Sicherungsverwahrung

Die Sicherungsverwahrung (außerhalb von Gesetzestexten auch Sicherheitsverwahrung)[1] ist eine freiheitsentziehende Maßregel der Besserung und Sicherung im deutschen Strafrecht. Sie soll dazu dienen, die Allgemeinheit vor gefährlichen Straftätern zu schützen, und hat somit Präventivfunktion. Gesetzlich geregelt ist sie im allgemeinen Teil in den § 66, § 66a, § 66b und § 66c des Strafgesetzbuches (StGB). Die Regelung der Sicherungsverwahrung im StGB ist am 4. Mai 2011 in der damals geltenden Fassung vom Bundesverfassungsgericht für verfassungswidrig erklärt worden und wurde mit Wirkung zum 1. Juni 2013 reformiert.[2]

Im Gegensatz zur Freiheitsstrafe knüpft die Sicherungsverwahrung einzig an die Gefährlichkeit des Straftäters für die Allgemeinheit an. Diese Gefährlichkeit muss in einer Prognose festgestellt werden und sich zuvor in einer besonders schweren Straftat geäußert haben.

Ebenso wie die normale Strafhaft wird die Sicherungsverwahrung bisher in allgemeinen Justizvollzugsanstalten vollzogen. Den Sicherungsverwahrten werden jedoch mehr Hafterleichterungen gewährt, da für sie der Aufenthalt gerade nicht an ihre Schuld anknüpft, sondern der Sicherungsverwahrte sich dort einzig zum Schutze der Allgemeinheit vor ihm befindet. Er erbringt insoweit ein Sonderopfer für die Allgemeinheit, da er durch die Strafhaft seine Strafe vor Antritt der Sicherungsverwahrung bereits vollständig verbüßt hat. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht verlangt daher seit seiner Entscheidung vom 5. Februar 2004,[3] dass sich die Verbüßung der Sicherungsverwahrung vom Strafvollzug positiv unterscheidet („Abstandsgebot“). Dieses Gebot versucht § 66c StGB umzusetzen.
Die Sicherungsverwahrung kann vom Gericht

bei Erwachsenen
im Urteil angeordnet werden (§ 66 StGB),
im Urteil vorbehalten werden (§ 66a StGB),
nachträglich angeordnet werden (§ 66b StGB und Art. 316e EGStGB i. V. m. § 66b StGB i. d. F. vom 18. April 2007),
bei Heranwachsenden
im Urteil vorbehalten werden (§ 106 Abs. 3 und 4 JGG),
nachträglich angeordnet werden (§ 106 Abs. 5 und 6 JGG), nämlich bei Erledigterklärung einer Unterbringung nach § 63 StGB
bei Jugendlichen
im Urteil vorbehalten (§ 7 Abs. 2)
nachträglich angeordnet werden (§ 7 Abs.  4 JGG), nämlich bei Erledigterklärung einer Unterbringung nach § 63 StGB.
Hinzu kommt, dass für „Altfälle“, d. h. Straftaten, die vor dem 31. Mai 2013 begangen wurden, nach wie vor die bis dahin geltenden Vorschriften über Sicherungsverwahrung anzuwenden sind, „wenn beim Betroffenen eine psychische Störung vorliegt und aus konkreten Umständen in seiner Person oder seinem Verhalten eine hochgradige Gefahr abzuleiten ist, dass er infolge dieser Störung schwerste Gewalt- oder Sexualstraftaten begehen wird“ (§ 316 f Abs. 2 Satz 2 EGStGB). Das gilt insbesondere für Jugendliche und Heranwachsenden, bei denen bis zum 31. Mai 2013 die Sicherungsverwahrung auch nachträglich angeordnet werden konnte (§ 7 Abs. 2 JGG a.F. bzw. § 106 Abs. 2 JGG a.F.).

Die Sicherungsverwahrung wird neben einer Freiheitsstrafe angeordnet, die stets zuerst verbüßt wird. Das zuständige Gericht (Strafvollstreckungskammer) prüft vor Vollzugsende, ob die Vollstreckung der Unterbringung zur Bewährung ausgesetzt werden kann. In diesem Fall tritt Führungsaufsicht ein.

Die im Jahr 2004 eingeführte Möglichkeit einer nachträglichen Anordnung der Sicherungsverwahrung ist am 13. Januar 2011 vom Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) für menschenrechtswidrig erklärt worden.[4][5] Der Bundestag hatte allerdings schon im Dezember 2010 eine Neuregelung des Rechts der Sicherungsverwahrung beschlossen, in der auf die Verhängung der nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung bei Erwachsenen für die Zukunft verzichtet wird.[6] Die nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung ist allerdings nicht gänzlich entfallen: Erstens dürfen nach wie vor Personen, die nach § 63 StGB im Maßregelvollzug (Psychiatrisches Krankenhaus) untergebracht wurden, nachträglich in Sicherungsverwahrung verlegt werden, wenn die psychiatrische Maßregel für erledigt erklärt worden ist (§ 66b StGB, früher § 66b Abs. 3 StGB). Zweitens gilt die Neuregelung gemäß Art. 316e EGStGB nicht für Altfälle, d. h. für vor dem 1. Januar 2011 begangene Taten, wegen derer Sicherungsverwahrung angeordnet werden soll, ist die alte Rechtslage maßgeblich. Drittens sind die Regelungen zur nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung bei Heranwachsenden und Jugendlichen unangetastet geblieben. Angesichts der Rechtsprechung wird der Bundesgesetzgeber (oder abermals der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte) zu prüfen haben, inwieweit die nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung Bestand haben kann.

Vollzug
Der Vollzug der Sicherungsverwahrung war im dritten Abschnitt des Strafvollzugsgesetzes (StVollzG) geregelt. Nach der Föderalismusreform haben sämtliche Bundesländer nicht nur eigene Strafvollzugsgesetze erlassen, sondern davon getrennte Sicherungsverwahrungsvollzugsgesetze (beispielsweise Art. 159 ff. BayStVollzG, §§ 94 ff. HmbStVollzG, §§ 107 ff. NJStVollzG).

Der Vollzug der Sicherungsverwahrung soll getrennt vom Vollzug einer normalen Freiheitsstrafe erfolgen (§ 140 Abs. 1 StVollzG). Um dies zu ermöglichen, können entweder eigenständige Anstalten oder abgetrennte Abteilungen innerhalb einer Justizvollzugsanstalt eingerichtet werden. Ziel der Unterbringung ist einerseits die sichere Verwahrung zum Schutz der Allgemeinheit (§ 129 Satz 1 StVollzG), andererseits die Unterstützung des Verwahrten, damit er sich in das Leben in Freiheit eingliedern kann (§ 129 Satz 2 StVollzG). Um den Schäden des langfristigen Freiheitsentzuges entgegenzuwirken, werden einem Sicherungsverwahrten im Verhältnis zu Strafgefangenen bestimmte „Vergünstigungen“ zugebilligt. Er darf eigene Kleidung, Wäsche und eigenes Bettzeug benutzen (§ 131, § 132 StVollzG), bei der Ausgestaltung der Hafträume und Durchführung von Betreuungsmaßnahmen soll auf seine persönlichen Bedürfnisse Rücksicht genommen werden. Um die Entlassung (wenn sie denn geplant ist) vorzubereiten, darf dem Verwahrten ein Sonderurlaub bis zu einem Monat gewährt werden (§ 134 StVollzG). Im Übrigen verbleibt es jedoch bei den allgemeinen Vorschriften über den Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafe (§ 130 StVollzG).

Dauer
Die Unterbringung in der Sicherungsverwahrung ist grundsätzlich unbefristet, was nach einer Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 5. Februar 2004[7] im Einklang mit der Verfassung steht.

Mindestens jedes Jahr, beginnend mit dem ersten Tag der Unterbringung, muss geprüft werden, ob weiterhin die Gefahr besteht, dass der Untergebrachte außerhalb des Vollzugs rechtswidrige Taten begehen wird (§ 67e Abs. 2 StGB). Wird dies verneint, dann wird die weitere Vollstreckung zur Bewährung ausgesetzt und es tritt Führungsaufsicht (maximal fünf Jahre) ein. Erfolgt während des Zeitraums der Führungsaufsicht kein Widerruf der Entscheidung, gilt die Unterbringung endgültig als erledigt. Lehnt das Gericht die Aussetzung ab, läuft die Frist erneut an.

Nach zehn Jahren erklärt das Gericht die Maßregel der Sicherungsverwahrung für erledigt, sofern nicht die Gefahr besteht, dass vom Untergebrachten erhebliche Straftaten begangen werden, durch welche die Opfer seelisch oder körperlich schwer geschädigt werden (§ 67d Abs. 3 StGB). Bei Fortdauer der Sicherungsverwahrung erfolgt die Überprüfung ab diesem Zeitpunkt alle 9 Monate (§ 67e Abs. 2 StGB). Bei Erledigung der Maßregel der Sicherungsverwahrung tritt für mindestens zwei Jahre Führungsaufsicht ein. Dies ist als gesetzlicher Regelfall gedacht; ob dies auch in der Praxis so gehandhabt wird, ist mangels statistischer Daten über die Unterbringungsdauer unbekannt.

Der Untergebrachte kann auch vom Gericht in ein psychiatrisches Krankenhaus oder in eine Entziehungsanstalt überwiesen werden, wenn dies seine Resozialisierung besser fördert. Eine Rückkehr in die Sicherungsverwahrung kann angeordnet werden, wenn die Überweisung keinen Erfolg erzielt hat oder die Resozialisierung in der Sicherungsverwahrung doch besser gefördert wird.

Geschichte
Historische Ansätze
Die heutige Sicherungsverwahrung wurde zu Beginn der NS-Zeit als Bestandteil der Maßregeln der Besserung und Sicherung durch das Gesetz gegen gefährliche Gewohnheitsverbrecher vom 24. November 1933 (RGBl. I 995) eingeführt. Als Teile des Ermächtigungsgesetzes wurden einige Bestimmungen schon früh nach 1945 durch die Alliierten aufgehoben, etwa die damalige Form der nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung und der Entmannung (§ 42 k StGB a.F.) wurden abgeschafft, wohingegen der große Rest als unbedenklich und nicht spezifisch nationalsozialistisch eingestuft wurde.[8] Dass das Gesetz gegen gefährliche Gewohnheitsverbrecher nach dem Ermächtigungsgesetz, also ohne parlamentarische Kontrolle zustande kam, interessierte den Alliierten Kontrollrat nur wenig.[9] Die wenigen aufgehobenen Passagen rechtfertigte man aufgrund ethischer und verfassungsrechtlicher Bedenken.[10]

Andere Modelle der Sicherungsverwahrung gab es schon deutlich früher: So sprach sich zum Beispiel Ernst Ferdinand Klein, Initiator des Preußischen Landrechts, bereits 1794 dafür aus, dass „Diebe und andere Verbrecher, welche ihrer verdorbenen Neigungen wegen des gemeinen Wesens gefährlich werden könnten, auch nach ausgestandener Strafe, des Verhafts nicht eher entlassen werden, als bis sie ausgewiesen haben, wie sie sich auf eine ehrliche Art zu ernähren im Stande sind“.[11]

Das verabschiedete Gesetz konnte sich jedoch nicht durchsetzen; die Kriminalitätsrate stieg entgegen der Annahme, durch eine ungewiss lange Haftzeit Wiederholungstäter abzuschrecken. So ist die historische Relevanz eher in der Formulierung zu sehen, welche dem heutigen Wortlaut erstmals sehr ähnelt.

