In recent times, much has been said about the repayable permanent prison and a collection of signatures has been carried out in favour of it. Is it worrying?
Yes, a lot. The logics of grief are rooted in our society: when in an institute a young man has a problem, the only resource we have to solve it is punishment. So when someone does harm to things that are very important, like life or sexual integrity, it's hard for us to get out of those logics and find comprehensive long-term responses. We must be careful not to fall into insignificant responses to complex phenomena.

Can ignorance be one of the reasons to support it?Society
has little information about the reviewable permanent prison and in the mainstream media do not explain beyond political opinions what it means. Society needs information in order to be able to defend itself and oppose it; and the real one, not the misleading one. It's a negative sign of our society when we don't all go out into the street before anything like that. In fact, to a democratic society with political training, the words "prison" and "permanent" should give rise to alarm.

There has been talk about the populism of grief. Do you agree with this concept?
Yes. The PP tries to provide an immediate response to specific cases, which is called populism and has some elective objectives. But it also makes it more serious: it violates people’s rights. Is it true that the ruling party in Madrid uses the pain of the victims of cases such as La Manada or Diana Quer to campaign for a measure?

It says that it is worrying that society claims tougher convictions as a result of certain cases of male violence. Why?
Because there's the use of victims. The government, and in particular pp, uses women who are systematically raped by men to create concrete sanctioning policies; then, it says that criminal law protects women. However, with these antidotes, the responsibility rests exclusively with the culprits and hide what they do not do: destroy the structures of power that promote male violence. That's why we say it's dangerous for feminisms to resort to the criminal justice system.

They justify the tightening of penalties with the reason for protecting the victims.
Some say yes, but it must be made clear that there is no link between protecting the victim and punishing the victim. That's a fallacy. If we want to protect society, we must focus our efforts on social measures. And that is that, in a social and democratic state of law, criminal law should be the last ratio.

The Spanish Penal Code, without this measure, is still very harsh.
Yes, before the application of this measure in Spain, sentences of up to 40 years ' imprisonment had been imposed. It is one of the European countries where the least crimes are committed and where more people are in prison. That means that the Penal Code provides for more crimes and that the use of prison is tremendous.

However, hard penalties have not been proven to reduce the crime rate.
That's right. There is not much research in Europe, but in the United States, for example, it has been shown that the death penalty and life imprisonment do not take people away from the intention to commit crimes. It has been observed that when serious crimes are committed, there are social motives behind them, structural problems.

What other measures should then be applied to protect society?First of
all, all the necessary social policies must be implemented: basic income, aid for education, education for equality ... Because that's avoiding crime, giving more rights and more resources to all people. If this fails, other options will have to be sought, such as administrative sanctions. And finally, if all this does not work, we will have to resort to criminal law. However, all of the above is forgotten here: With the government of the PP society becomes impoverished, inequalities increase and we go directly to the last ratio. They turn order around, and that's the behavior of a fascist country: authoritarianism.

In the case of male violence, what would be the right path?
It is not possible to make a list, but to begin with, prevention is essential. We have to question the patriarchy and privilege structure we have had so far. And specifically, when there's a victim, you have to ask her what she needs. Nobody has asked the raped young woman in Sanfermin what she needs. For example, in 2015, in Navarra, the Office for the Care of Victims of Crime was created, which offers a number of measures and resources; and I applaud that kind of step.