Commentary on Judgment No. 27587 of 2023: Conditional Suspension of Sentence and Plea Bargaining

Judgment No. 27587 of April 19, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses issues of great importance in the field of criminal law, particularly concerning the conditional suspension of the sentence and the plea bargaining procedure. This ruling is part of an ever-evolving regulatory framework, marked by recent legislative amendments aimed at preventing recidivism and ensuring a more appropriate use of alternatives to detention.

The Regulatory Context of the Judgment

The Court analyzed the violation of Article 165, paragraph five, of the Criminal Code, which provides for the possibility of granting the conditional suspension of the sentence, making it contingent upon the fulfillment of specific obligations, including participation in rehabilitation courses. The ruling follows the path of Laws of July 19, 2019, No. 69 and September 27, 2021, No. 134, which have significantly modified the sanctioning treatment, emphasizing the need to prevent recidivism and to limit the judge's intervention in plea agreements.

The Holding of the Judgment

Conditional suspension of sentence - Violation of Article 165, paragraph five, of the Criminal Code - Appeal for cassation pursuant to Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Admissibility - Existence - Reasons. A plea bargain judgment that, in relation to the offenses indicated by Article 165, paragraph five, of the Criminal Code – amended, in adherence to supranational directives, by Law of July 19, 2019, No. 69 and further "strengthened" by Law of September 27, 2021, No. 134, in order to prevent the risk of recidivism and to limit the judge's discretionary power over the content of the negotiated agreement, which is left to the parties' discretion – has applied the benefit of conditional suspension of the sentence not subject to the fulfillment of the obligation to participate in specific rehabilitation courses provided by the same rule, is subject to appeal for cassation, as this constitutes an illegality attributable, under Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the concept of an illegal sentence. (In applying the principle, the Court highlighted that the provision under Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be interpreted by balancing the need for speed and efficiency of the plea bargain procedure with the principle set forth in Article 111, paragraph 7, of the Constitution).

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment represents an important reference point for lawyers and criminal law professionals, as it clarifies that judges cannot apply the conditional suspension of the sentence without considering the fulfillment of educational obligations. It underscores the importance of an approach that balances the speed of the proceedings with respect for fundamental rights, as established by Article 111 of the Constitution. The practical consequences of this decision may include:

• Greater attention by judges in applying alternatives to detention.
• Possible changes to legal practices concerning plea bargaining.
• Strengthening the role of training and rehabilitation for convicted individuals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 27587 of 2023 not only clarifies certain aspects of current legislation but also invites reflection on the balance between justice requirements and individual rights. The Court, with this intervention, has reiterated that compliance with regulations is fundamental to ensuring a fair and functional criminal justice system. This is a clear message for all legal operators: the law must be applied rigorously, but also with humanity, to promote the social reintegration of convicted individuals and prevent recidivism.