A JURY TRIAL purpose of the draft code amendment misdemeanor of Scioli. AGAINST
wanted to share with you a very good job found on the web where clearly explains the basics of why Scioli CODE NO.
The same is addressed by various social science professionals, which has different disciplines attempt to provide an explanation of the "insecurity" and pseudo-solutions that boast different agencies wanting to give punitive power.
Again, this is a clear example of selectivity criminalizing the most vulnerable and impunity for those who commit crimes that cause greater social harm.
ADVERTISING: new lay judges and an approach to trial by jury .-
Top INNOCENCE .-
"Nobody can be punished without trial based on law preceding the process. " This is a top of the CN set in art. 18. Requiring pretrial imposes the need for the existence of a judicial decision of a final sentence to apply a penalty on someone. In turn, a process necessary antecedent of this sentence and it must be the result of an impartial, allowing the defendant ample opportunity to defend freedom, to influence the opinion of the court with the limitations that the CN requires the prosecution (incoercibilidad body of the accused as evidence, the prohibition of multiple prosecutions and inviolability of domicile and written correspondence). The fundamental law is also a pre-sentencing procedure, that is, items that allow you to support your decision, applying the criminal law or ignoring it. This is another way that the CN assumes clause trial. Thus, our Supreme Court has referred to the principle of note, demanding the existence of four main features: prosecution, defense, trial and sentencing. has therefore been argued that the penal response is not immediate, but mediate the commission of a crime, through and after a regular procedure to verify the basis for a conviction. However, a cursory reading of the CN would lead us to say, falsely, that any trial for the mere fact of being established prior to the fact the process is a valid opinion. our Constitution, commands throughout the country make judgments ORAL , PUBLIC JURORS and , so that that will not fit with this, not a constitutional adjudication, in fact, no trial meets these requirements.
CN
When our concerns trial by jury means that the decision on whether a person should be subjected to punishment, is not only the will of the constitutional court, but the decision must be made by members of the same company, either through the system proposed by the classic or Anglo-Saxon model or the model that assumes the system jurors. But are not these lay judges - journalists - that the legislature had in view when he thought the institute trial by jury?; just how far is objective, complete, or neutral information conveyed by the media? We believe, like many of you who NO is what the legislature had in mind at the time of the enactment of the CN and the information conveyed by the media is biased, forming cutaway, with share more or less yellow. The result of this, daily practice shows that only by pressing the POWER observe a remote control, as these owners of knowledge, forming social views, talk about the rights and guarantees of persons under a process as a result of a breach of substantive law, setting aside or none which promotes the Constitution, in this case, they are not as guilty a person who is assigned to an offense, any that the degree of credibility of the complaint, until the State, through the courts set up to act out their will, not to say the final criminal sentence that declared guilty and subjected to a penalty. This is what is known as principle or state of innocence. It is undisputed that at present, are the media who collaborate in the task of publicly exposing acts of government, allowing the assessment by a significant group of people. Thus, in the words of Binder, "the public trial involves inserting a special way to justice in the social environment: it implies that it fulfills its task of conveying social messages on the effective application of the values \u200b\u200bthat underlie the coexistence." However, making effective publicity of the trial is somewhat difficult. This responsibility is, in part, the judiciary, as citizens are not aware of the conduct of trials and pregnant and wanting to go, it becomes difficult, because they are made in small rooms where a minimum number of people enough to fill them. is why the effect of televising should always be considered positive and not negative in the sense of ensuring that the participants act in a way to feel that their performance is subject to public exposure. Accordingly, you should not find reasons to justify the income from television to the courtroom, but in any case to justify why the TV should be excluded. conclude the post, we do not ignore the fact that we agree with the judicial process as an act of government is republican, should be public, open to direct and immediate knowledge of the general population, with advertising, faculty of the accused, and members of the community to control all the speakers who, in one way or another, decide the fate of the people governed, but without losing sight of the protection of the rights and guarantees person criminally prosecuted without the least, that advertising works through television or other media, not imposed or replace one that is able to witness the trial - once - but it is complementary.
