Trial assignment to social services, semi-release and home detention

When it is also admissible for the Camorra.

The case.

The Supervisory Court of Rome rejected the request of the sentenced to be able to benefit from the deferral of the sentence for serious illness, ofprobationary assignment to social services, of the semi-liberty and of home detention.

Furthermore, opposing the orientation of the Supreme Court, it decided not to provide for the request for recognition of the impossible collaboration because the convict had now expired the sentence relating to "first level" impedimental offenses.
The Supervisory Tribunal argued that, with reference to the deferral of the sentence, the inmate's pathologies were not incompatible with detention in prison and that they could be properly treated within the prison.

Despite the fact that the inmate was over sixty years old, invalid and already a beneficiary of home detention in the precautionary phase, with a close sentence end, with the crime for which she had been sentenced committed nine years earlier and with the "Days" of early release already favorably granted, the Supervisory Court also rejected the petition for house detention.
The surveillance judiciary based its assessment only on the note of the district anti-mafia management which certified the social dangerousness of the detainee as well as her effective participation in the Camorra group of origin.

The Court stressed that the detainee had been convicted in the past for numerous crimes of usury and extortion using the force of intimidation deriving from the proximity to the criminal association.
According to the defense, however, the Court did not justify and showed that the detainee still had connections with the criminal environment and that she could have committed new crimes considering that there had been an objective change compared to when the crimes were committed.
Furthermore, for the same crimes, the convicted woman was granted house detention due to her limited capacity to commit a crime.

The point of view of the Supreme Court.

The Supervisory Court of Rome considered the social dangerousness of the convicted by the seriousness of the criminal records, by the ascertainment, contained in the conviction sentence, of the pre-eminent role in the Camorra group as well as of the systematic use of the mafia method for the consummation of extortion and extortion offenses. usury.
It also ascertained that the links with organized crime were current as well as that any type of compensation in favor of the victims or resipiscence was absent.

According to the Supreme Court, however, the Supervisory Court did not explain why home detention was unsuitable due to the risk of recidivism of the crimes without the acquisition of elements that would demonstrate the resumption of ties with the Camorra association during the very long period of four and a half years in which the condemned woman was under house arrest.

The Supreme Court then specifies that if the place to serve the home detention it is the same where the detainee has "made" the house arrest, for this reason this place cannot be judged unsuitable.
Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court, the Supervisory Court did not prove that the detainee, during her home detention, which lasted four years and six months, had maintained ties with the Camorra association.
The Court of Cassation in conclusion annulled the order with reference to the "rejection" of the home detention with referral to the Supervisory Court of Rome.

You can stay informed on legal news through our blog