Proposition de loi modifiant les règles légales relatives à la légitime défense et introduisant la cause absolutoire générale de l'excès de légitime défense.
General information ¶
- Authors
- VB Gerolf Annemans, Peter Logghe, Bert Schoofs
- Submission date
- June 8, 2011
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- crime against property self-defence criminal law
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld MR
- Voted to reject
- N-VA LDD VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
- Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
- Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶
March 1, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Sophie De Wit N-VA ⚙
Mr. Speaker, this file was explained in the committee by the applicant, Mr. Schoofs. Following the general explanation, the N-VA Group asked a number of general questions. Since then, the bill has already been voted out on Article 1. Until then my report.
As regards our group, I can only say that I regret that there has not been a thorough debate. You may agree or disagree with the views contained in the proposal. I think the issue that has been addressed deserves a debate.
Coincidence or not, but this afternoon in Hoboken a robbery on a jewellery took place, in which it shot and hit one of the robbers. It is an up-to-date issue that lives in society and that deserves a solution within Justice. This does not necessarily have to be the solution proposed. What is clear is that this topic deserves a debate. For this reason, our group will vote against the rejection.
Bert Schoofs VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, at this point, the Flemish Interest regrets that the bill proposing to amend the legal regulation on storm weather and to introduce the general exclusion grounds emergency excess weather in the committee was dismissed without too much debate, as already said by colleague De Wit. I would also like to thank her for her intervention and for her acceptance of the reporting position.
Only the N-VA had the courage and effort to work somewhat constructively, but even our simple request to seek advice from the State Council and to invite a panel of experts was, unfortunately, too much for the other factions. The N-VA had substantial difficulties with the fact that we provide for a scholarship exclusion basis and that it protects not only the physical integrity of persons, but also that of goods. This, of course, should be the subject of debate for us. We do not have the truth. Let that be clear.
I would like to point out that in our neighboring countries, the Netherlands and Germany, similar legal arrangements have already been introduced which aim to exempt citizens from criminal prosecution if they want to protect not only themselves or a fellow, but also their property and precious property. Especially Green showed itself from its narrower side by referring to Far West states that would then arise. Both in the Netherlands and in Germany, the introduction of a legal regulation on emergency excess weather – for all clarity – has not led to extreme or meaningless violence.
In those countries, it is simply socially and legally accepted that a citizen who is attacked may defend himself from fear or confusion or from a serious disturbance of the state of mind. It must therefore really be about an immediate response to an effective threat, excluding proactive violence or retaliation afterwards. In the jurisprudence, by the way, a certain evolution is already noticeable in the direction of what the bill aims at. This is also evident from the fact that an elderly man who killed a young robber in Borgerhout a few months ago is not prosecuted.
As previously stated, there is a similar case today. Therefore, the social debate is sufficiently manifest. The case can be discussed.
Colleagues, real legal certainty can only be achieved if the law is amended and if it provides sufficient accuracy. This is not the case at the moment. In fact, the civil debate on such serious interference in criminal law cannot be conducted solely on the basis of precedents in the case-law. It is the task of Parliament to intervene.
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, sooner or later this issue may still be discussed and then it will again have been the merit of the Flemish Interest that the taboo was broken and that such a problem can also be discussed.
Those who have the courage and decency to start this discussion now, we therefore call upon to vote against the rejection. I would like to thank again my fellow Flemish nationalists of N-VA.