Proceso penal de Jesucristo: iniquidades y antagonismos entre el vetusto derecho penal hebreo y el derecho penal romano

Abstract

This analysis is based on a thorough investigation into the jurisdictional criminal profile proceedings against Jesus Christ, plagued by iniquities, malignancies, elucidated in two antagonistic judgments: one, the "Religious Judgment" or Jew before the Sanhedrin and the "Political Judgment" before Pontius Pilate, of Roman power, and subjected to a
summary and laconic judgment. If we make a retrospective procedural legal vision of the trial of Jesus Christ by the Jewish authorities, ab initio, and later by the Roman iurisdictio, in the light of the new Ecuadorian Integral Criminal Organic Code (2014), of a guarantee, accusatory court, of transversal orality and adversarial, it must be asserted, with
all conviction, that It did not refer to the minimum international standards of the constitutional due process guarantee , effective jurisdictional protection and the unrestricted respect for the right to defense by a lawyer of his free choice or of the Attorney General's Office of the State. By virtue of the analytical-synthetic and dialectical method, compared
to the descriptive exploratory scope inclined to accurately show the angles or dimensions of the most famous criminal trial of humanity, the investigation contains the condemnation of an innocent person to death for a political crime the "Sedition", which Jesus did not perpetrate. Such a condemnation repealed the one decreed by the  Sanhedrin, that is to say, that of “Blasphemy” which made it consist of the fact that Jesus repealed the endowment of being a son of God, injurious at the beginning –non bis in idem–, among other flagrant procedural violations, in which the inconsistency of the form can only be matched by the iniquity of the fund.