Anti-victim mentality in the justice system

Remove all ads!

I've just read about a certain event in Poland.

There was a woman employed in the agricultural business run by a very rich man who was a very abusive boss. He touched her, demanded to be touched, he also had her sleep with him - although she was a wife and mother.

Ultimately, he requested that she should sleep with a 17 year old relative of his, and then the woman said enough was enough and quit the job. He still wouldn't let go of it. She told her husband and brother.

The two went to visit the corporate president in his house... with a metal pipe. They beat him up, he died.

Right now, they are charged with murder and threatened by life imprisonment.

Absurd one: There is a crime here called "assault with fatal result". It's a lesser crime than homicide and homicide is already lesser than murder. The men were clearly aggrieved - and who wouldn't be? - and their intention was quite obviously to beat the man up for what he did but not to kill him.

Absurd two: When young gangsters take baseball bats and go beat someone without caring if he will die from that, it's typically qualified as "assault with fatal result". These two men had an express intention not to kill. But they were just normal, until then law-abiding citizens and not bandits. Apparently, the justice system is all about humanitarian treatment of criminals and protecting them to the farthest extent from whatever real or perceived excess of punishment... and not about protecting the ordinary citizens from harm. "Professional", thoroughly degenerate criminals seem to be favoured.

Absurd three: Now the woman is blaming herself for the three lives lost - her boss' to violent death and her brother and husband's to life imprisonment. She believes she should have born her fate in silence and shouldn't have said anything. Is that how we want rape victims to cooperate with the justice system? Wonder how many rape victims will keep quiet after reading or hearing about this case.

How about your country? Do you also have the impression that professional criminals are favoured over incidental offenders and that the law enforcement is one big joke?

Damn, if I were the judge, even in the Polish system with the law as it currently is, I would still find enough ground to let them out of the court with a suspended sentence. Either that or some short prison term. But life imprisonment on murder charge... ridiculous. Unless they actually did include the potential death of the man in their calculations - supposing they did calculate anything - but it has to be proven to them and in this country you have to prove both the objective act and the subjective guilt, intent being part of the guilt part. It's not even about the law, but about what the prosecutors and the judges make of it.

Heck, there's even been a case where a woman has been ordered to pay the burglar a rent because he slipped and hurt himself in her house. Not to mention all those people who did something to the assailant in self-defence and were treated like criminals... one even hanged himself in his arrest cell before the trial.

[ January 17, 2005, 16:36: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Yes

 

No, we have lawyers, judgers and jurists because the law is complicated and it is the law that is to be implemented, not the mobs perception of right and wrong. The mob is stupid and bloodthirsty and is not interested in evidence or truth and falsehood but only perception. I am one who do not want to judge people on how things appear but on how things are.

 

Wise words, Joacquin. Consider the various 'trial by media' cases that come from time to time when everyone says 'he must be guilty' even though they know next to nothing about the facts of the case.

 

But how does that relate to the topic?

 

Well, I understand your point, I think its especially underlined in the current thread about home defense laws. Most law systems, for whatever reason, in an attempt to be/appear fair, seem to favor/protect criminals.

The problem with your example is that in this case, the law is prosecuting the criminals. The guys that beat someone to death, no matter how sleazy he was, are the murderers. As far as your story relates, the woman never filed any official charges or spoke out about this guy until *after* his murder.

Maybe she had a consensual affair with the guy, and her husband went and killed him, at this point its a bit of a one sided story, isn't it?

This has happened here. A family comes home and finds an incapacitated man in their front hallway. He broke in, and tripped. He sues and wins...

The law seems to say that its a good idea to break into people's house's when they're not home and injure yourself, you're protected by the law, and the owner will owe you. Wierd.

 

I don't think these guys deserve jail time. Suspended sentence, yes, recorded conviction, yes. The guy they killed was a bastard by the sound of it, but that doesn't justify killing him. It does, however, mitigate against the severity of their actions and partially excuses them. At best, they should have gotten manslaughter or its equivalent, since they were provoked and do not appear to have formed the intent to kill, although they should have known their actions could have resulted in death.

