Las recientes decisiones judiciales en Panamá reflejan un endurecimiento punitivo, una mayor presión social contra el crimen violento y una estrategia clara del Ministerio Público de Panamá para buscar sanciones más severas en casos de alto impacto.

La condena más reciente, de 49 años de prisión, marca uno de los castigos más altos impuestos en el país en los últimos años y reabre el debate sobre los límites de la pena máxima, la función disuasiva del sistema penal y la aplicación del concepto de pena líquida.

En este caso, un ciudadano de 25 años fue sentenciado como autor de homicidio doloso agravado y tentativa de homicidio, tras un ataque armado ocurrido en mayo de 2023 en Santa Ana, que dejó un joven muerto y dos menores heridos.

El tribunal impuso una pena líquida de 49 años, es decir, una condena que debe cumplirse íntegramente, sin posibilidad de reducción por beneficios penitenciarios, trabajo, estudio o redenciones anticipadas, salvo las excepciones estrictamente reguladas por ley. En el Código Penal panameño, este tipo de sanción busca asegurar un cumplimiento real y efectivo de la condena.

La legislación nacional establece que la pena máxima en Panamá es de 50 años de prisión, incluso cuando se acumulen varios delitos graves. Esto significa que, aunque una persona sea condenada por múltiples homicidios u otros crímenes graves, el límite legal impide superar ese tope.

En la práctica, una condena de 49 años equivale casi a una cadena perpetua encubierta, especialmente para personas jóvenes, y representa el máximo reproche penal permitido por el sistema jurídico actual.

El hecho que motivó esta condena ocurrió en un entorno urbano concurrido, cuando el sentenciado disparó sin mediar palabras contra las víctimas. La Fiscalía logró probar dolo directo, uso de arma de fuego y la existencia de circunstancias agravantes.

Además de la pena principal, se impuso una inhabilitación para ejercer funciones públicas por 10 años una vez cumplida la condena, reforzando el componente de responsabilidad social y jurídica.

Otra sentencia relevante fue la impuesta a un hombre condenado a 16 años de prisión por robo agravado, tras un asalto violento ocurrido en mayo de 2023. Durante el ataque, la víctima fue golpeada con un arma de fuego, lo que le provocó fracturas en la mandíbula.

La Fiscalía Metropolitana sustentó el caso con pruebas periciales, testimoniales y materiales, logrando demostrar la comisión del delito y la responsabilidad penal del acusado, quien también recibió una pena accesoria de inhabilitación.

En paralelo, la Sección de Homicidio y Femicidio de Herrera obtuvo una victoria procesal en segunda instancia, luego de que el Tribunal Superior de Apelaciones reformara una condena inicial de 21 años por homicidio agravado y la elevara a 30 años de prisión como cómplice primario.

El caso estuvo vinculado a un asesinato ocurrido en una gallera en Pesé, donde el acusado participó activamente en la logística y huida, utilizando un vehículo adquirido previamente en La Chorrera.

El tribunal consideró que la sentencia original no aplicó correctamente los criterios del artículo 79 del Código Penal, que regula la individualización de la pena.

Al reexaminar las circunstancias agravantes y la participación del imputado, concluyó que su conducta fue necesaria y determinante para la ejecución del crimen, lo que justificaba una sanción más severa. Este fallo refuerza la tendencia de los tribunales superiores a corregir decisiones consideradas indulgentes.

También se registró una condena de 10 años de prisión por posesión ilícita de armas de fuego, tras un acuerdo validado ante un juez de garantías. Durante un allanamiento en Pedregal, se incautaron pistolas, un fusil, proveedores y municiones sin permisos legales, todos certificados como funcionales por el Instituto de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses.

Además de la pena principal, se impuso una multa económica, reforzando el enfoque preventivo frente al tráfico y tenencia ilegal de armas.

En conjunto, estas decisiones muestran una política criminal orientada a elevar el costo penal del delito, especialmente en casos de violencia, homicidio y uso de armas.

La imposición de penas cercanas al máximo legal, la aplicación de penas líquidas y la revisión en apelación de sentencias consideradas leves apuntan a fortalecer la confianza ciudadana en la justicia, aunque también plantean interrogantes sobre la capacidad del sistema penitenciario para manejar condenas tan extensas.

