The recent decision by Colombia's Supreme Court in the EPA Colombia case reveals a concerning trend in our judicial system: the spectacularization of justice in the digital age. The sentence against Daneidy Barrera, which includes more than five years in prison, a substantial fine, and a ban on working as an influencer, raises serious questions about proportionality in the application of law.

The facts are clear: during the 2019 protests, Barrera damaged a Transmilenio station and documented the act on her social media. However, the severity of the sentence suggests she is being judged not only for vandalism but for her digital influence. The Court argues that the dissemination of the act could incite others to imitate her conduct, effectively turning her social media presence into an aggravating factor not contemplated in legislation.

This judicial decision sets a dangerous precedent. Is Colombian justice creating a two-tier system where the severity of punishment depends on one's Instagram followers? The disparity becomes evident when comparing this sentence with those imposed for more serious crimes. It seems that having a significant social media audience now carries extraordinary criminal liability.

Crime prevention, which is essentially a fundamental principle of criminal law, is being distorted in this case. While it's understandable that justice seeks to deter future acts of vandalism, the disproportionate sentence could generate the opposite effect, namely, a sense of injustice that fuels more social discontent.

Particularly concerning is the ban on working as an influencer. In 2025, this restriction amounts to professional death in the digital era. The measure goes beyond punishing the committed crime, entering territory of additional punishment that could violate fundamental rights.

The Court's message is clear but problematic: social media power will be considered an aggravating factor in determining sentences. This judicial stance ignores basic principles such as equality before the law and proportionality of punishment, turning the judicial process into a media spectacle where the defendant's digital reach may weigh more than the crime itself.

Colombian justice urgently needs to recalibrate its approach to crimes in the digital era. While it's crucial to prevent acts of vandalism and maintain public order, the severity of punishments must maintain a reasonable relationship with the gravity of crimes, regardless of the offender's social media popularity.

The EPA Colombia case isn't just about vandalism or social media; it's a mirror reflecting how our judicial system is dealing with the challenges of the digital age. Crime prevention is necessary but shouldn't be achieved at the cost of fundamental principles of justice and equity.

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to reconsider this decision and establish more balanced criteria for similar cases in the future. Otherwise, we risk creating a judicial system where "likes" and followers determine the severity of punishment, dangerously moving away from the principles of equitable justice that should guide our legal system.