The senators of the government and in the superficial opposition have united and following on from the Summer sunstroke, they have given birth to the “Atto di Sindacato Ispettivo” that expresses in a really clear way, the wish to reform the justice system by making it yield to political control. It’s not just me saying this, but also Bruno Tinti, the deputy prosecutor at the Turin Prosecutors Office and author of the book "Toghe rotte" {Torn Togas}
In the article, published yesterday in l'Unità, Bruno Tinti explains in a few points how the abolition of penal obligation is an outrageous error that can lead to local interpretations of justice and severe political interference in the choice of crimes to be followed up.

Furthermore, the author draws attention to a series of reforms of the justice system to make the machinery of justice more efficient with the already existing resources and avoiding resounding actions of throwing in the towel. A democracy cannot exist if Justice is under the control of the Executive.


I’m publishing Bruno Tinti’s article entitled "Giustizia, che cosa fare subito".{Justice, what to do straight away}

”On 29 July, some senators of the PdL and of the PD gave birth to the "Atto di Sindacato Ispettivo n° 1-00019", containing a number of proposals relating to the justice system that with a laudable euphemism can be said hard to agree with. Here I am commenting on one of them.

The mixed patrol sent out on its exploratory mission proposes: “a) the abolition of the obligation to start legal proceedings with the setting out of a process for fixing criteria for the use of means of investigation and for the exercise of starting criminal proceedings as well as a process that sees the participation of public prosecutors and others in institutional roles and that identifies an institutional subject that is politically responsible in relation to Parliament for their effective and uniform implementation at an operational level;”

Said like that, you can be reasonably sure that citizens don’t even understand what is being discussed. Let’s try and translate this.

“Obligation to start legal proceedings” means: every time that a crime is discovered you have to put on trial whoever is suspected of having committed it. The contrary of this is the non-obligation of taking penal action: not for all of the crimes discovered do you have to put someone on trial, but only for some of the crimes. It’s a bit like saying that if you live in a big house, you can decide to clean all the rooms; or to clean just a part.

But why should something like this be done? It is obvious that it is nicer and more healthy to live in a really clean house rather than one that is only half clean. The response is obvious: because you don’t have enough cleaners to clean the whole thing; or you have lazy cleaners who are layabouts; or you really don’t need to use some of the rooms so there’s no point in cleaning them. . Thus you have to make decisions: take on more cleaners (but perhaps I can’t afford that), sack the lazy ones (no use, each one is lazier than the next); move to a smaller house (I’m sorry, there aren’t any). So I have to leave some of the rooms dirty, there’s no way round it. ...."

Read in Italian "Colpo di sole estivo" {Summer sunstroke}