Felor Badenberg Seeks Adult Penal Law for Young Adults in Berlin

Felor Badenberg Calls for Adult Penal Law in Serious Crimes

Berlin’s justice senator Felor Badenberg (CDU) has proposed a major shift in how the legal system handles young adult offenders, a reform that experts have demanded for years. Following an Islamist attack at the edge of the Christopher Street Day (CSD) in Berlin, the politician made her case for restricting the application of youth criminal law. Under current German legislation, youth criminal law applies up to the 18th birthday, but can be applied up to the 21st birthday based on the offender’s age at the time of the act and the central principle of Erziehung statt Sühne (education instead of atonement).

Badenberg contends that this framework is absurd and outdated for individuals who have reached legal majority. Pointing to the fact that 18-year-olds are of legal age, fully legally capable, and allowed to vote, she argued that treating young adult offenders under 21 preferentially—especially in cases of serious crime—is no longer justifiable. Berlin Justice Senator Felor Badenberg stated via Welt am Sonntag that she considers it outdated for youth criminal law to generally be applied to adult offenders under 21, particularly in cases of serious crime, advocating for adult criminal law to become the regular standard for all adults.

The CSD Terror Attack Context

The debate was triggered by CSD attacker Abdul Ballout (21), who drove a white van into a crowd of people in the Tiergarten during the terrorist attack in Berlin on July 25. The 21-year-old wanted to join the terrorist organization Islamic State (IS). Upon his return to Germany in November 2025, he was arrested, but in May he was released from pre-trial detention. A youth Schöffengericht court sentenced him to 22 months.

Saxony’s Minister Backs Reform as Criticism Grows Over Youth Penal Practice

Badenberg’s proposal has gained support from other regional officials. Saxony’s Justice Minister Constanze Geiert (CDU) also called for a reversal of the previous practice in youth criminal law. The CDU politician told the newspaper that current regulations frequently no longer do justice to the reality of serious violent crimes committed by young offenders. Geiert stated that while the educational focus in dealing with young offenders remains right and important, it must not lead to necessary and consistent reactions by the constitutional state failing to occur or being unnecessarily hindered by bureaucracy.

For adolescents, adult criminal law should henceforth fundamentally apply, with youth criminal law serving as a justifiable exception requiring special reasons. Geiert rejected proposals to apply adult criminal law only to so-called “Gefährder” (potential threats). She said that from their perspective, a fundamental reform of youth criminal law would be more sustainable if it did not refer solely to the so-called potential threats. One week prior, immediately following the attack, Badenberg had called in the Tagesspiegel for an independent scientific study that examines whether the legal standards regarding the maturity and accountability of young offenders still correspond to the current state of developmental research.

Critics of the existing youth criminal framework point to specific shortcomings:

• Geringe Abschreckung: Mild educational measures or social hours are not perceived as a real punishment, leading to a lack of respect for the law.
• Willkür-Risiko: The extensive educational discretion leads to unequal judgments—depending on the perpetrator’s personality rather than the deed itself.