Rome – The Constitutional Court restores centrality to the rehabilitative function of punishment and restores hope to prisoners. With ruling no. 201/2025, filed on December 29, the Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of Article 69-bis, paragraph 3, of the Penitentiary System, as amended by the 2024 reform, which overturned the early release mechanism.
The decision addresses the concerns raised by the supervisory magistrates of Spoleto and Naples and establishes a firm foundation: without regular feedback on the rehabilitation process, punishment loses one of its fundamental functions, enshrined in Article 27 of the Constitution.
Early release allows the inmate to obtain a 45-day reduction in sentence for each six-month period served, provided they actively and positively participate in rehabilitation treatment. This benefit not only impacts the calculation of the sentence, but also allows for earlier access to other rewards, such as alternative measures and prison benefits.
Until 2024, the system guaranteed the offender the ability to request an evaluation from the supervising magistrate at the end of each six-month period. The reform instead provided for a single, ex officio assessment, postponed until the final stage of detention or upon requesting other benefits, effectively eliminating the need for periodic consultations between the inmate and the judicial authorities.
According to the Court, this choice had the opposite effect to the stated objectives. Indeed, it lacked "periodic feedback on the quality of the actual individual treatment process," leaving prisoners uncertain about the value of their behavior and the effectiveness of their rehabilitation efforts.
The six-monthly review, the constitutional judges emphasize, represents a decisive motivational tool. The gradual recognition of sentence reductions provides a concrete incentive to continue the process of change, making the prospect of social reintegration tangible.
Likewise, a possible denial limited to a single semester does not compromise the entire journey, but can become an opportunity for correction and growth.
The Court's decision thus strengthens a model of penal enforcement based on constant dialogue between the inmate, the supervisory magistrate, the prison administration, and volunteers, restoring meaning and concreteness to the re-educational purpose of punishment.
A ruling that not only impacts the technical aspects of prison law, but also reaffirms a principle of legal civilization: punishment is not mere affliction, but a path to empowerment, change, and a return to society.
Source EDITORIAL TEAM
Comments (1)
The Constitutional Court's ruling appears to bring positive change for prisoners, but there's always the risk that the reforms won't be implemented as they should be. The hope is that this new model can truly work.