Justice in la France Orange Mécanique

I'm reading La France Orange Mécanique ('Clockwork Orange France') at the moment and I can tell you it makes scary reading. The scariest chapters so far have been the ones on the justice system. Society depends on the rule of law to prevent anarchy, protect its citizens, and dish out appropriate punishment to those who commit crimes.

In France, there are 67000 prisoners overflowing out of prisons designed for 63000. Every year, 75000 rapes are committed. From this statistic alone, it's obvious to all but the blindest liberal bobo that there is a woefully inadequate number of prisons.

Why doesn't France build more prisons? It was on the cards during Sarkozy's presidency but was opposed by socialist senators and deputies. They believe that an increase in prisons would mean admitting that the number of criminals has increased, which it has. But in a socialist 'Bisousnoursland' (Kissyteddyland) paradise, criminals are in fact nothing but victims themselves. According to Sophie Endelys a romance writer and judge, the increase in barbarity of even the most banal crimes such as credit card theft is certainly due to "un déficit de vocabulaire" (a lack of vocabulary)... By not having the words to express their emotions, they have no other answer than aggression and violence. How about buying criminals a dictionary?

Criminals are therefore victims, but what about the real victims of crime? They are of secondary importance. What is important is helping criminals by giving them a second chance, third chance, tenth chance, all the while imposing on the population in general the failed results of this experiment who continue to rape, kill, attack.

The socialist answer to punishing crimes is to opt for 'aménagement de peines' which means reducing the sentence for each crime. They believe that everyone can be saved from him or herself. They believe that criminals just have to understand their crime, make amends honourably and come back into the fold newly awakened as a born again Good Person. Many criminals understand what they have to do to escape punishment. Before the judge, they bow their heads, express sincere regret at what they've done, say they understand that it was wrong. The judge, under obligation to sentence as little as possible either believes or goes along with the lies, supported by the criminal's tales of childhood woe, and administers as little punishment as possible.

What happens now is that certain criminals are just not imprisoned however many crimes they commit. Here's just one example. A man of 18 is condemned to two years in prison for sexual aggression. He has already notched up a total 63 previous convictions. In France, a conviction of under two years is rarely carried out so Selim is free to strike again.

The social contract in France is disintegrating. A sentence of life for the absolute worst criminals - the murderers, serial killers, etc. - means a maximum of 22 years. If they are imprisoned young, they will still be vigorous enough to kill again when they get out. The justice system thus condemns to death a number of innocents because it refuses to lock up the most dangerous killers forever.

The new Garde des Sceaux (Minister of Justice) Christiane Taubira began her tenure by abolishing tribunals for 16-18 year-olds which is a shame because it's an age of high delinquency and crime. What will happen to the 1600 minors accused of rape now?

One way of reducing the prison community, the socialists have decided, is to set free a massive number of prisoners including all those inside for less than six months, plus all those pronounced more than two years ago. But it's not a 'mauvais signal', oh no, some of these criminals will have electronic ankle bracelets.

Mind you, not all prison sentences are even carried out. There were 100,000 criminals waiting to go to prison in 2009, and 82000 simply did not go at all which represents 20% of all firm convictions.

Who are some of the victims of aggression? In 2011, 389 Jews were attacked, representing 0.06% of the Jewish population. In the same year, 180 Muslims were attacked, representing 0.003% of the Muslim population. In 2010, there were 142 attacks witnessed against homosexuals representing 0.0071% of the gay population.

Every year, the official figures in France underestimate the number of those not represented by a vocal lobby being attacked violently as 450,000, or 0.7% of French people who are thus 200 times more likely to be attacked than Muslims, 100 times more than homosexuals and twenty times more than Jews.

Considering how vocal and insistent the associations representing these groups are, it's a shame that there is no association to demand justice for everyone else.

Frenchie from Hell

You think you divorced the woman from hell? I bet she doesn't come close to the one I heard about last night.

She was married to the plumber and it seems likely there is something loose between the ears although she won't admit it. She became convinced he was being unfaithful (he wasn't) and that set off a reaction of extraordinary proportions.

First she beat herself up and went to the police with her bruises saying her husband had inflicted them. She did this three times. Then they went on holiday with the kids, camping, cycling, rambling doing outdoor things and getting caught in brambles etc. Upon their return, the caravan still attached to the car, she went to the police again and showed them her cuts and bruises and told them her husband had done them. So they came round and ordered him to leave his home. He found out at that point that there had been 3 other complaints.

He went back the next day to find all his stuff flung onto the garden, his professional papers flying about, torn and dirty, and the locks changed. On his own house.

She accused him of inappropriate touching of their kids and he was forbidden from seeing them for some time.

She falsified his signature on a document declaring that he had given his car to her, took it to the Prefecture, got a Carte Grise and then declared the car stolen. He received a call one day from a police pal asking him if he knew his car was stolen when he knew it was in his garage.

She then got a relative, a bent cop, to steal his car by using a lorry to tow it away. It was heading for Spain when it was retrieved at the border.

She tried to get her hands on his beloved classic car by asking to borrow it when hers was 'having trouble'. Luckily the eldest daughter who was 10 at the time rang her dad and told him not to because there was no problem with her car, her mother just wanted to get her hands on his.

She falsified his grandmother's death certificate to declare him dead to try and get the life insurance. It was in the name of the kids however, so she got nothing. Another pal rang him one day and asked him if he knew he was dead.

