Essay On Permanent Prison In Spain

Essay on Permanent Prison in Spain

Before starting to deal with the issue that will be discussed in this project, it would be important to explain what permanent prison is revisable. Unlike the rest of the countries, Spain does not have life imprisonment, but the revisable permanent prison, which consists of a sentence period, which is reviewed from time to time with the aim of deciding whether the convicted person must continue locked up or can recover, progressively, his freedom. The figure that is being treated was introduced in the Spanish legal system in 2015 to relax the popular clamor, which requested tougher penalties for the authors of quite controversial or special severity crimes. But, exactly what cases can this type of condemnation be applied? Well, you can only apply this penalty in eight cases:

• In case an especially vulnerable person is killed.
• If a 16 -year -old is killed.
• If the murder has been because of a crime against sexual freedom.
• If the murderer belongs to a criminal organization.
• Multiple murder.
• Terrorist murder.
• Homicide of the head of state or heir.
• Homicide of Foreign Heads of State Crimes against humanity or genocide. However, so that the permanent reviewable prison can be suspended, according to article 51 of the Criminal Code, the following requirements must be given:
• That the convicted person has turned 25 years of his sentence.
• That this has the third grade.

  Wait! Essay On Permanent Prison In Spain paper is just an example!

  Get an unique paper

• That there are quite a chance that the punished can be reinserted.
• For this forecast to occur, the court must take into account a series of circumstances: favorable reports, background of the pen.

After their approval, many of the deputies of parties such as the United Left, PSOE, UPyD, among many others, considered the permanent prison reviewable a "covert perpetual chain". Thanks to this appreciation, the opposition signed an appeal against him before the Constitutional, which at that time had not been resolved, since he had been stuck in the high court for years. The repeal proposal occurred in 2016 together with the Basque Parliamentary Group, which managed to admit a proposal of law to repeal this penalty to process. Despite this great advance for the opposition, it is currently stuck in the amendment phase in the Justice Commission, since it is blocked by the Popular Party and Citizens. Last February, the former Popular Party Executive made an extension to include new assumptions of the revisable permanent prison, which would be included:

• The violation of a minor after having deprived him of freedom or having tortured him.
• If serial violations had occurred.
• Murder with obstruction of the corpse recovery.
• If a murder had occurred after a kidnapping.
• Deaths in fires, ravages in critical infrastructure (ports, airports, roads, stations and trains) or nuclear energy release or radioactive elements resulting from death.

But, for the moment this expansion proposal has not yet managed to process in Congress independently. Finally, on March 15, the PP and Citizens parties presented alternative texts where they requested the extension of the assumptions and the hardening of the revisable permanent prison, however, these requests were also defeated.

FIRST

At this point we are going to talk about what the extreme right and left parties think about the condemnation of permanent prison reviewable. To do this, we define the extreme left match with which we are going to work as united we can and on the other hand we will define the extreme right -wing game with which we are going to work as Vox.

Starting with Unidas Podemos, it shows a very clear position before the problem, they support what is really the idea of the PNV who wants to repeal the permanent reviewable prison and for this they have presented a law of repeal to the previous one.

They declare this opinion because they consider that this law is ineffective and that it also violates the purpose of the social reintegration that is considered to have the prison and that "some of the fundamental values that configure us as a democratic society are committed," according tosome expert criminals in the field declare.

In addition, this eagerness to repeal the law is subject to the argument that they consider that not to apply the toughest measures will disappear crime and they will stop committing serious crimes. In fact, this party considers that this law is so hard that they have not hesitated to define it as a life imprisonment.

On the part of the Extrem Right Vox group, it is no longer asked to extend the permanent reviewable prison with new assumptions, such as gender violence, murder after hostage kidnapping or deaths caused by the release of chemicals, but directly propose the life imprisonment.

It intends to expand the assumptions to apply the law, while rejecting the repeal of the permanent prison revisable and hardening criminal policy. To do this at point 90 of its electoral program, it exposes the following idea: ‘Restore all the criminal rigor for terrorism and the most serious crimes, including life imprisonment’.

