A penitentiary factory? A judge of the Bratislava court says that it must end! – Topky

Ľudovít Makó, František Imrecze, Michal Suchoba, Bernard Slobodník, František Böhm – these are the names of only some of the penitents whose statements changed Slovakia. However, according to Judge Petr Šamek, who works at the regional court in Bratislava, the penitentiary factory must close. And for several reasons.

Archive VIDEO Peter Kažimír came to testify at NAKA

“In certain cases, it is a matter of law and justice, and in that case it must not remain silent.” This statement was recently made by the current special prosecutor. And he’s right. There are things where it is a duty not to remain silent. We need to talk about them, even repeatedly, ” stated Šamko on the portal Legal letters. As he subsequently stated, the essence of criminal proceedings is the detection of acts and their perpetrators, but it is finally necessary to think about the system of production of penitents.

Source: TASR / Martin Baumann

“And whether narrowing the evidence in criminal proceedings, as a rule, just to obtain the confession of the accused through custody, is really the right way for us to establish law and justice. In a state governed by the rule of law, the purpose should not sanctify means, ” he thought. For this reason, too, he wants to point out the incorrectness of the persistent opinion of professional circles or the media, which identify the accused’s confession with the truth. In addition, the system of creating penitents, according to Šamka, distorts the evidence and thus casts a shadow on the true confession of the accused.

Indisputable evidence?

“It often seems that law enforcement authorities do not go where the evidence brings them, but the evidence goes where it is sent by law enforcement authorities. Quite often, we witness that, as a rule, the media, but sometimes also the law enforcement agencies at press conferences, solemnly report that in a media-interesting criminal case, some of the accused of having committed the crime mentioned in the indictment resolution have been confessed. Such a confession is then presented as clear evidence of the merits of the allegations made. ” informs Šamko with the fact that for OČTK it is a proof which was a proof of committing a crime.

Source: FB / SR Police

Subsequently, the preparatory proceedings are completed almost immediately and a proposal is submitted for the approval of the agreement on guilt and punishment, while the punishment is almost always conditional. “Of course, it is customary to add to the confession of the accused that there is no reason not to believe him, because the accused would not confess to something he would not do, or that the confession of the accused only fits into the context of the penitent’s testimony. ” Šamko explained, according to which it is interesting that the OČTK do not perceive it if some of the accused denies guilt as clear evidence of the accused’s innocence.

But, on the contrary, if someone confesses and obtains the title of penitent, it is immediately proof of the truth and indisputable evidence of corruption. According to Šamek, this is an unquestionable glorification of the accused’s confession, because his statement does not have to be true, or only a part of it is true. In addition, according to Šamek, in some decisions of OČTK they describe the testimony of penitents as indisputable evidence.

Source: Facebook / Slovak Police

A clear goal for penitents

“In this regard, it should be borne in mind that, with a few exceptions, almost all penitents became penitents immediately after their detention (when they were in real danger of imprisonment), or in the execution of detention, especially collusion. And even those small exceptions were before detention and apparently they wanted to avoid not only detention but also detention, so they came to the police as a guarantee to the truth-telling penitent. ” said the judge, who subsequently added that only these circumstances should encourage caution in the assessment of their statements and the confession of the accused, especially in the conditions of detention, does not guarantee his reliability.

Source: Topky / Maarty

“A possible false confession means that the accused understands and realizes that the information he communicates is not true, but for various reasons that are in line with his personal interests, he agrees to have committed what is alleged to him. guilt in the resolution and indictment. There are various motives that can lead the accused to a false confession. “ the judge stated that it was, for example, an attempt to get out of custody and benefit in a similar suspended sentence, the accused’s desire to get into a situation similar to that of him and other persons, the accused’s desire to protect his property and his family’s property, or fear accused of being separated from his minor child for a longer period of time.

A coincidence?

‘The accused may confess or deny, his statement may be true or false, but the accused may or may not assist law enforcement authorities; the course of the evidence in establishing the facts of the case must therefore not depend on the statement of the accused. The statement of the accused must therefore not be regarded as the most reliable proof of truth in criminal proceedings, which should be decisive and after which an investigation has been concluded and an agreement on guilt and punishment may be concluded. ‘ the judge pointed out. He asks whether it is really a coincidence that all but one of the penitents are born almost exclusively in custody or in a police detention cell, or whether a custody cannot be taken as a form of coercion to confess to the accused.

Source: Getty Images

“These are no longer isolated cases, but a targeted approach in criminal law. It is to some extent a systematic system that is based on the accumulation of penitents and at the same time is dependent on penitents, because for two survival needs to produce more and more accused – penitents who “bring” more and more suspicions and more and more of the accused, who are subsequently transformed into penitents in custody and thus the chain of suspects is constantly expanding, making a living from new criminal cases and persons. ” explained Šamko, who added that the whole system must work without disturbing moments and therefore “worries” him if there is a suspicion of possible manipulation of the statements of penitents.

Pressure on the right attitude

As he wrote, the police are dependent on the system to create various networks, spiders and diagrams, in which individuals are then deployed and to which specific allegations are added. “The creation of criminal schemes is very important here, as it is intended to illustrate the seriousness of the suspicions under investigation, which are generally referred to as structured criminal or organized schemes – groups,” he added that the role of investigators was first and foremost to persuade the accused to confess to the matters he was accused of. At the same time, they use a bond that acts as an incentive institute to persuade the accused to reconsider his originally negative attitude to the “right” one.

Source: Getty Images

“It should be deduced from the principle of the presumption of innocence that the confession of the accused is not sufficient and should be confirmed by further (other) evidence. However, as far as the so-called reporting cases, which are largely based on the testimonies of penitents, there is currently a procedural procedure that resembles the chaining of penitents, their accumulation, rather than proper evidence, as the accused must first confess to what the previous accused accused him of who thus became a penitent. The new penitent must, of course, confess to what the previous penitent had previously said in order to confirm his credibility at the same time, so the admission of a new penitent must be sufficient to actually “confirm” each other. Šamko pointed out that this is how it goes around.

Source: Getty Images

Therefore, in his words, it is absolutely impossible to consider such a procedure to be correct, only in order to ensure the confession of the accused. Not even if it were true. According to Šamek, the correct procedure would be one in which the penitent’s statement would first be thoroughly verified, and only then would the accusation be made. “I’ve written it several times: the penitent’s statement should be the beginning of the evidence, not the end,” concluded Šamko.