Ábalos verdict: exemplary punishment or moving on, a false dilemma

The Ábalos verdict: between setting an example and moving on

A final conviction of three key figures in the Koldo case reopens the debate over the purpose of punishment. While some call for proportionality and deterrence, others see public humiliation as a sterile form of revenge. The paradox is that both camps share the same diagnosis: systemic corruption erodes institutional trust, but they disagree on the remedy.

The argument of usefulness

Those who advocate a constructive approach argue that going after the convicted does not repair the damage. "What's done is done," they reason, and claim that persecution only fuels polarization. However, this line of thinking downplays the preventive effect of sentences. Criminological evidence shows that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, reduces reoffending. But in the case of political corruption, historical impunity has been the rule, not the exception.

The mirage of deterrence

At the other extreme, some celebrate the verdict as a milestone: at last, a former minister convicted. It is argued that seeing a senior official in the dock forces the corrupt to cover up, to hide their misdeeds. But the uncomfortable question is whether convicting a few changes the rules of the game or merely forces corruption to become more sophisticated. Comparative experience suggests that without structural reforms to party financing and public procurement oversight, verdicts are just patches.

The shadow of political responsibility

The debate inevitably slides towards Pedro Sánchez. Those who hold the prime minister ultimately responsible for the scheme recall that "the cancer of today's corruption is promoted by his leadership." Others counterattack by invoking the Bárcenas case and Rajoy's record, in a loop of recriminations that no court can resolve. The truth is that the conviction of Ábalos, Koldo and Aldama does not exhaust the political responsibilities, and citizens remain trapped between outrage and weariness.

Everything suggests that the verdict, far from closing the case, opens a new chapter in the battle over the narrative. Will it deter, or will it simply teach the next corrupt officials to hide better?