Entwurf nach Carl Stooss
Ein weitaus einflussreicherer Entwurf war der Vorentwurf eines Schweizer Strafgesetzbuches im Jahr 1893, entworfen von Carl Stooss.

Besonders bezeichnend für diesen Entwurf sind folgende Artikel:

Art. 23: Die Verwahrung von rückfälligen Verbrechern wird auf 10 bis 20 Jahre verfügt (Art. 40). Die Verwahrung findet in einem Gebäude statt, das ausschließlich diesem Zwecke dient…

Art. 40: Begeht ein Verbrecher, der wiederholt Zuchthausstrafe erstanden hat, innerhalb von 5 Jahren nach Vollzug der letzten Zuchthausstrafe ein neues Verbrechen, und ist das Gericht überzeugt, dass ihn die gesetzliche Strafe nicht von weiteren Verbrechen abzuhalten vermag, so überweist es den rechtskräftig Verurteilten der Bundesbehörde, welche über die Verwahrung von rückfälligen Verbrechern entscheidet. Diese Behörde zieht über das Vorleben des Verbrechers, über seine Erziehung, seine Familienverhältnisse, seinen Erwerb, seine körperliche und geistige Gesundheit, sowie über die Verbrechen, die er begangen, und die Strafen, die er erstanden hat, Erkundigungen ein. Erachtet es die Behörde als unzweifelhaft, dass der Verbrecher nach Vollzug der Strafe wieder rückfällig werden würde, und erscheint es geboten, ihn für längere Zeit unschädlich zu machen, so ordnet sie statt der Strafe seine Verwahrung für die Zeit von 10 bis 20 Jahren an. Andernfalls bleibt das Urteil in Kraft. Nach Ablauf von 5 Jahren kann die Behörde die vorläufige Freilassung des Sträflings verfügen, wenn er zum ersten Mal verwahrt wird und anzunehmen ist, dass er nicht mehr rückfällig werden wird.[12]

Die vielen Parallelen zum heutigen § 66 StGB lassen zumindest spekulativ eine Verbindung beider Gesetze zu:

So wird in beiden Gesetzen die „Verwahrung“ als eigenständige Institution beschrieben, ihre „Klientel“ sind Wiederholungstäter, die einen vorab festgelegten Zeitraum in Verwahrung bleiben sollen, der jedoch je nach Beurteilung des Häftlings verlängert oder verkürzt werden kann. In beiden Fällen werden sie einer „Gesamtwürdigung“ unterzogen, einem Einschätzen des Risikos, welches der Gefangene für die Gesellschaft darstellt. In den folgenden Jahren wurden ähnliche Vorschläge in Deutschland sowohl im Kaiserreich als auch in der Weimarer Republik erarbeitet. Allen gemein ist, dass es nur bei Gesetzesentwürfen blieb.

Nationalsozialistische Gesetzgebung
Erst die Nationalsozialisten setzten mit dem Gewohnheitsverbrechergesetz vom 24. November 1933 (RGBl. I 995) einen Vorschlag zur Sicherungsverwahrung in die Tat um. Unklar ist, ob sie dieses eigenständig ausarbeiteten oder ob sie es adaptierten.

Auch hier wurde die Verwahrung erst bei Mehrfachtätern verhängt:

„§ 20a: Hat jemand, der schon zweimal rechtskräftig verurteilt worden ist, durch eine neue vorsätzliche Tat eine Freiheitsstrafe verwirkt und ergibt die Gesamtwürdigung der Taten, daß er ein gefährlicher Gewohnheitsverbrecher ist, so ist, soweit die neue Tat nicht mit schwererer Strafe bedroht ist, auf Zuchthaus bis zu fünf Jahren und, wenn die neue Tat auch ohne diese Strafschärfung ein Verbrechen wäre, auf Zuchthaus bis zu fünfzehn Jahren zu erkennen. Die Strafschärfung setzt voraus, daß die beiden früheren Verurteilungen wegen eines Verbrechens oder vorsätzlichen Vergehens ergangen sind und in jeder von ihnen auf Todesstrafe, Zuchthaus oder Gefängnis von mindestens sechs Monaten erkannt worden ist.

Hat jemand mindestens drei vorsätzliche Taten begangen und ergibt die Gesamtwürdigung der Taten, daß er ein gefährlicher Gewohnheitsverbrecher ist, so kann das Gericht bei jeder abzuurteilenden Einzeltat die Strafe ebenso verschärfen, auch wenn die übrigen im Absatz l genannten Voraussetzungen nicht erfüllt sind.

§ 42e: Wird jemand nach § 20a als ein gefährlicher Gewohnheitsverbrecher verurteilt, so ordnet das Gericht neben der Strafe die Sicherungsverwahrung an, wenn die öffentliche Sicherheit es erfordert.“[13]

Es blieb jedoch nicht bei diesem Rahmen der Bestrafung; eine Gesetzesänderung 1941 gab Wiederholungstäter zur Todesstrafe frei:

„Der gefährliche Gewohnheitsverbrecher (§ 20a des Strafgesetzbuchs) und der Sittlichkeitsverbrecher (§§ 176 bis 178 des Strafgesetzbuchs) verfallen der Todesstrafe, wenn der Schutz der Volksgemeinschaft oder das Bedürfnis nach gerechter Sühne es erfordert.“[14]

Entwicklung bis heute
Dieses Gesetz fand 1949 mit der Abschaffung der Todesstrafe in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland sein Ende, § 20a und § 42e blieben jedoch weiterhin Teil des Strafgesetzbuches, während es in der DDR als „faschistisch“ abgelehnt wurde. 1970 wurde das Gesetz in der Bundesrepublik grundlegend überarbeitet: Sicherungsverwahrung galt als das schärfste Instrument des deutschen Strafrechts gegenüber Straftätern; folglich sollte sehr genau ermittelt werden, wer verwahrt werden muss und wer es nicht (mehr) braucht. Dazu wurden Täter wie erwähnt einer „Gesamtwürdigung“ unterzogen, in der man nicht nur die Anzahl der Verurteilungen, sondern auch die Länge des Freiheitsentzugs und andere – auch persönliche – Faktoren berücksichtigte. 1975 nannte man § 42e ohne inhaltliche Veränderungen in § 66 um, wie er heute noch – mit kleinen Änderungen – im Strafgesetzbuch steht.

Im Jahr 1998 wurde das bisherige Höchstmaß von zehn Jahren bei erstmaliger Anordnung von Sicherungsverwahrung (§ 67d Abs. 1 StGB a.F.) gestrichen. In der Folgezeit wurden die Anforderungen für die Verhängung der Sicherungsverwahrung durch eine Vielzahl von Gesetzesänderungen schrittweise gesenkt.[15] Die öffentliche Stimmung wurde hierbei maßgeblich angeheizt durch ein Interview mit dem damaligen Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder in der Bild am Sonntag im Jahr 2001, in welchem Schröder ein „Wegschließen – und zwar für immer!“ für Sexualstraftäter forderte.[16] Das Schlagwort vom „Wegschließen – und zwar für immer“ wird seitdem immer wieder in ablehnender wie zustimmender Weise zitiert, wenn die Frage der Sicherungsverwahrung diskutiert wird.[17]

Bis 2002 konnte die Sicherungsverwahrung nur im Strafurteil selbst angeordnet werden. Die Möglichkeit des Gerichts, die Sicherungsverwahrung im Strafurteil vorzubehalten, wurde in diesem Jahr eingeführt. Ziel dieser Änderung war es vor allem, den Schutz der Bevölkerung vor gefährlichen Sexualstraftätern zu verbessern. Die Länder Bayern und Baden-Württemberg hatten gefordert, die Sicherungsverwahrung auch ohne Vorbehalt nachträglich anordnen zu können. Dies sah der Gesetzesentwurf der rot-grünen Koalition jedoch nicht vor.

Einige Bundesländer verabschiedeten daraufhin eigene Gesetze, die eine generelle nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung ermöglichten. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht erklärte diese in einer Entscheidung vom 10. Februar 2004 für verfassungswidrig, da nach Art. 72 Abs. 1 GG die Länder nur zuständig sind, soweit der Bund noch nicht gesetzgeberisch tätig geworden ist. Da die Bedenken der Verfassungshüter ausschließlich formeller, nicht aber inhaltlicher Natur waren, konnte am 23. Juli 2004 das „Gesetz zur Einführung der nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung“ (BGBl. I S. 1838) in Kraft treten.

Am 22. Dezember 2010 beschloss der Deutsche Bundestag eine Neuordnung des Rechts der Sicherungsverwahrung,[6] die am 1. Januar 2011 in Kraft trat.

Am 4. Mai 2011 erklärten die Bundesverfassungsrichter alle Vorschriften zur Sicherungsverwahrung für verfassungswidrig. Dem Gesetzgeber wurde auferlegt, bis Juni 2013 eine neue Regelung zu suchen. Für sogenannte Altfälle gelten Übergangsregelungen.[18][19]

Am 23. November 2012 stimmte der Bundesrat dem zuvor bereits am 8. November vom Bundestag gebilligten Gesetz zur Umsetzung des Abstandsgebotes bei der Sicherungsverwahrung[20] zu, mit welchem den Vorgaben des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom Mai 2011 sowie des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte entsprochen werden soll. Das Gesetz trat mit Wirkung vom 1. Juni 2013 in Kraft. Die Sicherungsverwahrung sieht nun vor, dass durch intensive Betreuung die Gefährlichkeit des Untergebrachten für die Allgemeinheit so weit wie möglich zu mindern ist. Die Gerichte werden künftig überprüfen, ob die therapeutische Betreuung auch in dem Maß angeboten wird, wie das BVerfG es fordert. Niemand soll freigelassen werden müssen, nur weil er nicht therapiert werden will oder therapiert werden kann.[21]

Im August 2012 kritisierte Henning Ernst Müller, Strafrechtsprofessor an der Universität Regensburg, die Gesetzeslage in Deutschland.[22] Der Richter Johannes Leygraf bemängelt, dass ungeachtet rückläufiger Fallzahlen schwerer Verbrechen mehrfach Gesetze zur Sicherungsverwahrung verschärft wurden. Dies sei populistisch.[23]

Im November 2012 bestätigte das Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe ein Urteil des Landgerichts Karlsruhe, dass das Land Baden-Württemberg 240.000 Euro an vier Männer zahlen muss, weil diese zu lange in Sicherungsverwahrung saßen.[24] Das Urteil könnte auch 70 bis 100 weitere Fälle betreffen.[25]

Rechtsprechung des EGMR und des BVerfG
Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) entschied mit Urteil vom 7. Januar 2016, dass die gegenwärtigen deutschen Regelungen zur rückwirkend verlängerten Sicherungsverwahrung in Zusammenhang mit dem Therapieunterbringungsgesetz nicht gegen die Art. 5 und 7 der EMRK verstoßen. Die Sicherungsverwahrung sei je nach Einzelfall nicht als Strafe zu werten; die Art und Schwere der psychischen Störung des Verwahrten rechfertige den rechtmäßig und auf gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Weise vorgenommenen Freiheitsentzug.[26][27]

