justified acquittal or not

@Savi2024 I don't want to trash talk the system with vague blanket statements, so allow me to share 4 recent examples highlighting the current situation in France. These are off the top of my head, but I still took the time to double check details so as not to spread misinformation:

- 2 weeks ago somebody deliberately ran over a cop (who thankfully only got injured). The judge deemed a 150 euro fine an appropriate punishment.

- Last week, a medical doctor was brutally beaten and disfigured after a disagreement. Following an immediate trial, the attacker's sentence was two weeks of community service.

- A member of parliament was caught red-handed buying hard drugs from undocumented minors in the subway. He spent a total of 25,000 euros of his parliamentary funds on these purchases. Despite this, he’s refused to resign and even had the audacity to claim he’s a victim of drugs, blaming society for not solving the issue.

- last week an undocumented Algerian man stabbed someone to death on the street and injured 6 others. The Ministry of the Interior revealed they had previously attempted to deport him back to Algeria 10 times, but the country refused to cooperate each time.

While that last one is technically unrelated to the justice system per se, it reflects a broader failure of the State to fulfill its most basic mission: ensure the safety of its citizens. This has been dragging on for far too long, and there's some seriously disturbing stuff happening somewhere in there.

I don't know much about the English justice system, but the silence surrounding the grooming gangs as well as the imprisonment of people sharing memes online is unsettling to say the least, and certainly does not inspire confidence at first glance.

Etienne, in Italy trials last many years. There are different degrees of judgment. Not even how many. You never get justice. Thieves and criminals always win. We have a lady who is a minister. She is under investigation for fraud against the state. She doesn't want to resign. In Italy you can not respond to a magistrate, you can take advantage of the abbreviated procedure, you can plea bargain. Politicians always get away with it. We managed to arrest a Libyan criminal who tortured and raped women and children in Libya. We freed him. He was wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. We sent him back to Libya on an Italian state plane. Now he is free to torture other people.

@Savi2024 I don't want to trash talk the system with vague blanket statements, so allow me to share 4 recent examples highlighting the current situation in France. These are off the top of my head, but I still took the time to double check details so as not to spread misinformation:

- 2 weeks ago somebody deliberately ran over a cop (who thankfully only got injured). The judge deemed a 150 euro fine an appropriate punishment.

- Last week, a medical doctor was brutally beaten and disfigured after a disagreement. Following an immediate trial, the attacker's sentence was two weeks of community service.

- A member of parliament was caught red-handed buying hard drugs from undocumented minors in the subway. He spent a total of 25,000 euros of his parliamentary funds on these purchases. Despite this, he’s refused to resign and even had the audacity to claim he’s a victim of drugs, blaming society for not solving the issue.

- last week an undocumented Algerian man stabbed someone to death on the street and injured 6 others. The Ministry of the Interior revealed they had previously attempted to deport him back to Algeria 10 times, but the country refused to cooperate each time.

While that last one is technically unrelated to the justice system per se, it reflects a broader failure of the State to fulfill its most basic mission: ensure the safety of its citizens. This has been dragging on for far too long, and there's some seriously disturbing stuff happening somewhere in there.

I don't know much about the English justice system, but the silence surrounding the grooming gangs as well as the imprisonment of people sharing memes online is unsettling to say the least, and certainly does not inspire confidence at first glance.

It will come as no surprise that all I can do at this stage is to take note of the examples mentioned by you regarding France (with gratitude for the time and efforts made to double check). But it would be hypocritical for me to just rely on this post as a sole ground to subject the French courts to an Inquisition. A much more comprehensive and systematic review is needed to establish a well informed view. As said previously, I am not an expert concerning French case law and the overall functioning of the French courts.

On the same token, you will need to make some giant steps to evaluate the English judiciary in an appropriate manner (and in fact a broader spectrum of actors who play a crucial role in obtaining an ultimate verdict), There is an interplay of numerous factors which cannot be easily ignored. I can recommend a mini tsunami of reading materials as a mere start (apologies but studying law means you will need to read something similar to a local library collection of materials). This will provide you at least with some proper context. Not sure how much free time you are willing to invest!

We have strayed away from the original topic in a rather substantial manner. As regards a domestic review of court systems (I guess this is the new topic), I will occasionally view the local voices of consent or dissent with some genuine interest (but also subject to some reservations which seem prudent to me).

