viernes, 31 de mayo de 2013

La Cuestión Criminal (9/57)

9. Los contractualismos se vuelven problemáticos
En realidad, los contractualistas se ocupaban de imaginar y programar al estado y la cuestión criminal les resultaba central, porque lo que planificaban conforme a sus concepciones era el poder mismo. Esta íntima relación –inescindible– del poder con la criminología fue lo que se perdió de vista en la última mitad del siglo XIX, cuando se quiso hacer de ésta una cuestión científica y aséptica, extraña al poder y separada de la idea misma del estado, tendencia que no se abandona hasta la actualidad y hoy retoma gran fuerza en toda la construcción de la realidad mediática. Como era de esperar, hubo varios contractualismos, porque la metáfora del contrato permitió construir diferentes imágenes del estado fundadas también en dispares ideas del ser humano (antropologías filosóficas diríamos hoy).

Desde lo albores modernos de esta metáfora se notó esta disparidad, que comenzó en Gran Bretaña a fines del siglo XVII, prenunciando el proceso de industrialización y acumulación originaria de capital. Allí se enfrentaron el contractualismo de Hobbes con el de Locke. Para Hobbes –con su famoso Leviatán– el origen de la sociedad se hallaba en un contrato, pero celebrado entre unos sujetos a los que se les habían caído las hojas de parra porque tenían las manos ocupadas con garrotes para matarse con singular placer entre ellos. En cierto momento, se habrían dado cuenta de que no era buen negocio lo que estaban haciendo, bajaron los machetes y se pusieron de acuerdo en darle todo el poder a uno de ellos, para que terminara la guerra de todos contra todos. Como en la realidad esto era poco verificable, este filósofo (cuyos retratos lo muestran un poco mefistofélico, aunque a medida que se hacía más viejo iba cobrando cara de viejito bueno), no encontraba dónde hallar un ejemplo de grupo humano en semejante condición y, por supuesto, afirmó que aún existían en América. Los hobbesianos actuales posiblemente lo sitúen en algún planeta de extraña galaxia, a muchos años luz de nosotros, cuyos hipotéticos habitantes pueden ofenderse en el futuro tanto como hoy nosotros. Es obvio que el concepto del ser humano que tenía Hobbes no era muy edificante, pues lo concebía como un ente movido por la ambición de poder y placer. El depositario del poder en su contrato no formaba parte de éste, por lo cual los que le habían dado el poder no podrían reclamarle nada, porque de lo contrario reintroducirían el caos, o sea, la guerra de todos contra todos. Por otra parte, como antes del contrato lo que existía era el caos, no había derechos anteriores al contrato y todos surgían de éste, de modo que si se negaba la autoridad del depositario desaparecían todos los derechos. De este modo, Hobbes no aceptaba ningún derecho de resistencia a la opresión, aunque no explicaba qué pasaría cuando el depositario del poder –que seguía siendo humano– se moviese ejerciéndolo conforme a la natural tendencia a la ambición de poder y gloria y desconociese cualquier límite legal impuesto por el contrato. Su respuesta era que cualquier opresión es preferible al caos, lo que hemos escuchado cada vez que se quiere convertir a la política en cine de terror. Para mantener esta curiosa paz, Hobbes exigía que las penas fuesen estrictamente legales y se aplicasen mecánicamente, salvo a los enemigos, que eran los disidentes que se quejaban y los colonizados que estaban en estado salvaje.

Para Locke (a juzgar por sus retratos, en el barrio le dirían el flaco John) el contrato era diferente, pues antes de su celebración había un estado de naturaleza en que los humanos tenían derechos, pero no estaban asegurados, por lo que decidieron celebrar el contrato como garantía. Para eso entregaron el poder a alguien, pero lo dejaron sometido al contrato. A éste lo deben obedecer aunque no les guste lo que haga, pero cuando viola el contrato y niega esos derechos anteriores reintroduciendo el estado de incerteza previo, allí tienen el derecho de resistencia al opresor. En definitiva, el concepto de ser humano del flaco John no era tan negativo como el de Hobbes y, además, la idea que manejaba del estado de naturaleza era más creíble.

Como puede verse, Locke es algo así como una de las expresiones más destacadas del liberalismo político y en el fondo el inspirador de las declaraciones de derechos de las últimas décadas del siglo XVIII. En esos años finales del siglo XVIII el debate inglés de casi cien años antes se reprodujo con fineza en Alemania, al profundizarse la investigación acerca de la razón y sus límites. Era natural que un siglo que había sido caracterizado como de la razón se preguntase finalmente cuáles eran su naturaleza y sus límites. Los más elaborados intentos de responder a esto los llevó a cabo Inmanuel Kant con sus dos investigaciones o críticas, sobre la razón pura y la razón práctica. Dicen que Kant llevaba una vida sumamente metódica, al punto de que las comadres de su Monterrey (no era mexicano, sino que Königsberg significa eso, aunque nadie lo traduce) sabían que debían dejar de chismosear y comenzar a preparar la comida porque había pasado Herr Professor. Lo cierto es que el pobre era una máquina de pensar y escribir. Estaba más cerca de Hobbes que de Locke, aunque mis colegas penalistas lo señalan como el padre del liberalismo penal. No obstante, admitía que si la resistencia se cambiaba en revolución y establecía otro gobierno, se terminaba la discusión y había que soportar al nuevo. Para conservar el contrato y no volver al estado de guerra de todos contra todos (estado de naturaleza), Kant sostenía la necesidad de la pena talional, con lo cual venía por curiosa vía a coincidir con la medida de la pena de los utilitaristas. Hubo en ese tiempo un joven brillante que partiendo de la filosofía kantiana se apartó de su autor y con sus propios fundamentos se aproximó más a Locke.
 
Era Anselm von Feuerbach, el padre del mucho más conocido Ludwig Feuerbach. No obstante, el viejo fue muy fuera de serie: a los veintitrés años escribió unas obras maravillosas enmendándole la plana a Kant en lo jurídico, porque por suerte tuvo que dedicarse a la cuestión criminal cuando el padre le cortó los víveres porque tuvo un hijo extramatrimonial. Debido a este feliz accidente biológico tuvimos un penalista genial que defendió el derecho de resistencia a la opresión y la idea de derechos anteriores al contrato, profundizando la separación de la moral y el derecho iniciada por Thomasius y seguida por Kant, según algunos con mayor éxito que este último. Entre las cosas que hizo Feuerbach en su vida –que fueron muchas y no todas santas– se destaca su código para Baviera de 1813. Tiene importancia para nosotros porque cuando Carlos Tejedor fue encargado de redactar el primer proyecto de código penal argentino, tomó como modelo este código y no el de Napoleón –que era lo más usual– y, de este modo, Feuerbach es el abuelo del pobre código que hoy ha sido completamente demolido al compás de los cañonazos obedientes a los medios masivos. En tiempos de Feuerbach  no había televisión, pero igualmente no pudo suprimir el delito de sodomía (como lo había hecho Napoleón). Lo degradó a contravención menor y lo justificó de modo muy curioso: dijo que si todos la practicáramos se acabaría la humanidad. Por supuesto que no lo creía, pero también en esa época había medios de comunicación y agenda mediática. Es algo más que pintoresco recordar que en los últimos años de su vida Feuerbach se interesó y protegió a un adolescente que apareció deambulando perdido, que había crecido encerrado en una torre y cuyo origen nunca se supo. Lo bautizaron Kaspar Hauser y su historia dio lugar a una novela y a varios filmes.

Era inevitable que alguien que creía en un estado de naturaleza anterior al contrato se interesara por este personaje. Llamó crimen contra la humanidad lo que se había hecho con él y aunque nunca se probó que fuese el heredero de la corona, lo cierto es que poco después de la muerte de Feuerbach el pobre Kaspar fue atravesado por una espada en una esquina. Las malas lenguas dicen que el mismo Feuerbach murió envenenado a causa de su protegido, pero todo indica que eso no es más que una leyenda, siendo lo más probable que su muerte se haya debido a hipertensión, pues era gordito, parece que no se privaba de nada y además tenía un carácter bastante podrido.

 
Por, Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni

FAQ del Servicio Penitenciario Federal

¿Cómo hago para ubicar a una persona detenida?
Cuando una persona es detenida en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, generalmente permanece en comisarías o en el Departamento Central de Policía Federal hasta que es puesta a disposición de las autoridades judiciales. En ese caso, al continuar detenidas por orden judicial, es derivada a la Alcaidía del Palacio de Justicia o a alguna de las alcaidías de la Ciudad. Posteriormente el juez ordenará su traslado a alguno de los establecimientos carcelarios.


De este modo, habrá que dirigirse a la sede del juzgado a cargo para averiguar la situación de la persona detenida. También se podrá averiguar qué juzgado está a cargo preguntando en la comisaría de la zona de detención.

Podrá comunicarse con el Servicio Penitenciario Federal al 4962-4427 (Dirección de Judicial) o 4964-8300 (conmutador) para solicitar información, sólo en el caso que el interno ya se encuentre derivado a una unidad penal federal. De lo contrario deberá ir personalmente a la Alcaidía del Palacio de Justicia (Unidad 28), situada en Lavalle y Talcahuano.


