In France, we do not judge fools, recalled the Court of Cassation.
On April 14, the highest judicial court confirmed the criminal irresponsibility of Kobili Traoré, taken by a "delirious puff" at the time of the murder of his Jewish neighbor Sarah Halimi, on April 4, 2017 in Paris.
The Court of Cassation, which judges the law and not the facts, endorsed the anti-Semitic nature of the crime, but confirmed the impossibility of trying the murderer, a heavy user of cannabis, given the abolition of his discernment last night- the.
This decision aroused the incomprehension and the anger of part of the public opinion and of many personalities, who mobilized massively in France.
“No law without justice”, “Justice smashed?
"Because you would not be judged if you were drugged?
"... They dispute" the lack of trial "and demand" justice for Sarah Halimi ".
The emotion aroused by this affair reacted even to the executive and raised several questions.
Being drugged would escape justice?
NO.
Many public figures, as well as politicians, are numerous to affirm that it is possible to kill without being judged because of drugs have been consumed: from the host Arthur - "It would seem that in France when you are under the effect of drugs you do not go to prison "-, to Marine Le Pen -" Thus, crimes committed under the influence of drugs would make criminals escape responsibility for their acts? -, passing by the signs brandished during the Sunday demonstrations - "Smoke joints, nothing will happen to you".
It's wrong.
The consumption of drugs or alcohol is even an aggravating circumstance in many offenses, traffic offenses for example, or for certain crimes such as rape (twenty years of criminal imprisonment instead of fifteen).
Justice thus considers that an individual drunk or drugged voluntarily must anticipate the effects of his consumption on his behavior.
So crimes committed under the influence of drugs make criminals escape responsibility for their actions?
It is double the penalty for the victims!
MLP #SarahHalimi https://t.co/0809I3ClnW
- Marine Le Pen (@MLP_officiel) April 14, 2021
But in the context of the Halimi case, the Court of Cassation found that the murderer, a heavy user of cannabis, had committed the facts during an unprecedented "delirious puff", having abolished his discernment. His case therefore falls under article 122-1 of the Penal Code, according to which "is not criminally responsible the person who was suffering, at the time of the facts, of a psychic or neuropsychic disorder having abolished his discernment or the control of his actions ”, as the Paris Court of Appeal concluded at the end of 2019.
This provision does not differ when the mental state of the incriminated individual "was caused by the regular consumption of narcotic products", specifies the Court of Cassation in its opinion.
The law, in fact, "does not provide for a distinction according to the origin of the mental disorder".
That is, a psychotic drugged or drunk person has the same rights as a sober psychotic person.
Believing that the "judge cannot distinguish where the legislator has chosen not to distinguish", the highest court returned the ball to politics.
The government took it up.
In response to Emmanuel Macron's request for a "change in the law", Minister of Justice Eric Dupond-Moretti announced on Sunday a draft new law on criminal irresponsibility.
No trial for the Halimi case?
Yes and no.
It all depends on how we define the word trial.
By its opinion delivered on April 14, the Court of Cassation effectively closed the door to a trial before an Assize Court.
But a trial was held "in the sense that there was indeed a hearing with a debate, oral hearings of several experts, pleadings and judges who decide", recalls a lawyer in Paris.
“Simply, this hearing took place before the investigating chamber and not the Assize Court.
"
Was there a “denial of justice”?
NO.
Sarah Halimi is "victim of a denial of justice and of a judicial shipwreck," criticized Francis Kalifat, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (Crif) at the Paris rally.
"No one who has committed a murder or acts of barbarism should not be able to be declared irresponsible without trial or contradictory debate", also tweeted the former Minister of Justice François Bayrou.
"Sarah Halimi is the victim of this Islamist anti-Semitism that French society struggles to recognize and name. She is also the victim of a denial of justice and a judicial wreck."
Just words from @FrancisKalifat at the #justicepourSarahHalimi rally.
pic.twitter.com/dsg2TKj9Uf
- Jean Louis (@ JL7508) April 25, 2021
But there was indeed an "adversarial debate" in this affair.
The investigating judges applied article 706-122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a hearing and an adversarial debate on criminal irresponsibility.
They thus requested three psychiatric expertises from Kobili Traoré in order to compare several opinions.
In all, seven psychiatrists were seized, hundreds of pages of conclusion were reported, six hours of debate were conducted before the investigating chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal.
“There is no denial of justice.
These three expertises show on the contrary that the justice tried to be more than cautious before deciding ”, estimates the lawyer whom we contacted.
Only the last expertise was retained?
NO.
"After three judicial expertises, however contradictory between them, the Court decided to retain the last, which affirmed that the murderer had been seized of a
delirious puff
caused by the taking of cannabis, which would have abolished his discernment", affirms the Facebook group Agissons for Sarah Halimi, including the victim's brother.
In fact, seven experts looked into the issue and six of them concluded that discernment was abolished. The first expertise, conducted by Dr. Daniel Zagury and submitted in September 2017, retained the impairment of discernment due to the regular voluntary consumption of cannabis by the accused, thus paving the way for a trial. A second expertise, conducted by a college of three psychiatrists in 2018, however concluded that discernment was abolished. According to them, Traoré "was unaware, as in most consumers (
Editor's note: of cannabis
), of the possible inducing effects of a delirium". A third expert review, led by a college of three specialists, supported this analysis in March 2019.
The magistrates then considered "that no element" indicated "that the consumption of cannabis by the person concerned was carried out with the awareness that this use of narcotics could lead to such a delirious puff", and therefore declared it criminally. irresponsible.
Anti-Semitic, but irresponsible?
YES.
This is the whole apparent paradox of this affair.
“Either the murder is anti-Semitic, and therefore thought out, or it is the work of an irresponsible person, and therefore not thought out.
But not both at the same time, ”said the Chief Rabbi of France, Haïm Korsia, in a column published on April 17 by Le Figaro.
"We must not confuse a delusional and someone who has no brain at all," retorts psychiatrist Paul Bensussan, who examined the killer of Sarah Halimi, in an interview with I24News. “To think that anti-Semitism is always something thoughtful, lucid, is to make a gross mistake. "And the same expert to develop in the weekly Marianne:" When a subject is delirious, delusional themes are of course a reflection of his beliefs, his education, his personality, but also of the societal atmosphere. It is difficult to deny that there is an Arab-Muslim anti-Semitism and there is no reason to think that Mr. Traoré (
Editor's note: who is Muslim
), in the midst of a delusional puff, can remain impervious to it. "
