Already the CSM had warned that, as a result of the pardon, nine out of ten judgments will be empty, but the CSM is allowed to make policy and force an amnesty letting the theory of the uselessness of the processes and the assumption (in fact say that nine out of ten judgments will be in vain) that the processes serve only to issue convictions. What is puzzling is the emergency response on the issue, our (Naples) institutional-legal representatives when they have given interviews to newspapers on November 8, 2006: Attorney-General and President of the Court.
Well, maybe by the Attorney General, if only in his capacity as representative of one of the parties to the proceedings, the reference, not-too-veiled, or rather, to useless in the prosecution of which the ' impact of the pardon would be strong, no wonder.
But if one of the greatest institutional representatives of the Jurisdiction, the President of the Court, notes that "... we (the judges) have to work to empty ... "(The Morning)," ... forced to work for unnecessary processes ... the amnesty is in fact the only measure that at least allows you to close unnecessary processes and devote greater intensity to be treated ... "(Il Corriere del Mezzogiorno), the message to the public, however, from a source highly qualified, that comes out is clear: the processes are, in fact, useless.
Now, the doubts are due precisely to the reasons underlying the process considered pointless. First, the bearers of such a theory, it is considered, identify the necessary process as a means to enter into sentencing, forgetting perhaps that the process, although "indult," would be useful, for example, to establish, however, his innocence of the accused! By then, they apparently intend to process only in the sense of encouragement for the execution of his prison sentence, forgetting, perhaps, that, beyond the assessment of the truth, this process, as well as "indult" could, for example, to recognize the rights of victims that though, poor things, a certain expectations (not least economic in nature) have towards the forthcoming ruling! Still, flying to and thought processes in relation to crimes involving violations of building codes or zoning, forgetting perhaps that the process is also useful for its effects on regional planning, etc. ..
short, let us say frankly that it demeans the jurisdiction to define publicly the process futile and we debase the Jurisdiction may be considered relevant only in the execution of the sentence and not ascertaining the truth of the case or innocence of the accused, that it demeans the jurisdiction does not consider the process useful for the protection of injured parties and we demean that courts may be attacked by a sense of futility of their work just because of their conviction, in nine out of ten trials, will not run. Pass the theory that a process, just because "indult" is useless operation becomes dangerous: it may lead to the conviction of the futility of all processes in which the court may grant probation ol'inutilità Process "at risk limitation" for wanting to be provocative ... We have to participate in
degrades unnecessary processes. We have to participate to be debased. Or, perhaps, if the public has understood the message, it demeans not be parties to the proceedings even more why not call the customer: sure ... if the process is useless ...
Well, maybe by the Attorney General, if only in his capacity as representative of one of the parties to the proceedings, the reference, not-too-veiled, or rather, to useless in the prosecution of which the ' impact of the pardon would be strong, no wonder.
But if one of the greatest institutional representatives of the Jurisdiction, the President of the Court, notes that "... we (the judges) have to work to empty ... "(The Morning)," ... forced to work for unnecessary processes ... the amnesty is in fact the only measure that at least allows you to close unnecessary processes and devote greater intensity to be treated ... "(Il Corriere del Mezzogiorno), the message to the public, however, from a source highly qualified, that comes out is clear: the processes are, in fact, useless.
Now, the doubts are due precisely to the reasons underlying the process considered pointless. First, the bearers of such a theory, it is considered, identify the necessary process as a means to enter into sentencing, forgetting perhaps that the process, although "indult," would be useful, for example, to establish, however, his innocence of the accused! By then, they apparently intend to process only in the sense of encouragement for the execution of his prison sentence, forgetting, perhaps, that, beyond the assessment of the truth, this process, as well as "indult" could, for example, to recognize the rights of victims that though, poor things, a certain expectations (not least economic in nature) have towards the forthcoming ruling! Still, flying to and thought processes in relation to crimes involving violations of building codes or zoning, forgetting perhaps that the process is also useful for its effects on regional planning, etc. ..
short, let us say frankly that it demeans the jurisdiction to define publicly the process futile and we debase the Jurisdiction may be considered relevant only in the execution of the sentence and not ascertaining the truth of the case or innocence of the accused, that it demeans the jurisdiction does not consider the process useful for the protection of injured parties and we demean that courts may be attacked by a sense of futility of their work just because of their conviction, in nine out of ten trials, will not run. Pass the theory that a process, just because "indult" is useless operation becomes dangerous: it may lead to the conviction of the futility of all processes in which the court may grant probation ol'inutilità Process "at risk limitation" for wanting to be provocative ... We have to participate in
degrades unnecessary processes. We have to participate to be debased. Or, perhaps, if the public has understood the message, it demeans not be parties to the proceedings even more why not call the customer: sure ... if the process is useless ...
No comments:
Post a Comment