As we have seen, one of the topics listed as fashion offer television-information in some media, is the case of children (giving the benefit of the doubt) Ernestina Herrera de Noble. Consequently, operators of the establishment, seeking to install an argument in defense of the director of Clarin, which is strongly rooted in public opinion: Noble's children have the right to remain who believe they are. This foundation is a mere wild common sense. It is well to speak, and think it looks quite noble (if yes, it's a double meaning), if one considers that the State to investigate is subduing the will of those who bear the brunt of the case: the children of Ernestina.
However, this truth functional operators announced from Clarin, lacks any kind of foothold and empirical support. Once again, we see as "common sense", always flawed and influenced by cultural patterns emanating from the media, not enough to give the specific case a rational solution. Henceforth, I will explain the reasons.
abusing the summary, let me stress that very roughly from the twelfth or thirteenth century in Europe appear modern states, with the establishment of the capitalist system. Consequently, in criminal matters, the sovereign is expropriating the conflicts between individuals who give to it the power to monopolize the use of punitive power in their role as "punitive" and "researcher." In such a way that the will to try and find a real criminal is solely in the hands of the state, who will use the means at its disposal to meet their allocation.
neuralgic
This idea of \u200b\u200bthe issue, it holds up today. While it has mutated the type of procedure which the sovereign used (inquisitorial, adversarial, mixed), the State remains the only legitimate criminal to find out the truth in all western law. Argentina, no exception.
So, today, crime in general-specific exceptions, are public action, which means basically, that to a complaint or to the act of committing a crime, the State, through its organs and officials should proceed to investigate to find a resolution to the criminal case. This, independently of the will of the victim. do not know if she has already become clear: not to intervene, the State would be an accomplice to a crime, a situation contrary to the idea of \u200b\u200brule of law.
Assume the simple case when one of us is stolen on the way public, and the fact is observed by a police officer. In this case, the police, we are not consult what interest we have that the Government should intervene in the event. Simply will proceed, regardless of our will. One, as a victim, has no more to work with Justice to every matter that it holds. If a property crime, one as victim, has no voice and vote for the purpose of promoting judicial investigation, imagine what that must occur before a crime of such gravity as to be imputed to Mrs. Noble ?
Finally, I swear I can go into too much more, do not think that the right to be a right identity very personal is outside the scope of the state. In the particular case, identity is a seriously flawed, and what is worse is that the service is the work of a public official. Therefore, not only the right to identity is not so because there is a defect originating in it, but also the state can not in any way complicit in a crime of which he authored by one of their agents. Here, a double public responsibility to resolve this case. After
, dear readers, we see how common sense can not occur in such cases, as it is to be an argument lacks historical justification, legal, and empirical. As seen, the interference of the state above the will of the victims, not a whim or a position K authoritarian government, but due to public behavior has become the twelfth century and which survives to this day in all criminal proceedings.
No more, thanks for reading.
0 comments:
Post a Comment