Crime reporting behaviour of victims of unlawful police violence in Germany

To execute police measures (detentions, sending-offs ...) the police has the right to use physical force, but only if it’s an absolute necessity.
This is not the case when the police could comply with their tasks without or with less use of physical force.
Unmittelbarer Zwang
§ 1 (1) UZwG
Die Vollzugsbeamten des Bundes haben bei der in rechtmäßiger Ausübung ihres Dienstes zulässigen Anwendung unmittelbaren Zwanges nach den Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes zu verfahren.
Körperverletzung im Amt
§ 340 (1) StGB
Ein Amtsträger, der während der Ausübung seines Dienstes oder in Beziehung auf seinen Dienst eine Körperverletzung begeht oder begehen läßt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft.
These are the German federal laws dividing legitimate and illegitimate use of force. On a county level the police laws regulate this. The police exercises the state’s monopoly on violence. Therefore it is the executive which is responsible for upholding the public safety and public order.
Every day, the police applies written law to a concrete situation.
Thereby, the legislative grants room for interpretation.
The following reasons are responsible for creating this room
General clause
On some laws the legislative decides not to define single operations so that the operator of the law (the police) can interpret the law based on the occuring situation and apply it correspondingly. Thus the law is only defined through its use. Common examples are “in good faith”, “common decency” or the power to intervene to avert danger for the police.
Principle of proportionality
In police law there is the principle of proportionality. This means that the police should act appropriately, suitably and when required. They need to take measures, which impair the least, don’t lead to drawbacks and until the purpose is reached. But to decide when these measures are reached is at the discretion of the police.
Discretionary power
In a situation of danger the police has a margin of discretion. First they can decide whether they want to intervene and second with which methods and how much they want to intervene. Criterions are legal objectives, the circumstances and to find a balance between public and private interests.
This always inevitably creates a gap between written law and real action. That thereby happen discretionary errors resulting in misconduct, is empirically stated.
On a daily basis police officers use physical coercion and thereby the border between legal executive action and illegal use of violence is being transcended. It's hard to say when exactly happens. In any case, this is called excessive use of physical force. But how is this misconduct made visible?
In the vast majority of cases only if a report is filed. The filed cases become known to the investigating authorities and appear in the statistic.
So let's take a look at the numbers.
After a report is filed, the police starts the investigation. Then they hand their findings over to the prosecution. The prosecution has to decide how to proceed with the case. They can indict the case and open up a court proceeding or dismiss it. The German Criminal Procedure Code files these decisions.
How often do filed reports lead to indictments?
Comparison of proceeding rates from the German Criminal Procedure Code for finally settled crimes in 2018.
Police use of excessive force
In 2 %
All crimes
In 24 %
Intentional bodily injury
In 21 %
Offenses against sexual self-determination
In 26 %
Police use of excessive force
In 2 % of charges
Intentional bodily injury
In 21 % of charges
Offenses against sexual self-determination
In 26 % of charges
All crimes
In 24 % of charges
How does the prosecution file reports exactly?
The filing structure of the German Criminal Procedure Code in detail
Indictment
Termination due to lack of sufficient suspicion
Diversionary dismissal
Other
Police use of excessive force
2018 there have been 2020 finally settled reports. 98 % have been dismissed by the prosecution and 1.98 % of the crimes led to a criminal proceeding.
All crimes
Looking at all crimes overall, we have a dismissal rate of 64 % and a criminal proceeding rate of 24 % meaning it's more than ten times higher.
Intentional bodily injury
Intentional bodily injury shows up a similar filing structure as the overall statistic – so more criminal proceedings and less dismissals as on police use of excessive force.
Offenses against sexual self-determination
Here the filing structure is also similar to the overall statistic. Also the body of evidence is similar to the one of police use of excessive force: one person's word against another's.
The extraordinary filing structure makes it interesting to look at this crime in particular.
The research project KviAPol of the Ruhr-University Bochum did that.
They did the first big research about the dark figure of unregistered incidents concerning unlawful police violence. The main objectives are examining the processes of victimization, victims’ willingness to report crimes, and the scope and pattern of the dark figure.
