After the National Council, the Council of States also decided today that there should be lighter penalties for speeders. Willi Wismer from the Road Cross Foundation is critical of the easing in the so-called speed article.
SRF News: Why are you against the proposed easing in the Raser article?
Willi Wismer: The population is behind the Raserartikel, we found that in a survey. From this point of view it is not understandable why it should be loosened. And the examples given are far-fetched.
Legend:
The minimum penalties for frenzy should have a deterrent effect, Willi Wismer believes.
key stone
The courts should be given discretion in determining penalties. Isn’t discretion a good thing per se?
That discretion already exists. In the case of speeding items, intent must be proven. If there is no intent, there is no need to judge by the speeding article.
National Councilor Matthias Bregy gave the example of a man who drove his wife, who was in labour, to the hospital too quickly. He should not be punished as severely as someone who races a tuned car. Don’t you see the difference?
This example is far-fetched. Who drives through an inner-city area at 100 km/h and more? Because only then would the facts of frenzy be fulfilled. Apart from that: where does this man in example get the competence from?
The example of labor pains is far-fetched: the father-to-be has neither blue lights nor a horn and wants to race through a town at a massively increased speed?
He has neither flashing lights nor a horn and wants to race through a town at massively overdriven speed? Out of town it would have to be 140 km/h. No, that doesn’t just happen.
What bothers you more about these relaxations, that this minimum prison sentence should be abolished, or that you can get your ticket back more quickly?
It’s both. In the end, a speeder is treated almost the same as if you accidentally drove too fast. By “accidentally” I mean that you sometimes overlook a panel. It can happen.
We cannot explain it: 17 lives are saved. Now you change something, but the human life remains as it is?
In a 2016 evaluation, the Federal Road Traffic Office came to the conclusion that the speed article saves around 17 lives a year. The Federal Council is now saying that a shorter minimum sentence would not change that. Why do you come to a different conclusion?
We cannot explain it: 17 lives are saved. Now you change something, but the human life remains as it is? We clearly believe that the law has a deterrent effect. It probably has no effect on notorious speed drivers, we are aware of that, because you probably can’t scare them off.
With the change in the law, one could go all the way back to federal court to confirm that it was not malicious and not intentional.
But for someone jokingly speeding, it has a deterrent effect. This person tells themselves it’s not worth it for them; he or she does not want to go to jail or give up the ticket for two years.
The counter-argument is that the maximum sentence of four years’ imprisonment would remain and the suspension of a driver’s license would still take a year. Wouldn’t that have a deterrent effect?
Yes, but there is again scope for legal practice. One could go all the way back to federal court for confirmation that it was not malicious and not intentional. This possibility does not exist today because it is already clear what the minimum penalty is. With a weakening, this would no longer be the case.
Isabelle Maissen conducted the interview.