As I have two daughters who are enjoying some time off this week (as applies to all school children in the Netherlands), my future contributions to this forum thread will be much more limited. They deserve more time after working hours! But even an apparition in the dark may occasionally find its way back to the light.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I can definitely imagine that there are a lot of moving parts behind closed doors that never reach the outside. I do understand that many times the general public doesn't have access to all the elements that lead courts to pick what would be considered a light punishment.

What I meant to say is that this pattern repeats so frequently that a clear disconnect has grown between the public and a legal system, which operates independently with little to no accountability. After enough back to back occurrences, the usual "but wait there's more to it" doesn't really cut it anymore - whether it's justified or not.

Here are 2 key reasons why the French justice system is particularly lenient:

- Chronic prison overcrowding. Prisons have been over capacity for decades, yet no new facilities have been built. Judges are quietly encouraged to go easy on sentencing to avoid worsening the problem. As a result, over 40% of prison sentences are never served, and those who do go in often spend minimal time behind bars. With sky-high recidivism rates, this leniency just clogs the system further. If prisons were a little more like in El Salvador, maybe it would be deter crime enough to actually free up space. But it would violate their human rights so the "moral" choice is to release offenders early; this is a good transition to the 2nd point.

- Politicized judiciary. judges are heavily politicized, leaning heavily left - over a third even identify as radically so, within dedicated unions. Now I don't even have a problem with a politicized justice system, but it requires holding elections which the French system isn't designed for. Armies of judges/lawyers believe that any criminal act stems from a tough upbringing, fixable with enough compassion and support. This isn't about enforcing the law; it's an emotional stance, not a legal one.

France now has the highest crime rate in Europe (see below). The causes are well-documented: an overly lenient justice system paired with large-scale immigration from high-crime populations.

I know you’re busy, but I'd love your quick take on two questions (short answers are totally fine):

- Do you agree that harsher prison conditions (inspired from El Salvador’s, although probably not quite to their extent) are the answer to tackling both high recidivism and "overcrowding"?

- Do you believe the judiciary oversteps when it jails people for sharing jokes or opinions under the vague label of "hateful content"?

I will skip the grooming gangs topic because, as important as it is, it feels more political than judicial.

Thanks for raising the above matters. Apologies for my late response, but I did not expect being called back to the forum this rapidly.

In response to your two questions (and preceding outline):

(1) There is a difference between criminal law and criminology. Whereas criminal law deals with - in essence - the characterisation of certain behaviour as a "crime" (e.g. a misdemeanor, felony or whatever the distinction is under applicable domestic law) and the sentencing parameters, criminology deals with the study of crime and criminal behaviour (including recidivism; i.e. repeating criminal behaviour). The latter study is rooted in a much broader array of disciplines (e.g. sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.). Which factors dominate in generic terms may be very different per country. A comparison between France, El Salvador, Iceland and Japan will likely yield very different outcomes. This also applies as regards prison conditions as a deterrent or as a "school of criminal behaviour". A final note on this matter: basic human rights do not end upon admission to a penitentiary. I am not convinced that the notoriety of prison conditions in El Salvador is something to be desired on "our" side of the Atlantic (leaving aside that rates of "heavy crime" in El Salvador remain sky high despite extreme prison conditions). In any case, France is bound by a number of international treaties and conventions which may directly or indirectly concern prisoners. Such basic human rights cannot be (partly) discarded by individual countries which are a party to such international regulations.

(2) In most Western countries, "jokes" and "opinions" are not qualified legal terms (at least from the perspective of criminal law). Such utterings become relevant to the extent that their substantive content constitutes a crime. For example, it is permitted under Dutch law to make a joke or an opinion at the expense of a certain person or groups of people (whether such joke is acceptable from an ethical or social perspective is a different matter). It becomes relevant as a legal matter when it crosses a certain red line (as set out in the Criminal Code). Examples include the incitement of violence (e.g. calling for terrorist attacks or inciting a crowd to target certain individuals or places of worship) and discrimination (no need to elaborate). The interpretation of such "red lines" is very case specific (which makes sense to consider e.g. context) and may vary significantly across different countries. As a personal view: I firmly believe in the principle of freedom of speech and that red lines should not be deemed to have been crossed too easily. This is a core element of a true free society. As a basic assumption, jokes and opinions should stay irrelevant from a legal perspective (again whether accepted or rejected by society on other grounds is a very different matter). In many cases judicial intervention should not be needed but persons should to some extent (emphasis on the nuance) develop a shield. In other cases a social response of approval or rejection may be appropriate. However, certain cases are eligible (and should be) prosecuted. Vivid examples have been mentioned above (e.g. a call for terror attacks or inducing attacks on religious places or certain minority groups). Prosecuting such cases is needed to preserve a free society and to protect the safety and well being of its inhabitants.

This predator should be in jail for the rest of his life.

The leaflet (bijsluiter) of the drug Requip mentions the following (among several others) side effects:
"verandering in of verhoogde seksuele belangstelling en gedrag dat voor u of anderen een significant probleem vormt, bijvoorbeeld meer zin in seks."
More lust for sex is not the same as hypersexuality!
"spontane peniserectie."
Does this imply that whenever a man has a spontaneous erection, that he must become a pedophile or a rapist? Most certainly not.

The leaflet (bijsluiter) warns the patient that, in case of side effects, he/she should get in touch with his doctor. Now this grandfather did not molest his granddaughter once, but several times. Why did he ignore these rare side effects and why did he choose to continue his pedophile assaults on his victim? Why wasn't this monster at all concerned about the wellbeing of his granddaughter? Most likely this man has been a pedophile throughout his life, but was never caught.

It is well known that Belgian judges give mild punishments to pedophiles and other sexual predators. Anneke Lucas, a woman who as a six year old child was enslaved by a pedophile ring, and who had to escape from Belgium because of danger to her life, claims that certain Belgian judges, aristocrats and politicians are members of a large pedophile ring, who not only abuse children, but sometimes kill them. By the way, Anneke Lucas was rescued by famous Belgian gangster Patrick Haemers, who may have been in the service of the Belgian "establishment" in the environment of the late VDB (a Belgian ex prime minister, convicted criminal and alleged leader of the pedophile ring). Haemers also kidnapped VDB, which brought him international fame.

As a nature, I'm not a wild production of lynching culture. Yet I'm not a fool either. I can detect it when synthetic hearts generate "plastic excuses" for infamous crime. "Abuser is the abuser" theory is way out of date, there are two types of pedophilia: developmental pedophilia and acquired pedophilia. Developmental pedophilia is categorized within psychiatric disorders, acquired pedophilia clearly has a neurological origin. Acquired pedophilic behavior differs from developmental pedophilic disorder in many aspects: etiology, underlying neural correlates, possible therapies, modus operandi and legal consequences.

The modus operandi, widely differs between developmental and acquired pedophilia. Literature suggests that individuals experiencing developmental pedophilia are described as active searches of victims, good organizers of their action and, if caught, they might deny their behavior. They often intentionally try to place themselves in a position where they can meet children and have the opportunity to interact with them in an unsupervised location. Developmental pedophiles might obtain access to children through means of persuasion, friendship and behavior designed to gain the trust of the child and parents.

Contrarily, individuals with acquired pedophilia show lack of premeditation, and thus they usually do not actively search for children or attempt to disguise their criminal behavior. For instance, sexual abuses have been described to be carried out in a school, leaving the door open or in a school garden, potentially in front of teachers and people passing by.

As getting back to the case, this man was pretty much able to put "correct time", "correct place", and "correct person" pieces all together. Isn't it too much of a luxury for an old man suffering from dementia? Suprisingly he was able to make selection of "easy to access", "easy to keep silent", "most secure", and "easy to keep under control" victim. His modus operandi states that he is a developmental type. She revealed the case after one year to her mother.

It's easy to notice why the defence has builded their argument this way since there is a fair dataset of past juridical cases of pedophilia. Because legal consequences are different as well. While, according to the legal principle of "actio libera in causa", the legal consequences for developmental pedophilic individuals are severe, while legal punishment might not be the most effective solution for acquired pedophiles. That's quite rational they have played this card for escaping from an adequate punishment. Crucially, both the ability to understand the moral and social value of one's own action and the ability to exert control over impulses are pivotal to the capacity for self-determination. As individual with acquired pedophilia usually lack in these abilities, insanity becomes a relevant so far controversial issue in these cases. Can he be considered as not organized and characterized by an impulse discontrol?

Did forensic consultants buy all this story? If he had an acquired pedophilia, then why he was charged to pay 4.000 Euros to the victim as compensation? If he had any legal liability, then why he was not charged in the terms of developmental pedophilia? No matter how you slice it, something is seriously wrong and disgraceful in this verdict.