Proposition 51K2999

Projet de loi relatif à la mise à la disposition du tribunal de l'application des peines.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Feb. 14, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

prisoner victim criminal law criminal court alternative sentence carrying out of sentence release on licence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 12, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There was a little confusion about the rapporteurs. I can read the entire report. When I look around, I think all the colleagues I see now can read and write. I refer to the written report.

Colleague Laeremans, if you can’t read, then I would like to read it again.

Normally, the rapporteur must also be present in the committee. This is the case in the committee that I preside over.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Muls, I would like to point out that in certain parliaments – I don’t know how it should be in this area in this Parliament – reporting is part of the evaluation of parliamentarians. Some members of our European Group were counted as rapporteurs in very few cases following the previous European elections, while they were not allowed to be rapporteurs.

In our Parliament, members are generally not quoted in this area. Nevertheless, this is promoted by some MPs on their website or in their performance. Everyone can see how many times they have been rapporteurs. Nevertheless, we all agree that this does not really mean anything, unless the short minutes that come here on the floor tell us what the content of the discussion is. Therefore, it is regrettable that even this is not done by the rapporteurs. Of course, this is very easy, colleague Muls.

Mr. Laeremans, you know that I am always present in the Justice Committee. If I am asked to be a rapporteur, I do so with pleasure. In very many cases, I bring the report here, if it is useful and interesting for the colleagues.

If you think it is important to be designated as a rapporteur and that this is good in the statistics, then I will be very good in the statistics and I will probably be at the top of the list.

Mr. Laeremans, the problem is the following.

I will be cautious. How to say? Statistics are like ladies who are not well dressed. From far away you think you see everything, from close the most important thing is hidden from you.

Statistics are always dangerous.

I hesitated, Madam the Deputy Prime Minister, but I found this comparison at the height. After Sacha Guitry, you put me “in verdeur”, if I can express myself that way.

Statistics are always quantitative and rarely qualitative.

Indeed indeed .

For example, your House Speaker has not asked a parliamentary question in the last eight years.

I can only assist you in this matter. We need to look beyond statistics, but I would like to say it. I also do not want to offend you personally that you would do nothing in your capacity or have done nothing in the past as a rapporteur. We are concerned with the principle that in this Parliament, or even in most committees, it is customary to systematically exclude a particular party and to prohibit any additional position in this Parliament. We regret this and find it extremely undemocratic.

Ladies and gentlemen, I come to the point. The Flemish Interest will not approve the current draft law in connection with the disposal. This law amendment was once announced by the government as one of the ways to keep heavy criminals away from society for longer, due to the horrible nature of their actions and due to the dangers associated with this release. This bill does not in any way meet these expectations. With this bill, we are again moving towards a faster release.

First, when a criminal enforcement court becomes responsible for the execution of the disposal – of the security measure that is the disposal – then there is less likelihood than today that the criminals concerned will remain behind the jails longer than if a government would remain responsible for it. Everybody knows what it is about. It is about the exceptional cases, no more than a few cases per year that will fall under this scheme in practice: the whole heavy criminals, genre Horion, genre Dutroux, genre Fourniret and so on. Well, the likelihood is much greater that a politically responsible body, who is accountable to Parliament and to the public, would judge more rigorously and with more responsibility than a fuzzy criminal enforcement court working behind the scenes. When another Barabbas is released in the future, the next government can wash hands in innocence without problems and like Pontius Pilate.

Second, and even worse, the maximum duration of the deployment is reduced. There is no progress in this area, but a decline. From a maximum of 20 years to a maximum of 15 years. In this way, the criminal judge can in the future even less assure than today that perpetrators of abominable crimes will be banned from society forever or for a very long time. The reason why this had to be shortened to 15 years was not given in a serious way. The minister only said that this would be more balanced – why this would be more balanced, it has never been said – and that this was the result of a political compromise. If I hear that, then I think that probably one party, for example the party of the minister, has said...

I did not say that!

Did you not say that? Nevertheless, I think I remember this way. I am glad you are correcting it. In any case, the report states that it would be more balanced.

Mr. Laeremans, the goal of a better balance and a political compromise are two different things!

Of course, these are two different things. I agree with that.

I don’t see why going from 20 to 15 years, when the government says it wants to hold certain criminals longer, would be more balanced, on the contrary. This remains for me an unspeakable explanation behind which one can hide everything.

The fact is that 20 years is too little for us. Some crimes are so extreme and some criminals are so dangerous that life-long disposal must be possible. For example, I think of terrorists who have many deaths on their conscience. Not that we currently have all such people in our prisons, but it is absolutely not unthinkable that they will ever come there. Just think of the handlers of the attacks in Madrid, found here.

Not only we have this opinion. Also in neighboring countries there is a lifetime disposal scheme. In the Netherlands, for example, this is the case, in addition to the possibility that exists to actually convict people for life. I think of Mohammed Bouyeri, the horrible murderer of Theo Van Gogh, who will never be released again, except with a very exceptional genetic measure. With us, a lifetime detention could have been a remedy to prevent someone like Dutroux or Fourniret from ever getting released prematurely. Apparently this is not seen. This is limited to 15 years and then there is no guarantee that those 15 years will be extended.

Instead of increasing the duration of the deployment and better securing society, the opposite is done. This will not happen with our support, colleagues.