"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.
Roberto Martinez - Santiago Ferre
0 comments:
Post a Comment