French justice on trial over murder

France is about to be shaken by another gross miscarriage of justice. The so-called Neuilly Bridge murder is the latest in a series of cases that highlight flaws in the inquisitorial French justice system.  .

I have sat through many trials conducted under the modified Roman law system which prevails in much of Europe and the adversarial system of the English-speaking world. Both have merits and I am no expert, but this is a chance to look at the problems of the French version.

The case involves Marc Machin, who is serving an 18-year sentence for killing a woman in 2001 at Neuilly-sur-Seine, on the western side of Paris. Machin, now 25, was convicted in two trials five years ago on the basis of a confession which he quickly retracted, and shaky testimony from a witness. The murder made news because Marie-Agnès Bedot, the 45-year-old victim, was stabbed to death by the busy bridge in the morning rush hour as she was on her way to her gym (the same one that I frequent, as it happens).

A month ago, another man walked into a police station and said that he killed Bedot and also another woman at the same spot five months later. David Sagno, 35, a drifter with multiple convictions for violence, gave precise details. Police have now found his DNA on the clothes of the first victim. So by all account the wrong man has been has been jailed for the past seven years.

Rachida Dati, the Justice Minister, has ordered a review but police and prosecutors are still reluctant to accept that they got it wrong. With hindsight it seems obvious that Machin should never have been convicted. Here's why.

The main element -- Machin's retracted confession -- was highly dubious. The exhausted 19-year-old cracked after a long police grilling. He responded to a gesture of kindness from one of the capital's most experienced investigators who came in late as the nice cop. Machin told him that he had blacked out and woken believing that he had murdered someone. There were no details. The interrogator, Chief Inspector Jean-Claude Mulès, promised him a brief sentence for manslaughter if he confessed, Machin said later. Mulès is well known. He led the inquiry into the accident that killed Diana, Princess of Wales and gave testimony at the British inquest that ended this week. Now retired, he is an adviser on television police dramas.

The only witness was a woman who said that she had been molested by a man resembling Machin near the time and place of the crime. She was unable to identify him. There was no DNA or any other other evidence. The certainty of the investigating judge and prosecutors was not shaken by the later murder of the second woman while Machin was in jail on suspicion of the first. Until now, the second murder was unsolved.

The pattern here is familiar in France. After an investigating judge has built a case, the cards are stacked against the accused. The most scandalous recent example was the Outreau affair, which began in 2001. In this highly publicised case, six people were convicted for serious sex crimes against children despite the collapse of the prosecution. They were aquitted on appeal two years ago after an outcry. Sixteen people were initially tried in the case after two years in detention. Another wrongly accused man committed suicide.  The huge blunder was blamed on a young investigating judge. The government apologised to the 16 survivors, awarded compensation and promised to curb the powers of investigating judges, but little has been done.

France long ago adopted citizen juries from the Anglo-American system for its assize courts -- the ones that try the most serious offences.  But it retains the main elements of its accusatory system. This is unlike the English law method, in which prosecution and defence lawyers argue their case on equal terms before a neutral judge. In French courts, the prosecutor operates from on high. He or she has more power than the defence and "civil party" lawyers who plead from the floor beneath.   

Watching the start of French trials, you sometimes feel as if you have come in at the middle of the proceedings because the investigating judge (juge d'instruction) has already compiled much of the testimony in his or her interviews with defendants. The trial seeks to confirm the judge's findings.

In the assize court, the presiding judge has two assistants and all three deliberate as part of  the 12-person jury. To convict, the jury must hold "l'intime conviction" of guilt. This means "thoroughly convinced", which is not quite the same as "beyond all reasonable doubt", the measure usually applied in the English-speaking world. Circumstantial evidence plays a bigger role in the French system and great importance is attached to confessions under investigators' questioning. The 19th century handbook for investigating judges calls the confession "the queen of proof". Until 2001, there was no course of appeal against an assize court conviction. That was too late for Patrick Dils, who was pressured into confessing a child murder at the age of 16. He served 15 years in prison until his wrongful conviction was quashed in 2002.

The latest apparent erreur judiciaire at Neuilly has drawn fresh criticism of the trial system. Paul Lombard, a star defence laywer, said in le Figaro: Miscarriages of justice are often the result of the intime conviction criterion. This gives juries power that they are not always worthy of. In addition, our inquisitory procedure gives too little room to the defence... And our judicial system since the days of the monarchy has been devoted to the religion of the confession. Whether we are aware of this or not we are all believers -- police officers, judges and lawyers.

These are not new points and many French legal experts disagree with them. For an interesting defence of the French system have a look at the blog of Philippe Bilger, the Avocat-Generat (public prosecutor) at the Paris appeal court. His blog is good reading because he sounds off on current events and big legal cases in a way that is unusual for someone in his post. He says that Lombard is scoring easy points but he concedes that the Neuilly Bridge murder appears to have been a wrongful conviction. As a long-serving assizes prosecutor, he says that his blood runs cold at the thought that such an error could have been made.  Meanwhile Marc Machin, in all likelihood an innocent man, is still in prison, where he has been from the age of 19 to 25. 

[French judges at a ceremony]

      

Comments

[Romain]

Charles
Hereunder a text from French philosopher Michel Terestschenko about "l'intime conviction". In my opinion, this is a survivance of the middleage "Judgement of God", frightening!

http://lesactualitesdudroit.blog.20minutes.fr/tag/Maurice+Agnelet

Maurice Agnelet was recently condemned in appeal to a life term (which does not exist, in fact),without the slightest beginning of a proof.
Our English friends will remember the Caroline Dickinson case: same as Monsieur Machin (funny name by the way). A homeless quickly arrested, confessed during is "garde à vue" retracted later on.Things began to improve after Judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke took over, eventually the real culprit was found months later, with a little help from Lady Luck.

[Dominique]

The juge d'instruction is protecting the system from being devoted to the one who get enough money to make it's case. There is no faireness without a juge d'instruction.

[Pierre Bernardi]

Romain, intime conviction = beyond all reasonable doubt. Juge d'instruction = CPS in England, which is a branch of the police fully equipped to weigh the scales in favour of the accusation. All justice is a mix of scientific truth and superstition. Mixed in with theatrics (think Moses).

[Romain]

Pierre "All justice is a mix of scientific truth and superstition. Mixed in with theatrics (think Moses)"
Agree with you on that one, but "intime conviction" is not equal to "beyond all reasonable truth". In those cases there was no reasonable truth at all, and people were condemned whereas doubt is supposed to benefit the accused.

[qwerty]

The garde à vue system in France is horrendous and frequently leads to false confessions. I would appreciate receiving some comprehensive information on the protections afforded by English law during this part of the proceedings.

[Jacqueline Bucar]

As an American lawyer, I hear too often about how our system gives too many rightst to criminals but the Machin debacle is proof enough that our adage of better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man imprisoned is indeed wise. Here in this country the public outcry would be immediate, the news would play up the injustice and release would be rather quick.

[Romain]

Oops, goofed on that one, I meant "beyond all reasonable doubt"

[john o'doe]

It's often hard to reconcile the concept of presumption of innocence with the frequent allegation of 'instruction menée à charge' when the system is biaised in favour of the prosecution.

[richard jones]

I think the French - Napoleonic system - introduces an irreversible psycho-ambiance, self-fulfilling prophecy into any major criminal trial. The unassailable thought that the accused, having been examined by so many legal and behavioral experts and now in this 'labatorial age' subjected to innumerable scientific tests of innate complexity over a long period must be guilty. If he/she was innocent they could not possibly be in the dock.
It is not the judicial code that's to blame more the attitude of the public and their unquestioning belief in the ability of the educated (from their perception)to deduce guilt.
It is perhaps truer in France than similarly judicially arranged countries because of (since the 1st Empire)politically managed social ordering and its result in an élite ENArque based society.
Very difficult to resolve as the judicial code itself is strong and basically fair if applied even-handedly. I do not know enough to answer this but does 'philo' in le baccalaureat include anything on this topic - c'est-à-dire, la loi est sa perception et appréciation par le peuple? Doit-on éduquer le peuple pour qu'il puisse participer effectivement dans leur système légale?

[christopher muir]

Many years ago - pre- DNA days - a French friend who was something of an expert on crime detection often mentioned Alphonse Bertillon. It was Bertillon who invented an amzingly detailed system for identifying criminals before fingerprints were used. So, France was well at the forefront of finding the real criminals in the nineteenth century. Could it be that their forensics are nowadays not up to scratch? Just a thought. Wikipedia covers Bertillon's Anthropometric theory and its wide use in some detail.

