"The first reason:
lawyers suffer from their role as experts hired ; not like this part of the figure of a man, a supporter of vested interests, to be prevail even if unfounded, they are uncomfortable, especially if they are valuable people, when they have to argue that they first know how to be unfounded; schizophrenia suffer from this legal for which, as citizens (and even more as technicians of the law) are aware of the guilt of their client and how lawyers should hide it, trying to obtain a ruling that, first, know to be unjust. And, in this situation, feel the handicap of having to face a subject, the PM, which has no such problems , which can support in good faith (which is not to say with good reason) any claim that has the freedom of intellectual consistency that they can not afford. Hence the need to belittle their opponent to reduce it to something like them, to force a partisan role opposite to them, you accuse, I defend, and may the best win.
In short, the process as a competitive sport, with a referee, the judge, who needs only to observe that the rules of the game are fulfilled, and will decide which of two contenders has scored more points. But of course the process is not a football game. Criminal responsibility can not be the result of a competition to see who is better, prosecutor or defense counsel. The process (okay, what really guarantees the citizen, not the so-called due process in our politicians straparlano) requires a preliminary investigation into serious and objective, an investigator who has no prejudices, a PM ready to change their minds to every moment, a collaborator of the Judge in ascertaining the truth. It also needs a defender that stimulates the PM, the torture, forced him to investigate, not to overlook anything, to investigate to the end: why condemn a person is a serious matter, and need to be sure (how can you ever in this world and not live in the divine).
But this, as I said, it's really pleasing to the lawyers.
The second reason:
If the prosecutor is no longer a law but a part, as any lawyer, you must have an employer, just as a lawyer . And who is this employer? But the state, of course, just as in most other Western countries. And what does the employer? Sort. Establishes what the employee must do and what not to do, as it must do, when you have to do, to what extent he must do. And what will this PM under the orders of the State (ie government, who "manages" the State is the executive body)? Will the processes that the government allows him to do, will do the processes that the government does not want to be made . Worse, sometimes he'll have to do jobs that the government ordered him to do. Metaphors aside, will the processes for robbery, murder and drug dealing, in short, those that do not affect the ruling class, and instead, to remain in the news recently, not make the trials Mastella and his friends and cons of Turkish and good company; or of course those against Berlusconi . And perhaps he'll also do some trial against a political opponent of the majority and the government.
Perhaps if people knew what really means the "separation of careers" would have a clearer picture of how the political class understands the art. 3 of the Constitution that says that all citizens are equal before the law. "
Bruno Tinti
lawyers suffer from their role as experts hired ; not like this part of the figure of a man, a supporter of vested interests, to be prevail even if unfounded, they are uncomfortable, especially if they are valuable people, when they have to argue that they first know how to be unfounded; schizophrenia suffer from this legal for which, as citizens (and even more as technicians of the law) are aware of the guilt of their client and how lawyers should hide it, trying to obtain a ruling that, first, know to be unjust. And, in this situation, feel the handicap of having to face a subject, the PM, which has no such problems , which can support in good faith (which is not to say with good reason) any claim that has the freedom of intellectual consistency that they can not afford. Hence the need to belittle their opponent to reduce it to something like them, to force a partisan role opposite to them, you accuse, I defend, and may the best win.
In short, the process as a competitive sport, with a referee, the judge, who needs only to observe that the rules of the game are fulfilled, and will decide which of two contenders has scored more points. But of course the process is not a football game. Criminal responsibility can not be the result of a competition to see who is better, prosecutor or defense counsel. The process (okay, what really guarantees the citizen, not the so-called due process in our politicians straparlano) requires a preliminary investigation into serious and objective, an investigator who has no prejudices, a PM ready to change their minds to every moment, a collaborator of the Judge in ascertaining the truth. It also needs a defender that stimulates the PM, the torture, forced him to investigate, not to overlook anything, to investigate to the end: why condemn a person is a serious matter, and need to be sure (how can you ever in this world and not live in the divine).
But this, as I said, it's really pleasing to the lawyers.
The second reason:
If the prosecutor is no longer a law but a part, as any lawyer, you must have an employer, just as a lawyer . And who is this employer? But the state, of course, just as in most other Western countries. And what does the employer? Sort. Establishes what the employee must do and what not to do, as it must do, when you have to do, to what extent he must do. And what will this PM under the orders of the State (ie government, who "manages" the State is the executive body)? Will the processes that the government allows him to do, will do the processes that the government does not want to be made . Worse, sometimes he'll have to do jobs that the government ordered him to do. Metaphors aside, will the processes for robbery, murder and drug dealing, in short, those that do not affect the ruling class, and instead, to remain in the news recently, not make the trials Mastella and his friends and cons of Turkish and good company; or of course those against Berlusconi . And perhaps he'll also do some trial against a political opponent of the majority and the government.
Perhaps if people knew what really means the "separation of careers" would have a clearer picture of how the political class understands the art. 3 of the Constitution that says that all citizens are equal before the law. "
Bruno Tinti
0 comments:
Post a Comment