[ad_1]
It was a shocking speech. And very moving for most.
But they also sounded different The opinions of people who, without of course supporting the accused, considered themselves prosecutors, were unnecessary or excessively discriminatory from a legal point of view.
by others reasons (because he criticized the lawyers) Dimitris Vervesos, president of the DSA and of the plenary session of the presidents of the Greek bar associations, requested that a disciplinary procedure be initiated for the prosecutor. The prosecutor had said: “As soon as the lawyers enter the case, the lies begin, the scenarios for the darkness of the truth,” a phrase that after the reactions actually resumed, saying that it respects the lawyers.
In an attempt to measure anti-popular views, I present them, neutrally, below:
The speech, as a lawyer told me Speaking of the anonymity request, he disagreed with the formal procedure. It may have made us all happy, but it was institutional and legal, even “dangerous”.
He spoke at trial common sense, but what would happen if each prosecutor began, due to the repercussions of the speech to the public, to behave with such passion for or against any accused?
Thanasis Kampagiannis, A lawyer, a member of the Political Education of the Antifascist Movement at the Golden Dawn trial, the man who helped condemn the entire Golden Dawn leadership team, acknowledging that there were positive points in the speech, makes specific objections:
««[…] This is one of the most heinous crimes in recent criminal history. The prosecutor also deciphered some critical aspects of the crime: the wealth of a defendant, of Greek origin in Rhodes, who “had never heard a no”, the complementary role of the second, of Albanian origin, as “bait”, the meeting A young woman Orestiada student with the morality of the Rhodesian society who has lived for decades in the rhythms of money and tourism, the devaluation of the female sex. It was all of these elements that created a sigh of relief yesterday.
However. But there is. To back this up, we don’t need to turn a blind eye to what was clearly wrong. The rape victim does not have to be an “inalienable virgin” to justify her case. The defendants’ descriptions of “monsters” ultimately reward the society that created them: They were not born, but instead became rapists. The naturalistic and Lombroso aphorisms have no place in the speeches of the prosecutors of a liberal legal order. And questioning the role of the defense attorney as a collaborator of justice does not bode well for his award. Worst of all: any judicial or prosecutorial overshoot gives the accused the opportunity to be a victim. And that’s the last thing you should do.
The figure of Eleni Topaloudi persecutes us and demands justice. That’s all that matters. “
Journalist Giannis Androulidakis (known for his previous broadcasts on the party radio “In the red” He wrote):
“Here’s an unpopular post, one day late to make a fuss and throw myself into the fire.
The prosecutor’s speech at the trial for the murder of Eleni Topaloudi caused general relief. Firstly, because with what we have seen in the prosecutors’ proposals very recently, there was reasonable fear and, secondly, because, to a certain extent, many people, possibly mainly women, but also men, read things that They would have liked to have said themselves, especially given the vulgarity displayed during the proceedings by the two defendants (especially Koukouras) and their surroundings.
But I claim that the good news ends here. A prosecutor’s speech at a trial is not about placing a public figure trying to share emotions with many people. It is the attitude of a man who has power and is judged by the way he wields it and whether he exceeds it. If prosecutors were to judge on the basis of an overestimated “common sense of justice”, their proposals would include lynchings, hangings, rights violations, etc. -Often people ask them, and those with great effort have been eliminated as much as possible from the already reactionary criminal system.
A prosecutor who goes beyond the evidence and makes extensive references to his temperament and views is something that worries me a lot, even if my opinion of the two bastards at trial is the same and worse (but I’m not a prosecutor) . Imagine in any other case, questionable or political, a prosecutor who would say that: (a) he had actually decided on the case before addressing it because it bothered him, (b) he wanted and had “intuition” that he would take over the case, (c) he had connected his life forever with the victim and wanted to restore it, (d) he asked the victim’s relatives to never forgive the accused and (e) at the end of the trial, he accepted bouquets and excited hugs from one side of the parts.
I beg you, look at all this, in a trial in which not two poor vulgar rapists are tried, but someone suspected of being guilty. And then think that respect for the latter’s right to a fair and neutral trial will be universal or non-existent.
