Supporting preventive detention as a necessary tool against high-risk offenders

In the wake of the Berlin CSD attack, supporters of tougher preventive measures argue that the current legal framework is insufficient to protect the public from individuals like Abdul B., who was already known to authorities as a high-risk person. The attack happened despite surveillance and prior knowledge, highlighting a gap that preventive detention could fill. CSU leader Alexander Dobrindt has been vocal, stating that electronic ankle bracelets and custody for dangerous individuals are 'absolutely necessary' to prevent tragedies. The idea is not to punish people for future crimes but to temporarily incapacitate those who credibly pose an imminent threat. This is not a new concept; several European countries have preventive custody laws for terrorism suspects. In Germany, the debate centers on closing a gap that allowed Abdul B. to move freely despite his high-risk classification. Supporters argue that such measures would have a deterrent effect and give security forces a practical tool to intervene before an attack occurs. The proposals also include electronic monitoring, which would allow authorities to track movements and enforce curfews without full incarceration. While civil liberties concerns are acknowledged, supporters emphasize that the right to life and physical integrity of potential victims must take precedence. They call for a balanced approach that respects proportionality but does not shy away from necessary security measures in the face of clear threats.