Extenuating and Aggravating Circumstances in the Conduct of Harassment

Aggravating Circumstances: Increasing the Sanction

The severity of the sanction depends on aggravating factors. It is considered more serious if the conduct is repeated after having been sanctioned or warned.

The fact that there is a concurrence of causal factors (for example, simultaneous mistreatment and hindering) also aggravates the offense.

It is especially serious when the harassment is directed against persons in a situation of manifest weakness (disabled, pregnant women), or when the aggressor takes advantage of his predominant position to hide evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Damage to the corporate image or to third party users of the service also raises the severity of the punishment, as well as deliberately seeking to increase the psychological and biological damage to the victim.

Mitigating Conduct: Reduction Factors

On the other hand, the law contemplates circumstances that may mitigate responsibility, although not justify it.

It is considered a mitigating factor to have observed previous good conduct (no disciplinary record).

Acting in a state of excusable emotion or passion is also considered (although this point is debatable in modern psychology, legally it can be considered if there was an intense provocation).

The voluntary, timely and effective repair of the damage, as well as the confession of the offense before being investigated, may serve to reduce the penalty imposed.

However, these mitigating factors must be carefully analyzed to avoid impunity.

The Importance of Gradualness in Punishment

The analysis of mitigating and aggravating factors is vital to apply the principle of proportionality and gradualness.

Not every misconduct deserves immediate dismissal, and not every minor error can be solved with a talk.

The judge or disciplinary committee must weigh these factors to make a fair ruling.

If an aggressor acted with premeditation, malice aforethought and against a vulnerable person (aggravating factors), the penalty should be the maximum allowed.

If it was a single event, provoked by a crisis and there was an immediate apology (mitigating factors), the corrective measure can be pedagogical.

This balance ensures due process and prevents disciplinary decisions from being overturned in subsequent judicial instances.

Summary

Sanctions are aggravated if there is repetition, if vulnerable persons (disabled) are attacked or if the aggressor takes advantage of his position to hide evidence and intimidate witnesses.

There are mitigating factors such as previous good behavior, acting under provoked intense emotion or voluntary and timely repair of the damage before the formal investigation.

Gradualness and proportionality are vital; the judge must weigh these factors in order to issue fair rulings, applying from pedagogical measures to the maximum sanction depending on the case.