As was expected to happen, this Thursday the Buenos Aires Legislature voted in favor of the Law of Reiteration promoted by the Executive. Basically, the law modifies the local Criminal Procedure Code and incorporates repetition as a cause for preventive detention; that is Whoever commits a crime again will await his criminal trial in prison.
57 legislators voted: 36 for the positive and 21 for the negative, with no abstentions.
On the one hand, it was one of the campaign promises of the current head of the Buenos Aires Government, Jorge Macri, who also mentioned this issue in the opening speech of legislative sessions, in March; On the other hand, it occurs in the context of various acts of insecurity carried out by criminals who repeat offenses. Recently there was the case of the robbery of a beauty center in Palermo: one of the thieves had five entrances to police stations Buenos Aires since 2019.
However, the changes apply to crimes that are tried in the City: among others, possession and carrying of weapons for civilian use, injuries in a fight, abandonment of a person, violation of home, usurpation, failure to provide assistance, attack and resistance to authority, grooming, car accidents, sexual abuse. Recidivism applies to any of these crimes, not necessarily the same crime twice.
Ines Parry (UCR / Evolución, president of the Justice commission) and said in her speech that “this is a law that aspires to be one more tool for the complex justice and security system. It is difficult for the law alone to resolve the issue overnight. revolving door. But it is clear that whoever commits a crime has to go to prison, that is a point of agreement for everyone today. Of the 10 articles of the original project, 5 remained. Because we have worked hard to respect constitutionality. “This will partially mitigate insecurity, but that situation will truly improve when we begin to have full employment, and when the country gets going.”
The opposition criticized the law as “unconstitutional,” “a nonsense,” and “an empty advertisement.” “Cosmetic measure” and “great farce”, summarized Cele Fierro and Claudia Neira (respectively, MST Frente de Izquierda and Unión por la Patria).
Graciana Peñafort (Unión por la Patria) considered that “this law violates the principle of innocence.” And she focused on a procedural issue: “The judges already consider repetition, so this law is punitive demagogyit makes the neighbor believe that by detaining people he is going to guarantee security,” said Pañaflor. And he wondered “where are he going to detain people.”
Thus he pointed to one of the serious security problems that the City has: the escape of prisoners housed in Buenos Aires police stations. Although the jurisdiction has the capacity to house 1,041, it currently has almost 2,000 detainees. Since Jorge Macri took office, the figure has grown by around 14%. The deepening of criminal policy focused on arrests and the lack of infrastructure collide in a scenario of overpopulation and lack of places in federal prisons: to guard these prisoners there are 1,500 Buenos Aires police officers, almost 10% of the 19 thousand who are assigned “in the care of the neighbors.” Something like two police officers for every three prisoners in the City are not enough to prevent escapes.
The law exempts the repetition of facts related to freedom of expression, to demonstrate or petition the authorities, as long as they do not involve crimes against people or damage to property. However, it is one of the most controversial points for the opposition, which considered that this law seeks to imprison those who demonstrate. For this reason it was rejected by the opposition.
Alejandrina Barry (PTS FIT) warned “they seek to persecute the protesters, they want to go from prosecuting them to putting them in prison. Because although they say that repetition is not contemplated for the people who demonstrate, they will add the figure of damages and it will be used to put them in prisoners,” assessed the legislator. Gabriel Solano (Left Front Partido Obrero) said, specifically: “What they seek is to criminalize and punish social protest, it is a deliberate objective.”
On the other hand, the obligation of the courts to communicate convictions to the National Directorate of Migration is incorporated, when dealing with foreigners.
In addition, it will be possible to carry out emergency raidswithout prior court order in specific cases, such as fires or explosions.
What generated a lot of discussion and controversy among legislators is that, at this point, the changes also enable the police and security forces to search without a court order in other emergency situations, such as the presence of an accused at the scene. or “manifest” indications of the commission of a crime.
Also when it is credibly reported that “one or more strange people have been seen entering a house or premises, with clear signs of committing a crime,” as specified in the text of the law. Or when there are “founded suspicions that a child or adolescent is in a house or premises and their life or physical integrity is in imminent danger.”
On the other hand, criteria were detailed that must be evaluated to determine the “danger of flight”: roots in the country, magnitude of the expected penalty, the behavior of the accused during the process, and repetition.
Sergio Siciliano (Vamos por Más) considered that “a law alone does not improve security, it helps, it provides tools, that is why it has to be accompanied by investment. The issue of security is always a zero-sum game: either the criminals or the neighbors win. Do we want people with convictions who have repeated various crimes to be released?”
Prior to the treatment at the facility, different civil society associations raised concerns. On the one hand because it could imply the excessive use of preventive detention but also because it would generate more pressure on the critical situation that the City’s detention centers are going through.
Added to this is the effect that it could have at the national level, since there is a project in Congress to reform the national Penal Code that, among other things, seeks to introduce the same figure.
