[QUOTE=Coldfire]
Untrue. Life sentences can still be received in Holland. The “Maximum 20 years” is a bit of a myth. Don’t feel too bad, most Dutch people perpetuate is as well.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dutch Penal Code]
Article 10
Imprisonment shall be ** for life ** or a determinate period of imprisonment.
A determinate period of imprisonment is for a minimum of one day and a maximum of fifteen consecutive years.
In cases in which it is at the discretion of the judge to impose either a life sentence or a determinate term of imprisonment for a particular serious offense, or where an increase in punishment due to a concurrence of serious offenses, repeated serious offenses or the provisions of article 44 exceeds fifteen years, a term of not more than twenty consecutive years may be imposed.
A determinate period of imprisonment may in no instance exceed twenty years.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently, not even a myth at all, just a faulty assertion perpetuated by the people like me who forgot to read Section 1… :smack:
Semi-hijack: Why on earth is the Dutch penal code written in English?
[QUOTE=Mosier]
yeah, because chasing down and smashing to death someone who’s trying to get away from you is self defense.
You can’t kill someone for stealing a purse. Not even the government can legally do that. Why should a private citizen have more power to prosecute and sentence someone than our elected government does?
[/QUOTE]
Just wanted to point out here:
[QUOTE=DLuxN8R-13]
Having gone back and reread the OP, I find that I mis-stated the circumstances of the case rather drastically, and must acknowledge my error. Chasing down the asshole who’d just grabbed her purse out of her car is not the same as fighting off attempted robbery
[/QUOTE]
Not picking on you; there have been several responses to the retracted statement.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
I think it’s fair to say that na reasonable person would assume that hitting someone with a car entails a significant disregard for the lives and safety of others. If you hit someone with a damned car, and then say “Well, gosh, I didn’t mean to kill them,” you’re engaging in a bit of Orwellian doublespeak. Everyone knows that a person struck or pinned by a car has a very good chance of dying.
[/QUOTE]
You are right but still : if she just tried to hit the scooter to get them to fall down it isn’t an intentional killing.
I am not saying she shouldn’t be punished : like I said before it is quite clear that the lady has some severe impulse-control problems.
But for the rest it seems like she was a normal citizen with no priors who did a very stupid thing resulting in somebody’s death.
The dead kid however seems to have been a hardcore criminal who had little to no respect for life.
I wish Dutch legislation would take these people of the streets and not give them a few months every time this happens and some community service, but that is a different question altogether.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
You are right but still : if she just tried to hit the scooter to get them to fall down it isn’t an intentional killing.
I am not saying she shouldn’t be punished : like I said before it is quite clear that the lady has some severe impulse-control problems.
But for the rest it seems like she was a normal citizen with no priors who did a very stupid thing resulting in somebody’s death.
The dead kid however seems to have been a hardcore criminal who had little to no respect for life.
I wish Dutch legislation would take these people of the streets and not give them a few months every time this happens and some community service, but that is a different question altogether.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
But for the rest it seems like she was a normal citizen with no priors who did a very stupid thing resulting in somebody’s death.
The dead kid however seems to have been a hardcore criminal who had little to no respect for life.
[/QUOTE]
Given that she killed someone and he never did, I find it really interesting that you would conclude that he was the one with little to no respect for life. More to the point, in the U.S. at least, courts are expected to judge the actions of the assailant without blaming the victim. Certainly his having stolen her purse would be relevant in judging the reasonableness of her response, but his status as an otherwise “hardcore ciminal” would not be relevant and would not be considered.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Given that she killed someone and he never did, I find it really interesting that you would conclude that he was the one with little to no respect for life.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say the factor “luck” is more important here then “respect for life”. In my opinion, both Ali B and Germaine have taken equal risks. The chances of an armed robbery going “wrong” and ending in the victims death are no smaller then the risk of hitting a scooter with a car at 25 miles an hour resulting in death. Interestingly, Ali and Germaine share the same arrogance; she that she was skilled enough as a driver just to trip the scooter, and he that his armed robberies wouldn’t end in a lethal disaster.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Uh… are you sure about the no priors part?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it would hve been all over the papers if Germaine would have had any prior arrests.
One more fact for background color.
Germaine at first refused to sit trial, asking to be judged without the public or Ali’s family present. That request was denied, and she was brought into court by the police, with quite a bit of force. She was allowed, though, to make herself unrecognizable with scarves, wigs, sunglasses as she wished.
Twenty minutes into the trial, she seemd to faint/ claimed to faint. The judge spoke to her sternly. After that, she managed to sit up straight and answer the court’s questions.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
if she just tried to hit the scooter to get them to fall down it isn’t an intentional killing.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, under American law, this would probably be considered an intentional killing. If she intentionally drove her car in a manner calculated to hit the scooter, any death that resulted would be considered intentional. “I just wanted to knock them over, not kill them!” would not save you from a legal standpoint.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Actually, under American law, this would probably be considered an intentional killing. If she intentionally drove her car in a manner calculated to hit the scooter, any death that resulted would be considered intentional. “I just wanted to knock them over, not kill them!” would not save you from a legal standpoint.
