Eirik Jensen-case, was very complex. The two central straffebudene on the other hand, involvement with smuggling and gross corruption, is simple.Eirik Society and Sæther. Show more
to abet drug trafficking you must have given a contribution which is of importance for the performance. It is not a requirement that the contribution should be crucial
Eirik Jensen was acquitted of drug trafficking charges.
Gross corruption requires that it is given an unjustified service or an illegal advantage, that you get payment or a service in return. Both parts must be proven by the prosecution.
the Prosecution attempted to prove that Jensen among other things, got a clock and a newly refurbished bathroom. For this service he gave the information back that would make it simpler for Cappelen to smuggle.
the Prosecution led no other evidence which pointed to the other gjentjenester. Eirik Jensen, was, nevertheless, convicted for gross corruption.bevisenes weakness – but also the weak point in Jensen's explanation Comment
But the Court had already exonerated Jensen for this gjentjenesten a few seconds before. They then simply away from the half straffebudet and believed it held that Jensen received the gifts.
It is not punishable under Norwegian law to receive gifts or services from the other, nor by people with a record. Gifts are not corruption. It is also allowed to send text messages to the criminals.
This was fagdommernes dilemma. Regardless of the evidence in the trial, then the judgment is contradictory. Jensen would not only frikjennes for drug trafficking, but also gross corruption. The judgment la that a demonstrably innocent man were sentenced to very severe punishment for a very serious crime. It is strange that Jensen and his defense agreed to this. He should have been sentenced for both, or passed out from there as a free man.Now life can be all over the Comment
It has been a theme about not gross corruption in itself embraces the further criminal action, and that it was too much to prosecute Jensen for both.
Gross corruption is not a violation of the law made first and foremost for the police, but all government officials. It shall also apply to a bureaucrat at the planning and bygningsetaten who is given money by a person to drop a questionable byggesøknad through. His service does not lead to more crime, and there needed no more tiltaleposter to cover the action.retired: the Jury in the Jensen case has retired, after judge Kristel Heyerdahl rettsbelæring. So considering Eric Jensen's lawyer. Video: Nicolai Delebekk / Dagbladet / Show more Show more
For a police officer, it is greater risk for that service also happens in the form of more crime, and that the service then becomes complicity.
It does not mean that a police officer only may be corrupt. By a case taken two policemen with a prisoner from the prison so he would see on a rallyløp. This prisoner should not commit a new crime. As the payment had police officers been given the covered equipment to run the cars, since they were a part of the environment. It is only corruption.
Since we are a constitutional state, must Jensen case go on again. It disturbing is that quite many thought that the verdict could be standing. They would judge that finally looked to be an innocent man.What does it mean that another politihelt going good for Eric Jensen? Comment
For he was not acquitted, he was convicted. There is nothing called slightly freed and some doomed.