Substitute Penalties and the Health Conditions of the Convicted Person: The Court of Cassation's Approach with Ruling 11973/2025

In the landscape of Italian criminal law, the issue of substitute penalties for short custodial sentences holds crucial importance, especially with a view to modernizing and humanizing the sanctioning system. The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Fifth Section, with ruling no. 11973 of March 13, 2025 (filed on March 26, 2025, Rv. 287781-02), presided over by Dr. G. R. A. Miccoli and drafted by Dr. R. Sessa, offers a fundamental clarification regarding the relevance of the convicted person's health conditions at the time of the decision on the application of such measures. The case in question, which involved F. P. as the defendant and S. G. as the Public Prosecutor, led to the rejection of the appeal against a decision by the Court of Bergamo dated November 28, 2024, emphasizing a delicate and often debated aspect of criminal justice.

The Context of Substitute Penalties and the Cartabia Reform

Substitute penalties for short custodial sentences, introduced and then significantly reformed by Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150 (the so-called Cartabia Reform), aim to promote alternatives to imprisonment, favoring measures that encourage the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the convicted person. The objective is twofold: on the one hand, to alleviate the burden on prison facilities and, on the other, to offer the convicted person a chance for redemption through more personalized and effective paths. These measures include semi-freedom, house arrest, community service, and financial penalties. Law no. 689 of 1981, and subsequent amendments, along with Articles 20-bis and 133 of the Criminal Code, constitute the normative framework for their application.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and Its Meaning

Ruling 11973/2025 focuses on a specific aspect: the relevance of the convicted person's health conditions. The Court of Cassation has formulated a clear and incisive ruling:

In the context of substitute penalties for short custodial sentences, the health conditions of the convicted person are not relevant at the time of the decision regarding the "whether" of the substitution, unless their treatment outside the prison system can play a decisive role for rehabilitative purposes and provided that there are no well-founded reasons to believe that the prescriptions accompanying the substitute penalty will not be fulfilled.

This statement is of fundamental importance and deserves careful analysis. In essence, the Court of Cassation establishes that the health conditions of the convicted person are not, in themselves, a determining factor in deciding whether to apply a substitute penalty. This means that the mere presence of health problems does not automatically guarantee access to alternatives to detention. However, the Court introduces two crucial exceptions, which outline a more complex framework oriented towards the rehabilitative purpose of the penalty:

• **Decisive Role for Rehabilitative Purposes:** If the treatment of the convicted person's health conditions outside of prison can significantly contribute to their rehabilitation process, then this aspect becomes relevant. This implies an individualized assessment, taking into account how health management can integrate with and support the recovery and reintegration process. For example, the need for specific therapies that cannot be provided or are difficult to manage in a prison setting, but are essential for the subject's psychophysical stability, could be considered if functional to the rehabilitation path.
• **Reliability in Fulfilling Prescriptions:** The second condition is that there must be no well-founded reasons to doubt that the convicted person will comply with the prescriptions imposed by the substitute penalty. This is a key point, as the effectiveness of alternative measures is based on their correct execution. If the health conditions are such as to seriously compromise the convicted person's ability to respect obligations (e.g., schedules, appointments, prohibitions), then the substitute penalty may not be appropriate, regardless of its rehabilitative potential. The assessment of the ability to comply is therefore an essential filter.

Ultimately, the ruling reiterates that the decision on penalty substitution is not dictated by a mere compassionate criterion related to health, but by a complex assessment that balances therapeutic needs with the rehabilitative and reliability requirements of the convicted person, in compliance with the function of the penalty.

Practical Implications and Legal References

This ruling by the Court of Cassation aligns with jurisprudence that seeks to harmonize the constitutional principles of the humanity of punishment and its rehabilitative purpose (Art. 27 of the Constitution) with the demands of justice and security. The legal references cited by the ruling, such as Articles 20-bis and 133 of the Criminal Code, Article 58 of Law no. 689/1981, and Article 71 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2022, are the foundation of this approach. Article 133 of the Criminal Code, in particular, governs the criteria for determining the penalty, including the offender's capacity to commit crimes, which can also be influenced by their health conditions and the possibility of an external rehabilitation path. The Cartabia Reform, with its focus on substitute penalties, has further strengthened the need for careful and personalized assessment.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 11973/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for legal professionals and for all those interested in the penal system. It clarifies that the health conditions of the convicted person, while not a "passepartout" for substitute penalties, can assume decisive relevance when they are part of a coherent rehabilitative path and when they do not prejudice reliability in the execution of prescriptions. This balanced approach reflects the evolution of a penal system that, while maintaining its sanctioning function, is increasingly committed to valuing the human dimension and the recovery potential of the convicted person, promoting alternatives to detention that are truly effective and sustainable.