The Practical Impact of the 721 Law on Penalty Reductions for Sex Offenders
The courts have shown a variable approach to penalty reductions for sex offenders under the policy commonly referred to as the 721 measure, part of the so‑called ‘only yes means yes’ framework. This summary reflects official data released on Thursday by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ). It captures how reductions have been applied in practice and highlights areas where information remains incomplete or inconsistencies persist across jurisdictions.
In its briefing, the CGPJ notes that not every court has supplied full data requested, and updates will be provided periodically as more complete information becomes available. The lack of a unified, complete picture makes it difficult to determine the total number of sentences reviewed since the law took effect on 7 October, and it is not always clear whether reductions have led to prisoners being released. Some court versions of the data differ, and not all jurisdictions have agreed on the same figures. The report shows that, overall, more sentences were upheld than reduced in many centers.
For instance, the Madrid County Court had reviewed 451 convictions by mid‑February, with a majority of those defendants classified as vulnerable. Reductions were applied in 71 cases, representing 15.7 percent of all reviewed sentences. In eight cases, the reductions resulted in the release of the detainee. CGPJ observers emphasize that the figures are subject to change due to ongoing data collection and the impact of external factors such as a lawyers’ strike, which some courts have pointed to as limiting the availability of complete information.
The CGPJ also cautions that its reported data may be incomplete. It excludes criminal investigations that may have arisen in criminal courts with authority to prosecute offenses punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. This caveat helps readers understand that the presented numbers may not capture every relevant case and that the situation could evolve as investigations and prosecutions proceed.
According to the tables compiled, provincial courts ordered 674 sentence reductions, resulting in 73 evictions. The higher courts of appeal issued 37 reductions, one of which led to eviction, while the Supreme Court made this decision ten times. These figures illustrate the multi‑tiered nature of review and how outcomes can vary depending on the level of appeal and interpretation of the law.
Decisions issued by provincial courts can typically be appealed to higher courts, whose own figures may alter over time. This week, the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León annulled a sentence reduction that had previously been agreed by the Zamora Court, signaling that appellate scrutiny can reverse earlier outcomes and underscores the evolving nature of jurisprudence in this area.
The Madrid County Court has emerged as the jurisdiction reviewing the highest number of sentences in this dataset. In second place is the Valencian Community, which recorded 193 corrections and 23 reductions, followed by the Balearic Islands with 111 revisions, 46 reductions and six editions. These geographic patterns reflect how regional practices and case loads influence the application of reductions and the reporting of results.
Across fifty state hearings, 19 did not provide data on the total number of reviews. Of the 31 courts that did supply data, only seven had more sentence discounts than retained sentences. Notable jurisdictions include Burgos with 21 revisions and 12 reductions, Cuenca with 3 revisions and 2 reductions, Lleida with 12 revisions and 8 reductions, Lugo with 7 revisions and 5 reductions, Ourense with 12 revisions and 9 reductions, Pontevedra with 28 revisions and 16 reductions, and Zamora with 10 revisions, 10 reductions, and 5 substantiations. These figures illustrate a wide variance in outcomes even within the same general policy framework.
There is also evidence of inconsistent outcomes between supreme courts of justice. In Catalonia, five reductions were applied, while Castilla y León retained all reductions and canceled one. In the Supreme Court, reductions occurred in 10 of 26 examined sentences. Overall, the expectation remains that further objections and resolutions will shape the final tallies; state observers anticipate resolving around 224 objections as procedures continue. This landscape underscores the ongoing need for comprehensive, standardized reporting to enable clearer understanding of how the law operates in practice across different jurisdictions and over time.
Taken together, the data suggest a nuanced picture: some regions and courts apply reductions more aggressively, while others maintain stricter interpretations or experience reporting gaps. The CGPJ emphasizes that ongoing data collection and court updates are essential to building a complete and accurate record—one that can guide policy discussions, inform defense and prosecutorial strategies, and help the public understand how the 721 measure functions in real cases across Canada‑bound audiences seeking comparative perspectives or international insights. The overarching message is that the law’s practical effects continue to unfold as courts review more cases and as data collection processes mature, with periodic revisions likely as new information becomes available.