Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 22:11:04 GMT -6
There are many theories that believe that the evolution of contemporary democracies will be achieved to the extent that the functions and responsibilities attributed to judges evolve significantly. But in accordance with the judicial ethical codes with which our judiciary currently operates, our democratic scenario will experience little or no transformation. The relationship between both changes is a social phenomenon whose meaning carries great ambiguity. The anachronism of the monarchical tradition that we still suffer from, according to which the Head of State as king is not subject to the same moral codes as the rest of the citizens and that justice immunizes his conduct before the courts, takes our democracy back to past times, by the will of a dictator that the constitutional fathers of '78 did not want or could not overcome. Hence our political class is still under suspicion for not overcoming this anomaly. The judges themselves are also exposed to this game, who cannot or do not want to analyze the obvious unethical behavior of the previous monarch.
And yet, a quality democracy depends largely on the trust that citizens have in the Institutions that support it. Citizens who aspire to live in an ethical and transparent democracy know that the ethical identity of politicians or those who exercise the Head of State, understood as fidelity to their own moral convictions and compliance with and loyalty to the principles they promise, is the guarantee of the trust Australia Phone Number they deserve. This must be the unalterable political and ethical identity of your conduct and management; Only because of it are they believed and voted for. The same analogy occurs with the monarchy and justice and with those who administer it, although citizens do not vote for the monarch or the judges. On the other hand, and in reference to the judiciary, moral identity is the scaffolding that provides credibility to the truth of the facts and not to the legal truth; There are excessive experiences that many times the legal truth (the sentence) does not coincide with the real truth (the facts). In justice, sentence and error are not exclusive terms; They can and do happen.
Confidence in justice, the honest perception of its functioning are basic elements for the stability and democratic quality of a country; A legal system that is not well administered or not well explained, at the very least, generates confusion and indignation. When referring to those who administer justice, the judges, a task, perhaps unpleasant but ethically necessary, is to dare to disagree with the sentences that they dictate; Immediately, both on the street and in the media, the alert goes off about the dangers that may befall those who dare to disagree. There is a fear that translates into silence. When there are wide divergences between the opinion that the representatives of an Institution have of themselves and the opinion that the citizens have of them, citizen discontent will increase. If the citizen perceives that the administration of justice works well, his level of confidence in it is high; but if the perception is negative, trust is also low.
And yet, a quality democracy depends largely on the trust that citizens have in the Institutions that support it. Citizens who aspire to live in an ethical and transparent democracy know that the ethical identity of politicians or those who exercise the Head of State, understood as fidelity to their own moral convictions and compliance with and loyalty to the principles they promise, is the guarantee of the trust Australia Phone Number they deserve. This must be the unalterable political and ethical identity of your conduct and management; Only because of it are they believed and voted for. The same analogy occurs with the monarchy and justice and with those who administer it, although citizens do not vote for the monarch or the judges. On the other hand, and in reference to the judiciary, moral identity is the scaffolding that provides credibility to the truth of the facts and not to the legal truth; There are excessive experiences that many times the legal truth (the sentence) does not coincide with the real truth (the facts). In justice, sentence and error are not exclusive terms; They can and do happen.
Confidence in justice, the honest perception of its functioning are basic elements for the stability and democratic quality of a country; A legal system that is not well administered or not well explained, at the very least, generates confusion and indignation. When referring to those who administer justice, the judges, a task, perhaps unpleasant but ethically necessary, is to dare to disagree with the sentences that they dictate; Immediately, both on the street and in the media, the alert goes off about the dangers that may befall those who dare to disagree. There is a fear that translates into silence. When there are wide divergences between the opinion that the representatives of an Institution have of themselves and the opinion that the citizens have of them, citizen discontent will increase. If the citizen perceives that the administration of justice works well, his level of confidence in it is high; but if the perception is negative, trust is also low.