The sentencing of Dominique Pelicot to 20 years in prison for the horrific abuse of his wife, Gisèle Pelicot, may appear to be a landmark decision at first glance. However, the leniency shown towards the other perpetrators raises critical questions about the equity of justice in cases of gender-based violence.
The fact that several of the accused received mere three-year sentences, with some allowed to serve their time under electronic surveillance at home, has sparked outrage. Six of these men walking free just before Christmas—thanks to reduced sentences due to pre-trial detention—feels like a mockery of the gravity of the crime committed.
This decision has left Gisèle’s children and activists reeling. Their calls of “Shame! Justice!” echo the collective disillusionment of a society increasingly wary of legal systems that fail to prioritize survivors' pain over procedural leniency.
While Dominique’s sentencing signals some accountability, the disparity in punishments underscores a troubling message: the justice system still struggles to adequately address the systemic devaluation of survivors’ trauma. As Gisèle’s children poignantly stated, “These sentences are too low.” Indeed, they raise a critical question: How can justice truly be served when some of the guilty are allowed to walk free?
The case highlights the urgent need for reform—not only in sentencing guidelines but also in the broader societal understanding of justice for survivors of abuse. It is time to ensure that justice isn’t just partially delivered but fully served.
