Legislative rush and darkness undermine citizens interest

Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly has rushed -lacking an extensive and careful evaluation- to pass two bills seeking to grant a new trial to criminal cases without unanimous verdicts

by
https://rec-end.elnuevodia.com/images/tn/0/0/1195/1039/900/789/2020/05/29/editorialelnuevodia_1.jpg
(El Nuevo Día)

Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly has rushed -lacking an extensive and careful evaluation- to pass two bills seeking to grant a new trial to criminal cases without unanimous verdicts.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that unanimity in verdicts is a fundamental right. Since that opinion was issued, verdicts must be unanimous in U.S. jurisdictions, including Puerto Rico. Convicted persons with verdicts that are not final because they are on appeal will have the right to a new trial.

Under the federal Supreme Court's decision, endorsed by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, U.S. states and territories could legislate for broader public policies.

However, any initiative in that direction requires a serious, transparent, and thorough debate process. Addressing any proposal to retroactively apply the U.S. Supreme Court opinion calls for a rigorous analysis that includes input from legal experts, justice administration institutions, and citizens sectors that could be affected. These are major failures in the legislative agenda that seeks to reverse non-unanimous verdicts made before the decision of the U.S highest court. So is ignoring the impact on the administration of justice and the Treasury.

In Puerto Rico, since the mid-twentieth century, the Magna Carta allows non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases with a majority of at least nine jurors.

There hasn´t been an attempt to reverse that until now. We do not doubt that the legislature has the power to change public policy in Puerto Rico by granting more rights than those recognized by the federal Supreme Court. The problem is attempting to do so without a thorough debate and without considering possible repercussions.

One of the bills was passed unanimously and without public hearings in the Senate. The House passed its version without hearing the opinion of the Department of Justice. Secretary Dennise Longo Quiñones has described the piece as "draconian, which in no way contributes to the balance of justice".

These bills are controversial. Some raise difficulties of retroactively enforcing the law in terms of witnesses and evidence, the burden that a flood of new trials places on the justice system, as well as the emotional cost to victims who maybe once again facing processes that deepen fear and pain.

Others argue for the rights of those convicted to be treated equally with those who will be charged under the new scenario. In some cases, there are initiatives, such as the Innocence Project, seeking new trials when evidence or scientific advances suggest the possibility of innocence. Others have evaluation mechanisms such as the pardoning power of the Chief Executive.

It is imperative to open up the discussion so that all sides can present their points of view. It should be noted, for example, that a majority verdict is not unconstitutional, irregular or suspicious. Nor should it be presumed that those convicted by a majority jury are serving unjust sentences.

Approving these bills as primaries and general elections are so close is questionable. Such an important analysis must be kept away from any suspicion of electoral intentions. The island is one of the few jurisdictions that recognize the right of inmates to vote.

The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed 131 lives and kept the island paralyzed for more than two months. Meanwhile, lawmakers remain in their bubble of privilege, seeking to amend essential documents such as the Civil Code, the Electoral Code, and now a major criminal issue.

This tendency to rush bills that affect the foundations of social life harms the democratic right to a public debate on issues that concern everyone. It also casts doubts on transparency and legislative purposes, something that has marked the styles of this Legislative Assembly, which in this electoral year insists on undermining our institutions.