of course, that all of us, lawyers, we rise as one man for freedom. Of course, that the principle of the execution of a sentence must remain inviolable. This is the principle of paying his debt to society, be left. Rehabilitate or at least be able to rehabilitate themselves. But in this decision of the nine wise men, it is not a matter of common law. It comes to deaths of innocents by the hundreds, it is a country reeling, a Republic cracked.
I've lived near the terrorists during the trial in the assize court in which I represented the interests of the international League against racism and antisemitism (Licra), the civil party, who had to judge the die Cannes-Torcy, whose plan had been to throw a grenade, a military in a grocery store hide from Sarcelles, in which the victims have had their salvation to the row of carts metal under which the grenade had come, by chance, his race. I've seen it up close during a month of hearing the point of non-return of these terrorists to our societal values piled up century after century, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to the great thinkers of the Twentieth century.
time bombs ?
Write here that they were afraid for the future of their course, to say that the possible reiteration of the facts was not, alas, any doubt, it is put it on paper what almost all people thought without daring, in their time, the say publicly. Today, let's be concrete : 153 people convicted of terrorism offences are released from prison every month by 2022 – 42 in 2020, 64 in 2021, and finally 47 in 2022.
Penalties are enforced, it is true, often even until the last day. Those convicted of terrorism-are they safe ? Will they replace the cover of the hatred of death of the other ? For those sentenced for criminal association in relation with a terrorist enterprise, will they succeed once released and free, which has been aborted, quite often through the work of specialized police officers, before being arrested and convicted ? France, the Charlie of a day, or always, deserve it-we are a society who are living with a ticking time bombs without the slightest control a posteriori ?
Read also The day that the brothers Kouachi are out of the radar
At the bottom, to listen to the judges of the rue Monpensier, our society should be deprived of the right to security. However, the security measures are not unique in the French law the only terrorists. This already exists since years for persons convicted of offences under common law.
no one found it objectionable. As if the offender classic could be harder off than the convicted person base that has sown terror. Moreover, the constitutional Council itself has pointed this out in a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) of 2018 that security measures contribute to the constitutional goal of " prevention of harm to the public order necessary for the safeguarding of rights and principles of constitutional value ".
It is also in the same manner that considers the safety measures of the european Court of human rights. In French law, the security measures on the basis of a special dangerousness characterized by a very high probability of recidivism exist since a law in march 2010. At the bottom, there is nothing new under the sun of the legislature.
The just tends to punish, the secure is designed to protect
The project of security measures for persons sentenced for terrorism has received a warm endorsement of the Council of State, which operates the difference between punishment and measure of safety. The high administrative court, the battle of the positivists had not be between the penalty that tends to punish and safety which seeks to protect.
The bill put the control of the deprivation of liberty of some individuals under the control of a judge, intrinsically a guarantor of proportionality between deprivation of liberty and security measure. In the name of what was the wisdom of the constitutional Council he retoqué of the bill ? A set of accounts and statements of account policies ? A dogmatism particular ? A lack of concrete knowledge of the subjects sentenced for terrorism or a lack of legal confusing a penalty and a security measure ? An old lawyer used to argue that there is no judicial error that was not voluntary...
wise men not so wise as this
in The end, a decision not so wise as this... This bill was brought by the former minister of Justice, Nicole Belloubet. The new keeper of the Seals, Eric Dupond-Moretti, leaving his gown of attorney, has evolved and supported the idea that the accompaniment of a man in the safety, it is also accompany him to stumble not.
Read also Dupond-Moretti : not touch the grizzly bears !
pulling over to the existing legislative provisions provided in common law and the strengthening of the fight against terrorism had nothing more logical for the one who defended the man Merah, but never its cause. These measures would surely have avoided the attacks.
Let the wise ponder Plato, who centuries ago already, they blew that " the justice of the intellect is wisdom. The wise man is not one who knows a lot of things, but the one who sees their just measure."
*David-Olivier Kaminski is a criminal defense lawyer.