We invite you to read the letter to the editor written by our senior associate of the Criminal Group, David Segall, on the use and abuse of pretrial detention.
In recent times, public opinion has witnessed multiple formalization hearings of public figures, in which the accused have ended up being subjected to the most serious precautionary measure: pretrial detention.
Regardless of the public character of the accused or not, these hearings have made it possible to visualize a long-standing problem, which is the true denaturalization of pretrial detention. Rather than serving as an instrument to reduce the probability of a repetition of a crime while the process is prolonged, it has become an anticipated penalty, often using a quasi-mathematical analysis of penalty prognosis in which it is pointed out that, as in a hypothetical oral trial the accused risks high penalties, he should be subjected to preventive detention, as his freedom is a danger to the security of society.
This distortion is increased when formalization hearings are broadcast live, putting greater pressure on the participants and judges and transforming the discussion of precautionary measures into a real anticipation of a guilty verdict.
The criminal process of a democratic state must ensure the proper use of intensive instruments such as pretrial detention. Its abuse only increases the possibility of obtaining the worst result of the system: people subjected to pretrial detention who end up being acquitted in oral proceedings.
Letter written by:
David Segall | Senior Associate Criminal Litigation Group | dsegall@az.cl
