Comment on Judgment No. 39162 of 2024: Substitute Sentences and Rehabilitative Purpose
The recent judgment no. 39162 of October 4, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications on the issue of substitute sentences for short prison sentences. This ruling, in particular, emphasizes how the judge must go beyond a mere assessment of the severity of the act and the dangerousness of the individual to adequately justify the denial of such substitute sentences.
The Regulatory Context
The issue of substitute sentences is governed by various legal provisions, including Article 58 of Law No. 689 of 1981 and Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022. These provisions provide the framework within which the judge must operate, but the judgment in question highlights a fundamental aspect: the necessity of clear and prognostic reasoning. This means that the judge must consider whether the substitute sentence can truly achieve the rehabilitative goal.
The Maxim of the Judgment
Substitute sentences for short prison sentences - Denial - Assessment of the severity of the act and the dangerousness of the individual - Sufficiency - Exclusion - Prognostic reasoning concerning the rehabilitative purpose - Necessity - Existence. In the matter of substitute sentences for short prison sentences, the judge, in the event of a denial of the substitution of the prison sentence (in this case, a monetary penalty), cannot limit themselves to assessing the appropriateness of the penalty through the criteria of the severity of the act and the dangerousness of the individual, but is also required to provide prognostic reasoning for why the considered elements render the substitute sentence unsuitable to achieve the rehabilitative purpose.
This maxim highlights that the judge cannot limit themselves to a simple quantitative analysis of the penalty but must also delve into the context and the potential of the individual to be rehabilitated. It is an important step to ensure that the penal system does not reduce itself to a mere punitive reaction but instead promotes the social reintegration of the convicted individual.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment no. 39162 of 2024 represents an opportunity to reflect on the rehabilitative function of substitute sentences. The Court of Cassation, with its intervention, reminds us that every decision of the judge must be carefully reasoned, taking into account not only the crime committed but also the possibilities of recovery for the individual. It is an invitation to a more humane and constructive approach in criminal law, where the goal is not only punishment but also the possibility of reintegrating the individual into society.
