Danger Assessment and Preventive Measures: Commentary on Judgment No. 15704 of 2023

The judgment No. 15704 of January 25, 2023 represents an important reference point for criminal law and preventive measures in Italy. In particular, the Court of Cassation has clarified the methods of assessing the dangerousness of an individual, emphasizing how the facts established during a criminal proceeding can be used independently for the judgment of dangerousness.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The decision fits within the context of the preventive measures provided by the legislative decree of September 6, 2011, No. 159, which governs public safety matters. In particular, Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b) of the decree establishes that a judgment of dangerousness can be formulated even in the absence of a final conviction, provided that the facts emerge with sufficient clarity during the criminal trial.

The Court stated that it is not necessary for there to be a conviction in order for the facts to be used to reach a statement of dangerousness. This approach reflects the autonomy between the criminal process and the preventive procedure, emphasizing that even an acquittal may not exclude the consideration of elements of dangerousness.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Judgment of dangerousness - Facts established during a criminal proceeding not concluded with a conviction - Independent usability for verifying the dangerousness of the proposed - Possibility - Conditions. In terms of preventive measures, the judge, given the autonomy between the criminal process and the preventive procedure, can autonomously evaluate the facts established in the criminal context, in order to reach a statement of generic dangerousness of the proposed according to art. 1, paragraph 1, letter b), legislative decree of September 6, 2011, No. 159, not only in the event of a declaration of extinction of the crime or a ruling of no further action, but also following an acquittal judgment pursuant to art. 530, paragraph 2, of the code of criminal procedure, where those facts are sufficiently clearly delineated in their objectivity, which, although considered insufficient - in terms of merit or procedural preclusions - for a criminal conviction, can nonetheless be the basis for a judgment of dangerousness. (In reasoning, the Court stated that, in light of constitutional jurisprudence, the need for a high standard of legality reflects not so much on the methods of ascertainment but on the object of the verification of generic dangerousness, which must focus on the existence of identifiable factual elements with adequate precision and punctuality).

Practical and Legal Implications

This judgment offers a series of significant insights for legal practice. In particular, the fact that a judge can consider facts already emerged in a criminal proceeding, even in the absence of a conviction, broadens the possibilities for applying preventive measures. The consequences of this interpretation can be multiple:

• Possibility of a broader and more inclusive assessment of the facts that highlight the dangerousness of an individual.
• Strengthening of public safety protection, allowing preventive measures even in cases of acquittal.
• Need for greater attention in the collection and documentation of facts during criminal proceedings, to ensure a fair and precise evaluation.

Conclusion

In summary, judgment No. 15704 of 2023 represents an important evolution in the field of criminal law and preventive measures. The possibility of independently using the facts established in a criminal proceeding to determine the dangerousness of an individual raises crucial questions about the protection of individual rights and public safety. It will be essential to monitor how this interpretation will be applied in the future, in order to ensure a balance between the protection of society and the respect for the fundamental rights of the individuals involved.