DILACERATOR: The price of murder

January 19, 2003

The price of murder

The way in which serious criminals are punished in the Netherlands verges on the absurd. This is not something new as there is a general failure, and indeed in some cases unwillingness of the criminal justice system to go after criminals. Even then they are caught, tried and convicted, the punishment meted out is ridiculous. One recent instance is the murder of a four year old child, known as the Girl from Nulde, named after the beach where her head was found. She was beaten to death by her stepfather while her mother looked on. They then cut her up into small pieces and tried to get rid of them at various places throughout the country. A morbid jig-saw puzzle finally allowed forensic experts to reconstruct what happened.

So what's the punishment for this crime? The mother is sentenced to eight years in prison, while the stepfather gets twelve. The prosecutor had demanded fifteen. Of course, this is only the nominal sentence. On good behavior, they're likely to leave prison after three-quarters of their term has been fulfilled. The reason why the sentence is so light is because of extensive psychological and psychiatric reports which established the various mental shortcomings of both murderers. The mother was very dependent, lacked emotional independence and was conflict averse. The stepfather suffers from a severe form of paranoia. In his case, the court also imposed on him what's known as "tbs," which is psychological treatment after the sentence has been served. If he can convince the therapists that he's sane enough, he'll be free after his jail sentence.

I will admit that people who beat a 4 year old girl to death are insane and indeed evil. But once you start giving shorter sentences to people because they commit acts which are intrinsically deranged, then virtually any murderer will be able to get a reduced sentence. And that's all too common here in the Netherlands. It does lead to an interesting calculation if you're sufficiently bloody-minded but capable of rational thought. If you want to commit murder, the Netherlands may not be such a bad place to do it. Make the murder as gruesome as possible, get yourself certified as insane and spend six to eight years in prison for it. If you hate someone enough to kill him, the logic becomes disquietingly compelling.

The death penalty would have been more appropriate in this case. Although there is absolutely no chance that the death penalty will be reintroduced here, public opinion polls show significant (though not majority) support for it. And cases where murderers get away with such light sentences are stoking the fires of discontent. There is a big gap between the views of the man on the street and the prevailing practices of the criminal justice system. And with sentences like these, the gap is only growing.

Posted by qsi at January 19, 2003 06:09 PM | TrackBack (1)
Read More on Crime and Punishment , The Netherlands

Comments

If you 'let out' enough murderers, it's inevitable that one or more will kill again. At least, that's the way it's worked here in the US. The only hope we have for abolishing the death penalty is absolute adherence to ultimately irreversible life sentences. And, as far as psychological analysis is concerned, it's a hell of a lot easier to examine a suspect & identify 'mitigating' factors. It ain't so easy to determine who exactly will kill or abuse again. The bottom line is that there is something bad wrong with an adult who would beat a child to death & then butcher her. Whatever that 'bad wrong' ailment is, we are not presently capable of 'curing' it.

Posted by: ellie on January 20, 2003 03:37 PM

We have the folly of "humanistic thinking" in its full glory. What we notice is the complete lack of attention for the victims and future victims.

Let's think in Marc Dutroux. This guy rapted children, raped them in front of camera for his child porn business and later killed them. Since this was a business allowing him to make big money we can safely assume he would begin anew as soon as released. Let's see how he would fare in two european countries.

In France we have juries (the 1789 legislators thought crimes had to be judged by represntatives of the nation obeying their conscience not by mere judges loking at where is the comma in article 1384) and life sentences but we don't have guaranteed life sentences. It was thought an inmate who has no hope would be a too big danger for his keepers. He can liberated for good behaviour. Two problems: it is not a jury who takes the decision but a mere judge and docility i jail does not prove the inmate wouldn't be dangerous once released (eg a man who only preys on women or child will not cause trouble while in jail). So when someone is sentenced for life there is a provision for a minimum time where he cannnot be released (legal maximum is 30 years, 20 years is more typical). So after twenty or thirty years there is a small but not null chance of a "humanistic" judge freeing Marc Dutroux.

In Portugal it is worse: there is NO life sentence, 30 years is the maximum. And if Marc Dutroux escaped to Portugal he wouldn't be extradited until Belgium promised to not give him
a life sentence.

Now killing Marc Dutroux is a philosophical problem I am not interested in but the state has no right to free him. Neither in twenty years or in two thousand years. Marc Dutroux must leave jail in a coffin, period. I dont care if he has been killed or if he has died of old age. But if he is released and he kills again then the parents of the child have every right to take vengeance not only on him but on the judge who freed him and the people who lobbied for the legislation allowing him to be liberated. The primary duty of the state is protecting its citizens. Playing humanistic can be done only when that primary goal has been reached.

Posted by: JFM on January 20, 2003 08:16 PM