With the characteristic that among these assumptions this party does not penalty gender violence, in this case Santiago Abascal, leader of the Vox political party, asks that perpetual chain be applied to the men who add women without qualifying them as sexist violence.

Santiago has also criticized on several occasions that he considers that the progressives victimize the offender by seeing that he has been pushed to commit the crimes. In this sense, they criticize that they sympathize so much with criminals looking for more the reason that has led him to perform that act that really focusing on his punishment what for this party assumes that the elementary notions of justice are eliminated. For this reason, Vox does not support current legislation, because he does not believe that the offender can reinsert in society and ask for life imprisonment for these cases, they consider that prison should not be a way to reintegrate into society but a way to punishto the offender and thus protect society.

SECOND

Is the imposition of this penalty morally correct? There are arguments for and against this penalty. In the first place, according to the article that Carolina Bescansa wrote for the newspaper El País, the main trap that leads us to discuss whether or not the imposition of the revisable permanent prison is morally, is to believe that we can talk about a penalty without considering allthe others.

Most likely, most of us are able to condemn a murderer confessed without the need to analyze the rest of penalties. But societies cannot do that, through their legal systems they determine the behaviors they consider intolerant and that must be condemned.

The criminal system typifies, scale and hierarchizes the factual forms of evil to quantify the depth of the damage that each crime produces and determine what is due ‘punishment’. If this ‘punishment’ was not part of the system, it would be impossible to quantify the penalties. All would have the same duration: until the criminal rehabilitation. What is not possible or truth.

Think how society forces us to talk about those who should go to jail, what are the reasons why it goes, and how long.

The issue of the morality of permanent reviewable prison presents many arguments for and against, and is one of the most obscene gestures from the political point of view, in addition to the most miserable from the moral point of view.

There are arguments for and against permanent reviewable prison that must be analyzed and heard, such as the deadlines for review of penalties, the decrease in the prison population … However, so that the analysis of these arguments occurs, it isnecessary to have minimal moral integrity in the institutions that currently do not exist.

Therefore, until this occurs, it is best to express our respect for victims and relatives, keep silent for them and fight for our society to recover institutions for good people.

What is public opinion about permanent reviewable prison? An article written by Pablo Castaño for the newspaper El País argues that it is not true that there is a social clamor for hardening penalties, but a lack of truthful information about crime and the Spanish penalty system.

According to a study by GAD3, the polls carried out in the last months of 2018 on the permanent reviewable prison show very radical results: 8 out of 10 people claim to want to maintain the permanent reviewable prison for crimes of extreme serious serious.

These results are not surprising, since most of the media maintains that the Spanish justice system is very soft. In addition, more than one hundred professors of criminal law from all over Spain and of various ideologies signed a document in which they criticized their inefficiency. The permanent reviewable prison, according to them, does not dissuade the commission of the most serious crimes to a greater extent than existing penalties 40 years ago and compromises some of the fundamental values that make up our democratic society, such as, for example, the objective ofsocial reintegration of penalties and the prohibition of inhuman and cruel punishments.

A more detailed analysis ensures that public opinion is not in favor of a hard criminal system as the polls celebrated suggest. The main reason for the apparent rage of Spanish society is the lack of information about the criminal system, which remains in a survey by the NC Report consultant: almost 80% of the people who have been surveyed affirm that the current Criminal CodeSpanish is not hard, but what they do not know is that it is one of the strictest in Europe for the long duration of their penalties and the amount of behaviors that are sanctioned.

Therefore, as the penalist Daniel Varona says, crime surveys do not indicate that citizens want more strict penalties than existing ones, but that society thinks that the criminal system is more benevolent than it really is.

THIRD

At this point, we are going to talk about the cases that are until today in Spain of convicted to permanent reviewable prison, which would be 11 cases since 2015, date on which this law was imposed. We will also take out the conclusions analyzing each of these convicted, in order to explain whether, morally, the prison serves as punishment or as reintegration.

