NewsWhore
05-03-2006, 03:10 PM
The "Que se dice" column on page 2 of Hoy newspaper comments on the failure of the nation's ATM system over the long holiday weekend. The columnist wants the Dominican Banking Association to tell the consumer public exactly what happened and why.
In a second paragraph, the widely read column raises serious questions about the application, once again, of the new Penal Code. In San Francisco de Macoris a businessman was shot to death by a man who had, along with others, robbed him of more than a million pesos in cash and merchandise. The columnist says that there is no way of proving that the new "excessive" guarantees offered to offenders by the new Code is directly responsible for the crime, especially if one understands that the killer had been freed by the prosecutor's office on his "promise" to return all the stolen money and property, or if it is attributable to a justice official, little versed in the new Code and its various interpretations. However, while things are being sorted out, it is worth the trouble, says the writer, to ask a few questions in the hope that they do not fly away in the wind: does the new Penal Code take into consideration this type of arrangement with those that commit crimes? Can a prosecutor take these liberties (of letting the person go on his "promise"), with a man surprised "in the act" as he committed a crime? Does the return of stolen goods annul the crime committed and the damage incurred in the commission of said crime? The author does not provide any answers to these questions.
Link To Original Article (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#6)
In a second paragraph, the widely read column raises serious questions about the application, once again, of the new Penal Code. In San Francisco de Macoris a businessman was shot to death by a man who had, along with others, robbed him of more than a million pesos in cash and merchandise. The columnist says that there is no way of proving that the new "excessive" guarantees offered to offenders by the new Code is directly responsible for the crime, especially if one understands that the killer had been freed by the prosecutor's office on his "promise" to return all the stolen money and property, or if it is attributable to a justice official, little versed in the new Code and its various interpretations. However, while things are being sorted out, it is worth the trouble, says the writer, to ask a few questions in the hope that they do not fly away in the wind: does the new Penal Code take into consideration this type of arrangement with those that commit crimes? Can a prosecutor take these liberties (of letting the person go on his "promise"), with a man surprised "in the act" as he committed a crime? Does the return of stolen goods annul the crime committed and the damage incurred in the commission of said crime? The author does not provide any answers to these questions.
Link To Original Article (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#6)