I don't think that law enforcement is a joke. I think that excessively technical legal systems are a joke, and that "professional" criminals (whether criminals by trade or professionals engaging in crime) are better at manipulating or working the system to avoid or delay punishment. It's the manner in which the court system has become an interplay between the prosecution, the defence and the judge and jury that annoys me the most - the people who were actually involved in the conflict have virtually nothing to do with it any more. The people who decide the matter have nothing at all to do with it, and have no interest in meeting the needs of either party. That is what bothers me the most about this sort of "justice" - it's faceless and cold.

 

The Woman should have had some legal recourse. That would have saved the guy's life, and kept the husband and son out of prison. She'd ahve got enough money oth of the ******* to cover the loss of the job...

 

I second that. However, it also opens up avenues to become a joke, and an unpleasant one at that. Unfortunately, not only does it affect the victims, but also the entire population.

 

That works in common law, but not in the continental system. For any money, you need a separate civil suit apart from the trial(with little exception) and it never is much (I seriously doubt that a rape victim could get more than 1000-2000 euro compared to hundreds of thousands you can get under common law), while civil suits are quite expensive.

Legal recourse lasts years, while the criminal is at your doors - not to mention he's often quite wealthy and powerful, and the police is dreaming of nothing else than you shutting up already.

Agreed with the former and agreed with the latter. That's basically my point, they did transgress but the qualification of the crime is ridiculous and so is the lifetime threat.

Yes, that's the joke in its purest form.

Look: guys who intent just to beat up the guy get murder charge, while even known gangsters get "assault with fatal result" by default if they beat someone up to death no matter if they intend to kill or not. It's sort of assumed that if you're a real criminal, it's a wide social problem and you get the mildest qualification possible. People who get in conflict with the law like once in their lifetime get the harshest one possible. Because of what? Because they are normal law-abiding citizens (up to the point of their crime, of course), so they should behave?

 

I don't have much faith to law-enforcement in our country (Denmark).

Big companies have way too much leeway - And because they are multinational companies they can take advantage of the system - They pay no tax! This has NOT been stopped by the police or government - It has been going on for years and years.

Big organized criminals go free. But the friendly pusher the streets of Christiania are being arrested for years, because maybe they sold some weed.

And then some drunk idiot killing a 2 year old with his car. He gets away with 5 months.

I don't believe in justice

 

Just out of interest Chev, are the details you give recognised as truth by the prosecution? If they are then yes, it is deeply wrong that the men are charged with murder rather than "assault with fatal result". However, if the details of the event (as they can only have been relayed by the defendents) are not recognised by the prosecution then they may have course to believe it was pre-meditated murder.

I'm not sure the British laws are really set up to be in favour of proffesional criminals, just that they are often portrayed that way in the media.
In terms of burglars being able to sue for injuring themselves while on other peoples property - I believe there is a motion to prevent people being able to profit in any way from illegal activities. (Effectively to stop the above from occuring.)

Unfortunately, I do believe that the justice system favours the rich, on the grounds that the best defence lawyers tend to cost the most. (Obviously, the best defence lawyers are more likely to get the accused aquitted) I think the system would benefit from caps on legal fees.

Footnote
There was a horrendous case on the news last night about a 16 year old kidnapped from Lithuania and forced to work in a Brothel in London, "servicing" up to 10 men a day. It would appear the news crew were actually instrumental in tracking her down and the police moved in very quickly and freed her. No mention was made of what happened to the brothel owners - I just hope that it was because it might be seen as prejudicing a future trial and not because they weren't being prosecuted.

 

Seems to me that there are two trials at work here; the one left out is a trial of the deceased business owner as to whether he was indeed the perpetrator of sexual harrassment and abuse. Not knowing anything about the case, I'd wonder what the evidence was, aside from the testimony of the defendants, that 1) the woman was coerced into a relationship and was not simply having an affair, and 2) that the men didn't mean to kill the deceased. People in positions of power have been known to abuse that power, but do we know this was the case here? Also, it seems to me there is a strong line between victim rights and vigilantism. If the defendants had legal recourse, wouldn't this just be an honor killing? If they didn't have legal recourse, then the justice system needs fixing. While legal systems can often be unjust, and favor those with access to resources and better legal representation over those without, it still seems to me much much more preferable to vigilantism and "frontier justice."