As we have said before, there are 11 cases in Spain of criminals condemned with this law and the first of them is David Oubel, which murdered his two daughters in 2015;He was the first person in Spain to apply said law. According to experts David Oubel had no psychiatric illness so he had full knowledge of what he was doing. You can also see that this person had a pretty cold personality and did not suffer from empathy. Thus, David Oubel declared himself guilty and said he was satisfied with the consequences that this was going to have and later apologized and said he repented of his facts. Next, we will indicate words that the murderer himself said: “I have nothing more to say that what my lawyer has said." (the world.it is). The conclusion we get after having informed ourselves of this case is that yes, we can see that he regretted his facts, but surely said such words as obligation.

We now pass to the second case, that of Sergio Díaz, who murdered the grandfather who was at that time his girlfriend. According to the lawyer who defended him, at that time Sergio suffered a psychic attack, but later the verdict of the trial alleged that that was false. According to his ex -girlfriend, Sergio had a jealous and controller character and after his break. This would be a case of a criminal who has not shown any feeling of guilt or forgiveness for his facts.

We continue with Daniel Montaño, a girl’s murderer. According to journalistic sources, this man threw the girl on the balcony and before doing so, the same murderer declares that he saw in the girl “the seed of evil."This claimed that she suffered visions at that time and that she had no mental capacity, but we see that the mother of the murdered girl denied this, since this was her partner and she had never noticed such psychotic behaviors. Daniel Montaño was sentenced to 25 or 35 years in jail with the revisable permanent prison. "He stared at me, with wise eyes of hate, evil and a creepy cry’ (the world.it is). This are the words of the murderer himself, which can mean that he is excusing to reduce his sentence. According to the experts of the trial, Daniel’s behavior was a farce since he dedicated himself to calling himself to the same "San Daniel" when asked if it was he who threw the girl and repeat how he saw evil in the girl and inHis mother and we can also observe that he did not admit words of repentance at any time and in this way the law of which we are talking was applied. In the case of the prosecutor of the case, he confessed that Daniel was a person with evil not with mental problems.

We now pass Enrique Romay, murderer of a 50 -year -old woman after trying, failing, raping her. According to the sentence this man before committing the facts had consumed alcohol and cocaine and, in addition, he suffered from a mild mental retardation, but the judges declared these "excuses" as invalid. Enrique was sentenced to 8 years in jail and 10 years in freedom, but in a vigilated manner;In addition, he had to compensate the woman’s family and get away from these. We see that this person is a clear example of the revisable permanent prison since in addition to the 8 years in prison, despite having killed a person, they are released, even if it is guarded. In this case the murderer refused to give a statement for what he probably did not regret the facts committed.

Finally, we will explain one of the most recent murder cases we have in Spain, that of the child Gabriel, killed by Ana Julia Quezada. This woman, in her testimony, said she was killed and explained how she had buried the child. We see that at times the murderer collapsed when talking about the case and declared to have lost everything. Supposedly regretted the facts committed, but we see that he still played a great role in front of the press before being discovered. Thus, Ana Julia showed words of repentance, but many experts and other people declared that everything was a lie, that she did not regret anything and only said it so that her conviction was reduced.

After analyzing all cases of convicted prison in Spain, we have released different conclusions. All the convicted have been for serious crimes, that is, murders and we have seen that most of them do not even show words of repentance in the trials and that many show have psychological problems that already experts analyzed. On the other hand, we see people like Ana Julia, who said these words and collapsed in their judgments, but we rely on what professionals say, we think that such words are without true feeling and that they only say them so thatHis conviction is reduced or to "look good" in front of the judge and others. Thus we see that in these serious crimes the jail is useless since they surely feed them the feeling of hatred towards people, but in "mild" cases as aft without hurting anyone, the prison may be a way ofchange.