Yet another interesting find about the strange way our law the issue of violence: in the Neue Westfälische place today is an article under the headline: lawyer is said to have abused his own child . I think the NW will not blame me if I quote here from that article, so that the sense of this blog entry is not lost if the text should disappear at some point in the archive.
"Unconventional methods of education should have applied a 47-year-old Bielefeld qualified lawyer in the course of 2006 with her then five year old son. Because the child did not like peas, should they him to eat blindfolded and stabbed with a fork in the hand have in order to force them to eat the unpopular vegetable. On another occasion, the woman her son [...] have beaten with a flagpole. In two other cases, it is said to have stabbed the boy with a fork in the neck and severely beaten with the hand against his forehead.
"The incidents have been known since the age of five a carer at the kindergarten that occurred through the abuse violations showed and told, by whom and for what purpose they had been done him. From the day care center director to addressed to the mother have the facts admitted, but played down. The police were informed, she knew the child. The boy is said to have repeated the information he had made in kindergarten. "
First, I am curious, what can drive a mother to her own child so harmed. For such conduct, there is no excuse in my eyes. It seems obviously not to be so, as if the mother, annoyed by the child to white heat, once "slipped his hand" would be. But in this article described coercive measures would have to constitute torture. As the NW can seriously dare to call something merely "idiosyncratic training methods," I do not want in your head - I find this formulation as playing it frightening!
disturbing still, however, is how the judiciary has dealt with this case: "" The prosecution brought the end of 2008 Bielefeld charges of abuse of wards and assault against the lawyer. Before a youth judge was now held in closed session the trial. Because the defendants exercised their right of silence used to have the need arise, listen to the son as a witness. "
Why? The article is quite clear of talk that the son has already done the kindergarten teacher to the Police have testified - and that the mother of the abuse had already admitted Why the Procedure must demand it, despite the clear facts that only a verdict is possible if the child again and again, a statement along with the rise of the associated Memories is expected is a mystery to me. The best interests of the child are certainly not conducive to such provisions. And so it came at the end, as it had come:
"" The boy is, like his three siblings, now in a permanent foster family. " Why do you think ...?! " The foster mother and the other those were the child's well-competent people believe that a witness statement disrupt the positive development of boys and would withhold consent to the hearing. The case against the mother was canceled due to low debt "
. Conclusion: In our legal system, it is obviously not possible pleadings, despite the clear facts someone as violent criminals, without torturing the victim unnecessarily. And if they torture the victim - who had testified in this case so long ago! - Saves to remain, the result is that the violent act (in spite of admissions were made, although not to the police or the court - obviously knows our legal system so witnesses first and second class) will remain totally unpunished.
Most scorn, however, the rationale for the setting: "low debt" ! If the debt as low because the victim is spared the agony of a re-statement? Where the debt is about low because the perpetrator of the statement denied? (Because otherwise it would have been yes but probably doomed.) Where the debt is less about the fact that the defendant is not entitled to their actions? Or reduced the debt about the fact that the trial for lack of lurid statements has not expired spectacular enough?
From the perspective of justice, we really live in a poor country, if such a farce of a process with such an absurd outcome is possible! Fortunately, that are virtually excluded in view of the biological age of the accused, at least in their personal risk of a repeat. The current ruling is expected on them otherwise hardly a particularly deterrence have had. And the perpetrators of violence in other families, it seems certain to be very calm: just go on as before, because if one considers only the snout, one in the end but nothing ever happens.
0 comments:
Post a Comment