Lately, the judicial system has let us down in regards to big cases. In these of Mati and Nikos Michaloliakos, we expected the verdict to be much harsher on the defendants. The question is, what role our collective sense of justice should play when it comes to judicial decisions.

As far as the incidents are concerned, we can start with Nikos Michaloliakos. He was found guilty of being the leader of a terrorist organisation and was released from prison less than 5 years later. His advanced age did play a part in his release, but terrorism is a serious offence that did not warrant such a favourable sentence. Moreover, in regard to Mati, 6 of the 21 defendants were found guilty and received 5-year prison sentences, redeemable for about 40 thousand euros each. It is therefore likely that none of them will have to face time, which, for the loss of so many lives, seems equally unjust.

Be that as it may, of course, my argumentation is not based on legal knowledge, but on opinions that derive from my own and society's ethical codes. Most of us are asking for sentences that are vague, without a benchmark, and demanding sentences that do not correspond to the reality of a Western judicial system. Let us not forget that the social demand for Elias Michos would not be satisfied by any years of imprisonment, only by the capital punishment; a sentence that for many (good) reasons has been abolished from our judicial system. We make such demands, because our legal opinions are dictated by our emotional responses, without the emotionally sober process of the courts.

On the courts' benches, sit people with a vast knowledge of the law, years of experience in the courts and great intellectual skill. They are people who have mastery of their profession and a complete education, since it is difficult to qualify for a judicial career otherwise. This gives great weight to their opinions compared to our social demands. Even more so, in a trial, judges are privy to information which the public does not have access to; it makes sense that their opinions differ from ours. In fact, the only information we have is from the media, which we filter through social networks filled with misinformation.

In short, judges know how to do their job better than we do. But society is not necessarily wrong in these matters. We may not have the scientific training to evaluate judicial decisions, but we do have something in our favor: an innocent morality. Let's be honest, a judge in a criminal court has seen too much, which makes him or her more objective but morally cold at the same time. Thus, it makes sense that we react more strongly than judges to injustice, since we do not come face to face with it daily.

So are we wrong? Yes and no. A judge, despite his or her qualifications, always acts within the bounds of the law. A judge must obey even a morally unjust law, to reach a legally correct verdict, which could simultaneously be very unfair. It is up to our society, therefore, to remain vigilant about the morality of our laws and to listen to the legal community and its demands.

Ultimately, we are better off that the people's court does not make our judicial decisions. However, I must reiterate the fact that the judiciary is flawed and does not always reflect our view of the world. In time, we might be saying the same thing about the Tempi verdict. But let us not forget: the same system that convicted Golden Dawn is the same system that released it. We cannot talk about victory in one case and talk about corruption of the system in the other. We have the right to control our justice system and to demand explanations from it when decisions such as the two recent ones are made. But the judiciary is here to comply with the law, not our personal opinions.

Writer

  • Georgios Terzopoulos created politiquill.gr to share his opinion pieces and thoughts with the world. He is interested in political marketing and communication.

    View all posts
Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *