No probation for those responsible for a forest fire caused by negligence, even if there was no intent . The Constitutional Court upholds the law that, for this crime, does not authorize the suspension of criminal proceedings, which would allow for an alternative judicial route. In short, the crackdown remains in place.

"The legislator, in identifying the crimes for which suspension of proceedings with probation is possible, exercises broad discretion, which cannot be reviewed by the Constitutional Court except in cases where the legislative choices are manifestly unreasonable," the Constitutional Court ruled in ruling number 191, filed today.

The preliminary hearing judge of the Ordinary Court of Cagliari had raised the question of the constitutionality of Article 168-bis, first paragraph, of the Criminal Code, holding that the contested provision violates Article 3 of the Constitution, "in that it does not allow the suspension of proceedings with probation for the crime of negligent forest fire (Article 423-bis, second paragraph, of the Criminal Code)."

According to the Cagliari judge, it would be unreasonable to exclude from the aforementioned provision negligent crimes that, like the one under consideration, "would lend themselves well to the resocializing or restorative processes pursued precisely by probation." Furthermore, the judge justified this unreasonableness by referring to intentional crimes that, while punished more severely than negligent forest fires, "are, however, included within the scope of probation , through reference to Article 550, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cases of direct summons to trial)."

The Court declared the issue unfounded, stating that the current legal system does not violate the principle of reasonableness, enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitution. "The determination of the objective limits for the application of the suspension of proceedings with probation, by applying a mobile reference to all the crimes listed in the second paragraph of Article 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is in fact the expression of a criminal policy choice that is not manifestly unreasonable in itself. Furthermore," the Court continued, "the negligent nature of the crime of forest fire, which, according to the referring judge, lends itself well to resocialization programs, is not sufficient to include this crime among those for which the suspension of proceedings with probation is permitted."

The institution "is not only intended to re-socialize, but also pursues punitive and deflationary objectives. In this sense, guilt is one of the criteria the legislator can refer to in establishing the scope of probation, but it is certainly not the only one. In its discretion, it can consider, in addition to the subjective element, other factors, such as the legal interest protected, the criminal conduct, or the sanctioning treatment," the Constitutional Court concludes.

(Unioneonline)

© Riproduzione riservata