The jury, is an attempt to make the city part of the legal, and thus permissible under the present democratic conditions in other public bodies. is a step towards full judicial independence.
If you try from a purely political angle, may not have debated the figure of the jury is at root a political decision, the constitution clearly supports article 125, though, it could be discussed if it involves the stimulation of justice, since it does not seem politicization more natural state of it. His detractors argue that it is an expensive process that does not correspond to its effectiveness.
However, treated from an ethical perspective, doubts and contradictions loom even unintentionally. The thought of having to judge another human being, I am overwhelmed. Needless to say, I do not feel qualified to evaluate about events outside the aesthetic content, sentimental, social and even poetic, that the person responsible for them can get to transmit ...
In law, consistent distance between the accused and their judges, should be not only a legal obligation but also an objective necessity. Suddenly the allegorical image of blindfolded justice, seems to be long gone. Now justice has eyes, eighteen to be exact, nine hearts with different beats, nine lives with different experiences, with different concerns, different views, faiths and realities ... nine beings human, full of frustration, sorrow, grief, joy, and dreams. Nine citizens who have, nevertheless, to agree. Do they know their eyes, to judge the scope of all these elements adjacent?
Would you know, I stay out of my mind, my unyielding idea that man is good by nature? To what extent the facts before an image can fade this, crying or not, with their own life? How the words of a prosecutor or defense counsel, could distract from these facts, and make me see what the facts show? Would you say that the truth this just in the facts?
Thanks to the jury, referred to mitigating the law or even emerging. Are reasons and "whys" that justice not even looking. But are these findings accurate?
In the brief experience with juries in our country, the results are somewhat disappointing, in many cases, it actually has a legal response diametrically opposed on the basis that the cause of failure a court of law or the Court of the Jury, which I find somewhat disturbing.
Cases like Laffage Nagore, in which a people's court declares the murderer Yllanes, author of a homicide and not murder as requested by the family and the prosecutor, varying greatly Codena, or Jacobo Pineiro accused and acquitted by a jury of 57 tips causing the stabbing deaths of two gay or Dolores Vázquez, a jury convicted and later acquitted by the High Court, ruling after the Supreme ratify, or next, the Pilar Marcos, acquitted by a people's court of homicide charges against the figure of her husband of 77 years are clearly outrageous verdicts, not by the human background dragging and surely the law must take into account, but the reality behind them. Wrongful acts undertaken not by an organism that can be investigated, refuted and limited in its powers, but by a group of citizens who most believe in the facts, believe in feelings, not bad, but, as we see, not always fair.
I like the idea of \u200b\u200bbeing able to see beyond the facts, but I am afraid that what you see is not right. As in all fields leads us to the professionalism and preparation, the jury, layman, is responsible for giving a heart the law and to godly justice, but the law is a simple tool, and justice, human aspiration.
The Cesar feel comfortable, I feel it is necessary to maintain the balance between good and evil, and desperately seeking commissioners to do so.
AMG
0 comments:
Post a Comment