英文摘要 |
Although digitalization and big data are notions that are rather familiar terms in our public debate, but most people don't really understand the difference between these new techniques and more traditional ways of analysis. Therefore, it is often not clear what differences occur when these new analytical tools are applied to criminal procedure law. Therefore, this article first gives some short definitions for digitalization and big data before explaining how they can be analyzed in the realm of criminal procedure law with previously unseen tools such as neuronal networks or profiling. In concrete terms, this contribution compares investigative methods that make use of traditional logic, such as large scale data comparison (Rasterfahndung) and profiling, which makes use of techniques such as artificial neuronal networks. Due to the specifics of analytical methods applied, both utilize data in very different ways and produce very different results, lending them different potential within investigation and evidential value. This leads to changes in the possibilities and aims of criminal procedure law, thus redefining scope and aims of investigation. Due to these changes, EU law (guideline(EU)2016/680) integrates prevention of crimes into the realm of criminal procedure, it even introduces prevention as a goal for investigation. On the other side, we can see how i.e. German criminal procedure law keeps up with the basic concept of repression as core value of criminal law, thus not allowing for investigation prior to the suspicion that a crime already happened. Therefore German law takes another path and combines police law and criminal procedure law in a very new fashion, allowing both laws to form a common investigative cluster. |