Guybrush Threepwood, the most famous pirate of all time. Hello family! "I missed you had?
For almost two weeks since I wrote, and this I noticed me and what I imagine you also will notice you. We agree, we can not get along without learning something new law. First of all, you deserve an explanation of why he I write has been missing for two weeks. Well, as I imagine most of you already know, I've moved to a College in Madrid and have been very busy this week with moving and getting the issues of meeting with the opposition and language trainers and all that Easter . As if this were not enough, I have no Internet in the room, which I plug every once in a while and does not plan to monopolize the only computer that runs the whole school. This is being a bit of a shock therapy after my addiction to the Internet during my two months off. Anyway, let that not what we have all day.
I promised two weeks ago, when the crisis was at its peak, a post on Alakrana. To not break my word, and as in any case it's Alakrana served me an excuse to treat a purely legal issue (better we get into politics), here we go. Summarizing much the theme: Somali pirates hijacked a few tuna, the "Alakrana" I know not how many sailors aboard, and the government failed to release three or four days ago, after much trouble. Part of the problem was that the navy had managed to detain two of the pirates, who in fact had been brought to Spain to stand trial for crimes against physical integrity sailors and of kidnapping and such. I wanted to speak about it today.
and in Spain, so I have understood, in most of continental Europe, governs the principle of legality (that silly has 200 different meanings), which is to say the following in what we now interests: If the prosecutor (who has been the case) think about the evidence they are who may have committed a crime, is obliged to investigate and bring him before the magistrate. So when the Navy stopped the two pirates, and data were available, there was evidence of a crime, the prosecutor was required (I never tire of underline) investigar el crimen. España no podía, por lo tanto, simplemente liberar a los dos piratas y devolverlos a Somalia, ya que eran sospechosos en una investigación en curso. Se barajaron bastantes opciones, pero en cualquier caso tenían un percal considerable.
¿Esto es así en todas partes? Pues no señor. En EEUU, sin ir más lejos, funcionan de un modo completamente distinto: el fiscal (attorney, si no me equivoco) tiene mucho margen para decidir si investiga o no un caso , además de que se le elige mediante elección popular. El ejemplo más claro es aquél en que el fiscal no acusa a alguien de la mafia que está dispuesto a declarar en contra de los jefazos. We've all seen a thousand series and American films in which this is clear. So, what would have happened with the U.S. Alakrana? It is hard to say (do not negotiate with terrorists, son), but at least they could have left the two pirates free without having to tear their clothes.
I will not come to appreciate if one of the two systems is better than another because: a) this post is already long enough, and b) as a teacher of mine said, "that in the end are cultural things." In any case, what do you think? What is more practical? What is fair?
I have some issues on international treaties that you will love. Early in the doctrine (no, just kidding).
For almost two weeks since I wrote, and this I noticed me and what I imagine you also will notice you. We agree, we can not get along without learning something new law. First of all, you deserve an explanation of why he I write has been missing for two weeks. Well, as I imagine most of you already know, I've moved to a College in Madrid and have been very busy this week with moving and getting the issues of meeting with the opposition and language trainers and all that Easter . As if this were not enough, I have no Internet in the room, which I plug every once in a while and does not plan to monopolize the only computer that runs the whole school. This is being a bit of a shock therapy after my addiction to the Internet during my two months off. Anyway, let that not what we have all day.
I promised two weeks ago, when the crisis was at its peak, a post on Alakrana. To not break my word, and as in any case it's Alakrana served me an excuse to treat a purely legal issue (better we get into politics), here we go. Summarizing much the theme: Somali pirates hijacked a few tuna, the "Alakrana" I know not how many sailors aboard, and the government failed to release three or four days ago, after much trouble. Part of the problem was that the navy had managed to detain two of the pirates, who in fact had been brought to Spain to stand trial for crimes against physical integrity sailors and of kidnapping and such. I wanted to speak about it today.
and in Spain, so I have understood, in most of continental Europe, governs the principle of legality (that silly has 200 different meanings), which is to say the following in what we now interests: If the prosecutor (who has been the case) think about the evidence they are who may have committed a crime, is obliged to investigate and bring him before the magistrate. So when the Navy stopped the two pirates, and data were available, there was evidence of a crime, the prosecutor was required (I never tire of underline) investigar el crimen. España no podía, por lo tanto, simplemente liberar a los dos piratas y devolverlos a Somalia, ya que eran sospechosos en una investigación en curso. Se barajaron bastantes opciones, pero en cualquier caso tenían un percal considerable.
¿Esto es así en todas partes? Pues no señor. En EEUU, sin ir más lejos, funcionan de un modo completamente distinto: el fiscal (attorney, si no me equivoco) tiene mucho margen para decidir si investiga o no un caso , además de que se le elige mediante elección popular. El ejemplo más claro es aquél en que el fiscal no acusa a alguien de la mafia que está dispuesto a declarar en contra de los jefazos. We've all seen a thousand series and American films in which this is clear. So, what would have happened with the U.S. Alakrana? It is hard to say (do not negotiate with terrorists, son), but at least they could have left the two pirates free without having to tear their clothes.
I will not come to appreciate if one of the two systems is better than another because: a) this post is already long enough, and b) as a teacher of mine said, "that in the end are cultural things." In any case, what do you think? What is more practical? What is fair?
I have some issues on international treaties that you will love. Early in the doctrine (no, just kidding).
A guard!
0 comments:
Post a Comment