Prosecution seeks 6 years, private prosecutors 10 in sexual assault case

Prosecution seeks 6 years, private prosecutors 10 in sensual assault case

Six years on one side. Ten on the other. The prosecutor has requested the minimum sentence for the defendant accused of sensual assault, while the private prosecution has raised its request to ten years. The legal range for this offense starts at six years and extends to fifteen, meaning neither figure approaches the statutory maximum. Between the two proposals lies a four-year gap that the court must resolve.

Why does the prosecutor seek only 6 years?

The public prosecutor's office stays at the bottom of the range. For a sensual assault crime, the punitive spectrum spans from 6 to 15 years, and the prosecutor's request remains at the lower extreme. The private prosecution, conversely, nearly doubles that figure, demanding ten. The distance between these positions is not cosmetic: it defines the range in which the sentence will fall if the court accepts one thesis or the other.

The prosecutor's move to the minimum does not bind anyone. The law sets a floor and a ceiling, and within this margin, the parties propose; the court can impose a sentence from six to fifteen years. Anything below the maximum is, in practical terms, a margin for negotiation. On paper, the case allows for nuances: if aggravating factors apply, what weight the victim's account carries, how evidence is evaluated. None of this is closed.

What are the differences with 'La Manada' or the Arandina case?

Comparison with other high-profile cases arises quickly. Some argue, wondering why the request here is lower, that in 'La Manada' the convictions totaled 38 years. The Arandina case appears in the same conversation as a point of comparison. Against these figures, the six-year request discussed here seems, to many, a mere pinprick. The gap between 38 and 6 fuels the sense of comparative grievance.

Not everyone sees it this way. Some argue that the cases are not comparable and that drawing headlines is misleading. The arithmetic of sentences also deceives: totaling 38 years does not always equate to 38 years of effective prison time, and requesting six does not always result in six. But the gross number is what remains in the retina and orders indignation.

The medical report and unraised aggravating factors

The medical report collected during the proceedings describes the victim with bruises and tears. On paper, such injuries open the door to aggravating factors that would raise the sentence above the minimum. However, according to circulating information, these aggravating factors have not even been raised, hence the surprise of those trinc the case.

The question is uncomfortable: if the described damage is real, why does the request stay in the lower range? Isolating a case is tempting and dangerous. Requests depend on dozens of variables, and drawing conclusions from a single file is what least withstands serious analysis. Nevertheless, the contrast with 'La Manada' invites questions about whether the system seeks the same for facts of similar gravity.

How the case is being read outside the courts

Outside the courthouse, the matter has ceased to be a incivil file to become ammunition for a broader dispute. Alongside expressions of support for the victim, a current circulates that questions her by her sensual life and partner choices, using the episode to slide a hostile discourse toward women and migrant men. This reading changes not a single page of the file.

And there is a third front: those who use the case to discuss whether the judicial system is harsh on some and lenient on others. The prosecutor's request, lower than that of the private prosecution, gives arguments to this suspicion, although a single case never demonstrates a pattern. Some also argue that the focus should be on the victim, not on anyone's opinions. The noise, however, often covers what truly matters: what will be decided in the courtroom.

A medical report mentioning bruises and tears; a prosecutor seeking six years. The distance between the two is the question the court has yet to answer.