Indication and importance of educational orders according to § 10 JGG.

通过1990年第一次《少年刑法》，立法者打算加强少年刑法中的教育原则，通过将进一步的教育措施纳入《少年刑法》第10条的教育命令目录，作为《少年刑法》教育限制的一部分，对少年的生活行为产生积极影响。对犯罪统计数据的分析和一系列档案审查的结果通常被解释为表明，立法者的目标是迫使短期少年拘留（Jugendarrest）作为一种矫正措施（Zuchtmittel），而未中止的青少年拘留尚未实现。关于教育令，着重强调了与旨在惩罚错误的教养令相比，其实际重要性在质量上的损失。然而，自己对犯罪统计数据和法庭档案的初步分析表明，这些估计并不完全充分反映现实。相反，推测教育令是（或已经成为）一个重要的质量和适当的工具，对社会出身也处于不利地位的少年犯的罪行作出实质性的教育反应，这不仅适用于轻罪。这一评估的指定目标是审查并酌情核实上述推测。

By way of the 1st JGGÄndG of 1990 the legislator intended to strengthen the principle of education in juvenile criminal law in the sense of a positive influence on juveniles conduct of life by integrating further educational measures in the catalogue of educational orders in § 10 JGG as one part of the educational restrictions of the JGG (Erziehungsmaßregeln). Findings from the analysis of crime statistics and a series of file reviews are commonly interpreted as indicating that the legislators aim to force back short-time juvenile detention (Jugendarrest) as a correctional measure (Zuchtmittel) and unsuspended youth custody had not been realized. With regard to educational orders a qualitative loss of practical importance in relation to correctional orders, which are directed at punishing wrong, is accentuated. Own preliminary analyses of crime statistics and court files, however, suggest that these estimations do not reflect reality entirely sufficiently. On the contrary, the conjecture that educational orders are (or have become) an important qualitative and suitable tool of substantial educational reaction to offences of also socio-biographically disadvantaged juvenile offenders, which is applied to more than only petty offences. The designated target of this evaluation is to examine and, where appropriate, to verify the previously mentioned conjecture.