class=”sc-29f61514-0 fQbOYE”>
The law, which has been in effect since 2019, is strict: anyone who sexually abuses a child, exposes himself in front of them or consumes child pornography may never work with minors again in their lifetime. That’s what the pedophile initiative wants, which voters agreed to nine years ago. Only in “particularly small cases” can a court lift such an activity ban.
But is the provision applied so strictly? There are doubts about that. As the “NZZ” recently reported, in 2021 the courts imposed only 191 activity bans. While in the same year there were 241 convictions for sexual acts with children and almost 800 for illegal pornography. In addition, there are perpetrators who have been convicted of, for example, raping or desecrating children – offenses for which no separate figures are known.
Are the courts too generous?
The reason why someone who consumes child pornography is not banned from his profession may be that he committed the crime before 2019 – when the stricter law was not yet in effect. But the “NZZ” suspects there could be another reason: that the courts in the cantons interpret the law relatively liberally – and often apply the hardship clause.
So far this cannot be proven. But already the memories of the implementation of the eviction initiative are awakening. A few years ago it turned out that criminal prosecution authorities refrained from deporting criminal foreigners due to hardship much more often than had been assumed. Much to the chagrin of the SVP, who had submitted the initiative.
SVP Kingdom alderman calls for clarity
There are fears in the bourgeois camp that the pedophile initiative could go in the same direction. For SVP National Councilor Barbara Steinemann (47) it is therefore clear: “We absolutely have to get to the bottom of this.” She wants to know from the Bundesrat in the autumn session how he explains that relatively few professional bans have been imposed. “If he can’t give a sensible answer, I ask for clarity.”
Ausserrhoden State Councilor Andrea Caroni (43) is also asking for clarification. “I welcome scientific research,” says the FDP politician. Finally, it could also be that there are simply many so-called trivial cases in which imposing a professional ban would be excessive, he notes.
More rights for prosecutors
However, it could also be possible that there are false incentives in the system, as is the case with the country references. For example, in some cantons, public prosecutors deal with minor sexual and pornographic offenses independently by means of a criminal order and do not bring them to court, for example in the canton of Bern. This saves time and costs. The crux: only a court can order a professional ban (or even an eviction). Conversely, public prosecutors can use the hardship clause.
Parliament now wants only courts to decide on hardships in the future. “The Federal Council should do the same for pedophile activity bans,” says Caroni. Otherwise he would raise it himself in the legal committee of the Council of States.
The practice at the cantonal level is critical, says SVP National Council member Gregor Rutz (50), who had strongly advocated for the pedophile initiative. You have to keep an eye on developments, he says. But something calms him: “In any case, unlike the eviction initiative, the highest court interprets the law strictly.” This signal is important.
Source:Blick
I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.
