voor de rechtsorde schokkende karakter

15:54 May 30, 2013 

My point is that a murder as the one of Rigby recently in Woolwich (also premeditated and in the street, although not out of passion as the one we are talking of is) is not on the same level as rioting. Public Order offences are classed as rioting and such things which cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for his personal safety. Admittedly, the murder took place in the street, however unless the murderer made threats to the people around, it could not be deemed a POO. The CPS also says that aggravated public order offences that amount to assault for example are charged under assault, not under public order. The Act in itself never mentions even assault, only violence, harassment or distress.

14:50 May 30, 2013 

Ja, dat wilde ik er eigenlijk ook bij zeggen (plus dat ze allebei de talen goed zouden moeten beheersen) maar deed dat uiteindelijk niet. Ik wilde niet insinueren dat enkelen onder ons dat niet al waren.

14:43 May 30, 2013 

Dat zou zeker kunnen helpen.

Maar dan wel een jurist die ZOWEL bekend is met het Nederlandse ALS met het Angelsaksische recht op dit punt EN daarnaast een goede vertaler is.

Wat is het equivalent van 'geschokte rechtsorde' in het Angelsaksische recht?
Bestaat er zo'n equivalent?
En zo niet, wat komt er dan het dichtste bij?
etc.

14:25 May 30, 2013 

I think we need a lawyer.

14:13 May 30, 2013 

Ik zie dat dit gewoon een buitengewoon complexe, en daarom interessante, vraag is.

'geschokte rechtsorde' nodigt taalkundig volgens mij uit tot begripsverwarring.
Ik was benieuwd wat er uit de vraag zou komen (maar ik zie dat onze specialisten op dit gebied zich op de achtergrond houden).

Het probleem is niet zozeer dat wij er te veel in lezen, maar dat er heel veel in gelezen kan worden.

Het kan zo zijn dat 'constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law' in dit geval een geschikte oplossing is, maar in andere gevallen zou 'threat to legal order' van toepassing kunnen zijn, zie (dit houdt direct verband met 'voorlopige hechtenis'):

In the cases indicated in the points 1a and 1b, the use of fire arms is forbidden, if the identity of the person to be detained is known and if it may justly be accepted non-detention shall not result in an irreversible threat to legal order

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/4701

En in weer andere gevallen zouden nog andere oplossingen mogelijk kunnen zijn.

I have no problem with 'shocking nature of the offence' but with

'shocking ..... in the eyes of the law'

13:29 May 30, 2013 

I have a feeling that you are right.

I think we might actually be reading too much into the rather vague phrase 'geschokte rechtsorde' and that perhaps all of the answers given so far are more or less equally valid. If this is true then I rather like your 'constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law', which does have a better ring to it.

I did find a few (2 or so decent ones) references to support the use of 'the shocking nature of the offence', but as I said, I think your suggestion sounds better.

'Neither the shocking nature of the offence of which she had been convicted nor the extensive public interest in the case could deprive her of that protection.' (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N6m2ONz... )

'A child is treated with a greater understanding of the shocking nature of the offence and the complexity of the response to it.' (http://dspace.nmmu.ac.za:8080/jspui/bitstream/10948/1279/1/L... )

13:15 May 30, 2013 

ik vind dat ‘geschokt/schokkend’ indien enigszins mogelijk gekoppeld moet blijven aan rechtsorde, dus ook in de vertaling

een zijdelings probleem was de vertaalkeuze

‘shocking in the eyes of the law’
dat klinkt mij vreemd in de oren maar als jullie voorbeelden kunnen laten zien van een dergelijke formulering dan wil ik me wel laten overtuigen van het tegendeel

13:15 May 30, 2013 

Voor zover ik het kan bekijken:
Vindt het begrip 'geschokte rechtsorde' zijn oorsprong in artikel 67a (neem een kijkje):

http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/Wetboek van Strafvordering/...

daarin wordt 'geschokte rechtsorde' gekoppeld aan maatschappelijke veiligheid maar

2) het is een vaag begrip (zie reference sectie)

3) daarom is het misschien het beste de zaken van geval tot geval te bekijken. We hebben nu de exacte context.

Naar mijn mening geeft het in DIT geval aan: het betreft een zeer ernstig misdrijf (zo lees ik het)
Ik zie in dit geval niet zozeer dat er sprake is geweest van een 'geschokte samenleving' (het heeft de media (toevallig) niet bereikt) of dat de 'maatschappelijke veiligheid' in gevaar was - 2 zaken die nauw verband schijnen te houden met dit (vage) begrip geschokte rechtsorde.

om die reden leek mij een oplossing:

constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law

ik vind dit niet zonder meer een open deur, dat zit hem in het woordje 'serious': de rechters moeten vaak uit maken of de rechtsorde wel (serious) of niet (non-serious) is geschokt

vervolg boven

13:09 May 30, 2013 

Perhaps you can explain exactly what your basis is for saying that a crime of this nature cannot be classed as a public order offence.

