Hello family!
As I said in my last post that I contested to go to Madrid does not mean that you are going to leave without doctrine, and here is proof. Before entering the rag with the fundamental issue of today you can see in the title, a small personal note: I'm in Barcelona, \u200b\u200bI estimate the move will be late next week or early next. After so long without much to do seems to have reached the moment of truth. Hallelujah!
The impartiality of the judge is a huge issue in law, and I think everyone, right shysters as we lay in more or less internalized. Apart from its importance, there is another reason that leads me to write on this subject just now: This is a news I read recently in the Daily Mail, which is said to from now in the United Kingdom judges no longer have to state whether they are Freemasons or not. In addition and more easy to understand why it is said that "justice is blind" and is often represented blindfolded. I am so, do you want ... Let
a couple of thoughts about the fairness in general and how it is ensured before realizing why it is relevant to the case I mentioned above. Well, judges are responsible primarily to resolve conflicts. They are by no means the only way to solve the brown people, and in fact the lawyers often recommend let the judges out of trouble as long as possible ("prosecute the conflict" in leguleyo), in other words, is far better to agree to bring a case before the judge (time, money and physical and mental health in general).
When the agreement is not possible between the parties is when the judge takes action, which basically is nothing more than a third person who has the ability to enforce its decisions (which may embargarte current account, go .) No, I lie, it's much more than that, but for the purposes of this post this definition and we better. Then of course, if he is going to solve the conflict is an outsider at the same interest that we really may have nothing , otherwise it gets "justice and" effective remedy "in 24 CE? In all, you have said.
Very quickly, the mechanisms to avoid bias or to ensure fairness (which you like best) are basically two: the challenge and abstention. In the first the plaintiff or the defendant tells the judge "you can not judge this case because it is associated, for better or for worse, with one of us and therefore can not be impartial." The difference with the abstention, as ye shall have guessed, is that in this he says the above are not the parts but the same judge. Causes allow disqualification or abstention: vid. 219 LOPJ art. Not go into all the roll of judge predetermined by law or crimes of trespass because it never ends.
And to stop why the example of the principle. What of the Masons is important because it is a judge's secret status, so it is very difficult for the parties know that it is given. Ie, it is relatively easy to know if the judge if I have a hobby or a relative or BFF other, but if both are Masons is very difficult to get to know me, hence the registration.
I leave you with a photo of the statue of justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. There is blindfolded, but it seems equally impressive.
Soon more!
0 comments:
Post a Comment