[dot king]

Romain, it is indeed very chilling that someone can be sentenced for murder in the absence of any proof, or even a body - two decades after the fact.
"Intime conviction" is what you believe in your heart of hearts, not what is "beyond reasonable doubt" - though the one could result from the other.
I think that in the case of Maurice Agnelet, the "acharnement" of the supposed victim's mother was a contributory factor. She was very much in evidence on news coverage, and vociferated loud and clear that Agnelet was guilty, that he had killed her daughter, that she was sure of it. That he must be punished.
This, if hammered home often enough, must have an effect on the overall procedure, the ambiance at least. IMO she was "out to get him" whether he'd killed her daughter or not.

In the book "Le Pullover Rouge" by Giles Perrault (about the trial and conviction, and later execution, of Christian Ranucci), very near the beginning, there is a sentence which has stayed in my memory (I translate and paraphrase, perforce): In France, if you are accused of a crime and you are unable to prove within 48 hours that it can't have been you, then you are going to prison (and in the case of Ranucci, to the guillotine).

The miscarriages of justice that come to light nearly all stem from this. We have our suspect, he's cracked, he's confessed, we instruct the case "à charge", and anything that goes against what we want to prove, we set it aside, no further investigations. Time and time again.

When eventually any miscarriage seems possible, and new investigations begin, then you see the families of the victims, furious. I will always remember the mother of one of the little boys allegedly (but not) murdered by Patrick Dils, raging into a news camera that it was a scandal, that they were setting a murderer free; this despite everything pointing to the murders having been committed by Francis Heaulme, bearing his "signature" even if he didn't admit to it, he all but did so (his way of "admitting" was to give all the details, including the gesture of killing, but to say he was nearby or he saw or heard).
Why did she so want to believe that her son was murdered by Patrick Dils when he had been cleared of all involvement?

It's hard to put oneself into the position of having someone very close murdered, but I cannot imagine that I would want to have someone spend the rest of their life in prison if they were innocent, or kept in prison once it was shown an error had been committed - and compounded.

I watched a documentary the other evening about how justice in France was becoming more and more concerned with victims and families of victims than with the truth of the matter. It was very interesting to see, for instance, how Nicolas Sarkozy took the legal phrase "non-lieu" and turned it to his political advantage.
This was over the killing of two psychiatric nurses in Pau by a schizophrenic who was mentally unfit to be judged under the French law system.
Sarkozy used "non-lieu" as if it meant the crime hadn't happened, when in fact it means "il n'y a pas lieu de poursuivre". He promised more consideration of the families of victims, which is in itself a commendable idea, especially if it prepares them for a possible judicial error. But, as Robert Badinter pointed out, care of the victim's families is not the rôle of Justice itself.
In fact, the victim's families, unless they are witnesses, or complicit, or accused, in the crime being tried, have no rôle other than spectators.
But now the media spotlight tends to be on their grief, their need for a culprit, for revenge. Understandable, but not the point, and certainly shouldn't influence any decision by a court.

When I first came to live in France, I was struck by the use of the word "inculpé" which suggests by its "champs lexical", "culpablité" (guilt) when the word which seems more appropriate at this stage, would be "accusé". But in court, the magistrate does say "Faites entrer l'accusé", (I sometimes go to public audiences at the TGI) so it would seem that on arrest, one is presumed "guilty" and in court reverts to "accused". Interesting.

"I think the French - Napoleonic system" Richard Jones
I don't think so, Richard. Napoleon introduced a remarkable code for civil law, worked out by Sieyes.
As to criminal law, we are still close to middle ages. I can only give credit to the English "Magna Carta" and "Habeas Corpus" from year 1215.

[Edward Johns]

Hallo QWERTY,
whilst my contact with the England and Wales Criminal Justice system is 16 years old, there have been limited changes during that time. (I have to admit to having little knowledge of the garde a vue system)
When a suspect is arrested in England & Wales, he is taken to a police station where, before he / she can be questioned he is given the right to contact a chosen person by telephone; the detained person is also told that they have the right to speak to a legal advisor, such a person is provided by the state at this stage should the detainee not have an existing representative. Such an advisor would be fully qualified and totally independant of the police.
Assuming the detainee exercised his rights to this representation, the advisor would have to be present during any and all interviews and be allowed at any point to advise the client detainee to not answer. The overall period of detention would, other than in exceptional circumstances be limited to 24 hours; the detainee would be entitled to be examined by a Dr in the event of any illness; the detainee could only be questioned after having had laid down periods of sleep/rest, also the detainee has to bed fed appropriate meals at appropriate times.
As regards the comment made to the effect that the CPS somehow are equivalent to the French juge d'instruction, I'm afraid that is simply not the case. The CPS merely advise the police with sight of paper files, they are on an equal footing with the defence lawyers--excepting perhaps that the best lawyers tend to be with the defence as they are better paid there. Broadly, the CPS are a branch of the civil service and thus have civil service standards of
(in)competence. (I'm allowed to say that, I was a civil servant for a couple of years)

[Edward Johns]

Qwerty, I forgot the most important point about interviewing of suspects in police custody in England and Wales--all interviews are tape recorded, in serious matters they are videoed as well.

[richard jones]

Happily my only dealings with French law in over 30 years were civil/notarial and I must say I found the process and the content and the detail pretty solid. I assumed, wrongly, that criminal law would lay in debt to the same, or a very similar code. Sorry.

[Romain]

Dot
Michel Terestschenko says :
"Mais il s’agit de défendre le droit de chacun d’entre nous à être protégé contre une justice qui n’a pas à rendre raison de ses jugements, pas même lorsqu’elle altère le sens philosophique et juridique de l’intime conviction qui n’est pas et ne saurait jamais être un substitut à l’absence de preuves."
Reading Edward Jones I have to elaborate a bit on "garde à vue".
Someone is arrested by the police for whatever reason (undergoing probe, for example), he is placed on "garde à vue" by the police under the control of the public prosecutor for 24hours, possibly extended to 48hours. He can call a lawyer and a doctor, like in England and Wales. The difference is the lawyer cannot assist him during the interview, all he can say would be "G'day mate, how are u t'day?". Thereafter, the suspect is left alone on the police grill, and many would confess anything". That is the very difference between our "inquisitory" and your "contradictory" system as we say here.
After confession, the suspect would be charged "mis en examen" pending a judicial enquiry by the "juge d'instruction" and put in jail, depending on the gravity of the case, under the control of the "juge des libertés".
Basically, confessions are not considered as solid proof, but the system is more inclined to believe confessions than retractions. At the end of the day, the jury would hold on to your confessions, especially if the inquest did not give any grain to grind. And you are up for life.

[Romain]

I forgot to mention I have forwarded a link to Monsieur Machin on this Weblog, I know he has access to internet from his prison.

I do not know what is the best justice in the world: ideal justice is a bit like the ideal society. We dreamn, but it is difficult to achieve.
Are we sure that there is absolutely no innocent in death row in the USA?
I feel much closer to the English and their willnes to move closer to an ideal ethic.
I do not know whether the issue of setting scene with a high operating prosecutor is essential but the important and disturbing to me in French justice is the spirit of corporatism. In fact, when prosecutor is wrong, it's the whole body of the profession that feel concerned and then defends itself. The horrible story of Outreau is edifying: a young judge, who was on his first job, imbued with the power given by his diplom recently obtained at the Magistrature School - a very selective high school in Bordeaux - was confined to his mistake, and has not been challenged by the college of his superiors (the appellate court in Douai for the North region).
As a litigant, it is disturbing.
The procedure for avoiding the super power of the juge d'instruction was modified, about ten years ago under Mitterand, with the creation of the "juge of the liberties", a different juge, who signs for jailing after a contradictory procedure between the juge d'instruction, the prosecutor, the suspect and his lawyer. Theorically, it is good, but in practice, the "juge des libertés" is just the colleage of the other and the other day, rules may be inverted.

The French justice needs to be reformed, as said the parlementary commission after Outreau affair. But this kind of thing must be done just at the beginning of a legislature with a strong politic willness.
Sarkozy who do'nt like very much judges (his original profession is lawyer) do'nt seem to have the will.

The resistors are enormous on the side of the judges. Look at the destabilization of Rachida Dati, the ministry for Justice, that these lobbies operate. Thanks for the blog's address by the prosecutor. I also ice my blood in its certainties. I am surprised by this blog and its limits with what we call the obligation of reserve.

Great thanks to CB for having published about this affair (Mr Machin is not helped by his name..)

I fear that french papers don't enough speak about him perhaps by lassitude after Outreau affair.