Der EGMR hatte zuvor mit Urteil vom 17. Dezember 2009 entschieden, dass es gegen Art. 7 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) verstoße, wenn ein Sicherungsverwahrter, der unter Geltung des früheren § 67d Abs. 1 dtStGB a.F. mit maximal zehn Jahren Sicherungsverwahrung rechnen musste, nachträglich aufgrund einer Gesetzesänderung (§ 67d Abs. 3 dtStGB) zu unbegrenzter Sicherungsverwahrung gezwungen wird.[28][29] Art. 7 EMRK normiert das Rechtsprinzip „Keine Strafe ohne Gesetz“. Entscheidend bei diesem Urteil ist die Auffassung des Gerichtshofs, dass eine Sicherungsverwahrung als eine „Strafe“ anzusehen sei. Er begründete diese damit, dass sie sich in ihrer Vollstreckung nur unmaßgeblich von der Haftstrafe unterscheide. Nach dieser Argumentation ist eine nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung ausnahmslos menschenrechtswidrig, weil sie verhängt wird, ohne dass eine neue Straftat vom Inhaftierten begangen wurde. Am 13. Januar 2011 hat der EGMR in einer weiteren Entscheidung einstimmig beschlossen, dass auch die im Jahr 2004 eingeführte nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung gegen Art. 5 § 1 EMRK (Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit) verstoße.[30][31]

In der Umsetzung dieser Urteile haben deutsche Fachgerichte einander widersprechende Entscheidungen über die Zulässigkeit der Fortdauer von Verwahrungen getroffen. Dabei geht es um die Frage, ob alle betroffenen Verwahrten sofort entlassen werden müssen oder ob die Entlassung im Hinblick auf eine von Gutachtern festgestellte weitere Gefährlichkeit verweigert werden darf. Der Bundestag hat am 22. Dezember 2010 das Therapieunterbringungsgesetz (ThuG) beschlossen,[32] welches eine Rechtsgrundlage für die weitere Verwahrung der zu entlassenden „Altfälle“ abgeben soll.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) hatte noch mit Urteil vom 5. Februar 2004[33] Verfassungsbeschwerden gegen die nachträgliche Verlängerung der Sicherungsverwahrung zurückgewiesen. Im Lichte der Rechtsprechung des EGMR hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit Urteil vom 4. Mai 2011[19] die gesetzlichen Regelungen zur Sicherungsverwahrung für verfassungswidrig erklärt und den Gesetzgeber verpflichtet, bis spätestens 31. Mai 2013 verfassungskonforme Regelungen zu schaffen und die Sicherungsverwahrung neu auszugestalten. Bezüglich der Altfälle haben die Vollstreckungsgerichte zu prüfen, ob eine hochgradige Gefahr schwerster Gewalt- oder Sexualstraftaten aus konkreten Umständen in der Person oder dem Verhalten des Untergebrachten abzuleiten ist und dieser an einer psychischen Störung im Sinne von § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 ThUG leidet. Liegen diese Voraussetzungen nicht vor, muss die Freilassung dieser Sicherungsverwahrten spätestens mit Wirkung zum 31. Dezember 2011 angeordnet werden.

Sicherungsverwahrten, deren Sicherungsverwahrung nachträglich verlängert wurde, steht nach Artikel 5 Abs. 5 EMRK ein Anspruch auf Entschädigung zu. In einem Urteil vom 24. April 2012 hat das Landgericht Karlsruhe pro Monat 500 Euro zugesprochen.[34] Der Bundesgerichtshof hat die Entschädigungszahlungen im September 2013 bestätigt.[35] Art. 5 Abs. 5 EMRK gewähre einen Entschädigungsanspruch unabhängig vom Verschulden der mit der Anordnung der nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung befassten Amtsträger.

Die vorbehaltene Sicherungsverwahrung nach § 66a dStGB steht nach Ansicht des Bundesverfassungsgerichts im Wesentlichen im Einklang mit der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention.[36][37] Allerdings müssten auch hier die Anforderungen an den Vollzug erfüllt werden, die das Bundesverfassungsgericht in seiner vorigen Entscheidung genannt hatte.[36][37]

Abstandsgebot
Abstandsgebot ist ein durch das deutsche Bundesverfassungsgericht im Rahmen seiner Sicherungsverwahrungsrechtsprechung verwendeter Begriff.[38][39] Er bezeichnet das Erfordernis eines deutlichen Unterschiedes zwischen der Ausgestaltung des Freiheitsentzugs im Rahmen der Sicherungsverwahrung im Gegensatz zum Freiheitsentzug im Rahmen des Strafvollzuges. Dieser Abstand sei, so das Gericht, aufgrund der nicht vergleichbaren verfassungsrechtlichen Legitimationsgrundlagen erforderlich. Die Sicherungsverwahrung diene allein dem Zwecke der Vorbeugung von künftigen Straftaten, während die Freiheitsstrafe eine Sanktion für vergangene Straftaten darstelle.

Mit Urteil vom 4. Mai 2011 wurde entschieden, dass alle Vorschriften des StGB und des JGG dem Abstandsgebot nicht genügen und daher verfassungswidrig sind. Die Vorschriften waren jedoch gleichwohl bis zum Inkrafttreten einer gesetzlichen Neuregelung unter Beachtung von Übergangsbestimmungen, die das Bundesverfassungsgericht gleichzeitig mit dem Urteil aufgestellt hat, bis längstens 31. Mai 2013 anwendbar. Der Bundestag und die Länderparlamente haben darauf durch Gesetze bzw. Gesetzesänderungen reagiert, die am 1. Juni 2013 in Kraft getreten sind.

Statistik
Den Tiefststand hatte die Zahl der Sicherungsverwahrten im Jahr 1984 mit 182 erreicht.[40] Seither ist die Tendenz wieder steigend. Zum Vergleich: 306 im Jahr 2003 und 350 im Jahr 2005.[41] Am 31. März 2010 wurden 524 Sicherungsverwahrte (darunter 3 Frauen) in deutschen Gefängnissen gezählt. Zur Dauer der Sicherungsverwahrung werden bisher weder vom Statistischen Bundesamt noch von der Kriminologischen Zentralstelle aussagekräftige Daten erhoben. Letztere erfasst seit 2002 alle im jeweiligen Jahr aus der SV Entlassenen und die Dauer von deren Aufenthalt in der Maßregel (zuletzt für das Jahr 2005: Erhebung von Axel Dessecker). Daraus ist zu entnehmen, dass die in die Freiheit entlassenen Sicherungsverwahrten durchschnittlich über 15 Jahre im Gefängnis verbracht haben (wenn man Freiheitsstrafe und SV zusammen nimmt). Über diejenigen, die bisher nicht aus der Sicherungsverwahrung entlassen wurden, liegen keine Zahlen vor.

Entwicklungen in weiteren Staaten
Einige andere Staaten im deutschen Sprachraum kannten oder kennen vergleichbare Regelungen:

In Österreich ist eine Unterbringung im Maßnahmenvollzug in einer Anstalt für gefährliche Rückfalltäter (§ 23 öStGB) möglich.

Die Schweiz kennt verschiedene Arten von Verwahrung, siehe Verwahrung in der Schweiz.

Ähnliche Regelungen gab es seit den 1920er-Jahren (unter dem Einfluss von Franz von Liszt und der Internationalen Kriminalistischen Vereinigung) in verschiedenen europäischen Staaten. Sie wurden jedoch fast überall nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg als rechtsstaatswidrig abgeschafft. Neuerdings ist die Sicherungsverwahrung, unter verschiedenen Namen, jedoch wieder auf dem Vormarsch: beispielsweise, Forvaring (Dänemark, Norwegen), Terbeschikkingstelling (Niederlande), preventive detention (Neuseeland). 2003 wurde in Großbritannien ein „imprisonment for public protection“ (IPP)[42] eingeführt. Dabei handelte es sich jedoch nicht um eine reine Sicherungsmaßnahme, sondern eine zwecks Sicherung verlängerte Strafe. Dieses „imprisonment for public protection“ ist allerdings 2012 ersatzlos von der britischen Koalitionsregierung abgeschafft worden.[43]

Während in Deutschland jeder Straftäter eine Perspektive auf eine Freilassung haben muss, können in manchen Ländern (beispielsweise den meisten Bundesstaaten der USA) Haftstrafen von über 100 Jahren angeordnet werden; diese erfüllen dann bei gemeingefährlichen Straftätern dieselbe Funktion.

Siehe auch
Unterbindungsgewahrsam
Literatur
Michael Alex: Nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung – ein rechtsstaatliches und kriminalpolitisches Debakel, Felix-Verlag, Holzkirchen 2. Auflage 2013, ISBN 978-3-927983-81-6.
Tillmann Bartsch: Sicherungsverwahrung. Recht, Vollzug, aktuelle Probleme, Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2010, ISBN 978-3-8329-5427-7. (Gießener Schriften zum Strafrecht und zur Kriminologie, 36)
Stephan Beukelmann: Nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung für Altfälle: Bestandsaufnahme, NJW-Spezial 04/2011, S. 120.
Davina Bruhn: Die Sicherungsverwahrung im Jugendstrafrecht, Verlag Dr. Kovač, Hamburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-8300-5285-2.
Axel Dessecker: Die Sicherungsverwahrung in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. In: Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 2011, Heft 08/09, S. 706–713 (PDF; 112 kB).
Annika Flaig: Die nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung, Lang, Frankfurt am Main [u. a.] 2009, ISBN 978-3-631-57874-2. (Würzburger Schriften zur Kriminalwissenschaft, 30)
Jörg Kinzig: Die Neuordnung des Rechts der Sicherungsverwahrung, NJW 4/2011, 177.
Christine Morgenstern: Krank – gestört – gefährlich: Wer fällt unter § 1 Therapieunterbringungsgesetz und Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e EMRK? Zugleich Anmerkung zu BVerfG, Beschluss vom 15. September 2011 – 2 BvR 1516/11, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 2011 (Heft 12), S. 974 (PDF).
Michael Pösl: Die Sicherungsverwahrung im Fokus von BVerfG, EGMR und BGH, ZJS 02/2011, 132, online (PDF; 199 kB).
Helmut Pollähne; Irmgard Rode (Hrsg.): Probleme unbefristeter Freiheitsentziehungen. Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe, psychiatrische Unterbringung, Sicherungsverwahrung, LIT Verlag, Berlin [u. a.] 2010, ISBN 978-3-643-10228-7. (Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Konfliktforschung, 32).
Thomas Ullenbruch/Kerstin Drenkhahn/Christine Morgenstern: Kommentierung zu den §§ 66 ff StGB. In: Münchner Kommentar zum StGB, 2. Aufl., 2012.
Till Zimmermann: Das neue Recht der Sicherungsverwahrung (ohne JGG), HRRS 2013, 164 online
Dokumentarfilme
Ulli Wendelmann: Knast auf ewig? Der Streit um die Sicherungsverwahrung (ausgestrahlt 18. März 2013, 45 min.)[44]
Dokumentarfilmer Ulli Wendelmann sieht jahrelanges Wegsperren kritisch

تيسين كروب

تيسين كروب (بالألمانية: ThyssenKrupp) هي مجموعة صناعية ألمانية تتألف من 670 شركة حول العالم. ويعمل بها نحو 155,000 موظف. وتتكون المجموعة من أكبر شركات إنتاج الصلب في العالم.

وتعمل الشركة حول العالم في ثلاث قطاعات رئيسية: وحدة الحديد والصلب، وحدة البضائع الرئيسية وهي المصاعد، قطع غيار المركبات وتقنيات التصنيع الضخمة. أما قطاع الخدمات فيقدم المواد الأساسية، خدمات بيئية، هندسة ميكانيكية وخدمات السقالات.

