"The judges speak through their sentencing." The sober principle of law was thrown overboard, especially through the behavior of a single individual: Baltasar Garzon. His constant call for judges to acquire greater visibility in the media will be increasingly regretted, as the consequences of their nefarious call keep on warping the administration of justice.No journalist is chasing electricians, plumbers and carpenters to extract from them testimonials before, during and after their most recent contract; the same was intended with the judges, despite the clearly public impact of their actions. The judiciary in this way, kept a certain distance as a feature, which distinguished it from the legislative and executive branches. The most practical reason for this is that an improper word coming out of the mouth prior the sentencing can irredeemably contaminate the sentence. The judge can judge, but can not exercise prejudice.
So much so, that the mercenary hitmen and paramilitary instructor, the mercenary Yair Klein could beat the rap and avoid extradition to Colombia for one irresponsible declaration of then Veep Francisco Santos, which was skillfully exploited by the attorneys of the truly obscure figure, arguing that Klein had no chance to stand a fair trial in Colombia. Compare this now with the recurring actions of public officials such as the Nation’s Attorney General, which tenure can not be considered fully operational if she does not concede interviews and speaks constantly to the press. Or see how a magistrate condemns a military, and his ruling is inevitable tarnished by suspicion because early participation in election debates and his open militancy in a left-wing party, commonly characterized by its open hostility (justified or not) to the military.
It is impossible to think of impartial justice when there are indications of political ideology in the path of those who give a verdict.
All this bears the imprint of Baltasar Garzon, who many respect and admire, and can even forgive him again and again for his vanity and media-attention hungry demeanor, as he grabbed the bull by the horns (sorry, anti-bullfighting fellas) by prosecuting the dictator Augusto Pinochet and starting the investigation and prosecution of dusting Franquist crimes of the Spanish Civil War, even though the legal basis of his performances was at least controversial and its behavior, controversial.
No doubt the narcoterrorism, which decimated with brutality and cruelty our judiciary, made us turn around and recognize the courageous efforts of the judges (and journalists and politicians) who preferred the ultimate sacrifice rather than give in to the barbaric aggressors. This new visibility, caused by the debt of gratitude owed by John Q. Public, went straight to the heads of some magistrates, thinking this debt could be cashed at the polls. Alfonso Valdivieso, Jose Gregorio Hernandez, Carlos Gaviria and Jaime Araujo Renteria are just some of those who went first to participate in the administration of justice to then pursue a political career, irreversibly polluting and distorting their actions as judges and prosecutors.
Baltasar Garzon was also not immune to this, although his frustrated political career was undoubtedly the catalyst for his more controversial actions later, and convinced him that the courts were the proper environment for his spectacular actions, because in the legislature he had to pass through hundreds of colleagues, while a as judge could he act paradoxically almost without restraint, just as a dictator.
Arbitrarily and unruly.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I hate these days. People are telling you to STFU. Just say it, no matter how stupid or offensive it is.