Commentary on Judgment No. 29723 of 2024: the Prohibition of the Prevalence of General Mitigating Factors over Repeated Recidivism

Judgment No. 29723 of May 22, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a particularly significant issue in Italian criminal law: the prohibition of the prevalence of general mitigating factors over repeated recidivism. This ruling offers insights not only into the current legislation but also into the constitutional implications that arise from it.

The Legal Context

The case in question concerns Article 69, paragraph four, of the penal code, which establishes that general mitigating factors cannot prevail over repeated recidivism as provided in Article 99, paragraph four, of the same code. The Court declared the question of constitutional legitimacy raised regarding this provision to be manifestly unfounded, considering that it does not conflict with Articles 3, 25, and 27 of the Italian Constitution.

The Ruling's Summary

Art. 69, paragraph four, penal code - Prohibition of the prevalence of general mitigating factors over repeated recidivism - Question of constitutional legitimacy for violation of Articles 3, 25, and 27 of the Constitution - Manifestly unfounded - Reasons. The question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 69, paragraph four, of the penal code for conflict with Articles 3, 25, and 27 of the Constitution is manifestly unfounded in that it provides for the prohibition of the prevalence of general mitigating factors over repeated recidivism as defined in Article 99, paragraph four, of the penal code, being a derogatory provision to the ordinary discipline of balancing, not exceeding manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness, as it refers to a common mitigating factor which, as such, does not serve to correct the disproportion of the punitive treatment but to enhance, to a limited extent, the subjective component of the crime characterized by the multiple relapse of the offender into behaviors transgressing criminally sanctioned precepts.

This summary clarifies how the legislator intended to protect society from those who, by virtue of repeated recidivism, demonstrate a propensity to offend. Although general mitigating factors may in some cases reduce the penalty, in the presence of recidivism, their weight is limited so as not to nullify the deterrent effect of the penalty itself.

Implications and Final Considerations

The decision of the Constitutional Court fits into a broader debate concerning the function of mitigating factors and their application in cases of recidivism. The choice not to allow the prevalence of general mitigating factors over repeated recidivism reflects a desire to ensure a balance between respecting the rights of the offender and the need to protect society.

  • Recidivism is considered an aggravating factor.
  • General mitigating factors cannot be used to mitigate penalties for repeated offenses.
  • The ruling affirms the legitimacy of the current legislation.

In conclusion, Judgment No. 29723 of 2024 reaffirms the importance of a penal system that, while respecting individual rights, must also protect the community from repeated criminal behavior. The protection of public safety must remain a priority, especially in contexts where multiple recidivisms are evident. Therefore, the Court's decision not only responds to a normative requirement but also represents a clear signal regarding the stance of criminal law towards recidivism.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 29723 of 2024 offers an important and current reading of the relationship between general mitigating factors and recidivism, reiterating the need for a balanced approach in assessing criminal responsibilities. It is essential that the legal system continues to reflect on how norms can be applied to ensure justice and security, without compromising the fundamental rights of individuals.

Bianucci Law Firm