The prosecutor in the Topaloudi killers trial did not make a feminist or anti-patriarchal speech. In such a place there would be no reference to “inalienable virgins”, as if Topaloudi acquired the right to say “no” at that time, because he used to do it in the past and not because his refusal at that time was sufficient. It is the speech of a prosecutor who, with his speech, wants to do justice, in addition to the role of a neutral judge.
I hope that Koukouras and Lutsai are duly convicted of their sexist crime. I also hope that Koukouras’s father and his entourage will be brought to justice and convicted for their miserable attempts to cover up the crime, destroy evidence, and slander the murdered Eleni (and in this regard, the prosecutor appears to be doing the right thing). ) But I also hope that soon we can argue that the administration of justice and respect for the rights of the victim go through respect for the rights of the author and his lawyers. Otherwise, the excess power caused will be forcibly returned to the faces of the victims.
What is needed is justice for Eleni, not justice for the public. “
Journalist Costas Giannakidis he wrote, among other things: “No. 332 of the CCP obliges judicial officials to treat the people involved in the proceedings in an impartial, decent, impassive and calm manner. In case of violation of the provision, the official commits a disciplinary offense serious “.
“It is one thing to be empathetic, another is to have a balanced judicial judgment, another is to have an identity,” he wrote. Deputy Minister Akis Skertsos, comparing the speech with a popular night performance and explaining the reasons for this separation:
“Confidence in the rule of law presupposes that judicial officials avoid emotional identification even with the victims of the most heinous crimes. Precisely because they must leave no doubt that they are judging on the basis of personal views and sensitivities or about what “common sense of justice” suggests. This would create significant legal uncertainty.
We want the judicial officer to be cold and impartial at home because he has to judge AND against his personal points of view, make anti-popular decisions, always within the framework of the provisions of the Constitution and the laws. Otherwise, the path to judicial populism, that is, to decisions that caress public opinion, is open and extremely slippery for the prestige of Justice and the operation of the regime. “
The lawyer Vasiliki Tsaxarli wrote the following:
Vassiliki Tsaxarli on Twitter
Unpopular opinion … The prosecutor’s speech in the Topaloudi case is not good. 1. the court decides and not the prosecutor. 2. References to the defendant’s property are the least unnecessary. 3. If there were methods to punish. persecution, don’t suspect
Some consider speech and what followed would pressure the European Court of Human Rights to overturn any decision on the grounds that a fair trial had not been held:
There have been several reactions on Twitter:
And AlexV on Twitter
From prosecutors, I expect the prosecution’s support with evidence to guarantee the conviction, if I wanted shocking stories, I saw Nikolouli.
aNameToCome on Twitter
The imbeciles who committed the murder must be hanged not only for the act itself, but also for their later position, and at the same time the prosecutor does not offer anything when saying it, much less that it can unintentionally serve the murderers by degrading the process .
However, most continue to identify with the prosecutor and her speech:
RealPolitics on Twitter
A court judges people, it does not judge data. He judges on the basis of the evidence, but he also judges people’s behavior. He judges whether or not they have shown remorse, whether they have behaved violently or not. The prosecutor “helped” at this address # WITH_THE_DISAGELEA
n on Twitter
Yes, technically a prosecutor should not express himself emotionally, but technically women should not rush and throw rubbish on the rocks because they “played hard”, and we must discuss for 2 years whether the culprit should be punished, so
efi terzaki on Twitter
don’t catch Aristotle Doga in your mouth … those of us who read his speech, we are shocked by the bitter truths that were heard! # Topaloudi
sєхч lumpєn on Twitter
Hands down the Prosecutor! They found a man standing in this filth and immorality of the system and fell to devour him! Immediate change of the penal code for such heinous crimes # Topaloudi
choricos on Twitter
The Prosecutor (Epsilon is very capital) in the # Topaloudi trial: “May justice prevail and everyone be lost.” The previous one, Aristides, who had said “peace, if possible, but justice in every way”, was expelled.
Elissavet Zitouniati on Twitter
Prosecutor Aristotle Doga, the prosecutor in the Eleni Topaloudi case, is the light in the dark of justice that we need. Incredibly shocking. Unbelievably, man. # Topaloudi
*SEE ALSO:
Eleni who dared to say no, and the men who kill you if you don’t feel them
[ad_2]
