Marc Salomone / Email: marcsalomone@sfr.fr
blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The Two Forms (Amazon)
Paris, Friday April 12, 2024
REFLECTION ON THE MINORITY EXCUSE AND PROPOSALS RELATING TO MINOR DELINQUENCY
On Sunday January 7, the media informed us that a bill was being prepared to challenge the minority excuse for minors, on the grounds that they are massively used by adult networks because of this legal protection.
In the wake of a series of murders committed by minors, sometimes accompanied by adults, jurists vouch for the legality of such an orientation.
That would be a mistake.
Its success would result in contempt for Parliament, the Government, justice and public administration from which their memory would not recover.
Indeed, no one will dare to take upon themselves the consequences, ignoble for minors, infamous for adults, of this return to a system of age confusion whose villainous effects are so spectacular that they are the direct cause of the Ordinance of 1945 taken by the Provisional Government of the French Republic.
The rebirth of France made it necessary to relieve it of this crime.
Furthermore, apart from measures to control criminality or the irresponsibility of certain parents; shifting primary responsibility for juvenile delinquency onto parents is a night when all cows are gray.
Good luck to those who will be responsible for formulating or implementing the directives. It is true that no parliamentarian, minister or senior civil servant will respond.
To say that the mafiosi massively use minors and to conclude that the blame must be placed on the latter on the indications of the former is an intellectual and public order logic of extraordinary elevation.
It is inaccessible to those whom some call the Populace.
However, it is the latter that must account for this conjunction of public order strategies of mafia networks and official networks; this good understanding of adults from all sides on the bodies of children.
On the other hand, if the government wants to give the police, the judiciary, the psychologists, legal or voluntary stakeholders the means to act usefully, efficiently and humanely, without involving society in disgust and crime, it there are things to do.
I briefly outline some of them here.
1)- Criminal co-responsibility
When an adult is “accompanying” a minor thus “accompanied” in the commission of an offense, he assumes joint criminal responsibility for the offense.
The law defines the status of accompanying and accompanied person.
The minor is judged according to the law on minors and therefore the excuse of minority.
The adult is judged for the same offense according to the Penal Code.
The same goes for the mentally handicapped.
For example :
a- young Nahel, 17 years old, drove a Mercedes car, a high-end car. It was not stolen. He didn't get it alone.
If the “accompanies” who provided him with this car were co-responsible for the misconduct resulting from this loan, but also co-responsible for the death of this minor due to these misconduct caused by the supply of this vehicle, the prior reports of these “accompanied” minors to their “accompanying” adults would no longer be the same.
b- multiple minors drive wrongfully (intentionally) in the company of an adult.
If this adult were co-responsible for the refusals to comply and the injuries caused by these faults, including to the minors, the relationship between them would no longer be the same.
c- We are told that the settling of scores at the Kalashnikov is increasingly carried out by minors.
If the "accompanies" who supply weapons, sponsor the murders, benefit from the action, were co-responsible for the homicides caused, they being judged as adults and the minor benefiting from the excuse of minority, for the same homicide, the relationships between they would inevitably evolve.
d- if an adult takes joint criminal responsibility for all rapes or assaults committed by minors in his gang, even if he himself remained a spectator, or even absent from the places where the offenses were committed, the reports of each would change.
Such a system would give police officers the means to approach juvenile delinquents, their parents, their entourage, with weapons other than those of powerlessness with regard to the famous networks and subordination to the dictates of their leaders or even their leaders. leaders.
This implies the obligation for magistrates to look for the major origins of juvenile crime.
Where is the need to break with the principles of the 1945 Ordinance?
2)- Compensation for excessive consequences of legal action
The gendarmes who killed Adama Traoré would certainly have been happy if there had been a legal system to protect them from the excessive (here fatal) consequences of their legal action.
Nothing has changed since Adama Traoré.
Still :
The distinction between the fault and the legality of the action is only established after a procedure lasting several years which destroys the agents of the State, erodes the authority of the latter, annoys the civil parties and the public of more and more often mobilized.
Defeat the State or live abandoned by justice, this is the dilemma imposed on the populations concerned.
However, it is possible to establish a procedure which guarantees the rights and dignity of litigants.
Is the death of the citizen legal or illegal?
1- Is it the consequence of a criminal action by a civil servant and therefore illegal?
In this case, justice takes its course as with all crimes.
The legality of the action concerns its entirety.
When a police officer uses the legal arrest of a man who is standing up to him to tackle him to the ground and choke him with his knee, it is possible that he is committing a crime and that he must be judged.
2- Is it a logical or possible consequence of his mode of opposition to the authorities and therefore legal?
