There referendum campaign is essentially absent, the fate of the quorum appears marked, i surveys they also go badly on the possible outcome (in the sense that the No is in advantage). But to come to the rescue of the questions proposed by Radicals And Matteo Salvini is the mayor of Bergamo Giorgio Gori announcing that he will vote 5 yesso not only on the separation of careerson elections for the CSM and on the methods of evaluation of magistratesbut also to the repeal of the Severino law and the modification of the criteria for the application of precautionary custody measures. “To affirm the value of presumption of innocence and gods rights of defense”Gori writes on Twitter. And Salvini can do nothing but thank: “Thanks to Giorgio Gori for his desire to change justice. Yes to the referendums! “. The Pdparty that expresses the mayor Gori, has already given indication of 5 no.
What would happen if the yes on those two referendum questions were won? Why Gori talks about “presumption of innocence” And “rights of defense“. In the first case it refers to the Severino law. But if the concept of “presumption of innocence” can have a reasoning basis for the part that concerns the mayors (who are suspended after the first instance sentence for serious crimes and some crimes against the public administration), it does not seem very hooked for the part that concerns parliamentarians who – under the Severino law – lapse when the sentence with penalties greater than 2 years becomes final, again for serious crimes such as mafia and terrorism, against the public administration and without negligence. As everyone knows Silvio Berlusconi in 2013 he became senator thanks to the Severino law, a few months after the final sentence for tax fraud. Moreover, the law also prevents the candidacy of those who are definitively convicted, with the same criteria.
When Gori speaks of “rights of the defense” he refers instead to the modification proposed by the referendum question in relation to the criteria for the application of precautionary measures. Currently they are in danger of reiteration of the crime, escape or pollution of evidence. If yes, the reason for the possible reiteration would be abrogated.