She got the local drunk to wait for him at night outside his flat, beat him up, and knife him in the stomach twice. He spent three weeks in hospital. He recognised the thug of course as the local drunk, so the guy did actually spend 3 months in prison. 

She joined the Jehovah's Witnesses, obtained false passports for the kids and took them to Mali as a missionary without informing him, effectively kidnapping them. He didn't see them for a year as he had no idea where she was. He had to use all his contacts to get them back to France legally.

Despite all this, do you think the French justice system has in any way punished her? It would be wrong to say no, but it might just as well be.  She was fined 12K and as she's a welfare case, she has no money and cannot pay. So there you have it. In France you can lie, commit fraud, commit attempted fraud, wrongly accuse someone of something, kidnap, pay a hit man, and steal... and get away with it.

She's still got the kids, too. They chose to stay with her but he does have access. For the time being... She wants to go back to Mali...

How's that for BAD?

Justice? Not likely

Right, that's it, I now officially have No Faith in the French justice system.

It's a system which is based on speed. Complicated cases get the same time allotted as simple cases. It's like going to the doctor to consult for suspected osteoporosis combined with an intestinal infection getting the same consultation time as someone going in for a cold.

This means that details get lost, errors are perpetuated and the whole thing does not come out in the wash. Dissimulating information is sanctioned, sabotaging court appearances by delaying providing essential information is not punished, and it seems that the law of the petit malin, the one with the wiliest, maddest lawyer with balls is the one which wins.

Judges don't read cases, they flip through the pages and then come up with a judgement based on the vaguest understanding of what's been going on and what's at stake. I am gobsmacked at how lax it all it, how little effort is made to do a good job, and how the ones on the receiving end of crap are just supposed to grin and bear it or undertake costly appeals.

Is that justice? Not in my book. That's called CRAP.

Of course it's all put down to overworked judges, not enough time, not enough courts, not enough this not enough that. Fine. So are they doing anything about improving how the law works? Sarko is doing his best because he has it in for much of the legal world, being a lawyer himself, but of course there's lobbying and defending of interests and strikes and moaning and groaning and time wasting and appeals and blah blah blah. Result, it's all VERY slow.

Conclusion: if you have an issue and it has to go to court, take it outside France if you possibly can. Your chances of justice here do not depend on your case but on how much sleep the judge had the day before.

Legalised Manslaughter

I am still a physical wreck, and thus having sufficient 'down time' in bed, have managed to finish Bernard Durand's book 'Il était une joie'.

It tells how Jérémie Durand, aged 17 and his cousin Jocelyn, aged 20 were mown down on Jérémie's scooter by a 35 yr-old drunken piece of shit driving his father's 4x4 on 3 August, 2001. A second drunkard compounded the carnage by finishing off what the first had not quite succeeded in doing, namely dragging the still living Jérémie 175 metres further until the body was so caught up in the car that it had to stop.

Both drivers were over the alcohol limit and were driving way over the speed limit. Futhermore, both cars were insured in the name of the father of each one. Add false insurance declarations to their list of délits.

You may think that such a serious road 'accident' would be treated with the utmost urgency and professionalism by the powers that be, starting with the gendarmes and finishing with the magistrates. Well, you'd be wrong. It wasn't until 14 September, 2004 that the procès was finally heard by the courts.

For the first of those three years absolutely nothing was done by the first judge. Nothing. Judges are accountable to no one so they have the power to act, or not act, with impunity. The second judge got things moving, but was sent to another post before he could finish the case. The third judge eventually managed to fit the case into her busy schedule.

Along the way, the expert who was supposed to determine the speed of the cars, and the scooter presented two useless, inaccurate reports. A DNA analysis on blood taken from the cars and compared with the bodies came back negative, and it was never officially determined which of the young men was dragged those 175 metres.

A mixture of laxisme, je m'en foutism, not wanting to make waves-ism, incompetance, cover-ups and general ineptitude dogged the case from the start and made a mockery of what one might call justice but which would better be considered the 'judicial system'.

The families, having been driven to extremes of despair, hoped at least for justice on the day of judgement. Only one of the drivers was ever called to appear. The second one, who was speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol and made a false declaration to his insurance company, was not sued because the delay in getting round to him was too long. Legalised manslaughter.

The driver who had the bad luck to actually be made to appear before the judge needn't have worried. Having heard the case from both sides, including lies from the defendent's lawyer, the judge, who hadn't read the case so didn't catch the lies, went into consultation with the other two judges and came to the conclusion that killing two young men whilst under the influence of alcohol and driving at 140km/h in a 90kmh/h zone merited the mighty sentence of... 24 months prison of which 6 firm, a 1000€ penalty, and a one-year driving licence ban.

Six months in prison is not much, you may think. It isn't, and guess what. He didn't even have to serve that. A little arrangement between him, his lawyer and the judge afterwards sent him on his way home, although he is considered as having served his term...

The 1000€, they had to prise out of him 5 months later by threatening to send in the bailiffs.

If you can spot one ounce of justice in this case, do let me know, because as far as I can see, there is none. It seems that the Droits de l'Homme only go in one direction, and it's not the right one.

Two deaths, two salopards, no justice. Only disgust, dishonour, deception, and two salopards still on the roads.