Ich bin schon auf Downvotes und Hass gefasst, aber ich möchte einfach nur eine Antwort auf diese Frage. Ich habe es im Internet versucht, aber nichts gefunden. Warum genau sind Schweizer Richter so nachsichtig, wenn es darum geht, Menschen gerechte Urteile zu verhängen?
Ich spreche hier nicht von einer Verurteilung wegen Diebstahls von Lebensmitteln oder einer nicht bezahlten Geldstrafe, sondern von tatsächlichen Gewaltverbrechen.
Heute, ein Mann aus Neuseeland bekam 33 Monate Gefängnis (in Form einer Therapie) für den Versuch, jemanden bei lebendigem Leib zu verbrennen (Mord). Keine Ausweisung aus dem Gebiet. Sein Schweizer Kumpel, der ebenfalls mitgemacht hatte, bekam nur 13 Monate.
Letzte Woche, zwei Schwestern aus Waadt die sich 2015 schuldig bekannt haben, dem IS beigetreten zu sein, wurden zu 14 bzw. 18 Monaten Gefängnis verurteilt. Für die Nicht-Schweizer unter ihnen gab es keine Ausweisung.
Ich könnte zahllose Beispiele dafür finden, dass Schweizer Richter wirklich gefährliche Personen zu absurd hohen Strafen verurteilt haben, aber warum??? Ich verstehe vollkommen, dass Menschen für Dinge wie den Besitz von Marihuana oder Verkehrsverstöße nicht übermäßig bestraft werden, aber der Beitritt zu einer terroristischen Organisation und ein versuchter Mord scheinen mir ein Anreiz zu sein.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/1d4dcdu/why_are_swiss_judges_so_weak_and_soft/
Von Wonderful_Setting195
14 Kommentare
Same same all across European countries.
Because we follow the law.
Because the press, yourself and any normal citizen doesn’t know about any priors or anything at all except the juicy details of those culprits smeared in the press.
A judge has the entire story, history and records of these people and should judge accordingly, not based on what the press and the public opinion thinks or supposedly knows.
If any judge would follow public opinion, then they would be biased and a lot of innocent people would be behind bars…
Because there’s little evidence that harsher penalties actually reduce crime.
It’s trivial but maybe not obvious: harder sentences do not help anyone.
Otherwise the death sentence should stop most criminals to risk getting one. Yet we see high crime rates in countries with the death penalty.
Social issues cause crime, poverty causes crime, being a young male without perspective causes crime. None of these can be solved by harder sentences.
Ok, since you asked for it, I downvoted.
Subjective sentiment with random examples won’t work when it comes to prove your point.
Whom excactly would harsher punishments help?
The kiwi was convicted for grievous bodily harm, not attempted murder. What’s the problem?
You can’t go by US standards where people get life for stealing golf clubs (CA 3 strikes law).
Because having to put people in prison is expensive. The state has to pay for every day they are in there. UThe people dont get prison sentences but have to pay money as punishment. Their crimes will be remembers though on some paper which makes it more and more difficult to find a job.
Another problems with judges in Switzerland is that they are elected by the legislature for a 6-year-term which makes them somewhat dependent.
I’m not sure why you want to throw ppl out of the country, but you do you.
I assume the judge follows the law, and they do have some wiggle room in the sentences.
I don’t know why you think 33 months of therapy are nothing. He will be locked away, have a lot of time to think, and he surely needs therapy.
I imagine the sisters joined ISIS under fals pretext, and given that they are women, they definitely didn’t participate in any form of combat. Most likely, they were given to some guy, had very limited freedom, and were mainly seen and „used“ to increase the ranks for the future.
Unlike nations that resort to severe measures such as execution, torture, or mistreatment of convicted individuals, our approach involves humane confinement as a form of punishment.
As many said your view of how the justice system is guided by your emotions and not fact based. I hope you will thoroughly change your views after everyone is explaining it to you
Because here the sentences have more a preventing effect rather than a retribution one. And also it has to do with the Legalprognosis. That means the persons past convictions, social life and other factors are considered. But like i said the sanctions should have a preventing character.
Thanks everyone for your answers! Makes more sense now