¿Qué tramites debo realizar para visitar a una persona detenida?
El régimen de visitas a internos federales se rige por las normas de las Ley N° 24.660, de Ejecución de las Penas Privativas de la Libertad, el Reglamento de Comunicaciones de los Internos aprobado por Decreto 1136/97 y el Reglamento General de Procesados Decreto 303/96.

Usted puede acceder a estar normas en “Servicios” del menú principal. También puede contactarse con al Dirección General de Régimen Correccional 4962-4910, Dirección de Trato y Tratamiento 4964-8335, o personalmente en la sección visitas de cada establecimiento federal.


Las visitas son concedidas previo pedido o conformidad expresa del interno, quien puede desistir -en cualquier momento y bajo constancia escrita de la visita solicitada o propuesta.
El director de cada establecimiento es quien dispone del programa de visitas, en horario diurno y en turnos distintos para hombres y mujeres, de acuerdo con las características y las posibilidades del la Unidad, teniendo en cuenta el sexo y la edad de los visitantes, la época del año y los factores climáticos.

Los días y horas destinados a las visitas son asignados contemplando, en la mayor medida de lo posible, las circunstancias e intereses del interno y sus visitantes.


¿En qué se diferencia con los Servicios Penitenciarios Provinciales?
El Servicio Penitenciario Federal es una Fuerza de Seguridad de la Nación que depende del Poder Ejecutivo a través del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos.


En virtud al sistema de gobierno establecido por nuestra Constitución Nacional y los pactos celebrados por las provincias, éstas se reservan para sí la administración de justicia, y en lo penal repercute en la generación de una jurisdicción propia en el ámbito penitenciario. De esta manera surgen las competencias de los Servicios Penitenciarios Provinciales que en algunas provincias son ejercidas por policías con orientación penitenciaria.
Las provincias alojan a los internos procesados y condenados por delitos que no sean de competencia federal, salvo en casos excepcionales.
El Servicio Penitenciario Federal posee también establecimientos en las provincias, o por regiones, con el fin de asegurar el alojamiento de los internos procesados y/o condenados por la Justicia Federal; por ello su amplia participación territorial en todo el país.
Fuente: SPF

jueves, 30 de mayo de 2013

Servicio Penitenciario Federal: La visitas de profesionales

En ejercicio de su derecho de defensa, el interno podrá comunicarse libre y privadamente con su o sus defensores, mediante entrevistas personales confidenciales.


El personal penitenciario dispensará al abogado en ejercicio de su profesión, la consideración y respeto debidos a los magistrados según lo dispone la LEY N° 23.187, artículo 5°.

Normas:
Las entrevistas con los abogados defensores podrán mantenerse durante todos los días de la semana, entre las OCHO (8) horas y las VEINTE (20) horas. Ello no obstará a que, excepcionalmente el Director o quien se encuentre legalmente a cargo del stablecimiento, en caso de necesidad y urgencia pueda autorizar la visita, fuera del horario fijado.

La entrevista de los abogados defensores con los internos se realizará en el locutorio o lugar adecuado que determine la Dirección del establecimiento.

La entrevista del abogado defensor con el interno deberá ser individual. Cuando el mismo abogado asuma la defensa de DOS (2) o más internos involucrados en una misma causa y alojados en el mismo establecimiento podrá entrevistarlos en forma conjunta en la medida en que lo permitan las instalaciones y no se afecte la seguridad.

Los abogados defensores deberán acreditar su identidad y su condición de tales con la certificación extendida por el juzgado a cuya disposición se encuentra alojado el interno.
En la certificación judicial deberá constar nombre del interno, tipo y número de documento del profesional, tomo y folio de su matrícula y número de la causa en que interviene.

Al ingreso al establecimiento, el abogado defensor deberá hacer entrega de su documento de identidad, el que será devuelto a su salida.

Previo a su ingreso al lugar asignado para la visita, el abogado defensor deberá permitir la revisión de las pertenencias que lleve consigo, pudiendo ingresar sólo los elementos que se vinculen directamente con su misión. Si hubiere sensores no intensivos u otras técnicas no táctiles, deberá aceptar su empleo.

El incumplimiento por parte del abogado defensor de los deberes enunciados, será comunicado inmediatamente al juez competente y al Colegio de Abogados que corresponda.

Cuando el interno no hubiere designado defensor, se autorizarán hasta DOS (2) entrevistas personales previas con el o los abogados que indicare.
El interno deberá informar nombre, apellido y teléfono de su o sus defensores, como así de todo cambio posterior.

Los apoderados y curadores del interno, para acceder a su visita, deberán presentar su documento de identidad y acreditar el carácter invocado mediante la presentación de copia autenticada del poder o resolución judicial en la que conste su identificación.
La visita de apoderados y curadores tendrá lugar DOS (2) veces por semana con una duración de DOS (2) horas cada una.

En caso necesario el Director podrá autorizar entrevistas adicionales.
En cada establecimiento se habilitará un libro de visitas de abogados defensores, apoderados y curadores destinado a registrar las entrevistas, en el que constará:


  • Fecha y horario de las visitas;
  • Datos del abogado defensor, del apoderado o del curador;
  • Datos del interno.

  
Los profesionales de la salud requeridos por el interno a sus expensas para su atención privada, deberán prestar conformidad para la visita, en el expediente que se abrirá a tal efecto acreditando su identidad y su condición de facultativo, haciendo constar su matrícula profesional, su domicilio y su teléfono.
  • Previo a su aceptación, se le informarán los deberes y derechos de los visitantes.
  • Previo a su ingreso al lugar asignado para la visita, el profesional deberá permitir la revisión de las pertenencias que lleve consigo, pudiendo ingresar sólo los elementos que se vinculen a su misión. Si hubiere sensores no intensivos u otras técnicas no táctiles, deberá aceptar su empleo.
  • El incumplimiento de ésta u otras disposiciones deberá hacerse constar en acta que se agregará al expediente iniciado con el pedido del interno en cada unidad.
  • Esta visita deberá realizarse en las instalaciones del Servicio Médico, en el día y el horario previamente establecidos por el Director.
  • Si del examen médico surgiere la necesidad de dispensar al interno alguna atención inmediata, lo informará, en el acto, al médico del establecimiento.
  • En caso de coincidir ambos profesionales, el visitante procederá, en presencia del médico del establecimiento, a la administración de la terapéutica aconsejada.
  • El profesional de la salud a su egreso dejará constancia del diagnóstico y del tratamiento prescripto, si procediere, lo que se hará constar en la Historia Clínica del interno. Los costos de dicho tratamiento estarán al exclusivo cargo del interno, excepto cuando el tratamiento sea indispensable para el mantenimiento o la recuperación de la salud, circunstancia que se constatará por el Servicio Médico del establecimiento.
  • Cualquier divergencia entre el Servicio Médico del establecimiento y el profesional médico visitante, incluyendo la prolongación y periodicidad de los exámenes, controles y visitas asistenciales, será elevada a consideración del juez competente
 

IMPORTANTE: en todos los casos sin excepción los profesionales deberán acreditar su identidad en el puesto de control externo de cada unidad y en las respectivas salas de abogados.


Asimismo deberán depositar los aparatos de comunicación radial y/o telefónica que llevaren consigo.

En todo momento deberán respetar las normas de seguridad de cada establecimiento.

Normas para entrevistas de internos
Tanto para las entrevistas con funcionarios de la institución como para los internos alojados en unidades bajo jurisdicción del SPF, simplemente debe completarse el formulario de Solicitud de entrevistas y a l brevedad nos pondremos en contacto con usted.

Todas las solicitudes son consideradas por la instancias superiores a las que les compete el tema para su resolución, de conformidad a las normativas vigentes.

Los pedidos deben contener nombre del medio y del programa y productora -en caso de corresponder-, y su modalidad y fecha y hora –si correspondiere- de difusión al público. Asimismo, deberán consignarse las referencias de contactos autorizados para establecer las conversaciones y documentación que resultaran necesarias. Finalmente, en caso de una entrevista a realizarse en una unidad de detención, debe precisarse estimativamente el tiempo que demandará la entrevista solicitada, para adecuarla de manera que no obstaculice el normal desenvolvimiento del establecimiento.

Para los casos de requerir entrevista a detenidos a cargo del SPF, deben conocerse los apartados del “Reglamento de Comunicaciones de los Internos” referidos a ese tipo de solicitudes: El artículo 121 del citado reglamento consigna que “El director Nacional del Servicio Penitenciario Federal podrá autorizar el ingreso a sus establecimientos de representantes especializados de los distintos medios de comunicación social, que tengan como objeto preestablecido recoger información institucional para su divulgación en la comunidad, a fin de promover la comprensión y el apoyo a la labor social que se realiza.

El artículo 122 señala por su parte que “Cuando el interno solicite o acepte mantener una entrevista individual con un representante especializado de un medio de comunicación social, previa opinión del director del establecimiento en que se aloje y siempre que no mediare oposición del juez competente, el director nacional del Servicio Penitenciario Federal podrá autorizarla. Esto no obsta a que el interno se pueda comunicar sin cesura y conforme las previsiones de este Reglamento en forma escrita o telefónica, con los medios de comunicación social.

El apartado 123 detalla, seguidamente, que “Cuando se solicite el ingreso de equipos destinados a la captación de imágenes y sonidos, el responsable del medio deberá comprometerse por escrito a difundir las imágenes y el sonido, utilizando técnicas distorsivas que impidan la identificación del interno, su posible estigmatización y la de su núcleo familiar. Tampoco se podrá aludir a hechos delictivos o a historias personales que directa o indirectamente permitan individualizar al entrevistado.
 
Fuente: SPF


Trial by Jury: The Canadian experience

Katherine Corrick
Judge of the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario.
Marc Rosenberg
Judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. We wish to thank Shirley Smiley, law clerk to the Court of Appeal for Ontario for her assistance with some of the research for this article.
 
 
PART 1: BACKGROUND
Any person charged with an offence has the right... to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.
The right to be tried by a jury, enshrined in section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms set out above, has been a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in Canada since Canada became a country.
The present-day jury system evolved over centuries as part of the English common law. Early trials by jury in England developed to assist courts to determine the facts of a case. Juries were made up of local residents summoned by Crown officials to provide sworn information about crimes that had been committed and the people suspected of committing them. Over time, English judges became reluctant to take on the responsibility of weighing the facts as found by the jury and passing judgment. Consequently, the jury’s role was extended from simply determining the facts of the case to making the final decision about the guilt or innocence of the accused person. When the right to trial by jury in criminal cases was first incorporated into Canadian law, this important role of the jury to determine guilt or innocence was already well established.1
In stark contrast to the historic jury system, however, jurors in today’s system do not know anything about the case before they begin the trial, other than what they may have read in the media. Great pains are taken to screen potential jurors to ensure that they have no relationship with the accused person and no special knowledge about the case.
 
What kind of cases do juries hear?
In Canada, jury trials are held primarily in criminal cases. Although a jury can hear a civil case, only about 15 percent of all jury trials in Canada occur in civil cases.2 That said, the overwhelming number of trials, criminal and civil, are tried by judges without juries. This paper deals only with jury trials held in criminal cases.
Trial by jury is a benefit available to a person accused of committing an indictable offence that is punishable by five years or more in prison. Indictable offences in Canada are generally more serious offences. This means that trial by jury is not imposed upon an accused person. Rather, a person accused of certain offences may choose to be tried by a jury, but is not required to do so. An accused person charged with an indictable offence can choose to be tried by a judge alone, or by a judge and jury.
For less serious indictable offences and summary conviction offences, the accused person does not have a choice; the accused is simply tried by judge alone. On the other hand, some of the most serious indictable offences, including murder and treason, are almost always tried by a judge and jury.3
 
How is a jury selected?


The process of jury selection begins with the jury roll, a list of citizens who reside within the territorial district of the court who are eligible to perform jury duty. Every Canadian province has legislation that sets out who is eligible to be a juror, and the process for producing the jury roll. In Ontario, this legislation is the Juries Act. Jurors must be Canadian citizens, be at least 18 years of age, and reside in the province where the court is located. Certain people are not eligible to be jurors because of their occupation. For example, judges and lawyers cannot serve on juries. Neither can prison guards nor police officers. Also, a person with a criminal record for an indictable offence cannot be a juror.
To summon people for jury duty, the sheriff, who is a court official, sends a notice by ordinary mail to the people on the jury roll. Those people attend at the courthouse on a specified date. These people form what is known as the jury panel. The prosecutor and the defence counsel are both provided with a list of the people on the jury panel. The list includes the name, place of residence and occupation of each person on the jury panel.
Twelve jurors must be selected from the jury panel to hear a criminal case. During the selection process, the prosecutor and the accused have the right to “challenge” or reject any potential juror. The number of jurors they can challenge varies depending on the seriousness of the offence with which the accused person is charged. They may be permitted to challenge as few as four potential jurors, or as many as twenty. The prosecutor and accused have an equal number of challenges. This type of challenge is known as a “peremptory challenge” because no reason has to be provided for challenging or rejecting the potential juror.
Peremptory challenges are distinct from another kind of challenge that the prosecutor or defence can make to a potential juror –a challenge for cause. The prosecutor and accused can challenge an unlimited number of potential jurors for cause, but they must provide a sound reason for believing that the potential juror should be rejected. The most common challenges for cause relate to cases in which there has been extensive pre-trial publicity that may have prejudiced potential jurors against the accused, and to cases in which the accused person is from a racial minority and there is a concern that potential jurors may discriminate against the accused person for that reason.
The Criminal Code sets out the procedural rules that govern challenging potential jurors for cause. Briefly, the prosecutor and accused are permitted to ask each potential juror questions to try to determine if the juror should be challenged. The trial judge must approve the questions before they are asked.
Twelve jurors hear a criminal trial. They are chosen from the jury panel according to the following process:
  • The jury panel is assembled in a courtroom along with the accused, defence counsel, the prosecutor, court staff and the trial judge.
  • The names of all members of the jury panel are placed in a box. The court staff draws the names of potential jurors from the box. As each name is called, the potential juror from the jury panel comes to the front of the courtroom.
  • If the jury panel is not being challenged for cause, the prosecutor and the accused alternate turns indicating whether they “challenge” the potential juror or are “content” with the potential juror.
  • If either the prosecutor or the accused “challenges” the potential juror, the juror is excused and rejoins the rest of the jury panel. That potential juror is eligible to be selected as a juror in another case.
  • If both the prosecutor and accused are content with the potential juror, the juror is sworn or affirmed as a member of the jury. The steps are repeated until twelve jurors have been selected.

 
How does a jury trial proceed?
Once the jury is selected, the charge is read to the accused, who is asked to plead guilty or not guilty. The trial judge will briefly instruct the jury about issues such as their duties, and the way the trial will proceed. The prosecutor makes an opening statement to the jury, and then calls witnesses to prove the charge against the accused. Once the prosecutor’s case is finished, the defence counsel may make an opening statement to the jury and call witnesses. After the evidence is finished, the prosecutor and the defence counsel make closing statements to the jury. If the accused calls evidence during the trial, the prosecutor addresses the jury last. If the accused calls no evidence during the trial, the defence counsel addresses the jury last.
There are certain features of jury trials that distinguish them from trials before a judge alone. For example, the jury must hear all of the evidence at trial, but the trial judge alone must consider questions about the admissibility of evidence. Some questions of admissibility are determined by the trial judge before the jury is selected. However, questions about admissibility may arise during the trial. This requires the jury to leave the courtroom and wait in the jury room while the trial judge determines the admissibility of the evidence. To determine the admissibility of evidence, the trial judge may hear witnesses, and will hear the arguments of the prosecutor and the accused. The jury cannot hear any of that. If the trial judge rules that the contested evidence is not admissible, the jury will never hear it. If the trial judge rules the evidence admissible, the evidence will be presented once the jury returns to the courtroom.
Another distinguishing feature involves the jury charge. At the end of the trial, after all of the evidence has been heard and the prosecutor and the accused have addressed the jury, the trial judge then “charges” the jury. The jury charge consists of the judge’s instructions to the jury about the law that applies to the case being tried.
Jury verdicts in criminal trials must be unanimous. All twelve jurors must agree on the verdict. Once the trial judge charges the jury, jurors deliberate until they reach agreement. If the jurors cannot agree after an extended period of deliberation, the trial judge may declare a mistrial and a new trial may be ordered. The jury’s decision-making process is secret and cannot be discussed with anyone outside of the jury room, even after the jury delivers its verdict. It is a criminal offence for anyone to disclose any information about a jury’s deliberations.
During a jury trial, the prosecutor and defence counsel must be particularly alert about what they say before the jury. In opening and closing statements, they must not make statements that are not supported by the evidence or are unduly inflammatory. They must not refer to facts that are not admitted in evidence, or express a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness. They can only refer to the law to the extent that it is necessary to adequately explain the facts. It is for the trial judge to explain the law to the jurors.
 
How does the jury know what law to apply?
The trial judge is responsible for determining what law applies to the case and explaining it to the jury in the jury charge. The jury charge is fundamentally important to enable jurors to properly carry out their fact-finding functions and arrive at a proper verdict. Jurors must follow all of the instructions the trial judge gives them about the law. If required during their deliberations, jurors can ask the trial judge to clarify any questions they have about the law. Generally, the jurors will put their question in writing and a member of the court staff will deliver it to the trial judge. The trial judge will then inform the prosecutor and the accused about the question and hear their submissions about the appropriate response. The jury will return to the courtroom and the trial judge will answer the question. The trial judge must always deal with the jury in open court in the presence of the accused person.
Every jury charge is different. It will vary according to the offence the accused is charged with, the type of evidence heard at the trial, and the style of the individual trial judge. There is no single recipe for a perfect jury charge. The trial judge may review all of the evidence for the jury, or only those pieces of evidence that relate to the law the jurors must apply. The trial judge may express an opinion on the weight jurors ought to give certain evidence as long as it is clear to jurors that the question of weight is theirs alone to decide. On the other hand, the trial judge may say nothing about the weight that should be assigned. The jury charge must make clear to the jury which party has the onus of proof and what burden of proof applies. Depending on the evidence heard during the trial, the trial judge may be required to give jurors special instructions about things such as the use they can make of expert evidence, the testimony of disreputable witnesses, or evidence that jurors mistakenly heard that they should not have.
As the complexity of criminal trials has increased, so too has the complexity of jury charges. This has led to many trial judges providing jurors with written copies of their jury charges to take into the jury room with them while they deliberate.
 
How does an appeal court review a jury verdict?
It is particularly difficult to assess the reasonableness of a verdict following a jury trial. In Canada, jurors cannot tell anyone about the decision-making process they followed in the jury room. No reasons or explanations for a jury verdict are permitted. This decision-making model makes appellate review following a jury trial quite different from a trial by judge alone. In a judge alone trial, the focus of the appeal tends to be the trial judge’s reasons for decision. Appellate review of jury trials tends to focus on the trial judge’s decisions about the admissibility of evidence and the adequacy and correctness of the trial judge’s instructions to the jury in the charge. It is well accepted that a jury charge must be examined as a whole to determine if there has been any error. It ought not to be dissected piece by piece. Instead, the appellate court will consider the overall effect and general sense conveyed by the charge. Essentially, the question on an appeal is whether, in all likelihood, the jury correctly understood the law as it applied to the circumstances of the case. Exceptionally, the appeal court may set aside a conviction by a jury on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable. However, this is extremely rare.

PART 2: EVIDENTIARY RULES SHAPED BY JURY TRIALS
The involvement of juries in the criminal trial process has helped to shape many of Canada’s rules of evidence. In this part, we explore three examples that demonstrate the influence of juries on the rules of evidence. But first, it is important to understand the procedure used to determine the admissibility of evidence in a jury trial. This process is known as a voir dire.
 
What is a voir dire?
The easiest way to think of a voir dire is to imagine a mini-trial before the trial judge alone within the larger trial before the jury. The voir dire takes place in the absence of the jury. Typically, the prosecutor or defence counsel will inform the trial judge, in the absence of the jury, that there is evidence they wish to present to the jury that is objected to by the other side. In those circumstances, the trial judge must rule on the admissibility of the evidence before the jury can hear it. Often, this will take place before the jury is even selected. This is the most efficient method of proceeding. The trial judge rules on the admissibility of contested evidence before the trial begins. This allows the prosecutor and defence counsel to know whether they can mention the evidence in their opening addresses to the jury. It also makes the trial run more smoothly because there are fewer disruptions requiring the jury to be excused to the jury room. If an evidentiary issue that requires a voir dire arises in the middle of the trial, the jury must leave the courtroom.
During a voir dire, the trial judge will hear evidence and the submissions of counsel and rule on admissibility. If the evidence is ruled admissible, it will be presented again in the presence of the jury. If it is ruled inadmissible, the jury will never hear it.
Voir dires can be lengthy and complex or short and fairly simple. The trial judge may be able to deliver a ruling on admissibility from the bench or may require time to consider the matter. The outcome of a voir dire can determine the outcome of the trial. For example, if the prosecutor’s case depends on the accused’s confession, and the confession is ruled inadmissible, the prosecutor is not likely to continue with the trial if there is no reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction.
Three types of evidence provide excellent examples of the way in which jury trials have shaped the law of evidence – similar fact evidence, evidence of the accused’s prior convictions, and statements of the accused.
 
Similar Fact Evidence
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that evidence of an accused person’s general bad character is inherently prejudicial and presumptively inadmissible.4 The fear is that if jurors hear this type of evidence they may convict the accused on the basis that the accused is “the type of person” who would commit the crime. There is also a fear that jurors might give too much weight to the other examples of the accused’s misconduct and use them as proof that the accused committed the crime in question, and fail to adequately consider the other evidence in the case. The risk of a wrongful conviction greatly increases if jurors draw an inference of guilt from an accused person’s bad character.
In spite of these fears, the Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized that sometimes evidence of the accused’s previous misconduct can be highly relevant to the search for the truth.5 The evidence of previous misconduct must go beyond the general bad character of the accused, and demonstrate that the accused is likely to act in a specific way in particular circumstances. For example, assume an accused is charged with robbery. The prosecution alleges that the accused entered a bank and gave the bank teller a note written in a child’s crayon that said, “Give me all your five and ten-dollar bills and you won’t get hurt.” Evidence that the accused robbed another bank in which he gave the teller a similar note written with a child’s crayon may be admissible to prove that the accused is the robber. The greater the similarity between the offence with which the accused is charged and the prior misconduct, the more valuable the evidence is in the search for the truth.
If the prosecution wants to lead similar fact evidence, a voir dire must be conducted. The prosecutor and defence counsel will make submissions for and against the admissibility of the potentially dangerous evidence in the absence of the jury. The jury will only hear the evidence of prior misconduct if the trial judge rules that it is admissible.
If the trial judge allows the jury to hear the evidence, the trial judge must also instruct the jurors about how they can and cannot use the evidence in their deliberations. The jurors may only use the evidence to decide the specific issue to which it is relevant; in our example, the identity of the accused as the robber. The prosecutor will likely have identified the issue for the trial judge at the beginning of the voir dire. The jury may not use the evidence to decide that the accused is a person of bad character and for that reason alone more likely to have committed the robbery with which he is charged. The trial judge may give this instruction to the jury right after the jury has heard the evidence and again at the end of the trial in the jury charge.
 
Evidence of Prior Convictions of the Accused
Evidence of an accused person’s prior convictions can be relevant in a trial, particularly if the accused testifies. It can also be highly prejudicial to the accused. Like similar fact evidence, the fear is that jurors might consider it more likely that the accused is guilty of the offence if they know that the accused has previously been convicted of crimes. The trial would be unfair if the jury used an accused person’s record of prior convictions to support a finding of guilt.
At common law, evidence of the accused’s prior convictions is admissible to attack the accused’s credibility. This rule is codified in the Canada Evidence Act, which applies to all criminal trials. Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act permits a witness to be questioned about whether the witness has been convicted of any offence. So, the trial judge has the discretion to permit the prosecutor to ask an accused who testifies at the trial about prior convictions.
Despite these statutory provisions and the common law rule, there are circumstances in which allowing the jury to hear evidence of the accused’s prior convictions could result in an unfair trial. Like other evidence of prior misconduct, the risk is that the jury will give undue weight to the evidence of prior convictions. In other words, the risk is that the jury will not limit the use of the prior convictions to assessing the accused’s credibility, but will use the prior conictions as evidence that the accused committed the offence for which he or she is on trial. The greater the similarity between the prior convictions and the charged offence, the greater the risk the evidence of prior convictions will be misused. For example, if an accused is charged with assault, and has a prior conviction for assault, the judge will often not permit the proseutor to question the accused on that conviction, but permit questioning on other prior convictions, especially for crimes of dishonesty, which are much more relevant to credibility.
If the trial judge permits the accused to be questioned about prior convictions, the jury must be instructed about how it may and how it may not use the evidence. Again, the trial judge may instruct the jury as soon after it hears the evidence and again at the end of the trial in the jury charge.
Statements of the Accused
Before a jury is permitted to hear evidence about a statement an accused person gave to a person in authority, such as a police officer, the prosecutor must satisfy the trial judge that the accused made the statement voluntarily. The trial judge must determine this on a voir dire conducted in the absence of the jury. The issue on the voir dire is whether the accused made the statement voluntarily. This issue is never considered by the jury – it is an issue for the trial judge alone. If the statement is admitted, the jury will consider whether it is reliable evidence or not. Voluntariness as an issue is not decided by the jury.
The accused is permitted to testify on a voir dire. It does not happen very often except in the case of a voir dire to determine the admissibility of a statement made by the accused. The accused is not required to testify. The accused may testify on the voir dire, and not testify at the trial.
As these examples demonstrate, certain procedures have developed in the Canadian law of evidence to ensure that jurors hear only admissible evidence.
We now turn to the lessons learned from the Canadian experience with jury trials.
 
PART 3: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE
As we have explained, in Canada, judges without juries hear the overwhelming number of civil and criminal cases. Jury trials nevertheless remain an important component of the Canadian criminal justice system. Evidentiary rules are based on the theory that a jury composed of ordinary citizens without any legal background will hear the case. The instructions to the jury in the jury charge about how to use the evidence the jurors have heard and how to apply the law are also based on the assumption that the jurors have no legal training. Yet, because in criminal cases, juries simply deliver a verdict of guilty or not guilty and do not provide reasons, it is almost impossible to determine whether the jury has followed these instructions; has properly applied the law as it has been explained; and has properly used the evidence that they have heard.
Nevertheless, most trial judges believe, based on their experience, that the jury almost always delivers the correct verdict. Much of the system’s faith in the jury process is based on the view that most criminal cases turn upon findings of fact and that 12 ordinary citizens without special legal training are well-suited to make such findings. Legal norms and rules are usually based in experience and common sense and by bringing together a group of 12 strangers with different and varied backgrounds it is possible to arrive at a factually and legally correct verdict.
 
What are the advantages of a jury system?
The jury system provides a number of important advantages. The most obvious is citizen involvement in the justice system. Most people never become involved in the criminal justice system. If they do, it is because they are victims, accused persons or witnesses. By being on a jury, the citizen has the opportunity to observe an entire trial and to gain a much better appreciation of, and value of, a properly functioning justice system. The experience of almost everyone who has served on a jury is that while they were initially somewhat reluctant to become involved because of the time commitment, in the end they found the experience to be very worthwhile.
Secondly, the jury system contributes to the openness and transparency of criminal proceedings. Except when they are excluded so that the judge can make evidentiary rulings, the jurors are present throughout the trial and observe the system in action. Their mere presence guards against secrecy and censorship of criminal proceedings.
Thirdly, on very rare occasions, the jury system serves as a safeguard against irrational and inhumane laws. As we have said, judges are convinced that almost always juries correctly apply the law as it has been explained to them and come to a correct verdict on the facts. There have been occasions, however, in most common law countries that have a jury system where the jury has refused to apply the law when it was considered unfair or inhumane. The most striking examples in Canada occurred over 35 years ago when doctors were prosecuted for performing therapeutic abortions in violation of the law against abortion. Juries consistently refused to convict the doctors despite the overwhelming evidence that the offences were committed. The law was viewed as inhumane and irrational, and juries refused to apply it. In the end, after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion laws because they violated the rights of women. While so-called jury nullification is rare, it is an important safeguard and, if nothing else, acts to deter prosecutors from seeking to enforce legislation that is out-dated and inhumane.
 
How does the jury system deal with the open court principle?
It is a fundamental principle of the Canadian criminal justice system that the courts are open to the public, and the media are free to publish reports of what occurs in court. While judges trust juries to arrive at the correct verdict, there are several safeguards in place to protect against decision-making based on irrelevant or inflammatory information. We have already discussed the fact that voir dires are conducted in the jury’s absence so that if the judge rules that the evidence is inadmissible, it never comes to the jury’s attention. Canadian courts, however, are open to the public, including members of the media. Conducting the voir dire in the jury’s absence would be of little value if the media could report the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Code prohibits publication of anything that occurs in the absence of the jury until the trial is over. This ban on publication extends to other pre-trial proceedings such as evidence heard on a bail hearing, at the preliminary inquiry6 and in pre-trial motions before the jury is selected.
The important value of the open-court principle is not, however, compromised by these publication bans. Although the jury is excluded during the voir dire, the court remains open to everyone else. Once the trial is finished, the media can report on all of the pre-trial proceedings and proceedings that took place in the absence of the jury.
 
What are the problems with appellate review of jury verdicts?
We have mentioned that appellate review of jury verdicts is generally limited to a review of the trial judge’s rulings on admissibility of evidence and instructions to the jury. The limits on appellate review derive from the fact that, in Canada, as in most common law jurisdictions, juries do not provide reasons for their verdicts in criminal cases. It is therefore impossible to review the path that the jury took in finding the facts and whether it correctly applied the law to the facts. It is impossible to tell whether the jury overlooked important evidence or misunderstood important evidence. This can be a troubling aspect of jury proceedings and has led to several developments.
The first is an increasingly robust role for the trial judge in screening evidence that has the potential to be misleading and unreliable. This has become known as the gatekeeper function and has assumed special importance in the area of expert evidence. The unfortunate experience in Canada over the last 20 years in which unreliable expert evidence was admitted in both jury and non-jury cases has led the Supreme Court of Canada to require judges to more carefully scrutinize expert evidence. The Court has come to appreciate that expert scientific evidence that is not properly explained, that may be unreliable, and that does not adhere to strict scientific principles may overwhelm and confuse the jury. Judges are now expected to be much more rigorous in examining the reliability of proposed expert evidence. This gatekeeper function is not confined to expert evidence. The judge is also required to critically examine other evidence that may be of limited value in reaching an accurate verdict. An example is demeanour. Until relatively recently, it was not unusual for the prosecution to lead evidence of the reaction of the accused to events in an attempt to bolster its case. For example, evidence would be led at the trial in a case involving the death of a child, where the parent was suspected of the killing, that the parent did not act “appropriately,” or was not sufficiently concerned about the child’s welfare. Experience has shown that this type of evidence is so subjective, so highly unreliable and of such limited real value that it should not be led before the jury. The judge, in carrying out the gatekeeper function, will exclude this evidence from the jury.
The second development has been touched on earlier. Judges are expected to bring to the jury charge the lessons learned over the last almost 50 years from inquiries into wrongful convictions. Judges must instruct the jury, for example, on the particular dangers associated with eye-witness identification, evidence from jail-house informers, or other persons with special interests in the prosecution. Based on the wealth of experience gained from these inquiries, judges will explain to the jury the dangers of relying upon certain kinds of evidence and why this evidence may be unreliable or dangerous and why it must be subjected to special scrutiny.
The third development is the increasing role appellate courts are playing in reviewing the facts in a jury case. Although juries do not give reasons, the appellate court still has the power to overturn a conviction because it is satisfied that the verdict is unreasonable. The test for overturning a jury verdict is necessarily a strict one. The values of transparency, citizen involvement and openness would be undermined if the appellate courts too frequently intervened to overturn jury verdicts simply because they did not like the result. Nevertheless, the appeal court will examine the transcript of the proceedings to determine whether the verdict is unreasonable. The appeal court is more likely to find the verdict is unreasonable where it is based upon evidence that in the court’s experience has led to miscarriages of justice, such as eye-witness identification or problematic circumstantial evidence.
 
What are the concerns about jury trials?
No criminal justice system delivers perfect justice. In this final part of the paper we highlight problems that are particular to the Canadian jury system. The first concerns the length and complexity of the system. There is no question that jury trials take longer. This is a function of the manner in which the jury trials are conducted in Canada. Since evidentiary rulings are made in the absence of the jury, considerable time may be taken up in these proceedings. Then, if the evidence is admitted, it must be repeated before the jury. In a case where there are many rulings to be made or many objections by counsel, the proceedings can be very lengthy. Even in a relatively straight-forward case, a trial by a jury takes twice as long as the same case being tried by a judge without a jury.
The second problem is with the complexity of jury instructions. As jury instructions have come under more intense scrutiny by appeal courts, trial judges have reacted by giving juries longer and more complex instructions to ensure that the jury charge conforms to the directions given by appeal courts in previous cases. The concern is that these complex and lengthy instructions are too difficult for the jury to properly apply. There have been some efforts to simplify jury instructions and put the instructions in “plain language.” It is not clear that these efforts have been successful.
It has also become a common feature of jury charges in Canada that trial judges review, at considerable length, the evidence that has been called at the trial. Some feel that this lengthy review of evidence is unnecessary given that the jury has also heard the evidence, is entitled to make notes as the evidence is presented, and is then given summaries of the important parts of the evidence in the closing arguments by counsel for the prosecution and for the accused. This review of evidence by the trial judge is probably a function of the concern that the jury may not have appreciated the important parts of the evidence or may have misunderstood it. Unfortunately, some judges simply repeat at great length the testimony without really performing the critical function of identifying the important pieces of evidence that the jury should take into consideration in applying the law.
Finally, the increasing length and complexity of jury cases has led to concern about the continued viability of the jury system. Are jurors being asked to pay too high a price in lost time and wages while they serve on juries? As well, to date, cases of jury intimidation are almost non-existent in Canada. However, as Canada deals with more terrorism and organized crime cases, it may have to face problems that have occurred in other jurisdictions and have led to the abolition of jury trials in some cases. For example, in the United Kingdom, alleged IRA terrorists were not allowed jury trials because of the concern over jury intimidation. To date, there is no reason to take similar measures in Canada and such a change would face constitutional issues because of the entitlement to a jury trial in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, other safeguards, some of them very costly, may have to be considered at some point to preserve the integrity of the system.
 
PART 4: CONCLUSION
More than twenty years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada described the important role of the jury this way: The jury, through its collective decision making, is an excellent fact finder; due to its representative character, it acts as the conscience of the community; the jury can act as the final bulwark against oppressive laws or their enforcement; it provides a means whereby the public increases its knowledge of the criminal justice system and it increases, through the involvement of the public, societal trust in the system as a whole.7
While the number of jury trials in Canada has steadily declined, the jury remains a defining element of the Canadian criminal justice system. Despite the challenges the present system faces, with appropriate attention to evidentiary rules and other safeguards, the jury continues to serve its invaluable function in the Canadian criminal justice system.
 
 
___________________________
Notes:
1 For a full discussion of the history of jury trials, see Christopher Granger, The Criminal Jury Trial in Canada, 2d ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1996).
2 Canada’s System of Justice: The Role of the Public, online: Department of Justice <
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/09.html>. 
3 Certain offences can only be tried by a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. If the prosecutor and the trial judge agree, even murder and treason can be tried by a judge alone. This is rarely done; virtually all murder cases are tried by a judge and jury. 
4 R. v. Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908.
5 See R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949. 
6 A preliminary inquiry is a hearing before a judge in which the prosecution calls witnesses to establish that there is sufficient evidence to justify the accused being put on trial. The accused or the accused’s counsel has the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to try and persuade the judge that the case should not proceed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. 
7 R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509, at 523-24. 

Source: sistemasjudiciales.org

miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013

The Jury System in Canada

Terry Skolnik
This paper was written by University of Ottawa law student Terry Skolnik, under the supervision of, and with the assistance of, several counsel with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada: Sherri Davis-Barron, Counsel; Nancy L. Irving, General Counsel; and Noel Sinclair, Associate Chief Federal Prosecutor, Yukon PPSC.
 
 
Introduction
This article provides a brief overview of Canada’s jury system. The first part discusses the purpose of the jury, which has been unique to common law countries,1 including when trial by judge and jury is available to the accused. The second part describes who is eligible to sit on a jury in Canada, the pre-trial selection of a jury panel and the selection of jury members at trial. The final part discusses how the Canadian jury renders a verdict.
 
Part I: an overview of the jury system in Canada
A. The definition of a “jury” in Canada and its availability in criminal trials

Canada’s jury system derives most directly from the English common law,2 which entitled accused persons, in certain cases, to be tried by judge and jury. However, both the purpose
 of the jury, and jury procedures, have evolved significantly through the centuries.
The historical role of the jury in England was very different from what it is today. Originally, jurors were chosen from the local community and were themselves the source of information –sworn under oath to disclose what they knew of the facts.3 Prior to the Norman Conquest, “‘rough justice’ [was] administered by close neighbours in light of their knowledge of local affairs and the personalities of those involved in them.”4 Their use to determine facts became part of criminal proceedings during the reign of Henry II in the latter part of the 12th century.5 The jury, in a sense, originally functioned as both witness and adjudicator. Through the centuries, however, jurors ceased to be witnesses; the jury came to function as a check on the power of the state, and to eventually represent the right to be tried in serious cases by a jury of one’s peers, 12 ordinary citizens, who are both impartial and randomly chosen.6
The right to be tried by judge and jury in Canada for indictable offences was initially provided in the 19th century by the Criminal Code of 1892.7 Although this right was codified in 1892, the right to trial by jury existed in the four original Canadian provinces before the provinces formed the Canadian Confederation in 1867.8
Since Confederation, the procedures regarding the functioning of the jury in Canada have evolved. Jury trial procedures are now set out in Part XX of the Criminal Code. Modern Canadian juries are composed of lay persons chosen at random, called upon to legally determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person charged with a serious crime.9 A jury is usually composed of 12 persons,10 male or female, who are to act as impartial triers of fact in assessing whether the Crown has proven its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The number of jury members can be increased to 13 or 14 persons if the judge considers it advisable in the interests of justice, however, only 12 jury members may deliberate in order to render a verdict.11
When a person is tried by judge and jury in Canada for an indictable offence, he or she can elect to have a “preliminary inquiry.” A preliminary inquiry refers to the process by which a provincial court judge will “inquire into the charge to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant placing the accused on his trial.”12
It is important to understand that jury trials are not available in all cases;13 their availability depends on the nature of the crime that a person is accused of committing. In some cases, such as murder, the accused is to be “automatically tried” by judge and jury unless a special application is made by the defence to be tried by judge alone with the consent of the Attorney General. In other cases, the acused can elect to be tried by judge and jury, while, in the case of less serious offences,14 the accused must be tried by judge alone. Young persons15 are also afforded the right to be tried by judge and jury in some cases, notably where they stand accused of serious offences such as murder.16 In Canada, the Youth Criminal Justice Act generally governs the prosecutions of young persons who are charged with criminal offences. A young person is defined as a person who is at least 12 but under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence.17
 
B. Right to trial by judge and jury in Canada
The right to be tried by judge and jury is a constitutionally afforded right provided by subsection 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms18 (hereafter, Canadian Charter), when the accused is charged with an offence punishable by a maximum of five years or more of imprisonment.
 
i. Mandatory trial by judge and jury unless both attorney general and accused agree to trial by judge alone
The accused must, in some cases, be tried by judge and jury in Superior Court unless both the Attorney General and the accused consent to trial by judge alone. This is the case for indictable offences (the most severe criminal offences) mentioned in s. 469 of the Criminal Code,19 which include murder, conspiracy to commit murder, treason, intimidating Parliament or a legislature, and other offences expressly mentioned within the section. Trial by judge and jury is mandatory for these crimes, unless both the Attorney General and the accused consent to the latter being tried by judge alone.20 Furthermore, although the right to be tried by judge and jury is a constitutionally protected right when the maximum punishment is five years or more of imprisonment, trial by judge alone is not a constitutionally protected right.21
 
ii. Mandatory trial by judge alone
As mentioned above, some less serious offences must be tried by a judge alone in Provincial Court. Such offences include theft under $5,000 (other than theft of cattle), mischief where the value of the property is under $5,000 and other offences related to gambling.22 In these cases, a jury trial is not possible even if the accused wishes to have one.
 
iii. Trial by judge and jury or by judge alone: Cases in which the accused can elect his method of being tried.
In cases where a person is accused of an offence not specifically mentioned in sections 469 or 553 of the Criminal Code, the accused can elect to be tried by judge and jury in Superior Court, or by judge alone in either Superior Court or Provincial Court.23 The majority of criminal offences provide the opportunity for accused persons to choose how they will be tried. Where the accused has an election but does not choose his mode of trial, he is deemed to be tried by judge and jury.24 Furthermore, in some cases, even where the accused elects to be tried by judge alone, the Attorney General can require the accused to be tried by judge and jury where the crime is punishable by five or more years of imprisonment.25
 
PART II : Selection of jury members in Canada
A. Eligibility and initial selection of jury members
I. Pre-trial selection of potential jurors

Jury members in Canada must be selected at random from the local community where the trial is to be held.26 They must be impartial between the state and the accused.27 The selection of jury members is a two-tier process. The first part of the process involves selecting potential jury members from a list of eligible candidates prior to trial. Jury lists or “rolls” are compiled according to the particular process specified in the relevant provincial or territorial legislation, which varies across Canada. Generally, the list is comprised of names of persons residing in a particular judicial district drawn from voters’ or electors’ lists.
Each province and territory in Canada has its own legislation that determines who is eligible for jury duty.28 In most Canadian provinces and territories a person must be 18 years of age and a Canadian citizen to sit on a jury.29
These statutes that provide eligibility criteria for potential jury members, automatically exclude police officers, lawyers, members of Parliament, and judges from being jurors. Provincial and territorial statutes also specify grounds upon which potential jurors may apply to be excused or exempted from jury duty, such as hardship or physical, mental or other infirmity that is incompatible with the discharge of the duties of a juror. These potential jurors compose what is referred to as the “array” or “the panel,”30 which is eventually reduced to 12 to 14 jurors in the second part of the jury selection process: in-court selection.
 
II. At – trial selection of potential jurors
The second part of the process involves the in-court selection of jury members prior to the commencement of the trial. This selection process is governed exclusively by the Criminal Code. Firstly, the potential jury members who comprise the jury panel present themselves at court. The panel number, name, and address of each member of the panel are written separately on equal sized cards.31 The cards are then delivered to the clerk of the court who places the cards into a box and shakes the box thoroughly.32 The clerk then draws the cards from the box and calls out the number on each card, and confirms the number corresponds to the name of the person on the card33 until the number of persons is sufficient to constitute a full jury in the opinion of the judge, in light of the fact that some potential jurors may be excused, challenged, or be directed to “stand by.”34 The jurors are then sworn in by the clerk of the court.35
 
B. Excusing and challenging jury members
i. Excusing jury members

The Criminal Code provides that the judge may, at any time before the commencement of the trial, excuse jury members from jury service regardless of whether a challenge has been made against a member of the panel. Firstly, jury members may be excused where the judge has concerns that the juror has a personal interest in the matter to be tried.36 Secondly, a relationship between the juror and the judge presiding over the jury selection process, or between the juror and the trial judge, the prosecutor, the defence counsel, the accused, or a prospective witness, may also lead to the juror being excused.37 Finally, personal hardship of a member of the panel can also lead to a panel member being excused.38
 
ii. Challenges of jury members by counsel
At trial, counsel for either the defence or the Crown can “challenge” potential jurors. The purpose of the challenge is “to eliminate or to reject undesirable jurors” 39 or those suspected of potential partiality. There are three methods of challenging potential jurors: (a) the entire panel can be challenged, (b) individual members of the panel can be challenged by a “peremptory challenge” (c) or by “challenge for cause.”
a. Challenge to the “array”: challenging the entire panel.
Firstly, counsel can challenge the entire jury panel referred to as a “challenge to the array.”40 The entire panel can only be challenged on three grounds: partiality, fraud or wilful misconduct on the part of the sheriff or other officer by whom the panel was returned.41
b. The peremptory challenge.
Both the prosecution and the defence have a limited number of peremptory challenges, which they can use without having to establish a reason.42 The peremptory challenge is made by counsel prior to the jury member being sworn in at trial.43 The number of peremptory challenges depends upon the gravity of the crime for which the accused is being tried. When the accused is charged with first degree murder or high treason, the prosecution and the defence each have 20 peremptory challenges.44 Other situations provide for 12 or four peremptory challenges, depending on the maximum penalty for the offence being tried.45 Even where accused persons are tried on multiple counts, they still benefit from the same number of challenges as if they were tried on one count alone, according to the count which permits the most peremptory challenges.46
c. The challenge for cause
Finally, both the prosecution and the defence may challenge an unlimited number of jurors for cause, on grounds that must be “specified and proven.”47 Members of the panel are not automatically excluded for cause, but rather, will be excluded if the grounds of the challenge are proven on a balance of probabilities (meaning that it is more likely than not that the grounds of the challenge are true.)48 There are only six possible grounds for challenge for cause, which are exhaustively listed in the Criminal Code:
a. the name of a juror does not appear on the panel, but no misnomer or misdescription is a ground of challenge where it appears to the court that the description given on the panel sufficiently designates the person referred to;
b. a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused;
c. a juror has been convicted of an offence for which he was sentenced to death49 or to a term of imprisonment exceeding twelve months;
d. a juror is an alien;50
e. a juror, even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative or other support services provided to the juror under section 627, is physically unable to perform properly the duties of a juror; or
f. a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or both official languages of Canada, where the accused is required by reason of an order under section 530 to be tried before a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or who speak both official languages of Canada, as the case may be.51
The purpose of making such challenges is to ensure a fair trial before an impartial jury rather than to over- or under-represent a certain class of society, or to go on a fishing expedition.52 Common challenges for cause include cases where pre-trial publicity may destroy the juror’s indifference between the Crown and the accused,53 and admitted racial prejudice.54
 
PART III: Rendering a verdict by jury
The purpose of the modern-day Canadian jury is to render a decision in the criminal case presented before it by either acquitting or convicting the accused.55 In order to render a general verdict of acquittal or conviction, the jury’s verdict must be unanimous.56 In Canada, a jury does not explain the reasons for its verdict. The jury can either convict the accused (by concluding that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt), or acquit the accused (where guilt is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt). The jury need not unanimously agree on the innocence of the accused; a unanimous agreement of reasonable doubt is sufficient to warrant an acquittal. In order to render their verdict, jury members deliberate in private so that their verdict is free from external influence, which is referred to as “sequestration.”57 Where jurors are unable to reach a unanimous verdict, (a situation referred to as a “hung jury,”) the judge may declare a mistrial and direct that a new trial take place.58
For a jury to convict in a criminal trial, it must be satisfied that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the trial judge’s responsibility to properly explain to the jury this burden of proof. Errors in jury instruction are considered legal errors and are subject to appeal, which can ultimately result in a new trial being ordered.59
If the jury is left with a reasonable doubt, it must acquit the accused. A satisfactory jury instruction by the trial judge regarding reasonable doubt includes an explanation of what constitutes a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be based on reason and common sense.60 It should not be based on sympathy or prejudice.61 Furthermore, the concept of reasonable doubt must be logically connected to the evidence presented at trial.62
 
CONCLUSION
Among the paramount objectives of Canada’s jury system is to ensure that the guilt or innocence of an accused person in relation to a serious criminal matter is determined by an impartial jury of his or her peers, generally in the community where the alleged crime occurred. This goal is supported by juror eligibility requirements in provincial and territorial legislation, and by numerous procedural mechanisms in the Criminal Code, to ensure fairness, notably by challenging and excusing jury members, sequestering jurors, and requiring unanimous jury verdicts.
Although the roots of Canada’s jury system derive most directly from the English common law, and can be traced to the 11th century, the Canadian jury system has evolved markedly through the centuries. The learning and experience of almost a millennia has led to the refinement of a hallowed institution. The fact that Canada has constitutionally entrenched the right of an accused to be tried by a jury of his or her peers in serious criminal matters demonstrates the sanctity of the jury as an integral part of the Canadian criminal justice system.
 
 
_______________________
Notes:
1 R. v. Bryant (1984) 48 O.R. (2d) 732 (Ont. C.A.).
2 Although a link between 12 triers and criminal justice can be identified as far back as King Alfred the Great in 879 A.D., and assemblies of up to 1,001 persons judged cases in fifth-century Athens, the direct origin of the jury trial in Canada can be traced to the time of William the Conqueror in 1066 A.D. See R. v. Bryant , ibid., for a general discussion of the history of the jury trial in England, the United States and Canada. See also Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History, from Socrates to O.J. Simpson (New York: Random House, 2005), at 8 and 70. 
3 R. v. Bryant, supra note 1.
4 Christopher Granger, Canadian Criminal Jury Trials, 2d ed. (Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1997) at 13.
5 R. v. Bryant, supra note 1.
6 Ibid. 
7 S.C. 1892, c. 29. See also Granger, supra note 4, at 36.
8 Don Stuart, Ronald J. Delisle & Tim Quigley, Learning Canadian Criminal Procedure, 10 ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2010) at 884.
9 Ibid., at 6.
10 Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 631(5). See also: Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act (S.C. 2011, c. 16), s. 7 which amended the Criminal Code to allow a judge to swear up to 14 jurors. This measure was introduced because the time required to hear criminal trials in Canada has steadily increased over the last decade, especially in large, complex cases. This can affect the jury’s ability to render a verdict, since it is not uncommon for jurors to be discharged in the course of a trial for various reasons, such as ill health or due to some other unforeseen circumstance. This can result in the size of a jury being reduced to below the Criminal Code minimum requirement of 10 jurors to render a valid verdict. To address this concern, up to 14 jurors may be sworn, subject to a random selection process that determines, after the judge’s charge to the jury, which jurors will deliberate.
11 Ibid. 
12 Supra note 8, at 713.
13 In reality, the majority of criminal cases in Canada are not tried by jury; most are tried by judge alone. See David M. Paciocco, Jury Selection in Criminal Trials: Skills, Science, and the Law, (Concord, Ontario: Irwin Law, 1997) at p. 28.
14 These are referred to as “absolute jurisdiction offences,” which are tried by provincial court judges. See s. 553 of the Criminal Code.
15 Youth Criminal Justice Act (S.C. 2002, c. 1), s. 2.
16 Ibid., s. 67.
17 Supra, note 15.
18 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. 
19 (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46).
20 Ibid., s. 473.
21 R. v. Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296 at 1321.
22 Criminal Code, s. 553. 
23 Ibid., s. 536 (2).
24 Ibid., s. 565(1)(c).
25 Ibid., s. 568. The Attorney General may direct that an accused be tried by a judge and jury when he or she believes it is in the public interest to do so.
26 See Granger, supra note 4, at 83.
27 Ibid.
28 See for example in the province of Ontario: Juries Act R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3; for the province of Quebec: Jurors Act R.S.Q. 2002, c. J-2.
29 Some jurisdictions (British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon) have an age requirement of 19 years.
30 See Granger, supra note 4, at 143.
31 Criminal Code, s. 631(1).
32 Ibid., s. 631(2).
33 Ibid., s. 631 (6) provides that measures to protect the identity of jury members is permissible if it is in the interest of the administration of justice. It is therefore not necessary that the name of the juror be called out. 
34 Ibid., s. 631(3).
35 Ibid., s. 631(4).
36 Ibid., s. 632 (a).
37 Ibid, s. 632(b).
38 Ibid, s. 632 (c).
39 See Granger, supra note 4, at 144. 
40 Ibid.
41 Criminal Code, s. 629(2)
42 See Granger, supra note 4, at 144.
43 Ibid., at 189.
44 Criminal Code, s. 634 (2)(a).
45 Ibid, s. 634(2)(b) and (c).
46 Ibid, s. 634 (3).
47 See Granger, supra note 4 at 158. 
48 Ibid.
49 The death penalty was abolished in Canada in 1976 but s. 638 of the Criminal Code has not been revised to reflect this fact.
50 Alien in this context means a non - Canadian citizen.
51 Criminal Code, s. 638. 
52 The term “fishing expedition” in this context means an investigation or inquiry undertaken in the “hope” of discovering information. See also Granger, supra note 4 at 158 and R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509 at 533.
53 Supra note 13 at 90. See also R. v. Zundel (1987), 58 O.R. (2d) 129 at 164 (C.A.)
54 See: R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128. There is a presumption in Canada that a jury pool is composed of persons who can serve impartially. However, where an accused establishes that there is a realistic potential for partiality, defence counsel is permitted to question prospective jurors as to whether they harbour prejudices against people of the accused’s race and, if so, whether they are able to set aside those prejudices and act as impartial jurors.
55 In a jury trial, the jurors become judges of the facts while the presiding justice remains the judge of the law. Accordingly, the presiding justice continues to have an active role in the proceedings and is called upon at many points during the jury trial to rule upon the admissibility of evidence and to determine other procedural issues, which arise in the course of the trial. Many of these rulings are done in the absence of the jury so their minds are not tainted by exposure to potentially inadmissible evidence such as, for example, involuntary statements made by an accused under duress.
56 During the course of the trial, the jury is prohibited from engaging directly in the examination of witnesses. Jury members may, however, provide written questions to the presiding judge at any time during the trial or during their deliberations, if they require assistance or if they need clarification concerning the judge’s instructions or they wish to review particulars of the evidence. 
57 See Granger, supra note 4 at 305.
58 Criminal Code, s. 653(1).
59 R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, at para 40. Model Jury Instructions for judges, endorsed by the Canadian Judicial Council, are available at the following link:
http://www.cjc-cm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_modeljuryinstruction_en.asp
60 Ibid., at para 36.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SECONDARY SOURCES

Christopher Granger, Canadian Criminal Jury Trials, 2d ed. (Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1997)
Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History, from Socrates to O.J.Simpson (New York: Random House, 2005).
David M. Paciocco, Jury Selection in Criminal Trials: Skills, Science, and the Law, (Concord, Ontario: Irwin Law, 1997)
Don Stuart, Ronald J. Delisle & Tim Quigley, Learning Canadian Criminal Procedure, 10 ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2010).
 
