Do readers know why judges release dangerous criminals every day and put them back on the street despite police work?

Everything starts with the so-called “criminal policy”, which is a set of norms, rules and activities aimed at achieving peaceful social coexistence, with crime control as the central axis. It is a tool used to create crimes and their punishments, different types of processes, legal benefits, prison facilities and guidelines for rehabilitation.

The preliminary hearing for the trial of members Maribel Barreno and Juan José Morillo has been postponed again

It is a system of rewards and punishments, where the law is stricter towards those who behave more seriously and offensively to society and more lenient towards those who cause less damage, supported by distinguishing criteria where it is considered that the most aggressive offender must remain deprived of liberty for a longer period as a measure of social protection. to avoid recidivism and give him more opportunities for rehabilitation, while for others the penalties are reduced, with privileges such as bail, short procedures, alternative measures to prison, etc. .

(…) they are forced to change the prison for more lenient measures, regardless of whether it is in favor of terrorists or murderers…

This thinking that drives the world of criminal law seems alien to what the Constitutional Court considers in some of its decisions, such as the one published in judgment 8-20-CN/21 which declared several lines of art unconstitutional. 536 of the Comprehensive Criminal Code, which provides for the replacement of preventive detention with “alternative measures” such as regular screening or a ban on leaving the country, which used to be only for juvenile criminals and is now for everyone, but retained the exclusion for corruption activities in public or to the private sector, as if it were the greatest evil plaguing Ecuadorian society.

The appointments of the interim CPCCS are protected and an attempt to review them may be grounds for the dismissal of the current directors.

The Constitutional Court never understood that the leitmotif here is not equality, but precisely the inequality between the types of criminals and the crime that justifies imprisonment, which is why the term “criminal policy” is not mentioned anywhere in the judgment and, making a blank slate from the legislator’s work on this issue, all criminals are put to the same level, because for access to this benefit it is no longer important whether you are a rapist or an ordinary pickpocket.

Diana Salazar and Alembert Vera respond to the request of the Constitutional Court regarding the issues of supervision

With this, the Court – without thinking, I guess – created a vulnerability in the justice system, because now judges are forced to change prison for lenient measures, regardless of whether it benefits terrorists, drug dealers or murderers. , because they cannot be withheld from the moment these distinguishing criteria are eliminated, due to the simple fact that permission is established with generally binding effects. Without this ruling, the improper substitution was an act of judicial corruption; Now, with the penalty, that’s right for a very dangerous crime.

Draw your own conclusion, dear reader. (OR)