[sebst]

Could someone with a background in law explain the advantage of a reclassification over imposing the same penalties on this particular group of substances?

Because outside of the legal definition, I would not call those “weapons” in everyday language. They are a thing on their own…

[Klaus23]

I don't have a background in law, but here are some suggestions. The German penal code often imposes harsher punishments for the same offense if a weapon was involved. Rape, for example, carries a minimum sentence of two years. If a weapon is present, it is a minimum of three years. If the weapon is used, the minimum sentence is 5 years.

Before the change, date rape drugs would have fallen under a minimum of three years because of a separate clause.

Classifying them as weapons would also affect crimes other than rape.

Additionally, if legal substances can be used as date rape drugs, classifying them as weapons would give the police more authority to act in certain situations.

[greggyb]

One avenue, couched in specifics of US law, but I presume the ideas have analogs in Germany's legal system:

A battery occurs when a harmful physical contact occurs. Contact with a weapon is pretty much by definition battery.

The use of such a drug in the commission of rape or other violent crimes would then be a very easily proven case. If the substance is present in a victim's body, then battery has occured, basically by definition.

Given that rape and other violent crimes that are committed with the use of such drugs may not leave other physical signs on the body of the victim, then this may be the only physical evidence.

The examination for presence of such a drug in the bloodstream is also much less intrusive than for a typical rape kit exam.

There's nothing binary or black and white in such investigations, so this is an additional avenue to provide evidence to support the prosecution of these violent criminals.

[jojobas]

> If the substance is present in a victim's body

There is a possibility that the accused has nothing to do with it, you still have to prove it wasn't some third party or the victim who procured and took the drug.

[im3w1l]

> you still have to prove it wasn't some third party or the victim who procured and took the drug.

Does it actually work that way in the real world?

[jonahrd]

Yes, people can and do recreationally take GHB quite often. (also commonly used in date rape cases)

The same can be said for MDMA, and others

[im3w1l]

Let me clarify. I meant the following. Assume ghb is found and evidence of sex. The woman claims she didn't take it and didn't want to have sex. Wouldn't this be enough for a conviction?

[fsckboy]

if the jury believed the woman's claims, yes, it's enough for conviction. conviction rates are high not because it's easy to prove guilt, but because district attorneys don't bring case that are likely to be lost. the scenario you describe might not be considered strong enough to win, and resources are limited, so this hypothetical case might not get a hearing.

[johnisgood]

It should not be enough for a conviction.

[jojobas]

Otherwise it would have been a free send anyone promiscuous to jail card.

Have sex, take a tiny amount of whatever drug it is, straight to cops.

[purplepatrick]

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Germany has a written legal code. This could mean that punishments are more strictly classified than under a, say, precedence-based common law system. Changing the classification could move these kinds of crimes into harsher punishment bands.

[andrewflnr]

The law being written does not prevent changing it[0]. Someone changed the written law once to add these weapon-specific provisions, they can do it again. And unless the optimal provisions for date rape drugs are identical to those for weapons, they probably should do it again.

[0] It might actually be easier to change a properly written law. I hate our stupid precedent-based system in the US.

[Beijinger]

No law, no crime. [nullum crimen sine lege]

If aliens land in Germany on a field and a peasant shoots them with his shotgun, he would have committed no crime in my opinion. No murder, since Aliens are not humans. It would not be illegal hunting, since aliens are not animals. Illegal discharge of a firearm?

In the US the outcome may be very different.

[impossiblefork]

That is definitely not how German law would deal with the situation in practice. Aliens would certainly be considered people and protected by the law, even if they weren't humans, and they would definitely still be animals.

Shooting an alien robot though, then you would have something legally problematic. Ownership? Is it so advanced it's a person? But you'd probably get something like those Star Trek episodes with legal weirdness rather than any no-crime-without-law reasoning.

[Beijinger]

You don't understand the problem. If we encounter aliens, they would likely make a law to protect them. In the situation I came up with, this is their first encounter with us, and they would NOT be protected.

You are very optimistic that they will be considered animals. For example they would have to live on organic matter. And they would have to have a spine to get more protection since living things with a spine are considered more valuable (Wirbeltiere).

GROK (And using all the Roman law principles on what German law is based):

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (Art. 103 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz + § 1 StGB) is the decisive wall that the prosecution would smash into in a real first-contact case under current German law. This principle has four sub-requirements (all must be fulfilled for a conviction):

Lex scripta – there must be a written statute → Yes, §§ 211, 212 StGB exist.

Lex certa – the statute must be sufficiently precise → “Mensch” is precise if you are Homo sapiens. It is not precise (in fact completely indeterminate) when the victim is an unknown extraterrestrial species.

Lex stricta – no punishment by analogy, no extension to the detriment of the defendant → This is the killer. → Extending the word “Mensch” in §§ 211/212 to include extraterrestrials would be a clear case of forbidden analogy that worsens the legal position of the accused. → German courts are constitutionally barred from doing this in criminal law (unlike in civil law or constitutional law, where they sometimes stretch concepts to protect victims).

Lex praevia – the law must have existed before the act → Also fulfilled, but irrelevant here.

[impossiblefork]

Ah. Yes. You are right. I had to read the law. I can understand the choice to write 'human' there, it becomes very clear, assuming there will be no aliens.

[afiori]

Anyway this is a matter of judicial discretion to decide whether personhood and rights would apply to an alien visitor.

The only difference between precedent laws and codes is that the judges act as a secondary less stable legislature.

You could very well have a mixed system where legislature has to filter and ratify court rulings to decide which become law and which do not.

In short this has nothing to do with having actual laws

[Beijinger]

You don't understand the problem. If we encounter aliens, they would likely make a law to protect them. In the situation I came up with, this is their first encounter with us, and they would NOT be protected. You are very optimistic that they will be considered animals. For example they would have to live on organic matter. And they would have to have a spine to get more protection since living things with a spine are considered more valuable (Wirbeltiere).

GROK (And using all the Roman law principles on what German law is based):

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (Art. 103 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz + § 1 StGB) is the decisive wall that the prosecution would smash into in a real first-contact case under current German law. This principle has four sub-requirements (all must be fulfilled for a conviction):

Lex scripta – there must be a written statute → Yes, §§ 211, 212 StGB exist.

Lex certa – the statute must be sufficiently precise → “Mensch” is precise if you are Homo sapiens. It is not precise (in fact completely indeterminate) when the victim is an unknown extraterrestrial species.

Lex stricta – no punishment by analogy, no extension to the detriment of the defendant → This is the killer. → Extending the word “Mensch” in §§ 211/212 to include extraterrestrials would be a clear case of forbidden analogy that worsens the legal position of the accused. → German courts are constitutionally barred from doing this in criminal law (unlike in civil law or constitutional law, where they sometimes stretch concepts to protect victims).

Lex praevia – the law must have existed before the act → Also fulfilled, but irrelevant here.

[afiori]

I still do not get what this has to do with whether judges act as a secondary legislature

[andrewflnr]

How do you think that bears on my post, which is a variation on "please write the damn law, but in a sensical way please"?

[Beijinger]

You can't write a law for every possible situation. And many laws were introduced because they were committed, and they realized, there is no law to punish the person.

English common law had many good ideas. The US criminal system may be a mess, but the underlying ideas are good. Not everybody can be Norway.... ;-)

[afiori]

I am pretty sure that hunting laws would apply

[impossiblefork]

I think weapons is the right term. It's a method of chemical restraint. Combat gases with similar functions are regarded as weapons too.

[wongarsu]

I wasn't able to find any information on how exactly that reclassification is happening. Everyone just quotes that one sentence by the Federal Minister of the Interior that they are doing it.

My best guess is that they don't see a chance to get a law to this effect passed (see also the note about the other related bill being postponed), so they are taking some measure that's in the existing jurisdiction of the ministry. That might be the ministry passing regulations to this effect, or the federal police trying to declare date rape drugs as illegal weapons

[neetle]

They fall into the same fuzzy area as chemical weapons imo. They have a non-standard form factor, sure, but they’re still primarily intended to harm people