without a doubt that the figure of the Prosecutor in our current system p criminal rocesal it is characteristics of huge importance, which, however, have not been in the center of the public debate, both in regard to their qualities positive as to the negative. One of the main objectives Político-criminales pursued by the reform, was to give a greater role to the victim, both in procedure and in the resolution of the criminal conflict and, to do this – the creators of the reform – imagined the alternative more attractive to implement that role, was the appearance of the victims in the process, through a lawyer who could help prosecutors in their criminal prosecution, but also depart from this when interests of its non-represented They confluyesen with her.
In practice, this idea intended by the drafters of our code of criminal procedure was not verified as expected, because in many social sectors – most of them with little legal knowledge-, victims imagined that prosecutors would meet the function to be his lawyer in the processes by which to defend interests of victim with great care and dedication. Nothing farthest from everyday reality. Strictly, prosecutors of the public prosecutor’s Office carried out its work according to the management policies that your institution considers relevant, which often move away from the interests of the victims.
Unlike the victim, a prosecutor can force the Attorney General to make arrangements, ascribe a different legal classification to an offence or even move forward with a process independently. Hence, many victims of major crimes, which do not have the means to hire a lawyer, or not have the support of governmental or private aid agencies, are in complete helplessness.
But on the other hand, the new criminal process has been the emergence of companies that spirit of profit, they abuse the figure of the complainant, offering services of lawyers to companies that have been victims of crimes, which often have a low probability success, or are simply a symbolic admission of useless quarrels which end up generating just an increased workload for prosecutors and the squandering of public resources in carrying out friendly audiences, which ends up causing a malfunction to many courts.
Is a clear example of the designated ALTO S.A., legal services company offering retail companies to appear as complainants in cases involving crimes of those who have been victims. From the analysis of the processes in which the designated company appear through their lawyers and that consist in the public computer system of the judiciary, is only possible to see that the vast majority of these end with closure, acquittals and decisions of not persevere by the Public Ministry, as repeatedly submitted complaints do not seek a specific objective and many of these have no legal or evidentiary basis that allows them a proper resolution. Realizing the above we can draw cases approaching the limit of absurdity. Causes RIT 3428-2014 1st Court guarantee of Santiago, in which the designated company is rejected by the alleged theft of a can of drink valued at only $850.- or cause RIT 2197 – 2013 of the 14th Court of warranty of Santiago, in which the aforementioned rejected by the theft of a colony valued at only $3.990.-, allows to appreciate that for this type of business, criminal procedural system is not seriousness or importance.
The institution of the Prosecutor was thought as an instrument of procedural collaboration, its objective was to enhance the display of victims in a system that could become invisible, lighten the work of the public prosecutor’s Office, and deliver the elements necessary to the sentencing in the resolution of the conflict. However it has been poorly used by companies offering an inefficient service to other companies, at the expense of recharge the already saturated criminal with performances and ineffective hearings and no useful procedural system with the aim of profit.
Urgent no doubt put in the center of the legislative debate to promote the tools so that many of the victims can access at its best a good lawyer who can represent them through a complaint. But also urges that the same legislature established barriers preventing to companies such as indicated to abuse a system funded by us taxpayers, charging it in artificially and making it much less speedy.
Missing complainants, for those who need such assistance that allows them to not be invisible to the system, but at the same time spare those complainants who use the system for economic gain, no matter what occurs at the expense of worse.
Poured in this op-ed content is the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial line nor the counter position.
