The Eternal Apprentice: Legal Philosophy, Science and Praxis
November 4, 2019
Javier Duarte protected
November 4, 2019The Eternal Apprentice: Legal Philosophy, Science and Praxis
DOUBLE EDGE
The Eternal Apprentice: Legal Philosophy, Science and Praxis
October 19th, 2019
Organized crime has put the government of President López Obrador to the test, who has had to overcome the criticism launched by various sectors, including the media, the opposition and the public opinion who made social networks and memes, the ideal instrument to show their disagreement at the expense of the lack of depth in the arguments, denoting the fatigue of Mexicans by the Mexicans themselves, as well as the relief of an anger contained by a depression collective, motivated by the critical situation of public insecurity that we live.
The events that caused this scenario of apparent instability in the government in turn, occurred in Culiacán, Sinaloa, on October 17, 2019, when approximately thirty elements of the National Guard and the Mexican Army assured Ovidio Guzmán López, who is the son Chapo Guzmán and who also has various arrest warrants for extradition to the American Union for crimes against health and organized crime; which resulted in the armed groups that this criminal commanded trying to free him by force, placing in a situation of inferiority to the military forces and the national guard, who were cornered, outnumbered, in lethal power and in effective positioning.
This situation of tension and anarchy that extended through several areas in Culiacán, was mitigated when, on orders from the security cabinet, Ovidio Guzmán was released to change from not initiating a confrontation that would have caused a massacre, in which they would have died not only members of the law enforcement who were cornered, but also criminals and civilians. In this boundary scenario, we must ask ourselves, is the decision of the security cabinet, which was later backed by President López Obrador, reprehensible from the ethical, political and legal approaches, to the degree of sanctioning and condemning those who took that exit route?
To give an objective answer to this question, we cannot resort to hollow opinions or superfluos thinking, since the subject is public. So it deserves a rationally justified answer.
Under this analysis, ethics refers to the phronesis that in Aristotle was sometimes understood as the prudence that was opposed to excessiveness, the latter being the end of due conduct; Thus, in a first approximation, in order for the conduct to be reprehensible, it must be excessive, alien to prudence, that is, to be extremist, unbalanced, oblivious to the reason that must seek the good that in turn places the human being on a plane of global success.
Similarly, Carl Schmitt considered that the legal order was designed to regulate or control situations located within a normal range of events, however, he also thought that the legal order was not sufficient to deal with exceptional circumstances such as coup d 'etat, the revolutions or wars that escape the control of the law and the courts, so that emptiness of order must be filled by a decision of the sovereign power to overcome this exceptional situation, leaving aside the law.
In the theory of crime in Criminal Law, Carrara referred to as moral imputation and objective accusation that the crime is a construct on highly harmful human behavior, whose analysis will start from external voluntary behavior, its adjustment to a type, its rejection by all legal order, its subjective reproach; for having been carried out with intention of result, or for negligence or lack of expertise without pretending the result, and when the State has no reason to excuse the human being from the penalty; so that if real-life behavior does not fully exhaust these categories, then there will be no crime.
The philosophical, scientific and theoretical bases indicated applied to the events raised in Culiacán Sinaloa, in which the government of López Obrador is incriminated, refer to determine from the point of view of ethics, if the decision to release Ovidio Guzmán is reprehensible, for What is necessary to carry out a mental exercise on the excess of the decision, the exercise necessarily leads us to consider from the ethical approach that the most excessive and unbalanced decision outside prudence would have been to maintain the assurance of the criminal Ovidio Guzmán to enforce the capture mandate at the expense of everything, despite the death of many other people, even outside the confrontation between government forces and organized crime, on this ethical level, there are plenty of arguments to argue that the decision taken by the federal government he had a degree of rational prudence, because he avoided an imminent massacre of human beings, for the assurance of one; what would have been heard on almost the entire planet.
The decision taken by the federal government seems validated by ethics, political science and criminal law, this validation also throws a responsibility of forceful response to the sovereign power, which now has a greater obligation to dismantle organized crime, demonstrating that the state organization is the most sophisticated model of social organization to live in harmony and that the Mexican State is able to achieve in the practice that its citizens adjust to the culture of legality; otherwise, President López Obrador will only have lit the fuse of the bonfire in which we are potentially all, this will be his litmus test.
