Being billed for Justice

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

A Belgian man has protested at being asked to pay for the prosecution of his ex-wife who killed their five children, a local newspaper reports.

"I am disgusted and revolted," Bouchaib Moqadem told Le Soir newspaper.

Genvieve Lhermitte was sentenced to life in prison in December 2009 for murdering their son and four daughters while Mr Moqadem was on holiday.

Belgium tries to recover the cost of its prosecutions from those convicted but Lhermitte is insolvent.

So the state has instead sent the 72,743 euros ($97,000; £65,000) bill to Mr Moqadem.

It says the money should come from Lhermitte's share of the sale of their house.
Mr Moqadem's lawyer has reportedly asked for the bill to be written off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8590735.stm

This law is a radical mistake but coming out of Belgium it really doesn't surprise me.

What's the point of having a justice system that requires an ordinary citizen to personally pay for a crime committed by a loved one?

 

[Asguard]

A Belgian man has protested at being asked to pay for the prosecution of his ex-wife who killed their five children, a local newspaper reports.

"I am disgusted and revolted," Bouchaib Moqadem told Le Soir newspaper.

Genvieve Lhermitte was sentenced to life in prison in December 2009 for murdering their son and four daughters while Mr Moqadem was on holiday.

Belgium tries to recover the cost of its prosecutions from those convicted but Lhermitte is insolvent.

So the state has instead sent the 72,743 euros ($97,000; £65,000) bill to Mr Moqadem.

It says the money should come from Lhermitte's share of the sale of their house.
Mr Moqadem's lawyer has reportedly asked for the bill to be written off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8590735.stm

This law is a radical mistake but coming out of Belgium it really doesn't surprise me.

What's the point of having a justice system that requires an ordinary citizen to personally pay for a crime committed by a loved one?

actually i like that idea in some cirumstances but it needs to be reactive. For instance lets say one spouse rapes the other spouse and is convicted. Do you then send the bill to the rape victom?

HOWEVER, lets say that one spouse is basically profiting from the criminal activities of the other (fancy cars, clothes, jewlery, dinner at fancy restraunts ect ect). Why SHOULDNT the state take it out of that profit (as i suggested in another thread).

It shouldnt really be that hard to write the law such that if the person was either the victom or someone the community would belive had the side of a victom (like the parent, child, sibbling ect of a murder victom) they are exempt

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well I understand laws that prohibit someone from profiting from a crime. I get that but what I don't understand is holding someone financially responsible to the State for their prosecuting a case. This man has lost his ex-wife and five children and now he is being asked to pay almost 100,000USD for the States trial! I think that is ridiculous. Its the States responsibility to pay for a court case, the taxes of all its citizens pays for such things so why ask one member of society to pay the lot? I mean he didn't commit the crime

 

[Bells]

actually i like that idea in some cirumstances but it needs to be reactive. For instance lets say one spouse rapes the other spouse and is convicted. Do you then send the bill to the rape victom?

HOWEVER, lets say that one spouse is basically profiting from the criminal activities of the other (fancy cars, clothes, jewlery, dinner at fancy restraunts ect ect). Why SHOULDNT the state take it out of that profit (as i suggested in another thread).

It shouldnt really be that hard to write the law such that if the person was either the victom or someone the community would belive had the side of a victom (like the parent, child, sibbling ect of a murder victom) they are exempt

He's not profiting from the crime though.

He is, very much the victim. He has lost his children, all of whom were murdered by his wife, now his ex wife.

That makes him a victim.

The State, then in all of its stupidity, now tells him that he has to pay for the court costs, for a trial that convicted his children's killers? Because she was his wife?

It does not make sense. And if he refuses, he could possibly face the risk of losing his house and any assets he may have had prior to the trial.

What the State should have done, is to ask him if he was willing to pay the costs for trying his ex wife for murdering his children and if not, then not try her. It is obscene in every sense of the word as to how this man now has to pay for the State's prosecution of the person who murdered his children.

 

[Asguard]

He's not profiting from the crime though.

He is, very much the victim. He has lost his children, all of whom were murdered by his wife, now his ex wife.

That makes him a victim.

The State, then in all of its stupidity, now tells him that he has to pay for the court costs, for a trial that convicted his children's killers? Because she was his wife?

It does not make sense. And if he refuses, he could possibly face the risk of losing his house and any assets he may have had prior to the trial.

What the State should have done, is to ask him if he was willing to pay the costs for trying his ex wife for murdering his children and if not, then not try her. It is obscene in every sense of the word as to how this man now has to pay for the State's prosecution of the person who murdered his children.

bells, i dont think you read my post properly (or i didnt phrase it correctly). I said in this sort of situation and situations where one spouse is the victom ect this shouldnt occure. However in situations where they ARNT the victom then it could work quite effectivily. It was a responce to this comment

"What's the point of having a justice system that requires an ordinary citizen to personally pay for a crime committed by a loved one? "

As a general rule why shouldnt they?
After all we already do this, the hoon driving laws are written such that unless the car is stolen from your spouse, parents ect and theft charges are laid then the cops will empound, sell or crush that car even if the person commiting the offense doesnt own it. Then there is the situations where a major insentive to get into organised crime is the women (mainly) who you can get with the cash. Just look at people like Reberta Willams, tell me she wasnt egging Carl on the whole time and yet she walks away clean. Why shouldnt these people bare some of the responcability for the offenses commited.

To state clearly i DONT belive this case falls under that catigory or that this is fair. In cases like this it shouldnt even be concidered. What im saying is that it shouldnt be to hard to write the law in such a way that it DOESNT catch people like this in it

 

[quadraphonics]

The State, then in all of its stupidity, now tells him that he has to pay for the court costs, for a trial that convicted his children's killers? Because she was his wife?

It does not make sense. And if he refuses, he could possibly face the risk of losing his house and any assets he may have had prior to the trial.

There's a lot of things codified in Western legal systems that doesn't make much sense, stemming from screwy concepts about marriage (which basically imagine women as property, even after the decades of revisions to make it seem otherwise).