و تأسست الشركة نتيجة اندماج شركتي ثايسن وكروب في عام 1999، ولا يزال مقرها الرئيسي في مدينة إسن.

Thyssenkrupp

thyssenkrupp AG /ˈtɪsɛn.krʊp/ is a German multinational conglomerate with focus on industrial engineering and steel production. The company is based in Duisburg and Essen and divided into 670 subsidiaries worldwide. It is one of the world's largest steel producers; it was ranked tenth-largest worldwide by revenue in 2015.[5] The company is the result of the 1999 merger of Thyssen AG and Krupp, and now has its operational headquarters in Essen. The largest shareholders are Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation and Cevian Capital.[6]

In addition to steel production, Thyssenkrupp's products range from machines and industrial services to high-speed trains, elevators and shipbuilding. Subsidiary Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems also manufactures frigates, corvettes and submarines for the German and foreign navies.

In 2018, Thyssenkrupp announced that the company would split into two companies, thyssenkrupp Industrials and thyssenkrupp Materials. The split was supposed to take effect beginning 1 October 2019; however, in May 2019 it was revealed that Thyssenkrupp cancelled its plans to split the company into two
History
Thyssenkrupp is the result of a merger of two German steel companies, Thyssen AG founded in 1891 under the name Gewerkschaft Deutscher Kaiser and Krupp founded in 1811. As early as the 1980s, the companies began negotiations on a merger and began closely cooperating in some business areas. In 1997, the companies combined their flat steel activities, with a full merger completed in March 1999.[8]

Beginnings (1811–1891)
Krupp

1811: Friedrich Carl Krupp establishes a cast steel factory in Essen, Germany.
1826: After Friedrich Krupp's death in 1826, his widow Therese Krupp runs the company together with other relatives and her eldest son Alfred, who was 14 years old at the time.
1833: Krupp manufactures complete rolling machines.
1847: Expansion of the railroads increases demand for durable cast steel, triggering the company’s first surge of growth. Supplies include axles, springs and the seamless tires that can withstand increasing speed without cracking.
1859: The Prussian military orders 300 gun barrels, marking development of the company's second major production segment; shortly after Krupp begins producing complete artillery.
1862: Construction of the first Bessemer steel plant on the continent for mass production of rails and steel sheet.
1864–1872: The company purchases various iron ore mines to avoid dependency on external suppliers. In 1873, Krupp establishes his own shipping company in Rotterdam to transport ore from the Spanish company Orconera Iron Ore Co., in which he owns shares.
1872: Alfred Krupp issues a "General Directive" establishing company hierarchy from foreman to management. Included in the directive are regulations concerning company welfare programs, including the pension fund, sickness and death benefit insurance, company bakery and retail store, worker housing estates and health care, all of which were slowly introduced beginning in 1836.
1867: Establishment of Thyssen, Fossoul & Co. a company making hoop iron for barrels, crates, baling etc.
1871: Establishment of Thyssen & Co. in Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany
1891: August Thyssen becomes owner of the Gewerkschaft Deutscher Kaiser coal mine in Hamborn near Duisburg. One year earlier, the Thyssen company constructed a steel mill directly adjacent to one of the pits, thus Thyssen grows into an iron and steel mill with its own coal base.
Wilhelminian period (1892–1917)
Krupp

1893: Following the death of Alfred Krupp in 1887, Friedrich Alfred Krupp expands his father's enterprise with takeovers of additional steel mills and shipyards and construction of diesel engines in collaboration with Rudolf Diesel.
1899: With the acquisition of and/or increased investment in various coal mines (Hannibal colliery near Bochum and the Emscher-Lippe coal mine near Datteln) business development concentrates on vertical structures with expansion of a coal base.
1903: Friedrich Alfred Krupp dies suddenly in 1902 at the age of 48 and his eldest daughter Bertha Krupp inherits the company. The company is converted into a stock corporation by will of the late owner; Bertha retains all the stock. As she is still a minor, her mother Margarethe Krupp as guardian and proprietor takes over as the head of the company, managed by a board of directors.
1906: Bertha Krupp marries Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach who adds the Krupp name as a prefix to his own family name. He is appointed vice chairman of the board and serves as chairman through 1943.
1912: Development of stainless, acid-resistant steels quickly finds application in the chemical and food processing industries, medicine and building. The spire of New York's Chrysler Building is clad in the new stainless steel panels.
1917: The "Paris Gun" is developed with a range of 130 km.
Thyssen

1895: Thyssen sets up integrated iron and steel mill with the construction of a blast furnace plant at the Gewerkschaft Deutscher Kaiser. Subsequent expansion is focused on vertical integration of the group.
1906: Intra-company trading and shipping organizations are established to facilitate transport of iron ore to the blast furnace plants. In 1910, the N.V. Handels- en Transport Maatschappij Vulcaan ocean shipping company is establishment in Rotterdam to keep the Thyssen group independent of the international freight market.
1910: Expansion with mills in the Lorraine and Normandy.
1912: Various branches are set up in the Mediterranean area (Algiers, Port Said, Suez, Oran, Naples, Bona, Bizerte, Tangier and Genoa) so that freighters can store coal en route to Russian or Indian ore mines besides delivery of coal or freight for third parties.
1913: Attention is paid to Latin America with the founding of the Deutsch-Überseeische Handelsgesellschaft (German Overseas Trading Company). Thyssen constructs extensive housing estates and related infrastructure to attract workers to the western Ruhr area. By the end of 1913 Thyssen owns 8,750 housing units for 15,500 employees and 850 civil servants: housing for 44,000 people.
1914: Gewerkschaft Deutscher Kaiser begins producing armaments for the First World War. To compensate for labor shortages, women, civilians from Belgium and prisoners of war work for the company.
Weimar Republic (1918–1933)
Krupp

1919: Following the Treaty of Versailles, Krupp reverts to peace-time production focusing on manufacture of locomotives, trucks, agricultural machinery and excavators. The post-war circumstances of inflation, occupation, and dismantling the company's industrial infrastructure led to a financial crisis in 1924/25. The company stabilizes by, among other measures, streamlining processing operations and expanding stainless steel production.
1926: Sintered tungsten carbide was developed by Osram as a material for machining metal. In 1925, Krupp buys the licence and launches sintered carbide onto the market, exploiting its exceptional hardness and wear resistance, which represent a breakthrough in tool engineering.
1929: A 15,000-ton forging press goes into operation in Essen-Borbeck. It is at the time the largest worldwide.
Thyssen

1919: The company is renamed from Gewerkschaft Deutscher Kaiser to August Thyssen-Hütte; Gewerkschaft and mining operations are transferred to an independent company, Gewerkschaft Friedrich Thyssen. The company's foreign interests in the Allied and Soviet countries are expropriated.
1926: Major parts of the Thyssen group are transferred to a newly merged group, Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG, bringing together several coal and steel companies in the Ruhr area to solve cost and production problems of excess capacities. August Thyssen dies at Schloss Landsberg near Essen. His sons Fritz Thyssen and Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza inherit the industrial enterprises. His other two children, Hedwig and August Jr., are compensated differently.
Third Reich (1933–1945)
Krupp

1937: As dictated by the state’s Four-Year Plan, production of locomotives, trucks and ships is expanded and armaments production is resumed.
1941: Krupp Germania shipyard is extended with acquisition of Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau AG "Deschimag" to include larger ships and submarines. Krupp takes advantage of foreign labourers, slave labourers and prisoners of war to compensate for labour shortages.
Thyssen

1934: The company August Thyssen-Hütte AG is spun off the Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG as a so-called operating company.
1939: Fritz Thyssen, Chairman of the Board of Vereingte Stahlwerke AG, flees to Switzerland after the invasion of Poland. Vichy France hands over Thyssen and his wife to the German Reich at the end of 1940.
1940: A rearmament policy is introduced in the mid-1930s and with the outbreak of war labor is conscripted and supplemented by foreign workers, forced laborers and prisoners of war.
1945: Thyssenhütte mill in Hamborn occupied by US troops.
Mergers and acquisitions

ياهو!

شركة ياهو! المندمجة (بالإنجليزية: Yahoo! Incorporated) هي شركة خدمات حاسوبية أمريكية تقوم بإدارة بوابة الشبكة العالمية إنترنت ودليل للشبكة، كما تقدم منتجات وخدمات أخرى من أشهرها خدمة البريد الإلكتروني، محرك بحث، وخدمة إخبارية. تأسست شركة ياهو! على يد خريجي جامعة ستانفورد جيري يانج (بالإنجليزية: Jerry Yang) وديفيد فايلو (بالإنجليزية: David Filo) في يناير عام 1994، وأعلنت كشركة رسمياً في 2 مارس 1995، ومقرها الرئيسي في سانيفال (بالإنجليزية: sunnyvale) بولاية كاليفورنيا، في وادي السيليكون (بالإنجليزية: silicon valley).

ووفقا لشركات تحليل بيانات الإنترنت (مثل أليكسا (بالإنجليزية: Alexa Internet)، كوم سكور (بالإنجليزية: comScore) وكومبيت.كوم (بالإنجليزية: compete.com)، فان بوابة ياهو! هي من أكثر المواقع زيارة على الإنترنت، بأكثر من 130 مليون زائر مختلف شهريا، ومتوسط زيارات لصفحات شبكة ياهو! العالمية يصل لـ 3.4 مليار زيارة يوميا منذ أكتوبر 2007، مما يجعلها واحدة من أكثر المواقع الأمريكية زيارة.

في 1 فبراير عام 2008، قامت شركة مايكروسوفت بتقديم عرض لشراء شبكة ياهو! بسعر 31 دولار أمريكي للسهم الواحد، أي ما يعادل 44.6 مليار دولار لاستحواذ على البوابة ككل. رفض العرض من مجلس إدارة ياهو! في 11 فبراير بسبب انخفاض قيمة عرض مايكروسوفت على حد قولهم.

وفي 25 يوليو 2016 وبعد الخسائر الفادحة للشركة، أعلنت شركة فيرايزون للاتصالات عن استحواذها على ياهو بصفقة تقدر بحوالي 4.8 مليار دولار.

ي يناير 1994، تخرج جيري يانج وديفيد فايلو من قسم الهندسة الكهربائية بجامعة ستانفورد. وفي أبريل 1994، تم تغير اسم "دليل جيري وديفيد للانترنت" إلى "ياهو!"، قال فايلو ويانج انهم اختارو الاسم بسبب اعجابهم بتعريف الكلمة، والذي يأتي من كتاب جولليفرز ترافلز (بالإنجليزية: Gulliver's Travels) لجونثان سويفت (بالإنجليزية: Jonathan Swift): "بذيء، ليس معقد وغير مألوف". وكان عنوان الموقع هو: "akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo".

بحلول نهاية عام 1994، كان موقع ياهو! قد تعدى مليون زيارة. أدرك يانج وفايلو أن موقعهما له قدرة تجارية هائلة، وفي 1 مارس عام 1995، أعلنت ياهو! كشركة رسميا، وفي 5 أبريل 1995، قامت سيكيوا كابيتال (بالإنجليزية: Sequoia Capital) بمد ياهو! بدورتين من رأسمال مغامر به، وفي 12 أبريل 1995، تم أول عرض عام لياهو!، جمعت منه 33.8 مليون دولار، ببيع 2.6 مليون سهم بسعر 13 دولار للسهم الواحد. اسم "ياهو" كان بالفعل علامة تجارية مسجلة لصلصة شواء وسكاكين ملكا لشركة (إبيسكو للصناعات (بالإنجليزية: EBSCO Industries)، ولذلك، ولترخيص علامتهم التجارية، زود يانج وفايلوا علامة تعجب بنهاية الاسم ليصبح "ياهو!".

