Colombian justice; playing to the crowd?
As we go deeper into the complexities of Colombian justice, we come across high profile criminal cases whose decisions appear either to reflect public perception itself, or help build popular perceptions of whether the system works, or not.
Good or bad justice has and has always had an intrinsic link with public opinion.
In recent weeks Colombia has seen notable decisions in high profile cases; judges for some have granted freedoms, while others have been denied their liberty, even benefits for “collaboration” have been brought into play.
In one way or another, these cases have a direct and indirect interaction with the public and the way it perceives how and whether justice is delivered.
Take for example, Guido Nule – famous for the so-called “contract carousel” major corruption scandal that has shocked Bogotá, and the nation as a whole – who was in recent days allowed to leave jail. Apparently, if the media are to be believed, Señor Nule was set free to run a personal errand. Some, though, assure it was so he could make a court appearance while others even suggest it was to attend a family ceremony.
In short, there was no clear official information explaining reasons behind his temporary parole.
The media suggest Nule also visited the Italian Consulate and his time in the outside world cost the taxpayers approximately 3,000 USD.
I wonder if the average prisoner receives the same treatment he received? Does the “average joe” get permission to see family, run personal errands, or appear before a judge in another city?
Are all criminals treated equally before the law?
The public is having a hard time getting clear and straightforward information on how money for prison operations and management is being spent and justified, we are relying heavily on media reports, despite it being more than obvious that this detail should come from the authorities.
If, as it seems is the case, prisoners do not receive equal treatment, the truth is that in many cases, the law, even amongst prisoners, is still (as the Colombian saying goes) only for “those wearing a ruana”.
In another high-profile case, we saw former Agriculture Minister in President Uribe´s government, Andrés Arias have his liberty denied while still on trial, on the grounds that if granted, he might influence the outcome of the case.
Given the profile of the case and notoriety, would it be fair to ask if he represents a risk to his case or society without a conviction, and if so, is the judge’s decision fair or reasonable?
Was the judge´s decision influenced by public perception and outcry, or was the judge hoping to send a message to influence the public’s opinion?
Was this ruling based on the potential impact the decision might have in the eyes of the public? Should this be allowed? Are decisions driven by public opinion intended only to supply public demand, or manage an issue?
Some have questioned the courts´ decisions by arguing that rulings intended to satisfy public opinion only help manage public relations. If so, is justice being sacrificed at the price of public opinion? Was this the case for the former Minister?
Cases like these are many, and we have seen the potential of public perception strong enough to risk cases, question authority and force attorneys, prosecutors and judges to resign.
For good or for ill, public opinion must contribute to protect our rights and serves as a check and balance to decisions from authorities without jeopardizing justice.