A judge of the Supreme Court of Madrid acquitted a drug dealer accused of selling cocaine because the drug was so adulterated that "Did not actually pose a risk to public health."
According to the court ruling, published in the Official Gazette on Monday, the cocaine seized did not meet the minimum levels to be classified as toxic.
The dealer, a Romanian immigrant whose name was not released by justice, was caught red-handed in 2008 after selling bags of cocaine in Madrid.
However, the toxicology laboratory of the police identified only 11.7% purity in the amount seized, a level considered sufficient to classify the substance as toxic.
New decision
After being sentenced in 2008 to three years in prison for a crime against public health, the trafficker appealed the sentence, arguing that the drug was poor. With that, he got a retrial and was acquitted.
The court decision states that "repealing the previous sentence because the amount seized is clearly below the threshold for toxicity to be considered for risk public health. "
For a English court, the traffic must be characterized by degrees of purity and the amount of narcotic drug found with the carrier: 50 milligrams of cocaine, 40 milligrams of hashish and 10 milligrams of ecstasy.
If the amount seized is less than this rating, the law considers the consumption and no traffic, so there is no penalty since consumption is not considered a crime in the country.
Comments:
What made the English Supreme Court? Applied the principle of insignificance. Narcotic substance with low toxicity is not sufficient to characterize the crime of trafficking in narcotics. The English law, unlike Brazil, many years ago admits insignificance, including the crime of trafficking.
Why?
Because we are dealing with a crime of "posesion" ie, mere possession of a thing is already a crime. Homicide in an injury to an effective life. In an attempt to murder there is a risk concrete for the lives of others.
In possession of drugs is a real risk of danger to the lives of others (danger danger).
You can see that when the law punishes the mere possession of drugs she punishes the "threat of danger." The guy has not killed anyone. The guy did not set in concrete risk anyone's life. Only the danger that such a risk may occur is already punishable by law. This danger would be abstract or concrete?
The doctrine and jurisprudence in Brazil say that this is an abstract danger (do not give due weight to the principle of offensiveness). The mere possession of a drug, regardless of their toxic content, it would be a crime. Abstract danger, therefore (which is unconstitutional). This is not how he behaves the English jurisprudence, which works with the correct concept of real danger (while respecting the constitutional principle of offensiveness).
The substance must be actually (specifically) toxic, with the level of actual risk (public health) to be considered criminal. It took care of my doctoral thesis, supported by 01.02.2001 at the University Complutense of Madrid. I worked with all the classic English jurisprudence. Also in our book on drug law (RT). We have written extensively on the subject. But as Nietzsche said, conscious of this is a posthumous work!
Another important detail: the possession of drugs for personal use in Spain is not a crime (in Brazil this subject has been confusing). And there, moreover, the criterion (for the user to distinguish the dealer) is the quantity: 50 milligrams of cocaine, 40 milligrams to 10 milligrams of hashish and ecstasy. Below that it's possession for use, not a crime.
We have much to learn from Spain in this area rather toxic drug world. Onward!
0 comments:
Post a Comment