June 12 is approaching, the day on which we will vote on 5 abrogative referendums relating to justice. On three of the referendum questions promoted by League and come on Radicals expressed his position Stefano Musolinodeputy public prosecutor in Reggio Calabria and secretary of the Democratic Judiciary.
Guest of Tg Plus from Cusano Italy Tvthe magistrate dismantles, first of all, the question on pre-trial detention, measure which, according to the promoters of the referendum, is abused in Italy: “The statistics do not say this at all. And, in any case, if this were the problem, such a question would not reduce the use of preventive detention, but would completely anesthetize it. Unfortunately the news is full of femicides in this period and of various crimes resulting from serial conduct, which – he continues – could no longer be contained with pre-trial detention, if it were eliminated the danger of repetition of the offense. If then there is a need of this type, it cannot be cured through a referendum which is a cutting institute. I believe that completely eliminating the crime of reiteration seriously jeopardizes the safety of many people. I hope the Yes Committee says something reasonable about”.
I also criticize Musolino’s judgment on the referendum question relating to the separation of careers, whose rationale, according to the promoters, would be to oppose the passage of the magistrate from judicial to investigative functions, “because it would also happen during the same trial”. “This is nonsense – comments the magistrate – There is no one party going from prosecutor to judge in the same process. Telling another version of the facts to gain consent is just insane. In addition, what is not considered in this question is that a prosecutor inserted in the judiciary guarantees better the rights of all starting from the preliminary investigations. The prosecutor’s goal is not to defeat the suspect, but to make an investigation as complete as possible to arrive at a sentence that takes into account all the elements gathered around that crime. By removing the prosecutor from the jurisdiction, however, he is crushed in the perspective of the judicial police, in the sense that the prosecutor becomes a sort of lawyer of the judicial police, with a drastic reduction of the rights of citizens and of the parties involved in the process “.
Also the question about Severino law finds the opposition of the magistrate, who with a resigned smile observes: “Indeed we have a real problem that was created by the politica: Parliament, at a time when it felt particularly weak, decided to entrust to justice the task of establishing who was worthy and unworthy to engage in politics. The Severino law objectively, allowing one first instance sentence to be able to determine the fate of a public administrator, has in itself a serious threat to the rights of the people who have been elected, because any unfitness should be assessed only after the sentence has become final. The point – he underlines – is that the referendum intervention wants to abrogate not only this, which I recognize as a problem, but all discipline and therefore also that which regulates the ineligibility of persons convicted of very serious crimes: terrorism, mafia, aggravated extortion, corruption, extortion. And this is true for everyone, that is, not only for those convicted in the first instance but even for those convicted with a final judgment for very serious crimes “.
Musolini reiterates: “Once again the referendum institution does not show itself capable of distinguishing with the right discretion and attention what must be removed because it does not work and what must be maintained because it is efficient. With these referendum questions, the aim is to remove everything and, therefore, for example, in Reggio Calabriawhere I live, we could have as a candidate for mayor a boss of the ‘Ndrangheta already definitively convicted. It doesn’t seem like a great result to me“.