PS Adress of the commission receiving cases of abuses in police or jails services. (english version)

http://www.cnds.fr/index_en.htm

[Terry]

I dont know much about the French legal system other than what's in Charles interesting blog. In my opinion, the problem with the French legal system lies in the fact that the prosecutorial role is invested the judge. In the U.S., the judge is neutral. He is not involved in the investigation. It is not his job to investigate the crime. This is for the police and the prosecutor. The prosecutor has an ethical obligation to dismiss the case if the evidence reveals the suspect is innocent. This doesnt always happen. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3285862

The judge hears the evidence. He can dismiss the case for lack of evidence before the jury decides. But that's it.

People here got all impressed with the fact that there were several judges investigating the Princess Diana accident. Some people are too impressed by a robe. They think that a robe means some Solomon like figure who is completely unbiased. Inside that robe is a human being who is susceptable to the same failings as anyone else. [This statement does not apply to any judges in Essex or Union Counties in New Jersey who I might be appearing before].

Everyone would love to believe in a system where there are these nonpartisan people who will make fair unbiased decisions with political pressure. Try Disneyland.

In the American/English system, the adversarial system is the best search for the truth. The prosecutor puts forth the evidence showing the defendant is guilty. The defense attorney puts for his evidence to demonstrate otherwise. The jury weighs the two and decides. The judge referees what evidence is acceptable. It's not foolproof, but nothing is.

Charles, you could tell us a bit about Machin's appeal or right to an appeal. Im not so sure this would have survived an appeal in the U.S. A trial is never the last word on the matter in the U.S.

[azloon]

There may be better protection for the accused under anglo-saxon/u.s. legal procedures, but public pressure to find the perpetrator, particularly of a high profile crime, and to punish him/her, is universal, and it is scary.

the governor of illinois (u.s.) several years ago suspended the use of the death penalty after an inquiry revealed that police investigators had 'rigged' and even faked evidence in order to secure a conviction in a murder case where the death penalty applied.

why had the police done this? simple: they wanted to look good. they wanted the public to believe that they were 'doing their job' of protecting the public.

police didn't want to have to tell the media, 'we have no earthly idea who committed this horrible crime; this person is still 'on the loose' and may kill you next.'

the pronouncements of police and public prosecutors are best treated with great skepticism -- in the u.s., britain, or in france.

c'est le meme partout.

[Romain]

Terry,

There was no appeal to "la cour d'assise" verdicts before Elizabeth Guigou promulgated a law on 15June2000. Chilling!
The loi Guigou was made to align France's criminal law and proceedings on the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since then, there are ways of appeal through courts of appeal and Supreme Court.
In principle the "juge d'instruction" must be neutral and weigh the pros and cons of a case.
In reality, he is heading the enquiry and gives directions to the "Police Judiciaire P.J." (equivalent of CPS).

[dot king]

"Dot
Michel Terestschenko says :
"Mais il s’agit de défendre le droit de chacun d’entre nous à être protégé contre une justice qui n’a pas à rendre raison de ses jugements, pas même lorsqu’elle altère le sens philosophique et juridique de l’intime conviction qui n’est pas et ne saurait jamais être un substitut à l’absence de preuves." (Romain)

I read the link to Terestchenko with great interest and agree wholeheartedly with what it contains.

Even in thge USA and the UK where the system is more even-handed, there are still miscarriages of justice, and this setting aside the kind of case Azloon mentions above.

[qwerty]

Thanks for the info, in particular Edward. I'll do some human rights/judicial guarantees benchmarking as soon as I have the time. But I guess Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Int'l are busy on that and are also a source of detailed information.

About garde à vue techniques. An accountant was once placed in GAV because a client of the company he worked for was a crook and he was suspected of drawing up fake invoices. During his GAV he was subjected to extreme and pointless humiliation by the police, including "fouille à corps", and now that it's over and he has been cleared there is, according to a lawyer interviewed in the program, no legal action whatever at his disposal. Fouille à corps is intimate physical search and according to the Code pénal can only be conducted by a doctor during GAV. However, nothing seems to prohibit the police from requiring a suspect to take off his clothes while he is in the presence of several interrogators of both sexes, and other humiliations. The GAV thus allows the police to express their worst sadistic traits under the pretext of obtaining evidence.

Another case was the teacher who slapped a pupil in class for calling him a "connard", and he was put in GAV for 24 hours, subjected to the same sort of humiliations in order to "clarify" his "crime".

[john o'doe]

- After the Outreau case there were calls for the elimination of the role of 'juge d'instruction'. In defense of the status quo I think I heard that despite the merits of the much vaunted anglo system, England holds the European record for miscarriages of justice. Can this be true?

- French police don't need a search warrant to enter premises. The influence of US films is so strong that many petty criminals here wrongly believe they can insist on seeing a warrant before letting the police in.

[rocket]

Unfortunately the French political and legal system deems that those in a position of power of decision making are all knowing and infallible.

"Mais mon pauvre monsieur, vous pensez qu'un juge ou un élu de la république va se tromper?"

A pervasive attitude that exists within much of the French administration and very often in the private sector.

These two systems often clash to show who knows more.

Fortunately the majority of French people know better. ( I hope!)

The problem is their voice in a "semi democratic" system is limited other than by taking to the street. Or in other words, Better Democracy through Anarchy!

By semi democratic I mean a system which has both characteristics of a monarchy and a democracy trying to live in relative harmony.

Unfortunately false accusations and contradictory imprisonment exist in all legal systems. I heard on television (American) that the FBI for example will never apologize for wrongful accusation.

Remember Richard Jewel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

The "garde à vue" is extremely dangerous IMHO and literally strips the accused or simple witness of all rights of existence and freedom of movement for a limited duration of time. But then given the history of Latin countries, the problem of Habeas Corpus has never really entered into the realm of the justice system

I feared if the McCann's had been in France, they would still be in jail under preventative detention awaiting trial.

[Romain]

Agree with you Rocket; French Regime is semi-presidential: little power is given to the parliament other than rubber stamping laws and decrees. There is an ongoing project for a constitutional reform... will see. At least we are better off than Italy, which resembles very much to our past fourth Republic's Constitution.
Democracy is not the favourite word of French politicians (left or right). When they are short of responses and have nothing much to say, they invoke "Republican values", which actually means absolutely nothing.

[dot king]

"I feared if the McCann's had been in France, they would still be in jail under preventative detention awaiting trial." (Rocket)

Yes, this is what happened to the accused in the Outreau case, some of them spent up to 36 months in preventive detention.
The Richard Jewell case is indeed chilling, even though his death was "natural causes" the stress of having to live through such a nightmare can't have helped managed his various conditions.
What is the advice then to any American citizen seeing a suspect package in a crowded place? Say nothing and get the hell out? Or raise the alert and risk becoming another Richard Jewell?

[Romain]

The Richard Jewell case is indeed chilling, even though his death was "natural causes" the stress of having to live through such a nightmare can't have helped managed his various conditions Dot

Don't forget in the Outreau case, one of the accused committed suicide in prison. During the final hearings, he was represented by his sister holding his photograph on her chest.

[John Styx]

John O'Doe: "French police don't need a search warrant to enter premises."

Things are not so simple. There are third different cases:
- search in flagrante delicto (art.56 of the Code de procédure pénale)
- "enquête préliminaire" (preliminary inquiry), which must be authorized by the "juge des libertés" (art. 76 of the CPP) AND by the person charged (there are some exceptions here)
- "instruction" (art.92–97 of the CPP), normally assumed by the judge him/herself, in most cases done by the police with a "commission rogatoire" (which looks very much like a search warrant, actually)

In all cases there are rules to be obeyed. It often happens that searches are rescinded (or "voided"? what's the correct word?) by administrative courts. Law teachers often like to quote the Constitution of the Year VIII (which established the Consulte): "La maison de toute personne habitant le territoire francais est un asile inviolable."

[dot king]

"Don't forget in the Outreau case, one of the accused committed suicide in prison. During the final hearings, he was represented by his sister holding his photograph on her chest" romain

no, indeed romain, I hadn't forgotten, nor that some children are possibly permanently estranged from their parents even after aquittal, marriages were devastated, families ruined.
I followed the whole affair closely, with a feeling of growing horror because the whole thing just couldn't be true. Nor could I believe that those whose business it is to investigate weren't aware just how invraisemblabe the whole set of circumstances was.
Or didn't want to admit there might be a flaw in their "reasoning".

[Daniel Strohl]

"Both have merits and I am no expert" (Charles)

I have read with great interest Charles article, the various contributions from our fellow bloggers, and in particular the anonymous post dated 13 APR 22:21.

Let me quote a sentence from this post : "but the important and disturbing to me in French justice is the spirit of corporatism".

I agree totally with this statement. I am not a specialist at all. But if one reads the press and listens to the news, this is quite obvious, considering also the statements issued by the magistrate unions who are always ready to threaten with strikes as soon as any government tries to modify the statu quo.

