di Felice Lima
(Giudice del Tribunale di Catania)
da Il Fatto Quotidiano online del 3 febbraio 2011
Voglio trattare, in due post successivi, dei rapporti fra il processo penale e la civiltà di un popolo.
In questi giorni, come accade always very many years when the President of the Council or any of his friends is seriously involved in deplorable facts, and their whole swarm of deputies, lawyers, journalists, intellectuals who decided to enslave themselves to power is no ifs, ands or buts rush to repeat that this or that conduct of this or that master of the country "is not subject to criminal" . Is not a crime, in fact. This
propaganda - like all the shameless propaganda from Stalin to Goebels - it is regrettable for two sets of considerations.
Under a first aspect, it is because it does violence to the truth.
E ciò perché in molti dei casi in questione i fatti SONO penalmente rilevanti (per lo meno fino a quando una legge ad personam non li depenalizza).
Sotto un secondo profilo, lo è perché diffonde l’idea che il criterio di riferimento della accettabilità o no di una condotta debba essere il codice penale. Cosa paradossale, peraltro, se detta da chi sembra non avere del codice penale alcun rispetto e da chi ha via via modificato il codice penale per adattarlo alle sue personali esigenze (nei giorni scorsi dei deputati hanno parlato di una proposta di legge per abbassare il limite della maggiore età a sedici anni: se il Presidente del Consiglio la settimana prossima deciderà di farsi bello con a girl of nine years, inviting her to dinner at his house and hold for the night, we will have children in elementary school age).
But it should be obvious to all that the criminal code is a sort of absolute minimum ethical standards of conduct and not an acceptable and sufficient to create a decent society.
A people who lived within the limits of the criminal code (and we live well below that limit), a people who considered socially, morally and politically acceptable to all that crime is not a nation of brutes voted to self-destruction. And one thing we Italians are really very, very close.
As an example among thousands of possible, entrust your child to eight years to a teacher who takes cocaine, but only for personal use (ie, without committing crimes), prostitute (prostitution itself is not a crime), who commits repeated abuse of office, but not for capital purposes (a few years ago, our Members of all political colors, agreed decriminalized abuse of office for non-capital), which you buy houses unmilione of € without his knowledge, which is usually absent from workplace, making statements to the press violently offensive police and other institutions, having sex with minors and is justified by saying that he did not know who they were?
not rely on her your child, because to be a good teacher or even a decent teacher is not enough not to commit crimes.
And that goes for everything. To be a decent husband, a decent judge, a decent lawyer, a decent player, a decent President of the Council, anything decent is not enough not to commit crimes.
When people reach a point where holders of public office can maintain important pipelines absolutely disgraceful, not only without shame, but even defending them, and bragging, arguing that such do not constitute the offense, while taking advantage of their power to change the law to decriminalize their criminal conduct, that nation is lost.
It is also low
propaganda to the constant reference to the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence means that no one may suffer the consequences of a conviction as long as it is not contained in a final ruling, but in some respects does not mean that someone can continue to maintain offices and positions of which is not worthy and for which there is adequate until it reaches a final ruling.
Going back to the first, imagine a teacher who kills his daughter by cutting her throat and, surprise with a knife on hand, defends himself saying that he acted "without realizing" , "without his knowledge " .
The presumption of innocence will ensure that the teacher not to declare guilty until a final ruling.
But the question is pending for three levels of courts, to which the teacher sacred right, we will continue to entrust our children? Or, as she is entitled to their levels of courts, we have a right to uncensored teacher not only formally but also actually decent and adequate?
____
PS - Some readers have commented on my previous writing on "The inevitable punishment of history " considering my approach to things "pessimistic." In a written next try to convince you that it is not.
( The second part )
0 comments:
Post a Comment