On 28 November 2010 has demonstrated the Swiss electorate the opportunity to his outward attitude to crime tourists. The expulsion initiative calls for certain serious crimes are punishable by a future deportation and subsequent travel ban. The idea aims to make Switzerland attractive for honest people by violent criminals no room will get more.
The arguments for the initiative are strong: Provocation, bullying and theft are, above all in urban and suburban communities, almost to the agenda. Drug dealers and fights dominate the urban nightlife. Burglary, murder and arson are in reality rather than on feature films almost fit. In short, the youth today reaping the mess that this seemingly pacifist post-war generation have brewed us. It should be about reason of state to have to tolerate any rogue? The proposed initiative is to stop this deportation issue clear boundaries. other hand, it is questionable to base the criteria for deportation only to a list of Straftatent rather than the severity of any offense. Order to encourage and provide an alternative, the National Council has prepared a counter-proposal, which relates the expulsion criterion of whether you get for the fact a minimum sentence of one year in prison or not.
ideas of the initiative and counter-proposal:
Initiative: There should be a list of specific offenses. Anyone who commits this is to be created and re-entry being refused.
counter-proposal: Every type of crime could lead to deportation, it all depends on the severity. An act which in any event includes a mandatory minimum sentence of one year or a total sentenced prison sentence of 2 years will be punished will be considered an expulsion criterion.
At first glance, both proposals seem like they would prefer the protection of victims of the offender protection. But if you some facts legally challenged, is emerging, which of these proposals appropriate.
Example 1: The 12 - year-old Southeastern states beaten another school child and forces him to the next day CHF 100 - to bring. Issue: extortion by violence, when committed intentionally and planned crime. Consequences today: Nothing. Some minors know their legal loopholes. Consequences gem. Counter-proposal: Nothing. Minors do not get any jail sentence and will not be deported so. Consequence acc. Initiative: deportation.
Example 2: "sans-papiers" steals in a department store food. Issue: Theft by person who is incompetent because of their basic needs of. Consequence today: display, potential debt-wahrscheilich desire to no avail. Consequence of counter-proposal, nothing else. Consequence of the initiative: even otherwise. There is no besoders perfidious, heavy with low motivation or prior criminal offense.
Example 3: German scientist that deals with historical events from the 2nd World War is concerned, and writes a report that many politicians are not in the stuff fits. Sentenced to 26 months in jail for thought crime (Holocaust denial, doubting of historical facts). Consequence acc. Counter-proposal: prohibiting entry, he was sentenced to 2 years and 2 months imprisonment. Consequence acc. Initiative: Nothing happens, as long as the item "thought crimes" is not on the crimes of deportation list.
Considering the case as Boris Becker, who had because of his tax stories almost get a multi-year prison sentence, it should be obvious that this counter-proposal meets with great probability used incorrectly. Peaceful scientists and tax evaders could be more severely punished by the counter-proposal be as violent offenders. Sure makes the deportation initiative lot to be desired, but it represents the rule of law better than the other proposal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment