Comment by nekzn
1 day ago
In Spain we have a domestic abuse law that is unconstitutional (different prison terms for men and women) and it has been there for a very long time.
What do you think are your chances of winning this in the constitutional court?
Are you talking about "Juzgados de Violencia Sobre la Mujer" or "Organic Act of Protection Measures against Gender Violence" or what are you lamenting? What law exactly and how is it unconstitutional?
If you're talking about that "gendered violence" gets different penalties compared to just "general violence", I think that's less about "different prison terms for men and women" but again, maybe you're talking about something else?
I’m talking about the LIVG which sets different prison terms for men and women for the same crimes.
Check articles 153, 171, and 172 of the Spanish Penal Code.
It is not a general "men and women get different prison terms for all the same crimes" rule, it applies to specific offences and specific relationship/victim categories. The Constitutional Court has also upheld it, meaning it's quite literally not unconstitutional.
For the people following along at home, parent is talking about "Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género" AKA LIVG, which is a law containing gender-violence provisions aimed at a specific form of inequality in intimate-partner violence, as we (Spain) has a lot of that.
8 replies →
Tbf it seems pretty common internationally that women get lower sentences for the same crime regardless of any legal framework behind it.
Moreso if the crime was done with a man as the that woman was "most likely coerced".
As a gay dude in the UK the fact we have a specific MP for violence against women and children confuses me in that men suffer from way more incidences of violence - but what I get told is "yeah but men are doing the crimes mostly" aka a sexist judgement applicable to all men regardless of what sort of person they actually are.
Honestly, I'd rather be harassed for being gay than every join the heterosexual ecosphere; the interactions between opposite sexes are just ridiculous and illogical.
I think the issue is, what does "constitutional" mean?
Does it mean "agrees with what I interpret the constitution to mean" or "agrees with what the constitutional court interprets it to mean"? This law is unconstitutional in the first sense, constitutional in the second.
This is not unique to Spain – the US Supreme Court has a long history of interpreting the US constitution to mean a lot of things which aren't obviously in the original meaning of the text. Its recent conservative turn has seen it overturn some of those precedents, but many of them still stand.
Spain's constitutional court – much like the US Supreme Court – is a politicised body – if one doesn't agree with its jurisprudence, the answer is to vote for parties who will appoint judges with different jurisprudence.