 

Some judges seem to think smaller people are lesser people. There's practically always a lesser sentence for a crime committed on a child than on a grown adult unless the media are highlighting the trial.

I believe the prosecution has to trace every line. It's also supposed to "overreact" a bit, while the judge isn't bound by the crime qualification chosen by the prosecution. Granted. It is also true that to commit murder you don't need an express intention to kill - indifference is enough. And it's true that the "assault with fatal result" charge is primarily intended to reflect a more distant fatal result, such as death from wounds. But when gangsters, who go out with baseball bats to choose a random person on the street don't give a damn about him/her dying or not, get the "assault with fatal result" charge, it's ridiculous to charge with murder people who wanted to beat up but not to kill.\

Don't get me wrong, I hate such things as judgement on suspicion (husband and brother have a bit more of a reason to trust a woman than a stranger does, though) or taking justice into one's own hands. But this seems too much for me. No matter how you look at it, vigilantes shouldn't be given worse treatment than casual criminals are.

The thing is, the prosecution's stance looks perfectly all right and legal with only a moderate intention tweak (prosecutor's word vs defendant's word... you bet), it only looks ridiculous in comparison to what they do about real bandits.

Well, given the way common law started developing in the 11th century from the verdicts of royal courts, I don't really see much room for favouritims towards criminals. When strange verdicts pop up, they're typically precedents, so practically made up by the judges.

[ January 18, 2005, 15:49: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

While I agree that these people weren't bandits, thugs, or hooligans, they definitely ARE vigilantes. They took the law into their own hands.

I also disagree that the law is "easier" on repeat offenders and professional criminals. If you sell marijuana and get caught, if it's your first offense you're going to get off with a slap on the wrist. Probably something like 5 years probation. For those unfamiliar with the U.S. justice system, when you are placed on probation it's kind of like a suspended sentence. If you do not do anything else illegal for (in this example) the next 5 years, the charges go away and nothing happens to you. However, if you get caught selling pot again within that five year period, you can be sentenced to jail not only for the second crime, but for the first as well. I think the justice system is actually set up to prevent repeat offenders, and get one-time offenders off easy.

But that is not the case we have here with these defendants. Here's what is definite - they definitely committed first degree assault - i.e., attacking someone with the intent to cause severe bodily harm. This differs from second degree assault, when you, for example, punch someone in the face, and they don't have to be hospitalized or anything - there was no severe bodily harm. Beating the crap out of this elderly man was certainly done with the intent of causing severe bodily harm.

Here's the tricky part - the man died. How do we charge this crime? In the U.S., I see up to five possible charges. In order from most to least severe: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. The problem is a case can be made for each.

1st degree murder: This requires premeditation. It could be argued that the two man planned on beating this man to death. I don't know the specifics of the case to say for sure. But did the wife tell them, did they wait a few days to plan, or did they immediately pick up a couple of baseball bats and drive to his house? Timing here is critical. If it was three days after the wife told them that they did this, it seems like premediation may have occurred. Sentence: Life at least, and depending on the state in which it occurred, possibly the death penalty.

2nd degree murder: They did not use premeditation, but they realized that their actions would likely result in death. Maybe they didn't intend to kill the guy, but got carried away when they started hitting him. Sentence: 25 years to life.

3rd degree murder: Results from people being mentally incompetent or insane, or people under severe emotional duress. This can be argued if they went there immediately. It would be considered a crime of passion, where emotions took over. The time frame between when they found out and when they acted will be critical here. If the wife told them, and all they had to do was drive a couple of miles away to get this guy, 3rd degree murder might be the best. Sentence 10-25 years.

Manslaughter: You didn't actually intend to kill someone, but by your actions you were negligent in such a manner that made death a possibility. Maybe they didn't intend to kill this guy, but if they repeatedly hit him in the head, then they were acting in such a manner that death could easily result, whether they intended to kill him or not. Sentence 5-20 years.

Example of manslaughter - you see this in drunk driving cases a lot. If you are driving drunk and hit a kill someone, the courts acknowledge that you were not intending to kill that person. However your actions (becoming intoxicated and then driving) were negligent, and thus made the resulting act a possibility.

