The paper focuses on the evolution of the scholarly debate and the case law concerning amnesty, also in light of the provisions of the German and Austrian legal systems, pointing out the peculiarities and the specific features of each experience and practice of general pardon. Starting from the different domestic legal frameworks and looking at the different measures from a comparative perspective, the paper analyses the nature and the limits of the lawful exercise of the pardon power
More than forty years after the prison reform, the underlying constitutional humanism thereof seems to be overcome by a prison-centric involution, where legal punitive-symbolic measures aims to ‘entrench’ the prison system. Through art. 4-bis of the Prison Law, several automatic effects based on presumptions almost absolute provide for a default harsh imprisonment. The Constitutional Court case law, in turn, tried to make the prison system consistent with the Constitution, starting to overcome the judicial approach grounded on imperative rules, where only the lawmaker is entitled to struck a deal among the interests at stake, limiting the judicial review. In the said pattern, the recent Prison Reform had the aim to overcome the strict system of foreclosure to rehabilitation, avoiding absolute presumptions and giving back to the Judge overseeing sentences the power to taylor the treatment on each prisoner. The valuable preparatory and drafting work started by the States general and later included in the so-called Giostra project, however, was eventually overturned by the umpteenth populist drifting, that stopped the reduction of the cases limiting re-education
Statistics show that prison population has significantly decreased since 2010. In the last two years, though, it has started rising again. Now is the time to think about the short and long term effects of the reforms following the judgment Torreggiani v. Italy, that has recognized a violation of ECHR Article 3. It seems to me that, regardless of the forthcoming reform of the penitentiary systems, there is no political will to implement changes that would be necessary to create sanctionary system in line with constitutional principles.
Measures alternative to imprisonment have been continuously examined within criminal law debate in order to solve problems related to, on the one side, hypertrophy of penal legislation and, on the other side, crisis of the imprisonment itself with special regard to short detention. It happens nowadays too, since criminal policies – also because of the ECHR sentence 8th June 2013 against Italy in the case Torreggiani v. Italy – aim to use measures alternative to imprisonment as a tool against prison overcrowding (and sometimes against the overload of the criminal justice system), pushing into the background the demands for improvement of their efficacy in terms of rehabilitation.
The choices regarding the limits applicable to punishment (both minimum and maximum) that fall to the political assessment of the legislator should be verified on the basis of the proportionality principle, having regard to the seriousness of the various offences, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment and the rehabilitative purpose of punishment. There are several restrictions pertaining to the limits applicable to punishment: excessively broad ranges or ranges that break the link between the seriousness of the offence and the discretionary evaluations of the legislator are not permitted.
Eusebi’s considerations on the question of punishment - in the context of Christian thought - highlight the dark side of criminal law: in the light of art. 27 of the Constitution, he proposes a view of punishment as a path, rather than a rigidly counterbalanced retaliation, and points to restorative justice as a model aimed at the rebuilding of social relationships. The link to Christianity opens prospects which go beyond state justice, and raises the issue of the importance of comprehensive understandings for the rule of law to hold.
This article examines the fundamental characteristics of the comprehensive reform of criminal law proposed by Minister Orlando and currently under examination at the Senate. This reform should have an impact on many institutions of substantive criminal law – e.g., the extinguishment of a crime due to preparatory conducts and especially the statute of limitations for a crime – as well as on a number of procedural criminal law standards, which share the aim to make procedural developments more effective, even by means of a stricter deadline system for the different turning points.
Il contributo discute della rilevanza di alcune situazioni-limite che si verificano nella realtà pratica dell’esecuzione penitenziaria (in particolare, in tema di incompatibilità carceraria, di rapporti genitoriali, di aiuto ai fini del definitivo reinserimento nella realtà sociale), come spia di deficit fondamentali dell’attuale regime di ordinamento penitenziario e dello stesso concetto di ‘trattamento’ che ne sta alla base. Si denuncia in proposito la mancanza di saperi nomologici in materia di ‘trattamento’ ed il sostanziale disinteresse per questa lacuna, che finisce con il rimettere alla discrezionalità dell’amministrazione in senso lato (comprensiva dell’area trattamentale) l’intera fase esecutiva. Infine, auspicando almeno la perdita di centralità dell’esecuzione carceraria, si segnala un diverso ruolo che dovrebbe competere alla legalità dell’esecuzione (ed ai saperi giuridici): se, rispetto ad un carcere inteso come residuale, ciò che diviene centrale è definire le condizioni della legalità, si tratterà di studiare in che cosa può essere tutelata e valorizzata la persona in un’istituzione di questo tipo; ma certamente non potranno essere i giuristi a farlo. Il loro compito sarà quello di esplicitare tutte le condizioni di tutela normativa della persona a chi possa studiare, alle condizioni normative date, cosa può essere scientificamente plausibile in termini di promozione dell’individuo.
El proyecto de reforma del Código Penal de 2013 como programa inocuizador de delincuentes peligrosos (prisión permanente revisable y medidas de seguridad indeterminadas)
Il progetto di riforma del codice penale spagnolo dal 2013 introduce una modifica sostanziale del sistema di misure di sicurezza ed include l’ergastolo nell’elenco delle sanzioni penali. Entrambe novità rappresentano una svolta del sistema punitivo verso un “diritto penale della sicurezza”, in contrasto con i principi di colpevolezza, legalità, proporzionalità e rieducazione, interpretati alla luce della Costituzione spagnola e della Convenzione europea dei diritti del uomo.