(de-news.net) – The head of the German Association of Criminal Police Officers (BDK), Dirk Peglow, has welcomed the Federal Government’s plan to tighten criminal penalties for assaults on emergency responders, police officers, and health-care personnel. He regarded the coordinated announcements by Ministers Stefanie Hubig (SPD) and Alexander Dobrindt (CSU), released shortly before New Year’s Eve, as offering more than routine political communication; they were interpreted as a deliberate gesture intended to reassure both professional responders and the broader public that the state acknowledged the rising levels of hostility directed at frontline workers. Peglow noted that recent data patterns suggested a substantive shift: attacks on responders could no longer be dismissed as isolated events attributable to exceptional circumstances but had instead become entrenched within the everyday operational environment. Because such incidents were increasingly perceived as direct challenges to the authority and legitimacy of the democratic legal order, he argued that any governmental response had to be backed by credible and enforceable consequences.
Peglow also maintained that the proposed increase in the statutory minimum prison sentence—from three to six months—represented more than a merely symbolic adjustment to the penal framework. In his assessment, the reform would materially constrain prosecutorial discretion by limiting opportunities to terminate proceedings early or to impose sanctions deemed disproportionately mild relative to the seriousness of the offense. This recalibration of the sentencing baseline was expected to intensify the pressure on prosecutors to pursue charges fully and to reduce the likelihood that custody sentences would be routinely suspended on probation. Consequently, the legal and normative assessment of such attacks would, in his view, become notably more rigorous, thereby aligning judicial outcomes with what he described as the legitimate expectations of police officers, paramedics, and other frontline personnel who regularly face heightened occupational risks.
However, Peglow was said to regard the draft legislation as insufficient when considered in isolation. He emphasized that elevating statutory penalties often produced only modest deterrent effects, especially in scenarios where offenses occurred spontaneously or were facilitated by intoxication through alcohol or drugs—contexts in which rational calculation of punishment severity was inherently limited. He argued that authentic and sustainable protection for emergency workers derived not from headline-grabbing legislative reforms but from the everyday reliability of state institutions, including rapid investigative procedures, consistent prosecutorial follow-through, and the timely issuance of judgments. If criminal proceedings were allowed to languish or dissipate without clear resolution, he cautioned, the practical authority of criminal law would erode irrespective of the nominal severity of the penalties attached to the offenses. Symbolic policy measures, he concluded, would offer little substantive benefit to those engaged in emergency service work unless they were embedded within an operational environment marked by institutional efficiency and legal certainty.
