The legislation of apologetic crimes is too broad and too interpretable in our country. There are too many judges willing to take advantage of this long and interpretable article to arbitrate repression depending on even their own ideology
Reduce the intervention of criminal law, as last "ratio"to the minimum indispensable for social control, it is a reasonable postulate of criminal policy
It is the symptom of an exhausted society that the only method of control that seems to work or in which it is trusted is criminal law. Notice that there are invective against the judges, they must be theoretical, in practice the only social brake seems to have been definitively established in the Criminal Code.
The Criminal Code of any democracy constitutes the last reason, the last red line, the enumeration of the behaviors that society is not willing to tolerate under any circumstances and that considers that they must be sanctioned by a punishment. Between citizen virtue and the Criminal Code, a healthy democratic society should have a wide panoply of reproaches, consequences and sanctions that were affected and socially controlling ethical, political or morally unacceptable behaviors. Therefore, the minimum intervention principle of criminal law is discussed. Criminal law cannot be the only ointment to apply to social or coexistence sores. It should only be as a last remedy – “Last ratio” – for the most serious, for which they cannot be amended otherwise.
All this that may seem like a roll and that is not, since it is a finding of a governing principle, comes to mind by the demon that has suffered the legislation and its application in matters that collide with freedom of expression or ideological freedom . Now that Trump and Musk have come to sell us their freedom of total expression, it should be remembered to what extent it is and should continue to be broad freedom in democratic Europe. Two ideologically opposite cases serve as an example, neither should have a criminal reproach although, as we will see, others of different entity.
We have on the one hand the admission to the process of a complaint of Christian lawyers against the humorist Héctor de Miguel, who, for having said in a radio program that “we had to fill the cross of the Valley of the fallen with dynamite and fly it through the air “, Adding that” it would be preferable to do it on a Sunday, that there are more people “and following its sarcastic diatribe stating that the remains of the cross could be used” to launch them to the priests who have abused a child “or” everyone “and if they do not reach the stones” the almudena could also fly. ” He did it in a humorous critical monologue. That an instruction judge has admitted a complaint for these words tells us about the loop in which freedom of expression is entering our country. And from the extension that the legislator has given to article 510 of the Criminal Code, these abuses come: “Those who publicly deny, seriously or exalt exalt their authors, when they had committed against a group or part of it, or against a person given by reason of their belonging to it, by racist, anti -Semitic reasons, antigitans, or other referring to ideology, religion or belief Gender, apoophobia, disease or disability, when a climate of violence, hostility, hate or discrimination against them is promoted or favored. ” This text is infamous, improper of a democracy, open to interpretations that are only censures and within the reach of repression by one or the other; a repression that no sign of any sign must sponsor.
I have said any sign. In Mallorca, oral trial has just been opened against the president of the Balearic Parliament, the Vox member, Gabriel Senne. Remember that the repeal of the Democratic Memory Law that had proposed your party was discussed. In this context, he ordered two socialist deputies to remove the photos of two sisters known as “Las Rojas de Molinar” and before their refusal he expelled them from the plenary and torn the photos. In a Parliament an act of ideological expression was carried out, because it is not that it causes damage to the photographs but of what was deduced from it. Its ideological budgets may seem terrible, disgusting or shit of ideas but if you can’t vehicular ideological expression in a parliament, where can you? It is an expressive act of ideological content that is about repressing using criminal law. Socially we want to criminally repress and punish that the parties represented in the parliaments express their postulates in any way? Eye with the answer, because it could be applied to the reverse on other ideologies or protests (with lime, with wives).
In neither case the Prosecutor’s Office believes that there is matter for criminal law. In both they accuse popular accusations: Christian lawyers and the Communist Party. That after we want to cancel it because it does not cool for some things and we use it for others!
The level of verbal repression that is taken to criminal law in our times is not acceptable. It is absolutely true that in more youthful moments of our democracy it was possible to joke, make sarcasms, laugh or miss without being dragged by one or the other to a criminal process. The legislation of apologetic crimes is too broad and too interpretable in our country. There are too many judges willing to take advantage of this length and interpretable article to arbitrate repression depending even on their own ideology.
Let’s go back to the containment that should not be left. Let’s not make laws that impose sanctions for commenting differently to the law itself. We do not write articles in which almost every expression that one does not like each other. Spanish society does not need it. We are in frank regression. In case of doubt, the broader freedom of expression is less harmful than any Pacato attempt to suppress what we do not like.
Nor is it a crime about what is not a crime about him. It’s fine. You have to say it and it is said without matters to who bothers you who doesn’t. Criminal law is the last barrier and we cannot use it to alleviate that the previous ones do not work. Senne should have resigned or his party should have made him resign for behavior outside parliamentary dignity. The humorists should think that in these times there are many ways to make humor without it seems that the Church still matters so much as not to stop making easy jokes.
There is a long way between virtue and crime. It is worth the same for individual behaviors of any kind, including sexual. There is gradation in the reproaches. A society that only retains as a containment the Criminal Code is a sick society.
#crime
