Uno de los “temas estrella” de la criminología del siglo XXI es la investigación sobre las actitudes punitivas de los ciudadanos. Ello deriva fundamentalmente de la creciente preocupación ante el fenómeno conocido por la literatura criminológica como “populismo punitivo”, en el que parecen inmersos muchos países desarrollados, y uno de cuyos motores o características sería precisamente la (supuesta) demanda social de una respuesta más severa frente a la delincuencia. Existen ya abundantes investigaciones en la literatura comparada que permiten desmentir o por lo menos matizar el pretendido mayor punitivismo de la sociedad actual, pero en nuestro país no se han realizado hasta la fecha investigaciones con la misma profundidad que permitan establecer algunas conclusiones sólidas sobre las actitudes punitivas de los ciudadanos españoles. El propósito del trabajo es presentar un estudio piloto sobre la actitud punitiva de los ciudadanos a partir de una encuesta realizada a la población universitaria de Girona relativa a su actitud frente a la prevención y el castigo de la delincuencia.

Criminal proceedings in many European states are increasingly being resolved via plea bargaining agreements; yet, there is relatively scant European research on the implications for the defendant or the role this practice plays within the criminal justice system. Using a sample of 1417 criminal cases, this paper examines how suspended prison sentences may be utilized in Spain to encourage or coerce defendants into a guilty plea. In addition to more traditional regression analysis, covariates are controlled through an entropy balancing process. The findings show defendants who agree a plea deal are indeed less likely to enter prison, which has profound implications for criminal justice in Spain and beyond. On the one hand, it appears plea bargaining is being used to improve the efficiency of the system and, thus, maintain its very existence. On the other hand, issues regarding false confessions and sentencing disparities are specifically highlighted.

Given the salience of the principle of equality before the law, there is growing interest in understanding the relationship between immigration and sentencing disparities; however, research remains relatively scarce in Europe. This article examines, firstly, whether non-citizens receive harsher punishment outcomes in Spain and, secondly, the role of several decisions made by judges and prosecutors in producing punishment inequalities. The results show that foreigners are more likely to be imprisoned and that this is related to disparities in prosecutorial recommendations, plea bargaining and the suspension of prison sentences. However, we find mixed evidence of discriminatory practices in the imposition of prison sentences and no evidence with regard to sentence length. The findings are discussed in relation to theoretical debates and practical implications regarding immigration and criminal justice.

El presente trabajo tiene dos objetivos principales. En primer lugar, proporcionar datos modernos y fiables sobre la aplicación práctica de la suspensión de la pena de prisión. Para ello se presentan los resultados de una investigación empírica realizada en los Juzgados de lo Penal de Barcelona y Girona sobre expedientes de Ejecutorias de los años 2015 y 2016. Esta investigación permite sostener, en línea con anteriores trabajos, que la historia de la suspensión de la pena es una historia de éxito, ya que es aplicada de forma generalizada por nuestros tribunales. Constatada esta historia de éxito, el segundo objetivo del trabajo es presentar y discutir las razones que explican el éxito de la suspensión de la pena como institución penológica, defendiendo que el aspecto decisivo es su funcionalidad como instrumento clave para la propia supervivencia del sistema penitenciario y de justicia penal.

The plea bargain is now the most frequent mode of conviction in many countries, yet several problems have been highlighted, such as loss of rights, enhanced sentencing disparities or increased false confessions. A central element to many of the issues is the sentence discount obtained by pleading or the penalty associated with going to trial. However, outside the United States and the United Kingdom, there have been few attempts to analyse plea-trial disparities, and in Spain research is almost non-existent. To help fill this gap, the present article provides the first quantitative examination of plea discounts and trial penalties in Spain. Regression models, covariate balancing propensity score and counterfactuals are estimated to show that, in comparison to going to trial, agreeing to a plea in the initial stage of the process is associated with shorter sentences and, more importantly, the results demonstrate that the probability of entering prison is significantly greater for those convicted at trial compared to both plea types analysed. In addition, evidence of concerning inequalities is found between Spanish nationals and foreigners. The findings indicate courtroom actors may be working conjointly to expedite the criminal process and we discuss the implications of this in relation to the fundamental principles of criminal justice systems, such as proportionality, equality and the presumption of innocence.