Hamburg (Drescher)—Protective custody as preventative measure after penal detention, etc., has to be acknowledged as justified, but not as a correction of a judicial decision. No special details.
Karlsruhe (Lautz)—Jehovah’s Witnesses as a rule are taken into protective custody after penal detention. Protective custody after repeal of the warrant of arrest was justified in 2 cases.
Graz (Meissner)—The Chief Public Prosecutor asked the State police in 2 cases for actions of protective custody, because a 13-year-old gangster could not be prosecuted and because the use of violence could not be clearly proved to a priest in a case of sexual crime.
Brunswick (Mueller)—There is one case, where protective custody as a correction of a judicial decision is embarrassing, because protective custody is justified (priest, sexual criminal). In another case, (priest, sexual criminal) the protective custody is not justified. In general the State Police is trying to act in agreement with the public prosecutor.
Oldenburg (Christians)—On principle, functionaries of the Communist Party are taken into protective custody after penal detention, furthermore, Jehovah’s Witnesses in almost all cases. Only a few unsatisfactory cases.
Naumburg (Hahn)—Frequent request for calling back if no warrant of arrest is issued. The impression has been given that judges are deciding for a warrant of arrest, because protective custody seems to them harder than arrest pending trial. Often the criticism of justice because of actions of protective custody is not absolutely unjustified.
Special example: A former SS Sturmfuehrer (disloyalty) after 1 year of penal detention was given another year in protective custody.
Nuernberg (Bems)—Cases of protective custody after penal detention, etc., have decreased, although frequently protective custody is exercised, if no warrant of arrest is issued. Protective custody as criticism of justice has not occurred any more. On principle, high treason criminals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and race defilers are taken into protective custody after penal detention.
The minister ends the conversation by stating that in the interest of justice those cases are to be regretted where protective custody is to be regarded as justified criticism of justice, besides no objections can be raised against preventative measures.
[Signed] Klemm