OUR OPINION. “Incomprehension about the Reuzegom statement is understandable. Not a witch hunt” | Opinion

Judging the death of a 20-year-old student and the sentences for 18 young defendants deserves nuance. The trial and the subsequent judgment brought that in part. For example, nowhere did it appear that racism would have played a role in the death of Sanda Dia. There was no intention either: no one wanted his death. A judge can do nothing but take this into account. This was not a murder trial. Sanda Dia’s family didn’t see it that way either. You can discuss whether the court paid sufficient attention to other nuances. Similarly, the “guilty omission” aspect has not been retained. While reconstructions show that the Giant Gommers were already warned about his worrying condition before they dropped Sanda Dia in the baptismal well. Indeed, fish oil does not state that it is a toxic substance. But does that make it “ok” to pour gallons of it into someone’s mouth?

There is great indignation about the fact that the Reuzegommers do not even get a criminal record. And that anger is justified. It had ensured that there was not only a legal punishment, but also a moral condemnation. Employers could then still have individually decided to give the Reuzegommers a chance. But it seems to me – to put it mildly – not superfluous that you warn society before you ever give these people a managerial position. The rule of law is not doing well there. It has ensured that this process did not bring any refinement. It is seldom seen that dissatisfaction with a verdict smolders for so long.

It is important that that criticism is clear. But the answer cannot be to organize a witch hunt and take the law into your own hands. Sentences are handed down in a court of law, not on social media. Reuzegommers’ family members – who are not involved in the facts – are already being attacked. This goes so far that some even doubt whether they can continue their professional lives. Nor is that fair.

For this reason, among other reasons, the media are reluctant to mention the names of suspects or convicts at trials, or to portray them as recognisable. The same applies to HLN. In most court records you will therefore only read initials and see gridded photos. To deviate from that rule, we always take several factors into consideration – completely independently. Is it a matter of social importance? That is clearly the case here. But also the severity of the punishments. Because no effective prison sentences were handed down in this judgment, we have chosen not to mention full names or show photos in our articles. That principle is separate from the criticism that can be given to the judgment. We may struggle with the imperfections of our justice system, but true justice can never be won by anger and retaliation.