The death of a man does not imply that the legal action was wrongful.
In this case, the courts having established the fact refer the police officers to the continuation of their professional occupations.
B- The qualification of the excessiveness of the consequences of the intervention
The legal death of a citizen can result either from his direct confrontation with the police (the case of terrorists), or during the legal action of the police.
What creates new political disturbances to public order and which must be taken into consideration is the indistinction between death due to a voluntary confrontation of the citizen towards the forces of order and death due to an entanglement of causes independent of the legality of the intervention and the desire of officials to kill.
Whether the police action is legal or not, no one should die as a result of a police check and the public no longer accepts this death as obvious.
How can we account for these distinctions between justified, criminal and innocent lethal actions on the part of the holders of public authority?
This is possible by the creation of a new legal qualification which is that of “excessive consequence of a legal action”.
The death or disability of the subject occurred during the course of legal intervention, however, they do not relate to either police crime or the criminal nature of the fault of the subject.
In this case, justice takes note of this situation and compensation for the victims or beneficiaries is immediate.
Any professional misconduct is judged within the profession and any administrative misconduct is judged as such.
Concerning the civil party, the judges initiate legal action for compensation, consistent and not ridiculous, in such a way that it does not burden the public treasury. It's possible.
Justice is thus done and all parties are included in its action.
It is true that everyone is put in their place and that some are upset.
3)- Taking into account the public aims of criminals.
When a criminal sprays the facade of a building with a Kalashnikov and one of the bullets hits a student in her sleep, he only has to say that he was only targeting the competing thug on the first floor to be exonerated of the desire to kill the other inhabitants.
The media trumpets call the death of this young woman “collateral damage” and the shots are “stray bullets”. The victims “were in the wrong place at the wrong time,” etc.
It's a hunting accident.
If he has not reached his intended alter ego, the thug avoids voluntary homicide for involuntary homicide. Nice gift.
This is based on the identification of offenders with individual or corporate action. They are not recognized as having a political desire to terrorize a population to impose mafia laws even if, initially, they are only those of the village rooster.
However, we are no longer there. Bullets are not lost any more than victims are collateral. The presence of the victims is not incongruous.
This criminal came here because there was a population on which he wanted to impose his law by taking back the territory of his competitor. He addressed her while sweeping the facade of his safe haven with bullets.
The intention and plenary responsibility are there.
The thug who sprays a place with Kalashnikov and arrogates to himself the right to terrorize a population acquires the status of civil servant or strategist of crime and as such all the deaths that result from it are included in his program and therefore intentional and of his sole authority, regardless of complicity.
Instead of announcing that they are lost to the bullets, the state has something to say to residents.
4)- Denunciation, anonymous or signed
The law must guarantee all citizens, alone or in meetings, to be able to send to the authorities reports of facts they witness, information, denunciation, signed or anonymous, a regular report, transmit names, contact details, behavior, on the sole condition that this correspondence is exact or in good faith.
Under this condition, citizens are perfectly able to judge whether anonymity is the form of intervention that suits them.
It is not entirely by chance that today the mafia dominate large territorial, even public, sectors, and that for around thirty years various piss-copies have associated denunciation, and particularly anonymous denunciation, with Collaboration in the worst crimes, infamy, dishonor.
Some do it out of intellectual idleness, others out of stupidity, but certainly not all.
Many did so to prepare the public ground for the future role of thugs in public life. They continue to do it to make honest people feel guilty and guarantee the safety of the mafiosi.
It is imperative to rehabilitate the denunciation, whether signed or anonymous.
Computer science provides the means to process mass information.
It is grotesque to reduce information on delinquency and crime to that of professionals, particularly when the villainous attack against society becomes a mode of organizing it.
The action of professionals has its space and its specificity.
It neither erases nor replaces the participation of the entire population in informing state agents, elected officials and the public.
The law organizes this participation. It can neither prohibit it nor slow it down and even less disqualify it.
The French administrative media culture has established itself in the discrediting of the collaboration of honest people and the police.
However, when thugs engage population policies, the responses necessarily rely on the institutional participation of the populations.
Approaching the 21st century with an administrative thought of a dreamed 3rd republic is a guarantee of defeat.
Conclusion
For the sole reason of their minority, General De Gaulle pardoned militiamen under the age of 21 (a minority at the time) sentenced to death in 1944. Their crimes, however, were beyond comprehension and their capacity to carry them out excluded them a priori. pity.
This is because, in fact, there is no need to dishonor oneself to serve public order, give representatives of the State the legal means to work, and guarantee justice and tranquility to the population.
Thanking you for your attention,
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire