Botox Causing Dizziness

Ope Pasquet

Opponents of the constitutional amendment whose primary purpose is to determine the age of sixteen the beginning of criminal liability for the intentional commission of certain serious crimes, made some objections which, in my opinion, and that is with all respect, lack of consistency.

One of these objections is based on the number of juveniles responsible for committing serious or very serious breaches of criminal law. The agencies held in INAU be about 300, more or less. It can be assumed that many others have committed offenses and have not been caught by the police, or were but escaped after INAU. Even taking into account that the figures are imprecise, it could accepted that over a thousand children who are members of the group indicated. No reason to change the old rule of 18 years, says the objection we are considering, so few cases.

I believe that this way of posing the question is wrong. What matters is that every year are perpetrated in the country about 9,000 robberies, major contributors to the sense of insecurity is alarming the population, of which 46%, according to the Ministry of Interior, are committed by persons below 18 years. It is not therefore amend the Criminal Code by a few hundred boys rebels is taking effective measures against those responsible for serious crimes that harm no sólo la propiedad y la integridad física de los directamente damnificados, sino la tranquilidad con la que aspira a vivir la sociedad toda. Es la convivencia en paz lo que está en juego.

La otra objeción a la queremos referirnos tiene forma de paradoja. No es necesario fijar en los dieciséis años el comienzo de la responsabilidad penal, se dice, porque según el Código de la Niñez y de la Adolescencia (CNA) esa responsabilidad ya empieza a los trece años. Lo que se está proponiendo para defender a la sociedad no sería pues un régimen más severo que el actual sino –y aquí está la paradoja- uno más benigno: se postergaría hasta los dieciséis years, which begins today at thirteen.

The fallacy is, of course, the implicit according to which "which now begins at age thirteen" is the same as what you want to start at sixteen. Not so. At thirteen he began, according to CNA, a system of juvenile criminal responsibility is different and more benign than the common criminal liability. In the common, established in the Penal Code, the person responsible for committing any of the crimes that the CNA called "very serious" should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment. In most scenarios prey, for example, the minimum penalty is five years and four months imprisonment. In contrast, in the juvenile justice system established by the CNA, the judge is never required to impose sentences of imprisonment (Article 87 CNA), even against serious crimes, and if you decide it must explain its reasons for decision chose not otherwise sanctions (warnings, provision of community services, etc.), which are preferred by the law. Moreover, deprivation of liberty as the ANC can never take more than five years, whether the child has committed a robbery or ten, a murder or three.

There are other differences between the system of juvenile criminal responsibility and the common system, but the signal is more than sufficient to demonstrate the inconsistency of the objection to which we refer. You do need to amend existing legislation so that those who commit about half of the thousands of robberies that have so distorted the normal coexistence, to fully assume their responsibility towards society.