Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad
The constitutional declaration contained in art. 25.2, even when not configured as a subjective right subject to protection before the Constitutional Court, if interpreted in a less limited manner than the exclusive projection of penitentiary execution, serves to reject long-term custodial sentences...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=8231362 |
| Source: | Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia, ISSN 2255-1824, Nº. 26 (Diciembre), 2021, pags. 133-174 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001503423
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia, ISSN 2255-1824, Nº. 26 (Diciembre), 2021, pags. 133-174
|
| language |
Spanish
|
| topic |
reintegration
security period custodial sentence scientific individualization reinserción periodo de seguridad pena privativa de libertad individualización científica |
| spellingShingle |
reintegration
security period custodial sentence scientific individualization reinserción periodo de seguridad pena privativa de libertad individualización científica Domínguez Izquierdo, Eva María Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad |
| description |
The constitutional declaration contained in art. 25.2, even when not configured as a subjective right subject to protection before the Constitutional Court, if interpreted in a less limited manner than the exclusive projection of penitentiary execution, serves to reject long-term custodial sentences and to discuss the relevance of the so-called “security period” which, introduced by the Organic Law 7/2003, obliges to fulfill, in certain cases in an imperative way, a part of the custodial sentence not susceptible to remission. This armored period in which part of the sentence must be irretrievably served in the penitentiary facility without being able to obtain the third degree of treatment positions itself as a strange element to the principle of flexibility inherent in the system of scientific individualization in use in our LOGP as it is based exclusively on the degree of severity of the sentence and the fulfillment of a certain period of time, which takes us back from the progressive system that was believed to have been overcome and brings us closer to the purposes of general prevention.
The attenuation of the rigor that the 2010 reform entailed, configuring the institute as optional and the possibility of returning to the ordinary regime, does not manage to avoid the dysfunctionality that is generated when the sentencing judge decides, apart from prison treatment, the adequacy of a figure that affects the execution, without specifying the criteria used to decide, nor avoiding the difficulties that the revocation process presents, in which the victim also actively intervenes.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Domínguez Izquierdo, Eva María
|
| author_facet |
Domínguez Izquierdo, Eva María
|
| author_sort |
Domínguez Izquierdo, Eva María
|
| title |
Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad
|
| title_short |
Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad
|
| title_full |
Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad
|
| title_fullStr |
Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad
|
| title_sort |
sin alternativa a la prisión: el periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertad
|
| publishDate |
2021
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=8231362
|
| _version_ |
1722690072927535104
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00015034232022-01-21Sin alternativa a la prisión: El periodo de seguridad y la finalidad resocializadora de la pena privativa de libertadDomínguez Izquierdo, Eva Maríareintegrationsecurity periodcustodial sentencescientific individualizationreinserciónperiodo de seguridadpena privativa de libertadindividualización científicaThe constitutional declaration contained in art. 25.2, even when not configured as a subjective right subject to protection before the Constitutional Court, if interpreted in a less limited manner than the exclusive projection of penitentiary execution, serves to reject long-term custodial sentences and to discuss the relevance of the so-called “security period” which, introduced by the Organic Law 7/2003, obliges to fulfill, in certain cases in an imperative way, a part of the custodial sentence not susceptible to remission. This armored period in which part of the sentence must be irretrievably served in the penitentiary facility without being able to obtain the third degree of treatment positions itself as a strange element to the principle of flexibility inherent in the system of scientific individualization in use in our LOGP as it is based exclusively on the degree of severity of the sentence and the fulfillment of a certain period of time, which takes us back from the progressive system that was believed to have been overcome and brings us closer to the purposes of general prevention. The attenuation of the rigor that the 2010 reform entailed, configuring the institute as optional and the possibility of returning to the ordinary regime, does not manage to avoid the dysfunctionality that is generated when the sentencing judge decides, apart from prison treatment, the adequacy of a figure that affects the execution, without specifying the criteria used to decide, nor avoiding the difficulties that the revocation process presents, in which the victim also actively intervenes.La declaración constitucional contenida en el art. 25.2 aun cuando no se configure como un derecho subjetivo susceptible de amparo, interpretada de forma menos limitada a la exclusiva proyección a la ejecución penitenciaria, sirve para rechazar las penas de prisión de larga duración y para discutir la pertinencia del denominado “periodo de seguridad” que, introducido por LO 7/2003, obliga a cumplir, en ciertos casos de forma imperativa, una parte de la pena de prisión no susceptible de remisión. Este periodo blindado en el que parte de la pena debe cumplirse irremediablemente en el Centro penitenciario sin que pueda obtenerse el tercer grado de tratamiento antes de cumplir la mitad de la pena, supone un elemento extraño al principio de flexibilidad inherente al sistema de individualización científica vigente en nuestra LOGP, al fundarse exclusivamente en el dato de la gravedad de la pena y el cumplimiento de cierto periodo de tiempo, lo que nos retrotrae el sistema progresivo que creíamos superado y nos acerca a fines de prevención general. La atenuación del rigor que supuso la reforma de 2010 configurando el instituto como potestativo y la posibilidad de vuelta al régimen ordinario de cumplimiento, no logra evitar la disfuncionalidad que supone que sea el Juez sentenciador quien decida, al margen del tratamiento penitenciario, la adecuación de una figura que afecta a la ejecución, sin precisarse con qué criterio, ni soslayar las dificultades que presenta el proceso de revocación del mismo, en el que también interviene activamente la víctima.2021text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=8231362(Revista) ISSN 2255-1824Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia, ISSN 2255-1824, Nº. 26 (Diciembre), 2021, pags. 133-174spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|