3 ms·

In judicial systems like the Brazilian (and sadly many European ones) a judge that’s sufficiently high up in the judicial ladder gets to be judge and jury. He

In judicial systems like the Brazilian (and sadly many European ones) a judge that’s sufficiently high up in the judicial ladder gets to be judge and jury. He is technically bound by the law, but he also has the power to interpret the law as he sees fit (many such cases in Portugal for instance). This system puts too much power in the hands of a single person and as such is ripe for abuse for personal causes… or worst, for personal gains. There’s nothing democratic about this. It should be a jury of fellow peers to decide if someone is guilty of actually breaking a law.

crop_rotation 2y ago
I don't think it is about judicial systems and what not. The judge is only able to take dictatorial powers in Brazil because the society as a whole is not in a position to fight against it and kind of accepts it as something unfixable (lots of people might even support it). I doubt the Brazilian Constitution gives him such vast power.
- brunoarueira 2y ago
  The problem is many politicians who have power to change it or remove such person are dirty and to keep their mandates, prefer to not talk or do anything about it! On the other side the current voters are brain washed or manipulated through presents during the elections to vote in someone, so it'll be a long journey to reverts things here.
howard941 2y ago
This peer thing arises from a common law heritage. Brazil operates under civilian law. Totally different.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Even in Brazil typically one person does not get to be judge and jury. Alexandre de Moraes is currently on the supreme federal court, and was previously president of the superior electoral court, which is the other top level court in Brazil. Note that De Moraes served on both courts at the same time. As part of his powers on the superior electoral court, he granted himself the authority to perform unilateral censorship through secret orders as part of his duties in the federal court. This is obviously not legal and totally absurd legal theory since it violates the separation of powers of these two courts. These powers should only be granted to the judicial system through new legislation or changes to the constitution.

crop_rotation 2y ago

I don't think it is about judicial systems and what not. The judge is only able to take dictatorial powers in Brazil because the society as a whole is not in a position to fight against it and kind of accepts it as something unfixable (lots of people might even support it). I doubt the Brazilian Constitution gives him such vast power.

brunoarueira 2y ago
The problem is many politicians who have power to change it or remove such person are dirty and to keep their mandates, prefer to not talk or do anything about it! On the other side the current voters are brain washed or manipulated through presents during the elections to vote in someone, so it'll be a long journey to reverts things here.

howard941 2y ago

This peer thing arises from a common law heritage. Brazil operates under civilian law. Totally different.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Even in Brazil typically one person does not get to be judge and jury. Alexandre de Moraes is currently on the supreme federal court, and was previously president of the superior electoral court, which is the other top level court in Brazil. Note that De Moraes served on both courts at the same time. As part of his powers on the superior electoral court, he granted himself the authority to perform unilateral censorship through secret orders as part of his duties in the federal court. This is obviously not legal and totally absurd legal theory since it violates the separation of powers of these two courts. These powers should only be granted to the judicial system through new legislation or changes to the constitution.