Judgment No. 17496 of 2022: Impunity and Intent in Cases of Partial Mental Impairment

The issue of imputability and intent is central to criminal law, especially when dealing with individuals with mental disorders or substance abuse issues. Judgment No. 17496 of November 29, 2022, issued by the Court of Appeal of Messina, offers important insights into these aspects, clarifying the relationship between the capacity to understand and to will and criminal responsibility.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, treating the concept of imputability as the capacity to understand and to will. It is crucial to emphasize that imputability and culpability are distinct concepts, although interconnected. Imputability must be ascertained before culpability, as it represents the naturalistic component of criminal responsibility.

01 President: ROCCHI GIACOMO. Rapporteur: TOSCANI EVA. Rapporteur: TOSCANI EVA. Defendant: LOSENGO ANTONIO. Public Prosecutor: PICARDI ANTONIETTA. (Conf.) Declares inadmissible, COURT OF APPEAL MESSINA, 09/03/2022 560001 IMPUTABILITY - IN GENERAL (CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND AND TO WILL) - Partial mental impairment - Relationship with intent - Autonomy - Consequence - Factual situation. Imputability, as the capacity to understand and to will, and culpability, as the consciousness and will of the unlawful act, express different concepts and operate on different levels, although the former, as a naturalistic component of responsibility, must be ascertained prior to the latter, with the consequence that general intent is compatible with partial mental impairment. (Factual situation concerning attempted homicide, in which intent was found despite a personality disorder and chronic alcoholism, judged to have not compromised the power of criticism and the representation of the event).

Analysis of the Factual Situation

The factual situation examined by the Court concerned a case of attempted homicide, in which the defendant presented a personality disorder and a history of chronic alcoholism. Despite these issues, the Court held that the individual was capable of exercising a power of criticism and of representing events, elements necessary to establish intent. From this, it is evident that partial mental impairment does not exclude the possibility of establishing general intent.

• Imputability is a fundamental requirement for criminal responsibility.
• Intent can coexist with partial mental impairment, provided it does not compromise the capacity to understand and to will.
• The case at hand underscores the importance of psychiatric evaluation in criminal proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17496 of 2022 represents an important precedent in Italian jurisprudence, clarifying that the presence of partial mental impairment does not exclude the possibility of establishing intent, provided the individual is capable of understanding the meaning of their actions. This clarification is crucial not only for legal professionals but also for those who find themselves having to deal with similar situations, highlighting the complexity of the dynamics between mental health and criminal responsibility.