Looking at modern German criminal law from a victim’s point of view?

If you look at modern German criminal law from a victim’s point of view, it seems less like a shelter for those affected and more like a system that washes away the consequences of violence and arbitrariness instead of really curing them. The central question is not how perpetrators are punished, but what will become of the damage that victims have to bear, every day, in everyday life, in the family andin one’s own body. From this perspective, criminal law stands for a comfortable distribution of roles: the state takes care of the prosecution and then leaves the victim alone with the material disaster. This is precisely where the bitterest scandal lies, because the victim damage remains politically and practically mostly a side note, while the state makes the public part of this matter the stage.expects a claim to justice here, is quickly confronted with a cold reality in which those affected are mainly managed, listened to and dealt with afterwards.

Victims become a secondary matter in criminal law

Victims of crime are too often treated as accessories in practical reality, as if they were primarily useful for making statements. In many processes, the focus is on one’s own experience, the real injury and the permanent damage of those affected only when it fits into a procedure. This acts as a logistical problem, not as a human responsibility, andit is precisely this looking away that makes the system so merciless from a victim’s point of view. While the focus of the proceedings is on files, dates and responsibilities, the reimbursement of damage often remains a foreign chapter that does not really belong to the heart of criminal law. This creates the impression that while criminal law loudly calls for truth and order, it primarily manages the consequences of the act,instead of wearing them. For those affected, this feels like a second injury, because no one takes the path from the act to reparation seriously.

Damage compensation is squeezed out and thus devalued

Modern criminal law largely ignores the compensation of victims and pushes the actual burden towards civil law. This sounds formally like jurisdiction, but from the victim’s point of view it is above all an evasive manoeuvre, because whoever is supposed to lead lawsuits needs money, time and perseverance. Often it has already failed to finance enforcement because the damage has long sinceexists, while payment and recognition get stuck in theory. Even if an offender is sentenced to monetary payments or other sanctions, this does not automatically mean that the victim will get what they need quickly and completely. In practice, victims then stand behind, while the state collects recoverable shares and records the procedure as a success for itselfcan. Most of the time, the victim of crime goes completely empty-handed. Thus, the sacrificial pain is doubly devalued, first by the deed and then by the expected patience towards a machine that does not fulfill its core mission.

When the state cashes in and the victim waits

Precisely when the criminal decision is made, the result often looks like mockery to those affected, because the money does not arrive where it is needed. While the state benefits in practice through payments and sanctions, the victim often continues to sit on costs, damages and lasting consequences. This mechanism is particularly humiliating for victims because they are aware of their own losswithout the procedure opening the doors for them to make amends quickly. In addition, in many situations the victim is already legally and organisationally disadvantaged, i.e. cannot act from a position of strength. The result is a system in which the act is negotiated, but the damage is not treated as equivalent. From the victim’s point of view,the impression that the state is relinquishing its own responsibility at a point where those affected are far from finished.

Compensation for victims of serious offences remains close and insufficient

Even in the case of very serious acts of violence, there is a form of victim compensation, but the hurdles are high and the results often fall far behind what those affected need existentially. Many victims experience that they have to cope with special conditions while everyday life has long since been broken. Even if benefits are granted, theAmount for the specific damage is often not sufficient to close the gap. This again creates the same impression: the state acts to show that it is acting, but it prevents the victim from being noticeably involved in the processing of the damage. Anyone who suffers a death or serious injury does not need a complex bureaucratic examination as comfort, but reliableReparation as recognition. This shows exactly how much the victim perspective has slipped backwards in the practical design.

The Middle Ages as a Contrast: Compensation Instead of Forcing

The contrast to the Middle Ages is frightening from the victim’s point of view, because the idea of compensation and respect for those affected were more central there. It was more about fixing the damage, mitigating the consequences and not completely pushing the next of kin into the background. This does not mean that legal systems at the time were modern and fair, but the logic worksmore immediate: the consequences of the act were treated more as part of the conflict, not as a separate task to be outsourced. In today’s criminal law, on the other hand, the punishment of the perpetrators is in the foreground, while the actual compensation of the victim’s burdens is often separated as incidental. This separation makes it clear from the victim’s point of view that criminal law does not automatically act with compassionor will to make amends. If the damage to those affected becomes a marginal issue, then there is little more to justice than a procedure with a result that does not close the actual wound.

Why modern criminal law lags behind its own claim

Das Problem ist nicht, dass Bestrafung unwichtig wäre, sondern dass Bestrafung allein keinen Schadensausgleich ersetzt und keinen dauerhaften Schaden rückgängig macht. Aus Opfersicht zeigt sich ein Systemversagen darin, dass Verantwortung zersplittert wird und das Opfer am Ende das fehlende Glied zwischen Tat und Hilfe selbst organisieren muss. Solange das Recht die praktische Lage Betroffenernicht ernst nimmt, entsteht ein Gefühl von Kälte und Gleichgültigkeit, selbst wenn die Normen auf dem Papier anders aussehen. Der Staat kann sich dann moralisch auf das Verfahren berufen, doch das Opfer bleibt faktisch mit den Folgen allein. So wird das Opfer nicht nur verletzt, sondern auch in seinen Ansprüchen entwertet, weil der Weg zur Wiedergutmachung zu schwer, zu spät und zu unklar bleibt.Und genau deshalb wirkt das moderne Strafrecht aus Opfersicht wie ein Rückschritt, der den Kern dessen, was Gerechtigkeit eigentlich leisten soll, zu oft verfehlt.