Proposition 52K1696

Projet de loi relatif à la circonstance aggravante pour les auteurs de certaines infractions commises envers certaines personnes à caractère public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Dec. 19, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

violence crime against individuals criminal law aggravating circumstances

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Renaat Landuyt (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Feb. 25, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This bill was discussed in the Committee on Justice at the meetings of 27 January and 10 February 2009 and at the meeting of 3 February 2010.

The Minister’s Representative has clarified that this draft aims to protect ministerial officials, officials carrying public authority or any other person in public capacity from acts of violence committed against them in the performance or on the occasion of the exercise of their duties. The proposal provides for the adaptation of Article 280 of the Criminal Code.

Initially, the bills of colleagues François-Xavier de Donnea and Daniel Bacquelaine, as well as the bill of Mr. Doomst, were attached.

During the general discussion, the words were delivered by colleagues Schoofs, Hamal and De Schamphelaere. The committee decided to obtain the opinion of the State Council. After this was received, the text was further discussed with speeches by Mrs. Nyssens, the Minister, Mrs. Lalieux, Mrs. Van Cauter, Mr. Van Hecke, Doomst, Schoofs and Mrs. De Rammelaere.

The whole was adopted unchanged with 12 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

Open Vld will support this proposal. It was a necessary initiative. In recent years, the number of violent incidents against police officers has unfortunately increased sharply. In 2008, we knew about 980 recorded violent acts against police officers. The little ones are probably still out of consideration. This may have to do with the fact that the police are doing more effective work every day, fighting criminals thoroughly, but then collide on the wall of those who at all costs want to avoid their arrest and trial and in doing so do not shy away from violence. The recent events in Brussels were an illustration of this.

Our group believes that these police officers who risk their lives and safety to ensure our safety effectively have the right to more justice. This means that the legislation had to be adjusted in the sense that the minimum penalties had to be raised and that the maximum penalties had to be remedied. This increase in the penalty is only a signal from the legislator that we do not tolerate this violence committed against the police.

We must also remain honest and modest and realize that this regulation does not protect the police officer who is daily in the weather with his assignment an sich. We said it in the committee, this is not a bullet-free vest. Other measures will also be necessary. We have enough police on the ground. A faster and more efficient functioning of the judiciary in general should also be sought.

Other legislative initiatives could come up to allow the police to fulfill their core tasks. This includes the legislative proposal, which will be adopted later in relation to the administrative simplification. The police should no longer intervene in the delivery in criminal cases. All these measures together should enable the police to act efficiently while addressing as little risks and hazards as possible.

Colleagues, some of us have called for the punishment measure to act cautiously. I think a balanced proposal has been formulated. We support it. The broad discussion of the penalty dimensions in general will have to be carried out at another time. For us, however, that could not be an excuse to sit still today. We will therefore support this proposal.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we have spent one and a half years to get this proposal and draft in the plenary session of the Chamber. This may be a little long, but better late than never.

The hesitation among the doubters was whether this was an appropriate burden for the police officers in relation to people who act aggressively against the exercise of the office of police. I think the answer to that should be full-fledged yes today because the facts in this regard give the applicants the right.

In 2008, the proposal was submitted to the Senate by colleague Claes. At the end of 2008, it was taken over by the Chamber. The pressure, especially from the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde region, after the attack on agent Kitty Van Nieuwenhuysen, was very large. From our group, we wanted and want that violence against police officers be punished more severely. Why Why ? Because it is sunny that agents in their daily work are exposed to aggression and threats, and this does not diminish, on the contrary. Threats are becoming more aggressive and we believe that the legislature should respond appropriately.

It has already been said by colleague Van Cauter, the fierce incidents in Brussels have greatly increased the pressure on this bill. In fact, police services are exposed to a greater risk in the exercise of their functions and therefore are also entitled to enhanced protection at the legislative level. It is of course intended that this would lead to a deterrent effect for those who want to commit aggression against agents. Therefore, for intentional strikes without injury, but with premeditated reasons and resulting in illness or incapacity for work, the minimum penalties are equated to crimes against persons holding a public office. For the 30 000 active police officers there is an aggravation of the maximum penalties against those who exhibit aggressive behavior against them, up to 1, 2, 4 and 5 years, respectively.