[/QUOTE]
Well…
… under the felony-murder rule, any death directly resulting from the comission of a felony is a murder. On the other hand, assault and battery (the clearly intended felonies in this case) are necessary elements of murder, so the felony-murder rule doesn’t apply; this killing is just a murder because it is.
… under the felony-murder rule, any death directly resulting from the comission of a felony is a murder. On the other hand, assault and battery (the clearly intended felonies in this case) are necessary elements of murder, so the felony-murder rule doesn’t apply; this killing is just a murder because it is.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not talking about the felony murder rule. I’m talking about the meaning of “intent.” If you intentionally take an action (like hitting someone with a car) that you know is very likely to result in serious injury or death, then you can’t argue that you didn’t intend to kill if someone dies as a result.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
I’m not talking about the felony murder rule. I’m talking about the meaning of “intent.” If you intentionally take an action (like hitting someone with a car) that you know is very likely to result in serious injury or death, then you can’t argue that you didn’t intend to kill if someone dies as a result.
[/QUOTE]
If you read the end of my post you’ll see that I pointed out that even though the felony murder rule doesn’t apply it’s still a murder, and thus you’re right.
A question here … why are the parties referred to with aliases? Here in the United States, we have a right to know the identity of a person charged with a crime. Criminal prosecution is a public issue. You can’t hide who they are. What’s the thinking in the Netherlands on this?
He committed a crime and paid the ultimate price. His family denying that he was a bad person is completely normal and should basically be disregarded. Families rally around their own. When my college boyfriend got the guy who stole his bike, extorted and and assaulted him arrested, we had to stop answering the phone for 2 days because his mom kept calling us to explain that we must be mistaken because her son was a good boy and would never do something like that. :rolleyes: Yeah, never mind that bus-load full of witnesses and the fact that he was caught red-handed.
The woman committed a crime - murder - and should be tried for it. Him snatching her purse is not a mitigating circumstance for crushing him with her car. Period. If he had a gun or a weapon of some kind that might affect the situation, but recovering a purse is not an excuse for killing someone.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
A question here … why are the parties referred to with aliases? Here in the United States, we have a right to know the identity of a person charged with a crime. Criminal prosecution is a public issue. You can’t hide who they are. What’s the thinking in the Netherlands on this?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure, but yes, it is against Dutch law to give out the full name of any suspect in public media. It is even illegal to publish pictures of suspects in public media without a black bar pasted in front of their eyes.
The idea behind it is that a suspect may yet be found innocent, but that by then it might be too late and he or she has already been found guilty by public opinion.
Basically, it is considered character assasination to give out a suspects personal info before he is convicted. And even after a conviction, public media are still reticient in giving out names.
The internet has changed much of that, of course. Ali E’s full name can be found in full on thousand blogs.
[QUOTE=Maastricht]
. For example, she had at one point been driving in reverse on a busy freeway, to dispute police officers in a police car that had photographed her speeding.
[/QUOTE]
This is common in at least one other european city - Naples, Italy. The roads aren’t as organized there as they are in the US. If you miss your exit it might take you 30 minutes to get yourself turned around so you can try again. Sometimes people would rather take the chance.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Note that US sentencing guidelines are only significantly harsher than elsewhere for drug-related crimes.
.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly. There was a case not many years ago of some American kids in Germany, whose parents were stationed at an American military base, killed someone by dropping rocks from a bridge onto a highway. They were tried by a German court and only got a few years. Wouldn’t they have had a stiffer sentence in the U.S.?
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Hardly. There was a case not many years ago of some American kids in Germany, whose parents were stationed at an American military base, killed someone by dropping rocks from a bridge onto a highway. They were tried by a German court and only got a few years. Wouldn’t they have had a stiffer sentence in the U.S.?
[/QUOTE]
If they were tried as adults, possibly.
In Florida, for example, the maximum penalty for a second degree felony such as manslaughter is 15 years - but only for an adult.
The judge said that manslaughter could not be proven, but reckless driving could.
For reckless driving, the judge sentenced Germaine to 180 hours of community service. Remember that the initial DA’s demand was 2,5 years in prison!
The woman’s driving licence is also revoked for 2,5 years.
There hasn’t been much of an outrage yet at this mild sentence, which is surprising.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Thieving scumbag dies as a result of his nefarious activities? Sorry, nothing to see here, move along.
And I really don’t see that race has anything to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, the thief made a voluntary decision to steal, and must deal with the consequences, it matters not what Invisible Sky Pixie he chose to believe in, scumbags are scumbags, their irrational beliefs should have no bearing on the natter