Involuntary manslaughter: There was no intent to kill the person, and there was no malice or negligence involved. This would happen if they beat him up a bit - say several punches to the torso. Normally that wouldn't be enough to kill someone. What they didn't realize is in the process of punching him, they ruptured his spleen, and he bled to death internally.

Like I said, there is an extremely high amount of unknowns in this case for me to pass judegement on which charge would be most appropriate. The things I would need to know are:

1. What was the time frame between the wife informing her husband and brother of her boss' actions, and the husband and brother beating the boss? This will give some insight into premeditation, or a crime of passion.

2. What did they use to beat the boss? Did they stike using their fists, or did they use baseball bats? This would give insight into whether or not they intended to kill the boss.

3. What was the manner in which the boss was struck? Arms, legs, midsection, head, etc? This also gives insight into whether or not they intended to kill him.

 

@Aldeth:

Possibilities here:

1. Murder

You can get 12-15 years, or 25, or life.

Difference from homicide: excessive cruelty, connection with robbery or rape, exceptionally condemnable motive, use of fire arms or explosives

2. Homicide

You can get 8-15 years, or 25, or life.

If you kill more than one person in one attempt or have already been sentenced for homicide, you are punished like for murder.

3. Homicide in affection

You can get 1-10 years.

Difference from plain homicide: Strong affection justified by the circumstances.

4. Involuntary causation of death (there's no such thing as involuntary homicide in Polish law)

You can get 3 months to 5 years.

Difference from homicide: The article says "who involuntarily caused the death of a man..." and the rest is in the judge's hands. This mostly applies to people who fail to fulfil an obligation or duty recognised by the law, if someone dies as a result. A creative judge could come up with a non-standard use.

5. Severe bodily harm resulting in the death of a man

You can get 2-12 years.

Difference: Not always clear. The death should be a somewhat distant result unpredictable for the perpetrator of bodily harm.

6. Fight or assault resulting in death (aka assault with fatal result)

You can get 1-10 years.

Difference: Well, it's separate from causing severe bodily harm resulting in death and the punishment is shorter, so, logically, this would mean that causing severe bodily harm per that article takes something more serious than just beating someone up. If you ask me, it's a superfluity to keep these two as separate crimes.

========

Special options: For some categories of offenders, judges can commute the sentence. This includes classic mitigating circumstances of such a weight that they merit an extraordinarily reduced punishment, also young offenders etc etc. Apart from mitigating circumstances, there are also incriminating ones, such as re-offence, especially condemnable motive etc.

Here's a passage I've just found on the internet. Reading it will help you understand my point about the anti-victim approach in the Polish justice system:

I live here and I can tell you that what those people say is true and hasn't changed since the report was made.

The same way it happens with assault, theft etc. Only voluntary homicide and murder have such a high minimal punishment that a low sentence can't (usually) be given.

The police is the only force with some authority that seems to care in rape cases (unlike theft, assault etc). Not even doctors do. Two girls have been kidnapped right from the street, taken somewhere and raped. When they somehow managed to get to the hospital, the doctors wouldn't give them the anti-HIV pill because they didn't believe what the girls said. They said there was no proof - i.e. the girls thought it all up, and wouldn't even have a gynaecologist examine them. The head doctor said it was the court's job to decide if rape happened. What a sick moron. It's the police's job to find a suspect and the court's to decide if he's guilty, but if the rape really happened is a different matter. Plus, consider how long an investigation and trial takes! If they had been made pregnant in the rape, they would "manage" to carry the children before the court verdict is issued. And anti-HIV medicine needs to be given as soon as possible. It's beyond me how such a ****thard can call himself a doctor.

As you can see from the report, courts exercise the same approach.

You can ask, if they have such an attitude, why the two guys are facing a life sentence for beating someone to (unintended) death. Let me explain: it's because it was victims (or victim relatives, in this case) defending and retaliating.

You are likely to get a longer sentence for hurting someone in self defence than for planning and carrying out an assault. That's what criminal justice looks like around here. If you ask me, this justice is indeed criminal justice but in the other sense of the word.

[ January 22, 2005, 18:28: Message edited by: chevalier ]