Penal populism: a critical analysis of emblematic ecuadorian cases

Abstract

This article critically examines the impact of penal populism on the Ecuadorian legal system, focusing on the influence that discourses advocating harsher punishments, media pressure, and social demands for punishment exert on the formulation of criminal justice responses. Through a doctrinal, normative, and jurisprudential analysis, the article examines the foundations of penal populism, its relationship to due process guarantees and the constitutional rule of law, as well as the role played by symbolic criminal law and the media in shaping criminal policy. Similarly, the “Bribes 2012–2016” case is analyzed as a benchmark for identifying the tensions between the need to combat corruption and the obligation to preserve constitutional guarantees such as due process, the presumption of innocence, proportionality, and legal certainty. The results show that strengthening punitive power when driven primarily by short term pressures can undermine the enforcement of fundamental rights and affect the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Consequently, the study concludes that Ecuadorian criminal policy must be grounded in technical, constitutional, and rights-based criteria, so that the exercise of the ius puniendi remains within the limits appropriate to a constitutional state governed by the rule of law