Things could be and should be improved - but no way. Judges are civil servants and can not be fired even if they are incompetent.

Another very negative aspect of the French justice is its slowness. Inquests and judgments take sometimes (not to say often) many years to be completed. This is very prejudicial for the defendants, especially if it appears at the end that they were innocent. These lengthy procedures cost also lots of money, but this is the problem of the government, not of the magistrates...

Of course, the magistrates say that these "dysfonctionnements" are the consequence of a "manque de moyens". But if the government tries to discharge them from "petty" matters which could be handled by less highly qualified personnel (i.e not by graduates from the prestigious Ecole de la magistrature de Bordeaux), there is immediately uproar (in Gallic French: une levée de boucliers :))

PS : As a pure coincidence, to illustrate what was said about the slowness of the French justice in some cases : Mme Royal has just been sentenced by the Cour d’Appel de Rennes to pay overdue salaries claimed since 1997 (!) by two of her former employees (“attachées parlementaires”). Bloggers interested by details may have a look at the following links (Le Figaro is a rightist paper, Libération a leftist one)
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2008/04/12/01002-20080412ARTFIG00177-les-embarras-judiciaires-de-segolene-royal.php
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/320474.FR.php

[dot king]

"pay overdue salaries claimed since 1997 (!)" Daniel

a year or so ago I was asked to translate the various documents and judgements in appeal and cassation for a case that had been in "progress" for 10 years, a little over, from beginning to end.

[Romain]

Daniel
"manque de moyens" lack of resources is a sorry excuse for so many people in charge who can't think correctly, nor take appropriate decisions. Thereafter it goes top down in the hierarchy to the most modest level.
Sego's case is quite amusing, she should walk with a paper bag on her head, with two holes for her eyes; then she might see the world more clearly.lol

[Terry]

Romaine:

Thank you for the information on appeals. No appeals? That is crazy. There should always be some form of review to at least have a shot at reversing an injustice. I am glad they changed that system.

BTW: Richard Jewel is not the best example. He was never even charged for a crime if memory serves. Although, no doubt what happened to him was pretty bad. Ironically, he received a lot of money from a nbc news for slandering him.

I think the recent Duke rape case is a better example. In that case, the prosecutor witheld DNA information that exculpated the accused. As my link showed, he got his ticket punched for that. He is no longer a lawyer. Rocket is right that mistakes are going to happen in every system. The question is which system provides the most safeguards.

[rocket]

Another interesting read and questionable justice. Please consider this boy's education or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/14/juvenile.killer/index.html

Terry

"BTW: Richard Jewel is not the best example. He was never even charged for a crime if memory serves."

That's well and good but unfortunately we are and we live among imperfect humans who quite naturally presume that someone is guilty when the police or FBI do often thanks to the media.

I'm not a lawyer nor a cop so I don't know what runs through their minds nor am I a legal expert. I do know that in a lot of low class criminal proceedings in the US a lawyer is appointed for lack of money (of the accused)and they often enter into a plea bargain to get a reduced sentence and move on to their next case. Probably the same the world over. Maybe Terry can add something to this. Are you a criminal lawyer?

I learned most of legal education by watching Dragnet (chuckle)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Twre6ItGEI

[Daniel Strohl]

Romain,

Lorsque j'entends l'expression "manque de moyens", je vois rouge!

A propos de Ségolène : on pourrait peut-être greffer une paire de très grandes oreilles assez pointues sur le sac en papier dont vous l'avez coiffée :)) Au moins dans ce cas particulier, cela ne serait pas complètement immérité...

[Francois D]

From Daniel Strohl: "I have read with great interest Charles article, the various contributions from our fellow bloggers, and in particular the anonymous post dated 13 APR 22:21.Let me quote a sentence from this post : "but the important and disturbing to me in French justice is the spirit of corporatism". "

Thanks I was this "anonymous".

By my profession; I may have affairs with justice, necessity, ie obligation, to declare child abuse.

It is obvious that the way you present the case to justice is very important, essential for the rest of the story.
In writing this message, I discover how much we are imbued with the notion of "personal conviction". I do not understand very well how (in anglo saxons countries) one can get rid of this notion in some cases dominated by the dubt (doute).
An example: a child under the age of one year has arrived, a morning with a severe brain injury and a large batch of skin blues, driven by his mother who reported having discovered, by resuming, his child like that from the nurse.

My younger colleage told me, I am deeply convinced (meaning 'my intimate conviction' reserved to judges) that the mother is responsable. I said, I believe that this is not the mother. I told the prosecutor: we are with divergent impressions. This young prosecutor (who was pregnant) used his "intimate conviction", after having heared every one, to "close the case" There was no criminal puirsuite. I never asked her why she have decided to class. That would have been totally unconvenient, nearly a professionnal mistake:she decided with her "intimate conviction". The same in the opposite situation.

This young magistrate thought more to the family than to her career and the risks that she had taken vis a vis her hierarchy. Suppose that the mother was really an abusing mother, the child could have returned death and the scandal exposed in public.

With another prosecutor, the case could have had another meaning. The mother could have gone in jail, the family explode, the child in an institution, and so on.

I respect the intimate conviction. But how to sharpen and develop it in all judges?

[Terry]

Rocket:

No. You are right that what happened to Jewel was an outrage. My point was that he never actually made it into the judicial system. I do some quasi criminal in municipal court, like driving while intoxicated or without insurance. These are actually some serious offenses in New Jersey. But that is as far as I go.

Legal aid attorneys are, on the average, just what you imagine them to be. That's why they are legal aid attorneys. The main abuse by prosecutors is usually overcharging. That's when the prosecutor charges you with more serious charges to blackmail a defendant into pleaing. Another rather distasteful tactic.

[Mary Fernandez]

"I do know that in a lot of low class criminal proceedings in the US a lawyer is appointed for lack of money (of the accused)and they often enter into a plea bargain to get a reduced sentence and move on to their next case. Probably the same the world over."

The lawyer cannot enter a plea bargain without the client's consent. During the allocution part of the guilty plea, the defendant actually has to describe what they did, so if they are lying about being guilty it usually becomes evident here. The Court has the discretion to not accept a guilty plea if they believe it is false. Since a public defender is appointed and the defendant doesn't have to pay them, there is no monetary reason not to take a case to trial from the defendant's point of view. Plea bargaining is always a cost benefit analysis by both the prosecutor and defendant (How strong is the case? Is there direct evidence or is it all circumstantial? Can evidence be supressed? Will 12 people be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Etc... )

One thing that is probably true in both France and the U.S. is that it isn't the very poor or the very rich who get squeezed in the justice system; it is the middle classes who don't have unlimited resources, yet are wealthy enough that they don't qualify for free legal help. Defending yourself against a criminal charge, even if you are innocent, can leave you emotionally and financially ruined.

[rocket]

Francois D

This young prosecutor (who was pregnant) used his "intimate conviction",...

That's one weird prosecutor.. a male who is pregnant? But possible

http://tinyurl.com/62a5gp

I think France is far ahead of the rest of us as far as "moeurs" are concerned.

[rocket]

My "Intime conviction" is that I'm a genius.

Do I believe it beyond a reasonable doubt? - NO!

[Valentin]

"Intime conviction" is stronger than reasonable doubt. It shouldn't be taken as some personal opinion based on intuition. It comes after the jury has followed specific training and it's based on a logical and impartial evaluation of all facts and arguments.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" can not mean much - what is "reasonable"? Something can be reasonable now, can stop being so tomorrow, and so on. The amount of certainty is moduled by the word "reasonable". Or this has just as much weight as the word "intime". It's a matter of evaluation of the situation. But while "reasonable doubt" claims to be, well, reasonable, "intime conviction", while calling itself what it is: a jury forming an opinion, is actually more serious sur le fond, since it's all about HOW you reach the said intimate conviction. Or that, is often more rigorous than its american counterpart - even if it still remains subject to mistake.

[Valentin]

ROCKET:
My "Intime conviction" is that I'm a genius.

Do I believe it beyond a reasonable doubt? - NO!

Your logic is flawed, Rocket. If you're firmly convinced you're a genius, it's that you don't have any doubt about it, reasonable or not :) If you reasonably allow the possibility that you be wrong, then it's that you're not "intimately" convinced". Intimately, the way you put it, it's like faith: either you have it, or you don't.

[dot king]

"This young prosecutor (who was pregnant) used his "intimate conviction",..." Romain

I think that's the whole point of what is wrong with "intimate conviction" - by mentioning that the prosecutor herself was pregnant, you suggest that she was, in the end, swayed by this circumstance (affaire classée).
Surely, a mother who arrives at hospitial with a child bearing signs of suspect injuries should routinely undergo some kind of procedure?
In the interests of the child the "intimate conviction" that this child was not a victim of child abuse should have been set aside pending further investigations. It is possible to handle the mother (possibly innocent and in other countries "presumed innocent until proven guilty") sensitively, and explain that there is obviously a need to know how the child came to be brain-injured and bruised all over.
That nothing was done, even on the bare details that you give, seems ludicrous, even criminal, "non-assistance à personne en danger"?
Child abusers are often excellent manipulators, children should not be left exposed to risk.

[dot king]

"the jury has followed specific training " Valentin

Juries don't have "specific training", they are ordinary citizens who are selected for jury service. They are informed by letter at the beginning of a year that they might be called for jury service in the course of that year (at least that's how it happened for a friend of mine). You make it sound as if there are professional jurors. Their only qualification for jury service is their French citizenship.
If they are called then they receive instructions as to what their rôle is.
"Intimate conviction" means that you can ignore evidence and make your decision on "gut feeling" which is another way of putting "intimate conviction" or "hunch". You could be right, you could be wrong, but evidence should not be disregarded (Outreau, Ranucci, Dils).
You shouldn't be able to put someone in prison because you don't like the look of them, nor should you be able to set them free because you do.
There has to be presumption of innocence and proof of guilt in a fair judicial system.

[dot king]

A woman, proprietor of a "chambre de bonne" that she rented to two polish tenants was charged with "homicide involuntaire" after 5 firemen died in the flashback following a fire, the cause of which was a faulty/wornout/unmaintained electricity outlet, has today received a two-year suspended sentence. The procureur asked for 6 months' jail with a two year suspended sentence.
In court, we're told, she pleaded ignorance (of the state of the wiring).
So apparently in France they don't have the same saying as we do: "ignorance of the law is no defense".
A very respectable-looking lady, owns rental property in Paris which she gets rent for and doesn't maintain, (we're talking a 10m² attic room here - for 2 tenants) causes the death of 5 firefighters and goes home.
Anyone like to offer an "intime conviction" on this?

[Francois D]

To "Dot King"

I d'not think that it may be very useful to continue the conversation on the committed tone.
Some obviousnesses need to be recalled:
- the "signalement" to justice in front of suspected child abuse is an obligation for any professional, punished (and severly) by law, if not done;
- No restriction due to professional secrecy can allegated;
- Investigation induces, in nearly all cases, suspension of parental authority. Parents are not allowed to take away their child without a decision of the judge (the judge writes on his paper (ordonnance) if they keep or not right to see the child). Duration of investigation can be variable, from some days to some weeks, function of complexity of the case.
- Social workers, psychologists, psychiatrics are systematically solicited by the judge. The parents, their defender, or the prosecutor can appeal and ask other expertises ("contre expertises"). That delays of as much duration of the investigation.
- During this time, the child is entrusted to the administrative authority but sometimes and under certain guarantees to other people, including family (exceptionnal), under conditions offering guarantees of physical and moral safety for him.
All that is not specifically french...

[Romain]

Dot
"This young prosecutor (who was pregnant) used his "intimate conviction",..." Romain
Sorry Dot, that particular comment is not from me. I would not take on pregnancy against "intimate" conviction.
It may not occur to you that you are imperceptibly fitting the mould of French teachers. Same story as the frog boiling in its own water.

[Daniel Strohl]

Dot,

"So apparently in France they don't have the same saying as we do: "ignorance of the law is no defense".

The French counterpart is :
"Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi"

[rocket]

Dot

"the jury has followed specific training " Valentin

I think what he means to say is that the jury has received specific instructions.

Instructions meaning rules not training as in the French translation

It's like éventuellement and eventually.

These translations are basically the problem of explaining English concepts to someone who has a good command of English but not a cultural command and often vice versa with French.

[rocket]

sorry! this post should be here not on the other post

http://tinyurl.com/68mdsj

Even though « Cour d’Assises » judgements are the expression of the « will of the people », public opinion does not always trust their sentencing decisions.
Such may be the case when all the evidence has not been properly gathered. The principle of intime conviction is not sufficient to ascertain the truth and the issue of
guilt. Recent « unusual » verdicts have added confusion. The first degree murder verdict against Omar Raddad (14 years imprisonment) is a prime example. The presidential pardon he was given recently illustrates the confusion. Other cases such as Miss and Tiennot or Seznec, people convicted of murder who have been claiming innocence for years, are very disturbing. Therefore a second trial of crimes should be made possible in order to diminish the likelihood of miscarriages of justice.

[Daniel Strohl]

Rocket,

"These translations are basically the problem of explaining English concepts to someone who has a good command of English but not a cultural command and often vice versa with French.

Spot on.

PS : I recall a big and conspicuous error in big upper case characters on the front page of a well known auto(mobile) magazine may be 20 years ago. They were speaking of a new motor technology, i.e 16 valve engines. The French translation was "moteur à 16 valves" - instead of "moteur à 16 soupapes". The translator was, like me, a genius in mechanics ...

[dot king]

Dot
"This young prosecutor (who was pregnant) used his "intimate conviction",..." Romain

So sorry, Romain, of course it wasn't from you - I meant François D, who later answered my points.
A mistake, I apologise.

[dot king]

DANIEL:
"Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi"
Yes, I know this expression, but it clearly didn't apply to this particular accusée who was allowed to go home despite having indirectly caused the death of 5 people. If I remember correctly, the law says that any proprietor renting property and receiving a rent for it, is obliged to maintain that property accordng to "les normes an vigueur".
If she didn't know this, then "nul n'est censé ignorer la loi" is no defense.
A two year suspended sentence is not likely to prompt other proprietors renting accommodation "hors état d'habitation" to bring them up to standard.
It isn't that I think this person belongs in prison, but the sentence seems incredibly light - no fine, no compensation to the firemen's families, no service to help other mal-logés (for example).
A reporter stuck a microphone under her nose for a comment, and on the news we saw her say that it had ruined her life.
Et Pssccchhhiiittt!

[dot king]

FRANCOIS D: Yes, all these procedures and protections exist, I know this.
My point is, when confronted with a child whose injuries include brain damage and extensive bruising, it would seem to me that surely your colleague (or anyone facing such situations professionally) was misguided in putting the general needs of the family before the specific needs of the child.

[dot king]

"These translations are basically the problem of explaining English concepts to someone who has a good command of English but not a cultural command and often vice versa with French." Rocket

Well, thank you for explaining that! And to think that I resisted doing you the same favour over your comments on the male pregnant prosecutor. "This young prosecutor (who was pregnant) used his "intimate conviction""

I shall be more generous with my biligual help in future : )

[Romain]

Rocket
Fortunately we have ways of appeal since June 15,2000, through the court of appeal and the supreme court (Cour de Cassation).
It is well known that magistrates have a great influence on Jurys, they set the legal framework, and may give directions.In Maurice Agnelet case I don't understand professional magistrate let the jury pass such a verdict from an empty file.
Dot
No worries, I've got this deep rooted imagery shared by Roman Catholics on "La Madone" pregnancy.

[dot king]

Romain, glad you're still speaking to me after that gaffe!
A little perplexed though about the "frog boiling in its own water", please elucidate . . .
Please note I only teach part-time these days so perhaps I shed the mould the rest of the time.

Here's something to bolster your "deep-rooted imagery" of La Madone.
It's either a gift or revenge, depending on where you stand.
I would like to make it quite clear that I disapprove wholeheartedly!
; 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9CmP8Nx_qs

[Romain]

Dot
"Timeo Danaens, et dona ferentes"
Nice visual, but I prefer the version of "Moulin Rouge", the Ozie movie.
The frog boiling in its own bath is a popular metaphore, among American business schools.
Put a frog in lukewarm water, it soaks very comfortably; then increase the heat gradually, and the frog stays in its bath untill boiling point, to a batracian disaster.
That is my personal portrait of the typical French teacher.
You'd have to draw your own conclusions on a metaphore.
Once asked in a business seminar, my own was :"you don't flog a dead frog"

[dot king]

"That is my personal portrait of the typical French teacher."
Romain (I think I've got it right this time)

Thanks for the explanation, but I don't get the connection - OK, so I made a mistake - OK, so it was a REALLY bad one - but do I deserve this?
"typical French teacher"? ; 0

[Romain]

Dot
That is what I meant by imperceptibly sliding into the mould of the typical French teacher. Just a wake-up call.
If you want to be absolutely sure, copy 500 times ;"Dot, vous manquez de finesse" for your penance, and I'll give you absolution. LOL

[dot king]

"If you want to be absolutely sure, copy 500 times ;"Dot, vous manquez de finesse" Romain

I'll go for direct absolution, please - or expulsion.
I've never been known to dole out punshment of this kind, whatever the offence. (I'm "firm but (sometimes) kind". : ))
AHA! Now call me a "typical French teacher!"
BTW I'm not French, I teach, but don't have teacher status because I can't see the point in doing half a million concours to be sent somewhere I don't want to go - so in strict (!) terms, you could say I'm not even a teacher in France.
As for writing things out 500 times, well, I'd say that really IS a typical French teacher's way, but has never been mine - never give writing as a punishment, BUT NEVER do anything that gives a distaste for writing - or even school.

