Judgment No. 26588 of 2024: The Postponement of Sentence Execution for Serious Illness

The judgment no. 26588 of March 19, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a topic of great relevance in criminal law: the postponement of sentence execution due to serious illness. This issue not only touches on the question of justice, but also involves fundamental aspects related to human dignity and the rehabilitation of the convicted person.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Postponement of sentence execution due to serious illness even in the form of home detention - Reduced life expectancy - Evaluation - Criteria. Regarding the optional postponement of the sentence or the granting of home detention for serious illness, the judge must assess whether, considering the nature of the illness and, in the case of a grim prognosis with a short timeframe, the reduced life expectancy, the serving of the sentence appears contrary to humanity due to the excessive suffering it entails, or lacks educational significance due to the impossibility of projecting the effects of the sanction on the convicted person into the future.

This maxim clarifies that, in the case of serious illness, the judge must consider not only the physical condition of the convicted person but also their life expectancy. If the imposed sentence appears excessive in relation to the suffering it would cause, or if it no longer has educational significance, the judge may decide to postpone the execution of the sentence.

The Judge's Evaluation Criteria

The judgment emphasizes the importance of careful and thoughtful evaluation by the judge, who must take into account several factors:

  • Nature of the illness: The severity and type of illness must be analyzed carefully.
  • Grim prognosis with a short timeframe: If the life of the convicted person is seriously threatened, this must influence the judge's decision.
  • Educational significance of the sentence: If serving the sentence no longer makes sense, it is crucial to reconsider the application of the sentence itself.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential References

The Court of Cassation, while recalling articles 146 and 147 of the Penal Code, highlights the need to protect not only justice but also the human rights of the convicted person, following the guidelines of Law 26/07/1975, no. 354, art. 47 ter. Furthermore, references to previous maxims confirm a consolidated orientation of jurisprudence in this matter.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 26588 of 2024 represents a significant step towards a more humane justice system that is attentive to the individual situations of the convicted. It invites reflection on how the penal system can and must adapt to circumstances involving the health and dignity of individuals. A more flexible and inclusive approach could not only alleviate the suffering of those in difficult situations but also promote a true rehabilitative purpose of the sentence.

Bianucci Law Firm