justified acquittal or not

Even to the extent that your views are warranted in respect of Indonesia (I cant judge this in any sensible way) it seems better not to import this mantra to other countries (in this case to a country situated on the other site of the world). Is it a universal truth? Is it relevant in this specific case? How do we know? The prudent way seems to admit: we do not know. No matter how unsatisfactory and inconvenient that admission may be in a case as discussed here.

only auntie who can answer as belgium itself about the situation there and i also wonder why she made this forum? Logically, if someone creates a forum, there is something/matter they want to discuss/convey. If not, normally people won't create a forum because they don't know what to do.

and, From the reviews of my friends who are from various countries, a lot of them indeed skeptical & feel doubt 'to the upper party' (you can also visit Threads, instagram, especially quora about many things, that not only sugar-coated theories, but people review in it), so yeah ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/¯

I admire the "I don't know" part. That is a proper admission as appears from the actual substance of your reaction. This is a very serious topic which demands proper diligence. The reliance on translated newspaper headlines and Instagram posts in matters as these may be an acceptable method in the current age, but I suggest a far more critical and robust manner in generating opinions.

Of course I realize that in modern times people have opinions about everything. This forum thread is a prime example. It also means that diligence and a much more careful approach are subject to erosion (as also demonstrated in this forum thread). A nuanced and critical line of reasoning may be inconvenient, but should not become a relic of the past.

This is not an attack but a friendly advice: be different than the online herd with pitchforks. If you wish to lead by reason: take a step back and reconsider your approach.

I admire the "I don't know" part. That is a proper admission as appears from the actual substance of your reaction. This is a very serious topic which demands proper diligence. The reliance on translated newspaper headlines and Instagram posts in matters as these may be an acceptable method in the current age, but I suggest a far more critical and robust manner in generating opinions.

Of course I realize that in modern times people have opinions about everything. This forum thread is a prime example. It also means that diligence and a much more careful approach are subject to erosion (as also demonstrated in this forum thread). A nuanced and critical line of reasoning may be inconvenient, but should not become a relic of the past.

This is not an attack but a friendly advice: be different than the online herd with pitchforks. If you wish to lead by reason: take a step back and reconsider your approach.

yep and that's why in previous replied i said "from the eyes of a netizen" in every forum I never act as an 'expert'. i know my place and myself better than anyone that's why i always show myself in forum, cause i learn a lot from people here and vice versa.

like i learn a lot from teenager here about many things, especially @Yue_ she may be way lot younger than me, but her calmness and ability in dealing to disagreement is something that i admire, and i learn, but does it make me less? nope. and i hang with various, younger, older, same age and we share many things. that's why i'm here. and if i know something and can be consume by public, why do i keep it to myself? i learned that sharing is caring.

I set myself as a netizen who observes how people think about this and that, the review, the thought (that's why it called as forum anyway, everyone in here can say anything) especially the issue of why people are starting to be skeptical of the 'upper class' (government, police, law, doctor) and There are so many examples in PPG forum here and on Quora that so many of them creating forum to convey & discussing their skepticism. (you can visit Quora, and you would be blow up by many things)

of course i wouldn't dare to say things that i know nothing. and imo, that is a statement that I think the information can still be consumed by the public, the rest, I rather not to say, cause yeahhh there is something that cannot be consume by public 😬😬😬

Thank you for your reaction. Good to know on what basis people speak about serious things. I will adjust my expectations accordingly.

it's okayyy, at least people i know who often appear in this forum never meant to play as expert. but as a friend who willing to share information, to discuss, to share awareness, to create forum out of care. and in the end we are the one who responsible to ourselves in filters things and not others.

I did not expect people to be an expert on Belgian criminal proceedings in this forum thread (never suggested this if you read more carefully), but I did expect a much more diligent and careful approach before opinions are shared on such serious matters. But I will make way if this thread provides a sense of community feel (at the expense of people involved in these proceedings - victim(s), alleged perpetrator(s), judges and medical experts included - and any true search of reason). Covid? Sure. Mistrust of judges in Indonesia and its relevance in this specific Belgian case? Yes of course. Not having read a single word of the original judgment? Who cares we have Instagram and headlines. Feel free to fire at will (unfiltered and uninhibited). Sharing is caring (no matter if it lacks any substance regarding this matter). It is a much better (and convenient) mantra than "sharing carries a responsibility".

Apologies for this voice of disagreement which is deliberately not coated in sugar. But a bit more respect for the people who are actually involved in this horrific case (again: all of them if you have not a clue what the original judgment actually embodies) is warranted. Don't consider diligence as a disposable item.

