Commentary on Judgment No. 29229 of 2024: Social Dangerousness in Italian Law

Judgment No. 29229 of July 1, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers significant food for thought regarding social dangerousness and preventive measures in our legal system. In particular, the ruling clarifies the criteria through which an individual can be considered socially dangerous, based on the frequency and nature of the violations committed.

The Regulatory Context

The Court refers to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter c) of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011, which defines social dangerousness. This provision is fundamental in outlining the boundaries within which preventive measures operate, aimed at protecting public safety. The Court of Cassation, with the judgment under review, reiterates that dangerousness must not be considered in an abstract manner, but must take into account the specific conduct of the individual and the context in which it occurs.

The Ruling's Headnote

Social dangerousness pursuant to art. 1, paragraph 1, letter c), Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011 - Nature and frequency of violations - Indication. In terms of preventive measures, an individual can be considered socially dangerous to public safety and tranquility if they are engaged in committing offenses whose harmfulness is projected towards legal interests that are not exclusively individual, committed over a significant time interval.

This headnote highlights how the assessment of social dangerousness must be based not only on the type of offenses committed but also on their severity and frequency. The concept of a "significant time interval" represents a key element: it is an indicator that allows us to understand whether the individual has a habitual and systematic conduct that could endanger the community.

Practical and Jurisprudential Implications

The implications of this judgment are manifold. Firstly, it calls for a more careful analysis of individual conduct, highlighting how the law cannot disregard the concrete analysis of facts. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of an approach that considers violations in a broader context, rather than limiting their assessment to isolated episodes.

• Need for contextual analysis of conduct.
• Relevance of the frequency of violations.
• Focus on collective legal interests rather than individual ones.

This judgment is part of a jurisprudential trend that aims to protect public safety without compromising individual rights, favoring a balance between preventive needs and defense guarantees.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 29229 of 2024 represents an important step in defining social dangerousness in our legal system. The indications provided by the Court of Cassation offer a clear framework on how preventive measures should be interpreted, emphasizing an approach that takes into account not only individual conduct but also the social and temporal context in which it manifests. It is an invitation to profound reflection on preventive measures and the balance between security and rights.