GracieGiraffe
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 2,567
- City
- Giraffe Land
- Country
- United States
The Infanta Doña Cristina is not facing State prosecution in any way. In Spain (and in most EU countries) a plaintiff bringing an action to Court must be a direct victim of an alleged crime. The case against the Infanta was brought forward by an action group called "Clean Hands" claiming rights "on behalf of the people".
The famous Botín Doctrine was issued by the Supreme Court in December 2007, stating that a trial cannot be opened solely in the instance of popular accusation, but needs to be petitioned by the Public Prosecutor or the private prosecutor as the only legitimately injured parties. This means that the action group "Clean Hands" has to show and proof that individual plaintiffs in their group were directly a victim due to actions or non-actions of the Infanta. Both the Public Prosecutor as well the Examinating Magistrate saw little possibilities to build a case which has any chance in a lawsuit.
In most (if not all) EU-countries it is not possible to prosecute purely for the prosecution (as we can see in the US: "I sue you! See you in Court!"). A case must be brought forward to the Public Prosecution Office and it is their duty to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence. In doing so, prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not only for the purpose of obtaining a conviction. This means that in the EU Public Prosecutors regularly advice the Court that there is no sustainable case for a prosecution and/or conviction. This is a total opposite role as in most of the US-states where the prosecution seems to see it as a "defeat" when there is no conviction.
In the US only the state prosecutor can bring criminal charges. I think your view of our justice system comes from some very sensationalized public trials, and TV shows, which grossly distort our system. Our prosecutors similarly act in the interests of justice, and there are many, many cases they decline to prosecute for a variety of reasons no matter what the victims demand. Prosecutors advise judges here all the time that there's no evidence, or that they decline to prosecute. It's not a contest here either, it's a quest for justice.
Somebody directly wronged can bring a civil suit for money damages or other relief, quite separate and apart from criminal charges. This is always a completely different trial, brought by private attorneys (or in rare cases an attorney general for a matter of public interest - Cristina's case might fall into such a category, but the AG has to agree to take it, no group can demand it). In the US as well, the plaintiffs must have standing to sue, generally directly wronged. This group would very likely have no standing in the US as well. (Although some people do have standing to bring certain whistleblower proceedings, racketeering proceedings, etc, which this might fall under in Spain as well - but these are civil suits in the US, no jail time.)
If Cristina were in the US, there would be one prosecutor at a time, perhaps federal charges in federal court, and then perhaps state charges in a state court (I find it confusing to see three prosecutors there) If the prosecutor feels there is insufficient evidence, they simply decline to prosecute, or decline to bring a matter before a grand jury for indictment to begin with. It's after this that civil suits begin.
It sounds to me like the civil and criminal proceedings against Cristina are all wrapped up in one? Is this the case? Are there both state and local prosecutors there? No wonder I'm confused.
Although the more I read about it, the more I'm convinced she's not going to jail. She might be prosecuted, but I don't see jail. She certainly may have to pay restitution.