A bit of “Aktenzeichen XY”, a little “How would you decide”?, a touch of Ferdinand von Schirach: Stern TV starts a “live experiment” and lets the viewers judge: Can a police officer use violence if it serves a good cause?

A police officer breaks the law to save someone’s life. That is exactly what happened two decades ago: In the case of the kidnapping of the eleven-year-old son of a banker, Jakob von Metzler, police inspector Ortwin Ennigkeit severely questioned suspect Magnus Gäfgen. On the instructions of his superior, Ennigkeit threatened torture: with pain he had never experienced in his life. Gäfgen curtsied and led the police to the place where he had hidden the boy.

The police officers could not save a child’s life with this action, Gäfgen had already murdered the boy on the day of the kidnapping. The perpetrator received life imprisonment – but also compensation for pain and suffering due to the threat of state authority. The process was also made hastily – he was sentenced to a fine for coercion in office.

That was 20 years ago and actually everything has been said, shown and written about this tragic case. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop Stern TV from developing a so-called “live experiment” from it, in which the audience can play the lay judge: Does the end justify the means?

Stern TV has developed a criminal case that uses the Jakob von Metzler case: an eight-year-old girl is kidnapped, a suspect is caught and interrogated. If he doesn’t soon reveal where he hid little Antonia, she could die because the child suffers from diabetes and needs insulin. “I can make sure we’re just between ourselves,” whispers the officer to the suspect: “Just you and me.” A threat? Or just a statement?

When the suspect doesn’t make a move, the inspector finally becomes clearer: “If you don’t talk now, I’ll hurt you a lot.” Finally he becomes violent – with two consequences: the perpetrator talks first – and then collapses unconscious. He will be in a coma for weeks, but the girl can be saved. So did the commissioner do the right thing?

Watching the actors go about their investigative work is excruciating. And unfortunately not because the thriller is so nerve-wrackingly exciting, but because it is the nerve-wrackingly lame implementation of a very flat screenplay. RTL doesn’t trust the audience to do their own intellectual work: “The investigators are running out of time,” says white on black on the screen, followed by the image of a loudly ticking clock. It’s all so badass that it’s almost like torture, too.

Beyond the amateur drama, people who are either experts or are on the victim side have their say. For example, the parents of 17-year-old Anneli-Marie Rise, who was kidnapped and murdered in 2015. Father Uwe Rise becomes the defender of the violence against suspects: “Everyone involved should simply do what their heart tells them to do.” Should this emotionally understandable opinion prevail, we would soon have lynchings in Germany.

The fact that law and justice are seldom congruent is nothing new. However, Stern TV does everything it can to grab the average viewer emotionally and not burden him with the very complex legal debate. The first voting results are accordingly: 77 percent of the “Stern TV” viewers demanded by voting that psychological pressure should be allowed on suspects.

70.85 percent of the viewers deny the criminal the right to integrity, although RTL is already talking very uncleanly about the perpetrator and no longer about the suspect. Towards the end, the Saxon constitutional judge Elisa Hoven, thankfully, sums it up again: that in the fabricated criminal case, pressure and violence are exerted on someone who is only under suspicion. And in extreme cases could be innocent. We shouldn’t challenge the ban on torture, emphasizes the lawyer once again. By allowing violence in interrogation, “we open a door that we should not open”.

So is the violent officer in the fake detective guilty? The audience vote for the new live experiment from Stern TV is clear: the police inspector is acquitted, 87 percent of the TV audience think this is the right verdict. The show, on the other hand, should be found guilty: guilty of the willful destruction of airtime, redundancy and boredom. Nevertheless, Hallaschka threatens to repeat this live experiment at the end of the program, which fulfills the facts of the intention. Should mandas support? Next time you will vote with the remote control.

The original of this post “Controversial poll: Do we really need more torture in the police station?” comes from Bunte.de.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here