Commentary on Judgment No. 29229 of 2024: Social Dangerousness in Italian Law

Judgment No. 29229 of July 1, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides significant insights regarding social dangerousness and preventive measures within our legal system. In particular, the ruling clarifies the criteria by which an individual can be considered socially dangerous, based on the frequency and nature of the violations committed.

The Regulatory Context

The Court refers to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter c) of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011, which defines social dangerousness. This provision is fundamental in outlining the boundaries within which preventive measures operate, aimed at safeguarding public safety. The Court of Cassation, in the ruling under examination, reiterates that dangerousness should not be considered abstractly, but must take into account the specific behaviors of the individual and the context in which they occur.

The Principle of the Judgment

Social dangerousness under Article 1, paragraph 1, letter c), Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011 - Nature and frequency of violations - Indication. In terms of preventive measures, an individual can be considered socially dangerous for public safety and tranquility if they are committed to committing crimes whose offensiveness is directed towards legal goods that are not exclusively individual, committed within a significant time interval.

This principle highlights how the assessment of social dangerousness must be based not only on the type of crimes committed but also on their severity and the frequency with which they occur. The concept of "significant time interval" represents a key element: it is an indicator that helps to understand whether the individual has a habitual and systematic conduct that could endanger the community.

Practical and Jurisprudential Implications

The implications of this judgment are manifold. First of all, it invites a more careful reading of individual behaviors, highlighting how the law cannot disregard the concrete analysis of the facts. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of an approach that considers violations in a broader context, rather than limiting their assessment to isolated episodes.

  • Need for contextual analysis of behaviors.
  • Relevance of the frequency of violations.
  • Focus on collective legal goods rather than individual ones.

This judgment falls within a jurisprudential trend that aims to protect public safety without compromising individual rights, fostering a balance between prevention needs and defense guarantees.

Conclusions

In summary, Judgment No. 29229 of 2024 represents an important step in defining social dangerousness within our legal framework. The indications provided by the Court of Cassation offer a clear picture of how preventive measures should be interpreted, emphasizing an approach that considers not only individual behaviors but also the social and temporal context in which they manifest. It is an invitation to profound reflection on preventive measures and the balance between security and rights.

Bianucci Law Firm