This article talks about a homicide in Spain. TLDR: A British father beat to death a German pedophile he caught filming his daughter.
I don’t want to debate whether what the guy did was right or wrong. However, I would like to know if Spanish law provides some sort of affirmative defense that could maybe get him cleared, or at least facing lesser charges than murder.
Does Spanish law basically say, “You kill somebody, you burn”? Or does it allow for mitigating circumstances, such as self-defense, defense of the undefended, justifiable homicide, etc.?
The article makes it seem like the father did not know this guy was a pedophile, AND the pedophile was filming the girl while eating at a restaurant in public. Weird as fuck, but not even illegal, as far as I know.
Sounds like there are no mitigating circumstances - unless the article is being vague. It’s not at all like the example it also brings up of a father killing a farmhand when he was caught raping his daughter.
The article makes it clear that the dad was upset by what he saw on the guy’s tablet, although we don’t know what it was. If it was just the girl eating, that would have been weird. If it was, say, a shot of her underpants taken from up her skirt, that would have been illegal as fuck.
I’ve been looking at Spanish laws. And, to the best of my ability to read Spanish legalese, Spain does recognize mitigating factors like insanity, temporary insanity, being underage, self-defense, and defense of somebody else.
You can find them under Capitulo II: De las causas que eximen de la responsabilidad criminal (Chapter II: Causes which exempt from criminal responsibility) and Capitulo III: De las circunstancias que atenúan la responsabilidad criminal (Chapter III: Circumstances that mitigate criminal responsibility). Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal
I still wouldn’t understand it, even as a father. If I’ve got a potential perv taping my son and I find upskirt… (eh, up shorts?) shots of him in this guys tablet, I call the police.
I don’t risk my liberty and the possibility of seeing my son grow up on some macho “I’ma kill this bastard” bs. The only time I would do that if he’s a direct threat to him at the moment.
But, I’m derailing, sorry. Yeah definitely interested in seeing if the no mitigating circumstances thing is true. Weird if so.
In this particular case, Chapters IV and V are also relevant. TLDR versions of Chapters II through V of the Spanish Criminal Code, if you want to read the other relevant laws please see Little Nemo’s links:
CHAPTER II - eximentes
People under the age of 18 shall not be held responsible according to this law, but to a different law regulating criminal cases against minors.
[That is, being a minor doesn’t get you out free, what it does is bring up a different set of criminal laws, as it does in many other countries.]
The following people will not be held responsible:
Those who by reason of permanent or temporary insanity or of the use of drugs (including alcohol) could not understand that they were doing something illegal or stop themselves from doing it, unless they reached such a state on purpose.
Those who are defending themselves or others, if all following conditions are fulfilled:
The attack from which they are defending would itself be a crime,
The means employed in the defense were rationally required,
The defender had not provoked the attack.
Those who act out of need, if all following conditions are fulfilled:
The damages caused are not greater than the damage they were trying to avoid,
The need wasn’t brought up purpossefully by the needy person,
The needy person does not have by its profession the duty to sacrifice.
People who were scared out of their wits.
People acting in the fulfillment of their duties.
CHAPTER III - atenuantes
The following circumstances lower criminal responsibility:
Those causes listed in the previous chapter, when not all circumstances are fulfilled.
Being addicted to mind-altering substances.
Passional crimes / being enraged beyond rationality. [That is, this point isn’t limited to “finding your spouse in bed with another” and similar, it covers other cases where one can logically be believed to have “seen red”]
Voluntary confession.
Voluntary repair of damages, without awaiting trial.
Trial taking too long, by reason of the Spanish judiciary dragging its feet.
Any other circumstances which can be considered similar to the previous ones.
CHAPTER IV - agravantes
[Relevant because this is a case of “defense of others”; the dead guy’s actions are subject to agravantes because their severity is taken into account under the father’s atenuantes]
The following circumstances increase responsibility:
treachery; acting in such a way that makes it extremely difficult to defend oneself
circumstances which would make it easier to avoid punishment, such as using disguises or being in a position of authority over the attacked
getting someone else to do the deed for you through payment, reward or promise thereof
hate crimes
purposeful and unnecessary cruelty
abusing somebody’s trust
when the guilty party has taken advantage of their fame [not sure about this one, IANAL, the original expression could actually refer both to that and to being a public servant and I’ve heard both listed in actual criminal cases]
having previously been declared guilty of the same or similar crimes - this will not include cases where the penalty was annulled or cancelled.
CHAPTER V
Being a relative
Being a relative can be an atenuante or an agravante, depending on the nature of the crime, whether the offended party was related to an attacker or a defender, etc.
This covers relations of: spousal relationships (including stable long term relationships, with or without sharing a household); siblings, ancestors, descendants, by blood or adoption, of the accused or their spouse (or spouse-equivalent, by the previous definition).
Buf. So, at the very least we have:
Two victims, the child and the deceased,
The deceased had not only attacked a child unprovoked but refused to accept “cease and desist” (stupidity isn’t a crime, but sometimes it tries hard)
A father who acted in defense of his child
And who used too much force,
But who can conceivable be considered to have been blinded by rage
The case would not be considered “vigilante justice” by a Spanish court; the father was not on the prowl for criminals, he was defending his daughter.
El Pais gives different names for the accused in their Spanish and English versions (), but in any case it seems as if the German may have had an additional agravante of “thinking that brown people don’t have rights”, as if the death may have been partly accidental, and we know that the accused did not go to the police voluntarily but also did not try to escape.
This report from The Telegraph says that only one punch was thrown. It also says that many people in the restaurant were being filmed and the manager says he wasn’t aware of anything untoward. So far so odd, I kinda expect there to be a bit more to this story that hasn’t come out yet.
The Spanish reports say the restaurant was empty except for those two tables and the very few workers present, but that both the man’s wife and daughter were being filmed.
And I’ve since seen a report that says the father was looking at the video taken of his child then discovered pornographic pictures of children on the phone. he then felled the victim with one punch before leaving.
), but in any case it seems as if the German may have had an additional agravante of “thinking that brown people don’t have rights”, as if the death may have been partly accidental, and we know that the accused did not go to the police voluntarily but also did not try to escape.