A drunk driver who killed a bicyclist received two years and eight months with suspension, and the case sparked public anger. In parallel, an older decision, from 2015, brought back in public debate, regarding the conviction with suspension of an adult accused of sexual abuse of a minor, has rejected the same question: what does Romania learn from the sentences that seem to hurt the victims a second?
August 2025. The Braila Court sentenced a driver to two years and eight months in prison with suspension for guilty murder and leaving the accident site. Following the incident, a bicyclist, hit during the morning, died after two weeks at the hospital. The sentence is not final.
In this context, another case was brought back to the public’s attention: it is a sentence given in 2015, when the Bucharest Court of Appeal decided a suspended sentence for an adult accused of sexual abuse on a minor.
For public opinion, these sentences seem rather a protection of aggressors than a repair for victims.
The anger of the public: “The perfect crime in Romania is behind the wheel”
On Reddit, he discussed intensely after the press reported the two cases. Many users have considered the punishments “an insult to the victims” and a clear signal that in Romania the law can be violated without real consequences.
“To kill someone by car in Romania is a perfect crime. For a few years with suspension you can kill anyone by car. It is important to see Write a commentator.
Another resume the facts in the case of Braila: “You get an accident. Run away from the accident site. You are drunk. The victim dies (properly equipped!). Mind the investigators. You take two years and eight months with suspension.”
In the case of sexual abuse of a minor, indignation was even stronger: “We have a case of repeated rape committed by an adult on a minor. If for this cumulation of circumstances, the minimum punishment is given, I wonder what you have to do to take 3, or 4 years?”, asks another user.
Another comment accuses the lack of protection for the victims: “The decision is so stubborn that the judge probably justified by the fact that it was the victim’s fault. This child, mocked and left with deep traces, goes home with the thought that he is guilty.”
Sentences are perceived by the public right “A bad joke” and “A double trauma” for the victims. This perception is also linked to the general distrust in institutions: “We have no justice. Better without, than with that ”, write someone.
Ruxandra Vișoiu: “The problem is also in the legislation”
Lawyer Ruxandra Vișoiu explains that the big differences between the pronounced punishments have two main cases: the different interpretations of the judges and the limits established by the Criminal Code.
“The judges decide differently from case to case and because each time the full will be another. You can have the same crime and be judged by different completes. The judges have different opinions regarding the degree of danger of the deed and the individual. And then different decisions are made.” says Vișoiu.
She emphasizes that magistrates are linked to the limits provided by law: “If I have certain limits in the Criminal Code, I cannot give six months, if the crime is punished between one year and three years.” The problem, she adds, is that “Some offenses in the Criminal Code have quite low limits.”
The lawyer also makes a clear distinction between the facts of guilt and those with intent: “In the case of the driver stick it was a fault. We should not get drunk at the wheel, but if you give someone without intent, it is natural to have the possibility of suspension. Instead, an abuse of a minor was not guilty, but with intent. Here the penalties too small transmit a wrong signal.”
For Vișoiu, the stake is double: the punishment of the aggressor and the message transmitted to the company. “If the consequences are too small, what signal do we convey? We send the idea that we can violate the law without problems and take into account prison with suspension. The suspension is useful when we only want to warn, but in very serious cases it has nothing to do.”
The question that remains is what Romania learns from these cases. If the sentences remain small, the society risks losing their confidence not only in judges, but also in legislation.