I listened in to the teachers where I work talking about punishments - the subject took up their whole free period - and the answer? The favourite was copying out the school rules how ever many times was thought appropriate to the offence. And if that doesn't work?
More of the same. And if that doesn't work? EVEN MORE of the same.
Talk about the Sabre-Toothed Curriculum!

[Francois D]

To DOT KING: "My point is,../.. it would seem to me that surely your colleague (or anyone facing such situations professionally) was misguided in putting the general needs of the family before the specific needs of the child."

OK, I understand what you mean and I am OK with you. "Every one his job" is a basic principle.

About young prosecutor'pregnancy, I 'm asthonished about commentaries (and regreat to have given this confusing detail). Explanation. I'm convinced (I 'not a woman) that during pregnancy, brain is influenced by hormonal secretions, ans more sensitive to empathy toward children (exacerbation of natural empathy..). Meaning, although this personnal situation she took that decision...

An exception, horror of the Fourniret wife. But there, we are in perversion, ie apart from explainable comprehension (and concerning a hope of care).

[dot king]

"An exception, horror of the Fourniret wife"

She's not that much of an exception, in the UK in the late 1960's there was the notorious Moors Murderers, with an otherwise ordinary girl falling under the influence of her psychopath boyfriend. The couple were Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, kidnap, torture and murder of very young children, then an adolescent boy.
Charles Manson also had this kind of hold over girls and women.
We continue to be more shocked when it's a woman who is involved with crimes against children, though we shouldn't be.
I think that what is behind this is exactly the "hormonal" state which is always used either to excuse or to vilify women. About time it stopped.
Sometimes (for example) I wake up in a bad mood, but I never take it into the classroom with me. It would be most unprofessional to impose my unreasoned bad mood on others.
If you are right, and your colleague's hormones made her send home a child potentially at risk, then there is a good case for keeping all pregnant women out of the workplace if they are dealing with human situations/problems, since in these particular circumstances, pregnant women are clearly dangerous.
Of course I don't believe pregnant women are dangerous, but I'm just following your reasoning - she had a hormonal "rush" of fellow-feeling for another mother - that's not logical, I would have thought the logic would be to feel a "rush" of protectiveness towards the child.
Which would have allowed her, or any other professional faced with the same situation, to remain in her professional rôle.

[dot king]

François D
Just by the way of the Moors Murderers, here's the BBC archive of the crimes, first published the day they were sentenced.
There's a video too, lasts about 10 minutes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/6/newsid_2512000/2512119.stm

[Maggie]

François D,

I don't understand. You said you yourself were convinced that the mother was not responsible for the injuries to the baby, while your younger collegue thought the mother WAS responsible.

Then you said the prosecutor came to the same conclusion as you -- that the mother was not responsible. Yet you say you think it was the hormones of pregnancy that caused the prosecutor to come to this conclusion.

Why would you think that? when you came to the same conclusion, even though YOU were not pregnant or female. I would think that the prosecutor came to that conclusion for the same reasons as you did.

What happened to the baby? If they didn't think the mother was responsible, why didn't they go after the nurse?

[Pierre Bernardi]

"Oops, goofed on that one, I meant "beyond all reasonable doubt"

Posted by: Romain | 13 Apr 2008 11:35:58"

Rather spoiled your argument, that.

Valentin, your post of 15/04 10:13 is waffle but your subsequent rebuttal of Rocket is quite correct. Reasonable comes from reason, raison, and must needs be intemporal for the concept to function. Unless the facts change from one day to the next, which, if the event is in the past, would seem improbable.

Dot King, your argument re. the landlady is disingenuous in the extreme. Ignorance of faulty wiring is rather different from ignorance of the law, and the poor lady might well have been unaware that electricity causes fires. It is my considered opinion that your past (estate agent) and present occupations (teacher) lead you to excoriate an honourable representative of an honourable profession, who obviously suffered the misfortune of a bad cold on the day of an important physics lesson.

François D, as you yourself state, the French law allows for the child to be returned to its family (which is what happened) whilst simultaneously conducting an investigation into abuse - visible in the case you describe, and severe (WHICH IS WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN). Why are you defending the prosecutor? Could there be a clearer case of misfunctioning justice? One person's hunch (yours, as it turns out) leads to a baby being returned to a dangerous environment without further ado? And that person afraid of enquiring into the results of their actions, lest their enquiry appear out of place?

[dot king]

PIERRE BERNARDI: "Dot King, your argument re. the landlady is disingenuous in the extreme. Ignorance of faulty wiring is rather different from ignorance of the law, and the poor lady might well have been unaware that electricity causes fires." (Pierre Bernardi)

I can hardly believe that omeone would write that - maybe you are joking? If so, sick joke.
Ignorance of faulty wiring is not different from ignorance of the law if you are a landlord/lady renting property.
No-one is allowed to rent out property that is not equipped and supplied at the legal norms, the electricity (especially) should be in impeccable condition - and in fact should be checked before any lease is signed.
Your sarcasm on this does you great discredit - have you forgotten that this "poor lady" who "might well have have been unaware that electricity causes fires" also caused the death of 5 firemen?
If you intend making money from renting property (if a 10m² chambre de bonne counts as property fit to rent to two people), then you have no right NOT to be aware of your responsibilities towards your tenant(s) nor do you have the right not to maintain your property in a safe and habitable condition.

Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi.
Ignorance of the law is no defense.

And as for your "considered opinion", I suggest you reconsider it, why not from the point of view of one of the firemen's children, for example? (This will require a certain sensibility to others which you might be too immature to have acquired.)
Your opinion of me is of no consequence.

[isobel]

Re landlord's safety responsibilities(Dot and Pierre)
In England and Wales if you rent out a property, you as a landlord are under a duty to comply with specific legal requirements .

Safety of gas and electrical appliances.This is taken from the UK government website.
"You are required by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to
ensure that all gas appliances are maintained in good order and that an annual
safety check is carried out by a tradesman who is registered with CORGI (Council
for Registered Gas Installers). You must keep a record of the safety checks and
issue it to the tenant within 28 days of each annual check.

You should ensure that the electrical system and any electrical appliances that you
supply such as cookers, kettles, toasters, washing machines and immersion
heaters are safe to use.
New rules for electrical safety in the home came into effect on 1 January 2005 in
England and Wales. From this date people carrying out electrical work in kitchens,
bathrooms or outdoors or adding new circuits to any part of their house will have
to follow the new rules in the Building Regulations.

Fire safety of furniture and furnishings
You must ensure that any furniture and furnishings you supply meet the fire
resistance requirements in the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations
1988,
The regulations set levels of fire resistance for domestic upholstered furniture. All
new and second hand furniture provided in accommodation that is let for the first
time, or replacement furniture in existing let accommodation, must meet the fire
resistance requirements unless it was made before 1950. Most furniture will have
a manufacturer’s label on it saying if it meets the requirements."

Failure to comply with these regulations can result in a fine or imprisonment. Obviously if someone were to die in a fire as a result of a landlord not carrying out the required checks the penalties would be severe.
Although the UK legislation is not perfect perhaps it's time for the French to pass similar legislation.

[isobel]

Well said Dot!(post 17 April 17.59)

[Valentin]

My landlord is a very old lady who rents two small apartments - in an even older building - and not in the best of shapes. I doubt she's really aware of all that should be checked - or what my name is, for that matter. I know other people renting without turning the whole building upside down... I doubt that's even feasible, let alone that the best of checks won't guarantee against misfortune.

Rocket,

Indeed, I meant directions, jury being explained how they should do their jury job.

Pierre,

My first post said that the name "intime conviction" doesn't mean arbitrary opinion, and that at least the French name is clear; its American counterpart sounds more protective, the word reasonable seems "rational" but it actually justifies a varying amount of doubt left at the appreciation each person. Montreuil punks might think it reasonable to bang your head if their intime conviction tells them you looked at them somewhat contemptuously! :)

[dot king]

"My landlord is a very old lady who rents two small apartments - in an even older building - and not in the best of shapes." Valentin

Then if there's a fire or some other mishap, even resulting in someone's (maybe your) death, then she can be sure of only getting a suspended sentence. Will you even insist on being right above the law?

"Montreuil punks might think it reasonable to bang your head if their intime conviction tells them you looked at them somewhat contemptuously! :) Valentin

Reasonable doubt is for use in courtrooms, in the light of all the evidence presented, for deciding whether someone is guilty or not of a crime and whether and how they should be punished. It doesn't apply to street-fighting gangs - unless of course they are caught and are standing trial.
BTW "reasonable doubt" isn't an American concept, I think it applied to British law before - but I'm not 100% sure - in any case "reasonable doubt" certainly applies in British justice.
And if reasonable doubt had been applied in the case of Mr Machin, then the lack of material or scientific evidence would have been grounds for an acquittal.
Ditto Dils, Ranucci, and all but two of those arrested in Outreau, apart from the parents of the abused children.
It is the instruction à charge and the unequal weight of opinion carried by the procureur and the juge d'instruction that render the French system (perhaps) more susceptible to miscarriages of justice.

[dot king]

Last week a woman was acquitted of murdering her daughter, whom she had, in fact, killed. The daughter, severely handicapped and deteriorating and, we are told, suffering intolerably, was in her thirties with a mental age of five and no hope of advancing.
The mother had cared for her night and day for her whole life and now couldn't bear to see her suffer any more. She drowned her daughter in the bath, then tried, but failed, to take her own life.
The jury acquitted her, despite the fact that she had killed her daughter and wasn't denying it. Nor was she fighting a cause as in the two recent cases concerning euthanasia. She simply wanted to end her daughter's suffering.
Today the court (le parquet) has appealed against the acquittal. If I remember correctly, the procureur had asked for a three-year suspended sentence (hardly likey to commit a similar crime, hardly a public danger), but quite rightly IMO, the law cannot send out the message that if you have an encumbering dependent person in your charge, you can kill them and get away.

Mixed messages coming from the law, n'est-ce pas?

[Pierre Bernardi]

Dot King, your logic is flawed, and will remain so, though I may grow into maturity, to misquote Mr Churchill.

Azloon caught speeding in a French village, might reply that he was unaware of the speed limit, which would be no excuse, particularly now that he knows about signposting. On the other hand, the lady with the flat never claimed that she was unaware of the law - simply that her wiring was faulty.

Three cases on the blog which all find in favour of the defendant. Remind me, which way is French law supposed to be biaised?

[dot king]

"On the other hand, the lady with the flat never claimed that she was unaware of the law - simply that her wiring was faulty.

Three cases on the blog which all find in favour of the defendant. Remind me, which way is French law supposed to be biaised?"
(Pierre Bernardi)

I won't bother explaining things to you again, if you haven't understood by now, you probably never will, both concerning the wiring and the acquittal. You don't even express your contradiction clearly.
Reading with discernment is a skill that I hope you acquire, along with a spot of maturity and a sense of responsibility towards others, one of these days.
But I'm not holding my breath . . .

[Maggie]

"Azloon caught speeding in a French village, might reply that he was unaware of the speed limit, which would be no excuse. On the other hand, the lady with the flat never claimed that she was unaware of the law - simply that [she was unaware that] her wiring was faulty." (PB)

The theoretical Azloon did not claim he was unaware of the existance of a speeding law, he claimed simply that he was unaware of the speed limit inside the village; in other words, he was unaware that he was over the limit, which is not an excuse.

The lady did not claim that she was unaware of the law about faulty wiring, she claimed simply that she was unaware that her wiring was faulty, which should not be an excuse either.

Looks to me like it's PB's reasoning that is flawed. It was Azloon's responsibility to know that he was over the limit, and it was the lady's responsibility to know that her wiring was faulty.

[Valentin]

lol Pierre, about time for a little review of your English dictionary, I see :)

[Pierre Bernardi]

Well I will explain: you wrote that being unaware of her faulty wiring (for which, by the way, she was tried), the lady was in ignorance of the law - hence no excuse. Which part of the logical flaw is unclear to you? All of it, apparently, since you equate a thing (faulty wiring) with a principle (the law regarding maintenance).

And as for "reading with discernment", try applying it to your own prose: you yourself informed us that the lady was given a suspended sentence, which you now turn into an acquittal.

Need I provide any further evidence of your unreliability as a witness Dorothy?

[Valentin]

MAGGIE G:
"Azloon caught speeding in a French village, might reply that he was unaware of the speed limit"

In this case, the speed limiting in the village constitutes THE LAW itself. Defending yourself by claiming you were unaware of it, is claiming you were unaware of that law - which is no excuse.

As to the faulty wiring, you know the law (that you should check the wiring) but you don't call an electrician, because you're certain your wiring is perfect. This has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance of the law: you knew the law very well, only you were wrong (and careless) about the state of the wiring. You're still guilty, but in a lesser degree: being wrong in your judgement about the real state of the wiring, is a mitigating circumstance.

If you say you killed your wife out of jealousy, because you mistakenly thought she cheats on you, the extreme emotional state, even if not an excuse, is still a mitigating circumstance. Claiming you didn't know the law, will not help at all (but, just like in the speed limit case, probably the contrary).

[dot king]

"Well I will explain: you wrote that being unaware of her faulty wiring (for which, by the way, she was tried), the lady was in ignorance of the law - hence no excuse." Pierre

Oh, you call that an explanation? I see.
In fact the lady was TRIED for "HOMICIDE INVOLONTAIRE" having caused the deaths of five firefighters through her negligence of the wiring in her rented-out chambre de bonne, which incidentally, is also against the law.
I said she was given a two-year suspended sentence for the charge of "homicide involontaire". You were the one who "expained" to me that the "poor lady" might not have known that "faulty wiring can cause fires".
What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that (i) you have to maintain your property to certain norms to be able to rent it; that (ii) if you don't then there can be serious consequences; and (iii) that ignorance of the law is no defense.

This woman, a respectable-looking upper middle-class lady, well-enough off to own property to rent out in Paris, took rent for a chambre de bonne that was not fit for habitation because she neglected to keep it up to the legal norms, and through this negligence she caused the deaths of five people. She was charged with involuntary homicide (I think we'd say manslaughter in English, wouldn't we? Much more graphic.). She walked free from the court with a suspended sentence of two years and explained to reporters how it had ruined her life.

Had I been able to stick a microphone under her nose I would have asked her whether she had earned enough rent from her chambre de bonne (and who knows if she has others in similar condition) to be able to pay for five funerals.

My point, which you insist on missing, is that this lady walked away from her trial with a two-year suspended sentence after causing the deaths of five people - and she was lucky that others didn't die in the fire caused by her NEGLIGENCE and her IGNORANCE.

[isobel]

... the poor lady might well have been unaware that electricity causes fires." (Pierre Bernardi)
I think that would be extremely unlikely as she is in fact a Doctor! One would hope she has a reasonable level of education;if not, god help her patients.

[Pierre Bernardi]

Dot King - 19 April 11:23.

Nothing new here. We knew that faulty wiring was dangerous, we knew that landlords are regulated for a reason and we knew that the lady was found guilty.

As for the outcome, the suspended sentence, you claim this as a "point", which in fact it is not - merely a statement of the facts (an improvement, admittedly, on your previous reference to an acquittal).

If, however, I accuse you of ignoring the facts, I assume a certain willfulness on your part - an implication which is absent in the verb 'ignorer'. In other words, "J'ignore qui vous êtes, Madame", translates into English as "I don't know who you are."

[Helen]

Regarding miscarriages of justice, you could have mentioned the 'affaire Seznec'! When the French justice refused to reopen the case, the 'Canard enchaine' had summed it up as: 'la Cour de Cassation invente l'erreur judiciaire a perpetuite'!

It's sickening that this dodgy landlady got away with it. I've known a good many such landlords and such maidrooms (some without electricity or central heating: no risk of fire!!!). The record of the smallest surface is for a maidroom of 3.86 square meters loi Carrez which was rented to two Polish people, a guy and his daughter. They worked shifts, so they took turns sleeping in the bed... The maidroom (12 square meters at the utmost) next to mine in Paris is rented to 3 Ukrainian guys: the proprietors don't even know the guys' names, the rent is paid to them cash in hand (520 euros pm, which includes the electricity bill) and they're happy because that way they dodge paying more tax!!!

