The subject, who is now 42 years old, faced penalties amounting to 27 years behind bars for sexually assaulting the teenager, although in the end he was sentenced to three decades, after admitting what he did.
Fifteen years behind bars. It is the sentence that fell in November to the man who He repeatedly raped his minor daughter, whom he got pregnant. The Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Murcia has just confirmed the sentence, reported from the TSJ of Murcia in a press release.
When released from prison, the individual, who admitted at trial what he did and said he was sorry, you will have to spend six years on probation. Likewise, he has to compensate the minor with 60,000 euros.
The teenager had an abortion in January 2018, without being able to analyze the remains of the fetus. Although at first the mother was also arrested (given that she had accompanied her daughter for an abortion), subsequent investigations, as well as the victim’s testimony, confirmed that the lady was not aware of the facts.
Now, the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia has confirmed the sentence. With the resolution, the appeal presented by the defendant’s procedural representation for which he requested a new sentence that, appreciating the extenuating confession and reparation of the damage, would reduce the penalty imposed accordingly, setting the civil liability in the amount of 15,000 euros.
He asked for mitigating
The magistrates understand that the extenuating confession cannot be applied because “we are faced with a confession not only late (only externalized in the act of the oral hearing) but, also, forced by the collection of evidence of the charge compiled during the trial phase. instruction and proposed and contributed to the act of the oral hearing “. In such conditions, the resolution adds, “This confession does not imply any real collaboration in the investigation and discovery of the facts, neither cost savings nor time to the Administration of Justice “.
The appellant also alleged the mitigating effect that, in his opinion, should be given to the repair effort made by the former, consisting of the advance payment of 2,000 euros on account of civil liability, plus the promise of delivery of 60% of the income obtained during his stay in the penitentiary center in which the appellant remained admitted, plus what he qualifies as “reparation in kind” that must be granted to his confession, the Supreme Court details.
Something that the Chamber categorically rejects, when explaining that the application of the mitigation is not applicable, not only because the effective economic compensation that reaches only 3% of the amount of responsibility established in the sentence, but also because, from a policy perspective criminal and taking into account the basis of this mitigation, “not even such a brief payment, nor the promise of future delivery and hypothetical income, nor even such a late confession of authorship, mitigate the objective data of the very scarce reparative potential that we must grant to the sum allocated for the repair and cure of the devastating damages of all kinds that the criminal action caused “.
By last, the Chamber also refuses to reduce the amount of the compensation imposed, endorsing the determination of the sentence appealed, taking into account the psychological consequences that the crime has caused in the minor, “considering her age and vulnerability and the humiliating nature and intensity of the acts carried out by the now appellant, and they translate such intense moral damage in economic terms in an amount that we consider proportionate to it “.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.