النمو (1997-1999)
محاولة الاستحواذ الفاشلة لمايكروسوفت


في 1 فبراير، 2008 بعد رفض ياهو! لعرض مايكروسوفت الودي للاستحواذ، قامت مايكروسوفت بمحاولة استحواذ غير ملتمسه لشراء ياهو! مقابل 44.6$ مليار نقدا وأسهم من مايكروسوفت، بعدها بايام أخذت ياهو! باعتبارها عدة بدائل للاندماج مع مايكروسوفت، منها الاندماج مع عملاق الإنترنت جوجل أو صفقة محتملة مع شركة نيوز كورب (بالإنجليزية: News Corp)، وفي 11 فبراير، 2008 قررت ياهو! رفض عرض مايكروسوفت لانه "يقلل كثرا من قيمة علامة ياهو!"، الاستثمارات، وآفاق النمو. وفي 22 فبراير، 2008 رفعت شركتا معاشات من ديترويت، ميشيغان قضية على ياهو! ومجلس ادارتها بسبب خرقهم لواجباتهم نحو حملة الاسهم بمعارضة عرض مايكروسوفت للاستحواذ والسعي وراء صفقات "مدمرة للقيمة" مع شركات أخرى. وفي بداية مارس صرح رئيس مجلس إدارة جوجل اريك شميت عن انه قلق من احتمال الاندماج بين مايكروسوفت وياهو! لانه سيضر بالشبكة العالمية ويقلل انفتاحها. في نفس الوقت هبطت قيمة عرض مايكروسوفت النقدي والاسهم بحلول 4 أبريل إلى 42.2$ مليار بسبب هبوط قيمة سهم مايكروسوفت. وفي 5 أبريل، بعث رئيس مجلس إدارة مايكروسوفت ستيف بالمر رسالة إلى مجلس إدارة ياهو! يهدد بانه خلال ثلاث اسابيع ان لم توافق ياهو! على عرض مايكروسوفت، فان مايكروسوفت سوف تتقرب لحملة اسهم ياهو! مباشرة لحثهم على انتخاب مجلس إدارة جديد والتقدم بمحادثات الاندماج. فردت ياهو! في 7 أبريل بانهم ليسوا ضد عرض الاندماج، ولكنهم يريدون عرضا أفضل. وصرحوا بأن نهج مايكروسوفت العدواني يضر بالعلاقات بين الشركتين وبفرص اندماج ودي. ولاحقا بعد ذاك اليوم، صرحت ياهو! بأن عرض مايكروسوفت الاصلي ذا 45$ مليار دولار مرفوض. وبعدها، جرت محادثات جدية لبحث اندماج ياهو! وإيه أو إل الخاصة بـتايم ورنر، عوضا عن عرض مايكروسوفت.

Belinda Bencic

Belinda Bencic (Slovak: Belinda Benčičová, pronounced [ˈbɛlinda ˈbɛntʃitʃɔʋaː]; born 10 March 1997)[1] is a Swiss professional tennis player. She has a career-high Women's Tennis Association (WTA) ranking of No. 7 in the world, and she has been ranked as high as No. 12 in 2019. Bencic has won three singles and two doubles titles on the WTA Tour.

Born in Switzerland to Slovak parents at a time when Slovak-Swiss player Martina Hingis was one of the best tennis players in the world, Bencic began playing tennis at the age of two. Her father arranged for her to train with Hingis's mother and coach Melanie Molitor daily from the age of seven. By the time she was 16, Bencic became the No. 1 ranked junior in the world and won two junior Grand Slam singles titles at the French Open and Wimbledon. On the professional tour, she made her top 100 debut shortly after turning 17. Her first big breakthrough came at the 2014 US Open, where she became the youngest quarterfinalist since Hingis in 1997. Bencic won her first two WTA titles in 2015, including the Canadian Open where she defeated four of the top six players in the world. She then made her top 10 debut the following year while still 18 years old.

From 2016 through 2018, Bencic struggled with a variety of injury issues, most notably needing to have wrist surgery in 2017 that kept her out for five months and saw her ranking drop outside the top 300. Nonetheless, she rebounded quickly and rose back into the top 50 within a year of her comeback. Her second Premier 5 title at the Dubai Tennis Championships helped her climb back into the top 20 in 2019.
Early life and background
Bencic was born on 10 March 1997 in Flawil in northeastern Switzerland to Dana and Ivan Benčič. Her parents were both born in Czechoslovakia, but her father's family emigrated to Switzerland in 1968 to flee the Warsaw Pact invasion by the Soviet Union.[2] Her father was a professional hockey player in the Swiss National League A and National League B before becoming an insurance broker.[3] Her mother was a high-level handball player.[4] Bencic hit her first tennis balls at the age of two and began training with her father, who was also a recreational tennis player, for one hour per day at the age of four.[4][2] She entered her first national tournament at that age, losing to an opponent six years older in straight sets without winning a game. Bencic would regularly face much older opponents as a child and was encouraged by her father to try to win two games per set.[5]

When Bencic was five years old, her father contacted fellow Czechoslovak immigrant Melanie Molitor, the mother and coach of world No. 1 Swiss tennis player Martina Hingis, for coaching advice.[2] Hingis becoming the top player in the world around the time Bencic was born was also one reason her father was inspired to introduce her to the sport of tennis.[6] Molitor agreed to gauge Bencic's abilities, which led to Bencic working with Molitor once a week for about a year.[7] At the age of six, Bencic also spent six months at Nick Bollettieri's academy in Florida in the United States, winning several under-10 tournaments.[4] Around this time, her father also asked Marcel Niederer, a childhood friend and fellow hockey player who had become an entrepreneur, if he could help sponsor his daughter's career. Niederer agreed to invest in Bencic, which gave her father the ability to quit his job so he could spend more time traveling with and coaching his daughter while she competed at tournaments.[2] In 2004 when Bencic was seven years old, her family moved to Wollerau, where Molitor had just opened up her own academy, so that she could train there every day.[8] She continued to work with Molitor through her teenage years, and has also occasionally worked with Hingis
Bencic is a former world No. 1 junior. She began competing on the ITF Junior Circuit in 2010 at the age of 13, reaching the final in her debut event at the lowest-level Grade 5 Luzern Junior Competition in Switzerland.[9] In early 2012, Bencic won two high-level Grade 1 events at the Czech International Junior Indoor Championships and the Open International Junior de Beaulieu-sur-Mer in France, the first of which coming at 14 years old. She also made her junior Grand Slam debut, playing in all of the major tournaments except the Australian Open.[9] Although she won just two matches in total in singles, she finished runner-up in doubles at both Wimbledon and the US Open. She lost to the American team of Taylor Townsend and Gabrielle Andrews at both events, partnering with Ana Konjuh at the former and Petra Uberalová at the latter.[10][11] Bencic closed out the year by winning her first Grade A title at the Abierto Juvenil Mexicano, losing just 15 games in six matches.[12]

Bencic did not play again on the junior tour until May 2013, instead opting to focus on professional events.[9][13] When she returned to the juniors, she won her first five tournaments of the year and extended her win streak in singles to 39 matches. All of her titles were Grade 1 or higher, including three Grade A titles at the Trofeo Bonfiglio and two Grand Slam events, the French Open and Wimbledon. She defeated Antonia Lottner in the French Open final[14] and Townsend in the Wimbledon final. The victory over Townsend was a rematch of their quarterfinal at the French Open, which finished 9–7 in the third and final set.[15] Bencic became the first player to win the girls' singles titles at the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year since Amelie Mauresmo in 1996. She was also the first Swiss girl to win a junior Grand Slam singles title since Martina Hingis in 1994, who won the same two titles that year.[16] Bencic's win streak was ended at the European Junior Championships by Barbora Krejčíková in the semifinals.[17] Lottner then defeated her at the US Open in the quarterfinals in her last tournament of the year.[18] She also had a third Grand Slam runner-up finish in doubles at the US Open, losing to the Czech team of Krejčíková and Kateřina Siniaková alongside Sara Sorribes Tormo.[19] With her success, Bencic became the world No. 1 junior in June and finished the season with the top ranking to earn the title of ITF Junior World Champion.[20]

Professional career
2011–14: Newcomer of the Year, US Open quarterfinal at 17
Bencic entered her first professional tournament on the ITF Women's Circuit in March 2011 in Fällanden, Switzerland shortly after her 14th birthday. She reached the quarterfinals as a qualifier, recording her first ITF main draw win over compatriot Tess Sugnaux. Bencic made her WTA qualifying draw debut at the Luxembourg Open towards the end of the year in October, losing in three sets to Yulia Putintseva. She received a wild card into the main draw at the following year's event, where she lost her WTA main draw debut to Venus Williams.[21] The tournament came a few weeks after Bencic had won her first two ITF singles titles in back-to-back weeks at Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt, also winning the doubles title in the first week. In 2013, Bencic progressed from $10K tier events to the $25K and $50K levels. Her best results in the first half of the year were a singles semifinal at the $50K Indian Harbour Beach Pro Tennis Classic in the United States and a doubles title at the $25K event in Lenzerheide, Switzerland. Bencic played in three WTA main draws in the second half of the year. After losing at the Swedish Open in July,[22] she won her first career WTA main draw match as a wild card at the Pan Pacific Open against Daria Gavrilova.[23] She also won a match the following week at the Japan Women's Open. In her last event of 2013, Bencic reached the semifinals of the $75K Dunlop World Challenge in Tokyo to break into the top 200 for the first time. She finished the year ranked at No. 184, a vast improvement from her ranking of No. 612 in January.[24]

Despite beginning 2014 well outside of the top 100, Bencic only played in WTA Tour-level events throughout the year.[25] She made her Grand Slam debut at the Australian Open, qualifying for the main draw. She defeated Kimiko Date-Krumm in the first round in a matchup of the oldest and second-youngest players in the draw before losing to the eventual champion Li Na in her next match.[26][27][28] Bencic did not win another main draw match until April when she made it to the semifinals as a qualifier at the Charleston Open in her first clay court event of the year. She defeated four top 100 players at the tournament, including No. 29 Maria Kirilenko and No. 11 Sara Errani.[29][30] With this result, she also made her top 100 debut less than a month after turning 17.[24] Her clay court season ended at Roland Garros with another loss to No. 29 Venus Williams.[31] Bencic improved on that result at each of her next two Grand Slam events. After reaching the third round at Wimbledon, she made it to the quarterfinals at the US Open. During the tournament, she recorded the first two top ten victories of her career over No. 7 Angelique Kerber and No. 10 Jelena Janković to become the youngest quarterfinalist at the US Open since Hingis in 1997.[32][33] Her success at the Grand Slam tournaments helped her rise to No. 33 in the world at the end of the event.[24] Bencic closed out the year by reaching her first career WTA final at the Tianjin Open, where she finished runner-up to Alison Riske. At the end of the season, she was named WTA Newcomer of the Year.[34][35]

