The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) declared the unconstitutionality of life imprisonment, considering that it violates human rights and constitutional principles such as social reintegration and the proportionality of sentences.
By majority vote, the plenary session of the highest court determined that article 127, second paragraph, of the Penal Code of Chihuahua, which imposes life imprisonment for intentional homicide of three or more people, “is incompatible with the Mexican Constitution and international treaties.”
The minister-reporter, Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, specified to the plenary session of judges that, despite the declaration of invalidity of the sanction of life imprisonment, it is considered that it is not appropriate to grant an amparo that could have the incidental effect of leaving the crime for which the crime was committed completely unpunished. The complainant has been convicted, since that remedy would also have no basis in the constitutional order.
Therefore, he proposed that the responsible authority has the discretion to reanalyze the legally applicable penalty and carry out an individualization exercise, in light of the proven facts in the specific case.
To this end, he asked to consider the range of “applicable punishment,” ruling out any possibility of imposing a penalty that is materially equal to or more afflictive than the one being invalidated.
“Finally, in the exercise of individualizing the sentence, the factors legally provided for this weighing must be taken into account, but of course also the considerations of this ruling on the right to social reintegration and the proportionality of the sentence,” he added. .
Read: Sheinbaum and Fitch Ratings discuss economy and reforms in the National Palace
In turn, Minister Loretta Ortiz argued that this penalty “contravenes the right to social reintegration” established in Article 18 of the Constitution by imposing a permanent deprivation of liberty that nullifies any possibility of integration into society.
“The lack of certainty of regaining freedom prevents the possibility of developing a future life project, which is contrary to social reintegration, in addition to nullifying personality by excluding people from society, violating the proportionality of punishment.” and, therefore, it constitutes an unworthy and unusual penalty,” he stressed.
During the discussion, the court also considered whether the sentence constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and concluded that, “by lacking a possibility of review or early release, life imprisonment generates a state of total exclusion and disproportionately affects the convicted person.”
Furthermore, it was specified that instead of life imprisonment, sentences that respect the Constitution should be imposed, such as the 20 to 50 year prison sentence provided for qualified homicide.
The ruling marks a key precedent by invalidating a 2006 criterion that endorsed life imprisonment, pointing out that constitutional reforms in human rights have transformed the punitive paradigm in Mexico, while reaffirming a justice system that prioritizes human dignity and justice. social reintegration.
With information from EFE
Follow us on Google News to always stay informed
