Wholesale Double Finger Rings

La "separazione delle carriere" - Parte I

From the phone book on the justice of Prosecutor Bruno Tinti, author of" Togas routes ", the informative post comment entitled "Separation of careers" . Since the
justice reform is likely to be a hot topic that is autumn, with his usual corollary bales and outbuildings, we begin to prepare mentally for the battle to come.
Informiamoci .
What is "the separation of careers?

"Berlusconi said he needs to reform the justice ab imis" and that "separation of careers" not enough. But what is this "separation of careers?

In short, it's this: in criminal prosecution and the defense must become parties to operate on an equal footing, a charge the accused and the other defends it, one gathers evidence proving the guilt and the other those that prove their innocence, and both dismantle the evidence of the other as best they can. Above them, the judge is "independent and impartial" who must determine which of the two right or wrong. It follows that, even if the accusation is supported by a magistrate, the prosecutor, it must be different, just "separated" from his colleague who is the judge : and, get this obbiettivo, l’unica soluzione è quella di prevedere per i magistrati due carriere separate; quella del Giudice e quello del Pubblico Ministero; e nessuno deve poter passare da un ruolo all’altro.

Si tratta di una sciocchezza; ed è facile capirne il perché: il PM tutela gli interessi della collettività, l’avvocato quelli del suo cliente . Per il PM non è importante che l’imputato venga condannato; è importante che il colpevole venga condannato. E quindi, se l’imputato non è colpevole (perché le prove raccolte contro di lui si rivelano non convincenti, insufficienti, contraddittorie) il PM ha l’obbligo di chiedere to be acquitted. In fact, in addition to its obligation to the PM not even jump on his head to ask the sentencing of a defendant who believes innocent or for which the evidence seems insufficient. In the end, in the PM, it summarizes the role of prosecutor and defender : he tries to figure out if the defendant is guilty or innocent, and when he believes that he understood (because of human justice is always) ask the the sentencing judge ol'assoluzione.

defense attorney, he is a man of part, in the sense that he has a very specific duty: to perform his or her client or, at worst, make them have the penalty reduced to be more possible. To understand this difference (which, however, is so obvious that it hardly deserves comment) just an example: If a PM knows that it is possible to obtain evidence that proves the innocence of the accused, the gain must, if a lawyer defender knows that there is evidence that proves the guilt of his client, must (must own) to avoid (by legal means of course, but here the question becomes long and complicated) prevent it from being discovered.

In short, it is not true that PM and lawyer are subject animated by two competing interests: the PM may be on the same side of the lawyer. It is not true that hanno un ruolo processuale paritario: il PM difende un interesse pubblico - l’identificazione e la punizione del colpevole, chiunque esso sia -; l’avvocato difende un interesse privato - l’assoluzione del suo cliente, anche se colpevole -.

Ma allora perché….?
Le ragioni sono sostanzialmente due."
Bruno Tinti