2015: Maiden WTA title, Premier 5 title, world No. 12
Bencic struggled in the first half of 2015. Through the French Open at the end of May, she won multiple matches in the same event only twice, reaching the fourth round at both the Indian Wells Open and the Miami Open.[13] At Indian Wells, she notably won a match against No. 5 Caroline Wozniacki, the highest-ranked player she had ever defeated at the time.[36] Bencic lost in the opening round at the Australian Open and the second round at the French Open.[13] She began to turn her year around during the grass court season. In the lead-up to Wimbledon, she made her second and third career WTA finals. After finishing runner-up to Camila Giorgi at the Rosmalen Grass Court Championships,[37] she won the Eastbourne International over Agnieszka Radwanska for her maiden WTA title.[38][39] Bencic then improved on her previous year's result at Wimbledon by reaching the fourth round.[40]

At the Premier-level Canadian Open in August, Bencic produced her best performance of the year to win the title. During her run, she defeated six of the top 25 players in the world, including four of the top six, and her third victory of the year against No. 5 Caroline Wozniacki. In the last two rounds, she recorded her first victory over a current world No. 1 player in Serena Williams before beating No. 3 Simona Halep in the final after Halep needed to retire in the third set due to heat illness.[41][42] Serena had entered the tournament with only one loss on the season, having won the first three Grand Slam tournaments of the year.[43] With the title, Bencic rose to No. 12 in the world.[24] She ended the summer with a third round loss at the US Open to Venus Williams. Bencic reached another final later that month at the Pan Pacific Open. During the event, she recorded two more top ten victories, including a fourth over Wozniacki, before finishing runner-up to Radwanska in their second final of the year.[44] In early October, Bencic ended her season early due to leg and hand injuries.[45] As a result, she withdrew from the WTA Elite Trophy, the second-tier year-end championship, despite qualifying for the event.[46]

2016–17: Top 10 debut, injury layoffs

Brock Turner

People v. Turner, formally People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), was a criminal case filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court which convicted Brock Allen Turner of three counts of felony sexual assault. Turner was a student athlete at Stanford University on January 18, 2015, when he sexually assaulted an intoxicated and unconscious 22-year-old[1] woman (referred to as "Emily Doe"[2]) with his fingers.[3][4]

Turner was caught by two Stanford international students from Sweden, who testified that they intervened because the woman appeared to be unconscious. Turner fled the scene as they approached, resulting in the two apprehending and restraining him until police arrived to take him into custody.[4][5] The police arrested Turner on Stanford's campus, and booked him into the Santa Clara County jail on suspicion of attempted rape and penetration with a foreign object.[6][7] He was released the same day after posting $150,000 bail.[8]

Turner was indicted on January 28, 2015, on five charges: two for rape, two for felony sexual assault, and one for attempted rape.[8] He was arraigned on February 2, 2015, pleading not guilty on all five charges.[9] On October 7, 2015, after reviewing the results of DNA tests, the two rape charges were dropped by prosecutors.[4][8] The trial began on March 14, 2016,[10] and concluded on March 30, 2016, with Turner being convicted of the three remaining charges of felony sexual assault.[11][12] The convictions carried a potential sentence of 14 years in prison. Prosecutors recommended six years in prison while probation officials recommended a "moderate" county jail sentence.[13] On June 2, 2016, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months' confinement in the Santa Clara County jail (of which he served half) to be followed by three years of probation. Additionally, Turner was informed of his life-long obligation to be lawfully registered as a sex offender[14] and furthermore, ordered to complete a state approved rehabilitation program for sex offenders.[12]

Immediately after Turner's conviction, there was widespread public criticism of the sentence, accusing Persky of judicial bias in favor of male, white and class privilege,[15] leading to campaigns for his recall or resignation. The Santa Clara County Bar Association and public defenders defended Persky, saying that the sentence was based upon the probation report as well as being consistent with similar cases, and stated that his removal would be a "threat to judicial independence".[16][17] Persky was recalled by county voters on June 5, 2018.[18]

The victim impact statement to the court was also widely disseminated by international media outlets, fueling a resurgence of the wider debate regarding the prevalence of campus sexual assault in the United States. Her statement described her suffering and days surrounding the incident in vivid detail, dissecting and chastising Turner's actions and the probation court's recommendation of a short sentence. According to Vice News, "[the case had become] the latest controversial episode in an ongoing debate sweeping the U.S. about rape culture, class privilege in the criminal justice system, and campus safety."[19]

On November 1, 2016, Glamour named "Emily Doe" a woman of the year for "changing the conversation about sexual assault forever", citing that her statement has been read over 11 million times.[20] The case influenced the California legislature to toughen sexual assault laws by requiring prison terms for rapists whose victims were unconscious and including digital penetration in the penal code's definition of rape.[21][22]

In September 2019, Chanel Miller, the "Emily Doe" in the case, revealed her real name and announced that she is releasing a book later in the month with the title Know My Name: A Memoir in which she discusses her experience of the assault, trial, and the aftermath.[23][24][25]
Background
Brock Turner was born August 1, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio.[8] He graduated from Oakwood High School in 2014, where he was a three-time All-American swimmer.[26][27] At the time of his arrest, Turner was a 19-year-old freshman at Stanford University; enrolled on a swimming scholarship.[8][5]

Before sentencing, the prosecution filed a memo with the court describing Turner's drug and alcohol history at Stanford and earlier in high school. It recounted that police found photos and messages on Turner's cell phone that indicated extensive drug use, including LSD, ecstasy, marijuana extracts, and excessive alcohol. Turner was arrested in 2014 for possession of alcohol while under legal age.[28]

By the conventions of U.S. courts and media, the woman Turner was convicted of assaulting was called "V01" in the redacted police report on the incident, "Jane Doe" in the indictment,[29] and "Emily Doe"[2] and "Jane Doe 1" by local and regional newspapers,[30] including the San Jose Mercury News, the Stanford Daily and the Palo Alto Weekly.[31] At the time of her assault, Doe was a 22-year-old alumna of a different college. Her younger[32] sister (referred to by the media as Tiffany[2][33] Doe[32] or Jane Doe 2[34]), was a student at a distant California university.

Incident details
Two Swedish graduate students, Peter Lars Jonsson (AKA W01) and Carl-Fredrik Arndt (AKA W02), were cycling by the Kappa Alpha fraternity on the Stanford campus about 1:00 a.m., on January 18, 2015, when they spotted the assault taking place.[35] According to Arndt and Jonsson, they surprised Turner behind a dumpster as he was on top of an unconscious woman.[12] Jonsson testified that he confronted him, asking, "What the fuck are you doing? She's unconscious." According to Jonsson, Turner quickly rose and fled the scene. As Arndt briefly went to determine whether she was breathing, Jonsson chased Turner, tripped him and held him down around 75 feet (23 m) away from the dumpster, asking "What are you smiling for?"[5] Later, responding to the assistant District Attorney's questions during the trial, Turner testified that he was laughing because he found the situation ridiculous.[36] Arndt rapidly joined the chase, helping to pin Turner down when he was apprehended. A bystander at the dumpster called emergency services while two other passersby arrived to help Arndt and Jonsson keep Turner pinned on the ground.[35] Campus police arrived moments later, questioned Turner, and then arrested him.

According to a deputy sheriff who described the victim as unconscious at the scene, when she arrived at the hospital, she did not respond to shouting and being shaken by the shoulders. She regained consciousness at 4:15 am.[37] She later testified at Brock's trial that at the time she regained consciousness, she had pine needles in her hair and on her body, and dried blood on her hands and elbows.[38] In an interview with police, she said she did not recall being alone with a man during the night and stated she did not consent to any sexual activity.[39] At the hospital, the victim was found to have abrasions and erythema (reddening) on her skin. One nurse who administered a Sexual assault response team examination at the hospital determined that she had experienced significant trauma (physical injury, bruising, etc.) and penetrating trauma (piercing and cutting injuries).[40]

Turner and the victim had attended a party at Kappa Alpha fraternity earlier in the night. The victim's sister testified in the trial that Turner, a man previously unknown to her, had approached her twice and attempted to kiss her, but that she pulled away. She also testified that she never saw Turner and the victim interact at the party.[41] According to a police report compiled in the morning after the incident, Turner at first told police that he met the victim outside the fraternity house and left with her. He also stated he did not know her name and "stated that he would not be able to recognize her if he saw her again."[42][39]

After his arrest, Turner told police that he met the victim at the Kappa Alpha house, they "drank beer together," "walked away from the house holding hands," and that he took off her clothes and fondled her while she rubbed his back. Turner then said he got nauseous and told her he needed to vomit. Turner said he got up and started to walk away to throw up, and heard another person saying something to him which he could not understand, then heard the same person talking to another person in a foreign language. He also denied running from the graduate students.[39][43] During his trial testimony, Turner stated that he and the victim drank beer together, danced and kissed at the party and agreed to go back to his room. Turner stated that the victim slipped on a slope behind a wooden shed, then Turner got down to the ground and started kissing with the victim. Turner stated he then asked her if she wanted him to "finger" her, to which she said yes. He stated that he "fingered" her for a minute as they were kissing, then they started "dry humping." Turner testified that he stumbled down an incline where he was confronted by the graduate students saying things like "You're sick" and "Do you think that's OK?" Turner testified that he didn't know what they were talking about.[44] They said they grabbed him, but Turner said that he broke away, but was quickly tackled.[4][44]

Both prosecuting Attorney Alaleh Kianerci and the victim alleged that Turner's narrative during trial testimony was fabricated.[33][45] Kianerci argued to the jury that, "He's able to write the script because she has no memory. But just because he wrote the script doesn't mean that ... knowledgeable jurors have to believe it."[33] The victim described Turner's testimony as presenting "a strange new story, [that] almost sounded like a poorly written young adult novel."[45]

Alcohol
In his statements Turner described initially drinking five Rolling Rock[44] beers and two swigs of Fireball whiskey in a friend's room, and then having more beer later,[46] reaching a total of nine drinks.[47]

Tested some time after his arrest, Turner's blood alcohol content was estimated to have been 0.171% at 1 a.m.[41][48] He testified that he did remember what happened that night.[4] Emily Doe's blood alcohol concentration was measured in a hospital several hours after the assault at 0.12%, and doctors estimated her intoxication level at 1 a.m., the estimated time of the assault, to have been around 0.22%,[48][49] or 0.242-0.249%.[41] She told the police that she did not remember the events from some point after her arrival at the party until she woke up more than three hours later in the hospital.[4][50] Shortly before 1 a.m., Doe phoned her boyfriend and left a voicemail message, which would be later entered as evidence by the prosecution. The Palo Alto Weekly described it as "almost entirely incomprehensible"; a juror later cited it as particularly strong evidence that she was not in a fit state to give consent.[51]

The blood alcohol estimates for Turner and Doe for 1 a.m. were made by a supervising criminalist for Santa Clara County using nominally hypothetical situations.[41]

Turner admitted to only limited prior experience with alcohol, as a putative mitigating factor. However, evidence recovered from his cell phone texts recorded in the year before his 2015 arrest showed that he had extensively discussed his use of alcohol.[52] His text messages also revealed use of illegal drugs.[53] In 2014, Turner had been arrested on campus for underage drinking.[54]

Consciousness
Doe reported that her last memory was around midnight, and that she did not remember telephone calls to her sister and sister's friend made shortly after that.[41] A responding paramedic said she did not respond to a "shake and shout" test,[41] but that she opened her eyes when he pinched her nail beds.[41] When Doe vomited on the scene before being taken away by ambulances, she was able to cough and spit out the vomit on her own without assistance.[41] In a January 19 report, the paramedic rated her as 11 out of 15 on the Glasgow Coma Scale.[41]