Otra de las condenas recientes fue impuesta en la provincia de Colón: un hombre de 26 años recibió 35 años de prisión, luego de que la Sección Especializada en Homicidio y Femicidio de la Fiscalía Regional de Colón y Guna Yala demostrara ante el Tribunal de Juicio su responsabilidad por homicidio doloso agravado y tentativa de homicidio.

Durante el juicio oral, el Ministerio Público sustentó su teoría del caso con la práctica de pruebas y los alegatos de clausura, lo que derivó en un veredicto condenatorio.

El tribunal también ordenó como pena accesoria la prohibición de portar armas de fuego por el mismo periodo de la sanción principal, una vez concluida la pena. El caso se relaciona con un hecho ocurrido la noche del 3 de noviembre de 2022 en Altos de Santa Cruz, corregimiento de Guásimo, distrito de Donoso, cuando el sentenciado atacó con un arma punzocortante a dos hombres, causando la muerte de uno y dejando al otro como víctima de tentativa de homicidio.

En paralelo al endurecimiento de las condenas impuestas por los tribunales, la Asamblea Nacional abrió en octubre del año pasado el debate sobre la posibilidad de incorporar la cadena perpetua al sistema penal panameño.

Con votación unánime, la Comisión de Gobierno, Justicia y Asuntos Constitucionales aprobó el prohijamiento de un proyecto de ley presentado por la diputada Walkiria Coba, que busca modificar el Código Penal para ampliar el rango de las penas y permitir sanciones de por vida en casos de delitos de extrema gravedad.

La iniciativa plantea reformar el artículo 52 para que la pena de prisión pueda extenderse hasta cadena perpetua y crear el artículo 132-C, aplicable a homicidios con ejecución atroz, uso de fuego, asfixia, extracción de órganos vitales o crímenes múltiples.

North Carolina Republican state Rep. Allen Chesser said he was taken by surprise when a Democratic sheriff who has long opposed cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could not answer a basic question about how the government works.

A North Carolina House Oversight Committee hearing spurred on by the recent killing of a young Ukrainian woman, Iryna Zarutska, in Charlotte, took an unexpected turn when Chesser asked Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden, «What branch of government do you operate under?»

McFadden, who is the top law enforcement officer in the county where Zarutska was killed, simply answered, «Mecklenburg County,» prompting Chesser to repeat, «What branch of government do you operate under, sheriff?»

The sheriff answered, «The Constitution of the United States,» to which Chesser responded, «That is what establishes the branches of government; I’m asking what branch you fall under.»

After McFadden answered, «Mecklenburg County» again, Chesser remarked, «This is not where I was anticipating getting stuck. Um, are you aware of how many branches of government there are?» The sheriff quickly shot back, «No.»

CHARLOTTE LIGHT-RAIL STABBING MURDER SPURS LANDMARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM FROM NORTH CAROLINA REPUBLICANS

After a long pause, Chesser continued, «For the sake of debate, let’s say there are three branches of government: legislative, executive, judicial. Of those three, which do you fall under?»

The sheriff answered, «I believe I fall under the last one … judicial.»

«You are incorrect, sir. You fall under the executive,» said Chesser.

After that, Chesser continued to press McFadden about how he reconciles his responsibility as an officer under the executive branch to enforce the law with his opposition to cooperation with ICE. Chesser asked McFadden how he reconciled his responsibility with a previous statement in which the sheriff said, «We do not have a role in enforcement whatsoever, we do not have to follow the rules and the laws that are governed by our lawmakers in Raleigh.»

The sheriff said that Chesser was taking his quote out of context, saying it was strictly in reference to immigration enforcement.

Though declining to offer more context on the statement, McFadden affirmed his office is now abiding by state law requiring cooperation with ICE, saying, «We follow the law, when the law is produced, we follow the law.»

HOUSE DEM EXPLODES ON TOP TRUMP IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL, SAYS HE ‘BETTER HOPE’ FOR PARDON FROM PRESIDENT

Iryna Zarutska curls up in fear as a man looms over her during a disturbing attack on a Charlotte, N.C., light rail train. (NewsNation via Charlotte Area Transit System)

In an interview with Fox News Digital the day after the hearing, Chesser, who is an Army veteran and former police officer, said that, «Obviously, those weren’t the cache of questions that I was thinking we were going to get him on.»

