UN critique

Irene Montero, the politician and psychologist who serves as the Spanish Minister of Equality, is now facing growing criticism for the 'only yes means yes' law she introduced. While the minister first denied that prison sentences were being reduced at all, she later changed her statement as evidence began to stream in. Even then, she explained that any such revisions of prison sentences were occurring unlawfully at the hands of right-wing judges — and were, in any case, not widespread small quantities.

This did not convince Reem Alsalem, special rapporteur of the United Nations on violence against women, its causes and consequences. She expressed her concern last week over the fact that the ‘only yes means yes’ law had indeed backfired for the victims that it was trying to protect. Alsalem recognized the positive aspects of the sexual consent law, such as the recognition of victims' rights and facilitation of their access to resources, but stated that these were eclipsed by the damage done with the growing reductions in prison sentences.

“While it cannot be undone,” she said, “it is now crucial for the Spanish government and its institutions to monitor the real impact of the early release of abusers on the life of their victims, try to minimize re-victimization and ensure their protection.”

The Spanish Supreme Court has also begun this week to review around 30 appeals regarding sentence reductions following the application of that same law, in order to establish legal precedent regarding the reductions.

Sexist propaganda

Indeed, many are now recalling the assurances made by Montero shortly after the approval of the ‘only yes means yes’ law that there would be no sentence reduction.

She emphatically tried to assure us: “Since we live in a context where it is more important to sensationalize headlines that instill sexual terror, to re-criminalize the feminist struggle, to question feminist advances and to instill doubt within women, then what happens, happens," Montero said. "There are indeed many scandalous headlines, but not a single sentence reduction has been observed, nor will it be. It’s sexist propaganda.”

In case the minister’s position was not clear enough, Secretary of State Ángela Rodríguez Pam and the delegate against Gender Violence, Victoria Russell, stated that the solution was not punitive measures. In other words, they wanted to please everyone. On one hand they said that prison sentences would not be reduced, and on the other hand they argued that the solution was not imprisonment.

A new truth

But there have indeed been many sentence reductions, and there will be many more. In terms of percentages, the Supreme Court has agreed to reducing 40.5% of reviewed case’s sentences; the National Court to 14.3% of cases, provincial courts to 31.6% of cases and higher courts to 39.5%.

In total, there has been a sentence reduction in 32% of the reviewed procedures. That means that as of May 1, there have been 1,079 sentence reductions for rapists and abusers and 188 have been released from prison.

Finally, the higher court has rejected the application of the transitional provision of 1995, which was advocated by the Prosecutor’s Office. This provision is included in all judicial reforms to prevent sentence reductions. The crucial detail is that the Minister of Equality forgot to include this provision in her law, thus facilitating the retroactive application of benefits.

This is why the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court has endorsed the sentence reductions for sexual offenders with the application of the ‘only yes means yes’ law.

Moving forward

Now we know that the minister would have avoided many sentence reductions in sexual abuse cases if only she had included the provision that would have made these impossible when writing her law, an addition which was suggested to her and which she decided not to act upon.

How many of those rapists and abusers who now walk freely will attempt violence against other women?

We also know that the victims, having already faced the personal offense of these sentence reductions, are organizing themselves to demand compensation from the government.

What we don’t know, and I fear we will never really know, is how many of those rapists and abusers who now walk freely through the streets will attempt violence against other women who they would have never reached had they stayed in prison.

What is clear is the confusion that the Minister of Equality is embroiled in, which is what ultimately reaches ordinary citizens. First, they said that there would be no sentence reductions; then, that the reductions occurred due to right-wing judges; then, someone from the ministry said that imprisonment was not the solution, while others insist on maintaining prison sentences.

Now we have to wait to see their response to the reprimand from the UN. But ultimately, while everyone is busy blaming one another, nothing is getting resolved and nobody is taking responsibility for the failure of a law that they implemented.