Commentary:
By Pat Zaharopoulos
Editor’s Note: Last week we published a commentary by Ms Zaharopoulos, CUBA: 54 Years After the “Triumph of the Revolution,” that detailed her general impressions about Cuba after her recent eight day visit. This week Zaharopoulos, who is retired attorney, shares her insights about the legal system of Cuba.
About 70 Californians visited Cuba last month to study the legal system. A lawyer was our guide, not because we were judges and lawyers ourselves, but because she makes more money—with tips— than practicing law. We stayed eight days at the elegant Hotel National of Cuba which was dedicated in 1930—in a room occupied by Fred Astaire in 1941 and met with about six lawyers and ten judges, from all levels of government including the national Supreme Court. They were frank to admit that crimes and violence do exist in Cuba, as does some income inequality and political influence.
They seemed to answer our questions freely.
Twice we met at the headquarters of the Union de Justistas and had a lovely lunch in the patio under a huge shade tree. Before it was confiscated by the revolution, it had been the private home of a Cuban Senator. On New Year’s Day 1959, Fidel Castro entered Havana with a victorious army, hours after dictator Fulgencio Bautista fled to Spain. Today, signs and conversation often state facts in terms of “since the triumph of the revolution.” By the Great Depression, Cuba had become the playground of the wealthy. Havana had mafia built hotels, entertainment, gambling, mojitos and lovely little drinks with umbrellas and pineapple. (I refer you to the Godfather movies and the history room of our hotel.)
Since the triumph of the revolution, like other things in Cuba, justice is “collective.” Lay judges, elected by their coworkers and neighbors provide the community input that juries provide in the USA. They receive one month of procedural training, serve for one month a year for five years and go back to their normal jobs the rest of the time. All courts are specialized.
Municipal courts in each of the country’s 168 municipalities have two lay judges and one professional judge, who has been through law school, followed by a one year study of judicial administration and a test. Those who pass the test become licensed judges.
Lawyers do not become judges. By contrast, our judges are political appointments.
Lawyers who have practiced law a minimum of ten years in California apply for judgeships, are appointed by the governor and stand for election every 6 years.
Depending on complexity, Cuban Provincial and Supreme courts have 3 or 5 judges per panel, with the majority being professional. Trials are open to the public and press except in sexual crimes which are private. Newspapers report arrests and the final results of high profile cases, but do not cover the trial itself.
There is no plea bargaining and judges can only be challenged for such reasons as conflicts of interest or knowing a witnesses, not for unstated reasons. Most challenges are to the lay judges. Admission to university education is based on merit alone (grades and tests) so, while the lay judges are about 50% female, the professional ones are 77% female. Supreme court judges are selected by the national Parliament and municipal or provincial judges by the provincial parliaments and only those bodies can elevate or remove them.
A person is considered not guilty until tried. Both sides may present evidence at trial, cross examine witnesses and, in criminal cases only, free counsel is provided to those who cannot afford an attorney. 4witnesses testify about the entire crime (such as a burglary with a robbery and murder), sentencing is only on the most serious charge.
Municipal courts try cases with sentences under three years.
Economic pressures and long work hours result in “high” divorce rates, but no statistics were available. As in the USA, parents are legally required to support their children and even an unmarried father must consent before a child can be given up for adoption.
Cuba essentially has five national Supreme Courts which hear cases within their specialties (civil, penal, labor,economic and military) in panels of three or five judges— depending on how many judges heard the case in the province. They cannot declare a law unconstitutional but can decide it does not apply to the circumstances of the case.
Decisions are by majority vote and judges have the right to write dissenting opinions. Their cases come from the courts of the 15 Cuban provinces. The idea of having 30-35 supreme court justices with various specialties who sit in panels of three to five judges depending on the subject and complexity of the case is very appealing. It would be especially sensible for the California Supreme Court which has a 20 year backlog in death penalty cases alone. (There are 714 people on our death row and the backlog keeps growing because we get more new death judgements during the year than the court has decided. However, because taxpayers have spent $4 billion dollars since the death penalty was re-instated in 1978 to execute 13 people, voters may well ease the backlog at the ballot box. In November, we vote on a proposition to convert the death penalty to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for the most heinous killings.)
Pat Zaharopoulos is a retired CA deputy attorney general who is an active volunteer in the community. She serves on the Boards of Middle Class Taxpayers, Neighborhood House and Labor Alliance (Employee Rights Center).