Critics of the proposed reforms warn that dismantling the juvenile justice system in response to a single, albeit horrific, event would be a mistake. Legal experts and civil liberties advocates argue that the juvenile law is a proven, successful instrument that has served Germany well for decades by recognizing that young adults are still in a phase of development and are more capable of change than older adults. They caution that 'reactive populism' often leads to poorly conceived laws that fail to address the root causes of radicalization.
Instead of abandoning a system that balances punishment with education, opponents of the reform suggest that the focus should be on better monitoring and intervention. They argue that the problem in the Berlin case was not the law itself, but rather the failure of authorities to properly assess the risk posed by the individual and to intervene effectively before the attack occurred. Changing the sentencing guidelines would not have prevented the attack if the underlying surveillance and prevention strategies were already insufficient.
Furthermore, there is a concern that applying adult criminal law to all young adults would lead to higher rates of recidivism. By removing the educational focus, the state risks hardening young offenders rather than rehabilitating them, which could ultimately make society less safe in the long run. Critics urge policymakers to resist the pressure for quick, symbolic legislative changes and instead invest in more effective deradicalization programs, better intelligence sharing, and a more nuanced approach to individual case management that does not sacrifice the fundamental principles of the German legal system.