Prison doesn’t take a holiday. The figures behind a political disaster

On 17 June, the Florence Public Prosecutor’s Office seized seven wings of Sollicciano Prison due to the appalling structural and sanitary conditions of the facility. This is the first time such an action has taken place in Italy, and 250 prisoners were subsequently transferred. If all public prosecutors’ offices in Italy were to start investigating and seizing unsuitable prisons, they would all be closed down and there would be no room left for any prisoners. And, if mandatory prosecution exists, it is unclear why this is not happening, thereby freeing all inmates from these prisons. This is not a paradox, but the reality faced every day by sixty thousand prisoners, and one that MPs and volunteers – following in Pannella’s tradition – are currently witnessing as they visit Italian prisons during the mid-August holiday period. These prisons, after a brief period of improvement linked to the Covid-19 pandemic, have returned to a state of severe overcrowding and inhumane and degrading treatment, as defined by the European Court of Human Rights.

Of the 190 Italian prisons, there are currently 64,773 inmates. This represents overcrowding of 139.5 per cent compared to available capacity, with peaks of 149 per cent in several prisons. The prison population is predominantly male, accounting for up to 95 per cent of the total, with 20,307 foreign nationals (31.5 per cent): those who, according to the Meloni government, should be serving their sentences in their own countries, yet whom we continue to detain here. Fifteen per cent of prisoners suffer from treatable psychiatric disorders (around 6,000 people). Furthermore, widespread depression and the use of psychotropic drugs have been reported. In 2025, there were 80 suicides in Italian prisons, whilst 89 deaths were attributed to other causes. So far this year, as of 30 June, there have been 36 suicides and 89 deaths from other causes.

To find worse figures, one has to go back to the three-year period 2010–2013, which ended with Italy being found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of violating Article 3 of the Convention – the provision prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. At the time, around 4,000 appeals were lodged by prisoners, whilst in 2025 alone, the number of complaints upheld by the Italian Supervisory Courts – that is, those which a judge examined and deemed to be well-founded – stood at 6,539 (12 per cent more than in 2024). Since then, the State has had to compensate 35,710 people (with one day’s reduction in their sentence for every 10 days spent in prison, or 8 euros per day in cases where the sentence had already been served) for having detained them in degrading conditions. Faced with these figures, which bear witness to our country’s constant and ongoing violation of the rules of international law and the Constitution, governments tend to justify themselves by citing the need for security. The famous ‘lock them up and throw away the key’. This is followed by an ever-increasing number of criminal offences, aggravating circumstances and harsher sentences. But does all this really serve to increase security? The figures suggest not.

Of the 63,499 people in prison as at 31 December 2025, only 25,921 – 40.8 per cent – were serving their first prison sentence, whilst 45.9 per cent had previously been imprisoned between one and four times, 10.6 per cent between five and nine times, and 2.7 per cent more than ten times. Almost six out of ten people in prison, therefore, had been there before. The CNEL adds a statistic that should guide any policy in this area: 68.4 per cent of those who did not undertake any work whilst in prison reoffend, compared with 2 per cent of those who were placed on a work programme. A prison system that fails to comply with the law and to establish pathways to reintegration does not promote public safety, and it does so at a cost of around 3.5 billion a year.

Although building new prisons is not the solution (whereas deflationary policies are), since the current government launched its new prison plan, the number of available places has fallen by 537 rather than increasing. Prime Minister Meloni and Justice Minister Nordio have repeatedly announced an increase of ten thousand places. However, after four years in government, the regulatory capacity stands at just 46 more places than in 2022. Meanwhile, the number of prisoners has risen by 10,000: from 56,225 in October 2022 to the current figure of 65,009.

Partly in response to this situation, two months ago the Meloni government enacted a new ‘deflationary’ law establishing a fundamental legal principle: drug addicts are sick and must be treated. They should therefore be in rehabilitation centres rather than in prison. This is a major achievement for a right-wing government that is often heavy-handed and illiberal. However, despite this entirely justified principle, the stated intention is far from being put into practice. Since the announcement (once again) of 10,000 places being made available, the outlook has shifted to a “clearly multi-year prospect”: with the 19 million allocated, perhaps by 2027 a maximum of 600 drug-addicted prisoners might find a place in a rehabilitation centre.

In the wake of this disaster, some Forza Italia MPs have secured the approval of a fact-finding inquiry into the state of prisons. This marks an important realisation on the part of the majority. However, it has infuriated the very most hardline faction within the government. Giusi Bartolozzi, former chief of staff to Carlo Nordio and now legal adviser to the Minister for European Affairs, Tommaso Foti, has responded. Sharing the post in which Forza Italia MP Calderone celebrated the green light for the inquiry, Bartolozzi wrote: “Perhaps Mr Calderone has switched to the opposition and I haven’t realised it…”. A quip which, in essence, challenges the decision by a majority party to call for a fact-finding inquiry into a sector governed by that very same majority. With disastrous results from both a humanitarian and a security perspective which, at least for today, cannot be hidden behind bars.