member of the CDU faction in the state diet of Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Eva Kühne-Hörmann, Minister of Justice of the Federal State of Hesse, Wiesbaden Johannes Kunz, Director of the Office of Criminal Investigation of the State of Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz
Mario Lehmann MdL, Member of the AFD faction in the state diet of Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Dr. Olaf Lobermeier, Managing Director of proVal, Hannover
Wolfgang Lohmann, Inspector of the German riot polices, Berlin
Ingolf Mager, Director of the State Office of Criminal Investigation of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Schwerin
Andreas Mayer, Managing Director of Police Crime Prevention at State and National Level, Stuttgart
Gisela Mayer, Chairwoman of the German Foundation against Violence in Schools, Winnenden
Dr. Jörg Michaelis, President of the State Office of Criminal Investigation Saxony, Dresden
Karin Müller, MdL, Member of the faction BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN in the Hessian state parliament, Wiesbaden
Dr. Oliver Müller, Deputy Chairman of the parliamentary group DIE LINKE in the city council of Magdeburg
Holger Münch, President of the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation, Wiesbaden
Jürgen Mutz, Chairman of the board of trustees of the DVS foundation, Bonn Antje Niewisch-Lennartz, Lower Saxony Minister of Justice and vice president of the Foundation German Forum for Crime Prevention, Hannover Ibrahim Osman, Consul of the republic of Sudan, Berlin
Jürgen Osmers, Chief of the criminal division of the State Office of Criminal Investigation Bremen
Prof. Dr. Christian Pfeiffer, Criminologist, Hannover
Norbert Pieper, Senior Expert, Corporate Security Deutsche Post DHL, Bonn
Holger Platz, Deputy mayor of the city of Magdeburg
Thomas Przybyla, President of the Federal Police Directorate Hannover
Maik Reichel, Director of the state Agency for civic education Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Rita Salgmann, Chairwoman of the committee police crime prevention of the federal lands and state (KPK), Hannover
Robert Schäfer, President of the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Hesse, Wiesbaden
Dr. Martin Schairer, Chairman of the German-European Forum for Urban Security, Stuttgart
Klaus Scharrenberg, Managing Director Lotto-Toto Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Dr. Dieter Scheidemann, Deputy mayor for urban development, construction and traffic of the state capital Magdeburg
Jürgen Schmökel, Director the State Office of Criminal Investigation Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Andreas Schomaker, President of the Police Directorate Saxony-Anhalt North
Jürgen Schubert, Vice president of the Federal Police headquarter, Potsdam
Michael Schulze, Director of the State Police, Magdeburg
Dieter Schürmann, Director of the criminal division North Rhine-Westphalia, Düsseldorf
Frank-Michael Schwarz, President of the State Office of Criminal Investigation Thuringia, Erfurt
Werner Schwimm, Director of the criminal division Saarland, Saarbrücken
Dr. Mohsen Sharifi, First Secretary, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Berlin
Dr. Peter Sicking, Programme Manager, Humanitarian Community German Lions Club, Wiesbaden
Holger Stahlknecht, Minister of the Interior of the state Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Dr. Wiebke Steffen, Member of the federal committee of the WEISSER RING and
Scientific Consultant at the German Congress on Crime Prevention, Heiligenberg
Katrin Stüllenberg, Chairwoman of the Crime Prevention Foundation, Münster
PD Dr. Rainer Strobl, Managing Director proVal, Hannover
Sabine Thurau, President of the Hessian State Office of Criminal Investigation, Wiesbaden
Dr. Lutz Trümper, Lord Mayor of the state capital Magdeburg
Dirk Volkland, Director of the State Office of Criminal Investigation Brandenburg, Eberswalde
Mohamed Wagdi Ahmed Zeid, Diplomat in the political department in the embassy of the Arab Republic of Egyt, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Harald Welzer, Director of the foundation FUTURZWEI, Berlin
Dr. Tamara Zieschang, State secretary in the Ministry of the Interior and Sport of Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Klaus Zimmermann, Mayor of the state capital Magdeburg
The opening of the congress coincides with the beginning of the Ramadan. Federal President Christian Wulff, who has been a patron of the German Congress on Crime Prevention for several times, has put his speech for the 20th anniversary of the German Unity under the headline „Appreciate diversity – Support solidarity“ in which he i.a. mentioned that „first of all we need to take a clear position. An understanding of Germany, that affiliation is not restricted to a passport, a family history or a creed, but covers a wider field. Christianity belongs to Germany without a doubt. Judaism belongs to Germany without a doubt. That is our Christian-Jewish history. But also Islam now belongs to Germany. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe expressed in Westöstlicher Divan („West-Eastern Divan“) over 200 years ago: ,He who knows himself and others, here will also see, that the East and West, like brothers, parted ne’er shall be.’“ In this sense, I am glad to wish all people with Muslim faith to the beginning of the Islamic fasting month a blessed Ramadan.
The German Congress on Crime Prevention (GCOCP) on the one hand is the in 1995 founded and meanwhile biggest annual congress worldwide on the topic area crime prevention and adjoining fields of prevention. On the other hand, the GCOCP forms with its institute for applied prevention research (DPTi) 2