Judgment No. 19347 of 2023: Distinction Between Threat and Private Violence

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 19347 of February 15, 2023, offers an important reflection on the distinction between the crimes of threat and private violence. This decision clarifies how the two crimes can concur, but also how they can be distinguished based on the dynamics of the conduct and their temporal manifestation.

The Distinguishing Criterion Between Threat and Private Violence

Distinguishing criterion between threat and private violence - Concurrence of offenses - Existence - Conditions. The crime of private violence is distinguished from that of threat by the coerced action by the victim of a conduct (commission or omission) that they would not have undertaken, or by the coerced endurance of another's conduct that they would not have tolerated. It follows that the two crimes, although stemming from a common threatening attitude, concur when the respective unlawful conducts – which give rise to legal events of different nature and significance – unfold over a significant period, repeating over time, separating their respective moments of external manifestation and their respective coercive outcomes. (In its reasoning, the Court highlighted that, conversely, if the conduct develops without interruption, unfolding in a concentrated period and with a unitary factual dynamic, the criminal offense to be considered integrated is solely that of private violence, in which the conduct of threat is absorbed).

The Court emphasized that the crime of private violence is distinguished from threat by the fact that the former implies a coerced action by the victim, who is forced to act in a certain way or to tolerate another's behavior. This aspect is crucial for understanding how the two crimes can overlap but are not necessarily identical.

Implications of the Judgment

Based on the judgment's findings, it is possible to outline some guidelines for a better understanding of how the crimes of threat and private violence can interact:

• If the threatening behaviors persist over time and manifest in distinct ways, there is a possibility of establishing a concurrence of offenses.
• If, on the other hand, the conduct occurs within a limited timeframe and with a single dynamic, only the crime of private violence is constituted.
• The context and specificity of the actions taken are essential for correct legal qualification.

This distinction is relevant not only for the legal definition of the crime but also for practical implications during proceedings, where it is crucial to clarify which crime was actually committed and what the legal consequences are for the defendant.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 19347 of 2023 represents an important step forward in understanding the complexity of crimes against persons, particularly regarding threat and private violence. It underscores the importance of analyzing conduct in a detailed and contextualized manner to ensure the just application of the law and the correct protection of victims' rights. It is essential for legal professionals and citizens to understand these distinctions so that they can approach legal issues related to these crimes with greater awareness and preparation.