Crime and punishment

[Nin]

Recently, as well here in Geneva as well as in France, a case concerning French singer Bertrand Cantat is discussed and I would like to know how people here think and feel about it.

Bertrand Cantat was the lead singer of a French band named "Noir désir" (Black desire). The important part of his biography, quoted from Wikipedia:

In 2003, following an argument related to infidelity, Cantat repeatedly assaulted his girlfriend Marie Trintignant in a hotel room in Vilnius, Lithuania. She died several days later in hospital in a deep coma, and a post-mortem examination showed she had suffered multiple head injuries.
At his 2004 trial, prosecutors said he had hit her 19 times, causing irreversible brain damage, whereas Cantat admitted hitting Trintignant four times, but told the court her death was a tragic accident. He was said to have flown into a jealous rage after she received an affectionate text message from her former husband. The death of Marie caused considerable emotion in France. Nadine Trintignant, Marie's mother, actively sought a heavy sentence; Cantat's friends claimed he had been out of his mind and had not intended to cause harm.
On 29 March 2004, Cantat was sentenced by Vilnius Regional Court under Article 129 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code to 8 years in prison for murder committed with indirect intent (dolus eventualis), i.e. it was acknowledged by the court that he didn't want to kill the victim, but foresaw her death as a probable consequence of his acts and was indifferent with regard to such a consequence. The verdict was at first appealed by Marie's family (who wanted to toughen the sentence), then by Bertrand Cantat (who wanted the higher court to reclassify his crime as a manslaughter and lessen his sentence), but both parties ultimately decided to cancel their appeals, which rendered the first 8 years judgment final. While in Lukiškės prison of Vilnius, Cantat performed on 11 August 2004 a concert for prison's inmates and administration.

At the request of his lawyers, Cantat was moved from a Lithuanian prison to a prison near Muret, France on 28 September 2004.

Cantat was released on parole on 16 October 2007, after serving half of his sentence. His early release aroused the anger of feminist campaigners and the victim’s mother, who had failed to persuade President Sarkozy and judges to block the early release.

His house in Landes was burned down on 11 September 2003.

Ex-wife Krisztina Rády committed suicide on 10 January 2010, while he was sleeping in the same house

I also want to add that both of the parents of his girlfriend Marie Trintignant are well well-known actors and public figures in France, Marie herself was well-known as an actress. The suicide of his ex-wife and mother of his two children was beyond any doubt (the case in very well known in the French speaking world, but I just clarify it here, because for those who read it the first time it might sound suspicious). He is fully responsible for his two children now. Before the assault on Marie, Bertrand Cantat was known for a history of drugs and self-destructive behaviour. He is a very talented musician and Noir Désir was one of the most successful French groups in the 90ies.

Ever since he has been released, Bertrand Cantat has encountered great problems whereever he wanted to perform again. His group eventually seperated in the end as because of him, performances had to be cancelled because of protests. Recently he had been scheduled to play in a theater festival in Avignon and the father of Marie immediately ask for cancellation of the performance, otherwise he would cancel his apparition - Bertrand Cantat withdraw himself after that request. Now, he was supposed to play in Geneva and again there have been protests from feminist organisations and the Trintignant family (who partliy lives in Geneva, like many French actors), it is likely that his concert again will be cancelled. The same has happend in Montréal, Canada.

Bertrand Cantant will not perform in Montréal

A public debate has arisen around his case: Cantat has been convicted and condemned, he has done his sentence, he has been legally released and he is trying to do his job - he is a singer, he was successful very young, so he has not any other job which he has learned. Should he not reintegrate society? Does he not have the right like other ex-convicts to find a job? When is the crime paid? On the other hand, can someone after such a crime ever work in public again? Can he ever be forgiven?

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

He has served his legal sentence though it seems to have been a light one. But I think the public have a right to find his public performances distasteful and to express that distaste. Just as his violence has lifelong consequences for the family of his victim, he will have to endure the lifelong consequences himself. Murder destroys the life of the murderer too.

We have had a comparable case in Britain. A rock singer with the stage name Gary Glitter was popular, even loved though he had average talent but when he was discovered to be a paedophile his career collapsed and he is now an outcast. I do not find this to be wrong.

[axordil]

One wonders if the protests would be as strong if he had served something approaching the full sentence.

[Nin]

Well, his release has been accompanied by psychological surveillance - I am not sure if lifelong or only for some years, but in any case longer than the initial sentence and prohibition to speak about the case in public - which also excludes public excuses...

I am very conflicted because while I think that the public can judge just not to go to his apparitions - when they are cancelled beforehand - where is the choice?

And this man may not need the income (although I am not even so sure about that) - but how about convict X who comes out of prison? (and for a first condemnation, a release on parole is normal). hat can he do if he gets no more job? If the family of his victim uses the influence to make his job appointment whenever he can get one cancelled?

[nerdanel]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say that I find many European sentences for violent crime to be insufficient and downright unjust. They seem to me insufficiently to appreciate the devastating and often, as here, life-ending harm visited on the victim. They prioritize forgiveness after a handful of years for acts which demand far stiffer penalties. My particular concern is that they render women especially vulnerable by rushing to forgive criminals who inflict deadly intimate violence.

I am particularly distrustful of the common law's tendency (which features in United States law as well) to be forgiving towards "heat-of-passion" murders by discounting such murders as manslaughters or deeming their mindset less culpable. This reasoning has been used for centuries to justify and condone men's violence towards women who have upset them by insufficiently returning their romantic affections. To be frank, I see it as a different manifestation of the criminality in the acid attacks: the common theme is that many men believe they are entitled to respond violently to a woman who refuses them, and I think "heat-of-passion" defenses disproportionately enable their reprehensible behavior. (I note that Lithuania is a civil law country, but it seems to share the common law's tendency. I don't know enough about the history of manslaughter or "indirect intent" murder in the civil law tradition, though.)

Neither four years nor eight years is remotely enough to address his beating a woman about the head between four and nineteen times to cause irreversible brain damage and death. That he expects to be able to entertain people without protest a few years after this miscarriage of justice is laughable. As for what he can do if he doesn't have a job ... after we have addressed the plight of all the non-murderers in the world who are suffering without adequate access to food, medicine, health care, clean drinking water, we can then turn to the needs of people who are prone to beating their love interests to death.

[vison]

I could have written nerdanel's last paragraph myself.

But on the other hand: what is "enough" for such a crime? What would be the best way to deal with such crimes and such criminals?

I believe that prison should be reserved for those criminals who are a danger to the rest of us - but unless those criminals are NEVER to be released we still have to consider their lives on the outside.

[Pearly Di]

What's the difference between 'murder committed with indirect intent' and manslaughter? I only ask because UK law has different definitions, e.g. between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Either way, eight years seems an extraordinarily light sentence to me -- and he only served half of it!! Here in the UK an offender can get a life sentence for manslaughter.

So I think this guy has got off very lightly for a very serious crime of extreme violence.

And this man may not need the income (although I am not even so sure about that) - but how about convict X who comes out of prison? (and for a first condemnation, a release on parole is normal). What can he do if he gets no more job? If the family of his victim uses the influence to make his job appointment whenever he can get one cancelled?

Rehab makes no sense to me unless the offender shows serious remorse for their actions.

[vison]

So what's the answer, then? Lock them up forever? Hang them? Does this man "deserve" to be locked up until he dies? If not, what?

Remorse is a tricky thing. He might be remorseful, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again.

[Nin]

So, if I hear you, the sentence was too light.

Let me play the devil's advocate: did he choose to be sentenced lightly? What about the light sentence is the fault of the criminal? And how much would be "enough"? And after that what would you "deserve"? A job only after everybody else? To be the least of men? Once you comitted a crime, always guilty, never again the same rights as the other citizens?

As for the serious remorse - it is there, no doubt about it. (Even the Trintigant parents admit to that). But Cantat is forbidden to talk publicly about his crime or trial.

He was at the time of his assault severely drunk.

To me, an important factor is the risk of repetition. I am not sure it is high in this case - detox, of course and the public eye as well as psychological follow up.

Sentences are often even lighter in Switzerland - in the most mediatic murder process of the last years, the mistress of Swiss Banker got 8 years too - and she shot him into the head, so the intent to kill cannot be doubted. She too was freed after half the time on parole - and there is no public emotion about this - maybe because the vicim was rich powerful and killed in a latex suit?
Eduard Stern murder.

Yet, despite light sentences, the rate of intentional homicide is under 1 per 100.000 in Switzerland (in the US 5 per 100.000). I am fully aware that the two countries are not comparable, but I also think that it is not because of the severity of the legal system that crimes diminuish (even very violent crimes).

[Pearly Di]

So what's the answer, then? Lock them up forever? Hang them? Does this man "deserve" to be locked up until he dies? If not, what?

Well, you tell me! What do YOU think should be done?

It's pretty easy to discern from my post what I think should be done, Vison. I said I thought that eight years was too short a sentence for what would likely be voluntary manslaughter, or even murder, in the UK.

Nobody has mentioned hanging.

Remorse is a tricky thing. He might be remorseful, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again.

True.

[nerdanel]

So, if I hear you, the sentence was too light.

Not just too light, but to an immoral, reprehensible extent that fundamentally devalues the victim's life.

And how much would be "enough"? And after that what would you "deserve"? A job only after everybody else? To be the least of men? Once you comitted a crime, always guilty, never again the same rights as the other citizens?

Speaking solely in my personal judgment, for a violent, intimate murder I would want to see a sentence of 15-25 years to life (meaning that after the minimum sentence, the defendant would be reviewed periodically for parole).

In some sense, yes, I support reduced rights for violent murderers post-release. Certainly the prohibition on their owning firearms is amply justified. I am fine with US laws that strip them indefinitely of the right to vote (note: in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights is steadily chipping away at the prohibition on criminals voting, so stay tuned to see where that goes). I also think employers should be entitled to know the criminal record of the person in question and should be entitled to discriminate if they so choose. There are some acts that you have to live with for the rest of your life. Murder is the quintessential such act. It might be noted that living a stigmatized, restricted life is far more than the victim receives.

Yet, despite light sentences, the rate of intentional homicide is under 1 per 100.000 in Switzerland (in the US 5 per 100.000). I am fully aware that the two countries are not comparable, but I also think that it is not because of the severity of the legal system that crimes diminuish (even very violent crimes).

This is correct. Let me be clear: the US criminal justice system is no model for how to minimize crime in society. I don't think I've ever met someone who feels it doesn't need significant reforms. I was just reading an article contrasting the US and European criminal law systems by Carol Steiker (an American law professor and former public defender) which notes that there has been no correlation in the West between the severity of the response to violent crime and its frequency.

But I do think that the punishment imposed says something about the severity with which society views a particular crime. I think that a society that responds to a murder with an indeterminate life sentence values the victim's life differently than a society which responds with a four year or eight year sentence. Per your point, a society which values life clearly needs to be taking steps beyond just heavy sentences to reduce the rate of crime. But a four year sentence for murder is adding insult to injury - or, more accurately, insult to death.

[vison]

But I do think that the punishment imposed says something about the severity with which society views a particular crime. I think that a society that responds to a murder with an indeterminate life sentence values the victim's life differently than a society which responds with a four year or eight year sentence. Per your point, a society which values life clearly needs to be taking steps beyond just heavy sentences to reduce the rate of crime. But a four year sentence for murder is adding insult to injury - or, more accurately, insult to death.

"differently"? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that a short sentence tells us that a society values the victim's life "less" than the society that imposes a longer sentence? That it regards the crime as less serious, because it imposes a different penalty?

The dead cannot be insulted. Nothing can hurt the dead any more than anything can bring them back.

The US routinely imposes much harsher sentences than many European nations and yet has a higher murder rate - which could mean that life is "more valued" in those European nations, not shown by the sorts of prison sentences imposed, but by the peoples themselves.

There is always a great desire for retribution, which I understand completely. But the law isn't supposed to be about retribution or revenge, it's supposed to be about justice and rehabilitation, isn't it?

After all, the word "penitentiary" comes from "penitence".

[Nin]

But I do think that the punishment imposed says something about the severity with which society views a particular crime. I think that a society that responds to a murder with an indeterminate life sentence values the victim's life differently than a society which responds with a four year or eight year sentence. Per your point, a society which values life clearly needs to be taking steps beyond just heavy sentences to reduce the rate of crime. But a four year sentence for murder is adding insult to injury - or, more accurately, insult to death.

I happen to see things profoundly differently: first of all, the value of life is rather shown for me in the protection that society gives to it- like e.g. difficult acces to firearms and general high level of education and security, social network and decent living conditions, protection from harm and need.

Then, I rather see what you call "light sentences" as a way of valuating life: even the life of a criminal is precious and under the protection of the state. Life and freedom are so precious that every privation of it is a severe punishment. Even long prison sentences or death penalty do not bring back the dead.

I think I am very wary of defending even the guilty for several reasons. First, because I still feel the weight of collective guilt and thus define myself in that regard - like in some others - as guilty. Second, when I left my husband, I have heard sentences like "You do not deserve to look at me" - "You should be shaved" and I am aware that adultery still is a crime in many countries - and in some even sanctionned by capital punishment. So, once you see yourself potentially on the guilty side - well, this way of seeing justice made me think that forgiveness needs to be an important part of it.