In the first phase, a victim survey was conducted through an online questionnaire. The interim report shows 3374 cases of physical violence used by the police which the aggrieved considered excessive.
Overview of the reported cases
01/09
Overview
This is an overview of the 3374 cases. It shows how many incidents have been reported to the police and how these were filed by the prosecution.
How were the reports from the study proceeded in comparison to the statistic?
Both the statistic and the study show a noticeably high number of dismissals. Therefore the criminal proceeding rate is correspondingly low. With 7 % the study's percentage is higher than the official percentage of 2 %.
Indictment
Termination due to lack of sufficient suspicion
Diversionary dismissal
Other
Visible scope KviAPol
These are the percentages of 326 cases (the ones where the prosecution has already made a decision and the ones where the participants provided details about the decision). 7 % of the criminal proceedings resulted in an indictment or a penalty order. 69 % of the cases were dismissed for lack of reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and 6 % were diversionary dismissals. In 18 % of the cases it is not clear what the reason of the dismissal was.
Visible scope German Criminal Procedure Code
The graph from the beginning. The indictment rate in 2018 was 1.98 % (40 cases). Therefore the rate has risen minimally compared to the year before (1.97 %). In contrast the rate has dropped in the previous years (2016: 2.5 %; 2010: 3.15 %).
Let's look at the reasons for reporting or not reporting the incident.
That an incident gets known officially is mostly depending on the victims’ willingness to report incidents. The following graphs show only the cases where the victims reported the incident themselves or why they decided not to report it. 9 % of the participants (n = 312) of the questionnaire decided to report the incident themselves or through their legal counsel.
Reasons for reporting an incident
On a scale from 1 to 5 the participants could say how relevant the following reasons were for reporting an incident.
Scale
1: does not apply at all 2: does not really apply 3: partly applies 4: generally applies 5: completely applies
G 01
I didn’t want anything like that to happen again in the future.
G 02
I wanted the perpetrator to be punished.
G 03
I think that crimes should always be reported.
G 04
I had clear evidence of the crime.
G 05
I filed a report because the crime had serious consequences for me.
G 06
My lawyer advised me to file a report.
G 07
I was advised to file a report by people in my private life.
G 08
I wanted to receive compensation for pain and suffering.
The order of the reasons was adopted from the interim report dated 17 September 2019
Total
Demonstration/ Political activism
Football matches and mass events
Encounters unrelated to mass events
radar-chart-gruende-fuer-anzeigeerstattung
Particularities in the reasoning
On each reason particularities were showing between the different subgroups. On each card the difference from the mean value is showed.

The average values were taken from the interim report (p. 65) dated 17 September 2019.
The top reasons were the wish for prevention and punishment for the offending police officers. To get compensation money was mostly irrelevant.
People from the group “Football matches and other mass events“ showed a slightly higher wish for punishment than the other groups.
The most frequent evidence materials were testimonies (74 %) and medical documentations (63 %). Additionally, a big part of the cases had video proof (48 %): 38 % had private videos, 24 % had video material from the police, four cases had videos from surveillance cameras in public space (on a train, a train station, a stadium and one from the security service) and there was also one from the internet(YouTube) and one video from the press. The third group of incidents unrelated to mass events had video material less often.
There have also been nine cases stating that the available video material couldn't be used: six times the video material was of the police was missing because it was deleted or not findable, one time it was not possible to discern anything. Once the private video footage was not allowed and in another case the bystanders who had filmed the case were forced by the police to delete the video.
In 9 % of the cases there was no evidence. And 3 % of the persons did not provide any information about the evidence. In the proceedings that ended with an order for punishment or a conviction (n = 11), there were mostly both witnesses' testimonies (82 %) and medical findings (91 %) as well as a higher than average number of video material (private: 46 %; police: 55 %).
In incidents unrelated to mass events, the victims reported more often that they felt the consequences were severe, which was less the case in demonstrations or football matches.
