Facts
The High Court of the Canton of Zurich convicted the appellant P. of murder, multiple robberies, attempted robbery, and coercion, and sentenced him to 16 years of penitentiary. P. filed a nullity appeal requesting the judgment to be set aside and the case to be remanded to the lower court for a new decision. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the nullity appeal. According to the expert opinion, the appellant suffered from a personality development disorder, but was neither mentally ill nor addicted to substances. However, the lower court denied that the requirements for commitment to a work education institution under Art. 100bis of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB) were met. Although the appellant exhibited an immature personality and character deficits, these were not considered significant within the meaning of the law. Furthermore, his obvious dangerousness was considered an obstacle to commitment to a work education institution.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that commitment to a work education institution is possible even in the case of serious offenses such as murder, but the higher the sentence against the young adult, the higher the requirements must be. The more the perpetrator can be attributed to adult criminal law in terms of person and act, the more the aspects originating from juvenile criminal law recede. The decisive factor is the dangerousness of the perpetrator, not just the severity of the offense. Dangerous…