Our group is convinced that this draft is a correct mix of legal fairness and social responsibility towards the police officers. This may not be the last step, but it must be a clear signal that we fully support agents in their dangerous social functioning. I think it is a strong and appropriate tribute to Kitty Van Nieuwenhuysen.

Our group is grateful to everyone who has contributed to this proposal and will eventually support it.

For the sake of clarity, we support this bill.

Nevertheless, I have a margin note. The design lends itself excellently to explain to someone the difference between irony and cynicism. The irony is what happened in the Justice Committee a few weeks ago. This draft was scheduled, coincidentally just at the moment that Brussels was in the shell, if I can say so. It couldn’t go fast enough at that moment. If we, as an opposition, had not taken a moment of attention, it would have simply been chased by the commission. At that time, it was primarily supposed to look like just-in-time legislation, precisely on time, efficiently, quickly and efficiently. The legislator had all the assets in his hands and put them on the table there in the committee. The irony is, therefore, that the design was purely accidentally scheduled. It took one and a half years to be approved. It was an agenda calamity that ⁇ worked out well for the majority. This is irony, and it is possible to live with it.

There is also something like cynicism. This week, MPs in the Justice Committee intervened over the announced release of the murderer of Mark Munten. So, at the moment that the bill is voted in the plenary session, the committee is debating the release of what is called a copkiller in the United States.

The release of Mark Munten’s murderer was announced without the widow being informed.

These examples of irony and cynicism illustrate the current political reality. The current policy is between irony and cynicism. Leteness and impunity celebrate high. We are ⁇ skeptical of the effectiveness and effective implementation of this law. I have to refer only to the discussion we conducted this week on the penalty enforcement note of the Minister of Justice. Certain majority parties have apparently already forgotten in their demonstrations that they — rightly, for the rest — have dealt with the minister in terms of execution as harshly as the opposition, and have demonstrated the unreliability of his note.

If a perpetrator of violence against a police officer will be imprisoned for a minute longer in the next five years, as a result of the penalties we are voting today, then we can all speak of good luck. This will ⁇ not be the merit of this government.

We approve this bill. We have submitted a bill in the same sense. Our enthusiasm has only slowed since the submission. You can derive it from my speech.

Today we limit our comment on this bill to the devise: if it does not benefit, then it does not harm. This is apparently the philosophy. I also heard this during the previous bill we discussed.

I believe that there is no doubt that the sentences should be established according to the gravity of the acts committed. Indeed, this graduation can evolve as society evolves. I think, for example, of what was done during the previous legislature for a series of professions called to confront more and more violence and its consequences, while none of them is predestined to do so. It then makes sense to state an aggravating circumstance, as our society takes more into account the particular situation of these professions that are more exposed today than yesterday.

However, with regard to the law enforcement forces, the situation seems to me to be quite different. The aggravating circumstances and specific incriminations have existed for a long time. Being part of the law enforcement forces means exercising a profession that, by its nature, faces crime, often violent. I think the legislator understood this well and had already drawn all the consequences.

Certainly anomalies such as, for example, lower minimum penalties for law enforcement than for other professions had to be corrected. The text presented to us today corrects these anomalies.

On the other hand, with others here, I call for a comprehensive review of the scale of the penalties. As I said, a society is evolving and what was considered unsevere, a few decades or even a century ago, can now be unbearable and therefore punished more severely. The reverse is also possible. We all know that our Criminal Code punished more severely in the nineteenth century, the offence to property and property than the offence to persons. Nowadays, no one can understand that this is still the case.

This rearrangement of penalties, we have already asked for it during the debate on the reform of the Court of Assises and on other occasions, this week again, during the debate of the note on the execution of penalties.

This is obviously not simple. This is a difficult debate that puts in play different, competing, or even contradictory values.

So, what about the text that is being proposed? The situation seems to me quite different. First, as I pointed out, aggravating circumstances and specific incriminations already exist. Then, the examination of the facts and circumstances that have presided over the genesis of this project and the attached proposals, as well as the examination of the facts and circumstances that will lead to the adoption of this text, demonstrate sufficiently that the goal is vicious both at the beginning and at the arrival.

It is not by chance that this project is nicknamed after the name of the policewoman who was murdered. This text was born of the shooting that cost him his life. It is not by chance that it was adopted in a few minutes in the Justice Committee while it was on its agenda for months; it is, of course, following the recent shooting in Brussels.

The tragic facts that I have just recalled and that we all have in mind are obviously unacceptable and must be fought by any self-respecting Democrat. But I strongly contest that the vote of this text, whose sole purpose is to aggravate penalties, can participate in any way in the fight against crime. Nevertheless, this is what is stated, and in the texts and in the ongoing debates – and still today. I can’t agree with these words because I fundamentally think it’s about deceiving the people.

To make citizens, and even members of law enforcement, believe that, thanks to this text, serious violence against police officers will be better combated and decreased is an inepty. For, finally, if the severity of the punishment had a decisive influence on the commission of the offences, it would be known long ago. I would even risk to say that any offence should be logically punished with perpetuity in order to prevent it from being committed. It doesn’t make sense, but it’s what we let us believe! This seems to me to be contrary to all serious studies, but also to common sense. Who can imagine for a moment that violent robbers, armed with Kalashnikovs, are somewhat intercepted by a sanction provided for in the Criminal Code, which many here, starting with me, do not know?

Prevention by punishment is a fraud. This is a bad signal to the public. This will not arrange anything and, one day or another, the citizen will ask us accounts for this legislation drafted and then voted by surfacing on the deep emotion that the facts recalled have very naturally aroused.

This is not the way the politicians will regain the confidence of the voters. This is not the way people will regain confidence in justice. So, therefore, with this double title: inefficiency and mirror to the alluettes, these texts are useless.

But here, in favor of recent “events” in Brussels, this case has fallen into the cradle of the majority logic. So it will be so, but I really believe that this is not a good signal that we are going to give!

In my opinion, there is little to add to Mr. Giet’s statement. I can find myself largely in his arguments, both in terms of the timing used and in terms of the possible effects that voting for the penalty can have.

A debate about the penalty is a very important debate but it must be carried out in its entirety. What is now done is, following certain incidents, to conduct the discussion around certain articles and parts of the Criminal Code, without considering the whole. Some penalties may be too high or too low. However, then it is not only about the crimes that prevail today, but then it can be about many other crimes.

Therefore, in the Committee on Justice there has been growing consensus that the entire Criminal Code should be revised in order to ⁇ greater coherence in the penalty size. This was also a proposal that the Minister of Justice launched in his note on punishment enforcement. This note was received with a lot of criticism, including from the majority. However, there was a good proposal, namely to set up a committee to conduct a thorough examination of the way the Penal Code is now drawn up and the ratio of the penalties between them. I think that is still the best way to work. The logic of a majority, of what happens here every day and a number of incidents have led to this proposal being quickly approved a few weeks ago. However, the bill has been submitted for a long time. That is effectively true. It has come into a current acceleration.

I understand that the colleagues want to denigrate the proposal and that they doubt its value. If it really was so insignificant, I wonder why did it hang for sixteen months? Are those who have just intervened in favour of a more repressive approach? For us, as legislators, it is a fundamental duty to align the penalties with the crimes. As regards crimes against persons who must publicly exercise authority and defend themselves in very difficult circumstances, the legislator must simply, out of respect, align the penalty with the crime.

This is, of course, the discussion that is being carried out following recent events with police officers. However, the entire existing criminal arsenal should be reviewed. I think everyone agrees with that too. Per ⁇ the conclusion of the investigation will be that certain crimes against certain persons should be punished more severely. Let us, however, conduct these debates thoroughly and in general.

The effect that we will have now is especially psychologically very important. It will also be a very important signal in politics, but I think that in reality little will happen. I have already said it in the committee. If a heavy gangster, heavily armed face-to-face with a police officer, plans to shoot, he will not feel inhibited because the Chamber on 25 February 2010 has tightened the law. He will not do that.

In short, this legislative change will not lead to less crime or to less serious crime. I know it, it is psychologically important that a signal is given, but with it we will not fundamentally change the security problems that exist. That is the essence of the story.

I agree with the amendment to the minimum penalties so that they are proportionate. But some maximum penalties are doubled from 5 to 10 years and others go from 10 to 15 years, and such more. Today, the judge already has a certain space in the punishment. When he can give between 1 and 5 years, he can give the minimum penalty, even with delay, or he can effectively impose the maximum. The judges now have that space.

They can also assess whether certain crimes should be punished more severely. They can now also. If they find that strikes and injuries to a police officer really can’t get through, they can now also perfectly impose heavier penalties than if the victims were ordinary civilians. They can do it perfectly. This does not always have to be regulated by law.

I repeat that in reality this will not lead to the reduction of crime. I invite the Minister of Justice to work out the already announced thorough revision of the criminal arsenal, to which we would like to cooperate in a very constructive way.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that this is just a step in the process. I have the greens! Well heard from the PS. They say that stricter action needs to be taken. I therefore hope that in the coming weeks and months – and there will be incidents – stronger steps forward will be taken and that those same groups will follow those steps to further build the policy in that direction.

At first I did not intend to intervene, even because my colleague intervened. Especially when I hear Mr. Doomst, I find it almost hilarious. He says they will take more punitive steps.

I advise you to read the note that Minister De Clerck has pushed for regarding the punishment execution. This will ensure that the execution of penalties in the coming years is even less and that criminals leave prison even faster or go to prison even less. Through the single band, the problem will be solved, so that those people will no longer go to jail. This will be further generalized. The laxity will increase.

I see how the case-Münten was addressed, where a police officer with a Kalashnikov was shot. The perpetrator was sentenced to 20 years in 2005. He had previously been given another 10 years. Together for 30 years. This spring he is released again and he sits home with a single belt!

In such a climate, you say that it will be harder to act upon acts committed against police officers. That is symbolic. There is a little play here today with the shape and lip service done, but in practice I see no firm will to punish those who shoot down police officers or seriously injured, really harder. Unfortunately, that intention is simply absent.

I just want to confirm, Mrs. Speaker, that it is precisely the intention of the proposal as it is presented now and of the note submitted by the Minister to move towards a stronger lik-op-stuk policy. In my opinion, that is also the direction in which we must evolve together in the coming weeks and months.

This debate on the effectiveness of criminal law, the symbolic value of criminal law and, above all, the effectiveness of the scale of penalties is a classic. Many of us have already said the necessity and urgency of a job that is not easy to carry out. It is a general job that to revise the scale of punishments so that this scale fits to our current society.

I think it was yesterday or yesterday that was discussed in the note presented by the Minister of Justice. It is clear that this scale should be revised in our old criminal code. by Mr. Gigi has said it several times, as well as Mr. by Van Hecke.

Mr. Minister, you told us that you are setting up a committee to do this. But I have mostly heard that this commission does not start from scratch, otherwise it would last ten years. You should be able to rely on work already done and reworked. I think of the Holsters commissions and others.

I am convinced that the studies and findings are done, but that now a political work is needed, which is not easy. We just voted also a Social Criminal Code where the scale of penalties was revised: this work took about ten years. I hope we won’t wait another ten years to accomplish this work. It is therefore a political work to know how to repress, to what height and what.

With regard to the proposal that comes to us from the Senate, the CDH will vote positively, as the CDH also voted in the Senate.

The only symbolic value of this bill is that it highlights the authority of the police forces. It is true that policemen and police officers represent an authority, that they probably need non-psychological support, as Mr. said. Van Hecke, but maybe more than a symbol. Criminal law has a symbolic part.

I also join Mr. Giet who says that criminal law can be only symbolic, that a criminal law without effectiveness would lead to questions. It is true that the perpetrators will not go to study the height of the punishment before perpetrating their beats.

The CDH will therefore vote on the proposal, but not with particular enthusiasm since we do not like to intervene on a case-by-case basis. However, we understand well under what circumstances this text is presented to us today.