ETA: cross-posted with vison

[nerdanel]

Four points (with apologies for the brusqueness; I'm stressed out and tired):

1. I think both of you are thoroughly correct that societies must value life through many means, chief among them to take steps to prevent violence in the first place. I thoroughly support firearm control and regret the US Supreme Court's decisions that have restricted state/locality ability to reduce or eliminate the presence of civilian firearms in their jurisdictions.

2. However, I think another aspect of valuing life is responding vigorously to private murders. And yes, I do think that a society that responds too minimally to a murder is insufficiently valuing the life of the victim. Let me give an absurd example: imagine a murderer who immediately confesses, takes responsibility, is genuinely penitent, and whom everyone believes at the time of trial will never commit another act of violence. May we respond with a one week sentence, because the murderer does not need to be incapacitated and has been rapidly rehabilitated? I vigorously argue not. An obvious reason is the need to deter others, of course. But I submit that the retributive purpose of criminal justice is also valid (and yes, vison, retribution has always legitimately been a part of penological practice). The murderer - even the penitent, no-longer-dangerous murderer - has taken life, has done an irreparable act, and has injured the entirety of society in so doing. He or she must pay a price for the action, potentially even past the point where no longer dangerous. And I do think this is linked to valuing the life of the victim that was taken. A society that responds with a one week (or four year) sentence, in my view, deems the murder fairly trivial. A society that exacts a long or life sentence recognizes the magnitude of what the murderer took and legitimately exacts a price in response.

3. I'm not going to be diplomatic on this one: I am a staunch individualist, and I passionately believe that collective guilt is nonsense as applied across generations. You are responsible for your own acts. You certainly have no responsibility for acts that occurred before your birth. Similarly, adultery is not legitimately a crime. Your personal relationships are no one's concern but yours and the other involved people's; no reasonable country's criminal law has anything to say on the matter. Do you actually believe that you committed a crime on commencing your current relationship? If not, then we are in agreement that your romantic life creates no parallels to people who have violently taken others' lives, which is the topic of this thread.

[vison]

He or she must pay a price for the action, potentially even past the point where no longer dangerous.

But does that price have to be incarceration? There are other methods of paying for crime.

[Frelga]

But are we using them?

This very thoughtful thread helped me crystallize what I was trying to express in the Eye for an Eye thread - what I see as a fundamental flaw in the Western justice system. The focus is on the crime and the criminal, not on the victim, and the punishment also centers on the criminal rather than on making the victim whole. At least, to my knowledge.

I think any punishment should include an element of the convicted criminal recompensing the victim, even though I recognize the attendant dangers, such as wealthy criminals buying their way out. The world isn't perfect, therefore no system will be perfect.

But murder... It's the one crime where recompense is impossible, forgiveness is unattainable, because the one person who has the power to grant it is dead. The family may accept compensation and grant forgiveness for the harm done to them by the loss of the loved one, but the murder itself can only be forgiven by the victim, that is, not at all. Four years or forty years of prison cannot bring the woman back to life.

And so, I have no tears for this person. If his whole life is inconvenienced by his crime, so what? Marie's whole life was taken from her.

So, once you see yourself potentially on the guilty side - well, this way of seeing justice made me think that forgiveness needs to be an important part of it.

I am sorry, Nin, but that's just illogical. Crime is not just about breaking the law - the world is full of unjust laws. Morally, it is mainly about causing harm to another person's body or property. Adultery does not fall into either category, unless you consider spouses to be property of each other.

[axordil]

If his whole life is inconvenienced by his crime, so what? Marie's whole life was taken from her.

I am reminded of the quote from Unforgiven: "You kill a man, you take away everything he's got, and everything he's ever gonna have." Thus the euphemism for killing: taking a life. The man took something that cannot be restored, by him, by society, by anyone. He must therefore, to balance the scales of justice, give up something of similar value--a chunk of his own life. If that chunk is deemed too short, it will not sit well with many, because it makes the tacit statement that his life is worth more than his victim's.

A lingering sense that justice has NOT been done is a danger to society, just as much as a criminal on the street. He's lucky the people protesting his appearances have taken justice into their own hands in such a constrained way.

[Nin]

He's lucky the people protesting his appearances have taken justice into their own hands in such a constrained way.

I do not understand this sentence. (what is the meaning of constrained?)

Anyway, other things have happened like the burning of his house, just after the arrestation.

There are several other things, but I have to ponder them over in English beforehand.

[axordil]

In this context, it means he's lucky they hadn't done something more radical...like...um...burning his house down.

[Nin]

So I understood it right but I was not very sure.

Still formulating things in my mind.