Abedslam - the suicide bomber who didn't

[Jacob]

So the brief article I saw says that Abdeslam was an ISIS suicide bomber participating in the terror attack in Paris in 2015 (130 dead, 368 wounded), but that when his moment came he did not actually detonate his bomb. His case is presently before the court, where the prosecution (or however it works in the French justice system) want to imprison him for life.

For his part, Abedslam claims that he had a change of heart. He decided that he did not want to detonate his bomb, and so he didn't. Furthermore, he says that by imprisoning him for life it will encourage future potential suicide bombers to blow themselves up, even if they have second thoughts, since they'll get life in prison anyways.

Two questions:

1) What do you think of his argument, and of the general case of someone about to commit a terror action but then deciding against in the last moment?

2) Do any of our French speakers (or others) have more insight into the case, and the discourse in France in general?

[mongers]

His 'moral defence' fails unless he can show/prove that he attempted to stop the whole terrorist attack.
Otherwise he went along with everything and then suddenly decided he didn't want to loose his life.

[The Brain]

I don't think terrorist attacks are inherently different from other crimes, so the normal way people in that situation get treated by the law seems fine to me.

[Sheilbh]

I think it varies.

But mongers point is right, I think. If it's a lone wolf style attack and someone has a change of heart, we would never know. They wouldn't be punished because they wouldn't have been caught. If at a later point they are identified as someone who'd made a plan and taken steps to prepare for it then I think it does matter.

In this case the reason we know is because it was part of a wider attack planned with others. He participated in that up to the moment of detonation when he stopped - whatever his personal acts he helped enable the other attackers. Whether it was just moral support in the run up to the attack, inspiration or actually materially helping get the weapons. I'm not sure on the legal position - but I think someone who is that involved in a plot probably should have a life sentence. And I don't think pulling away at the last minute mitigates the rest very much.

[Josquius]

Technically it does sound like he is entitled for a lesser sentence for not killing anyone himself.
But being involved in the plot which killed so many... That will already put him on many life sentences I would assume so makes little difference.

[crazy canuck]

It would be interesting to know what the relevant provisions of the French Code have to say about mitigating factors.

[Oexmelin]

It would be interesting to know what the relevant provisions of the French Code have to say about mitigating factors.

Very little, AFAIK. The French penal code indexes crime to maximal punishment. Mitigating factors have been eliminated from the penal code, and are left to the appreciation of the judge. One big exception is precisely when someone committing a crime, or about to commit a crime, does have a change of heart... but it usually is a factor if said change of heart has been followed by a denunciation, a surrender, or an actual act that prevented the crime from either being committed in the first place, or that allowed it to stop.

Article 132-78

La personne qui a tenté de commettre un crime ou un délit est, dans les cas prévus par la loi, exempte de peine si, ayant averti l'autorité administrative ou judiciaire, elle a permis d'éviter la réalisation de l'infraction et, le cas échéant, d'identifier les autres auteurs ou complices.

Dans les cas prévus par la loi, la durée de la peine privative de liberté encourue par une personne ayant commis un crime ou un délit est réduite si, ayant averti l'autorité administrative ou judiciaire, elle a permis de faire cesser l'infraction, d'éviter que l'infraction ne produise un dommage ou d'identifier les autres auteurs ou complices.

Les dispositions de l'alinéa précédent sont également applicables lorsque la personne a permis soit d'éviter la réalisation d'une infraction connexe de même nature que le crime ou le délit pour lequel elle était poursuivie, soit de faire cesser une telle infraction, d'éviter qu'elle ne produise un dommage ou d'en identifier les auteurs ou complices.

Aucune condamnation ne peut être prononcée sur le seul fondement de déclarations émanant de personnes ayant fait l'objet des dispositions du présent article.

[grumbler]

In US law, as I understand it, he'd be an accessory to murder and guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, but not guilty of murder.  Normally, as I understand it, accessory and conspiracy don't carry life sentences.  I think a stiff but not life sentence would be appropriate here.

[crazy canuck]

It would be interesting to know what the relevant provisions of the French Code have to say about mitigating factors.

Very little, AFAIK. The French penal code indexes crime to maximal punishment. Mitigating factors have been eliminated from the penal code, and are left to the appreciation of the judge. One big exception is precisely when someone committing a crime, or about to commit a crime, does have a change of heart... but it usually is a factor if said change of heart has been followed by a denunciation, a surrender, or an actual act that prevented the crime from either being committed in the first place, or that allowed it to stop.

Article 132-78

La personne qui a tenté de commettre un crime ou un délit est, dans les cas prévus par la loi, exempte de peine si, ayant averti l'autorité administrative ou judiciaire, elle a permis d'éviter la réalisation de l'infraction et, le cas échéant, d'identifier les autres auteurs ou complices.

Dans les cas prévus par la loi, la durée de la peine privative de liberté encourue par une personne ayant commis un crime ou un délit est réduite si, ayant averti l'autorité administrative ou judiciaire, elle a permis de faire cesser l'infraction, d'éviter que l'infraction ne produise un dommage ou d'identifier les autres auteurs ou complices.

Les dispositions de l'alinéa précédent sont également applicables lorsque la personne a permis soit d'éviter la réalisation d'une infraction connexe de même nature que le crime ou le délit pour lequel elle était poursuivie, soit de faire cesser une telle infraction, d'éviter qu'elle ne produise un dommage ou d'en identifier les auteurs ou complices.

Aucune condamnation ne peut être prononcée sur le seul fondement de déclarations émanant de personnes ayant fait l'objet des dispositions du présent article.

Many thanks, so it appears that an act of self preservation, standing alone, would not mean that much.

[Oexmelin]

That's my sense of it, with the caveat that judges in France seem to have a lot of leeway in sentencing.

[Admiral Yi]

That law seems reasonable to me.

You get a break if you turn in your buddies, not if you go grab a kebab.

[Sheilbh]

That's my sense of it, with the caveat that judges in France seem to have a lot of leeway in sentencing.

Based on Engrenages, they have a lot of lee-way generally

[DGuller]

I'm a believer in gradation of punishments, for pragmatic reasons.  If the perpetrator chose to act in a less damaging way to society than possible, they should get a less severe punishment than possible.  I don't see the point of encouraging people to go max casualty route as soon as they cross some line where a higher punishment isn't possible.

[viper37]

So the brief article I saw says that Abdeslam was an ISIS suicide bomber participating in the terror attack in Paris in 2015 (130 dead, 368 wounded), but that when his moment came he did not actually detonate his bomb. His case is presently before the court, where the prosecution (or however it works in the French justice system) want to imprison him for life.

For his part, Abedslam claims that he had a change of heart. He decided that he did not want to detonate his bomb, and so he didn't. Furthermore, he says that by imprisoning him for life it will encourage future potential suicide bombers to blow themselves up, even if they have second thoughts, since they'll get life in prison anyways.

Two questions:

1) What do you think of his argument, and of the general case of someone about to commit a terror action but then deciding against in the last moment?

2) Do any of our French speakers (or others) have more insight into the case, and the discourse in France in general?

Well, he did not surrender himself.  He did not turn in his companions.  He did not provide helpful testimony to the investigation, afaik.

I'm a little torn here; That may not deserve life in prison without parole, but it's certainly in the range of 15-20 years.  So maybe something like 25 years with parole on 2/3 of sentence, if good behavior and repentance.

Just like Brain said, like any other crime, he planned it and at the last moment didn't do it, but did nothing to stop the others involved.  So, it's like a mafia hit where 3 guys are involved, but only two would shoot the target.  What would be the charges for the 3rd one?  Attempted murder?