Dr. Herman Vukušić spoke on social media about the double standards of the Croatian judiciary and media, comparing the case of the deceased Kristian Vukasović with the treatment of four suspects in the Benkovac arson case.
Dr. Herman Vukušić has raised the issue of double standards in the Croatian judiciary and media on social media, comparing the tragic fate of Kristian Vukasović with the way four suspects in the deliberate arson case are presented to the public. While the name of the ill young man quickly reached the public, the identity of the arson suspects is largely hidden behind the phrase "Croatian citizens."
Vukušić poses a question that is hard to ignore: when the term "Croatian citizens" is used for perpetrators or suspects of serious crimes, including those investigated for possible terrorist motives, why is it that in other cases, the full name, surname, and personal circumstances of an individual are readily disclosed in the media?
Kristian Vukasović was a young man with numerous health and psychological issues, including metabolic syndrome, asthma, pronounced problems related to ADHD, and had been under psychiatric care since childhood. He was diagnosed with "third-degree functional impairment, i.e., severe disability," and had an "urgent need for temporary assistance and care to the full extent."
Despite his health and psychological problems, he voluntarily reported to the police and expressed remorse in court for setting fire to three olive trees near his family home, yet he ended up in prison in Bilice. Kristian died in 2019 in a hospital from heart failure after being transferred there from prison. At that time, his name was not hidden from the public.
Today, when four individuals have been arrested on suspicion of deliberately starting fires at multiple locations in the Benkovac area, the public mostly refers to them as "four Croatian citizens." In his post, Vukušić raises the key question: "WHY DIDN'T KRISTIAN RECEIVE THE SAME TREATMENT AS THE FOUR 'CROATIAN CITIZENS'?"
Unfortunately, in this case, the names and national identity of the suspects have indeed come to light. Nevertheless, bitterness remains as the question resurfaces whether the Croatian judiciary and media apply the same standards to everyone. The text does not question whether anyone should be presumed guilty in advance, but rather why the rules on identity protection, reporting, and treatment of suspects seem unequal across different cases.
Vukušić's question demands an answer: would Kristian have been treated differently had the same standard of identity protection and public portrayal now used for the four arrested arson suspects been applied to him?
