Judgment No. 27098 of 2023: Repeated Recidivism and the Limits of Sentence Enhancement

The judgment no. 27098 of May 3, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important insights regarding the criteria for determining the sentence in cases of repeated recidivism. In particular, the Court ruled on the limit of the sentence enhancement provided for continuous offenses, clearly establishing the modalities of application of the current regulations.

Context of the Judgment

The case in question involved the defendant M. P., who, in the presence of repeated recidivism, found himself subjected to the sentence enhancement provided by article 81, paragraph four, of the Penal Code. The latter states that, in cases of recidivism, the sentence for the most serious offense may be increased by one third. However, the Court highlighted a crucial aspect: the necessity of respecting the limit set by paragraph three of the same article.

Repeated recidivism - Minimum increase under art. 81, paragraph four, penal code - Limit provided by art. 81, paragraph three, penal code - Existence - Criterion for determining the maximum applicable sentence - Indication. In the context of continuous offenses, the minimum increase of one third of the sentence established for the most serious offense, to be applied under art. 81, paragraph four, penal code in cases of repeated recidivism, encounters the limit set by paragraph three of the same article with reference to the sentence that the judge would have determined, in concrete terms, through the material accumulation and not to the maximum penalty provided by law.

Court's Interpretation

Through this judgment, the Court of Cassation clarified that the sentence enhancement cannot exceed what is concretely established by the judge, that is, the sentence that would have been determined through the material accumulation of the offenses. This means that, although the legislator provides for an increase in the sentence in cases of recidivism, the judge must always consider the specific circumstances of the case and not apply an indiscriminate increase.

  • Compliance with the limits set by law is fundamental to ensure the proportionality of the sentence.
  • The application of the sentence enhancement must be justified and reasoned, taking into account the specifics of the committed offense.
  • The judgment fits into a broader jurisprudential context, highlighting the importance of consistency in the Court's decisions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 27098 of 2023 represents an important step forward in defining the criteria for applying penalties in cases of repeated recidivism. It emphasizes the importance of careful and reasoned evaluation by the judge, so that sanctions are always in line with the principles of justice and proportionality. This decision not only clarifies the modalities of application of the norm but also contributes to a fairer and more coherent jurisprudential landscape.

Bianucci Law Firm