THE VIDEO RELATED IS IN THE ORIGINAL SITE:
IL FATTO QUOTIDIANO
| 26 JANUARY 2020
First of all, an important correction with the ash-covered head. Yesterday I wrote that who does not want to give salvini also Emilia Romagna and Calabria, and soon all Italy, can use the split vote: vote the list you prefer and then delete the name of the governor candidate who has the best chance of beating the right-wing one. That is, bonaccini in Emilia Romagna and callipo in Calabria. I confirm this for Emilia Romagna, but not for Calabria, whose electoral law does not allow the split vote: there those who practice it cancel the card. In Calabria, who wants to vote callipo must choose a list connected to him and not, for example, those of the 5stars.
Now, correct my mistake, I would like to take care of the one made by Justice Minister Alfonso bonafede the other night to Otto and a half. A Republic journalist, unaware of twenty years of battles by her newspaper to block the statute of limitations, challenged the statute of limitations: “you don’t think of the innocent who end up in prison?”. A dementia argument, since the lockout-prescription does not change the fate of possible innocent people in prison. They cannot be prisoners who expiate their sentences, that is, those who are ultimately sentenced, by definition guilty. But the prisoners in pre-trial detention (arrested before the sentence on the basis of“grave clues of guilt” to prevent them from fleeing or polluting the evidence or reiterating the crime): that, however, for our Constitution, are already presumed innocent”. So there is nothing outrageous if a presumed innocent“is in prison: it is the law that provides for it. Only the final verdict will tell whether he was guilty or innocent. In the meantime, even those who have been caught in the act, or have confessed, or have been photographed or filmed or intercepted while committing the crime, are still presumed innocent. However, if he is arrested, the length of pre-trial detention does not depend on the statute of limitations, but on the time limits laid down by law for each stage and stage of the trial. If the trial lasts too long, the defendant will also come out in the future for starting terms (which the law bonafede does not even touch). Of course, without
On appeal, anyone who was able to get away with the first sentence will now be able to go back to jail until a final sentence and, if convicted, remain there to atone for the sentence. But it is anything but innocent. For custody you need“serious clues of guilt”. And the judges declare the crime prescribed only if they believe that the accused is not innocent: otherwise, by law, they must absolve him, having nothing to prescribe.
The statute of limitations during the trial is reserved for the guilty parties. In fact, those who consider themselves innocent can renounce it in order to obtain absolution beyond the deadlines and, if it is declared by the judge, can challenge it in order to seek absolution. Therefore the argument“innocents in prison” there is nothing to do with the lockout-prescription, which does not send anyone innocent to prison. It only serves to throw it into caciara, as when we spoke of the scandals of B. and his servants shouted: “And the foibe? And Cuba? And Stalin? And Pol Pot?”. Amazed by such an absurd objection, bonafede answers: “What about the innocent who end up in prison? The innocent do not end up in prison…”. Without adding what his sentence implies: “…with the lockout-prescription”. When the journalist then reminds him of the compensated prisoners, he immediately dissolves the quiproquo: “Ah ok, that is another matter and in fact I am the minister who most of all sent inspectors to check cases of unjust detention”. If the debate were between competent people and in good faith, the misunderstanding would close there. Instead the usual political-media canea is unleashed about the alleged gaffe
While the lawyer lobbies ask for his head and the lawyers accidentally mock him on the newspapers by dragging Enzo tortora, that is, by pretending not to understand or not understanding at all.
At this point it is perhaps necessary to clarify once and for all the concept of innocent/guilty. That is not at all equivalent to convicted/acquitted. The innocent is the one who did not commit the crime, the guilty is the one who committed it. But if one is innocent or guilty, only he knows, but he cannot judge himself. So, from what world it is, judges are delegated to evaluate any testimony and evidence, regulated by precise limits. Their sentence (acquittal, or conviction, or prescription) is a pure convention: except in very rare cases, they can never photograph the whole“historical truth”, but only analyse the usable elements collected, that is“judicial truth”. In this convention, accepted by all in order to prevent the victims from taking justice into their own hands, it is stipulated that a very probable culprit is acquitted because the evidence is not sufficient for the judge to convict him. And in Italy, a certain culprit is not convicted because it has been too long.
For the Constitution, even those who know they are guilty and have gotten away with it for lack of evidence (which he was good at hiding) or by statute of limitations (which was good at triggering, being discovered after years or making the process last to infinity), is“innocent”. This does not mean that he has been wrongfully detained, or that his trial is a miscarriage of justice or that he has seen the wrong person. The world and especially Italy are full of innocents by law but guilty in the facts, and no one knows it better than they do. The most common miscarriages of justice are not the arrests and convictions of innocent people (always possible, in fallible human justice): they are the release and acquittal of the guilty.
