Factores explicativos de las actitudes hacia el castigo juvenil. Evidencias de un diseño factorial

El rol desempeñado por la opinión pública en el desarrollo de la política criminal actual justifica el incremento de investigaciones destinadas a evaluar las actitudes de los ciudadanos hacia el castigo. No obstante, los avances en este ámbito han sido limitados debido a la utilización de rudimentarios instrumentos de medida. Por ello, el presente trabajo tiene como propósito explorar el efecto que generan en la opinión ciudadana ciertas variables referidas al hecho delictivo y al infractor, precisando su contribución relativa y la interacción existente entre ellas. Para satisfacer este objetivo se recurrió a un diseño factorial de la encuesta, creando una población de 256 casos-escenario fruto de la combinación de cuatro factores: la edad del joven, su historial delictivo, el grado de implicación en el hecho y el tipo de delito cometido. Los mismos fueron distribuidos en grupos de ocho casos ordenados aleatoriamente y fueron suministrados a 32 sujetos. Posteriormente se aplicaron análisis de regresión logística binaria. Los resultados obtenidos revelan que la naturaleza violenta de los hechos, la implicación activa de los jóvenes y el historial delictivo son predictores importantes de las condenas punitivas. Sin embargo la edad, una variable fundamental en la configuración de la justicia juvenil, no resulta significativa. De este modo, el trabajo muestra el potencial explicativo de este conjunto de factores y debate sus implicaciones teóricas y metodológicas para la investigación futura en este terreno.

The gendered effects of family migration law: contextual interpretation as a possible judicial remedy

At all normative levels, family migration law can disproportionally and negatively affect immigrant women’s rights in this field, producing gendered effects. In some cases, such effects are related to the normative and judicial imposition of unviable family-related models (e.g., the ʻgood mother ̕ the one-breadwinner family, or a rigid distinction between productive and reproductive work). In other cases, they are due to family migration law’s overlooking of the specific needs and difficulties of immigrant women, within their families and in the broader context of their host countries’ social and normative framework.To effectively expose and correct this gender bias, in this article I propose an alternative view of immigrant women’s right to family life, as a cluster of rights and entitlements rather than as a mono-dimensional right. As a theoretical approach, this construction is better equipped to capture the complex experiences of immigrant women in the European legal space, and to shed light on the gendered effects generated not by individual norms but by the interaction of norms that are traditionally assigned to separated legal domains (e.g., immigration law and criminal law). As a judicial strategy, this understanding is capable of prompting a consideration by domestic and supranational courts of immigrant women not as isolated individuals, but as ‘individuals in context’. I shall define this type of approach as ‘contextual interpretation’, understood as the consideration of immigrant women in the broader contexts of their families, their host societies and the normative frameworks applicable to them. Performed in a gendersensitive manner, a contextual judicial interpretation has the potential to neutralize the gendered effects of certain family migration norms. To illustrate these points, I will discuss selected judicial examples offered by the European Court on Human Rights, as well as from domestic jurisdictions of countries with a particularly high incidence of immigrant women (Italy and Spain).