DNA
Santa Clara County criminalist Craig Lee testified that the woman's DNA was found under the fingernails of Turner's left and right hands and on a portion of his right finger. Lee's test did not show when the DNA was deposited and could not tell if it was blood, but he said it did resemble blood. The woman testified that she woke up with dried blood on her hands and elbows.[3][55]

Official responses
Turner withdrew from Stanford shortly after the incident rather than face disciplinary proceedings. On January 20—two days after his arrest—Stanford announced Turner had been banned from campus.[56] Stanford further announced within two weeks of the incident that it had banned Turner from ever setting foot on campus again—the harshest disciplinary sanction it can impose on a student.[57]

Turner had aspirations to swim for the U.S. National Team in the 2016 Olympics, but USA Swimming stated on June 6 that he would not be eligible for membership if he sought to reapply.[58][59] On June 10, USA Swimming reiterated that Turner would never be welcome in its ranks again, under its zero-tolerance policy for sexual misconduct. That announcement effectively banned Turner from ever participating in a competitive swimming event for the United States. Sanctioned meets in the United States—including Olympic trials—are open only to members of USA Swimming.[60]

Indictment and charges
On January 28, 2015, Turner was indicted on five charges:[61][62]

rape of an intoxicated person
rape of an unconscious person
sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an unconscious woman
sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an intoxicated woman
assault with intent to commit rape
These were summarized as "two counts of rape, two counts of penetration and one count of assault with intent to rape".[8] The two formal charges of rape under California state law were dropped at a preliminary hearing on October 7, 2015,[62] after DNA testing revealed no genetic evidence of genital-to-genital contact.[3][4] On March 7, 2016, The People filed Motions in Limine And Witness List, which outlined permissible Evidence guidelines for the trial.[63] The trial began on March 14, 2016.[10]

Sentencing
On March 30, 2016, Turner was found guilty of three felonies: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.[64]

Prosecutors recommended that Turner be given a six-year prison sentence based on the purposefulness of the action, the effort to hide this activity and her intoxicated state.[65] Santa Clara County probation officials, including his probation officer Monica Lassettre, recommended that Turner receive a "moderate" county jail sentence with formal probation based on Turner's lack of criminal history, youth and expression of remorse.[13] The probation report did not mention another woman who said she had been upset by Turner's unwanted physical advances at a Kappa Alpha party, eight days before the charged offense. This report was present in the trial record.[66]

On June 2, 2016, the Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in the Santa Clara County jail[11] followed by three years of probation.[13][67] After three months in jail, Turner was released on September 2, 2016.[14][68] He is permanently registered as a sex offender,[14] and was made obligated to participate in a sex offender rehabilitation program.[12]

Reaction
Controversy over sentence
Prosecutors and victims' rights advocates criticized Persky's sentencing as lenient and biased.[15] Persky himself had been a student and lacrosse team captain at Stanford University.[69]

Nancy Brewer, a retired Santa Clara County assistant public defender, described Persky as being respected by both prosecutors and defenders, stating that he was seen as a fair judge who is not soft on crime or a judge that would give lenient sentences. Brewer said that Persky had carefully evaluated the evidence and did what he thought was a fair and appropriate sentence in the case based on the Santa Clara County Probation Department's pre-sentence investigation report. Attorney and media legal analyst Danny Cevallos said: "[the judge] absolutely is obliged to consider very seriously the [probation department] report," and noted that the California penal code allows a judge to depart from the statutory minimum (two years) after considering the defendant's lack of criminal history and the effect of incarceration. Cevallos believed that while the sentence was lenient, Turner's prior clean record made him a candidate for minimum sentencing.[70]

Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan did not consider the sentence lenient as he noted "Turner will register as a sex offender for life, and if he violates his probation he could go to prison for 14 years." Khan further stated that "Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist", saying, "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him [sic] where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him. We appreciated ... the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity ... and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients."[16][71] Similarly, other sitting judges (both state and federal) and legal commentators have defended Persky's decision, noted that the sentence may, in their opinion, be disproportionate due to the lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, and called on the bar to protect the independence of the judiciary.[72][73][74]

Turner's father protested the prison sentence requested by the prosecutor, saying "[The sentence] is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life."[75] Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen criticized the letter from Turner's father to the court, saying it reduced a brutal sexual assault to "20 minutes of action."[76]

Repercussions to the judge
Persky recalled
Although he did not face any opposition in an election held five days after the sentencing, Persky faced a campaign to recall him. Online petitions calling for Persky to be removed attracted over a million signatures by June 10, 2016.[77] Professor Michele Dauber, of the Stanford Law School and longtime advocate on campus sexual assault,[78] who is also a family friend of the victim, led the Committee to Recall Judge Persky. The Committee planned to collect signatures in Santa Clara County to force a November 2017 recall vote.[79] A request for an injunction by Persky delayed that initiative. The California Attorney General's office supported the propriety of the county registrar of voters approval of the petition allowing the recall to go forward. Persky's legal team argued that since he was a state officer, only the California Secretary of State had the authority to approve its acceptance. The recall vote required gathering 90,000 verified signatures.[80] Persky paid $30,000 to the firm of Brian Seitchik, the manager of Donald Trump's presidential campaign in Arizona, to lead the opposition to the recall.[81] A retired judge living in Santa Cruz heard Persky's request for injunction to prevent the recall election, and approved it.[82] The demands for recall received support from Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas), who spoke in the United States House of Representatives to condemn Turner's sentence as too lenient and to call for Persky's removal.[83]

The move to recall Persky was opposed by the Santa Clara County public defender, who said she was "alarmed by the hysteria" about the Turner sentence. A group of 70 public defenders petitioned in support of Persky, warning against "mass incarceration" brought upon by state legislatures or indiscreet judges, and fearing that the backlash against Persky could hurt their clients (mostly poor African and Latino) by compelling judges to give out harsh sentences. Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan wrote "rather than using robotic, one size fits all punishment schemes, we want judges, like Judge Persky, to engage in thoughtful, case by case, individualized determinations of the appropriate sentence for a particular crime and particular offender".[16][17] Santa Clara County district attorney Jeff Rosen, whose office prosecuted Turner and did not appeal the sentence, stated, "While I strongly disagree with the sentence that Judge Persky issued in the Brock Turner case, I do not believe he should be removed from his judgeship"[84], adding, "Judicial independence is a critical part of the U.S. justice system. The immense power that comes with judicial independence also comes with accountability to the people we serve."[17]

Danny Cevallos stated that judges enjoy a modicum of independence from public pressure, and "there are no apparent grounds for impeachment or allegations of judicial misconduct, based on this sentence alone." Cevallos said that the recall movement "raises the question: is removing judges good for the spirit of the judiciary system, especially when the judge's sole transgression is a legal sentence" where he correctly applied the law.[85][86] The Santa Clara County Bar Association released a statement saying that removing Persky would be a "threat to judicial independence" and weighs just one of his 13 years of decisions too heavily, saying they see "no credible assertions that in issuing the sentence, Judge Persky violated the law or his ethical obligations or acted in bad faith."[16] Similarly, other sitting judges (both state and federal) and legal commentators defended Persky's decision, noted that the sentence might, in their opinion, be disproportionate due to the lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, and called on the bar to protect the independence of the judiciary.[72][73][74]

In June 2016, at least ten prospective jurors refused to serve in a misdemeanor trial for possession of stolen property where Persky was presiding, citing the judge's sentencing of Turner as a reason.[87] The following week, Rosen filed a peremptory motion for recusal in a case where Persky was to preside over the criminal trial of a surgical nurse charged with sexual battery for allegedly touching the genitals of a patient under sedation. Rosen called his move to have the judge removed from the case, "a rare and carefully considered step for our office."[87]

As a result of the backlash in the wake of his sentencing, Persky asked not to hear any more criminal cases and was reassigned to the Civil Division of the California Court system.[88]

The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, on January 24, 2018, confirmed that sufficient signatures had been verified to put the recall on the ballot. There were 94,539 signatures submitted, only a fraction of which were verified in order to reach the total needed to qualify.[89] The recall issue was on the state elections ballot on June 5, 2018.[90] The California Commission on Judicial Performance found that Persky had not abused his discretion. He was supported by dozens of law school professors, retired judges and the Santa Clara Bar Association. He stood by his sentencing, saying he's been unfairly targeted as the "face of rape" by recall advocates. At the same time he admitted, "There is an underlying deep frustration among actual victims of sexual assault and women in general about the criminal justice system not taking sexual assault and domestic violence seriously. It's a very genuine and important problem." "The passion is authentic, the end is justified, let's increase sexual assault reporting. Let's do criminal justice reform where it's smart to do so." In a press conference in May 2018, Persky compared his sentence handed down in the Turner case to that of Brown v. Board of Education.[91] [92][93][94]

In a May 18, 2018 interview, Persky stated he had no regrets, and would rule exactly the same again on this case.[95]

Two women, Cindy Hendrickson, a Santa Clara County assistant district attorney and Angela Storey, a civil attorney, appeared on the ballot to take Persky's position in the event of his successful recall.[96] Storey opposed the recall on principle. When the election results were being tabulated, and they indicated Persky would be recalled, Professor Dauber stated, "The vote today ... is a vote against impunity for high-status offenders of domestic violence and sexual violence." Hendrickson won the election to take Persky's place.[97] Persky left the bench and Hendrickson was sworn in ten days after the election results were certified.[96] In the June 5, 2018 primary election, nearly 200,000 Santa Clara County voters turned out, voting to remove Persky by 61.51% to 38.49%, a margin of over 23%. Persky was the first judge to be recalled by voters in California in 86 years, and the first in the United States since 1977.[98]

Persky ordered to pay legal fees
The county clerk had 28 days within which to certify the recall election results, ten days after which Hendrickson would take Persky's place on the bench.[99] Persky was ordered to pay $161,000 in restitution for lawsuits he filed against the recall.[100] He sought over $135,000 in donations from the public to cover attorney fees after the $840,000 previously raised had been exhausted.[101]

Revisit of previous civil case of alleged rape
Main article: 2007 De Anza rape investigation
In 2011, Persky presided over a civil lawsuit against multiple members of the De Anza College baseball team, who were accused by plaintiff "Jane Doe" of gang-raping the then-underaged girl while she was unconscious, until another party attendee who heard the commotion intervened. The civil trial came after the District Attorney had declined to prosecute a criminal case, as she thought evidence was lacking. During the civil trial, Persky decided that the jury should be allowed to view photographs of the plaintiff taken at another party she attended approximately a year after the alleged gang rape, as per the defense's claim that this evidence contradicted the plaintiff's claims of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.[102] The jury found the defendants not liable.[103]

Following Turner's sentencing in 2016, the plaintiff's attorneys in the De Anza case criticized Persky for allowing the photos into evidence. Attorneys for Doe said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. Four of the baseball players had invoked Fifth Amendment rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. According to a lawyer for Doe, that was a critical juncture: it prevented their legal team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could refuse to testify, but that meant that they would be prohibited from subsequently testifying in the case. That prohibition was lifted by Persky after he took over the trial in 2011, a move that Doe's attorneys say undermined her case.[102]

Statements
Defendant's statements
After the guilty verdict, Turner said to his probation officer that the encounter was consensual.[104] He also gave an 11-page statement to the judge[46] that said he received verbal consent from the woman before she passed out.

