The gist of it is: « While the court handed down a three-year prison sentence, two of those years were suspended. If Mr. Sarkozy commits a new crime within a given time frame, a court could then order the sentence to be served in full.
Mr. Sarkozy can request that his one-year term be served outside prison, for instance at home with an electronic bracelet. An appeal, which is widely expected, would place the entire sentence on hold. »
So basically he’ll never be sent to prison for real, which is often the case for corrupt (ex-)politicians.
Where I am, you are a first time offender if you have no previous record, or your previous records were expunged (which happens after enough time has passed from the completion of the sentence, unless it was for terrorism, war crimes, genocide etc.).
That does not mean that you won't ever get a custodial sentence - for crimes severe enough you surely will - but the benefit of having no prior record still applies to you.
It's interesting to note how slow the French justice is.
It took 7 years between the evidence being found by investigators and the trial.
It's going to take a few more years with the appeal and in all cases he will never step foot in prison, which is ironic given that Sarkozy was a huge proponent of Zero Tolerance policies.
Similarly, Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011: 11 years after what he did became known, 16 years after he left the Mairie de Paris. At which point, his mental and physical health was so poor he didn't even stand in trial.
>It's going to take a few more years with the appeal and in all cases he will never step foot in prison, which is ironic given that Sarkozy was a huge proponent of Zero Tolerance policies.
Hard to say if this is good or bad. On the one hand, no one is above the law. But sending presidents to prison for anything short of murder is a really risky proposition, and an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption.
Risky for what? To show that they are a common citizens from flesh an bones, or untouchable deities who can have blood of literally millions on their hands and live a happy easy life?
Presidents are humans like us. Make them at least a bit responsible for their choices when in power, and there might be more good in the world. If they are crooks (which many are), there is absolutely 0 reason why they shouldn't be punished same as everybody else.
Unless obviously you don't trust justice system at all. But even then the solution isn't to remove presidents from it, rather than fixing it.
> Hard to say if this is good or bad. On the one hand, no one is above the law. But sending presidents to prison for anything short of murder is a really risky proposition, and an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption.
So if you're a corrupt politician, managing to become president should be a "get out of jail free card"?
No the root problem is those people are not investigated often enough and manage to profit from their crimes for decades before being found "unfit for prison life". Any politician should be under scrutiny the day they get voted in. Stasi like but instead of checking the plebs, check those in power.
>So if you're a corrupt politician, managing to become president should be a "get out of jail free card"?
Yes. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows this via pardoning. Sending presidents to jail has rarely ever worked out well in history. It becomes an inherently political power struggle, and weaponizes the justice system for political purposes.
Anything short of cold blooded murder can be twisted and skewed into something either worse or not as bad as it actually is, depending on your political leaning. And like it or not, we have to share this country with 50% of the population who disagree with us politically. The alternative is disenfranchisement and civil unrest.
There is no clean separation of the political world and the judicial system. For example, impeachments are modelled after trials, but they are clearly of very political nature.
At the end of the day, up there in Washington, Mutually Assured Destruction prevails. Whatever you unleash on your opponents when in power, will be unleashed upon you when the winds change. In that situation, both Rs and Ds are better off only prosecuting outright murderers.
This isn't new, this was a problem already in Ancient Greece. Power and justice do not really mix well.
1) Political debate can be thwarted by legal charges. Imagine if some of the politicians who supported Rosa Parks were indicted as co-conspirators in bus rule evasion. It's kind of a silly idea, but only because of tradition. The reality is that many people pushing for political change are asking for legal relief from laws. In other words, they want to do what's forbidden. That sounds like they want to break the laws.
2) It discourages people from leaving office because they're afraid they'll be jailed once they leave.
> Imagine if some of the politicians who supported Rosa Parks were indicted as co-conspirators in bus rule evasion.
It so happens that not using buses was legal. In fact, even Rosa Parks was technically in the legal right to stay sit there - not that anyone cared (including her).
But, back then, being arrested or beaten was pretty normal for blacks when sitting in wrong place or refusing to stand. Black political players included - like Rosa Parks herself.
From my point of view the root problem is "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" It is often difficult to evaluate the veracity of claims of one custodian about another. In the US the relatively short terms of office mean that the evaluation is performed by voters on a regular schedule and the loose coupling of legal directives to actual population behavior means that a large component of cooperation is based on the prestige of the director.
Democracy is a tenuous proposition. It requires an overwhelming majority of the population to buy into the legitimacy of a government, and remain loyal to its' institutions. There's a reason Lincoln ordered not a single Confederate general or politician to be hung after the civil war. The long term strength of the union takes precedent over short term political vendettas.
There's a running joke in Illinois that the Governor's State College is actually a prison, given the frequency with which Illinois governors end up in prison after their terms end.
At least he's being recognized as guilty. Socially its way better than evading any consequences or getting a bogus sentence like case dismissal because some formality mistake.
> Socially its way better than evading any consequences or getting a bogus sentence like case dismissal because some formality mistake.
But he is getting away without any (real) consequences. Being sentenced guilty without much punishment does exactly nothing to deter a politician from committing crimes, nor does it stop citizens from losing trust in their institutions.
Hmm not in my book. It's surely minuscule, but he's now labelled as guilty. It's a stain, your reputation is lower, some people may avoid you. Who wants to spend time with a convicted person ?
Microsoft founder and multibillionaire Bill Gates said Wednesday that he “made a mistake” meeting with convicted sex criminal and wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein to discuss philanthropy.
Gates met with Epstein multiple times – including in 2013 while he was the chairman of Microsoft – years after the disgraced financier had struck a plea deal on prostitution related charges filed by Florida prosecutors in 2008.
In France, a surprisingly large number of people, probably because our reputation for bending rules is well-deserved. The number of high profile politicians who got re-elected after being sentenced is very high. Alain Juppe was even about to run for president, in spite of not having an exactly pristine record.
If you're curious about the kind of surreal scandals which happened 25 years ago, the helicopter affair is my favorite one (you'll have to scroll down to the 'controversial' section) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfla1
It's no surprise in this context that it took forever to sentence Jacques Chirac!
Things have been slowly changing over the past 10 years though, with popular opinion being less tolerant.
Sarkozy was rolling out the red carpet for Qaddafi (not metaphorically, he literally rolled out a red carpet and let him pitch a tent at the Elysée[0]) only to be the loudest mouth to call air strikes on him a few years later[1].
If you're not high enough in a position of power but only halfway there, you might see a prison cell like Balkany but you just have to claim to have attempted suicide and say you're too old and you'll be let out[2]. Try being suicidal in the French prison system without having embezzled millions and I can guarantee it won't go that well for you. In Balkany's case, you can even dance in the streets and be recorded in perfect health afterwards and all will be well.
The only messages being given are that if you've made it to the top you can go to your death bed having done anything without seeing a prison cell, and if you've stolen millions in public funds you can just say you're frail and dance about your freedom in the streets[3] afterwards.
> The only messages being given are that if you've made it to the top you can go to your death bed having done anything without seeing a prison cell
In the case of Christine Lagarde this was actually made explicit. She was found guilty but not punished, because she was too important: "but given the circumstances, given the responsibilities that Ms. Lagarde had at the time — in 2008, we were in a major economic crisis — the court decided that it would not sentence Ms. Lagarde to anything" [1].
I agree with you and this is quite common knowledge in France. However when was the last time a crime committed by a high ranking politician in the western world really punished?
That's maybe the only nice thing about the current corrupted french president, even in 16 years he'll still be way to young to play this "get out of jail" card !
(If you don't know about how he is corrupted look-up for Alstom deal and the pre-campaign fundraising he ran on public funding while he was Minister)
As it was the case with the medling in Africa of Total and Elf, we learn a lot about other crimes during the court hearings, but nothing can and will be done about those things.
51 comments
[ 68.6 ms ] story [ 3395 ms ] threadMr. Sarkozy can request that his one-year term be served outside prison, for instance at home with an electronic bracelet. An appeal, which is widely expected, would place the entire sentence on hold. »
So basically he’ll never be sent to prison for real, which is often the case for corrupt (ex-)politicians.
That does not mean that you won't ever get a custodial sentence - for crimes severe enough you surely will - but the benefit of having no prior record still applies to you.
Similarly, Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011: 11 years after what he did became known, 16 years after he left the Mairie de Paris. At which point, his mental and physical health was so poor he didn't even stand in trial.
Hard to say if this is good or bad. On the one hand, no one is above the law. But sending presidents to prison for anything short of murder is a really risky proposition, and an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption.
Presidents are humans like us. Make them at least a bit responsible for their choices when in power, and there might be more good in the world. If they are crooks (which many are), there is absolutely 0 reason why they shouldn't be punished same as everybody else.
Unless obviously you don't trust justice system at all. But even then the solution isn't to remove presidents from it, rather than fixing it.
1. The system may be used as a political weapon. I.e. the president may be used as a scapegoat for something, or be framed.
2. Fearing #1 or fearing legitimate prosecution, the president may try to illegitimately hold on to power.
Both definitely happen in various countries.
Actually, the French president enjoys immunity during his term.
