Veinticinco leyes penales han sido objeto de control de constitucionalidad. Como ilustra la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre el principio de proporcionalidad, en esta labor el Tribunal Constitucional ha sido un tribunal restrictivo en la interpretación del marco constitucional penal pero deferente en el juicio final de inclusión de la norma en dicho marco. Además de razones de convicción, existen razones prácticas para esta deferencia, de la que las sentencias interpretativas son expresión: evitar la desprotección social que comportaría la anulación de una norma penal cuya inconstitucionalidad no sea plena.

—

Restrictive or deferential? The Spanish Constitutional Court review of criminal statutes.

Twenty five criminal statutes have been subjected to constitutional review by the Spanish Constitutional Court in its little over thirty years of existence. As shown by its case-law on the principle of proportionality, the Spanish Constitutional Court has been restrictive regarding the constitutional limits on criminal law-making, but deferential in its final decision on the constitutionality of the law. In addition to theoretical reasons, there are practical reasons for this deferential stance: if the Court voids the challenged criminal provision but its unconstitutionality is not complete, the judgment can cause an unbearable social vulnerability.