«I had several statements that he had made to the media and to the local press and in different interviews that kind of conflicted with some of the testimony that he provided yesterday about following the law. We made it to [only] one of those statements because we got held up on what I thought was baseline, just kind of setting a baseline of how we were to establish that his role is to enforce the law,» he explained, adding, «I was not expecting to have to get into a fifth-grade civics lesson with a duly elected sheriff.»

He said that McFadden has «decided to make himself kind of a centerpiece in the refusal to enforce immigration law here in North Carolina,» adding, «It’s not so much the refusal to enforce immigration law, but it’s the refusal to enforce state law that says he must cooperate with ICE and ICE detainers when people are in custody in his facilities.»

WHO IS IRYNA ZARUTSKA, UKRAINIAN REFUGEE KILLED IN CHARLOTTE TRAIN ATTACK?

Ukrainian Iryna Zarutska came to the U.S. to escape war but was stabbed to death in Charlotte. (Evgeniya Rush/GoFundMe)

«Last summer, we had the unfortunate death of a young Ukrainian national that had sought refuge in our country and in our state,» Chesser went on. «I think that all North Carolinians, and all people who find themselves in North Carolina, should be able to count on one thing when it comes to public safety, and that is whether or not you are safe and whether or not the law will be enforced is not dependent on what county you find yourself in.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

«North Carolina is a safe state for all the people who choose to come here, and that is the point of the Oversight Committee [hearing] that we were having was, making sure that the law is equally applied and fairly applied across all imaginary lines in our state,» he said.

The Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is reportedly planning to announce a presidential election and a referendum on a potential peace deal to end the war with Russia, with the declaration expected on Feb. 24, the fourth anniversary of Moscow’s full-scale invasion.

The Financial Times, citing Ukrainian and European officials involved in the planning, reported on Wednesday that both a presidential vote, in which Zelenskyy would seek re-election, and a nationwide referendum could be held by May 15.

The outlet said Kyiv could risk losing proposed U.S. security guarantees if it does not hold both votes by that date.

The Financial Times noted that although earlier U.S.-imposed deadlines have come and gone, American officials are this time applying heavier pressure on Ukraine as the November midterm elections loom.

ZELENSKYY READY TO PRESENT NEW PEACE PROPOSALS TO US AND RUSSIA AFTER WORKING WITH EUROPEAN TALKS

It added that the timeline could also be complicated by the wide gap between Moscow and Kyiv on key territorial issues, including control of the Donbas region and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, as well as the need for parliament to amend legislation because martial law currently bars national elections during wartime.

Zelenskyy previously stressed that the timing and format of any elections are matters solely for Ukraine and its citizens, rejecting any suggestion that the Kremlin could dictate the process. 

In several lengthy posts on X in December, he argued that two key factors would determine whether voting is possible: security and legislation.

ZELENSKYY SAYS US SECURITY GUARANTEES DOCUMENT IS ‘100% READY’ FOR SIGNING

A woman casts her ballot at a mobile polling station during early voting in Russia’s presidential election in Donetsk, Russian-occupied Ukraine, on March 14, 2024. (Stringer/AFP via Getty Images)

Zelenskyy said voting can only take place on Ukrainian-controlled territory and must ensure the participation of soldiers defending the country. Elections cannot be held in Russian-occupied areas, he explained, because of concerns over how they would be conducted.

He also suggested that a ceasefire, at least for the duration of an election or referendum, may be necessary to guarantee secure conditions, including protected airspace and the presence of international observers.

The reported deadline from the Trump administration comes after The Associated Press reported that Washington is aiming for the war to end by June.

Ukrainian servicemen vote at a polling station during Ukraine’s parliamentary elections in Velyki Mosty, Lviv Oblast, on July 21, 2019. (Mykola Tys/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images)

Trilateral talks between the United States, Russia and Ukraine were held in Abu Dhabi in early February, where the sides met twice but emerged with only a limited breakthrough — agreeing to a 314-person prisoner exchange, the first such swap in five months.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said Washington and Moscow agreed to reestablish a military-to-military dialogue, calling the channel «crucial to achieving and maintaining peace.»

He said trilateral discussions would continue in the coming weeks after the delegations report back to their respective capitals.