LEGISLATION
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act (S.C. 2011, c. 16)
Juries Act R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3
Jurors Act R.S.Q. 2002, c. J-2
Youth Criminal Justice Act (S.C. 2002, c. 1)
 
JURISPRUDENCE
R. v. Bryant, (1984) 48 O.R. (2d) 732 (C.A.)
R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320
R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509
R. v. Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296
R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128
R. v. Zundel, (1987), 58 O.R. (2d) 129 (C.A.)
 
Source: sistemasjudiciales.org/

Ritual de la guerra moderna: comer el hígado del enemigo en YouTube.

por Jon Lee Anderson
 
 
Escuché hablar por primera vez del rebelde sirio que se supone comió un corazón el lunes (13 de mayo de 2013), cuando un amigo que vive en Beirut tuiteó algo críptico sobre unos videos. Contra mis mejores instintos, abrí uno de los links que adjuntaba a su tuit. Mostraba a soldados (¿o eran miembros de la milicia? ¿Rebeldes? Puede resultar difícil distinguirlos en Siria) golpeando a prisioneros, azotándolos con sogas. En la barra de costado de YouTube había una lista de videos similares, algunos con títulos árabes y otros en inglés, promocionando sus revulsivos contenidos: “18+, Soldados de Bashar Assad Mutilando”, y así siguiendo. Tras unas advertencias sobre contenido explícito, el video en cuestión simplemente arranca y quien sea que haya elegido clickear en él, tenga menos o más de 18 años, lo ve, y luego vive con lo que ha visto.


Videos de este tenor han llegado a representar, cada vez más, un arma novedosa en las modernas guerras de terror. El fenómeno no es exclusivo de Siria. Un video reciente y muy comentado exhibe la decapitación con motosierra de un pandillero mexicano a manos de unos narcos rivales. Redes violentas de todo el mundo parecen haberse inspirado en Al Qaeda en sus esfuerzos por aterrorizar a sociedades cautivas, filmando y transmitiendo las ejecuciones de sus enemigos. Esto comenzó, hasta donde sé, cuando Al Qaeda grabó la decapitación de Daniel Pearl en 2002, y fue seguido, durante la guerra de Irak, por una pila de videos reales de snuff, cortesía de Al Qaeda y sus aliados: Margaret Hassan, una voluntaria británica que había sido secuestrada; el joven norteamericano Nicholas Berg; muchos que despertaron menos atención porque no eran occidentales. ¿Cuántos hemos oído mencionar en las noticias desde entonces? Por lo común, nuestros periódicos y canales de televisión han optado por la discreción y lo que hemos visto es, como mucho, apenas una imagen del rehén mirando miserablemente hacia la cámara –pero todos sabemos lo que ocurre luego. La mayoría de nosotros, supongo, nunca piensa en realmente buscar el video que muestra la muerte misma, porque sería brutal, lascivo, y sin embargo sabemos que está ahí. Y, sin dudas, hay mucha gente que sí los busca.

Uno abre los ojos al advertir que, para una generación previa de televidentes –de hace no tanto–, lo más terrorífico que se había visto (e inducido miedos duraderos en muchos de ellos) era la escena de la ducha en “Psicosis” [NdT: la película de Hitchkock]. Es un programa infantil comparado con lo que podemos ver hoy, y si alguna vez uno se preguntaron si lo que vemos en la pantalla tiene consecuencias antes y después, fìjense en estos videos de los mataderos del mundo. Si uno quiere ver cómo luce alguien mientras es apuñalado, mientras se le dice que va a morir, mientras es golpeado hasta la muerte o cortado en pedazos, sólo basta clickear.

Alguna vez, años atrás en Irak, donde pasaba largos períodos reporteando, decidí que tenía que ver uno de los videos. El secuestro y la decapitación frente a la videocámara era el pesadillesco destino que potencialmente nos aguardaba a todos. De un website que ofrecía una veintena, elegí uno al azar. Mostraba la decapitación de un camionero turco de mediana edad cuyo crimen había sido transportar una carga entre Turquía y Bagdad, que entonces se hallaba bajo control norteamericano. De acuerdo con la interpretación extremista de Al Qaeda sobre qué te convertía en enemigo, merecía la muerte porque, con las mercancías que había traído a Bagdad, las tropas norteamericanas, o el gobierno títere que defendían, estarían equipados con papel higiénico, agua mineral o gasolina.

El video comenzaba con el infeliz turco sentado frente a la cámara, arrodillado sin expresión frente a hombres que esgrimían armas y espadas y portaban máscaras negras de verdugos. Uno de ellos invocó a Dios y comenzó a aserrar, sin ceremonias, el cuello del camionero. Dada la precariedad de la banda ancha en Bagdad, el video se cortaba y recargaba todo el tiempo, de modo que vi muchas veces el momento en que el camionero turco comenzaba a morir antes de rendirme y detenerlo. De modo que no llegué a lo intencionalmente perturbador de estos espectáculos en video –el money shot [NdT: en la jerga del cine, la escena más costosa de producir que se espera cause el mayor impacto]–: el momento inmediatamente posterior a que la cabeza es liberada del cuerpo, cuando el verdugo la toma en sus manos.

Los recientes videos sirios –la mayoría de ellos, por suerte— terminan antes del momento de la muerte, pero en los muchos que recorrí había escenas similares, hombres convirtiendo en objeto a otros hombres, azotándolos y golpeándolos, atormentándolos antes de lo que parece su muerte inevitable. Puede resultar imposible verificar la realidad de esas escenas. En todos los casos me sentí sucio de sólo mirar.

Fue durante esa búsqueda que topé con el que ahora es ampliamente mencionado como el video del rebele que come un corazón, el que Human Rights Watch ha elegido para condenar. Según sabemos ahora, dado que el hombre que aparece en él, Khalid al-Hamad, concedió una entrevista por Skype a Time y la revista hizo que un cirujano examinara el video, el órgano en cuestión era, en verdad, un trozo del pulmón de la víctima que al-Hamad pensó era su hígado –y en ningún caso el corazón.

¿Qué decir de este último escándalo? Al-Hamad es, claramente, un hombre que se halla totalmente poseído por la fiebre asesina de la guerra siria, con todo lo que eso conlleva. Para justificarse, dijo que había encontrado un video-botín en el celular de su víctima que mostraba la violación con un palo de una mujer y sus dos hijas. En el tipo de guerra de odio sin barreras que está ocurriendo en Siria, la matanza es a menudo a quemarropa y, en el deseo de superar la última indignidad cometida por el enemigo, los instintos desatados pueden ser comparados, aparentemente, con aquellos que sólo se ritualizan en lo más pesado de la pornografía sado. En el campo de batalla no hay cosa alguna que retenga esos instintos, y al fin se funden con el deseo de matar.

Siempre ha sido así –que nadie lo olvide. Las fotografías de la Violación de Nanking, en 1937, son casi insoportables. En Vietnam, soldados norteamericanos coleccionaban orejas Vietcong, violaban y mataban a chicas vietnamitas, y lo hicieron mucho más de lo mucho que lo hemos olvidado desde entonces. En Afganistán, hace tres años, varios soldados norteamericanos fueron arrestados después de que se descubriera que hacían una “caza deportiva” de civiles afganos, cortándoles partes del cuerpo y posando con ellas en fotografías de sus celulares (y no deberíamos olvidar las fotos de Abu Ghraib). El año pasado, en Afganistán, surgió otro video que mostraba a un soldado norteamericano orinando sobre los cadáveres de presuntos talibán. Y así siguiendo.

En la guerra se mata a otro hombre y, para quitarse el miedo, se lo convierte en objeto, se lo humilla, antes o después de su muerte; se celebra su muerte; se convence uno de que lo ha conquistado realmente. Este ritual es tan viejo como la humanidad y es algo que se vuelve a abrir cada vez que vamos a la guerra o alentamos a otros a librarla por nosotros. Quizás noventa y nueve de cada cien soldados, o algún número mayor, se limitarán a hacer lo que deben hacer, matar porque deben, porque sus sociedades les piden que lo hagan, diciéndoles que es ellos o nosotros, o porque todo el mundo alrededor lo hace, y por la creencia de que los matarán si no lo hacen. Pero algunos sentirán también la necesidad de profanar el cadáver y posar con él en fotografías, cortarán alguna extremidad o comerán parte de ese cuerpo en el intento de derrotar no sólo la carne sino el espíritu de la víctima –y, quizás, destruir el propio.


 
Fuente: elpuercoespin.com.ar