PSOE supports expansion of permanent prison under consideration, while United We Can rectify and reject it

The PSOE on Tuesday backed a bill proposed by PP, Ciudadanos, the Canary Coalition and the Forum to expand the permanent jail terms under consideration, which was approved by 277 votes to 64, with 2 abstentions. United We Can, after being persuaded from the outset to support it as reflected in the same news item, decided not to support it after an internal debate in the afternoon.

As Confederate group sources explained to the newspaper, they initially opened in support of the right-wing initiative following a positive report from the Ministry of Justice, led by Pilar Lop, and, as they argue, executive formations usually act accordingly. By the criterion of ministries.

The change in opinion was shocked by the violent tone of MP Ismail Cortes, who during a plenary debate in Congress attended by relatives of murder victims such as Diana Queer’s parents – described the permanent prison under consideration as “punitive populism” and ensured that It means supporting the initiative by “helping victims’ pain” through political interests.

The initiative of the people, citizens and mixed groups proposes to amend Article 140 of the Organic Law of the Criminal Procedure Code and to include two new circumstances in which murder is punishable by life imprisonment. In particular, it is proposed to use it on the facts of concealed murder and recidivism.

His review, which was also backed by Vox, which, however, declares “life imprisonment”, will begin the text of the legislative process this week, although its final approval may take months after it has yet to pass. The Committee on Home Affairs, which will be tasked with drafting a conclusion on the new norm for further approval at the plenary session.

Socialist speaker Hector Gomez argued that support for the time being is an initiative of the initiative and limited it to a “specific aspect”, which is that the prisoner should contribute to the place of the victim. “We are going to start the journey, to be responsible and consistent,” he said. The Socialists stressed that their positive responsibility in considering the bill was to embark on a parliamentary journey “in which the Socialist Group would work to ensure legal rigor”. Therefore, they stressed from the PSOE that “the start of the parliamentary process has been approved in order to find the best way to overcome the legislation of those who kill and then hide the body of the victim.”

The permanent prison under consideration was an event approved by the PP using its parliamentary role in 2015, which gave it an absolute majority. The PSOE appealed the rule and promised to repeal the measure, but finally changed its mind when it received final judicial support from the Constitutional Court in October last year.

Controversial norm

Two years before it was approved, the General Assembly of the Court issued a very critical report, prepared by then-member and now Secretary of Defense Margarita Robles, which stated: “We face life imprisonment.” However, most of the members could not find that this measure prevented the convicts from re-entering. The Fiscal Council was tougher in its report, pointing to “punishment for irritability that could affect the principle of proportionality.” The State Council made the decision.

The courts began to use the permanent prison under consideration by the Supreme Court with some initial suspicions, while the public forecast for the event was growing in the context of the crime.

The permanent prison in question has disappeared from public and political debate, been used peacefully by the courts, and has been used as a shooting tool by the parties. Until the Constitutional Court in October 2021 delivered its final court decision and upheld the PSOE’s appeal.

The plenary session divided the seven magistrates in favor and three against, supporting the constitutionality of the measure, in the sense that it neither hinders the reintegration of prisoners nor implies a disproportionate sentence. Three different magistrates understand, on the other hand, that this is a century-long reversal of our country’s criminal policy.