The unthinkable, the unspeakable

It is hard to think of anything more violent and damaging than what sexually abused children have lived through. An abject crime that sometimes cannot be put into words. Their fathers and mothers live through their own ordeal. To the pain over what was suffered is added how hard and difficult it is to help the child process the trauma and repair the wounds. And to try, with all their strength and all their love, to ensure that that vile act does not define the future and destiny of their son or daughter. Repair is something personal and familial, but also something collective: finding peace requires that justice work. It is therefore inhumane to even think that those who have been convicted by the justice system for such serious acts would have their sentences reduced. For all these reasons, what the government did in reducing the sentences of 56 convicts who abused minors is so inexplicable. And even more baffling is that they persisted in this grave error for three days, with the Minister of Justice, Fernando Rabat, insisting he was in the right. Since the outlet Interferencia published the news of the sentence reductions, the actions and statements of the minister — and of the beleaguered new spokesperson — deepened the damage. Supposedly technical explanations, as if talking about people who had stolen a bicycle, without empathizing, even for a moment, with those who have suffered this and their families, nor with the gravity of the crime. This is a legal case, certainly, but with political, social, ethical, and human dimensions that the government failed to weigh. And only after seeing the size of the crisis did it decide to backtrack, erasing with a stroke of the pen — or trying to erase — what Minister Rabat had so stubbornly maintained. The minister had defended his position on the basis of two arguments: that the law was clear and that it was only proper to comply with it. "There is a principle of constitutional order, which is that a law cannot be applied retroactively to the detriment of the convicted person," he stated, referring to the legal modification of February 2022 that excluded from the benefit of sentence reduction those who had been convicted of certain sexual crimes against children and adolescents. Those who received their sentences before that legal change had argued that they should be governed by the previous legislation, without the new restriction being applied to them retroactively. The government of former President Boric decided, faced with this reality, to reject this type of request. The convicts filed for protection, and the Supreme Court — at that time — accepted their petitions, ordering the reductions to be granted in those cases. The reasoning behind the decision of the then-Minister of Justice, Jaime Gajardo, was clear: he refused to allow sexual abusers to have their sentences reduced. If they wanted to argue it before the courts, they were fully within their rights, but the government did not sign those decrees. The current minister, Fernando Rabat, when he says he had no other path, that is not so. He made a very important decision, which was not to maintain the previous criterion, a decision that has consequences. Secondly, it is also not true, as he said, that the Supreme Court offered unanimous jurisprudence on the matter. His explanation was that since the highest court had decided in hundreds of cases in favor of the convicts, it then made no sense not to settle the matter beforehand, in his office. But the Supreme Court itself has several rulings in which it did not accept the sentence reduction. As La Tercera detailed this Friday, in nearly ten rulings reviewed by this newspaper, the Supreme Court has held that sentence reduction is not part of the punishment proper and that, therefore, the prohibition incorporated in 2022 does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. Justice María Cristina Gajardo even explained in a ruling her change of position and her reasons. It is incomprehensible that all these aspects were not taken into account during the deliberation that the current Minister of Justice was obliged to carry out, and by all those who participated in this decision. And that they only backed down — thank goodness they did — when the crisis was already unstoppable, announcing that the pending decrees were being frozen and committing to immediate discussion of ad hoc bills in Congress. But the question is how they can make errors of this magnitude. How is it possible that they got that far without realizing what it meant for any government to sign those decrees without putting up a fight. All the more so for the government that is supposed to be — as it promised — the toughest against crime. What would those who govern today have said and done if former President Boric had reduced the sentences of 56 convicts for the sexual abuse of children? Would they have applauded him for respecting the law? NEWSLETTER Opinion Saturday, AM Ideas in tension, opposing views, and clear analysis: elements to unravel the issues that divide opinions and will set the agenda. By signing up you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policies of La Tercera.