Fans of Roman Polanski did not protest. In the U.S., but that does not process the defaulters does not erase the crime. In Italy rapists Caffarella pay. But too little.
The director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for raping 31 years ago in America, a thirteen year old: He is not even a sentence, but it risks heavy punishment up to life imprisonment. In his defense lines up many intellectuals and filmmakers from around the world. A few days later two Romanians, Jean Alexandru Ionut Oltean and Graves, were convicted at first instance respectively to 11 and 6 years for raping a fourteen year old in the park of Caffarella. Many right-wing politicians, starting with the mayor Gianni Alemanno, are shocked by the punishment too mild. The two cases are very different, especially for the difference between the two legal systems. In Italy, despite the biblical times of justice, Polanski had already been tried and, if found guilty, sentenced in a final, it was present or absent at the trial, and had already served his sentence if he stayed in the country had committed the offense, but if he escape, would have benefited from the penalty, which we have after a certain number of years. If Polanski in America has never been tried, because there is no trial, the accused fails to appear, and Polanski 31 years not set foot in the United States. So the protests of fans and friends because "we can not process a person for crimes committed when he was another person "does not make sense: it is his fault if they have not tried before. The requirement does not remove either the crimes or penalties, otherwise it would be enough to take to the bush to get away.
But it is true that convictions for rape in America are more stringent than in Italy? Yes and no. Yes if you declare the accused innocent, and eventually submit to the trial is guilty. No where is like 95% of the defendants: that if you plead guilty and the sentence bargains, avoiding the process and saving time and money to the state. In that case, benefits from substantial discounts. Even in Italy, the code the "alternative rites" the trial. The first is the settlement: the defendant agree on a penalty, which was also granted to third, with the prosecutor, the judge then validate it or reject it if it is too low. The second is the abbreviated trial: the accused surrender to the process and agree to be immediately judged by the investigating magistrate in the state of the proceedings (ie, according to papers obtained by the defense and prosecution), and if you condemn receive a discount of one third on the penalty . The two Romanians Caffarella have opted for the abbreviated is how the court had to apply the discount to their third. In other words, if they chose the trial, were sentenced to 17 years and nine and a half years. That is a very severe penalties (including other extenuating circumstance for a murder happen to take less). But only after the trial, which would have required a couple of years for first degree, a couple for the appeal, the Supreme Court for a couple. Instead, the abbreviated, calculating the second and third grade, it will come to final decision much faster. The problem therefore lies not in the entity of the sentence. But in its lack of "effective": if the two men condemned to remain in jail Caffarella 11:06 years, one might say that justice is done. But in Italy the penalty decision in writing is not as obvious fact: keeping a regular behavior in prison is entitled to another discount of one third. So the two lower rebate of 8 and 4 years, even 5 and 1, because the last three passes to social service. That is free. But this is not the fault of the judges, who administer the laws.
is the fault of politicians who make them.
Marco Travaglio
the Spoiler
A (nna) of 15 October 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment