La reforma del proceso penal en España
This article deals with the reform of the Spanish criminal justice, which began almost 20 years ago from the emergence of democracy and the Constitutional Text of 1978 in force and has been a majority restoration or vindication of the specialized doctrine and society itself.No one approaching the si...
- Autores:
-
Hernández Gómez, Isabel
- Tipo de recurso:
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2005
- Institución:
- Universidad de la Sabana
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio Universidad de la Sabana
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:intellectum.unisabana.edu.co:10818/13436
- Acceso en línea:
- http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322
http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322/1460
http://hdl.handle.net/10818/13436
- Palabra clave:
- Rights
- License
- http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
id |
REPOUSABA2_6c14fdb11fe889715db7dc5674a55482 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:intellectum.unisabana.edu.co:10818/13436 |
network_acronym_str |
REPOUSABA2 |
network_name_str |
Repositorio Universidad de la Sabana |
repository_id_str |
|
dc.title.es_CO.fl_str_mv |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
title |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
spellingShingle |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
title_short |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
title_full |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
title_fullStr |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
title_full_unstemmed |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
title_sort |
La reforma del proceso penal en España |
dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Hernández Gómez, Isabel |
dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv |
Hernández Gómez, Isabel |
description |
This article deals with the reform of the Spanish criminal justice, which began almost 20 years ago from the emergence of democracy and the Constitutional Text of 1978 in force and has been a majority restoration or vindication of the specialized doctrine and society itself.No one approaching the situation of our criminal justice with a minimum of objectivity can disagree with the need of this reform that, in a partial way, has been carried out in the most recent amending legislative initiatives to the Criminal Indictment Law ( Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal ), with technical solutions that turn to be almost evident for themselves. Perhaps better than any other legislative initiative of all those having emerged from the State Covenant for the Reform of Justice ( Pacto de Estado para la Reforma de la Justicia ), the socalled Fast Judgment Act ( Ley de Juicios Rápidos 38/2002 of October 24) of Amendment of the Criminal Indictment Law ( Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal ) and its supplementary L.O. 8/2002, summarizes the two great objectives designed by the Ministry of Justice: On the one hand, modernizing the Spanish administration of justice by making it more agile, efficient, transparent and close to the citizens and, on the other hand, invigorating the judicial system as a whole as an essential base instrument of the fight against criminality.It has been intended, from some sectors, to convey to the juridical community the idea that the slowness seen in criminal instruction brings guarantees to the accused. However, we understand that the delay of several weeks or even months it takes has nothing to do with the guarantees of procedure inherent to the due process of law, the intimate constitutional value of which (the socalled principle of procedure that so industrially builds the doctrine of the US Supreme Court from the XVI Amendment) we must not pervert. We neither believe that it brings any advantage to the accused or the victims or those third parties having to take part in the criminal process, the indefinite prolongation of the middle phase of the procedure or the severalmonth delay (between three and five on average) in the determination of the oral hearing, as it has been occurring.Concern about some kind of justice administration where speed is made one of its main informative principles is a historical constant in our country.The Criminal Indictment Law itself in its original wording (more than 120 years ago) did already incorporate certain precepts where the acceleration principle was included, leading to avoid unjustified delays in criminal procedures, as inferred from some of its legal statements.The last great amendment or reform of the Criminal Indictment Law ( L.E. Criminal ) carried out, as already said, by Act [ Ley ] 38/2002 under the aforementioned State Covenant for the Reform of Justice, should the modernization process of the major procedural laws be completed, by placing among its aims the speeding up of procedures, is not, as it has been indicated as well, a new end within the Spanish criminal indictment frame. Certainly, lack of reforms attached to this same objective cannot be adduced.Nonetheless, global experience arising under each one of these legislative novelties, though all of them contributed positive aspects, cannot be deemed satisfactory in exact terms. Sometimes, routine in the applicative processes of procedural standards and lack of resources to consolidate some of the most important events contributed to promote more skepticism about the likely actual solution to the problem of immediate indictment with respect to mild infractions that those intended by the most recent reforms that we will analyze.However, as we will see when approached, the promulgation of a new Criminal Code of Procedure ( Código Procesal Penal ) has become essential because the nineteenth Criminal Indictment Law does not admit any more amendments, patches, or partial reformations, many of which do frontally clash, as we will see, with the informative principles of the system established therein. |
