Judge says murder of Peter R. de Vries is not terrorism: this is what the verdict means
The court ruled today on the executors and involved in the murder of Peter R. de Vries. Result: no life sentence for the executors, and it is not terrorism, while the prosecution demanded it. 'A judge also looks at the person'
"Nail-hard," is how criminal law professor Sven Brinkhoff calls the verdict. Although the professor can also imagine that it is seen differently by the family and, for example, the police.
Unwritten rule
Whereas the prosecution demanded life in prison for the executors, the three ultimately received 28 and 26 years in prison. This is not surprising, Brinkhoff explains: “There is a kind of unwritten rule that a murder, no matter how intensely violent and shocking, that judges don't want to take that step. It's nowhere in the law, but that's sort of a golden rule.”
Despite being seen as an unwritten rule, this case could have been the tipping point, Brinkhoff says. “But at least now the court has said, 'we think it's going too far anyway.'"
Weighing and weighing
What may also play into not giving a life sentence is that temporary sentences are being served longer these days. The rules therein are very tightened. Brinkhoff: "Since a couple of years, the rule for these kinds of long sentences is that you have to serve it up to two years before it would end." Previously, you could get a chance to be released after only two-thirds of the sentence.
And in addition, for example, the age of the offenders may also play a role in the decision. “A judge also looks at the person of the defendant, their age, background, previous offenses, and that becomes a sort of raffle. And then this is what rolls out. So yes, that judge also has to weigh and weigh, even in these kinds of cases."
Not enough for terrorism
Another component that made this case unique is that for the first time in history, the prosecution prosecuted members of organized crime for terrorism. “The prosecution's line was: If you film this and sling it like this on the Internet and also at all how this murder was committed, that's enough for the predicate terror." But it was decided in court today that that is not enough.
"The court finds that insufficient to be able to say: to us this clearly shows a terrorist intent. In some regular terrorism cases you just know very clearly, often by writings or by someone's statements, what is happening with what motive. And here - especially since the suspects did not speak out - you don't know," he explained.
Appeal
The prosecution is still considering appeals. And then it will probably be about the terrorism label again, Brinkhoff thinks. "Then it might just turn out differently."
"Family and next of kin may not care about that, but this is a piece of law-making that is going on here which is not finished, which will continue after this case and which indeed can be taken back into account in an appeal."