That’s a fair perspective. These kinds of discussions can get messy sometimes, but I think most people here are just trying to understand and engage with the topic. I do believe accuracy and respect should be priorities, though. and for the fact, anything in the media can actually be manipulated, fully stories only the victims, the perpetrator who exactly know what happen. And personally in every issue that happening, i ask people who are in 'reality' or those who are close or in that field. That's actually why, I rarely appear in forums where the discussion is very serious. Cause who i am to judge? i'm nobody, and would always be nobody. and my answer? not important tho

well, at least every worry that often occurs has a fundamental reason which is none other than looking at the reality that happened in the past, not something that once happened and immediately became skeptical. no way. and just because I'm Indonesian doesn't mean my answer is only within the scope of Indonesia, I also pay attention to other parties outside my country. I don't know it sounds like you're just cornering me while here I'm not the only one who said no.

That is a response which demands respect and requires courage. Kudos for that! This is not intended as a sarcastic comment and does not come with any hidden message.

Of course your knowledge is not confined to Indonesia. This was not suggested in my message (not at all)! But I do believe that any mistrust of the judiciary in Indonesia (warranted or not; which I can't judge) has nothing to do with the Belgian court in this specific case (or even the Belgian judiciary in general). Instagram posts do not alter this fact.

The nuances which i tried to voice in my messages are not only directed to you. However, my compliments for the audacity and courage as displayed in your last response are reserved for you. I hope that the discussion has provided "food for thought". Diligence and a careful approach are indispensable ingredients for any voice of reason.

I am rarely triggered by discussions on this forum (most even remain unseen as I am online on a very irregular and family/work permitting basis). But I have been in the proximity of others who have been involved in such matters as discussed above. And I am very well aware of the impact that premature social condemnation (including private opinions or suggestions) can trigger. This does not only apply to lawyers involved in such horrific matters, but most certainly also to victims and alleged perpetrators who both have an inalienable right of access to due process in a court of law.

I have mixed feelings about this thread because I certainly agree with @Savi2024 that we shouldn't judge without any context or expertise on the issue. That said, the justice system also serves as a safety valve for the public, and it's vital that people feel it reflects their values (aren't there as many justice systems as there are peoples?).

I haven't heard about this case nor have I looked it up, but I feel like the justice system (at least in France) is so flawed that outrage over a random verdict feels almost instinctive. After the system lets you down too many times, trust erodes, and you stop wanting to give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that’s just my perspective.

I have mixed feelings about this thread because I certainly agree with @Savi2024 that we shouldn't judge without any context or expertise on the issue. That said, the justice system also serves as a safety valve for the public, and it's vital that people feel it reflects their values (aren't there as many justice systems as there are peoples?).

I haven't heard about this case nor have I looked it up, but I feel like the justice system (at least in France) is so flawed that outrage over a random verdict feels almost instinctive. After the system lets you down too many times, trust erodes, and you stop wanting to give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that’s just my perspective.

I lack sufficient knowledge of the French judiciary and do not feel qualified to comment on that. I am much more familiar with the Dutch and English courts and the picture as portrayed in your comment does not apply in a similar fashion (understatement) to the Netherlands and the UK. From experts on the ground I understand that the Belgian court system should also be awarded much more credit than the apparent distrust (warranted or not) in France.

In any case, the French experience does not say anything about the specific case which is the subject of this forum thread. I know lawyers in the field of criminal law (judges, prosecutors and attorneys) and I am very much aware of the impact of easy and quick fire bursts of public condemnation in a premature fashion. Unfortunately, I have also been in the direct vicinity of a wrongly accused person of crimes of a similar nature (a former client of someone close to me). His life was destroyed even upon a full acquittal and conclusive evidence of his innocence. Preceding public condemnation cannot be easily erased and people still look at him with caution. I can only underestimate his continuing ordeal. I have encountered multiple victims (even a single case within my inner circles) who have endured public speculation and unfounded commentary concerning crimes as discussed here. No need to elaborate on the outraging effects that this may cause.

These matters are utmost sensitive and I strongly believe that we should treat such individual cases accordingly. I am glad to read that your mixed feelings do not relate to that notion. The discussion whether individual (!) court systems are functioning or not in any other country than Belgium is a separate matter and clouds a proper assessment of this specific case. I feel very strongly about this - much more than other types of litigation - considering the sensitivity of this specific matter.

Off topic (well, kind of related actually) but maybe people in this thread would like to watch Juror #2. It's very well made, and it shows how people easily get blinded by emotion when it comes to judging a case.

@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.

@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.