According to Turner's statement, he and the woman drank, danced, and kissed at the party. Sometime around midnight, according to Turner, he asked her whether she would like to go back to his dorm and she said yes. He claimed that she had slipped behind a wooden shed, whereupon he sat down on the ground with her and engaged in consensual sexual activity, until he became nauseous and walked away to throw up.[4][105]

Turner stated, "It debilitates me to think that my actions have caused her [Emily Doe] emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair."[106]

Victim-impact statements

Owl

Owls are birds from the order Strigiformes, which includes about 200 species of mostly solitary and nocturnal birds of prey typified by an upright stance, a large, broad head, binocular vision, binaural hearing, sharp talons, and feathers adapted for silent flight. Exceptions include the diurnal northern hawk-owl and the gregarious burrowing owl.

Owls hunt mostly small mammals, insects, and other birds, although a few species specialize in hunting fish. They are found in all regions of the Earth except polar ice caps and some remote islands.

Owls are divided into two families: the true (or typical) owl family, Strigidae, and the barn-owl family, Tytonidae
Owls possess large, forward-facing eyes and ear-holes, a hawk-like beak, a flat face, and usually a conspicuous circle of feathers, a facial disc, around each eye. The feathers making up this disc can be adjusted to sharply focus sounds from varying distances onto the owls' asymmetrically placed ear cavities. Most birds of prey have eyes on the sides of their heads, but the stereoscopic nature of the owl's forward-facing eyes permits the greater sense of depth perception necessary for low-light hunting. Although owls have binocular vision, their large eyes are fixed in their sockets—as are those of most other birds—so they must turn their entire heads to change views. As owls are farsighted, they are unable to clearly see anything within a few centimeters of their eyes. Caught prey can be felt by owls with the use of filoplumes—hairlike feathers on the beak and feet that act as "feelers". Their far vision, particularly in low light, is exceptionally good.

Owls can rotate their heads and necks as much as 270°. Owls have 14 neck vertebrae compared to seven in humans, which makes their necks more flexible. They also have adaptations to their circulatory systems, permitting rotation without cutting off blood to the brain: the foramina in their vertebrae through which the vertebral arteries pass are about 10 times the diameter of the artery, instead of about the same size as the artery as in humans; the vertebral arteries enter the cervical vertebrae higher than in other birds, giving the vessels some slack, and the carotid arteries unite in a very large anastomosis or junction, the largest of any bird's, preventing blood supply from being cut off while they rotate their necks. Other anastomoses between the carotid and vertebral arteries support this effect.[1][2]

The smallest owl—weighing as little as 31 g (1 oz) and measuring some 13.5 cm (5 in)—is the elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi).[3] Around the same diminutive length, although slightly heavier, are the lesser known long-whiskered owlet (Xenoglaux loweryi) and Tamaulipas pygmy owl (Glaucidium sanchezi).[3] The largest owls are two similarly sized eagle owls; the Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) and Blakiston's fish owl (Bubo blakistoni). The largest females of these species are 71 cm (28 in) long, have 54 cm (21 in) long wings, and weigh 4.2 kg (9.3 lb).[3][4][5][6][7]

Different species of owls produce different sounds; this distribution of calls aids owls in finding mates or announcing their presence to potential competitors, and also aids ornithologists and birders in locating these birds and distinguishing species. As noted above, their facial discs help owls to funnel the sound of prey to their ears. In many species, these discs are placed asymmetrically, for better directional location.

Owl plumage is generally cryptic, although several species have facial and head markings, including face masks, ear tufts, and brightly coloured irises. These markings are generally more common in species inhabiting open habitats, and are thought to be used in signaling with other owls in low-light conditions.[8]

Sexual dimorphism
Sexual dimorphism is a physical difference between males and females of a species. Reverse sexual dimorphism, when females are larger than males, has been observed across multiple owl species.[9] The degree of size dimorphism varies across multiple populations and species, and is measured through various traits, such as wing span and body mass.[9] Overall, female owls tend to be slightly larger than males. The exact explanation for this development in owls is unknown. However, several theories explain the development of sexual dimorphism in owls.

One theory suggests that selection has led males to be smaller because it allows them to be efficient foragers. The ability to obtain more food is advantageous during breeding season. In some species, female owls stay at their nest with their eggs while it is the responsibility of the male to bring back food to the nest.[10] However, if food is scarce, the male first feeds himself before feeding the female.[11] Small birds, which are agile, are an important source of food for owls. Male burrowing owls have been observed to have longer wing chords than females, despite being smaller than females.[11] Furthermore, owls have been observed to be roughly the same size as their prey.[11] This has also been observed in other predatory birds,[10] which suggests that owls with smaller bodies and long wing chords have been selected for because of the increased agility and speed that allows them to catch their prey.[citation needed]

Another popular theory suggests that females have not been selected to be smaller like male owls because of their sexual roles. In many species, female owls may not leave the nest. Therefore, females may have a larger mass to allow them to go for a longer period of time without starving. For example, one hypothesized sexual role is that larger females are more capable of dismembering prey and feeding it to their young, hence female owls are larger than their male counterparts.[9]

A different theory suggests that the size difference between male and females is due to sexual selection: since large females can choose their mate and may violently reject a male's sexual advances, smaller male owls that have the ability to escape unreceptive females are more likely to have been selected.[11]

Adaptations for hunting
All owls are carnivorous birds of prey and live mainly on a diet of insects and small rodents such as mice, rats, and hares. Some owls are also specifically adapted to hunt fish. They are very adept in hunting in their respective environments. Since owls can be found in nearly all parts of the world and across a multitude of ecosystems, their hunting skills and characteristics vary slightly from species to species, though most characteristics are shared among all species.[citation needed]

Flight and feathers
Most owls share an innate ability to fly almost silently and also more slowly in comparison to other birds of prey. Most owls live a mainly nocturnal lifestyle and being able to fly without making any noise gives them a strong advantage over their prey that are listening for the slightest sound in the night. A silent, slow flight is not as necessary for diurnal and crepuscular owls given that prey can usually see an owl approaching. While the morphological and biological mechanisms of this silent flight are more or less unknown, the structure of the feather has been heavily studied and accredited to a large portion of why they have this ability. Owls’ feathers are generally larger than the average birds’ feathers, have fewer radiates, longer pennulum, and achieve smooth edges with different rachis structures.[12] Serrated edges along the owl's remiges bring the flapping of the wing down to a nearly silent mechanism. The serrations are more likely reducing aerodynamic disturbances, rather than simply reducing noise.[12] The surface of the flight feathers is covered with a velvety structure that absorbs the sound of the wing moving. These unique structures reduce noise frequencies above 2 kHz,[13] making the sound level emitted drop below the typical hearing spectrum of the owl's usual prey[13][14] and also within the owl's own best hearing range.[15][16] This optimizes the owl's ability to silently fly to capture prey without the prey hearing the owl first as it flies in. It also allows the owl to monitor the sound output from its flight pattern.
The feather adaption that allows silent flight means that barn owl feathers are not waterproof. To retain the softness and silent flight, the barn owl cannot use the preen oil or powder dust that other species use for waterproofing. In wet weather, they cannot hunt and this may be disastrous during the breeding season. Barn owls are frequently found drowned in cattle drinking troughs, since they land to drink and bathe, but are unable to climb out. Owls can struggle to keep warm, because of their lack of waterproofing, so large numbers of downy feathers help them to retain body heat.[17]

Vision
Eyesight is a particular characteristic of the owl that aids in nocturnal prey capture. Owls are part of a small group of birds that live nocturnally, but do not use echolocation to guide them in flight in low-light situations. Owls are known for their disproportionally large eyes in comparison to their skulls. An apparent consequence of the evolution of an absolutely large eye in a relatively small skull is that the eye of the owl has become tubular in shape. This shape is found in other so-called nocturnal eyes, such as the eyes of strepsirrhine primates and bathypelagic fishes.[18] Since the eyes are fixed into these sclerotic tubes, they are unable to move the eyes in any direction.[19] Instead of moving their eyes, owls swivel their heads to view their surroundings. Owls' heads are capable of swiveling through an angle of roughly 270°, easily enabling them to see behind them without relocating the torso.[19] This ability keeps bodily movement at a minimum, thus reduces the amount of sound the owl makes as it waits for its prey. Owls are regarded as having the most frontally placed eyes among all avian groups, which gives them some of the largest binocular fields of vision. However, owls are farsighted and cannot focus on objects within a few centimeters of their eyes.[18][20] These mechanisms are only able to function due to the large-sized retinal image.[21] Thus, the primary nocturnal function in the vision of the owl is due to its large posterior nodal distance; retinal image brightness is only maximized to the owl within secondary neural functions.[21] These attributes of the owl cause its nocturnal eyesight to be far superior to that of its average prey.[21]

Hearing
Owls exhibit specialized hearing functions and ear shapes that also aid in hunting. They are noted for asymmetrical ear placements on the skull in some genera. Owls can have either internal or external ears, both of which are asymmetrical. Asymmetry has not been reported to extend to the middle or internal ear of the owl. Asymmetrical ear placement on the skull allows the owl to pinpoint the location of its prey. This is especially true for strictly nocturnal species such as the barn owls Tyto or Tengmalm's owl.[19] With ears set at different places on its skull, an owl is able to determine the direction from which the sound is coming by the minute difference in time that it takes for the sound waves to penetrate the left and right ears.[citation needed] The owl turns its head until the sound reaches both ears at the same time, at which point it is directly facing the source of the sound. This time difference between ears is a matter of about 0.00003 seconds, or 30 millionths of a second. Behind the ear openings are modified, dense feathers, densely packed to form a facial ruff, which creates an anterior-facing, concave wall that cups the sound into the ear structure.[22] This facial ruff is poorly defined in some species, and prominent, nearly encircling the face, in other species. The facial disk also acts to direct sound into the ears, and a downward-facing, sharply triangular beak minimizes sound reflection away from the face. The shape of the facial disk is adjustable at will to focus sounds more effectively.[19]

The prominences above a great horned owl's head are commonly mistaken as its ears. This is not the case; they are merely feather tufts. The ears are on the sides of the head in the usual location (in two different locations as described above).

Talons
While the auditory and visual capabilities of the owl allow it to locate and pursue its prey, the talons and beak of the owl do the final work. The owl kills its prey using these talons to crush the skull and knead the body.[19] The crushing power of an owl's talons varies according to prey size and type, and by the size of the owl. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a small, partly insectivorous owl, has a release force of only 5 N. The larger barn owl (Tyto alba) needs a force of 30 N to release its prey, and one of the largest owls, the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) needs a force over 130 N to release prey in its talons.[23] An owl's talons, like those of most birds of prey, can seem massive in comparison to the body size outside of flight. The masked owl[which?] has some of the proportionally longest talons of any bird of prey; they appear enormous in comparison to the body when fully extended to grasp prey.[24] An owl's claws are sharp and curved. The family Tytonidae has inner and central toes of about equal length, while the family Strigidae has an inner toe that is distinctly shorter than the central one.[23] These different morphologies allow efficiency in capturing prey specific to the different environments they inhabit.

Beak
The beak of the owl is short, curved, and downward-facing, and typically hooked at the tip for gripping and tearing its prey. Once prey is captured, the scissor motion of the top and lower bill is used to tear the tissue and kill. The sharp lower edge of the upper bill works in coordination with the sharp upper edge of the lower bill to deliver this motion. The downward-facing beak allows the owl's field of vision to be clear, as well as directing sound into the ears without deflecting sound waves away from the face