interview
“This is fucked.” Youtuber Acid is not the only one who is angry about the one-year suspended prison sentence that actor Nicolas Caeyers received for sexual offenses with minors. “Yet the judge was quite strict in her reasoning,” says Sanne De Clerck, a lawyer specialized in sexual offenses.
Acid is not lenient with the punishment that actor Nicolas Caeyers received, in his opinion, for the rape and sexual assault of two underage boys and the sexual assault of a third minor. “What does that mean? Nothing! You raped two boys, aged 13 and 15, and you shouldn’t go to jail unless you do it again.”
Acid is not alone in his outrage. On
“I also notice that there is a lot of outrage and surprise,” says Sanne De Clerck, who specializes in sexual offenses as a lawyer, but is not involved in this case. “The fact that the hearing took place behind closed doors may fuel speculation that there are cases that were not allowed to see the light of day and that the judges quickly got rid of them. In reality, judges in sexual offense cases often talk to the perpetrator for a long time behind closed doors in order to make a correct assessment of the person they have to judge. I note that the prosecutor in this case only demanded two years. That may seem mild, but you have to remember that he does so with a lot of knowledge of the matter and of the file.”
The case was heard in the criminal court of Leuven, by a chamber specialized in sexual offenses. Three judges jointly passed the verdict. They took into account the risk assessment drawn up by a court expert. Such an assessment of the short- and long-term risks is common in sexual offense cases. “Many elements play a role in the suspended sentence. Caeyers has acknowledged the facts, he has respected the contact ban, a lot of time has passed since the facts and he voluntarily entered into treatment,” says Sanne Laukens, press judge at the court of Leuven.
The fact that Caeyers should not go to jail is met with incomprehension. Yet you call it a severe punishment. Why?
De Clerck: “The judge explicitly states that Caeyers has abused his celebrity. The judge did indeed give a prison sentence, albeit a conditional one. Caeyers may not commit any wrongdoing for five years – five years is the maximum period for imposing conditions. These conditions are also quite strict – for example, he must be prepared to have his computer or telephone read at any time. The question is always: what is a punishment for? What do we want to achieve? Are we looking for revenge and retaliation, or do we want a safe society? In this case, many guarantees appear to be built in to protect society.”
How reliable is such a risk assessment by a legal psychologist or psychiatrist? How can we be sure that Caeyers has become a different person, as he claims?
“Such an assessment cannot provide complete certainty, but in my experience it is a solid instrument. The reports are very extensive, with estimates based on various scientifically based instruments. You should not underestimate the expertise of a forensic psychologist and psychiatrist. These people know how to distinguish between false and genuine sense of guilt. I have actually seen reports in which the conclusion is: ‘seems to be mainly sorry for himself’.”
The verdict seems to be at odds with the spirit of the times, in which people are much more critical of, for example, the years of abuse of children in the church.
“A deterrent effect can be a purpose of punishment, but this should not be overestimated. We know from research that potential perpetrators of sexual offenses are not stopped by examples. If you want to prevent potential perpetrators from actually committing crimes, you must mainly focus on prevention. People who struggle with feelings of pedophilia, for example, should be able to seek help.”
