A the object of the decision is very unique It could even be the beginning of a new experiment. The 700 questions and 143 pages of the survey is exceptional in itself, but it also encouraged what was seen in the room this Wednesday: confusion of the judges when answeringGiven the level of detail that the presiding judge tried to reduce by presenting so many possibilities, an average of 70 counts per victim.
This is the case during an appearance called by the judge himself, according to Section 57.2 of the Jury Act, which considers this possibility optional. usually yesand let them be deliberate as long as they needdeliberation, which is usually only interrupted when the jurors themselves raise doubts.
In this case, the magistrate explained that during the hearing, all the lawyers and defendants were present and decided to meet in a public hearing, precisely because he feared they had to resolve an issue because of its length and length. complexity of the survey.
Jury members consisting of seven women and two men, make a request and two questionsThe judge was pleased s because he said he expected more between jokes and congratulated them. And read these doubts.
First, “What is macho dominance”. The judge introduced the term in the survey given that both public and private accusations demand that the aggravating factor of gender be taken into account. In a few words, the accused chose these victims, not the others, because they were women, and he considers his superiority over them as men.
This is how the president explained it. He tried to show them that it was a “plus” crossover, not a crime per se as it was an aggravating situation. It is a situation that can occur in any criminal act and arises from “the superiority that one believes to be more than the other”. And he gave them an example that exacerbates the discrimination of racism in this case. “Calling someone black may or may not be racist. If I marry a non-white person, I’ll take him, give him two kisses, and say ‘oooo negro,’ I’m not racist. I run into a tan on the street and I say ‘get off black, Spanish streets are for Spaniards’, that humiliation, that humiliation, belief that I am superior to the other is racial discrimination. Because he is black or insults him. It is not the fault itself, but this plus inner superiority that makes one think that he can do whatever he wants with the other because ‘I am white and you are black’” .
disrespect for the result
The second question that comes up points to more confusion and at least guesses what the jury was thinking at this deliberation phase. “We believe that the accused knew about the effects of cocaine intoxication that could even lead to death, but that the ultimate intention was not death, that he liked to push the limits of his practice. The differences between ‘which could even cause death’ and ‘trying to provoke him with your actions’.
The first statement showsThey are seriously hesitant about his intention to kill Jorge Ignacio PJ.. in sexual encounters with their victims. However, when they ask for clarification of the differences, what they are really suggesting are two cases that only apply to willful homicide, i.e. intent to kill. First, what is known in law as final intent – the acceptance of the other’s death by activating a mechanism that can lead to death – and second, direct intent, that is, killing with the essential intent. death of the other to create this effect.
The judge relied on an example presented by one of the forensic experts in the courtroom: the example of the driver on a scooter who decided to accelerate or brake at an amber traffic light as a person crossed a pedestrian crossing. “It seems like an automatic decision made in a fraction of a second, but it makes sense. A well-known and loved decision.”
He thus separated them between the driver who accelerated with the intent to kill “out of self-conceit” and the decision to “go after” (direct fraud) and the driver who accelerated, acknowledging that the result could be fatal. the death of the other, ignoring the possible fatal outcome, despite trusting that the one on the scooter will have time to reach the curb – “you know, if there’s some bad luck, you’ll kill him, but you’re in a hurry and you don’t care”, he explained to them to understand himself (possible scam). “Criminal liability is the same in both cases, because it was thought possible and it doesn’t matter to him, he doesn’t run away because he doesn’t want to,” he warned. missed, Considering the iteration in the Jorge Ignacio PJ case, one detail: It’s not the same thing to get this verdict ten after another.
But then he presented a third example that sparked the day’s discussion: Reckless murder, which no one, not even the defense, brought up during the trial, but which somehow appeared in the object written by the judge, as evidenced by the jurors’ claims.
“The third case,” explained the judge, “you see the scooter and you say, ‘it’s going slow, I’m sure I don’t understand, but you finally get it’. It is the person who decides by believing that this will not happen. No longer malicious there. If you rule out the possibility of it happening, if you don’t consider it, it’s another thing,” he left it in the air. The defense tried to embrace this possibility as soon as they heard and looked at the judge. where the jury seems to be going, but the prosecutor stopped him in his way: “This is not brought up here.”
The magistrate agreed with him and said, “If you don’t have a mental problem, if you’re of average intelligence, people will take that into account.” Finally, he once again advised the jurors, “If they get stuck on a question or a case, don’t worry, keep reading until the end because maybe that way they’ll notice something they’ve seen before.” Even if they don’t realize it, their minds are still working and when they suddenly start litigation they will clearly see and think, ‘Look, this was the piece. And they “take their time” and ask again if they have any doubts.