The national law and popular morality may legitimately differ. And even face. The first does not bother feeling, when the second pulse to the rhythm of our dramas and often akin to that measure public opinion and grind pollsters. Everyone understands what may shock when you learn that Salah Abdeslam, only direct protagonist of the events of November 13 to have been captured alive, will receive legal aid – as every accused is entitled to the maximum win 1000 euros monthly. But how such a man, who does not deny his involvement in the barbaric attacks that targeted Paris, can it be supported in any way by the nation he helped bring grief? The temptation of a logic “eye for eye”, let alone after terrorist acts and so that the highest state authorities use the word “war” is understandable, if not legitimate. But the essence and pride of the rule of law is precisely to enforce it through. Leaving such any litigant benefit from a defense, whether rich or poor, a French citizen of the EU or abroad in a regular situation.
There are contexts where this is less easy . Where popular pressure and populist temptation mingle. But if we decided tomorrow to deprive terrorists of legal aid – which one recalls that it is for people in terms of law and whatever the facts established in the press or about this or such are innocent alleged – that public opinion would she then deny it? Rapists, killers, suspected fraudsters? It was also learned this week, Abdeslam,
No comments:
Post a Comment