A twenty-five-year-old, with some fifteen convictions gracing his criminal record, the overwhelming majority for thefts, appears before the court, this time for driving under the influence: 0.92 milligrams of alcohol per liter of exhaled air, equivalent to 1.80 grams per liter of blood, which is more than double the second legal limit (0.40mg or 0.80g). Additionally, he is nearing the end of his sentence, seventeen months of incarceration for theft, in a state of legal reoffending for theft, and with suspended sentences hanging over him, which hurts. He has been under electronic surveillance for a few months, with only three weeks left until the end of his sentence.
He does not deny being under the influence, indeed indisputable, but contests the driving; he simply says he was straddling his scooter, just to move it, on Rue de la Préfecture, on the eve of August 15. Adding to that, he has to return home at a certain time due to the obligations that come with wearing an electronic bracelet. He did not do so, at least not on the night of his arrest. Moreover, the problem for him is that he “forgot” to inform the parole judge that his employment contract, which allowed him to return home at a specific time, was terminated (he is also required to work). Finally, he missed an appointment with a probation advisor, an agent who monitors and assists convicts after their prison sentence.
Alright, granted, that amounts to quite a few legal infringements, but in the end, they found a drunk guy one evening, on Rue de la Préfecture, just like dozens of others. The real problem for him today is that he is in a state of legal reoffending (offense repeated within five years following the end of the previous sentence) for a similar violation: driving without a license nearly two years ago. The maximum penalty for this offense is two years in prison.
The minimum sentence, an innovation of the new government, according to the recent DATI law, thus corresponds to a mandatory sentence in the case of reoffending. The law specifies that it is one year of imprisonment for an offense where the maximum penalty is three years, two years for an offense with a maximum penalty of five years, and so on, approximately one-third of the maximum penalty. Except that the minimum sentence is also one year of imprisonment, at least for other offenses, which is half, and not a third, for driving under the influence, which carries a possible penalty of two years.
All this is a bit complex, even for the court-appointed lawyer who admits to the President, in audience, in front of the defendant, that he has just returned from vacation and has not yet had time to read the new law. Nevertheless, the accused receives, on that day, one year of imprisonment, with six months to be served, without concrete evidence, even claiming not to have driven, which is the primary charge that justifies the legal reoffending (furthermore, it may seem difficult to genuinely drive, on a summer’s evening, at 11 p.m., on Rue de la Préfecture, but this detail was not raised, even by his lawyer…). The assistant of the president of the criminal court simply stating that “you cannot question the word of the police and they have no reason to lie.”
Six months to be served, price to debate, who says better?
Article posted by Nico
