Like all Brazilians who were minimally informed, yesterday I accompanied the interrogation of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at the 13th Federal Court of Justice in Curitiba, presided over by Judge Sérgio Moro, who was in charge of Lava Jato investigations. This specific criminal action related to a supposed reform of a triplet in the neighborhood of Guarujá, which was contracted by contractors, supposedly with money from tips, of which the former president could be a beneficiary. The first thing that needs to be said about this is that there is absolutely no proof that President Lula is the owner of that triplet, although he admits that he visited, just as there was an initial interest in the acquisition of the property, manifested by his wife Dona Marisa, already dead. In these difficult times of institutional instability, legal insecurity and judicial activism are among the most visible aspects of the monster in the pond. In the Black Bloc investigation, which was installed by the DEIC, State Department of Criminal Investigations of the Paulista Civil Police, during the popular demonstrations on the occasion of the June Days, it was recommended that even a certain Russian philosopher, Mikhail Bakunin, tapped in telephone conversations With the demonstrators. What are these times?
Until very recently, law manuals established that the burden of proof lies with whoever is accusing. As the journalist Fernando Brito observed, in a text in the Tijolaço blog, actori incumbit onus probandi. It is the nature of things, as Emperor Justinian remarked. If we go back to the period before Christ, the writing is the same and even more rigorous, as the Code of Hammurabi advocates, that is, if one accuses another, but can not prove it, he who accused should be killed. " These moments of institutional instability - with its correlative of absolute legal insecurity - must be causing a tremendous confusion in the head of the boys who today attend the courses of law for the country. And here it is not a matter of defending or condemning Lula, but be oriented By the technical principles of law, of the prerogatives of justice. "According to the journalist Fernando Brito, for the justice Lula would be acquitted, but, by" justice "he will be fatally condemned ... and fast, as the press claims.
Much has been commented on the possible biases of justice in the context of a capitalist system where some citizens do not even qualify for a fair trial. In the recent relaxation of the imprisonment of former Minister José Dirceu, for example, there was no shortage of comments about the fact that 1/3 of prisoners in our prison system were in the same condition as the former minister, that is, provisionally arrested without a conviction In the second instance. The statistics of blacks and the poor in our prison system are evidence that those who have access to justice - because their economic condition allows them to afford it - may not escape a punishment, but their right to full defense is assured. But this is a structural problem, which provides good arguments for jurists and sociologists, especially those with a Marxist orientation. What is observed now is a kind of court of exception, which is no longer guided by technical precepts and criminal codes, but establishes a political judgment of the accused.
In some cases, judgments are being managed by ideology, conviction, and media repercussions. Some political actors are a priori condemned, whether or not they are guilty of something. It is a common voice, for example, that there is no chance that Lula will be acquitted. On the floor of the political carriage, this certainty exists today even among its supporters. It will happen to Lula something similar to what happened with former President Dilma Rousseff, meaning that while the militants were shouting "No Goes to Hit" the operators droned the gear that took her away from power. The same project is to make the ex-president politically unfeasible, moving him away from the 2018 electoral game, which must be disputed by radicals and trustworthy actors in the establishment, such as the "novices", as former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso suggested. The biggest political capital of this country should be left out of the game. This is not good for our already weak democratic experience.