Domnul Dan Tapalaga imi trimite, amical cred, o racheta in curte dupa articolul pe care l-am publicat ieri. Ii dau o veste proasta. N-a explodat. A facut “fas”, dupa care a amutit. Dar a scos niste scantei foarte colorate, trebuie sa recunosc.
Imi propun sa ii raspund lui, dar si tuturor celor care au comentat, unii in acelasi spirit, pe forumul contributors.ro.
Inteleg ca marea controversa e legata de prezumtia de nevinovatie. Pai, sa vedem, domnule Tapalaga…
Este prezumtia de nevinovatie doar o simpla cerinta in interiorul sistemului judiciar?
O sa dau un citat din Curtea Suprema de Justitie din Canada despre importanta prezumtiei de nevinovatie (cu referire la cazul R.vs.Oakes):
“The presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every person accused by the State of criminal conduct. An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social stigma and ostracism from the community, as well as other social, psychological and economic harms. In light of the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It ensures that until the State proves an accused’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a society committed to fairness and social justice. The presumption of innocence confirms our faith in humankind; it reflects our belief that individuals are decent and law‑abiding members of the community until proven otherwise.”
Am subliniat ultima fraza tocmai pentru a ilustra faptul ca prezumtia de nevinovatie nu pare a fi o simpla norma judiciara, care asigura un proces echitabil si corect. Ea decurge din valori fundamentale si devine ea insasi o valoare pentru societate.
Poti sa crezi in ea sau sa nu crezi in ea. Spre deosebire
