Commentary on ruling no. 36379 of 2023: Substitute Sanctions and Suspended Freedoms

The ruling no. 36379 of July 7, 2023, filed on August 31 of the same year, provides important insights into the regulation of substitute sanctions for short prison sentences. In particular, the decision of the Venice court addresses the exclusion of those sentenced, defined as "suspended freed," from access to these new substitute measures, by virtue of Article 95 of Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022.

The Regulatory Context and the Ruling

The provision under examination establishes specific conditions for requesting the substitution of short prison sentences. However, such a request is subject to the pendency of proceedings before the Court of Cassation at the time of the entry into force of the provision itself. This aspect has led to an unreasonable situation for those sentenced who, despite having a final judgment for a penalty not exceeding four years, cannot access the new measures.

Substitute sanctions - Transitory regulation pursuant to Article 95 of Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022 - Exclusion of the so-called suspended freed - Unreasonableness - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding substitute sanctions for short prison sentences, Article 95 of Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022, which subordinates the ability to request substitution to the judge of execution to the pendency of proceedings before the Court of Cassation at the time of the entry into force of the norm, does not determine any profile of unreasonableness regarding the regulation of the so-called suspended freed, that is, those sentenced with a final judgment to a prison sentence not exceeding four years awaiting a decision from the supervisory magistracy regarding the granting of an alternative measure, who cannot access the new substitute measures because the sentence became final before the reform.

The Implications for the Sentenced

This ruling raises important questions about the fairness of current legislation. The "suspended freed" find themselves at a disadvantage compared to other sentenced individuals who, instead, can benefit from the new substitute measures. Below are some key considerations:

  • Delay in granting alternative measures, which may further affect the lives of the sentenced individuals.
  • Possible disparities in treatment among those sentenced to similar penalties, depending on the date of the ruling.
  • Need to review the legislation to ensure greater fairness among different groups of sentenced individuals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling no. 36379 of 2023 highlights the critical issues of the discipline of substitute sanctions, raising questions about their application and the effects on those sentenced awaiting decisions from the supervisory magistracy. It is essential that the legislator reconsiders the current provisions to ensure greater justice and fairness in the treatment of the sentenced, avoiding further disparities created by the current legislation.

Bianucci Law Firm