ERC and EH Bildu, two of the main partners of the coalition government, have presented joint amendments to the PSOE bill to reform the law of only yes is yes with the aim of removing from that text allusions to "violence " and "intimidation" that the socialists claim to include.
In other words, the partners opt for the thesis of Unidas Podemos and the Ministry of Equality, in favor of consent -the axis of the law- remaining as it is.
The PSOE initiative - presented before the succession of sentence reductions for sexual offenders that has led to the entry into force of the law - maintains aggression as the only type, but increases the sentences for those that are committed with violence or intimidation or when the victim has his will annulled for any reason.
The Socialists' text rescues several of the previous forks of the Penal Code, mainly raising the minimum sentences that have led to lower sentences for sexual offenders since the rule came into force in October.
According to the law of only yes is yes, the person who performs any act that violates the sexual freedom of another person without their consent will be punished as the perpetrator of sexual assault, and "it will only be understood that there is consent when it has been freely manifested through acts that , in attention to the circumstances of the case, clearly express the will of the person".
The punishment is a prison sentence of 1 to 4 years, which the reform raises to a range of 1 to 5 years "if the attack was committed using violence and intimidation or against a person whose will has been annulled for any reason."
In the case of rapes, the yes is yes law set a penalty of 4 to 12 years and the socialist proposal states that if violence or intimidation was used or the victim had her will annulled, the punishment will amount to between 6 and 12 years .
But both ERC and EH Bildu ask that articles 178 and 179 of the Penal Code be kept as they are to "protect consent as the center of law."
In his opinion, the reincorporation of the terms "violence and intimidation" as central to the criminal offense of sexual assault, adding the element of annulment of the will of the victim "displaces consent as the defining element between a consensual sexual relationship and a sexual assault."
"This means denying that rape is already per se a form of violence, and affirming that there are non-violent rapes," they argue.
In fact, they want to go further in the definition of consent to clarify that "it will not be deduced that there is consent from the absence of physical resistance or the silence of the victim, nor from his previous sexual conduct." They intend with this that it has "more incidence in the evidentiary aspect that determines the impunity of many procedures."
