Debater: Lena Andersson treading completely wrong after the judgment against Jean-Claude Arnault
This is an opinion piece. It is the writer who stands for the views that are put forward in the text, not the newspaper Aftonbladet.
DEBATE. ”Something is definitely skewed here, maybe even rotten to the core”, writes Lena Andersson in DN. Svea court of appeal sentenced the kulturprofilen Jean-Claude Arnault to prison for two rapes. It may Lena Andersson to go to the attack against the judiciary.
She believes that the lawyers behave like robots and no longer takes into account the reality. Why these harsh words? Well, the woman has had contact with her rapist after the first rape.
Therefore, says Lena Andersson, the court focuses on the details, but miss the big picture. How could it have been a rape if the woman met the man of late, about. But it is not the rule of law that is skewed here, it is Lena Andersson's peculiar view of the law and guilt.
Lena Andersson criticize as I said the Court of appeal to assess the ”details” instead of the big picture. She wants to see the context, dinners and Parisresor rather than focus on the details. Let us therefore briefly remind ourselves of what a court's mission is in this kind of goal: to determine if an act occurred, and if this act is a crime.
To assess the details, as well as the violence\\u002Ftvånget against the victim, is not a small detail that the court fixated on. It is a discretion that must be done to be able to determine whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.\\nNågot that, therefore, the court of appeal considers that it is.
But Lena Andersson does not seem to agree with.\\nHon want to instead focus on the victim after the crime met him on litteraturaftnar and dinners. How can the rape in this case has been so serious that the victim of a late claim?\\nHon also highlights the idea that the circumstances should make that the sanctions in relation of the offence to the sinks (and thus the sentence).
About a woman being beaten by her husband several times and yet continues to be married to him, the man should therefore get a lower punishment?
therefore, Let us experiment a little with Lena Andersson's view on how the courts should be, where it should be taken into account how the victim behaved after an alleged offence.
An example is rape within marriage, in practice, would be impossible with Lena Andersson's way of reasoning, if the woman immediately different after the crime. Your husband raped you, but two days later we see you a parent of your child together with him? Then it can hardly have been a rape, or in any case not so serious.
the Same thing with violence within marriage, if a woman being beaten by her husband several times and yet continues to be married to him, the man should therefore get a lower punishment?
Should a perpetrator who assaulted a stranger at a bar and get a lower punishment for the victim went to a party a week later and seemed very happy? A burglar should not be punished so severely, because the victim could afford to buy a new tv the same day?
There is a reasoning that has very little connection to justice or the rule of law. Instead it is a form of moral court Lena Andersson seems to call for, which is not the actual deed is what should be decisive for the court's consideration – without the victim's behavior afterwards as a major temperature gauge on the severity of the crime.
The vast majority of people agree that how you behave before a crime does not justify an action. If a full girl goes home with a krogragg does not mean that the guy gets to rape her. The same thing applies, of course, also the behavior after a crime.
Lena Andersson's text is not about the law. It is about another form of debt, where the focus is not on what an offender has done but how a proper victim should behave afterwards.
The victim, who does not behave as a skolboksexemplar and immediately contact the police without showering, should be punished. Such a view of the victim, is about something that do not take into account the reality.
\\nLinnea Swedenmark, juriststudent and writer\\nTexten is previously published on the author's FB page.
\\n Join in the debate and comment on the article\\n – like Aftonbladet Debate on Facebook.