Once again, there is an unsolicited push to create new criminal offences in response to the events in Milan. Short circuits

The practice of enacting legislation in response to news stories that have caused alarm or unease amongst the public is a terrible habit that has been common to governments of every shape and colour. Giorgia Meloni is doing exactly what we have, unfortunately, seen more or less every Prime Minister do over the last few decades. Do the news reports mention a couple of fatal road accidents occurring in quick succession? There you have it: the offence of negligent homicide on the roads. Does a motorboat ram a small vessel, killing the two young spouses at the helm? Work begins immediately on the offence of negligent homicide at sea. Are social media going wild with reports of pickpocketing on the underground? Here is a new aggravating circumstance for all offences, without exception, if committed on the underground or at a railway station, or ‘in the immediate vicinity’; with the result that a sexual assault or a murder committed at Termini Station is now punished more severely than if committed in Piazza Navona. It is a story that repeats itself exactly as before, regardless of the political leanings of the respective governments.

The defining feature of this widespread Pavlovian political reflex (“a serious incident has occurred, so I’ll tinker with the Criminal Code”) is that the laws that are passed – to great fanfare in front of cameras and on social media – are, at best, entirely pointless, because it turns out that the conduct they are intended to punish was, of course, already punishable under previous legislation. At best, the new measures result – though not even always – in increased penalties, under the pious illusion that this might act as some sort of deterrent. Yesterday, President Meloni announced the introduction of the new offence of ‘participation in a violent demonstration’. Now we can really rest easy. Evidently, the government deemed the current Article 419 of the Criminal Code insufficient; this provision punishes (with a sentence of 8 to 15 years!) anyone who commits ‘acts of destruction and looting’, with the penalty further aggravated (i.e. by up to a third) if such acts are carried out ‘during public demonstrations’.

What further developments might be anticipated, and above all, why? Is the intention to no longer allow any distinction between those who vandalise and loot and those who simply ‘take part’ in a demonstration without even lighting a cigarette? If so, the Constitutional Court is likely to address the matter very soon. Not least because—would you believe it—the issue had already been addressed some fifteen years ago by the Court of Cassation, which, in applying and interpreting Article 419 of the Criminal Code, confirmed the severe punishment for “the indiscriminate outburst of vandalistic instinct capable of placing in serious and grave danger, in addition to the property actually attacked, the safety of citizens in the vicinity’ (judgement No. 18032/2012); but it also categorically ruled out that liability for such acts of violence could extend to mere participants who were uninvolved in those violent acts (judgement No. 45646/2015), as indeed required by the fundamental principle that criminal liability is personal. It should be noted, however, that such observations have consistently been perceived, under governments of every political persuasion, as pointless legalistic digressions. The call is therefore made to set aside these legal quibbles and draft any legislation whatsoever, merely to reassure the public that, from tomorrow, everything will be different. A bit of advertising, and then a good film.