A popular jury declared this Wednesday afternoon Vicente Paradís guilty of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of superiority for causing the death of a minor who committed suicide after receiving 119 harassing messages. “He was aware of the anguish it was causing him” and did not stop sending messages, the jury pointed out in its verdict, whose conclusions have been supported by seven of its nine members. The Prosecutor asks for 14 years in prison for the convicted person, 62 years old, and the accusation, 15 years. Now the magistrate will have to define the penalties.
Barely eight hours after deliberation began, the jury has delivered its verdict. Impassive, the accused, dressed in black, with his arms crossed and with his eyes fixed on the spokesman, has listened to the reading of the facts that they consider proven.
The events date back to 2016. The young man entered a contact page and began to communicate with the defendant, almost 40 years older than him. Then he must have regretted it and stopped replying to his messages. Then, the accused began to send him messages of the type: “I’m going to teach you not to waste your time”, “I’m going to teach you not to bother”, “I’m coming for you”, “you’ll be sorry because tomorrow morning this it will be in the hands of my lawyer”, “I swear you are going to eat a good brownie”, “I am going to ruin your parents because of you”.
The harassment lasted seven hours. During just three of them, he sent her 119 messages. Ivan answered some. First apologizing: “I will not do it again”; later, begging: “Please, don’t do it”, “I’ll do what you want”; and, finally, warning him that he would take his own life, something he mentioned up to 11 times. The man’s messages did not stop. “If you commit suicide, you will leave your parents brown”, “you will cry tears of blood in front of the judges and your parents”, were some of the harassment responses that he found. Only eight months after the suicide, when the content of the mobile was dumped, the siege to which the boy had been subjected was not discovered.
The jury was locked up to deliberate this Wednesday. The accusation, both of the prosecutor and of the private prosecution, which represents his parents and brother, focuses on a doctrine called objective imputation that the Supreme Court explains as follows: “The essence of the theory of objective imputation lies in the idea that the harmful result must be imputed to the accused as long as said result is the consequence or realization of a legally disapproved danger created by the accused, because if the victim had not found himself in the situation created by the perpetrator, the crime would not have occurred. result that finally took place”.
During the seven days that the trial has lasted, which concluded on Tuesday, Paradís, a lean man with a distant gaze and half-open eyes, has been unperturbed. Before the television cameras, he has been smiling. He has a record for a crime of sexual abuse committed in 2004 in Alicante. Forensic experts have defined him as a “simple” person with a low intellectual level, without any disease that prevents him from being aware of his actions. The words of his lawyer have caused, on occasion, tears among the relatives of the minor that he has followed with a slight turn of the head and a sidelong glance. And, waiting at the beginning of each day, he has not minded passing by Iván’s parents. Even with an attitude of contempt.
What affects the most is what happens closest. To not miss anything, subscribe.
subscribe
The doctrine of objective imputation is not a widely known theory and, although it can be summarized in the attribution of an action to a result, other legal aspects are implied in it. In the case of a homicide, the peculiarity is greater, since the definition of homicide as “one who kills another” indicated by the Penal Code is full of peculiarities. For this reason, and before a popular jury inexperienced in legal matters, the accusations that, throughout the investigation of the case and even throughout the trial, have blamed Paradís for homicide, chose in their final qualification to include a subsidiary accusation. That is to say, if the members of the jury consider that he cannot be considered guilty of manslaughter, the accusations ask that he be declared the author of a reckless homicide, “the one who by serious recklessness caused the death of another”, easier to understand. .
#jury #finds #man #guilty #murder #suicide #minor #sending #harassing #messages