Publication: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:04 PM
The prison supervision court suspended the third degree that the Generalitat granted last January to the former vice-president of the government Oriol Junqueras, to the former advisers Jordi Turull, Josep Rull, Raül Romeva and Joaquim Forn, and Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart, as requested by the prosecution in its appeal.
As reported by legal sources, the head of the Prison Surveillance Court number 5 of Catalonia estimated the resources of the prosecution and withdrew the semi-release regime of the seven Lledoners prisoners, who throughout the day must return to the prison to return. in the second degree.
On the contrary, former President of Parliament Carme Forcadell and former Minister of Justice Dolors Bassa will continue to benefit from the third degree – which allows them to go out daily and return to prison only to sleep, from Monday to Thursday -, from the courthouse. on which the prisons where they are serving a sentence depend has not yet ruled on the prosecution’s appeal.
The concession is “premature” and “hasty”, according to the judge
The proceedings, which can be appealed to the court itself or directly to the Supreme Court, argues that granting semi-release to prisoners in the process is “premature” and “rushed”, reckons given the penalties imposed – up to thirteen, and remember that inmates do not assume that they have committed a crime, which leads to a failure in their treatment in prison for reintegration.
Magistrate Mariano David García, who is deputy to the surveillance court number 5 of Catalonia, thus distanced himself from the decision of the chief, who last July ratified the granting of the third degree to the prisoners of the trials, although he has been suspended pending the Supreme Court ruling.
The judge judges “striking” that the nine prisoners of the trials followed the same prison course, whereas the usual thing is that the people implied in the same events have “a different evolution and, consequently, an individualized response”.
In this sense, he agrees with the prosecution and admits that in the itinerary of the prisoners of the trial there is an “appearance of emptying the sentence, which requires special vigilance so that this does not really happen and that ‘in any case it is called to be corrected by the control “of the courts and the Supreme Court.
“It must be enough time for this to take effect”
In fact, the judge refers to the resolution in which the Supreme Court revoked last December the third degree to the inmates of the trials and maintains that, although the length of the sentence should not be the only criterion to be taken into account for a degree progression, “sufficient time must elapse for the treatment in prison to take effect, which is not supposed to happen”.
According to the magistrate, the prison reports show that the detainees take responsibility for the facts for which they were sentenced and take responsibility for them, but these “seem contextualized, minimized or justified”.
Furthermore, in the judge’s opinion, the responsibility they take for what they have done is “political (according to their position) or moral (according to their convictions), but there is no overview of a minimum assumption of criminal liability. In the sense of having violated the basic standards of coexistence “.
“And it is by no means that there is repentance (figure foreseen only in the crimes of terrorism), but only to be aware of the criminal commission,” he said.
For the judge, it is “obvious” that if a detainee does not assume that he has committed a crime, “the treatment applied will fail in its objective of avoiding criminal repetition”, for which he concludes that the reintegration programs did not “have the necessary satisfactory result.”.
The magistrate recalls that, according to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, the fact that prison sentences must aim at social reintegration “does not imply that re-education is a fundamental right or that it constitutes the sole aim pursued by a sentence. any “, because to understand it otherwise” would amount to negating the objectives of retribution and general prevention “pursued by criminal law.
“It is therefore not a question of opting for a” retributionist “model rather than a” restorative “model, adds the judge, who advocates combining the two purposes established in the law since it is a question of a “Legal imperative from which no public power can be withdrawn.” ”
The ordinance also argues that the personal situation of trial detainees should not be “overestimated”: good behavior with detainees and officials, lack of disciplinary record, strong participation and commitment in activities, family and social integration and possibilities. employment.
According to the justice of the peace, “if such circumstances are taken into account exclusively, a dose of criminal impunity could be generated for whoever has it, with the consequent comparative offense for those who lack it”.
In addition, he adds, the “normalized and respectful social situation” of the detainees “did not preclude the commission of the crime” for which they had been convicted.