Magistraat reageert in opiniestuk scherp op tweet van Demir: “Rechters zijn makkelijke prooi voor populistische politici”
Magistraat reageert in opiniestuk scherp op tweet van Demir: “Rechters zijn makkelijke prooi voor populistische politici”
7 comments
>Magistraat Christophe Snoeck reageert nu in een opinistuk voor M&M. “**Vaak moet worden vastgesteld dat personen die niet gehinderd zijn door enige dossierkennis een mening moeten uiten over de beslissing van de rechter**”,
Take notes /r/belgium
Demir’s tweet is targeting Mussche, the rapist’s lawyer, not the judge. So why is this dude saying that Demir shoulnd’t comment on judges?
Plus, why shouldn’t politicians be able to comment on verdicts? Scheiding der machten doesn’t imply no critique either?
Still can’t wrap my head around the fact that this rapist, who attacked a pregnant woman, will probably not go to jail. (2 years effectief => enkelband)
He’s right in that Demir should’ve refrained from voicing cirtique given her role in the flemish government.
That she’s doing it though is the result of a fundamental disconnect between how judges look at the severity of a sexual assault and how society as a whole looks at it these days.
Justitie, men mag er nooit commentaar op geven want het plebs is er te dom voor. Het plebs kent de zaak niet en neen de zaak wordt ook niet openbaar gemaakt. Je moet maar vertrouwen dat ze correct handelen.
Ongeveer [1/3 van de Belgische bevolking](https://hrj.be/nl/publicaties/2015/justitiebarometer-2014) heeft weinig tot geen vertrouwen in justitie.
ITT: People using “scheiding der machten” without having a clue about the actual meaning, philosophy and politics behind it. – like every thread involving anything related to the justice system.
~~Minister Demir should be allowed to voice her opinion on a legal verdict, just like anyone else is. This doesn’t have anything to do with the separation of powers, this is the basic right to freedom of speech.~~
~~People using the separation of powers argument to try and mute Demir either don’t know what seperation of powers is, or they deliberately choose to ignore it and instead use a fallacy to reach exactly the same effect as a so-called populist politician publicly commenting on a sensitive verdict.~~
Whether or not Minister Demir is correct in saying she believes the penalty to be insufficient, I don’t know. I *do* know that the judge takes way more factors into account than most people see. The general public sees “a 19-year-old guy who is proven to have raped a pregnant woman”, the judge has a dossier of most likely multiple hundreds of pages with details on the victim, the perpetrator, the circumstances, forensics, …
It’s infuriating to know that this perpetrator got a sentence of 4 years of which 2 effective, but we don’t know the reasoning behind the verdict. We only know that penal law offers a slightly broader penal fork, and that this convict raped someone. That’s all.
One shouldn’t be angry with the judge and their reasoning, they’re doing their job and are *required* to take into account all circumstances and base their verdict off of that, the problem lies with the people who commit these crimes in the first place.
It’s incredible how certain judges these days need around-the-clock police protection because hot-headed people with no knowledge of the law *or* the job of a judge constantly threaten them.
People really need a broader understanding of penal law. Urgently.
I mean uitspraken doen over zaken waar ze geen kennis van heeft is een beetje de niche van zulhal demir. Dat was mij toch al jaren geleden duidelijk geworden toen ze op nationale televisie over unia aan het liegen was. Haar hele strategie bestaat al jaren uit het aanvallen en schuld verschuiven naar overheidsinstanties. Eens je dat doorhebt leer je dat mens gewoon te negeren.