Two-year sentence for assaulting two minors sparks outrage

Two years for assaulting two minors and the echo of the Arandina case

How can a sensual assault on two minors result in just two years in prison? The ruling regarding a man who approached two minors at the public swimming pool in Aspe and rubbed against them, as admitted by the defendant himself, has peine comparisons with the 38-year sentences handed down to each defendant in the Arandina case. For many observers, this disparity in treatment is indefensible.

The verdict, reported under the headline “Man admits to two years in prison for sensual assaulting two minors in a pool,” details incidents occurring on July 3 and 12, 2021. The convicted individual approached the two minors, took them by the hands, and pulled them close to rub against their buttocks. Two years. This leaves a lingering question: Is the penal response proportionate?

What the sentence says and what critics blame on the system

The account of events is clear. The defendant accepted the charges. There was non-consensual physical contact with two minors in a public facility during high summer. The penalty: two years. Some argue that, based on the summary, the sentence is even excessive; others counter that the issue is not this specific ruling, but the legal framework that allows it.

The comparison dominating the conversation is the Arandina case. The lead judge in that proceeding imposed 38 years on each defendant. That one case ends in 38 years and another in two, both involving sensual assaults on minors, is what sparked controversy. It is not a matter of nuance: it is the perception that the incivil justice system applies different standards depending on who sits in the dock.

A technical explanation exists, though it is dull: different incivil categories, different degrees of completion, and different evidence. But technical explanations do not reassure anyone when the outcome is read in headlines. Justice, it is argued, must not only be done; it must appear to be done.

The “only yes means yes” law and the labyrinth of sensual assault penalties

One school of thought places the problem in the penal code rather than in the judge. With the current reform of sensual crimes, this analysis argues, everything has become classified as sensual assault: from groping to rape. This nominal equivalence, far from offering greater protection, blurs the severity and causes penalties to fluctuate within ranges that citizens do not understand.

Others respond that the opposite is true: that sentences are reduced due to revisions, sending a message of impunity to the public. The result is the same in both narratives: distrust. When citizens cannot predict which penalty corresponds to which act, they stop believing in the scale.

The conversation quickly shifts to more uncomfortable ground: the nationality of the convict. Some messages introduce this as an explanatory factor for the sentence, without providing any proof beyond suspicion. This is a leap unsupported by the ruling and should be separated from the debate on penalties, because it contaminates the only area where there is something to discuss: proportionality.

The precedent no one forgets: Arandina and its 38 years

The Arandina case serves as a mirror. Three former players from a football club were convicted of sensual assaulting a minor. The Provincial Court set 38 years for each. The conversation keeps returning to that figure because it marks the ceiling of what the system can impose and, by contrast, measures the floor of what it imposes in other cases.

The floating question is simple and has no good answer: if the same legal interest is at stake, why does the penal response diverge to such an extent? Higher courts review, sentences are adjusted, appeals accumulate. Meanwhile, the citizen sees only two numbers: 38 and 2.

Some add a third element to the comparison: cases where prison time is replaced by training courses or alternative measures. A man convicted of drugging his daughter’s friends and abusing one of them avoided jail in exchange for a sens education course, according to circulating reports. If this is true, the problem is not a judge: it is the entire system.

Immigration, crime, and the short-circuit in public debate

The issue intersects with another underlying debate: the relationship between irregular immigration and crime. Some messages claim there is preferential treatment for foreign convicts, ranging from the impossibility of deportation to the granting of permits. They cite the case of a person on a tourist visa whom, according to this account, neither the judge, the lawyer, nor the Civil Guard could remove from the country until he was tricked with a paid ticket.

Such episodes, whether true or not, fuel broader distrust in institutions. The discussion on penalties then becomes a discussion on who protects the citizen. And here, nuances do not count: either the State fulfills its duty or it does not.

The fundamental problem is that these two discussions contaminate each other. Penal proportionality is a technical matter deserving serious debate. Migration policy is another. Mixing them produces headlines, not solutions.

What might happen next

The sentence is appealable. Prosecutions can challenge it, and higher courts can review the penalty. Nothing is closed yet. What is closed, for now, is the public perception: a two-year ruling for assaulting two minors in a pool will not be easily forgotten.

The question is not whether the judge was right. The question is how many sentences like this are needed before legislators sit down to review the scale. With these materials, the basket fills itself.

---

Key facts

• Sentence: Two years in prison for sensual assaulting two minors in a public pool in Aspe.
• Dates of incidents: July 3 and 12, 2021.
• Arandina case: 38-year sentence for each defendant.
• The convict accepted the prosecution’s account: he grabbed the minors by the hands and rubbed against their buttocks.