If the possible repeal of the Severino law could reopen the doors of Parliament to the condemned, the second referendum question risks making the application of precautionary measures extremely complicated with heavy repercussions on the investigation activity.
On Sunday, the Italians will read on the orange card: “Limitation of precautionary measures: abrogation of the last sentence of art. 274, paragraph 1, letter c), code of criminal procedure, in the matter of precautionary measures and, in particular, of precautionary needs, in the criminal trial “. This is the second question, of five, in the referendum on Justice proposed by the League and the Radicals.
CAUTION MEASURES DISASSEMBLED
Basically what the proponents are asking is to limit all those measures aimed at limiting – temporarily – the personal freedom of the suspect, during the investigation phase, or of the accused, during the trial phase. This is an apparently simple question but it is not at all. This is because in the common sense on the subject a great confusion has arisen.
In fact, when one thinks of a precautionary measure, only the most afflictive one comes to mind, namely custody in prison. But this is only one of the many given that there are coercive ones, among which – just to give a few examples – there are house arrest, the prohibition and obligation of residence or expatriation, and those prohibitions that substantially limit the capacity of the suspect / accused person to perform a specific function.
In short, there are various forms of limitations, which must be requested by a magistrate and ordered by a judge. Too bad that the proponents – including incredibly own Il Carroccio di Matteo Salvini who seems to have forgotten his own roots as a ‘public order’ party – they seem to be making a mess of the whole thing. Yes, because with the victory of the Yes, the evident effect is that the possibility of the judicial authority to order any precautionary measure would be severely limited.
HOW THE CAUTION MEASURES CHANGE
That this is the case the same question says, given that if you remove the risk of repetition of the crime as a valid reason for pre-trial detention, criminal procedure code in hand, only the danger of escape and the probative pollution remain. But the first is disjointed by removing the documents for expatriation while the second is extremely difficult to prove. In short, it is a matter of a ‘free all’ that must worry and it is not a question of being executioners or guarantors but, simply, realists.
As the 5 Star Movement pointed out, the second referendum question “puts the entire judicial system at risk”. Difficult to blame them because it would even limit “the effectiveness of the law on the crime of stalking. With the new law, in fact, the suspects for whom there is no risk of escape or pollution of the evidence, would remain free if the conducts that are attributed to them were not committed with the use of violence or weapons “.
According to M5S, “stalkers who acted without using violence against their victims would avoid the precautionary measure. They would remain in the possibility of continuing with the harassment or, as often happens, of committing even more serious crimes. It is unacceptable. The 5 Star Movement, starting with #CodiceRosso, has always fought for the safety and protection of citizens. This is a terrain on which we cannot afford to move back even one centimeter ”.
#Referendum #precautionary #measures #Salvini #gift #commit #crime