<![CDATA[Ara in English - justice system]]> 10 <![CDATA[Repeat offenders in law]]>

We all agree that it is unacceptable for people to be arrested hundreds of times for petty theft and robbery, only to then continue acting with impunity on our streets. Understandably, this reality generates frustration, distrust, and a perception of failure in both the police and judicial systems, which is always exploited by those who do not hesitate to manipulate it for political gain.

]]> <![CDATA[A daily judicial axe]]>

The scandals surrounding the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party), involving corruption and instances of gender-based harassment, are not only deeply concerning because they call into question the integrity of the political system and undermine public trust, but also foreshadow an increasingly likely shift in power towards the far right. To this context must be added judicial decisions incompatible with the rule of law, to put it mildly. Some experts, such as former magistrate José Antonio Martín Pallín, have openly spoken of judicial coups. The most grotesque recent episode has been the Supreme Court's ruling that convicted former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz after a highly substandard investigation. The five justices who voted in favor of the conviction belong to the most conservative wing of the judiciary.

]]> <![CDATA["Natural law" and sexual harassment]]> There are things that the judicial process cannot solve. It is an extraordinary, very old mechanism for resolving conflicts. We do not know how or when it began, but one day a group of humans decided that the best way to resolve a conflict was not to fight to see who was stronger, but that a third party outside the conflict would decide who was right. They broke natural law. No longer would the most powerful win, but those whom the judges saw as a "better person" according to sociological parameters of behaviour that vary in each human group. In any case, at the historical moment when this natural law was broken for the first time, what we call justice was born. It is paradoxical.

]]> <![CDATA[Procedural suicide]]>

He has done it: he has confessed some facts that he has not committed. Worse still, he has undertaken to pay substantial compensation for the repair of the damage made to a police van that he has not damaged, and compensation for the injuries of an officer who fell while beating him to arrest him. This decision hurts in anyone's soul: to defend one's dignity and truth, or to give in and buy security. This confession will swell the poisoned statistics that tomorrow will be used to show that the system works: police forces write up statements, the prosecution and private prosecutors hold up charges based on these statements, and finally a sentence is passed that closes the circle and validates the whole gear. Once the agreement is closed, a trial will be held. This trial is reduced to a bargain: the accusations reduce the penalty to ensure the accused person does not enter prison, in exchange for admitting the facts and the penalty. Our confession will serve to show that the police officers arrested the right person, that the prosecution and the other charges also charged the right person, and that the sentence has convicted the right person. What is clearer than a confession, to show that someone is guilty?

]]>