"Activist" sentenced to 18 years for Fortuyn assassination

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sikander


If your legal system is built solely on the idea of protecting individuals from immediate harm, then you are probably right. If the legal system serves as some sort of deterrent, or looks beyond an act's effects on individuals and looks at the implications for the larger society then a stiffer sentence seems to be called for.

Is making an example of someone just? How?

Deterrent? To whom? Prison for any amount of time should be deterrent enough for basically honest people. Prison terms of 99 years are no deterrent to real criminals. Neither is the injection. So how high should the punishment be ratcheted up?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Is making an example of someone just? How?

It can be the right thing to do in certain circumstances, even if it fails some definitions of justice. There are a number of parties in a criminal trial, the people being one of them. If a harsh sentence prevents a number of crimes against the people it may be considered just even if the sentence seems harsh in comparison to how others have been treated in the past. Consider that domestic violence was once a crime that was rarely seriously prosecuted. When people decided to take it more seriously and started to put people in prison for it there were complaints that the sentences were unjust, as others who committed the same crimes were let off with a slap on the wrist only recently. But society was sending a message to the larger population, a message they hoped would prevent an immense amount of misery.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Deterrent? To whom? Prison for any amount of time should be deterrent enough for basically honest people. Prison terms of 99 years are no deterrent to real criminals. Neither is the injection. So how high should the punishment be ratcheted up?

Deterrents generally tend to work much better for crimes of dispassion like most property crimes for instance. For murder they tend to be almost useless IMO. But there is a larger issue at stake in this case, that of shaking up the government by the commission of a crime, in this case a capital crime. A harsh sentence in this sort of case may send another message, namely one of severe disapproval. It may dissuade other animal rights nutcases for instance by showing them how detrimental this sort of behavior is to their cause. I think an effort in this direction is worthwhile for all estates. No one wants to see their country become more like Afghanistan, where one waits for news of the assasination of the week.

[Az]

But there is a larger issue at stake in this case, that of shaking up the government by the commission of a crime, in this case a capital crime. A harsh sentence in this sort of case may send another message, namely one of severe disapproval.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sikander
It may dissuade other animal rights nutcases for instance by showing them how detrimental this sort of behavior is to their cause. I think an effort in this direction is worthwhile for all estates. No one wants to see their country become more like Afghanistan, where one waits for news of the assasination of the week.

I don't know of many activists who would willingly take a life, let alone risk 12 or 18 years for it. Once you start toting up the years, you cull the criminals from the chaff fairly quickly. Those who are not criminal are the exception. Still, you could have waved the needle in front of this guy, it would not have stopped him, IMO. After all, it has not stopped many people in the land of the needle, has it?

Afghanistan? Could we keep the terms of reference somewhat realistic, please? Texas has the death penalty. Are they more, or less, like the Netherlands vis-a-vis Afghanistan? Be careful how you answer.

[Saint Marcus]

for all those Americans criticising our legal system:

our homicide rate is 9 times lower than your country. So we must be doing something right.


Back on topic:

I think the judge did take into consideration Volkert's poor treatement in jail (constant monitoring, depriving him of sleep, etc). The treatement did get better after some time and some protests though.

[Az]

*Hugs Saint Marcus*

Where have you been? Without you and Fez, life on the forums just is not the same.

[Winston]

What are you, a friend of his MarkL - since you refer to the defendant by his first name?

And what does the way he's allegedly been treated in jail have to do with the length of sentence as meted out by the court?

[Az]

ooh, poor murderer. He was treated bad in jail.

[Saint Marcus]

*Hugs Saint Marcus*

I missed you too dear

Where have you been?

getting involved with yet another American gal.

I'm an addict.

Without you and Fez, life on the forums just is not the same.

Is Fez still around? I love Fez.

What are you, a friend of his MarkL - since you refer to the defendant by his first name?

Lots of people here refer to the victim by his first name. Only fair we should refer to the killer by his first name too.

And what does the way he's allegedly been treated in jail have to do with the length of sentence as meted out by the court?

The treatement he recieved can be considered part of his punishment.

[Winston]

As far as I understand criminal law, it can't. The jailors' alleged treatment of the defendant isn't on trial here.

And "constant monitoring" and socalled sleep deprivation may have been a way of preventing him from taking his own life awaiting trial. I trust he will be free to do as he wants now though.

[Saint Marcus]

criminal law isn't full proof.

you have to take into account the emotions as well of the judges (and in some countries of the members of the jury) who reach the verdicts.

life is never given for a first time offender in a single murder case (and rightly so). the second highest possible sentence is 20 years. The common sentence, for this kind of crime (single murder, first time offender), is 12-16 years. The judge chose 18.

I'm just appalled by all the people here crying out about how 18 years isn't enough. The only reason they cry out is because it was Pim who got killed. If it was a nobody, than I doubt anyone would care. Hell, if it was Melkert most wouldn't cause this kind of fuss.

[Winston]

Well, I'm still appalled by the assassination.

Call me a slow starter wrt. appalledness.

[Winston]

I read in the paper that the prosecution has already decided to appeal and ask for a life sentence. A source said, the decision was merited by the assessed future danger represented by the defendant, based in part on the deliberation of the murder as well as van der Graaf's complete lack of remorse or regret for his actions.

So it's not over yet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm just appalled by all the people here crying out about how 18 years isn't enough. The only reason they cry out is because it was Pim who got killed. If it was a nobody, than I doubt anyone would care. Hell, if it was Melkert most wouldn't cause this kind of fuss.

BS! I, and I assume many Americans, would at least argue for a 50 year term for premeditated murder (most would argue life in prision) no matter if it was a first time offender.

Being Pim has nothing to do with it. It is all about sending a message (deterrance) and putting the guy away because he deserves it (retribution).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Don't Europeans have LWOP sentences?

Britain does. A "typical" life term would see release after 15 years or so. However the judge can make recommendations about the length of the term, and this can include a recommendation that the prisoner should never be released- typically if the prisoner is considered to be too dangerous to be released or if the public reaction to their release would be too extreme.

It's a convoluted approach, owing to the fact that a life term is mandatory when anyone is found guilty of murder.