I have read, somewhere, that one of the most frequent mistakes, from both treaty makers in Law and judges, consists of the one-sided, unilateral, or, in epistemological terms, in the metaphysical, anti-dialectical, focus  in which the legal concepts of offenders and victims of crime are conceived and applied. Once , according to the investigations of the case (that, additionally, aren’t always that strict and professional as they should be), it is established the quality of “guilty” on any defendant, there is neither attorney nor judge in the whole world who doubts about it, and so, it is also demonstrated, automatically, that it is all his/her fault and , hence, the victim may not be considered in any other way but as to be innocent, free of any guilt and any other responsibility in the facts. Nevertheless, researches have shown, undoubtedly, that the relation between victim and victimizer is almost never that simple; that in many cases (more than everybody is willing to believe) the crime is the answer (incorrect, punishable of course, but an answer at the end) of the “guilty person” to an unjust, aggressive, or at least, provoking and irresponsible behavior from the victim. From which it is inferred that the real justice, in other words, the absolute impartiality when judging and sentencing a defendant, should take in consideration, necessarily, the behavior and the possible degree of responsibility from the accusing side. 

In addition, the recent history from the world has spoken high and clear in regard to the terrible and harmful consequences of the so-called “worship to the personality”, in other words, to the huge damage that the servile adulation, the systematic and excessive praise and the wholly absence of criticism towards the acts and sayings of a government’s member. It has already been well demonstrated that the absolute submission to the authority  and to the “wisdom” of a powerful character, being declared as free of errors and away from contemptible passions (envy, vengeance, ambition of power, ambition of money, etc.) regarded as normal for common men, is the shortest and safest way to manufacture a cruel dictator, whose abuses of power, violations and injustices will be in the same proportion due to his enhancement and to the impunity received for free around him/her. But one must be aware that this phenomenon not only lies only on the government representatives that have an immense power over lives and properties, but also takes place on anybody who believes to be above common men, for being decorated of only virtues, of all the virtues and none of crowds' defects.

Certain groups and political currents who declare themselves as progressive and from "the left wing", are too likely, for the convenience of their interests, to mold untouchable bosses whose opinions, affirmations and accusations are always taken as the revealed truth, as something undoubtedly true and free of arguments just because it comes from them, even though they never show solid proofs or arguments to support what they say. When one of this bosses launches his verdict about anything, there's nothing else to do; the victim of his phobias or his political sectarianism completely blind and lying as any sectarianism, knows it is absolutely useless to rebel against such an enormous "authority", since it has been installed in the public opinion's mind long ago that this boss (writer, journalist, "social fighter" or "defender of the human rights") is owner of an honesty, a credibility and an intellectual honesty without a doubt , that his honorability is "doubtless", although it is not clear who and what authority issued such quality certificate almost divine. And woe to anybody who dares to contradict the boss and to defend from his slanders! the least that could happen will be to receive a flood of new and more aggressive insults and accusations  from his faithful ones and, if he insists, they will end up accusing him for having "threatened them mortally". For this type of people it is still valid "Rome locuta, finite cause", which means, Rome has spoken, the boss, therefore, the issue is over. For all of this, I think that nobody, and even less in our weak Latin-American democracies, with a faulty judicial system and in hands of corrupt judges and magistrates (with the honorable exceptions that are never missing), should be declared a priori infallible, incapable of lying or to be easily taken by passions and dark and defend less interests, well, that guy, whatever he is called, will end up abusing due to his prestige, his influence in the media, to commit all types of excesses, injustices and flagrant violations to the truth.

And I say this thinking of not only the possible victims, but also the interest of the own potential abusers. Let's see, for example, what happens today with the journalists and the terrible insecurity that deprives the country. As it is known, the total number of mortal victims in this important and respectable trade has risen in an alarming way since 2 or 3 years ago, in spite of the protection supplied to them by their publishing company and the own government from the republic. Now, having in mind the risks of being misunderstood peaking about the first problem that I mentioned above, I ask with the best intension of the world: police men, judges, government representatives and the own journalist trade, have you ever wondered if, at least in some cases, the attack has anything to do with a certain lack of touch and -why not- even lack of ethics and objectivity from the victim, leaving out the extremely violent and inhumane character from the organized crime? or couldn't it be that some journalists are being victims of the deification in which they have been put into by the political parties, the politicians and the government representatives, who, for fear of their critiques, flatter them naming them "the fourth power" and declaring them free of any legal responsibility, in other words, aprioristically error-exempt or crime-exempt, as if they were a different and superior race from all the Mexicans? Never as nowadays was it more truthful that the self-criticism, the honored check-up of the own behavior, may result in better outcomes for the preservation of health and life than the most amazing breakthroughs in medicine. And as the "Bolero" says: "I just advise in case you want to follow it".