For American readers the following may be hard to believe: someone intentionally puts five bullets into another person, walks way, gets caught, confesses and ends up being sentenced to 18 years in prison which after a standard parole nets a result of 12 years in prison. It was indeed also hard to believe for the district attorney that prosecuted the murderer of Pim Fortuyn and it was no surprise that the prosecution team filed an appeal against this ridiculous sentence. Not only was this a premeditated and cold-blooded murder, it severely disrupted the democratic process in The Netherlands given the fact that the murder took place 9 days before a general election in which the assassinated Fortuyn and his followers stood a very good chance to become the largest party in Dutch parliament, with Fortuyn as Prime-Minister. The appeals process started last week and as I promised earlier I would report on the developments during the appeals phase.

Although I have left The Netherlands a long time ago, the Fortuyn case has kept me pre-occupied as he represented that unique political stream that is now labeled “Libertarian-Right”. I have told you about the background of Pim’s rise to political success in Fortuyn’s Case and have also spent time reflecting on feelings twelve months after his murder and his lasting impact on Dutch politics. The subject brought out some reader response, which I addressed carefully. Also, I followed the trial here and here, and the resulting sentence, which included some background as to why sentencing in The Netherlands is so incredibly light.

Last week's appeals process consequently focused on the light sentence and the new prosecutor - like her predecessor during the first trial - making a case as to why environmental activist Volkert Van der Graaf should deserve life in prison. It is interesting that during the appeals phase three things happened. First, the mental capabilities of Van der Graaf were explored to an extent that did not occur during the initial trial. It was argued that he suffered from a disease linked to autism which to some extent would have exonerated him from what he did, but that would open the route to add a common feature to a sentence for violent criminals, which is that after his sentence he could be kept incarcerated until such time that a team of government psychiatrists would declare him cured. This is a dangerous course. Many disturbed delinquents have managed to get out of prison and mandatory treatment, convincing those who were treating them that they had been cured and were able to navigate in the free world again, which very often was not the case. It remains to be seen how the judges will weigh this aspect in their new sentence. Secondly, Van der Graaf for the first time showed serious remorse over what he did. This may very well result from the fact that he is now once again exposed to sentencing and a sentence that could well land him in jail for the rest of his natural life. And finally, the prosecution argued that Van der Graaf acted not so much out of compassion for those who he felt were threatened by Fortuyn’s proposed policies, but that Van der Graaf was jealous of and disgusted by the eloquent and charismatic politician. The killer and Fortuyn had a lot in common: intelligence, ambition and a measure of inflexibility but Fortuyn had been able to translate that into a successful career as a professor, writer, businessman and finally a politician, whereas Van der Graaf was a marginal figure who had achieved very little compared to Fortuyn. For the murderer to show his strength, he had to get rid of Fortuyn, or so the argument went.

Needless to say, the defense team (consisting of lawyers who in the past have acted for other left-wing terrorists) argued that the murder of Fortuyn should be treated like any other. Given the publicity and extreme security regimen Van der Graaf was placed under they have asked for a reduction of the sentence.

The requirement for justice for Pim Fortuyn is evident, yet the issue is more than just his tragic death and the person responsible for it. The Dutch criminal justice system is now being tested and it remains to be seen if it can effectively deal with political violence that has deathly consequences. My bet is that it is not equipped for that as the Dutch justice system in general has had a very hard time dealing with the consequences of an increasingly violent society. Pim had very little time for government interference and passionately believed in personal freedoms, but one of the basic duties of government was, as he mentioned in a radio interview a few minutes before he was shot, was to provide safety for its citizens. Absent that safety, there should be justice.

The court will issue its ruling on July 18.