Rugby players and 'life imprisonment': a path of 50 years in prison that nobody knows how it ends

After hearing the verdict that sentenced him to life imprisonment for the doubly aggravated homicide of

collapsed.

And it is not for less: on him and four other rugbiers -Enzo Comelli (22), Matías Benicelli (23), Luciano Pertossi (21) and Ciro Pertossi (22)- fell the hardest part of the Nation's Penal Code. 

Only three of the 8 defendants who came to trial -Blas Cinalli (21), Ayrton Viollaz (23) and Lucas Pertossi (23), sentenced to 15 years as "secondary participants"- will be able to do the math today.

For them, the Justice foresees that in four and a half years -in 2027- they will access temporary releases (they would reach half of the sentence by adding the three years that they have already been imprisoned) and in seven (2/3 parts) -2030- get parole.

With regard to the five co-authors, if no higher court alleviates the sentence handed down this Monday in Dolores, what awaits them is a path that until today no one has traveled to the end.

The Dolores judges told Thomsen that he will have to spend the next 47 years of his life in prison (he has already completed three) until 2070, without the possibility of temporary release or parole.

Faced with a sentence like this, it is difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel and in fact it is a tunnel that no one has gone through from end to end.

How is the question?

The five rugbiers considered co-perpetrators of the crime against Fernando Báez Sosa were sentenced to the only penalty contemplated for that qualification: life imprisonment.

If the sentence remains final, they will be subjected to

, but that do not have much experience in jurisprudence because, in historical terms, they are very new.

The 50-year limit was set in 2004 by the so-called Blumberg Law, and in 2017 two complementary reforms added more barbed wire to the fence: for some serious crimes such as aggravated homicide

It is good to clarify one point: not all crimes punishable by life imprisonment annul the possibility of parole, but aggravated homicide is on the list of figures that make it impossible to achieve early release.

increasingly harsh sentences

Before the Blumberg Law and for decades (in fact from 1921 to 2004), the calculation of life imprisonment was considered as follows: 25 years as the maximum limit with the possibility of requesting parole at 20, except in the case of repeat offenders .

It's not like that anymore.

Now neither good conduct, nor work inside the walls, nor studying behind bars or anything else would help Benicelli, Comelli, Thomsen or the Pertossi to alleviate their situation in the Criminal Execution system.

That is what the letter of the law says, but the truth is that, since not even two decades have passed since the reforms, there is no witness case to have a reference of the grays, of what the judges were saying in different cases.

The arguments of the ruling for the crime of Fernando Baéz Sosa

It seems obvious to say, but since the reforms were in 2004 and in 2017, 

.

Consequently, no judge gave his opinion in a specific case and even fewer did members of the Chamber of Cassation or the Court.

So

There are only theoretical answers and different visions.

For some, the fact of being primary, people without a criminal record, would give the defense tools to (if they fail in all their appeals) raise the time limit of the sentence at 35 and request the possibility of a review and a conditional release when they turn 20 years of confinement

But this is not yet written in any judgment and, since the sentence is not final, the calculation of the sentence has not yet been made.

Today

, without turning around, without cuts, without light at the end of the tunnel.

MG

look also

Why five life sentences and three secondary participations?, the keys to the sentence for the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa

The conviction for the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa: a case destined to be a hinge