IL FATTO QUOTIDIANO
| 26 JANUARY 2020
First of all, an important correction with the ash-covered head. Yesterday I wrote that who does not want to give salvini also Emilia Romagna and Calabria, and soon all Italy, can use the split vote: vote the list you prefer and then delete the name of the governor candidate who has the best chance of beating the right-wing one. That is, bonaccini in Emilia Romagna and callipo in Calabria. I confirm this for Emilia Romagna, but not for Calabria, whose electoral law does not allow the split vote: there those who practice it cancel the card. In Calabria, who wants to vote callipo must choose a list connected to him and not, for example, those of the 5stars.
Now, correct my mistake, I would like to take care of the one made by Justice Minister Alfonso bonafede the other night to Otto and a half. A Republic journalist, unaware of twenty years of battles by her newspaper to block the statute of limitations, challenged the statute of limitations: “you don’t think of the innocent who end up in prison?”. A dementia argument, since the lockout-prescription does not change the fate of possible innocent people in prison. They cannot be prisoners who expiate their sentences, that is, those who are ultimately sentenced, by definition guilty. But the prisoners in pre-trial detention (arrested before the sentence on the basis of“grave clues of guilt” to prevent them from fleeing or polluting the evidence or reiterating the crime): that, however, for our Constitution, are already presumed innocent”. So there is nothing outrageous if a presumed innocent“is in prison: it is the law that provides for it. Only the final verdict will tell whether he was guilty or innocent. In the meantime, even those who have been caught in the act, or have confessed, or have been photographed or filmed or intercepted while committing the crime, are still presumed innocent. However, if he is arrested, the length of pre-trial detention does not depend on the statute of limitations, but on the time limits laid down by law for each stage and stage of the trial. If the trial lasts too long, the defendant will also come out in the future for starting terms (which the law bonafede does not even touch). Of course, without
On appeal, anyone who was able to get away with the first sentence will now be able to go back to jail until a final sentence and, if convicted, remain there to atone for the sentence. But it is anything but innocent. For custody you need“serious clues of guilt”. And the judges declare the crime prescribed only if they believe that the accused is not innocent: otherwise, by law, they must absolve him, having nothing to prescribe.
The statute of limitations during the trial is reserved for the guilty parties. In fact, those who consider themselves innocent can renounce it in order to obtain absolution beyond the deadlines and, if it is declared by the judge, can challenge it in order to seek absolution. Therefore the argument“innocents in prison” there is nothing to do with the lockout-prescription, which does not send anyone innocent to prison. It only serves to throw it into caciara, as when we spoke of the scandals of B. and his servants shouted: “And the foibe? And Cuba? And Stalin? And Pol Pot?”. Amazed by such an absurd objection, bonafede answers: “What about the innocent who end up in prison? The innocent do not end up in prison…”. Without adding what his sentence implies: “…with the lockout-prescription”. When the journalist then reminds him of the compensated prisoners, he immediately dissolves the quiproquo: “Ah ok, that is another matter and in fact I am the minister who most of all sent inspectors to check cases of unjust detention”. If the debate were between competent people and in good faith, the misunderstanding would close there. Instead the usual political-media canea is unleashed about the alleged gaffe
While the lawyer lobbies ask for his head and the lawyers accidentally mock him on the newspapers by dragging Enzo tortora, that is, by pretending not to understand or not understanding at all.
At this point it is perhaps necessary to clarify once and for all the concept of innocent/guilty. That is not at all equivalent to convicted/acquitted. The innocent is the one who did not commit the crime, the guilty is the one who committed it. But if one is innocent or guilty, only he knows, but he cannot judge himself. So, from what world it is, judges are delegated to evaluate any testimony and evidence, regulated by precise limits. Their sentence (acquittal, or conviction, or prescription) is a pure convention: except in very rare cases, they can never photograph the whole“historical truth”, but only analyse the usable elements collected, that is“judicial truth”. In this convention, accepted by all in order to prevent the victims from taking justice into their own hands, it is stipulated that a very probable culprit is acquitted because the evidence is not sufficient for the judge to convict him. And in Italy, a certain culprit is not convicted because it has been too long.
For the Constitution, even those who know they are guilty and have gotten away with it for lack of evidence (which he was good at hiding) or by statute of limitations (which was good at triggering, being discovered after years or making the process last to infinity), is“innocent”. This does not mean that he has been wrongfully detained, or that his trial is a miscarriage of justice or that he has seen the wrong person. The world and especially Italy are full of innocents by law but guilty in the facts, and no one knows it better than they do. The most common miscarriages of justice are not the arrests and convictions of innocent people (always possible, in fallible human justice): they are the release and acquittal of the guilty.
