Some argue that Spain should regulate its Penal Code in accordance with its social reality, not with that of Germany, Italy or Belgium.
MADRID, 27 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
Two associations of judges, the Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM) and the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV), have warned that if sedition is reformed and their sentences are reduced, “potential criminals” would have fewer objections to commit this crime.
In statements to Europa Press, the president of APM, María Jesús del Barco, has pointed out that reducing the punishments for sedition means that “the requirement” of complying with the law is lowered.
Del Barco has criticized that the open debate with the favorable position of the Government to this reform and the insistence that it be carried out by parties such as ERC is “solely for political interest”, something that “should never be a reason to reform the Penal Code” .
“I do not see a social outcry and curiously those who ask for it are the parties that have those convicted of sedition in their ranks,” said the president of the majority association of judges.
In his opinion, there is no “in Catalonia or in the rest of the country a social need to reduce sedition penalties”, but there are “the interests of those who propose it and those who seem to be going to accept it”.
When asked if it is necessary to equate with Europe now to punish sedition, Del Barco has denied that other countries have a lesser penalty. “Everyone has defense mechanisms for their public order and in many cases tougher than Spain,” she has said.
For his part, Jorge Fernández Vaquero, spokesman for AJFV, does not understand that it is necessary to standardize only sedition as it is regulated in other countries, since “the comparison cannot be made only with that crime, but with the Code as a whole. Penal”.
“It does not seem reasonable to look only at that data without taking into account the correlation or proportionality that must exist between the different crimes of your Penal Code”, so that the most serious is not punished in the same way as the most minor, he argued. Thus, he has argued that if he considers equating a crime alone, in the end he could have a sentence similar to another with which he has no relationship.
In statements to Europa Press, Fernández Vaquero recalled that “one of the purposes of sentences is to make potential criminals repress themselves before committing the crime”, which in Law is called “general prevention”.
Therefore, the AJFV spokesman has stressed that “the lower the sentence, logically the general prevention may be less”.
From FJI, its president, Fernando Portillo, has also drawn attention to this point, ensuring that comparisons with European law have to be made “very carefully”, since they are based on principles that are “many times different”.
The president of this association says he does not know to what extent there is “really” a social will to modify the sedition. “Spain must regulate its Penal Code in accordance with its social reality, not with that of Germany, Italy or Belgium, which can be very different and where I do not know if there are problems of independence in their regions and if, if so, how they have been stopped,” he underlined.
In addition, he has lamented that “churras are mixed with merinos” when trying from political parties to link a change in sedition with whether or not the negotiations to renew the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), whose mandate expired in 2018, prosper or not.
“The reform may be good or bad, but it cannot depend on the renewal of the CGPJ”, he has expressed, to criticize the “auction” of names that he sees in the negotiation of the body of judges.
On the other hand, these three judicial associations coincide with Judges for Democracy (JJpD) in ruling out that a modification of this crime would not disarm the State in the face of events such as the Catalan independence ‘procés’.
Ascensión Martín, spokesperson for JJpD, has preferred not to make any comment related to this debate until the legal text of the reform is made public, but not without first stressing that “if Parliament approves it, as judges they will have to apply it.”
Martín has emphasized that sedition is a “very specific” crime, but that there are “others” that can be applied to events such as the referendum and the declaration of independence in Catalonia.
From APM, Del Barco has stressed that a lesser punishment for those who commit sedition does not invalidate the mechanism that exists to maintain public order and constitutional order: “The law.”
For AJFV, even if the penalties related to sedition end up being reduced, “the legal tools would be the same.” That yes, “with a smaller capacity of prevention”, has reiterated Fernández Vaquero.
And in FJI’s opinion, a forced separation of part of the territory would entail not only sedition, but other criminal offenses. “Behaviors of this type are usually multi-criminal, they usually encompass different criminal acts and not just sedition, which in any case is a very serious crime that affects us,” Portillo said.
