Psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok could miss the case of Rupperswil. On Thursday, this will be negotiated in the second instance, the High Court of Aargau. Shortly before the start of the trial, Urbaniok presented new arguments. In an interview with this newspaper, he explained why the two experts interviewed should have misinterpreted a central point. According to Urbaniok, could not say because of diagnoses, quadruple murder, Thomas N. is treatable. Because his act can not be explained with personality disorder.
This statement is explosive because it would authorize one of the most controversial political and legal measures in Switzerland: a life sentence.
"The action of Urbaniok is untenable"
Online comments on Urbanioks The majority of interviews are positive. But in the professional world, this causes outrage. Marianne Heer, Professor of Criminal Law and Chief Justice in Lucerne, describes her actions as "unsustainable":
"Here, Mr. Urbaniok assumes the role of senior expert, without knowing the records or disposing of them. a corresponding mandate. "
Urbaniok Pleads for Twenty Years Several years ago, current psychiatric diagnostic systems did not permit the assessment of the danger of an offender. At a meeting in September, Bernd Borchard, from the Zurich Prison Office, took a stand. Borchard worked with Urbaniok. Psychiatrists Marc Graf and Elmar Habermeyer did not agree with this attitude, reports Heer, who co-organized the conference. Habermeyer is the author of one of the two reports in the Rupperswil case. Army says:
"Urbaniok represents an opinion that psychiatrists do not share outside of its environment."
The lawyer Heer is particularly angry at the psychiatrist for making a legal statement. He criticized the fact that the referendum on the detention initiative would not be implemented. Heer says: "Frank Urbaniok abuses his authority as a recognized psychiatrist to make political and legal statements to which he is not competent."
In his own professional life, Heer notes that judges are under extreme public pressure. He adds: "It is an unhealthy development that should not be fostered by such interference just before a trial." Urbaniok disregards the division of roles between justice and psychiatry: "It is an attack on the independence of the judiciary."