Hi all,
I have often criticized on this blog the actions of our politicians, whatever color they are. In most cases I do reasoning correspondingly intensive criticism and exposing my truth, especially if the matter was open to discussion. However, there are times when you look where you look, stupidity and bad policy making are not turning back.
When you talk about this or that law (understood as a rule) the result of political action is usually understood to be critical of its consequences, sometimes with varying degrees of tact, a good example is talking about the effects of implementation of the Gender Violence Act. It is also possible, but in a more discreet outside the academic world, that criticism comes with the legislative process referred to and she has been hatching this standard. The case is going to discuss the past, those that show that intelligence and skill of our representatives political falls short of bitumen, a phenomenon the result of prolonged in time, the professionalization policy in the worst possible meanings, the subject of that useless in society that makes a career in politics, which is not known to other merit or dedication (see, for example, Leire Pajin).
As some already know, in Spain the legislative process is a series of steps that should be made to ensure that a standard, regardless of its ideological content (which is always debatable), has a sufficient technical correction, and when I say no technical correction I mean to clarify difficult issues by experts, but the most basic corrections, such as (imaginary) that a law on abortion does not speak of man as a person who may become pregnant. Come on, who knows what they are talking about. This is ensured by editors with alleged commissions specialists appointed by the political groups and, in theory, assigning to the congressional committee (other than experts) Members who know the object in question.
That said, we stand as the central theme. As some may know, recently approved a reform of the Penal Code which comes into force this present month of December. Reform which, among other things, has changed the wording of the crimes of robbery, which are of interest. The current wording of the dwelling house burglaries has been heavily influenced by an amendment of the Popular Party, who justified this (read it, but not much entereis you right now):
"Today (...) proliferate dwelling house burglaries in which very often is sought by the authors that the residents are inside the house, hoping to get even, to get location information safes or valuable effects. Also, just to get that information is also very common to be deployed with great violence very serious consequences for the victims.
The current status of the Penal Code stipulates that, contrary to the legislation prior to Reform 95, the aggravation of an inhabited house is only applicable to armed robbery. In cases as these, in which it is a robbery or intimidation, this aggravation of an inhabited house is referred to in Article 242 of the CP current punishing or threatening violent robbery with a sentence of 2 to 5 years if no weapons or 3 years and 6 months to 5 years if weapons. In short, the current Penal Code does not care that it is a simple "pull" of a bag in the street with minimal violence and a few seconds' duration that an assault "on every rule" to a house, invading the privacy of the dwelling, with serious violence and even prolonged for hours and serious sequences representing psychological aggression in the home.
Hence the need for a reform of Article 242 of the Code Criminal re-establish a deterrent penalty, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling house in the violent robbery. "
Christian Translated, it meant that the PP is:
Before reform The burglary in things (which is stealing breaking - practicing force - security features such as locks, doors, safes ...) apply a higher penalty when the theft was committed "in an inhabited house," This does not necessarily mean that if they came home to rob the inhabitants had to be there at that time, according to art. 241.2 of the Criminal Code defines these effects as a dwelling house "all hostel dwelling constitutes one or more people, but accidentally it be absent when the robbery takes place ." Come on, that if you come to rob house breaking the door with an ax and you're not, those types are subject to a penalty.
What seems very concerned that the PP is that when the theft occurred through violence or intimidation on people the Code does not expressly say that if it occurred in an inhabited house had more trouble. The reason for this omission was that the three chestnut cared Code you enter to steal home while being in (and the greatest danger that entails). Omitted because it was understood (quite rightly, in my opinion) that when such a thing happened, the thief lord or lady committed at least two crimes, robbery with violence or intimidation and burglary, whose sentences were accumulated in a formula called penological medial contest not to be explained. The logic of this way of understanding things is overwhelming: while the burglary in things not essential to commit to the inhabitant is in the house and although it is does not have to be violence or intimidation (they can go home , steal and do not learn because I am sleeping), when we speak of robbery with violence or intimidation on people in a household will be that it is essential to be committed they are inside, because if not I will say against whom they will use violence or intimidation .. And if they're at home, entered without permission attentive hopelessly against the privacy of residents, which makes clear that it is impossible to enter a house and use violence and intimidation on them without committing burglary. Also going with the assumptions that under PP, did not protect the code, ie, in which those threats crystallized in violence or in which people were being held inside, were added crimes of injury or if the detention illegal.
Cacos hyper able to get into your house and threaten you without you knowing about caught red-handed by a deputy of the PP
As we have seen, is that, as claimed by the PP , the same code would give a flip of a bag a ticket at home. Rather, it appears that Messrs. PP deputies and senators they dont know what they're talking than not, provided launch populist messages and hung medals. But the most serious of all is that these gentlemen of the PP (which could be also any other party, I insist on this) do not know even what we had before. No. The trouble is that with the amendment so passionately defended, flying for the good of citizens helpless against the accursed sociatas who made a softie Code, in effect introducing the aggravation for robbery with violence and intimidation in dwelling house, but - oh, and here I have to hold back the laughter to the same penalty that was the old contest-raid theft. So where is this "deterrent penalty" that procalamaban if the penalty is the same?, "Our politicians have brains if they can not know where they came from or where they go?, Do we deserve a political class that change by changing to seem to be doing something ? . And ignoring all cases where simply copy and paste without adapting EU legislation (what will be esfirzar a bit), resulting in words like "recovery" products, when it should say "recycling."
What frightens me deeply is that if one looks so simple, legislatively speaking, the blunder is that, what about more complex rules?.
Regards to all Visit my http://cineybso.com 
0 comments:
Post a Comment