The Section 21 chamber of the Barcelona Audience court has decreed by two votes to one to allow the provisional release of ex-footballer Dani Alves based on the fact that the sentence imposed by the court, 4 years and 6 months imprisonment for sexually assaulting a young woman at the city's Sutton nightclub, is still not final and he has been in custody for 14 months. According to the court's opinion, this situation reduces the flight risk; and it has set a bail bond of one million euros for him to be released provisionally. Up to this point, the argument that should make it possible for members of the public to understand a court decision, when they have just heard it, establishes a narrative that is very difficult to avoid. The court has shown a lack of common sense that makes one uneasy: there is one justice for the rich, allowing them to get out of prison, and those who are powerful can buy their freedom, which in this case adds up to a lack of protection for women.
I must say, first of all, that when I heard the court's decision, it seemed so much nonsense to me. Not so much because the court erred in its legal arguments, which I will not go into because I am completely ignorant of the legislation on the subject, but because of the message that is being sent to society at a time when this type of crime is not precisely on the decline, and concern is growing. That Alves is asked for a million euros in bail is not, for me, the important aspect. Or not the most important aspect. He will end up paying it. Just as others, in a very different economic situation, can post bail for a crime like that of the ex-footballer, of a lesser amount, but also as a means to avoid prison and wait at home until their final sentence is executed.
In my view, the bottom line is whether a crime of sexual assault should have a legal path for the convicted person to stay out of prison and whether mitigating circumstances of any kind are possible. Because, in the end, the victim has made an enormous sacrifice by explaining what happened that night in the nightclub, and the court's decision, no doubt legally valid, tends to lower society's perception of the seriousness of the crime. In the interlocutory hearing, the two judges who have taken the decision to release Alves on bail argue that the function of provisional prison cannot in any case be to advance the application of a hypothetical sentence. And they maintain that the deprivation of liberty must be objectively necessary and there must be no other less serious measures that could be adopted, in addition to lasting the minimum time necessary. I repeat: the sentence is one thing and the message that ends up being transmitted to society is quite different. And the latter does not appear in the ruling, but ends up having more force than it seems.
The victim has made an enormous sacrifice by explaining what happened that night at the club, and the court's decision, no doubt legally valid, tends to lower society's perception of the seriousness of the crime
In addition to a bail of one million euros, which he will end up paying without much difficulty because his income these years has been abundant, either directly or through his millionaire friendships, the court has imposed the withdrawal of the two passports he holds, Brazilian and Spanish, due to the flight risk. He has also been banned from leaving Spain and approaching or communicating with the victim and will have to appear every week at the court in Barcelona and on every occasion that he is summoned. As much as Alves has stated actively and passively that he has no intention of fleeing, it is clear that the risk exists and, consequently, there has been an underestimation of a real possibility in which the key aspect is to have wealth great enough to set up an escape and avoid prison. If this eventually happens, it will not be a matter of bad luck, but of malpractice.