The questions of Juan Jesus they echo between entitlement and embarrassment. The correct guaranteeism of a legal system, which cannot and must not condemn without evidence, clashes with the sincerity of the despair of a victim who is not recognized as justice. An ugly story that must not distract us from the fight against racism by rooting for one hypothesis or the other. The sense of injustice that Juan Jesus feels today would be even more acute and widespread if we stopped to quibble over the individual case, forgetting about the Problem, immense and disgusting, that we must fight in all its forms and with all our strength.
Juan Jesus’ questions also resonate due to the curious course correction of a justice that, rather suddenly, becomes guarantorist, defending – as it should be in a State of Law – the presumed innocence of the accused.
Juve, Conte and the coherence of Justice
The lack of “reasonable certainty» which he acquitted Francesco Acerbi in fact, it is a privilege that had not been reserved, for example, to Antonio Conteconvicted not because there was evidence of his connivance in the betting case, but because «he couldn’t help but know». And the Juventus she received 10 points (and 100 million in damages) without a judge being able to demonstrate that the capital gains were false, without the wiretaps being found during the trial (therefore without being “tests”) and without the assessments on the financial statements having been examined by an expert.
It was enough to shape the concept of system from scratch and apply Article 4. But Justice is just when it is coherent and faithful to a principle, otherwise it is arbitrary.