[dot king]

PIERRE BERNARDI: when I referred to "the wiring and the acquittal" I was referring to two separate cases. One in which a woman caused 5 deaths through negligence of the habitable state of her property and her ignorance (in the sense of not knowing - I do know the word and its various senses in both languages, but thank you for the explanation anyway, no doubt you meant well in your scraping frantically at the bottom of the irony barrel) of the law; and the other was the case where the woman who had, it wasn't doubted at all, killed her own daughter and had been acquitted.
The jury's "intime conviction" in that case was that she wasn't guilty of killing her daughter when that fact of her having killed her wasn't in question. I mentioned that le parquet has appealed against this jury decision in order to avoid setting a precedent.

I'm relatively convinced that you have understood what I'm saying (if not you seem to be the only one who hasn't), but that for reasons best known to yourself, you are determined to dig a hole for yourself. Deeper and deeper.
The worst thing is that you don't seem to grasp, or refuse to see because it doesn't serve your purposes, that the "poor lady" caused the DEATHS OF 5 PEOPLE and walked free - but she mustn't kill any more people for two years or she could go to prison. (Deux ans avec surcis, je présume que vous n'ignorez pas ce que cela signifie.)
Have you got it now?

[Pierre Bernardi]

It's "sursis", Dot King. You trivialise the law in your attempt to defend the indefensible. Your contempt is more than evident from your many postings on these pages.

The principal point, which you haven't answered, is that ignorance of a thing, faulty wiring, is different from ignorance of a principle, ie. the law. Your draconian views on punishment interest no one but yourself.

[dot king]

"You trivialise the law in your attempt to defend the indefensible."
Pierre Bernardi

No, you trivialise human life in order to exercise (unsuccessfully) what you mistakenly think of as your bel esprit.
If you can't see the comparison I was making between the way French law treated these two cases, then I can't see any point in continuing the discussion.

So, yes, Pierre, whatever . . .

[rocket]

Another opinion on the famous French garde a vue.

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2008/04/22/la-garde-a-vue-facile_1036894_3232.html

[Valentin]

Standard left-wing opinions. I could have told you what's inside without even looking at it. I can give you the rightwing version too.

I could also give you US human rights activists' opinion on the death penalty (usually siding with democrats). And the opposite opinion - usually coming from republican-leaning.

Even if life is complicated, Mr. R. human reactions sometimes are perfectly foreseeable.

[Valentin]

On second thought, why not. Here, Rocket. This is happening in the Land of Freedom Fries.

http://www.hrw.org/prisons/united_states.html

[Pierre Bernardi]

At no time, Dot King, did I address your comparison between two cases of jurisprudence. I addressed, and continue to address, your flawed logic in attempting to minimise one lady's defence in the face of the law. In search of a motive, I suggested your history in the property business. I mentioned the importance of education, a point which seemed to register with Isobel. Neither did I refer to the death of anyone in relation to the fire, when you wondered who was next on the list of the lady's victims. I stand corrected: you trivialise the law, and human life into the bargain. Not to mention the basic courtesies of debate.

Speaking of which, Valentin's last two posts in response to Rocket provide an excellent and object example of how to be mistaken gracefully.

[V]

Pierre,
I must protest - and STRONGLY so ! :)

In what, if I may, do you consider my posts mistaken? Rocket spoke of garde-à-vue, I mentioned death penalty or crowded prisons (which are a human-rights topic in France too, d'ailleurs).

Take the whole chain of authority/crime punishment, in any western country, and on every single ring you'll find "rights" activists riding their high horses. Rocket's example is no more than one such piece, not some objective assessment.

[Maggie]

Pierre,

I just can't follow your logic at all. I don't understand why you are so determined to defend this lady's failure to carry out her responsibilities. Your argument that "maybe she didn't know that electricity causes fire" was just plain silly.

As far as I can judge, Dot out-argued you on every point in this discussion, and I didn't find her lacking in the basic courtesies of debate either.

I think you need to read the whole thing over again.

[dot king]

PIERRE BERNARDI: I will reply to the points you make in your last post in the order in which you make them, and split your text in order that can can easily see what I'm referring to and not get mixed up.

"At no time, Dot King, did I address your comparison between two cases of jurisprudence."
Frankly I don't know why you bothered to intervene at all, we obviously weren't addressing the same issues. You did suggest that I had got my facts wrong or changed the verdict in the "poor lady" case.

"I addressed, and continue to address, your flawed logic in attempting to minimise one lady's defence in the face of the law."

There is no way to minimise her defence Pierre, ignorance of the law is no defence and she had no right, as a landlady, to let a bedroom with faulty wiring whether she knew about it or nor, nor whether she was aware of the law or not. I made no attempt to minimise anything, she got clean away - and five people had died. You talk about its being perfectly possible not to know about wiring if you're a "poor lady", I don't necessarily disagree with that, but IN LAW if you want to rent a property, you have a responsibility to your tenant, and if the "poor lady" herself didn't know about wiring, she should have had her property checked by someone who did, BEFORE letting it out.

"In search of a motive, I suggested your history in the property business. I mentioned the importance of education"

"In search of a motive" for what?? Are you suggesting that because I've worked in an estate agency I would want to persecute your "poor lady". That's a bit poverty-sricken as an argument isn't it?
"The importance of education"? Here is part of your post:

"It is my considered opinion that your past (estate agent) and present occupations (teacher) lead you to excoriate an honourable representative of an honourable profession, who obviously suffered the misfortune of a bad cold on the day of an important physics lesson."

Oh, grand words indeed. I decided they weren't worth responding to. But as you bring them up again, then you make a "joke" out of the "poor lady"'s responsibility by suggesting she wasn't in school when they were teaching about electricity - or at least that's what I understood from the pretentious expression of it.
FYI (and proof that you don't read people's posts fully); I have never been an estate agent, never - got that - never. I have been a bilingual salaried secretary in an estate agency, but this fact would not change my reaction to someone's having caused the deaths of 5 people and getting off very lightly, not one bit.
Let's imagine she had ploughed into a queue at a bus stop in her car and killed 5 people; and in court her explanation was that she didn,'t know there was a bus-stop there and anyway she was changing stations on the radio and didn't see it. Sounds fair and reasonable to you, does it? Because that is the kind of argument you are defending when you talk about knowledge, or lack thereof, of faulty wiring, IN ISOLATION fom the rest of the case.
You had no need to mention my "occupation" and bring your remarks on to a personal level to try to win your argument - you were on a loser anyway.
Do I mention your work in order to make my points? No, no need. And yet you are the one who once posted your CV and photo in a link, so I know what you do and could very well have said "well, you're a financier and all you do is deal with figures and other people's money all day, you can't be expected to have any human values or reactions at all".
Did I do that? No, but I thought it all the same, and now I've posted it and I don't feel it's to my particular credit.

" a point which seemed to register with Isobel."
Well, there's something you might have to take up with Isobel, but as I recall it, Isobel posted all the regulations a landlord has to observe in England and Wales before they can rent a property out. This seemed to me to be reinforcing my argument, perhaps especially as directly after that she posted a very short contribution: "Well said, Dot". Which also makes me surmise that my point was the one she agreed with, not yours.

"Neither did I refer to the death of anyone in relation to the fire, when you wondered who was next on the list of the lady's victims."

No, you didn't refer to the deaths that's the whole point; you presented everything as if you were taking the whole case very lightly in the interests of sounding witty. Nor did I "wonder who was next". What I wondered was if she had any other rooms she rented out that were in the same condition, which is quite different. If she has other rooms, it's to be hoped that she now knows to bring them up to the required norms, at least she can't plead ignorance again. But to say she had a "next on the list" is tantamount to accusing her of malice aforethought, premeditation, whatever. Which I did not.

"I stand corrected: you trivialise the law, and human life into the bargain. Not to mention the basic courtesies of debate."
Pierre Bernardi

You can stand in any position you like and which is comfortable for you. I have never taken human life and the careless disposal of it by others richer and more powerful lightly. Never in my life. What you are doing in this last paragraph is a classic case of of Freudian transfer - those attitudes are yours, not mine.
And as for the "basic courtesies of debate", I felt that once you had personalised things by calling my previous occupation and my all-time profession into question, or reason, or whatever your purpose was, "basic courtesies" had already gone from the discussion.

[V]

Pierre argued especially on the difference between ignorance of a law and ignorance of a particular fact - faulty wiring (truthful or invented, not the point: the judgement estimated it truthful; anything else is superfluous).

For eight days now I'm reading Pierre repeating this simple statement over and over, 5 or 6 times already, very concisely, very calmly, extremely logically and without any demagogy.
The overall feeling is that it's become a question of having the last word. An impression other interventions fail to break when they amount to mere negations.

[azloon]

[For eight days now I'm reading Pierre repeating this simple statement over and over, 5 or 6 times already, very concisely, very calmly, extremely logically and without any demagogy. The overall feeling is that it's become a question of having the last word] Valentin

omg, who does this remind you of ???

:)