I have highly illustrious precursors, including Kant, when I never
tire of insisting that, to an ever greater extent, nations need to renounce
large portions of their sovereignty in favor of a global democratic federation,
in order that the world may be less chaotic, unjust and self-destructive (see
pollution).
This is not “mere” idealism; utopian propensity; fanciful optimism
(in the style of J. J. Rousseau, where man is born essentially good and
subsequently corrupted by society); altruism and the like. Man is both good and
evil, in varying proportions, according to genetic makeup, education (formal
and informal), the cocktail of beatings and caresses received since childhood
and assessment of the legal and social advantages or risks that surround his
activities. If it is advantageous to be good, either here or in the afterlife,
he is, even if basically not so. He dances according to the music being played.
But that’s enough of generalizations; the reader has no time to waste.
When a law student, I was highly impressed by the fact that a
foreign citizen, duly sentenced by the courts of his country, was able to move
freely about Brazil, make a Brazilian woman pregnant, father a son and, as a
result, free himself from the threat of extradition and completing his
sentence. It seemed to me to be the easiest and most enjoyable preventive
“habeas corpus” in the world. At liberty thanks to a gratuitous, illiterate,
but for all that extremely effective, unqualified attorney, the respected “Mr.
Spermatozoid”.
Ronald Biggs, an engaging Englishman, who took part in the
multi-million pound Great Train Robbery of 1963, was one such case. After
serving a few months of his prison sentence in the United Kingdom, he scaled
the wall and fled to Australia. As he certainly did not feel safe in that
country, which has strong ties with England, he ended up residing in Brazil,
after becoming aware that several benevolent legal concessions exist here that
are well-suited to his case. He became emotionally involved with a good-hearted
nightclub dancer, made her pregnant and, as a result, guaranteed that he would
be able to stay in the country. The British government sought his extradition,
however, as Biggs’ son was his dependant (of course...), and no extradition
treaty existed between the two countries (the old problem of sovereignties),
the fugitive continued to live here for as long as he wanted. Free and
(according the respective Wikipedia webpage) charging anyone who so desired
sixty dollars to have lunch and a chat with a “celebrity”. According to
information provided by the fugitive himself, his portion of the loot had been
reduced to a minimal sum, as a result of attorney’s fees and other expenses
related to his fight against returning to prison. Nevertheless, when his
longing for his homeland became unsupportable, he returned to England and ended
up being imprisoned. Now old, sick and debilitated, photos of him aroused
compassion in those of a more sensitive disposition and inclined to pardon.
What is interesting here (someone needs to write an academic thesis
on this sociological phenomenon) is that a large portion of society,
principally Rio society, even adulated him, considering his personal appeal and
audacity for having participated in a robbery the current value of which is
equivalent to more than one hundred million reals. “Success”, in any of its
forms - political, economic, sporting, artistic or “congenially criminal” -
legitimizes any kind of act. In the First World, male cinema artists, in order
to reinforce their reputation as “tough guys”, liked to be seen at shows and
restaurants in the company of high-ranking members of the Mafia. The
affectation of adding an air of shadowy danger to their status. This occurred
in the case of Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon and other inflamers of female hearts.
A fictional English politician, feeling that he was being more than a little
blackmailed by the person who was speaking to him, mentioned, wishing to
impress, that he had contacts “in high places”. To which the other replied,
with assurance, that he also had contacts, but “in low places”. This is
something far more intimidating, as evil can be inflicted with the power and
speed of a lightning bolt, without any bureaucratic hindrances.
That which was mentioned regarding extradition only goes to show, in
summary, that in the difficult harmonization of sovereignties, crime very often
goes unpunished, or very nearly so. This, at least in theory, would not occur
if there were a global federation or confederation, with worldwide
jurisdiction.
Another example facilitating impunity lies in the setbacks faced by
state prosecutors when they are overruled or delayed in their attempts to
recover large amounts of money deposited abroad. Given that the money can be
transferred to another bank or even another country in a matter of seconds,
with a simple mouse click on a computer, the diligent prosecutor almost always
arrives too late with his petition for freezing deposits made by those availing
themselves of public money. While the prosecutor studies the banking
legislation of the country where the money is to be found - wrestling with a
language in which he is not fluent - and once again prepares a request for its
return, the money in question has already been sent to another bank. And so
everything starts all over again. Even the private creditor of a millionaire
debtor, who has financial resources scattered all over the world, cannot manage
to make demands or even subpoena the important debtor, making his credit – even
if judged to be without further recourse to appeal – a very nice sum without
any real significance.
