Opinion (José Lúcio / Judge): Perplexities of an unrecoverable.
The President of the Republic and the Minister of Justice it is beyond doubt people of fine sensibility and noble feelings. It is understandable therefore its commotion before the sad fate of a bitch who tried to eliminate the newborn son throwing it in the trash.
José Lúcio
Judge
I'm still inclined to think, Respectfully, it would be advisable from them greater restraint in expressing their emotions. I am thinking in particular will be the Minister's agenda if you solve, by equity issues, go to visit the chains all abandoned lucky to whom the courts apply the probation measure. It is that there are many, and all enjoy equal rights. And what will be the President of the Republic is going to make public statements on all cases brought to justice and that motivate identical procedural treatment? You will not have hands full, even considering its known ease of expression.
The same say in relation to the judgment immediately recorded on the event by Mrs. President of the Institute of Child Support, indeed magistrate jubilada, who promptly decreed that the child's mother did not want to kill, thus giving for granted facts of which obviously have to be proved. I think that judgments and sentences have their time and place set out in procedural law, and that ministers and presidents should refrain from issuing prejudge facts unaware and which are the responsibility of clearly identified sovereignty organs in the Constitution and the Law.
But this is me thinking, and I admit that they are my casmurrices. Humility was never hurt anyone, and do not want to doubt my.
Anyway confess my amazement to follow the news avalanche generated around the occurrence. Along with understanding for the unfortunate author of the facts of the case also came some indignation in social networks. After all, there was always a child who was thrown into the trash container, and that only by a miracle did not follow the fate of the shredder or composting.
I can not take my cogitations, however, the incongruity of criminal laws that govern these matters between us. Had the author of such facts undone the child some time before, still in the womb, and would have ensured the general complacency. He decided to wait, and treat the elimination soon after birth. As a result, It is subject to strong criminal censorship, possibly translated into a severe punitive treatment. Thus we have the critical point in the valuation difference lies in the victim's visibility. The same child assumes different values as well as already been born or wait for the moment.
Are paradoxes in our time seems to abound. The widespread clamor to protect themselves swallows nests or wild orchids leaves forgotten and out of sight any concern for unborn human. cut holly, or crushing Partridge eggs, and will see how they hurt.
I fear that the confusion is to progressively worsening. Imagine for a moment what it would be if someone threw into the trash container a litter of puppies, so as to get rid of them. Even the paving stones would cry drool and snot. Gale on social networks never settle for less than the gallows. No it would be worth mitigating the criminal in such a horrible crime.
And I bet that no words would come in defense of so vile creature, from the highest to the lowest instances. Suspiremos, because. It was a child, and it was terrible. But, patch leaves, It was not the dog.
(Text written under the previous rule to spell AO1990, by the author's option)