12:37 May 30, 2013 

What would German law have to do with it? There wasn't room for 'at least', it seems. Dutch law says that murder, if that is the case here (it seems so), is punished with a lifelong prison sentence, or temporary one of maximum 30 years or fifth category fine. My point being that you cannot class any crime of this nature a public order offence, although it would seem the court appreciated that there must have been an element of passion, although the murder (judging by Barend's research) could be deemed premeditated in legal terms (argument and then getting the weapon, rather than having the weapon there and then and using it).

10:10 May 30, 2013 

As we know from Barend's entry, this is a premeditated murder and therefore a heinous crime of a shocking nature. Did you research Dutch, English or German law, by the way?

09:43 May 30, 2013 

this expression is used in the sense that it has violated (or shocked) the law. Which is a matter of course, as someone else has mentioned, because otherwise we wouldn't be in court. If the court wishes to express other things that are relevant to its sentencing, for example, the fact that there were children present, or that the crime was committed in a public place, or whatever else, this is mentioned after it.
Having done some research yesterday, 15 years in prison is voluntary manslaughter, therefore injuring someone knowing he/she could die as a result, but not with aforethought. According to the list of offences in the British Act, this is not a public order offence.
However, killings are always shocking and one for 15 years is particularly bad as it is the highest sentence you can get for this if you were not committing a robbery/murder. So I don't think shocking is out of place and the court/the legal system may well find something shocking. If it comes to sentencing, we are dealing with people, after all. I too have the impression that the word 'schokken' is used in a two-fold meaning, i.e. in the idea that the law has been violated (obvious) and in its colloquial meaning.

20:35 May 29, 2013 

too strong for this ambiguous term:

"Het vage en algemene begrip „geschokte rechtsorde‟ wordt volgens hem al snel vereenzelvigd met het „algemene rechtsgevoel‟ of "publieke verontwaardiging‟ (Barend's latest ref)

+ 'violate' is 'schenden' = not the same as 'schokken'

17:25 May 29, 2013 

I believe all they are saying in THIS specific case is that this 'delict' constitutes a very serious crime.
I don't observe strong links with a shocked public opinion/public outrage here nor strong links with a threat to legal order.

So perhaps it's best to use Jurlex's solution in this case:

... as well as the fact that this crime constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law.

I don't think emotion-based expressions like 'shocking nature of the offence' would fit into this context. (And can the law feel shocked, or see something as shocking? People can. The law does not qualify something as shocking.)

Apart from this, 'rechtsorde schokkende karakter van het delict' means that this crime fits into the category/meets the criterium of crimes/offences that 'de rechtsorde schokken'.
It's DOES NOT say that that the offence is 'schokkend' but that the offence 'de rechtsorde schokt/heeft geschokt/kan schokken'.

violated the rule of law

16:11 May 29, 2013 

De verdachte en het slachtoffer hebben tijdens het uitgaan ruzie gekregen, waarna de verdachte naar het bedrijfspand - gelegen in een woonwijk - toe is gereden en dit in brand heeft gestoken. Daarna is hij naar de woning van het slachtoffer gereden en heeft het slachtoffer op straat voor de woning doodgeschoten.

Het hof heeft bij het opleggen van de straf rekening gehouden met het onherstelbare leed dat de nabestaanden van het slachtoffer is aangedaan alsmede met het voor de rechtsorde schokkende karakter van het delict. Het hof heeft - in navolging van de rechtbank - een gevangenisstraf van 15 jaren opgelegd.

http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Den-Haag...

14:20 May 29, 2013 

can decide on a higher sentence, but this must ALWAYS be within the limits set by the law. If the law states rapist can incur a sentence of 1 year to 5 years, the maximum will be 5 years, whatever. Unless the defendant can be accused of additional crimes like manslaughter (because his victim died). Crimes that shake international rechtsorde can also be pursued in the Netherlands. You cannot call that 'international public order' as you are talking about genocide in these cases. Rechtsorde also seems to be translated as 'jurisdiction', 'rule of law' or just 'law', which is the best option here, IMO.
Manslaughter must already be pretty shocking for 15 years in prison.