Organized crime has put the government of President López Obrador to the test, who has had to overcome the criticism launched by various sectors, including the media, the opposition and the public opinion who made social networks and memes, the ideal instrument to show their disagreement at the expense of the lack of depth in the arguments, denoting the fatigue of Mexicans by the Mexicans themselves, as well as the relief of an anger contained by a depression collective, motivated by the critical situation of public insecurity that we live.
The events that caused this scenario of apparent instability in the government in turn, occurred in Culiacán, Sinaloa, on October 17, 2019, when approximately thirty elements of the National Guard and the Mexican Army assured Ovidio Guzmán López, who is the son Chapo Guzmán and who also has various arrest warrants for extradition to the American Union for crimes against health and organized crime; which resulted in the armed groups that this criminal commanded trying to free him by force, placing in a situation of inferiority to the military forces and the national guard, who were cornered, outnumbered, in lethal power and in effective positioning.
This situation of tension and anarchy that extended through several areas in Culiacán, was mitigated when, on orders from the security cabinet, Ovidio Guzmán was released to change from not initiating a confrontation that would have caused a massacre, in which they would have died not only members of the law enforcement who were cornered, but also criminals and civilians. In this boundary scenario, we must ask ourselves, is the decision of the security cabinet, which was later backed by President López Obrador, reprehensible from the ethical, political and legal approaches, to the degree of sanctioning and condemning those who took that exit route?
To give an objective answer to this question, we cannot resort to hollow opinions or superfluos thinking, since the subject is public. So it deserves a rationally justified answer.
Under this analysis, ethics refers to the phronesis that in Aristotle was sometimes understood as the prudence that was opposed to excessiveness, the latter being the end of due conduct; Thus, in a first approximation, in order for the conduct to be reprehensible, it must be excessive, alien to prudence, that is, to be extremist, unbalanced, oblivious to the reason that must seek the good that in turn places the human being on a plane of global success.
Similarly, Carl Schmitt considered that the legal order was designed to regulate or control situations located within a normal range of events, however, he also thought that the legal order was not sufficient to deal with exceptional circumstances such as coup d 'etat, the revolutions or wars that escape the control of the law and the courts, so that emptiness of order must be filled by a decision of the sovereign power to overcome this exceptional situation, leaving aside the law.
In the theory of crime in Criminal Law, Carrara referred to as moral imputation and objective accusation that the crime is a construct on highly harmful human behavior, whose analysis will start from external voluntary behavior, its adjustment to a type, its rejection by all legal order, its subjective reproach; for having been carried out with intention of result, or for negligence or lack of expertise without pretending the result, and when the State has no reason to excuse the human being from the penalty; so that if real-life behavior does not fully exhaust these categories, then there will be no crime.
The philosophical, scientific and theoretical bases indicated applied to the events raised in Culiacán Sinaloa, in which the government of López Obrador is incriminated, refer to determine from the point of view of ethics, if the decision to release Ovidio Guzmán is reprehensible, for What is necessary to carry out a mental exercise on the excess of the decision, the exercise necessarily leads us to consider from the ethical approach that the most excessive and unbalanced decision outside prudence would have been to maintain the assurance of the criminal Ovidio Guzmán to enforce the capture mandate at the expense of everything, despite the death of many other people, even outside the confrontation between government forces and organized crime, on this ethical level, there are plenty of arguments to argue that the decision taken by the federal government he had a degree of rational prudence, because he avoided an imminent massacre of human beings, for the assurance of one; what would have been heard on almost the entire planet.
The decision taken by the federal government seems validated by ethics, political science and criminal law, this validation also throws a responsibility of forceful response to the sovereign power, which now has a greater obligation to dismantle organized crime, demonstrating that the state organization is the most sophisticated model of social organization to live in harmony and that the Mexican State is able to achieve in the practice that its citizens adjust to the culture of legality; otherwise, President López Obrador will only have lit the fuse of the bonfire in which we are potentially all, this will be his litmus test.
