Definition of the 2 × 1 Law (Argentina)

There is a highly debated and controversial concept in the field of legality Argentina that is known unofficially as "2x1". This idea, which implies the shortening of sentences for general offenders, has always been a controversial idea since it is understood that those who has committed a crime can have his sentence alleviated by elements such as good behavior or if he was detained before the judicial process condemnatory.

The popularly known 2x1 is in the Law 24,390, which was voted in congress in 1994, in the Menem era, presented by Senator Alasino, belonging to the PJ, who stated, among other arguments, the overpopulation crisis in Argentine prisons, and an overflow with respect to the time of analysis of causes criminal.

On May 3, 2017, this idea was taken to a higher level due to the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice in the country gave a free pass so that this law can be applied to genocidal victims of the last dictatorship who are imprisoned.

The 2x1 in general terms: the cancellation of the sentence to a criminal

The history of the 2x1 concept in Argentina is relatively recent. It was enacted and sanctioned in 1994, during the presidency of Carlos Saúl Menem, with the aim of alleviating the overload that at that time the Argentine prisons had of prisoners and detainees, especially those who are deprived of their Liberty without final judgment. Thus, justice understood at that time that that person who had remained deprived of his freedom before being effectively sentenced could then access the benefit of seeing his sentence tempered. This law was finally repealed in 2001.

The controversy over the 2x1 genocide of the last military dictatorship

In the week of May 3, 2017, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the genocidal detainees, accused and sentenced to life imprisonment for their actions in the last military dictatorship could begin to access this benefit. Thus, as many of them were detained in previous years (and later released by pardons of Carlos Menem), the supreme judges understand that these subjects can agree to a reduction of their penalties.

The controversy that has been generated regarding this decision, as well as the strong social rejection of it, originates from the fact that the jurisprudence both national (Argentina) and international (with the treaties to which the country has signed) indicate that crimes of It hurts humanity such as those that have been committed in the last military dictatorship (torture, arbitrary detentions, disappearance of persons and terrorism of State) are imprescriptible. This means that the crimes committed never disappear and therefore these people who could access to this benefit they should not see their penalties condoned or lessened since that would imply a contradiction legal.

Finally, it is worth noting that a conflict very large legal and judicial system, since it was the Supreme Court that ruled this new judicial possibility, all the judges, secretariats and prosecutors remain under it and therefore power would be lost in the fight for the recognition of the crimes committed, the trials and the convictions of those responsible for such crimes.

Photos: Fotolia - worldview / icedmocha