publishDate |
2005 |
dc.date.created.none.fl_str_mv |
2005 |
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2005 |
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-02-02T09:24:13Z |
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-02-02T09:24:13Z |
dc.type.es_CO.fl_str_mv |
article |
dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
dc.type.hasVersion.es_CO.fl_str_mv |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.other.es_CO.fl_str_mv |
http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322 http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322/1460 |
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10818/13436 |
url |
http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322 http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322/1460 http://hdl.handle.net/10818/13436 |
dc.language.iso.es_CO.fl_str_mv |
spa |
language |
spa |
dc.relation.ispartofseries.none.fl_str_mv |
Díkaion; Vol 14 (2005) |
dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
dc.source.es_CO.fl_str_mv |
Universidad de La Sabana Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de La Sabana |
institution |
Universidad de la Sabana |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Intellectum Universidad de la Sabana |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
contactointellectum@unisabana.edu.co |
_version_ |
1811952236703514624 |
spelling |
Hernández Gómez, Isabel2015-02-02T09:24:13Z2015-02-02T09:24:13Z20052005http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322http://dikaion.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/dikaion/article/view/1322/1460http://hdl.handle.net/10818/13436This article deals with the reform of the Spanish criminal justice, which began almost 20 years ago from the emergence of democracy and the Constitutional Text of 1978 in force and has been a majority restoration or vindication of the specialized doctrine and society itself.No one approaching the situation of our criminal justice with a minimum of objectivity can disagree with the need of this reform that, in a partial way, has been carried out in the most recent amending legislative initiatives to the Criminal Indictment Law ( Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal ), with technical solutions that turn to be almost evident for themselves. Perhaps better than any other legislative initiative of all those having emerged from the State Covenant for the Reform of Justice ( Pacto de Estado para la Reforma de la Justicia ), the socalled Fast Judgment Act ( Ley de Juicios Rápidos 38/2002 of October 24) of Amendment of the Criminal Indictment Law ( Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal ) and its supplementary L.O. 8/2002, summarizes the two great objectives designed by the Ministry of Justice: On the one hand, modernizing the Spanish administration of justice by making it more agile, efficient, transparent and close to the citizens and, on the other hand, invigorating the judicial system as a whole as an essential base instrument of the fight against criminality.It has been intended, from some sectors, to convey to the juridical community the idea that the slowness seen in criminal instruction brings guarantees to the accused. However, we understand that the delay of several weeks or even months it takes has nothing to do with the guarantees of procedure inherent to the due process of law, the intimate constitutional value of which (the socalled principle of procedure that so industrially builds the doctrine of the US Supreme Court from the XVI Amendment) we must not pervert. We neither believe that it brings any advantage to the accused or the victims or those third parties having to take part in the criminal process, the indefinite prolongation of the middle phase of the procedure or the severalmonth delay (between three and five on average) in the determination of the oral hearing, as it has been occurring.Concern about some kind of justice administration where speed is made one of its main informative principles is a historical constant in our country.The Criminal Indictment Law itself in its original wording (more than 120 years ago) did already incorporate certain precepts where the acceleration principle was included, leading to avoid unjustified delays in criminal procedures, as inferred from some of its legal statements.The last great amendment or reform of the Criminal Indictment Law ( L.E. Criminal ) carried out, as already said, by Act [ Ley ] 38/2002 under the aforementioned State Covenant for the Reform of Justice, should the modernization process of the major procedural laws be completed, by placing among its aims the speeding up of procedures, is not, as it has been indicated as well, a new end within the Spanish criminal indictment frame. Certainly, lack of reforms attached to this same objective cannot be adduced.Nonetheless, global experience arising under each one of these legislative novelties, though all of them contributed positive aspects, cannot be deemed satisfactory in exact terms. Sometimes, routine in the applicative processes of procedural standards and lack of resources to consolidate some of the most important events contributed to promote more skepticism about the likely actual solution to the problem of immediate indictment with respect to mild infractions that those intended by the most recent reforms that we will analyze.However, as we will see when approached, the promulgation of a new Criminal Code of Procedure ( Código Procesal Penal ) has become essential because the nineteenth Criminal Indictment Law does not admit any more amendments, patches, or partial reformations, many of which do frontally clash, as we will see, with the informative principles of the system established therein.El presente artículo trata de la reforma de la justicia penal española, comenzada hace casi 20 años, a partir de la llegada de la democracia y de la vigencia del Texto Constitucional de 1978, y que ha sido una reivindicación mayoritaria de la doctrina especializada y de la propia sociedad.Nadie que se aproxime con un mínimo de objetividad a la situación de nuestra justicia criminal puede discrepar de la necesidad de la reforma del sistema que, de manera parcial, se ha llevado a cabo en las últimas iniciativas legislativas modificadoras de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, con soluciones técnicas que casi resultan evidentes por sí mismas. Quizá mejor que ninguna otra iniciativa legislativa de cuantas han surgido del Pacto de Estado para la Reforma de la Justicia, la denominada Ley de Juicios Rápidos (Ley 38/2002 de 24 de octubre) de Reforma de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, y su complementaria la L. O. 8/2002, resume los dos grandes objetivos trazados por el Ministerio de Justicia: Por una parte, modernizar la administración de justicia española, haci éndola más ágil, eficiente, transparente y cercana a los ciudadanos, y por otra, fortalecer el sistema judicial en su conjunto como instrumento básico de la lucha contra la criminalidad.Desde algunos sectores se ha pretendido transmitir a la comunidad jurídica que la lentitud en la instrucción penal aporta garantías para el imputado. Sin embargo, entendemos que la tardanza de varias semanas o meses en realizar la instrucción, nada tiene que ver con las garantías procesales inherentes al due process of law, cuyo íntimo valor constitucional (el llamado principio de procedimiento, que construye laboriosamente la doctrina del Tribunal Supremo estadounidense a partir de la XVI Enmienda) no debemos pervertir. Tampoco creemos que aporte ninguna ventaja al imputado ni a las víctimas ni a los terceros que hayan de participar en el proceso penal, la prolongación indefinida de la fase intermedia del procedimiento o el retardo de varios meses (entre tres y cinco de media) en el señalamiento de la vista oral, como ha venido sucediendo.La preocupación por una administración de justicia que haga de la celeridad uno de sus principios informadores representa una constante hist órica en nuestro país. La propia Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal en suredacción originaria (hace más de 120 años) ya incorporaba preceptos que acogían el principio de aceleración, encaminados a impedir la demora injustificada de los procedimientos penales, como se desprende de algunos de sus enunciados legales.La última gran reforma de la L. E. Criminal, efectuada, como se ha dicho, por la Ley 38/2002, al amparo del también mencionado Pacto de Estado de la Justicia, de culminar el proceso de modernización de las grandes leyes procesales, situando entre sus fines la agilización de los procedimientos, no es, como también se ha indicado, un fin nuevo dentro del enjuiciamiento penal español. Ciertamente no han faltado reformas adscritas a ese mismo objetivo.Sin embargo, la experiencia global surgida al amparo de cada una de esas novedades legislativas, aunque todas ellas aportaron aspectos positivos, no puede considerarse precisamente satisfactoria. En ocasiones, la rutina en los procesos aplicativos de las normas procesales y la falta de recursos para consolidar algunas de las más importantes novedades, contribuyeron a un escepticismo acerca de la posible solución real al problema del enjuiciamiento inmediato de las infracciones leves, que las últimas reformas que vamos a analizar pretende resolver.No obstante, como también abordaremos, se hace imprescindible la promulgación de un nuevo Código Procesal Penal, porque la decimonónica Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal no admite más remiendos, parches ni reformas parciales, muchas de las cuales chocan frontalmente, como veremos, con los principios informadores del sistema establecido en la misma.spaDíkaion; Vol 14 (2005)This journal and its contents are the property of Universidad de La Sabana and, therefore, may be accessed solely for reading or printing, as a personal copy, but not for profit. Prior authorization from Universidad de La Sabana is required for any other use, such as the reproduction, transformation, public communication or distribution of said material for a profit.The names and email addresses included in Aquichán shall be used solely for the declared purposes of this journal and shall not be made available for any other purpose or to any other person.The articles published in this journal represent the opinions of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Universidad de La Sabana.A presente revista e seu conteúdo são propriedade da Universidade da Sabana e, consequentemente, só poderá se aceder a ela para leitura ou impressão, como cópia pessoal e sem fins lucrativos. Qualquer outra forma de utilização como reprodução, transformação, comunicação pública ou distribuição, com fins lucrativos, requer a autorização prévia da Universidade da Sabana.Os nomes e endereços de e-mail introduzidos nesta revista se usarão exclusivamente para os fins declarados e não estarão disponíveis para nenhum outro propósito ou outra pessoa.Os artigos que esta revista contém representam a opinião de seus autores e não constituem necessariamente a opinião da Universidade da Sabana.http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Universidad de La SabanaRepositorio Institucional de la Universidad de La SabanaLa reforma del proceso penal en EspañaarticlepublishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_650110818/13436oai:intellectum.unisabana.edu.co:10818/134362017-11-29 14:10:56.222Intellectum Universidad de la Sabanacontactointellectum@unisabana.edu.co |