Extraditions are subject to the influence of the international
prestige of the countries involved. In the case of the Canadians who were
arrested and sentenced for kidnapping a famous São Paulo businessman, the
Canadian government managed to arrange that they be repatriated in order to
serve their sentence in their own country, with probably benevolent
consequences. If, however, a group of Brazilians were arrested, in Canada or
the United States, after carrying out kidnappings, it is highly probable that
the Brazilian government will not be able to extradite them. With Bush as
president, it would certainly not be possible.
Even horrendous homicides end up being almost unpunished as result
of this “excess” of sovereignty, with each country living in its own isolated
world – pure political schizophrenia.
Look at the 1981 case of the Japanese Issei Sagawa, who, in Paris,
killed and “raped” (in fact, he technically violated a corpse) an attractive
female Dutch student, a colleague of his at Université Censier in the city. He did this because the
Dutch girl (who assisted him with translations at the time, in his apartment),
refused his advances full of passion and libido. Issei, who has the appearance
of a somewhat developed dwarf with a large head (I’ve seen a photo of him), was
1.48 m tall and weighed 44 kilos, very much less than the Dutch girl. The girl,
seeing him as only a colleague, ordered him to concentrate on the work they
were doing. The Japanese got up, took a 0.22 caliber rifle out of a cupboard
behind the girl, and shot her in the back of the neck. Following this, he had
sex with the cadaver and then cut off the lips, nose, breasts and private
parts, storing them in the freezer of his refrigerator for future consumption.
And he actually ate a large part of this flesh prior to being arrested. He had
this strange compulsion, associating the sex act with the act of eating. The
case in question is briefly described in the book written by Canadian writer
Max Haines, in Book V of his series entitled “True Crime Stories”. The story
appears on page 121, in the chapter “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. It’s a
pity that this series has not been translated into Portuguese.
After cutting up the girl’s body, the accused placed these mortal
remains in two suitcases, which he transported by taxi. He intended to throw
their macabre contents into a nearby lake. In the street, on leaving the taxi,
he noted that people were looking with mistrust at that small Japanese figure
dragging two suitcases that were much too heavy for him. Startled, he abandoned
the suitcases on the sidewalk, thinking that there was no evidence of him being
linked to the homicide. The police only found him because, on reading the
newspaper headlines, the taxi driver remembered this strange oriental man and
took the initiative of informing the authorities.
Following the gathering of irrefutable evidence against him (found
in his small apartment, principally in the refrigerator), Issei confessed to
the crime but was considered to be crazy and not responsible for his actions,
even though he was a cultured and intelligent man. He was fluent in German and
French, present in France for his doctorate degree in Japanese influence on
French literature. The judge determine that he be committed to a psychiatric
institution.
Issei was the son of a rich Japanese industrialist. After spending
three years in an asylum, his father managed to arrange for his extradition to
Japan, under the condition that he remain confined in a sanatorium for the
mentally sick. However, following 15 months of internment, he was discharged.
The Japanese doctors concluded that he was normal. France could do nothing as each
country has its own sovereignty. And, after all, what does being “crazy” really
signify?
After his release (according to Max Haines), Issei Sagawa wrote
several books on his favorite topic - cannibalism. It is likely that the
victim’s family (whose name I will not mention here, out of respect for the
suffering of others) does not have a very high opinion of either the
seriousness of Psychiatry as a profession or those intimate with the pompous
word “sovereignty”, generally pronounced in a solemn tone of voice.
On the other hand, the family of Issei likely thought that everyone
deserves a second chance. After all, the Japanese guy spent four and a half in
asylums for the mentally sick as someone “normal” according to the
psychiatrists of his country. In all certainty, there will be those that think
Issei became crazy as a result of unrequited love. Someone once said that “Man
is the fire, woman the tow, and the Devil comes and fans the flames.”
(4-12-2006)
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário