Judgment No. 31850 of 2024: Analysis of the Prohibition of Generic Mitigating Circumstances Prevailing

Judgment No. 31850 of May 15, 2024, by the Court of Cassation, addressed a crucial issue in Italian criminal law: the prohibition of generic mitigating circumstances prevailing over aggravating circumstances. This principle, contained in Article 604-ter of the Criminal Code, was challenged for alleged violation of Article 3 of the Constitution, which guarantees the principle of equality. However, the Court rejected the issue as manifestly unfounded, emphasizing the legitimacy of the legislative choice.

Content of the Judgment

The Court, presided over by R. P. and reported by F. A., confirmed the orientation already expressed in previous rulings, reiterating that the prohibition of generic mitigating circumstances prevailing is not an unreasonable measure. According to the Court, this prohibition is aimed at recognizing a particular disvalue to behaviors that may manifest conditions of inferiority or unworthiness of the perpetrator.

Art. 604-ter, second paragraph, cod. pen. - Prohibition of prevalence or equivalence of generic mitigating circumstances with respect to the aggravating circumstance referred to in the first paragraph - Unconstitutionality for violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution - Manifest unfoundedness - Reasons. The question of the constitutionality of Art. 604-ter, second paragraph, of the Criminal Code, for violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution, in the part where it provides for the prohibition of prevalence or equivalence of generic mitigating circumstances with respect to the aggravating circumstance referred to in the first paragraph of the aforementioned article of the Criminal Code, is manifestly unfounded, as it is not an unreasonable legislative choice because it is aimed at attributing particular disvalue to conduct that confers conditions of inferiority or unworthiness on certain individuals.

Implications of the Decision

This judgment has significant practical and legal implications. In particular, it clarifies how judges should consider the relationship between mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the process of assessing penalties. The prohibition of prevalence establishes that, in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, generic mitigating circumstances cannot be used to reduce the penalty below a certain limit, thus contributing to maintaining a balance in the application of justice.

• Clarity on penalty assessment criteria.
• Reinforcement of the idea of individual responsibility.
• Greater protection for victims of serious crimes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 31850 of 2024 represents an important step in defining the boundaries between mitigating and aggravating circumstances in Italian criminal law. The Court of Cassation, through a rigorous analysis of the norms and constitutional principles, has reaffirmed the legitimacy of the prohibition of prevalence, arguing that this choice is not only justified but necessary to preserve the integrity of the legal system and ensure a fair balance between public interest and individual rights.