Stop ineligibility for convicted politicians and limits to pre-trial detention: here are the referendums on justice by Lega and Radicali

Insert limits to the pre-trial detention and remove the incandiability for convicted politicians provided for by the Severino law. These are two of the questions at the center of the referendum initiative on justice of the League he was born in Radical party. The organizing committee headed by Matteo Salvini e Maurizio Turco deposited the six texts of the referendum in the Supreme Court. And as anticipated, the proposals risk sounding like a real act hostile to the government of Mario Draghi, engaged with the Minister of Justice Marta Cartabia in three delicate reforms of justice. And in fact Giulia Bongiorno, a well-known criminal lawyer and former Northern League minister, throws water on the fire: “On the table of Parliament there are reforms that have nothing to do with these referendum questions: there is no clash with the Cartabia reform”.

In truth, the Cartabia is committed in these days to discuss with the majority the reform of the CSM. And the first question from Lega and Radicali concerns the elections to Superior Council of the Judiciary: the text provides for the elimination of the collection of signatures for magistrates who wish to apply for a Palace of the Marshals. “The referendum question wants to abrogate the restriction of signatures and thus allow all judges to stand as candidates, without having to submit to the conditioning of the currents”, argue leaguers and radicals. Which with question number 2 recover an old battle of center right and radicals: the direct responsibility of the magistrates. In the notes released to explain the objective of the referendum, the Salvinians argue that “al great power enjoyed by the judiciary in Italy there is no adequate obligation for its members to account for any wrong decisions taken “. The third question still strikes the magistrates and asks that in the evaluations on professionalism it is also the non-professional members of the judicial colleges (lawyers and university professors) to evaluate the robes.

The fourth question is also of pure Berlusconian inspiration: Salvini exploits the initiative of the radicals and asks to separate the careers of judges. Il Carroccio dusts off the accusation of “contiguity between the public prosecutor and the judge“To ask to permanently divide the career of judge and prosecutor. The most provocative parts of the referendum, however, are contained at the end. The fifth question wants impose limits on pre-trial detention: radicals and leaguers claim that the preventive prison has “turned into one anticipatory form of the sentence, with clear violation of the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence “. It is not clear in this way how a judge should do to prevent a suspect for serious crime pollute evidence, go into hiding or worse repeat the offense.

All dedicated to condemned politicians is instead the sixth and last question that wants to abolish a fundamental part of the Severino law. Which? The one that provides for the ancillary sanction of incandiability to the office of parliamentarian, councilor and regional governor, mayor and local administrator in case of conviction for some crimes. According to the leaguers, this is a measure “disproportionate with respect to the spirit of the norm “. The question asks to “abolish the automatism as regards the terms of non-eligibility, ineligibility and forfeiture”. If a mayor is convicted he must have the opportunity to remain in office.

Support if you believe in our battles, fight with us!

Supporting means two things: allowing us to continue publishing an online newspaper full of news and insights, free for all. But also to be an active part of a community and to do one’s part to carry on together the battles we believe in with ideas, testimonies and participation. Your contribution is essential. Support now

Thank you,
Peter Gomez

Support now

NEXT Provisional assignments: priority to assist family members with law 104, what you need to know in order not to risk canceling the right