A few weeks have passed since the final approval of the Security Decree. In an era marked ever increasing indifference to public affairs and for the choices of the political decision maker – unless directly concern the citizens’ possessions, the tax relief, the incentives that they are responsible – also the approval of a law that engraves in a potentially profound way on the freedom of expression and participation of the citizens, which expands the criminal perimeter of the repression, was news for a few hours, for a few days, it is reduced to a few days, – As always, like everything – to a simple political screen between the parties. The few activists remained on the square were angry, the opposition said something, and then in short, the decree converted into law is precisely law of the state, and many greetings to those who still worry.

Critical interventions

For those wishing to understand what we are talking about, among the various critical interventions that have risen in the last year in the academic world, I point out this writing of an eminent Italian criminal lawyer and criminologist, Emilio Dolcini, who has signed together with Giorgio Marinucci a manual of criminal law on which generations of jurists have been formed. In this intervention he reports some – he himself underlines: only a few – of the series criticalities contained in the text of the law. Reckless penalties; Very heavy hand for those who rebel on prison conditions defined inhuman for decades by all international bodies; criminalization of the production and consumption of cannabis light, equated to that containing the psychoactive principle, which is exactly like equating water to wine; Punitive rules towards pregnant women who commit crimes, with an evident intent to punish the Roma thieves. The issues of merit raised by Dolcini and a few hundred jurists, over time, are many. They were all, as always, collided by Nordio and Salvini as nonsense motivated by adverse ideology, while they are in the government are spent to protect the police and honest citizens. They were entitled like this, or they would have been entitled like this, if someone had asked for account.

The “Radical Chic pruds”

These are complex issues, which in an increasingly indifferent and less politicized and empathetic society is easy to be a collision as prudery from radical chic, or concerns that concern criminals, factorous and galleys. It is also very easy to get away with the – real – very difficult conditions in which the police are often found to operate, which would reasonably need better salaries, and more personal, than threats of penis doubled for those who disobey their orders, especially since there are now decades that all experiences surveyed in the world say that the increase in penalties does not disincentive the commission of crimes, otherwise.

But before the definitive storage of the concerns, fortunately, in recent days the office of the ceiling of the Cassation intervened on the law, that is, the office that is dedicated – simplifying – to summarize the judgments of the Cassation thematically, but which can also – discretionally – intervene to analyze and comment on legislative innovations, especially in the face of evident and immediate problematic impacts on the system. This is undoubtedly the case, given that the Security Decree – even before being converted into law – has already been the subject of exceptional constitutionality by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Foggia, in one of his first applications. Those underlined by the Office of the Master of the Cassation, however, are mainly issues of the method and legitimacy of the legislative process and do not apply less, but probably more. Because it is true that it is serious if the freedom to disagree is questioned, or if the peaceful protest and the Gandhian civil disobedience are equated to the sabotage of the railway line (it happens in the Security Decree, in fact), but it is even more true that yet another dispute of the legislative power of Parliament by the Government, and on such a delicate matter, it is a sign of an even greater problem.

What the office of the Cassation disputes (here you can read the entire document) is, briefly, first of all the choice to invoke a legislative process that had lasted for almost a year by the government, and that had crossed, as per the establishment, the two branches of Parliament. The government, for obvious reasons of political propaganda, because it needed to say that she had approved the rule, takes the law as it was under discussion and, with a few minor changes and without new facts having intervened that justify the urgency of the move, approves it in the form of a decree. A long and bipartisan tendency, that of the emptying of Parliament in favor of the executive, but which knows an apex for two reasons here: the criminal matter, which by limiting personal freedoms would be special prerogative of Parliament, and the subtraction from the hands of the parliament of rules that was discussing him, in full legitimacy. Finally, on the last occasion in which Parliament could have expressed itself, that is, when conversion of the government decree, the same executive placed the vote of trust, closing the discussion even before it began. It is clear, what alarms jurists alarms the world less and less, and if we can remain indifferent in front of much greater tragedies, we can safely turn to the other side in the face of the possible violation of the constitution in peacetime. However, those listed above, are as many points considered historically problematic, and mostly serious violations of the spirit and letter of the Constitution on a non -marginal question, such as the legislative power exercised in the mined field of criminal law, which serves to send people to prison.

It would therefore be at least the case to focus that, one meter after the other, a parliamentary debate denied after the other, we are heading towards the depopulation of democracy, with less and less people who vote, for reasons well analyzed in their white cards by Paolo Natale, Luciano Fasano and Roberto Biorcio, and powers that are exercised in a repressive way and propaganda even outside the perimeter that the constitution allows. Sergio Mattarella had led to various doubts, the same ones that we briefly said, so much so that Meloni seemed to fear even a rejection by the President of the Republic. Fears that they proved unfounded: good for her and her colleagues of government, and bad for us.