Passiamo ora a parlare dei due punti di maggiore rilevanza della proposta di riforma: l'attenuazione del principio di obbligatorietà dell'azione penale e la responsabilità civile dei magistrati. Ci sarebbe da scriverci sopra un paio di tesi di laurea, ma non avendo qualche mese a disposizione mi limiterò a formulare qualche pensiero più disordinato del consueto.
Sulla responsabilità civile, la questione, per quanto mi riguarda, è abbastanza semplice: today is expected to respond to the judge for willful misconduct or gross negligence. The proposal of the Government to equate the judges employed by the State, which also respond to simple negligence. This in my opinion, an unacceptable pressure on those who are called to judge, because the jury is a difficult job, and those who exercise it should be put in a position to do so with all the serenity of the case. Judges are still human beings, subject to glare, distraction and fatigue: so much so that the judicial system, worldwide, provides that there are several levels of courts, in order to repair the errors in the imposition of a sentence. Already
art. 2236 cc limits the liability intellectual work of the civil service provider (doctor, lawyer, architect ...) ruling that "If the provision requires the solution of technical problems of special difficulty, the person undertaking the work is not liable for damages, if not in cases of intent or gross negligence ", and rightly so because, otherwise, no doctor would think to try a new therapy. In the U.S., where this principle of limitation of liability does not exist, the protection of the trader goes through the insurance mechanism, which has led to a rise in costs for access to health care for all, as viewers of U.S. series, well know.
What would a judge who may be sued in an action for damages whenever someone who condemns? We are confident that freedom could make the award? I frankly do not think so: just a doubt (that is a far more nuanced question of "reasonable doubt" is currently provided by art. 533 cpp) to discharge the accused, to avoid trouble. And if you marry this with the well planned without appeal of acquittals, what would come out is a system where everyone (but especially those who, having more resources, could face a peaceful heart, the cost of subsequent reviews compensatory damages) could get away with much more easily than today.
Mind you, I am a firm believer in the principle that is better that a hundred guilty be out that one innocent in jail, but here we are going to intrude legalized impunity, and impunity for more class.
We come now to the issue of mandatory prosecution. The proposed text says that "The prosecutor has the obligation to prosecute under the criteria established by law" . It would appear that not less vengsa the basic principle, but it is not: this reminds me very closely fornmulazione art. 28 of the Statuto Albertino (which, lest we forget, was in force in twenty years) that provided: "The press is free, but a law shall repress abuses" , and we all know as it turned out.
We note therefore that the proposed wording, then, would end the constitutional obligation to prosecute, calling the law the ordinary rules of this exercise and try to understand what that means.
not everywhere already know that the prosecution is required: in Anglo-Saxon legal systems in fact it never is, and yet in many continental legal systems (especially those in French) is discretionary.
In Italy the principle of mandatory prosecution has always existed, as the procedure code of 1930, which gave the PM the power to file the notice of the offense without being considered by the Examining Magistrate, l'avesse di fatto incrinato. La cosa non sfuggì nel corso del dibattito alla Costituente, all'inizio del quale la figura del Pubblico Ministero era ben lungi dall'essere ben definita.
In effetti vi erano sul tappeto due temi, strettamente connessi anche se tale legame non è di immediata evidenza: quello se il PM dovesse essere espressione del Potere Esecutivo piuttosto che del Potere Giudiziario, e quello dell'obbligatorietà dell'azione penale.
Il concetto di base è questo: un PM espressione dell'Esecutivo potrebbe essere sottoposto a pressioni, o addirittura a vere e proprie disposizioni formali da parte del superiore gerarchico, per non fargli esercitare l'azione penale in determinati casi In tale configurazione pertanto l'obbligatorietà prosecution should be in the interests of the individual and PM, both in general the principle of equality of everyone before the law. A PM independent and instead would not be subject to those pressures or orders, and then in that case it would be possible to leave more discretion to the office. Eventually the Framers chose the way stiffer, making the PM was independent of the courts, and at the same time stating the mandatory prosecution. One reason for this radical decision was to prevent the introduction into a subsidiary of prosecution by the court were to find that the inactivity of the PM in front of the news of crime, since it appeared unacceptable for our legal culture, the possibility that a crime was not prosecuted but not as trifling as committed by "friends of friends." In other words, it is felt that unless the express provision of mandatory self-PM also could help someone, maybe not because of pressure but of personal interest, and therefore we wanted to lock up the office.
The reform proposal is that it is accepted that certain crimes, that will be defined by ordinary law, are "less crime" than others. We are told that this is the fact that justice does not work today, because you know how to prioritize the prosecution of illegal, because you can not think that for any crap from starting criminal proceedings, with all what it costs in terms of time, resources and money.
E 'largely true, but, alas, is not the point.
recently the deputy mayor of Treviso, Gentilini, was the subject of the launch of two Roman artichokes that have touched the face . The authors of the horrendous act have been identified and reported, and certainly we are all safer. Will result from a criminal proceeding (as the PM has an obligation to pursue the action) that will end with a stalemate, or at most a fine of a few tens or hundreds of euros. According to the Government to do this shit for a criminal trial is not right: you have the means of justice to be used to prosecute the real crimes: and we agree.
But the solution to the problem, and I think anyone with common sense they should agree not to let certain crimes in a gray area of \u200b\u200bjurisdiction attenuated, but to reduce the scope of criminal law by restricting its field Action offenses really offensive. It makes no sense to let the jet dangerous things or misuse of theatrical representation remain crimes, but at the same time say that judges need to look for lack of time. First, because it is wrong in principle (the crimes should essere cose serie e gravi, e quindi dovrebbero essere puniti senza badare al tempo disponibile), e in secondo luogo perché così si introdurrebbe una discriminazione tra chi commette un reato in un luogo con un tribunale scarico di lavoro, che verrebbe perseguito in quanto il PM locale non ha nulla da fare, e chi commettesse lo stesso reato in un luogo con un tribunale ingolfato, che la farebbe franca.
Gli strumenti per ridurre il carico di lavoro dei tribunali e dei PM ci sono: la depenalizzazione, anzitutto, come pure -ad esempio- l'estensione del procedimento per decreto alle fattispecie più lievi di reato, anche se punibili con pene detentive minime.
Il fatto è che la discrezionalità dell'azione penale vale nei sistemi in cui il PM la sfrutta non per sgravarsi da una parte del lavoro, bensì per perseguire più efficacemente i reati, modulare la pena in funzione della pericolosità del reo o, come nei sistemi anglosassoni, trattare con l'imputato per far ammettere la sua colpevolezza o concedergli l'immunità per fargli fare nomi. Ma nei sistemi anglosassoni l'accusatore dispone non solo dell'esercizio dell'azione, ma anche della quantificazione della pena.
Insomma: rendere discrezionale l'esercizio dell'azione penale, o sottoporre il suo esercizio a condizioni dipendenti dalla situazione degli uffici giudiziari, è profondamente iniquo nmel sistema che oggi abbiamo: e il fatto che all'estero funzioni non significa nula, dato che per scardinare this should import from abroad all the other institutions that give meaning to the discretion of the PM.
0 comments:
Post a Comment