13:51 May 29, 2013 

I believe that the sentence in question is clear in that the 'schokkende karakter' is 'voor de rechtsorde'. I don't think that this means that the offence is shocking (although it may indeed be so) in itself but that it constitutes a 'shock' to the public order (although of course I'm not suggesting such a literal translation) i.e. people behaving sensibly and rationally, and respecting others. Sometimes a crime may be given a longer prison sentence because of the media attention it has elicited and because the judge deems that there would be a public uprising should this person not be locked away for a considerable period of time. At the risk of looking as though I'm simply defending my answer, I don't think that you can turn "voor de rechtsorde schokkende karakter" into something that is BOTH shocking AND has implications for the public order, simply because then the text would have said "voor de schokkende karakter en [..]"

13:45 May 29, 2013 

I have often found that translation dictionaries (mainly the Dutch ones) are always very hasty. Therefore, look at the Dutch definition. Apart from its connotation of pain and grief (which you have here already through 'bereaved'), 'leed' also has a dimension of 'kwaad', i.e. sorrow/damage. I would rather opt for injury or damage, but harm seems to be OK too.
As to implications, I wouldn't know what the implications on public order would be, unless you are talking about a test case, but we are dealing with a Napoleonic system where such cases are rare if not non-existent.

13:36 May 29, 2013 

The shocking nature of the offense and its implications for the public order.

13:29 May 29, 2013 

I think you need to look at the compound not just a single word. 'Onherstelbaar leed' is translated with 'irreparable harm', which is a fixed legal term. As far as I know, irreparable sorrow (or grief) are not.

13:05 May 29, 2013 

I wouldn't use 'harm' as a translation of 'leed'. Sorrow or grief are closer.

http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken?pattern=leed&lang=ne

12:59 May 29, 2013 

and taking the text into consideration, this would have been something in the order of involuntary manslaughter, i.e. the victim has died (hence the bereaved family) due to something that happened which was not expected (say a stabbing/rape/robbery with death as an undesired consequence)and it is shocking. Imo, as a native speaker, I am with Michael and Natasha that shocking refers to the character/nature of the crime. Rechtsorde in this sense refers to the set of rules which the court/legal system must ensure are respected, i.e. society, but the public order in itself. IMO Michael is on the right track there. The rechtsorde can well be shaken, but I don't think that is meant here.

11:41 May 29, 2013 

between 'a public order offence' and 'causing a disruption or disturbance to public order' in my view. This is the list of offences deemed 'public order offences' in the UK: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/
They don't only cover those lobbing a stone at a riot but also encompass harassment, racial hatred, violence against the person etc. A particular crime could be deemed to pose a risk to the public for many reasons, not just because they might be hit by the stone that has been lobbed :)

11:40 May 29, 2013 

Apparently 'public disorder' can mean both 'geschokte rechtsorde' and 'verstoring openbare orde' which makes it ambiguous.

The way the nature of the crime is phrased in asker's text seems to imply more emphasis on the 'schokkende karakter' (for society) part than on the 'rechtsorde', but technically 'public disorder' seems to be the correct translation according to refs (even though it sounds a bit odd to me).

11:22 May 29, 2013 

... but disturbing the public order and a crime attracting a 15 year sentence and "inflicting irreparable harm upon a bereaved family" are two very different things.

11:18 May 29, 2013 

Thank you for your input Waird.
I agree with you that there has to be made a choice here. This is the 'loss and gain' we translators have to deal with. Either you focus on the 'shocking nature of the crime' and ignore the 'rechtsorde' part or you interpret 'voor de rechtsorde schokkende karakter' as 'geschokte rechtsorde' which does translate (according to several reliable sources) as 'public disorder'.

11:11 May 29, 2013 

met het voor de rechtsorde schokkende karakter van het delict

along with the ref provided by Marie-Helene

De door het Europese Hof genoemde "public disorder" krijgt in de Nederlandse wet gestalte in de "geschokte rechtsorde".
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=AU8131

backs Asker's choice imo

10:58 May 29, 2013 

Strongly disagree with your choice, we are well beyond a disturbance of public order here. This a a crime attracting 15 years in jail, not the lobbing of a stone during a riot.

10:44 May 29, 2013 

Thank you for your kind and comprehensive answers. It was indeed 'public order' i.e. society (and not legal order i.e. the legal system). After reading up a little on 'public order' related offenses, it turn out that the apt legal term for 'geschokte rechtsorde' is 'disturbed public order'. Based on this, I have revised my initial translation as follows: In passing judgment, the Court of Appeal considered the irreparable harm inflicted upon the victim's family and loved ones as well as the disturbance to public order caused by the said offense.

07:29 May 29, 2013 

"geschokte rechtsorde (de 'rechtsorde', dat wil zeggen de maatschappij/samenleving, is geschokt door de ernst van het feit, bijvoorbeeld verkrachting of moord. Op dit soort feiten is vaak een gevangenisstraf gesteld van 12 jaar of meer)."

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbewaringstellen