Judgment No. 14417 of 2024: Provocation and Stalking, a Delicate Boundary

The judgment No. 14417 of February 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Turin, offers an important reflection on the theme of the mitigating circumstance of provocation in relation to the crime of stalking. This ruling clarifies how the mitigating circumstance cannot be applied to such crimes, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of what the crime of stalking represents according to our legal system.

The regulatory context

The Italian Penal Code, in Article 612-bis, defines stalking as repeated conduct that harms the freedom and serenity of the victim. These behaviors, by their nature, are habitual and consist of a plurality of acts that contribute to a single stalking event. The mitigating circumstance of provocation, as provided by Article 62 of the Penal Code, instead requires an assessment of individual behaviors, which is incompatible with the unitary structure of the crime of stalking.

The ruling's maxim

Mitigating circumstance of provocation - Applicability to the crime of stalking - Exclusion - Reasons. The mitigating circumstance of provocation is incompatible with the crime of stalking, which is a habitual crime composed of a plurality of behaviors producing a single event, as the ascertainment of the existence of the mitigating circumstance of provocation would impose a fragmented assessment of the individual acts in which the conduct was realized, incompatible with the unitary nature of the habitual crime.

This maxim raises important questions about the evaluation of stalking behaviors and the approach to adopt in cases where there is a conflict between the crime and provocation. The ruling emphasizes that, while provocation can be a mitigating element in other contexts, its application in the case of stalking proves problematic, as it would require analyzing each act separately, contradicting the overall and habitual nature of the crime itself.

Legal and practical implications

The implications of this ruling can be multiple:

  • Clarity for judges and lawyers in defining the limits of application of mitigating circumstances.
  • Protection for victims of stalking, preventing wrongful behaviors from being justified by provocation.
  • A strengthening of the certainty of the law in the matter of habitual crimes.

It is essential, therefore, that legal practitioners fully understand the consequences of this ruling and the importance of a rigorous application of the law, so as to guarantee fair and proportionate justice.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 14417 of 2024 represents a significant step in clarifying the position of Italian jurisprudence regarding the incompatibility between the mitigating circumstance of provocation and the crime of stalking. This clarification is fundamental not only for the correct application of the law but also to ensure greater protection for victims, preventing acts of violence and harassment from being justified by situations of provocation. The evolution of jurisprudence in this area will continue to influence the way stalking cases and related legal defenses are handled.

Bianucci Law Firm