So if you're a corrupt politician, managing to become president should be a "get out of jail free card"?
No the root problem is those people are not investigated often enough and manage to profit from their crimes for decades before being found "unfit for prison life". Any politician should be under scrutiny the day they get voted in. Stasi like but instead of checking the plebs, check those in power.
Yes. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows this via pardoning. Sending presidents to jail has rarely ever worked out well in history. It becomes an inherently political power struggle, and weaponizes the justice system for political purposes.
Anything short of cold blooded murder can be twisted and skewed into something either worse or not as bad as it actually is, depending on your political leaning. And like it or not, we have to share this country with 50% of the population who disagree with us politically. The alternative is disenfranchisement and civil unrest.
At the end of the day, up there in Washington, Mutually Assured Destruction prevails. Whatever you unleash on your opponents when in power, will be unleashed upon you when the winds change. In that situation, both Rs and Ds are better off only prosecuting outright murderers.
This isn't new, this was a problem already in Ancient Greece. Power and justice do not really mix well.
And, the fact that high enough politician gets away with everything is why the contemporary American politics have issues it has.
What reason?
1) Political debate can be thwarted by legal charges. Imagine if some of the politicians who supported Rosa Parks were indicted as co-conspirators in bus rule evasion. It's kind of a silly idea, but only because of tradition. The reality is that many people pushing for political change are asking for legal relief from laws. In other words, they want to do what's forbidden. That sounds like they want to break the laws.
2) It discourages people from leaving office because they're afraid they'll be jailed once they leave.
It so happens that not using buses was legal. In fact, even Rosa Parks was technically in the legal right to stay sit there - not that anyone cared (including her).
But, back then, being arrested or beaten was pretty normal for blacks when sitting in wrong place or refusing to stand. Black political players included - like Rosa Parks herself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...
Democracy is a tenuous proposition. It requires an overwhelming majority of the population to buy into the legitimacy of a government, and remain loyal to its' institutions. There's a reason Lincoln ordered not a single Confederate general or politician to be hung after the civil war. The long term strength of the union takes precedent over short term political vendettas.
But he is getting away without any (real) consequences. Being sentenced guilty without much punishment does exactly nothing to deter a politician from committing crimes, nor does it stop citizens from losing trust in their institutions.
Microsoft founder and multibillionaire Bill Gates said Wednesday that he “made a mistake” meeting with convicted sex criminal and wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein to discuss philanthropy.
Gates met with Epstein multiple times – including in 2013 while he was the chairman of Microsoft – years after the disgraced financier had struck a plea deal on prostitution related charges filed by Florida prosecutors in 2008.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/bill-gates-says-i-made-a-mis...
If you're curious about the kind of surreal scandals which happened 25 years ago, the helicopter affair is my favorite one (you'll have to scroll down to the 'controversial' section) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfla1
It's no surprise in this context that it took forever to sentence Jacques Chirac!
Things have been slowly changing over the past 10 years though, with popular opinion being less tolerant.
Not great but I'll take that.
If you're not high enough in a position of power but only halfway there, you might see a prison cell like Balkany but you just have to claim to have attempted suicide and say you're too old and you'll be let out[2]. Try being suicidal in the French prison system without having embezzled millions and I can guarantee it won't go that well for you. In Balkany's case, you can even dance in the streets and be recorded in perfect health afterwards and all will be well.
The only messages being given are that if you've made it to the top you can go to your death bed having done anything without seeing a prison cell, and if you've stolen millions in public funds you can just say you're frail and dance about your freedom in the streets[3] afterwards.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/world/europe/10iht-france...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/11/nicolas-sarkoz...
[2] https://fcced.com/fmr-french-mayor-jailed-money-laundering-r...
[3] https://ananova.news/paris-mayor-too-weak-for-jail-seen-danc...
In the case of Christine Lagarde this was actually made explicit. She was found guilty but not punished, because she was too important: "but given the circumstances, given the responsibilities that Ms. Lagarde had at the time — in 2008, we were in a major economic crisis — the court decided that it would not sentence Ms. Lagarde to anything" [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/business/imf-trial-christ...
Sarcozy took money from Gaddafi and literally bombed him after that. When France supposedly ran out of ammunition they start dropping concrete from planes over Libya. (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/fr...)
Plenty of people owed money to Gaddafi and when they couldn't repay it was time to dispose him off.
(If you don't know about how he is corrupted look-up for Alstom deal and the pre-campaign fundraising he ran on public funding while he was Minister)
From my perspective, the issue is that voters+press+justice never, ever, ever object (barring the occasional pol who belongs to the other party).
Born before Citizens United?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC