Chile Forum

RWS wrote:It's one reason why I find the adhesion of the majority of Chilean voters to the present two-decade-long government difficult to understand ...

I don't get the impression they expect much. It gets back to those other threads discussing poor customer service in Chile, Chilean tolerance for poor service (management tolerance for poor performance). It seems like most Chileans just accept things like that. I've seen my wife's family just walk away from a store when they couldn't get the employee to serve them (really, just act like they're employed). They just shrug their shoulders and dismiss everything as "it's Chile." I understand the apathy among employees (lack of opportunity to move up the ranks). But, it's part of a larger apathy such as customer and voter. I don't understand those.

Mark

The explanation is easy: jails are crowded with by passers, the media staying in jail has decreased a lot, so much more people are choose crime as activity, lucrative and virtually risk-free.

Before the Reforma, judges had the authority to imprision a suspect if he have enoug reasons to suppose that he may escape during process or be "actual danger to the society", now the "prision preventiva is very restricted an absolutly exceptional, so, well known criminals are freed after their catch by police and are free to continue in crime. Other benefit is the wide scope of the "irreprochable conducta anterior" (no previous criminal record) who allow benefit criminals having many crimes in other countries or be processed by many diferent crimes at once. There are lot of modifications that any lawyer knew that will increase crime, but politicians bring the reform ahead cutting the carreer of any judge opposed to reforma.

The paradox is that all the intended objectives had opposed effect:
One objective was freed space in jails, freeing minor crimes, lowering the staying with benefits, etc. but the effect was opposed because this turned crime more atracctive an criminals grow as mushroom, jails are still full but with people entering and out at short time, this is know in Chile as "la puerta giratoria" in and out inmediatly

Other objective was strength the "presumption of innocence" but this -in praxis- was benefit to criminal guarantees and weak the victims guarantees

Well, I think that reforma pnal was a fiasco worse than transantiago, but affected people is disperse and cannot claim so effectively as -lets say- angry people waiting in a bus stop

tombrad2 wrote:The explanation is easy: jails are crowded with by passers, the media staying in jail has decreased a lot, so much more people are choose crime as activity, lucrative and virtually risk-free.

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. A higher volume of crime, and shorter stays for more people. If the law went back to being tougher on criminal conduct, it sounds like they'd have to build more prisons. That might be unpopular due to the cost. We go through the same thing in the US. People get upset with growing crime and repeat offenders. We pass laws requiring sentencing guidelines, minimum mandatory terms, and "three strikes" (life without parole after your third felony). More prisons have to be built. People grow unhappy with the taxes. And then the occasional horror story occurs. Someone sentenced to an unjust term because the judge had no discretionary power in the sentencing phase. Or, the sensationalized case of the guy sentenced for life for stealing a pizza (because it was his third crime).

You mentioned "innocent until proven guilty" was expanded as part of the reform. Was Chile "guilty until proven innocent?" Is it still? I think in the US that's viewed as almost a human-rights issue. A fundamental human right to a presumption of innocence, placing the work on the prosecutor and police to prove guilt (not upon the accused to prove anything except to respond to the evidence). But, when someone is a victim and they see their attacker go free over a "technicality" they lose their appreciation for protecting the innocent. I get the impression it's not as popular today as it was.

Speaking of human rights. Do you think that reform had anything to do with the free-trade agreement near that time? I've read that the years-long process of negotiating these treaties includes imposing western norms on the other country. Things like stronger property rights, banking and monetary practices. Making things related to commerce and finance more uniform. But, I've read it also extends to human rights. (For example, there was a lot of criticism of the US for not tying trade with China to human rights reforms.). The timing of Chile's reform makes me wonder if it wasn't related to the free trade agreement.

Mark

"Presumption of innocence" was misunderstood by designers of reforma, all of them university professors who never litigated in their life. It is obvious that anyone must be pressumed innocent until not proved on the contrary, BUT to hold in jail a potentially dangerous criminal while the process is running is a MINIMAL common sense, otherwise carabineros could not catch any criminal unless their crime is judicially acredited. The confusionhere is that anyone is pressumed inoccent just for sentence purposes, but the society must have the power to hold a potentially dangerous person while is being investigated, this is not an abuse to presumpyion of innocence as theoreticals claimed, but a minimal common sense. Take into account that we are talking on temporary imprison, not definitive sentences.

If those human rights professors where truly worried about presumption of innocence of indicted, they could design a good system of rules and compensations in case of arbitrary application of temporary imprison, however they choosed the easy way privileging the indicted guarantees over the victims guarantees. The results is clear, crime is now profitable and risk free.

I have heard many times that reforma was a condition to sign the FTA, it may be, but I am pretty sur that the design was 100% made in Chile, I knew some of professors and professionals responsible of the fiasco, and -in my impression- they was mainly dummies, full of theories, obscure people politically appointed and biased, same as with Transantiago, the fundamental error was in diagnostic and this caused a huge snowball of further errors and useless spendings. All practiciones lawyers, jueces and ministros was against the reforma, but with the time they had to fall on their knees or simply their carrer was cutted by political reasons, a full and quiet purge at sovietic style.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:Again, as usual you try to hijack the thread on an off-topic debate. Poor loreleiah and her attempt to just find info on places to live.

