[ad_1]
In an article -intervention in the NEA newspaper, Evangelos Venizelos refers to the issue of political rights that has arisen after the conviction of many members of the Golden Dawn and codifies the interventions that the State must carry out.
In an article entitled “The State of Democracy and the Responsibility of Citizens” after noting, among other things, that the deprivation of positions and charges under the new penal code presupposes an irrevocable decision, he emphasizes that “the issue is directly regulated by the Constitution that allows, through article 51 para. 3, to impose by law restrictions on the exercise of the right to vote:
a) if the age limit has not been reached, b) due to incapacity for a judicial act and c) as a consequence of an irrevocable criminal conviction for certain crimes.
The Constitution does not require that the restriction of the right to vote be provided for in the Penal Code or in a special criminal law, nor that a relevant sanction be imposed.
Therefore, the electoral law may provide that in the event of an irrevocable criminal conviction for certain acts (criminal or even misdemeanor) the right to vote of the convicted person is restricted.
The full article by Evangelos Venizelos
“The fight against democracy, a democracy that protects its values and institutions, must prevent and punish its opponents but also always and fully respect the guarantees of the rule of law. Democracy is liberal or non-existent. This means that in our political behavior there must always be an element of historical awareness and institutional containment.
The conviction of the Three-Member Criminal Court of Appeal was handed down based on the rules of procedural and substantive criminal law. The decision to measure the sentences will now be issued in the same way. The judgments are not dictated by the common sense of justice. On the contrary, there are cases in which the rule of law requires the judge to bear the burden of opposition to the prevailing perception. When a judicial decision on an emblematic case of great social and political sensitivity meets the requirements of the rule of law and, in addition (but only in addition) is harmonized with common sense, we have a historic moment for a democratic democracy.
The historical, institutional and evaluative core of the rule of law are the constitutional and international guarantees of personal freedom and individual security, the guarantees of criminal liberalism that have been elaborated in the last decades, in an exemplary way, by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The rule of law raises the bar for criminal populism and demagogic cries for a criminal law of mercury, sometimes very strict and sometimes very lenient based on the facts of a case or of a moment.
I would like there to be a response from the political forces and the public to the proposals I made, before the assassinations, in 2012, for the institutional isolation of the “Golden Dawn”. I wish that the initiative of the government of Samaras-Venizelos in September 2013 to prosecute a criminal organization that operates under the shell had been more understood by the public and supported by all parties, without reservations, backlogs and cracks. politic party.
I’m glad that now, given the first instance judgment, everyone is claiming the most obvious place possible in the historical picture of the battle against the snake that hatched from an egg that was obvious years ago. A snake that some people played with in the name of parliamentary affiliations or the supposed respect for political pluralism and the will of the citizens who supported it with their vote and in fact not just once.
The debate on the question of the civil rights of convicts is now being conducted in the wrong terms. Its political reactivation is not facilitated by the abolition of the accessory penalty of deprivation of civil rights (article 59 of the old CC) and its replacement by the accessory penalty of deprivation of offices and charges (article 59 of the new CC). In any case, the deprivation of civil rights presupposed an irrevocable decision, that is, a decision that is not even appealable. Neither the first instance nor the final decision were sufficient (article 65 of the old Penal Code). An irrevocable decision now presupposes the deprivation of positions and charges and the new KP (article 60 para. 2).
However, the issue is directly regulated by the Constitution, which allows article 51 para. 3 to impose by law restrictions on the exercise of the right to vote: a) if the age limit has not been met, b) due to inability to take action legal and c) as an irreversible consequence criminal conviction for certain crimes. The Constitution does not require that the restriction of the right to vote be provided for in the Penal Code or in a special criminal law, nor that a relevant sanction be imposed. Therefore, the electoral law may provide that in the event of an irrevocable criminal conviction for certain acts (criminal or even misdemeanor) the right to vote of the convicted person is restricted. This provision of the electoral law is not required to be prior to the act, because the regulation is not substantive criminal law but electoral / constitutional law. It is not subject to the retroactive prohibition of substantive criminal laws. There is also no new court ruling on the same issue, so the regulation does not fall under the “ne bis in idem” rule. In a general and abstract way, the common legislator can establish constitutionally tolerable restrictions on the voting rights of minors, for whom, according to the Civil Code, they have been placed by decision of the competent civil court in a regime of “total deprivation of assistance judicial “(which implies incapacity to those who, according to their criminal record, have been convicted by irrevocable criminal judicial sentence for certain acts prescribed by law due to their particular democratic and social precariousness and for a reasonable period based on the principle of proportionality.
Any amendment to the Penal Code to reinstate the accessory penalty of deprivation of civil rights as a matter of substantive criminal law cannot have retroactive effect. It would even create the false impression that we operate in the field of criminal law, while we operate in the field of constitutional / electoral law.
The restriction of the right to vote according to article 51 paragraph 3 also automatically functions as a restriction of the right to be elected according to article 55 of the Constitution. In fact, whoever has been elected Member of Parliament without the qualifications of an elector and, therefore, without the qualifications of eligibility or later deprived of them, automatically resigns from his office (article 55 para. 2), and the pertinent decision It belongs to the jurisdiction of the Special Supreme Court in accordance with article 100 paragraph 2 c of the Constitution.
Consequently, when the conviction becomes irrevocable, the convicted persons will be deprived of the right to vote and to be elected, since the then electoral law provides it for certain acts for which there will be an irrevocable sentence in the main sentence. The deprivation will be valid for a reasonable period, subject to the principle of proportionality.
In the meantime, that is, before there is an irrevocable conviction (this was also not modified by the new penal code), those convicted fully retain the right to vote and be elected and can, if they wish, prove their relationship, even in prison . with the citizens who form public opinion, society and the electorate. So they can see, if they dare, that their sentence is not only judicial but also social. After all, citizens have the responsibility for their choices and their relationship with democracy, the situation and finally History, which is our long-term collective destiny ”.
[ad_2]
