An Argentine crime: Did they want to kill Fernando or not?

There is a crack with several faces in the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa in Villa Gesell that, however,

in the saga of Argentine police officers.

In 1912, Buenos Aires society was divided as to whether

should be sentenced as an adult and sent to the Ushuaia jail -as it finally happened-, or if he should be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

The boy - who had

from beatings by his alcoholic father - committed

at the age of 16.

had just sunk

, but the Argentines were discussing that boy with

who was attacking Parque Patricios and

Buenos Aires.

In the 70s it was Robledo Puch, a teenager with the face of an angel who killed 11 people and still holds the double record of being the greatest multiple murderer in Argentine history and the only one to remain in prison 50 years later, which is equivalent to

.

He was imprisoned at the age of 20 and is now 71. Have you already paid for your guilt or should you continue in jail?

With María Soledad Morales came "the crime of power" - a night for young people and a disco that ends with the girl raped, drugged and murdered in Catamarca - and the gap between

and

The same with soldier Carrasco, beaten to death in a Zapala barracks.

Public debate: Should conscription continue?

And country crime?

Discussion at the Argentine tables.

That it was the husband (Carrascosa) with the complicity of "the family."

No, he was a thief.

Justice said that the husband was an

after the fact , then

and then

.

And he went to look for the thief, a neighbor.

Verdict for him: also innocent.

All this, before

.

Today María Marta García Belsunce was assassinated by five shots to the head that

.

And who hanged Nora Dalmasso in her house in Río Cuarto, that early morning of storm and sex?

That the "parsley" (a mason) no.

That the husband does.

But it turned out that neither.

Both acquitted.

Another murder without a killer.

The crack by the dentist Barreda - he murdered his wife, his mother-in-law and his two daughters in his house in La Plata - was about

after killing his entire family he went fishing and then to a hotel accommodation with a lover.

In the end, perpetual.

In all these cases the facts had to be reconstructed.

They were not filmed.

We did not see them as they happened.

Fernando's, on the other hand, is

Cameras, videos, WhatsApp messages, direct witnesses and forensic evidence: there is DNA from defendants in Fernando, Fernando's blood in defendants and even the sole of a shoe on the victim's face.

The sole is not marked when someone kicks another but

There are no doubts about

(Fernando was beaten to death), about

(each step of the attack is measured in seconds), about

(a trivial fight in a bowling alley) or about

(the perpetrators are in the dock).

The question - and this is debated by the Argentines in the crack of the case - is

Whether to kill him or to give him a beating that would be "a lesson" and a territorial mark.

A kind of

.

This had already been done before.

Public discussions agree that the young men who killed Fernando are

, but what should be the sentence?

Perpetual for all?

And if they really didn't think about killing but about something much more rudimentary and tribal like giving another beating -one more- to any kid and that's it?

The aggravating factor can be mitigated: it was a group

, which included it in its fun menu, but at the same time it had never killed anyone.

So, did you never think that you could kill by hitting the way they hit Fernando?

On the other side: it is impossible for an adult, no matter how young, not to think that kicking someone on the head can kill them.

The thing is, if you think about it (and it's almost impossible not to think about it), 

Here comes an almost absent figure in these days of trial, which ended with the extremes of

-as requested by the prosecution and the complaint- or

, as requested by the defense attorney, in an extreme of implausible optimism.

That would mean that

The alternative figure is

: it means that I don't want to kill but with the action I'm doing I think I can kill someone and

This simple qualification would distance the defendants from both a minor sentence and a life sentence, and would leave them between options ranging

.

It could help if the court believes that everyone is guilty but not everyone deserves the same sentence.

The court could

between the clamor for

 - could that group really have devised a murder (not a beating) 5 minutes before, and stayed in the city of crime instead of escaping? - and

Because everyone can explain a thousand times what happened -even apologize and cry- 

.

The insane ferocity of the beating is proved by the simple fact of the healthy young man who

The most difficult thing will be to separate that indisputable result from the intention of the attackers.

But there will be a judicial

 that will be unavoidable, and that may be

in the Argentine tables: if a qualification that leads to lesser penalties will be a

to the collective unconscious that

has no greater consequences in Argentina, even if the victim dies helpless, under a furious storm of blows.

look also

The complete words of the eight rugbiers at the end of the trial for the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa

look also

"There are eight liars": Fernando Burlando's response to the rugbiers after apologies and tears