Loreeiah, I have some new pictures of Renaca in the gallery

tombrad2 wrote:BUT to hold in jail a potentially dangerous criminal while the process is running is a MINIMAL common sense, otherwise carabineros could not catch any criminal unless their crime is judicially acredited. The confusion here is that anyone is presumed innocent just for sentence purposes, but the society must have the power to hold a potentially dangerous person while is being investigated, this is not an abuse to presumption of innocence ....

Thanks Tom. In the US that's called pre-trial release. It's determined by a judge. Very discretionary/arbitrary depending on the strength of the evidence, the accused's history, their ties to the community (investments, family, whether they may flee), the amount of "bail" (money) they should pay as further assurance they will appear for trial. They take all that into consideration to determine whether to release, and the amount of bail (if any. If no bail, its called "recognizance". Just the person's own recogonition of their obligation to return for trial. Usually just petty offenses with little prior history. But, if someone had strong history and ties to the community, they might get a recognizance release even for a serous charge.).

In Chile, does the accused have to be charged within a minimum time, or released? (In the US it is 48 hours I believe). If charged, will her release (awaiting trial) be determined by a judge? Is there something about the reform legislation that forces judges to release? If so, that would be different than the US.

Interesting that this may have been due to the Free Trade Agreement. In the US we hear a lot about how such agreements affect us negatively (loss of jobs, products that are unhealthy, even poisonous). We rarely hear how the other side may be negatively impacted.

Mark

(sorry for OT)
MArk, in Chile same as in the US police has 48 hours maximum to bring any accused to a court, nobody can stay more than 24 hours in a police quarter, after this time has to be sent to a jail under gendarmeria custody, the prosecutor (fiscal) present the case to a Juez de garantia who determines either is freed or hold in pre trial imprision, the later aplies only in very exceptional cases the rule is let them free, there are just two reasons to temporary imprison: if accused is considered an evident danger to the society (b.e. rapper, kidnappers, murders, etc.) or if there are pending investigations who may be affected with accused free. No other reason may use the judge to hold accused in temporary imprison, that is why "la puerta giratoria" occurs, many people is bring to the court and judge de garantia releases giving a date to present to trial, they never show up until they are catched again, and so on.
In the old system the judge had more authority to determine the convenience to hold the accused in temporary prison so the accused dont flee so easily.

tombrad2 wrote:... or hold in pre trial imprision, the later aplies only in very exceptional cases the rule is let them free,

Thanks Tom. That helps me understand the difference. I hope in a future discussion to understand why it's exceptional (the law, or legal precedent?). That sounds like the difference between Chile and the US. I don't believe it's exceptional in the US to hold someone until trial, or set the bail (money) so high that it is difficult for them to get out. I'm curious why pre-trial release is so "generous." And, I'd like to learn whether repeat offences count for anything (either in pre-trial release, or subsequent convictions at trial). If they don't, I think that would be different from the US too. So, if the reform was due to the FTA, it's interesting to me to understand why it's so different. But, I'll ask some other time when the topic comes up.

Mark

Or just create a new thread dedicated to this topic. Why wait for it to come up again on some other unrelated thread topic?

It's hard enough as it is for newcomers to find information when folks stray far off the title of the thread. Also extremely frustrating for topic starters to see their thread get redirected for multiple pages on other topics and their goal or question barely or never answered.

JMHOs.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:Also extremely frustrating for topic starters to see their thread get redirected for multiple pages on other topics and their goal or question barely or never answered.

FWIW, I wasn't the person who interjected crime into the topic (or, US complicity in 9/11, or me being a chamelion). I think you have some skin in the game.

If you (as an admin) can snip those threads out to sub-topics, I'm ok with that.

Mark

Now time for me to say tranquilo.

Passive until someone makes me aggressive.

One thing to mention crime for a certain communa, completely different to get into an extensive discussion on the comparative criminal justice systems of countries.

The skin started with you on other threads BTW. But I will hold my typing more on this argument and end it here. You are welcome as usual to get the last word in.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:But I will hold my typing more on this argument and end it here. You are welcome as usual to get the last word in.

Just start a new thread. So far I have 1) Chile and criminal justice. 2) US co-conspiracy in 9/11, 3) MarkF is a chameleon, 4) EEUU is passive until provoked.

If you have the ability to snip those out into lobby topics, I'm fine with that. I'm mostly interested in #1. Although I didn't start it. The other three were entirely yours.

Re 3 & 4, if you have a problem with me, you're welcome to PM me. I'm open to chatting. I don't bite.

Mark

No power to snip posts into new threads (that I can see) only power to edit or delete.

Buenos Noches