On February 6, the reading of the sentence of the trial for the murder of Fernando Baez Sosa broke a record of views on the YouTube channel of the Buenos Aires Supreme Court, which had 379,007 connected users. Just a few weeks before, on the Change.org platform, more than half a million people had signed a petition for the eight accused of the crime to be sentenced for life. The slogan “justice is perpetual” was read on the posters of the demonstrations and was shared by political leaders and by journalists who covered the case. It was settled that if the verdict was not “harsh” enough, the murder would go unpunished. But behind what happened, there is a dangerous paradox: if the relatives of a victim do not manage to publicize their story to put pressure on them, they will never have Justice, but if they manage to make themselves visible, their tragedy will become cannon fodder for the show.
However, the history of the most publicized cases in recent decades shows that this social pressure does not always help to get to the truth. It happened with the crimes of Nora Dalmasso, Maria Marta Garcia Belsunce and candela rodriguezin which Justice always seemed to be running after an angry public opinion.
The crime of dalmasso it happened 16 years ago and the culprit was never found. The case had enormous national coverage, her husband was convicted and then acquitted until the cause finally prescribed. Candela was kidnapped and murdered in 2011. The first trial was closed expressly with unprecedented social pressure, but a second one had to be held in 2022. García Belsunce was murdered in her home in 2002. Her husband was in prison, but he was later found not guilty. There were three trials and no one guilty. Speed, when it comes to Justice, can be treacherous.
In the case of Baez Sosa there is no mystery as to who his killers were. However, a large part of the specialists in criminal law agree that the life sentences (which five of the eight rugbiers received) can be reviewed in Cassation and that the verdict of the Court of Dolores was just the first step in a long process that is likely to take years.
“Let them rot in jail” is one of the calmest phrases heard in recent days. Requests for all kinds of harassment for the eight convicted men went viral on social networks and even on television a kind of ode to the culture of rape was made, when on Crónica TV they interviewed a supposed prisoner by phone who repeated on the air that they were going to kill him. to “welcome” the rugby players: “They are going to be our women. We are going to break their tails,” the man repeated.
Is that what Criminal Law seeks in a democracy? Esteban Rodriguez Alzueta, lawyer and Master in Social Sciences, insists on differentiating “neighborhood justice” or “media justice” from “State justice”: “Neighborhood and media justice judge and are merciless with individuals. On the other hand, the State Justice is there to reproach individual actions after having proven the facts and prove guilt. Instead, the other justices delay, return us to the 19th century and charge the crime to the account of the nature of things, which understands that monstrous acts are the result of monstrous people. That is why these populist justices do not believe in resocialization: once guilty, guilty forever, ”he assured NEWS.
The judges watch TV
Diana Marquez is a member of Victims for Peace, an organization made up of victims or relatives of victims of violent crimes who believe that requests for a “strong hand” only increase social problems. “Unfortunately, when a victim runs from that position of the mainstream or common sense of hate, it is more difficult to be heard,” she told NEWS.
About the case, marquez He reflected: “The life sentences were celebrated with a morbid joy that hurts me, as a victim.” His organization works based on the concept of “restorative justice”, especially in prisons. And contrary to what common sense indicates , they -who were abused, lost children or parents- do not believe in tougher penalties.
However, the woman understands that the claims and slogans such as “Justice is perpetual” have to do with the fact that “society does not believe in the judicial system.” “And how well it does, because the system doesn’t give the answers it should,” she added. The consequence of that distrust, she said, is dangerous: “The penal system is not up to the task of reversing the discredit and what happens? The idea of Justice remains in the hands of the media, which have their own interests. In these cases, they are the only ones who win: because they add rating, positioning and many journalists become famous and add followers. Is that Justice?” she wondered.
It happens that in Argentina there is an idea that spread like a mantra: if someone suffered a violent act, it is likely that their case will advance faster in court if they get social pressure. “Media justice is the expression of the judicial crisis. The judges lost their monopoly on the search for the truth and the construction of a social reproach a long time ago. Today, the truth is disputed by journalists. Not only the truth but the construction of moral punishment. Such ostentatious and emotional coverage, where speed is confused with knowledge and morality with law, exert formidable pressure on the courts. Because the judges also watch television and know that the file processed in his office will not deserve the same attention if it is on the front page of the newspapers,” he said. Rodriguez Alzueta.
The expert went one step further in this line: “If a guy like Videla got a life sentence for setting up a terrorist apparatus, a guy like massera who killed and disappeared a lot of people was deserving of a life sentence, it seems to me that giving these young people a life sentence for killing another young man, is a disproportionate sentence, which trivializes even our recent history. I hope that the Chamber restores the scales, otherwise we will again be too close for a figurehead to appear asking for the death penalty to be established again, ”he said.
In cases like this there is no one who does not feel legitimized to say how many years corresponds to each convicted person. Even celebrities -with all their traction-, made their contribution to the social request for perpetual life. “La China” Suarez He asked that they “never go out again”; Guillermina Valdes questioned the parents of the defendants for not asking for forgiveness; Cinthia Fernandez he assured that he “would prefer the death penalty, an eye for an eye”; and Marcela Kloosterboer joined the slogan “Justice is perpetual.”
A few days before sentencing, the prosecutor in the case Baez Sosa, Juan Manuel Davilahad referred to this climate: “We from the prosecution know the Court and in no way are they going to convict or acquit due to social pressure. The Court is going to assess the evidence that was put into the debate. I thank the media for have disseminated the case and I rule out that the judges are pressured for a verdict in one way or another,” he remarked.
The truth is that all parties have already confirmed that they will appeal the sentence. For the lawyer of the parents of Báez Sosa, the media and candidate for governor Fernando Burlandoall should have received life sentences. Hugo Tomei, the defender of rugby players, will try to reduce the penalties. The risk, as often happens in such high-profile cases, is that from now on a process will begin that will last decades and that a just sentence will never be reached.
