G.Vogel: Incompressible punishment!

Image parIchigo121212 de Pixabay




I read the text that Nadine Gautier devoted to recent events in the cruel Dutroux dossier.

You are a thousand times right to show your disgust and your anger.

In the 1980s and 2000s, Luxembourg experienced 2 criminal cases of exceptional gravity, perpetrated successively by one and the same person.

The first on 07.06.1983 and the second on 24.02.2004 – the worse of the two, committed after the character was, following a benevolent and unspeakable appreciation of the S.C.A.S., put on penal leave.



Here are the episodes of this scandal that would not have taken place, if the legislator had introduced into the Penal Code, the incompressibility at 30 years of a life sentence.


We must constantly remind ourselves of this dossier full of lessons of all kinds.




This full file will have to be constantly reminded On June 7, 1983, he axed a math teacher.

On March 18, 1986, he was sentenced to eighteen years of forced labor. Little for such horror.

However, the expert psychiatrist had predicted a bleak future for him. It is not amendable, he had said at the helm of the Court of Assizes.



On June 2, 1987, he was already given a two-year sentence reduction.

On June 16, 1991, he left Schrassig and went to plant cabbages in Givenich.

From December 1991, he will be regularly on prison leave.

He was granted day parole in September 1993.

On August 1, 1995, he was granted parole.

He never underwent any therapeutic treatment.


On July 13, 1998, the Central Social Assistance Service (S.C.A.S.) intervened with the Delegate of the Public Prosecutor to obtain in his favor a reduction in the period provided for in article 100 of the Criminal Code.


Cases. writes: “The complainant is completely satisfied … he has made quite a bit of progress during the ten years that he has been followed by his probation officer.

In our opinion, the progress of the person concerned is excellent. “




In our opinion, the evolution of the person concerned is Once released he will excel in recidivism.

A first case broke out on February 1, 2001. He seriously injured a young woman. At first, the case was dismissed due to doubt. It was August 16, 2004.

On October 9, 2006, the Ombudsman contacted the State Prosecutor to inform him of his complete “misunderstanding” of the classification decision.

The same day, the Public Prosecutor’s Office takes over the file. It will take until 2008 to see a correctional court sentence him to three years of detention. Excellent. ”



A similar case will take place on July 17, 2001.

It was only by happy coincidence that the victim threatened by Mr. with a butcher’s knife escaped in time. For want of a body, he would lacerate the sofa. The case appears before the criminal court.


Verdict: Three months suspended prison sentence on the grounds that “he does not seem unworthy of the court’s indulgence.”


The stay was nothing more than an aberration in the presence of a record of a forced labor sentence. The law simply prohibits it in such circumstances.

An unforgivable odd who should have known serious disciplinary sanctions..




M., to whom the S.C.A.S. had certified an excellent evolution, on 24 February 2004, a young woman was killed by repeatedly stabbing her in the throat and chest.


He then cut it out with a saw in a bathtub. We will find the remains distributed in four plastic bags somewhere in the Leudelange forest.



Driven by a remnant of humanity, M. called the police station on Glesener Street on September 12, 2006 and denounced himself as a murderer.

He had a policewoman on the phone who received him coldly, making him understand that he would be at the wrong address; that he should address himself to the Research Section, while specifying, like a perfect apparatchik, that it would be 5:00 pm anyway and that the offices would no longer receive complaints or self-denunciations!

The next day, September 13, 2006, M. still in shock from this unexpected reaction, planted himself in the Research Section at around 9 am.

Instead of handcuffing him, he was asked to have a drink in the local bistro. We would be busy on another file.

M., bewildered, did not run away.




Its excellent evolution would end in perpetuity.





We bet it will be out soon. Once again, he will have found himself a probator to certify him an excellent development.

Who will then be his third victim?

This is how things sometimes go to court.

And sometimes it’s howling with anger and throwing up.

On October 31, 2019



Gaston VOGEL



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here