Proposition 53K0080

Projet de loi modifiant et complétant le Code pénal en vue d'incriminer l'abus de la situation de faiblesse des personnes et d'étendre la protection pénale des personnes vulnérables contre la maltraitance.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Valérie Déom, André Frédéric, Rachid Madrane, Yvan Mayeur, Éric Thiébaut, Özlem Özen

Submission date

Aug. 9, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

violence child child protection abuse of power psychological harassment religious sect criminal law suicide

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Oct. 20, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The House of Representatives has already voted on this text and the Senate has modified it slightly. These Senate amendments addressed an extension of the concept of vulnerable person:

- in the context of a situation of degrading treatment;

- when a minor or a person who is in this situation of dependence or abuse is attracted or used;

in the event of harassment;

in the event of guilty abstinence.

Each paragraph refers to an article of the Criminal Code.

The Senate, in Article 44, has amended, or supplemented in any case, the list of offences on the basis of which public utility institutions and associations that have this in their social object can be brought to justice.

The text was approved by the committee with nine votes for and four against. Amendments were submitted, in particular by Ms. De Wit. I see that she puts them back and I imagine that she will explain them.

The discussions have already been thoroughly conducted in the committee. I just want to briefly explain our position on this proposal and explain why we are submitting our amendments again.

One thing I would like to clarify beforehand: it is not a problem for us, on the contrary, even to protect weaker persons, including against abuse by sectaries or other abuses. So we absolutely agree with the goal that these people deserve our protection. However, our group is not convinced that the present solution is the best.

Legislation must be clear, coherent, consistent and simple. In short, it must provide legal certainty, a cure for a disease. We fear that this remedy will cause new illnesses. I do not understand this. It was also a comment from the State Council and from academics. I am afraid that legal practice will follow soon. There are several aspects that exist. On the one hand, there are the aggravating circumstances that are added to a series of existing crimes. There is no problem in itself, but we also know that the procedure will slow so much that it will not always be at the service of the victims. A lot of expert studies will be needed.

Additionally, we must already note today that despite the adjustments, it is not conclusive. Today we have already had the case of the woman who was acquitted of rape of an adult. Attack was also not possible because the minor was less talented. The law does not protect those people. There is already a gap in this method.

A larger objection concerns the new article 442quater, the autonomous crime that we are now introducing. Again, it is not the intended goal with which we have a problem, but the means. The terminology is vague and is new, with a lot of terms that the criminal law does not know and that will give rise to interpretation problems.

More important and a very large objection from the State Council is that there is a very high risk of collusion with other crimes, especially now that we have added the aggravating circumstance everywhere there. The State Council says it is important for legal certainty to avoid such collusion. We have increased that risk with this legislation.

The complexity of the Criminal Code is increased unnecessarily and that does not serve the legal certainty and the victims. Therefore, we had submitted an amendment to incorporate what was intended by article 442quater into the already existing article 496, rather than introduce a new complicated article and a new crime. That is why we have submitted these amendments again today.