The Supreme also endorsed not reducing sentences like those of ‘La Manada’ for the ‘yes is yes’

by archynewsycom
0 comment

The sentence reductions for sexual offenders have already exceeded a thousand and the Supreme Court has given the green light to the reductions in firm sentences that have come to it. But not all have been decisions favorable to the condemned. In his monographic plenary session on the revisions of sentences by the Yes is yes, the High Court also endorsed several refusals by the courts to soften the sentences.

In these resolutions, the Supreme Court has validated reasoning such as the one that last February led to the Court of Navarre to reject the request of one of the condemned The pack to review his sentence, reducing the 15 years in prison imposed on him by one year and three months.

The court responded to Angel Boza that this sentence was still taxable and, above all, that the legal minimum had not been imposed. When it comes to minimum sentences, reductions to the new minimum (from 6 to 4 years, for example, in non-aggravated rape) have been almost automatic. But when it is above that threshold, the courts have maintained disparate criteria, denying the review of the sentences on many occasions.

Among the thirty appeals analyzed by the Supreme Court in plenary session on June 6 and 7, there were several in which the convicted person asked to correct this type of refusal from the hearings. They asked the Supreme Court to reduce their sentences in proportion to what the minimum crime had lowered with the law promoted by Equality.

That request was raised by Boza’s defense to the Audiencia de Navarra. He proposed that he leave in 13 years and nine months the 15 years in prison that the Supreme Court imposed on him. The Court responded that the Supreme Court had the option of imposing 14 years and three months on them -the legal minimum then, with all the aggravating circumstances of the case- and that, however, it decided to raise the figure somewhat to 15 years. “Certainly, the party requesting the revision would be right if the specific penalty imposed had been the minimum taxable […]. But this is not what happens in this case, “the magistrates of the Navarrese court indicated in their response to Boza.

Related Posts

Leave a Comment