[ad_1]
Such a heinous crime, a murder as brutal as that of student Eleni Topaloudi, can only provoke anger, disgust, and feelings of condemnation for the perpetrators, who, unfortunately, are young children who, even before entering the arena of life, they chose to commit a heinous crime.
Attorney General Doga’s speech at the trial made sense because of what the prosecutor said, while on social media thousands of users expressed their views, others identified with the prosecution’s speech and others stood up.
The trial for the brutal murder of Eleni Topaloudi, the tragic end that the perpetrators reserved for them and what followed in the investigation stage because of her profile and general action have caused outrage.
Unfortunately, this is not the first or the last time that justice has suffered the brunt of punishing perpetrators of heinous and heinous crimes. Neither the first nor the last time that prosecutors, this almost always happens, women or men, who place themselves in their speech unequivocally condemning the criminal personality of the perpetrators with harsh words, as well as their actions.
In addition, prosecutors often refer compassionately, saying words of comfort, as they should, to victims, if they are alive, and to their relatives participating in court proceedings, representing the absent as tragic figures.
Placing prosecutors with excitement is common in court. After all, those heinous crimes cannot leave the perpetrators of the trial, called to experiment, intact, and when the curtain falls on the trial, the barbarism of human behavior, which is not easy.
But Attorney General Aristotle Doga, whose proposal was extremely well founded on the perpetrators’ guilt and his heinous act, did more. He identified himself, without even keeping the necessary distance, in public, openly with the victim, something he should not have done. Not because not all of us identify with Eleni. Eleni and I are all together. However, the prosecutor, this is his institutional role, is obliged to convince him of his objectivity and impartiality.
And this not for reasons of technocratic devotion, not just for reasons of legal culture. But for reasons of unity that are mainly related to the justification of the victims. Because the decision must, and must be, firm, impartial and convincing that the court has objectively ruled on the facts.
After all, the era of self-judgment is over and the administration of justice is determined by the French Revolution.
[ad_2]
