Rome – The Court of Cassation has put a stop to a more flexible interpretation of prison sentences, denying an inmate actor the right to leave prison, albeit escorted by the Penitentiary Police, to perform on stage with his theater company. The Supreme Court's ruling overturns the order of the Milan Surveillance Court, reigniting the debate over the limits and purposes of prison benefits, especially for those serving time for offenses that prevent them from performing their duties.
Judicial dissent: humanization versus security
The case highlights a clear divide in judicial opinion. The Milan Surveillance Court had granted the prisoner, held for serious crimes, his release, citing the "goal of integration between the prison and the outside community" and the "enhancement of the prisoner's creative and artistic development."
The Milan judges had ruled out any security risk, given the presence of the escort officers, and had framed the permit as a "humanization of punishment" purpose.
However, the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation, which overturned the Court's reasoning.
It might interest you
Peppe Vessicchio, the maestro who made Italy sing, has died.
Riders take to the streets, calling for a nationwide strike to renew their phantom contract: "We've been invisible for five years."
Farewell to Willy David, the discreet soul of Neapolitan Power.
CGIL union protesters on December 12th: "Unfair budget, stagnant wages."
Permit of necessity: strict rules
The Supreme Court, while recognizing the humanitarian value of punishment, applied a rigorous interpretation of the legal system. The ruling reiterated that "necessity leave" (the requested benefit) is an institution of "exceptional application" and serves the purpose of humanizing punishment.
However, the Supreme Court clarifies that this option must be linked to "particularly serious situations affecting the prisoner's personal and family life." It cannot be used as a standard tool to expand re-educational or resocialization activities.
According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, the idea of using "necessity leave" for the "expansion of the re-educational sphere" and "complete resocialization" encounters "decisive obstacles" in the current prison system. Essentially, as "commendable" as the artistic-re-educational objective is, current regulations do not allow this specific instrument to bypass the restrictions imposed on prisoners for obstructive offenses.
The Supreme Court's final decision overturns the Surveillance Judge's order and confirms the primacy of the law over the principle, however noble, of integration at all costs. The message is clear: art can enter prison, but a prisoner convicted of serious crimes cannot leave prison for art.
Comments (1)
The Supreme Court's decision seems fair to me, but also a little sad, because art should be a means of rehabilitation. I don't know if the rules are too rigid; perhaps we should consider how to better integrate these situations.