Notizie.it editorial team Incitement to commit a crime, conspiracy to commit terrorism or subversion, and organized violence at public demonstrations—these are the charges that brought Youssef Siher before Judge Siher, but they weren't enough to keep him in prison. He's out on bail because he's deemed not dangerous. Were terrorist purposes not dangerous? So, who's right—the one who arrested him or the one who released him? But this is just the tip of a much broader iceberg.
Our law enforcement agencies bring criminals to justice every day, but it's not uncommon for robbed shopkeepers to find the thieves walking free in front of their store the next day. A shocking case is the one involving a man released after groping a thirteen-year-old girl because he was "repentant." This, on the one hand, undermines the work of law enforcement, and on the other, undermines the confidence of citizens who see a weak state that is unable to protect them.
But it's not enough; it's as if some parts of the state refuse to adhere to logical choices. There's an investigation into doctors who apparently issued false certificates to avoid deporting immigrants who had committed crimes; surprisingly, the immigrants themselves haven't stopped committing crimes. Returning to the last issue, the questions are: should judges apply the laws impartially, or do their political "sympathies" guide their decisions? But in the analysis phase, I wonder: if a judge is openly sympathetic to a "Jurists for Gaza" cause, can he or she be capable of judging someone who publicizes the same cause?