No, we're so great, nor do we know so much, and we went on TV with the Constitution in hand after breakfast. Neither the Court decided (for now) to continue the position of Angela Ledesma on iura novit curia. The title has to do with the proposal that we at the end of the post. Below you will find fragments of an extraordinary appeal presented by a case of the pilot. While we cut him some arguments, the position still remains unclear. What drove this part of the appeal was the court's imposition of a penalty greater than that sought by the prosecution. While not specifically talk about the matching principle, we insist on the guarantees that are affected when it is violated, whether the facts in the legal (remember the impossibility of separating sharply facts and law) or even in the amount of penalty to impose.
When initiating a prosecution, the accused facing the state machinery in a highly unequal and unprotected position. To avoid this and ensure the "equality of arms" in criminal proceedings, from Article 18 of the CN and Articles 8.1 and 8.2 of the American Convention establishes the right of defense at trial.
is not the idea of \u200b\u200bthe post to make a brief description of it, which was discussed during the course of a masterly manner. Therefore, our intention from the outset, is to try to focus on an exact point of legal defense is a defense of the accused.
Citing Cafferatta Nores, defense technique is integrated with the business conducted by an attorney, for doing so, develop the defense strategy and propose tests, monitor and participate in production and in charge offered by the prosecutor, argued about its effectiveness convictional, will discuss the legal framework of the facts which can be attributed to his client and the penalty it seeks to impose, and may use interest. "
Now, a defense theory, it is perfect ... but what about in practice? Is it really as it should be? Would you say that the work of defenders officers, who are often clogged and causes are not enough to be able to control them all, actually meet with a defense when the accused does not have the purchasing power to afford a private attorney? Would you say that even private lawyers do their job effectively?
In the ruling, "Núñez" of the SCJ, matching arguments can not be ignored that idea. Among them, for example, is said to "take great precautions to ensure the full exercise of the right of defense. (...) Must be true, so that those who suffer a criminal proceeding must be provided with adequate advice legal, to end supplement their negligence in the provision of defense, ensuring, thus, the substantial reality of the defense at trial "
" While it is the duty of the technical assistance of the accused to establish that the defendant claims not appear, in his view minimally visible, this does not relieve them from making a serious study of the issues will eventually be eligible to pass through the relevant process, especially because it is an obligation that the company put in charge, can not be attributed the failure of defendants-which has been outside the institution-provided to ensure the exercise of their constitutional rights, the ownership holds only, and whose failure can lead to international responsibility of the Argentine state "
" The right of counsel must be true, so that whoever is to be provided with adequate legal advice to the extreme to ensure the reality substantial legal defense "
" is not enough representation by counsel, but, the latter should assist the accused in a REAL, TRUE AND PROPER "
"The inefficiency is not the content of the defense but the lack of possibility that the lawyer gave his client to participate in their strategy. "
therefore not always have formal representation by counsel involves a real defense of the person and rights, as stated by the constitutional mandate. The real defense at trial is guaranteed by an effective defense, without prejudice to the defense strategy of each (which is subject to a hopeless case mix).
On the other hand, omissions such as failing to offer evidence, not cross-examine witnesses, make a closing argument less than 1 minute in length and not weigh the evidence producidas en el debate son indicativas de una evidente falencia en la defensa técnica. Sin embargo, ello es así solamente si estos ejemplos se dan conjuntamente. No podríamos concluir que el hecho aislado de no interrogar determinados testigos sea signo de indefensión, ya que, por ejemplo, ante un sólido testimonio no parece razonable indagar porque podría resultar aún más perjudicial de lo que ya es. Además, al ser desconocida por todos la estrategia del defensor (o la falta de ella) solamente podemos hablar de defensa ineficaz ex post . Por lo tanto la solución de la nulidad se impondría.
Here are some examples of ineffective legal defense
