![Article photo](http://f10.pmo.ee/9MNWndOJTX5R-ueAvyMLaZExRXw=/1442x0/filters:focal(1438x461:2704x1458):format(webp)/nginx/o/2017/10/20/7236939t1h61ea.jpg)
Hopefully the time will come when people convicted of corruption offenses no longer have access to public authority, says Prosecutor General Lavly Perling.
Hopefully the time will come when people convicted of corruption offenses no longer have access to public authority, says Prosecutor General Lavly Perling.
(Takes a moment to think.) Today, here and now, I sometimes think about mismatching words and actions.
On different levels.
Naturally, it is not something I look favorably upon. People convicted of corruption back in power and money. For me, corruption is theft not just of taxpayer money, but also people’s trust in their state. That said, I believe things have improved. There is a lot more public condemnation when it comes to corruption.
Yes. However, I’m first and foremost talking about social perception. It has become more critical of corruption. Does this mean we could be satisfied? No. More and more attention needs to be paid to making sure people’s words reflect in their actions. It is abnormal when local governments refuse to bring civil suits when we seek return of money stolen from them. I also saw news of some people having found new jobs (Allan Kiil and Alar Nääme – O. K.). While it is not up to me, as prosecutor general, to judge such professional relationships, it does make you wonder.
That is a difficult question. The honest answer is that the prosecution and investigative organs must do their work irrespective of elections and their timing. On the other hand, we must honor democratic processes. We all know that we would be hit with accusations of meddling were we to charge people on the eve of elections. A lose-lose situation.
It is difficult to argue with you. Generally, it is against our principles – agreement process due to lack of interest to prosecute is very rare in corruption cases. We have laws and the prosecutor general’s guidelines to regulate this. This means that even if you opt for the process, you must explain to the people why. Our monitoring department has also grown stronger, and we overrule these decisions in cases where we find agreement process clashes with our principles. There are examples.
I must remain diplomatic and say that only the case prosecutor can tell you that. I suggest you put your question to [Steven Hristo] Evestus. It is my duty, as prosecutor general, to ask him that question. The state must maintain a spine in these matters – agreements cannot be opted for lightly.
(Evestus said on Thursday that Villu Reiljan has admitted his guilt and given substantial statements that coincide with charges on his third try – O. K.)
On the contrary. The circuit court said a very important thing: a fictional child can also be a victim pursuant to section 178 of the penal code. Secondly, the court finds that the state can limit freedom of speech and artistic expression when it is necessary to protect people. The court also explains why decency and morality are fully constitutional values. What is left: the matter of jurisdiction and cyberspace regulations. That is something the entire legal world is wrestling with today.
Yes. We were given certainty in that detail descriptions of the shape and coloration of the genitalia of an eight-year-old ballet school girl during a rape that ends in murder is not acceptable. It could be a crime. Artistic value is beside the point here.
I believe more attention needs to be paid to victims. Which is not to say we shouldn’t pay attention to the accused. However, what we are seeing is that a lot of accused have been victims themselves in their childhood. Therefore – if we do not offer support, help, treatment, counseling to victims today, they will grow up to be the accused of the next generation.
I have always held it to be important for the prosecution to talk to people. If the prosecution explains matters and background, potential victims will have more trust for the justice system. However, we cannot address our reputation at the expense of the core of our work.
Our priorities are security, the economy, and children, and I believe we have not let society down. We have convicted a lot of people of offenses against the state in the past two years. We are asked in Europe: how do you do it? We have not been afraid of losing and prosecuted very complicated cases.
The prosecution cannot blame the police because prosecutors have been in charge of investigations since 2004. This means that mistakes made by the police are our mistakes. In-house arguments of who dropped the ball are inevitable of course.
Yes, of course. But I respect Elmar Vaher as a police chief. Heated arguments over our respective truths are a part of life.
There is room for improvement. I very much hope the press has noticed how we share more than we used to. I believe the prosecution has tried to keep people in the loop in case of crimes that have shocked the public. Evidence and a fair trial are our red lines. Those are the things we have to take to court and cannot risk.
We will never know. It is impossible to say in hindsight whether we missed the right time to do something, or whether the press got ahead of us.
An open manner cannot be allowed to turn into idle jabber. Victims might decide against seeking the state’s help if they are afraid incidents of domestic violence or rape might end up in the papers. That is where our opinions differ, and I believe they are supposed to.
It is also the reason we do not discuss cases of child abuse. It is our duty to protect the victims also when they grow up, so they could start their own lives.
An interesting question. I have two answers. One is that the state and public prosecution are strong enough to always pull through. However, I know rust can defeat the strongest iron. I do not deny we have discussed these matters.
There are two primary sources of risk: there is crime scene trauma, and there are certain attacks and stress. A prosecutor must be able to take criticism; however, there is a limit to it. That limit could be an attack against a person’s home, loved ones, or property.