In September of 2015, Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez was sentenced to 13 years, 9 months, 7 days, and 12 hours in prison, being convicted on the grounds of “public incitement” and “association to commit crimes”. His conviction, along with that of three Venezuelan students, stem from anti-government demonstrations that took place on the streets of Caracas in February of 2014, where violent incidents broke out.
Looking into this particular case, Human Rights Watch, among other organizations, saw troubling issues arise, including the use of flimsy evidence and a lack of due process. An interesting note here, related to the “evidence”, comes from the arrest warrant issued for Mr. Lopez, which pinned culpability for his involvement with violent acts during the protests on a series of “subliminal messages” posted on social media. On top of that, there was little to no evidence shown during trial, save for two witnesses brought forward by the prosecutor to rant against the opposition leader.
That’s not to mention the three Venezuelan students, who were arrested in allegedly brutal fashion soon after the protests took place. Being held incommunicado for around two days, they suffered abuse at the hands of police and were denied access to lawyers and their families. A fourth student accused of being involved in the violence fled the country.
Apparently, from what one can deduce logically from last Sunday night’s debate, it is scenarios like this that Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump would like to have happen in the United States. Using the criminal justice system to go after political opponents. Often ends well, doesn’t it?