Opinion (José Lúcio / Judge): Arrested for dog and arrested for not having.
It is common to open the newspaper and find news strongly critical about the laxity of courts (police arrested, the judge freed) and immediately afterwards, sometimes in the same issue, other alarming news stories with the abuse of preventive detention.
José Lúcio
(Judge President of Beja County)
For some we are the shame of Europe with an incarceration rate that even the darkest tyranny, for others are a door open to the crime and a jackpot for criminals. For some others arrested, for others it is a shame we let go. According to some use of excessive mildness, according to others of extreme severity.
The same bipolarity is easily detectable in many examples of what will publish in our press. Sometimes even they are the same as the star in all these criticisms, as the causes and occasions.
The judges, to tell them, in some cases are a cinzentões, that no one knows and no one chose, it is not known what they do or what they think, and other are a class role thirsty, eager to appear on the evening news, relentless military in social networks, and obviously dedicated to meddle in public life, instead of dedicating yourself humble and quietly fulfill their duties.
In opinionated production on the judiciary, even the most responsible levels than mere comment to the wind that runs (or who blows) observed the same phenomenon. See the frequent oscillation between the need for specialization, taken sometimes inconceivable extremes (it's not possible, evidently, have courts for this and for that, specialized judges only in this crime or other, and carry it to the individual desires of each writer) and simultaneously proclaim that necessarily have to open a court in each corner of the country (and the "valences" all!) because everyone has the right of equal access to justice.
The truth is that the average citizen is naturally confused by the confusion of ideas that are served. The only verifiable common thread in the whirlwind of news and commentary on judges and courts is critical predisposition. The rule is working out in them, or because they have dog is for not having. Or for both reasons, it is also often.
The target is easy and delicious, and normally does not respond. There are no risks for the year.
Not disdaining in principle no criticism (It is it really true that even the stopped clocks have certain hours every day) however it must be a serenity of attitude and distance in relation to all this critical flood. Poor who burst into chasing each censorship, in the foolish hope of merit the favor of critics. To the inconsistency and fickleness of such pressures, It will always be in vain any effort to meet in this way.
At this crucial point emerges in all its relevance and magnitude of the issue of the judiciary independence and sovereignty of the judiciary.
Indifference and arrogance towards society and what it expects of us will never be defensible attitudes. But ism or permeability to the voices of those who have voice and uses, at the expense of those who do not have, also can not be characteristics of good judge.
The guiding compass is still and always to look for the principles and norms enshrined long.
as a sample, I leave a few phrases of the Constitution in force.
The courts are sovereign bodies with competence to administer justice on behalf of the people; the administration of justice lies with the courts to ensure the defense of legally protected rights and interests of citizens; in the exercise of their duties the courts are entitled to the assistance of other authorities; the courts are independent and subject only to the law; court decisions are mandatory for all public and private entities and prevail over those of any other authorities.
It could be different, but is like that.
(Text written under the previous rule to spell AO1990, by the author's option)
