One of the main causes of disrepute of justice they are not really some crazy bugs that sometimes come to light. In reality, the deepest dissatisfaction comes from small conflicts. People see that if someone doesn’t pay you, get them to it costs time and money. What if someone gets into his house, expel him from there –the obvious– is not always an easy task. Or what if a neighbor misbehaves, ending the problem is complicated. Or what if you are cheated in a trade, also through the web, getting the obvious, that they do it justice, is complicated. The same can be said with the constant bickering between ex-spouses over the compliance with the visitation regime, the pension payment or other expenses or the peaceful use of a property. Everything derives in a simple judicial process a priori, but that it takes a long time and it costs money. And that sometimes does not even do justice, given the total ignorance of the judge regarding the circumstances surrounding the conflict.
Our Justice is not prepared at all to resolve these conflictswhich often leads to a decision of take justice into their own hands, which is sometimes effective, but is very dangerous. A society of people that settles these conflicts by itself is a violent society. From there to the ‘far west’ there is only a small step.
However, the states they can’t let that problem fester, even though they usually do, provoking the sensation in the citizenship that nothing works. It is less noticeable in places where education is better and conveys more civic values. But wherever it is transmitted, in one way or another, rogue culture –don’t make me give examples– these conflicts are very frequent. In these more civic societies, it is normally the police who mediate these small disputes, usually very effectively. They receive specific training for this and are conveniently selected. People in those places know that if they call the police, the problem will be solved immediately. On the other hand, in places where the police only go if there is blood, and where they are usually inhibited in other small conflicts, and which also do not even have the preparation and culture to mediate, these disagreements are very frequent.
The solution, therefore, depends very much on that transmission of civic values globallywhich basically consist of the empathic coexistence in freedom, seeking the well-being of others, knowing how to listen and dialogue, as well as in the abolition of the culture of systematic complaints to “get something out & rdquor ;. But as long as that solution does not come, we have to think of an alternative that, by the way, would favor the solution. In the end, police officers, like politicians, reflect our own society. If the latter changes, they will change.
The alternative consists of formation of conciliators who wish to collaborate voluntarily with the community. It is necessary to determine how many are necessary to deal with these conflicts very quickly, so that the citizen knows that, requiring his presence, the conflict will be resolved. That conciliator must appear at the place of the conflict accompanied by the police in case of risk and, considering the situation, will propose a solution that will be documented. If the problem persists, the police will intervene insisting -without violence- on the solution, opening a judicial process if the conflict does not cease.
Related news
No great effort, not even regulatory, is required to get the system up and running. Enough select conciliators very well, knowing that they are going to provide proof of the existence of the conflict and the proposed solution, which is an immense advantage in a judicial process. This is something that can be promoted by regional administrations and even town halls.
If the system works properly, citizens would suddenly feel more protected, improving their behavior in general. Even the courts would be relieved of many of these small lawsuits that, make no mistake, they are not prepared to resolve. As was said many centuries ago, ‘de minimis non curat praetor’.