• Energy Research
• clinical medicine close
• 16. Peace & justice close
• 7. Clean energy close
• German close

The author deals with the question when and on which conditions it is allowed to read out the record on the blood-sample, the report on medical findings and the expert-opinion and blood-alcohol in the main hearing of a law court as a documentary proof. Furthermore he explains how the revision reproof is to represented to the appeal court in case of violation.

Blood samples sent in for analysis in 1992 and 1993 showed an increase in the BAC values of offenders in the "driving under the influence" category. At the same time it was found that, proportionally, the number of people whose BAC was below 0.8% had dropped. The same trend could be observed in the "road accident" category. This trend continued throughout 1994. One can therefore assume that the introduction of the "0.8% law" in eastern Germany has brought with it an increase in the level of intoxication of people driving under the influence of alcohol.

Presented is a case of murder by means of chloroquine, committed on a 36-year-old male. The wife of the deceased had confessed to have secretely administered chloroquine-containing tablets to her husband. She was lawfully sentenced to life-imprisonment. The toxicological findings of this case are compared to the results of two chloroquine suicide cases and discussed in the context of the referring literature. An additional case where chloroquine intoxication was doubtful is introduced because of the unusual circumstances under which it occurred.

In the successor states of former Czechoslovakia, the law enforces the principle of 0.0% alcohol content in blood while operating a motorized vehicle. Those persons who break this law can be punished according to either section 201 StGB "Jeopardizing others while under the influence of addictive substances" or section 201 a StGB which regulates "drunk driving" instances. Various sanctions can also be imposed: 1) imprisonment; 2) confiscation of driver's license; 3) monetary fine. Within the judicial framework, driving while intoxicated, 0.1% alcohol content in blood, is absolutely forbidden, and in some cases, an alcohol content of 0.08% is sufficient to place the suspect under the same laws regulating 0.1% category. The alcohol content in the blood is usually determined by means of a blood or urine test.

The article contains a compilation of decisions recently made by German criminal courts. These decisions regarded punishable offences due to driving vehicles under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. They also dealt with the assessment of respective criminal offences and their legal consequences (punishment and withdrawal of driving licences).

The Institute for Legal Medicine in Hamburg carried out a retrospective analysis for identity checks of stored blood samples. A total of 70,597 blood alcohol examinations were carried out between 1984 and 1993. Identity checks were commissioned for 187 people (0.26% of the total of all blood samples). Amongst those, 33 cases of "non-identity" were established (17.6% of all checked blood samples). The results are compared to an earlier study by Kleiber over a span of 10 years--between 1974 and 1983. While the frequency of identity checks decreased, the cases of "non-identity" increased quite drastically in comparison. In the cases where "non-identity" could be detected, it was not a matter of blood samples getting mixed up. However, it was a matter of intentional, sometimes very cunning ploys by means of other people's IDs, forged IDs and impersonations. In these cases the later checking of the blood group systems proved to be important evidence in the criminal proceedings. This evidence would not be available if there were to be no blood alcohol tests.

Following a well known decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, German Federal Court) a driver with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of more than 0.13% is seen as "absolutely unfit for driving" and will be prosecuted by criminal law. This decision was based on the results of a comprehensive review of the literature about the effects of alcohol done 1966 by the Bundesgesundheitsamt (BGA, National Bureau of Health). There, severe impairments were described at levels above 0.1%, a value which the BGH "rounded up" to 0.11%. The possible errors of measurement were estimated as 0.02%. Adding both values yielded the legal limit of 0.13%. Most recently Salger (vice-president of the BGH) in a decisive manner pleaded for a reduction of this limit to 0.11% both by lowering the assumed measurement error to 0.01% and by taking back the rounding-up operation. Explicitely he based these intended corrections of the former decision on two arguments he derived from the scientific research on alcohol and driving: 1. Significant impairments are linked with BACs higher than 0.1%. 2. This was demonstrated by road-side studies, studies with instrumented cars, and driving simulators which are more valid methods to predict driving behavior than studies conducted in the laboratory. We proved these assumptions by analyzing the literature about driving studies as well as the literature from laboratory studies on alcohol. This article mainly concentrates on the empirical results coming from driving studies. It demonstrates a clear-cut empirical evidence that no single limit can be determined from where alcohol-induced impairment begins. Quality and quantity of this impairment strongly depends on how difficult the driving situation actually is. Therefore, BAC and situational difficulty act together in a synergistic way. A driver only confronted with standard traffic situations which are easy to handle may react correctly despite a BAC of 0.1% and quite more. If difficulty is slightly augmented to situations where a more controlled and/or precision-oriented non-automatic driving is required, significant impairments were seen at levels of 0.07%. In traffic situations with unpredictable events and/or extreme driving conditions severe impairments are found even at levels below 0.05%. These results perfectly match with the results from the laboratory studies. As a consequence, any public policy decision as to the acceptable legal limit of alcohol has to include a decision as to the difficulty of traffic situations which has to be mastered by the driver. Claiming that a normal driver has to deal efficiently with a medium level of difficulty the scientific evidence demands a legal limit of about 0.07%.

In a review the author agrees with the German Federal Court's judgement of 9.8.88 (see Blutalkohol 25,403). He deals with the relation between physiological and psychological circumstantial evidences (blood-alcohol-concentration and condition of personality in the time of violation) and with their reference to the ascertainment of reduced responsibility. In accordance with the Federal Court he states that within the necessary total assessment the importance of blood-alcohol-concentration is the lower the more the BAC-level figured out is remote from the probable BAC in the time of violation because of the long period of time between. He concludes that the Federal Court was successful in it's attempt to draw the juridical arguments near to those of forensic medicine.

Already as early as 1955 the German Federal Board of Health pointed out that the legal treatment of drunken drivers according to traffic (criminal) law regulations was not in accord with the proven effects of alcohol upon the human system and traffic safety. The Board of Health therefore recommended a revision of the regulation. The acceptable percent of alcohol in the blood of a driver should not exceed 0.08% while the said person is operating a motorized vehicle. Further, if a driver is found to be over the limit, he will be punished by law. This author has shown the extent to which policymakers have gone in attempting to pass laws which concur with recommendations resulting from scientific/medical research. Regarding this issue, it is especially disturbing that little attempt has been made to assimilate East German law into West German law.

According to a great number of judgements by law courts the authors show different criterions for and against fixing a prison sentence and for and against suspension of punishment for probation in cases of drunken driving. The criterions depend partly on the way of committing an offence, partly on the person of the offender and partly even on his actions after the offence and before punishment. On principle an execution of punishment is necessary in cases of mortal drunken driving.