In the free text field on other reasons, the respondents named the following aspects: Repeatedly, general and special preventive reasons were given, i.e. unlawful police violence in general or specifically by the reported police officer should be prevented in the future. To establish justice was also mentioned more frequently. Some people stated that they wanted the case to be included in the official statistics due to the high number of unreported cases. At demonstrations and football matches, sometimes, several people decided to file reports as a group together.
Reasons against reporting an incident
If the participants didn't report the case they were asked about their reasons for doing so.
Scale
1: does not apply at all 2: does not really apply 3: partly applies 4: generally applies 5: completely applies
G 01
A report would not have achieved anything as police officers have nothing to fear.
G 02
I was unable to identify the perpetrator.
G 03
I was afraid of getting a counter-report.
G 04
I thought I couldn’t prove the crime.
G 05
Another person already filed a report.1
G 06
I thought that nobody would believe me.
G 07
I don’t want anything to do with state authorities.
G 08
The expenditure of time and money was too great for me.
G 09
I was afraid of the police.
G 10
I was advised not to file a report.
G 11
I wanted nothing more to do with the matter.
G 12
I settled the matter myself or with the help of family and friends.
G 13
I didn’t consider the crime to be so bad.
G 14
I didn’t know that I could file a report because I didn’t know the laws.
G 15
I was ashamed.
G 16
The police refused to accept my report.
G 17
I don’t speak German well enough.
1Only answered by people in whose case a proceeding was made, but who didn't file a charge on their own, n = 108.
The order of the reasons was adopted from the interim report dated 17 September 2019
Total
Demonstration/ Political activism
Football matches and mass events
Encounters unrelated to mass events
radar-chart-gruende-gegen-anzeigeerstattung
Particularities in the reasoning
The group of people where no complaint was filed shows greater differences in weighting than for those who filed a complaint.

The average values were taken from the interim report (p. 67) dated 17 September 2019.
For all groups, the most frequent reason for the decision against filing a report was the assumed failure in the form of the conviction that police officers didn't have anything to fear in the event of a criminal complaint.
In the groups demonstrations/political actions and football/other major events, another frequent reason for not reporting was the non-identifiability of the police officers. In fact, investigations in these areas were often closed for this reason.
A further fear among all groups was to receive a report themselves and the assessment that the crime could not have been proven. Whereby the counter-report played a prominent role in the first subgroup, while the concern for the evidence was assessed relatively equally.
In cases where the persons concerned have not filed a complaint themselves, but proceedings have nevertheless been initiated, the fact that another person has already filed a complaint has often been the reason for not filing. This motive is particularly relevant in the second area. (This point was only answered by persons in whose case a procedure was initiated, but who themselves did not make a complaint.)
It was not uncommon to have been advised not to report. This was mostly done by family, friends or acquaintances (62%), one third (35%) by a lawyer and 17% by other counselling centres. A further 6% mentioned other persons, mainly legal assistance or self-organised groups, but also doctors and witnesses. Some cited media coverage and the Internet as sources of information.
For the third group, the fear that those affected would not be believed was greater. The fear of the police was also greater here. They were more often advised against a report and it was more often true that those affected wanted nothing more to do with the matter.
These reasons played only a minor role. A lack of language skills can be explained by the low proportion of non-German speakers in the sample.
Other reasons often cited were a general lack of prospects of success. Some people stated that they wanted to remain anonymous and therefore did not report officially or feared state repression. Some mentioned excessive psychological stress, the general rejection of punishment and prosecution, or ways outside criminal justice such as (supervisory) complaints, administrative or civil actions.
Outlook
The information presented is taken from the interim report. This is the first part of the research project KviAPol, which will be continued until 2021. The remaining analyses deal with interaction processes, escalation dynamics and experiences of discrimination and how this affects the reporting behaviour.
These analyses serve as a basis for the second part of the project, which consists of 60 interviews with experts* in order to deepen certain aspects that could not be sufficiently covered by the survey of those affected. For example, the interviews from the judiciary are intended to provide additional insights into the special handling practice in relevant preliminary proceedings.