Too often we are led to believe that the solution to problems must necessarily pass through an exacerbation of existing penalties and too often, such a belief tends to arise only as a consequence of the occurrence of criminal events, even very serious ones, which shake the soul and the consciences of the population such as the one that occurred in Rome just a few days ago, and on the occasion of which a child of only five years lost his life.

According to what has been learned from the press, the crime would have taken place on the occasion of a "social challenge" concerning a long race put in place by four boys in their early twenties, lasting a good fifty hours aboard a Lamborghini SUV, and achieved through the filming, and subsequent publication on the reference social channel, of the various stages.

To begin with, and without wanting to fall into useless rhetoric at least in petty considerations, it is hardly necessary to underline that, in matters of road traffic, the priority concern of those who find themselves managing power at all levels, therefore the Ministry of Transport including, whatever its subjective expression today personified by Matteo Salvini, must be to prevent any fact and/or event capable of causing physical and moral injury to the community understood in its entirety composition, since the pure and simple tightening of penalties after a disaster has occurred, after a "dead father" to be clear, would seem to risk taking on the bitter taste of the prompt solution of those who have no solutions. In short, and saying it differently: if by sanction we mean, as it would be right to understand, every potential consequence that the legal system reflects on the offender as a result of the offense committed, then, the same, if it were to really be such, should be considered not only and not so much in its immediate repressive function, but rather, and more effectively, in its function as a so-called primary social garrison, carried out through a preventive activity of both a general and a special nature.

If the already widely existing sanction in the matter of road traffic does not appear suitable for intimidating associates, in this case potential offenders, to the point of inducing them to desist, for the future, from committing analogous acts of any kind, i.e. a counter-thrust that leads them to desist from acting in a sense that does not comply with the rules of civilized life, what effectiveness and/or practical utility can it ever have? It is clear that it can only be destined to remain a dead letter existing only on paper to weigh down a regulatory kit that is already substantial in its material consistency.

If the implementation of a rule, even the harshest, cannot be guaranteed through the induction of the offender to ideological compliance with the imperative contained in it guaranteed by an intense activity of social control, what can it possibly be useful for?

In the first place because, even if the immediate, albeit illusory, effect of the tightening could appear to be that of an initial decrease in the offending behaviour, in the medium and/or long term, that effect runs the risk of being translated, as it would appear to be, into forms of psychological habituation capable of putting into nothing the deterrent effect that that tightening was intended to produce. Therefore, because the substantial requirement to be satisfied does not concern the substantive law properly understood, i.e. the dictum (command) of the rules, but rather their repressive force, i.e. the speed with which that rule is applied in such a way that the offender, but also the whole community, perceives the immediacy of the normative reaction thus suitable to serve as future teaching. Finally, because the real reform to be created and implemented should be that of an exquisitely educational nature, aimed at focusing in young people the importance of respecting the rules of civilized life which is something other than the virtual, very dangerous context in which in recent years they are faced with. And instead, instead of putting in place social mechanisms functionally aimed at creating opportunities for meeting, even weekly, useful for teaching road safety education, a further reform of the highway code would seem to be in the pipeline with a further tightening of existing penalties, almost as if those already existing are not sufficient. But can we really believe that the solution can pass through a further reform that neglects family and social education as a priority tool for control and prevention? Can it really be believed that even the most perfect of rules can have some practical utility if there is a disconnect between ethics, morals and civil conscience understood, the latter as attention to respect for others and good living?

The Legislator would seem persuaded to believe that in order to induce citizens to behave correctly, he should put in place heavier sanctions, making his normative force weigh and specifying the conditions of the violations as best as possible. However, rather than tightening the sanctions, which are already quite high at the moment, it would be necessary to increase the controls suitable for preventing the citizen from developing the perception of the absence of control and therefore from persevering in the violation of the rules even after the increase of the sanctions. Control seems to be the only valid form of prevention and repression, and, in the event of violation, the punishment of the person responsible according to the penalties in force must follow with prompt immediacy. Not exaggerated reformism but concrete and punctual implementation of the rules in force to guarantee a peaceful civil life.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata