Commentary on Judgment No. 36379 of 2023: Substitute Penalties and Suspended Sentences

Judgment No. 36379 of July 7, 2023, filed on August 31 of the same year, offers important points for reflection on the regulation of substitute penalties for short custodial sentences. In particular, the ruling of the Court of Venice addresses the exclusion of convicts defined as "suspended sentences" from accessing these new substitute measures, pursuant to Article 95 of Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150.

Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The provision in question establishes specific conditions for requesting the substitution of short custodial sentences. However, this request is contingent upon a proceeding pending before the Court of Cassation at the time the provision entered into force. This aspect has led to an unreasonable situation for convicts who, despite having an irrevocable sentence of no more than four years, cannot access the new measures.

Substitute Penalties - Transitional Provisions under Art. 95 Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150 - Exclusion of so-called suspended sentences - Unreasonableness - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding substitute penalties for short custodial sentences, Art. 95 of Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150, which subordinates the option to request substitution from the execution judge to the pendency of proceedings before the Court of Cassation at the time the provision entered into force, does not create any aspect of unreasonableness with respect to the regulation of so-called suspended sentences, i.e., convicts with an irrevocable sentence of no more than four years of imprisonment awaiting a decision from the supervisory judiciary regarding the eligibility of an alternative measure, who cannot access the new substitute measures because the sentence became irrevocable before the reform.

Implications for Convicted Individuals

This judgment raises important questions about the fairness of current legislation. "Suspended sentences" find themselves at a disadvantage compared to other convicts who can instead benefit from the new substitute measures. Below are some key considerations:

• Delays in granting alternative measures, which can further impact the lives of convicts.
• Possible disparities in treatment between individuals sentenced to similar penalties, depending on the date of the judgment.
• The need to review the legislation to ensure greater fairness among different groups of convicts.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 36379 of 2023 highlights the critical issues in the regulation of substitute penalties, raising questions about their application and their effects on convicts awaiting decisions from the supervisory judiciary. It is essential for the legislator to reconsider the current provisions to ensure greater justice and fairness in the treatment of convicts, preventing current legislation from creating further disparities.