Referendum: Consult, “manipulative” on robes responsibility
Referendum on euthanasia in Italy, on cannabis and on the direct civil liability of magistrates, the rulings of the Council were filed today with which the questions are declared inadmissible.
EUTHANASIA – For the Council, the request for a referendum on the partial repeal of article 579 of the Penal Code (murder of the consenting party) is inadmissible since, by making lawful the murder of anyone who has given valid consent for this purpose, it deprives the life of the minimum protection required by the Constitution. This is what the Constitutional Court affirmed with sentence no. 50 filed today (editor Franco Modugno) and anticipated with a press release dated February 15, 2022. The motivation explains that the referendum question – through the abrogation of lexical fragments of article 579 of the Criminal Code and the consequent welding of the remaining linguistic passages – would have made the killing of a person with the consent of the same criminally lawful outside the three cases of “invalid consent” provided for by the third paragraph of the same article 579: when it is performed by minors under 18; by mentally ill or mentally deficient people, for another infirmity or for the abuse of alcohol or drugs; or it is extorted with violence, threat or suggestion or stolen with deceit.
In so doing, contrary to what currently happens, “the full availability of life by anyone who is able to give valid consent to his or her death, without any limitative reference”, would have been sanctioned. The approval of the referendum, in fact, would have made the murder of those who validly consented to it lawful, regardless of the reasons for which consent is given, the forms in which it is expressed, the quality of the author of the fact and the ways in which death is caused. In short, lawfulness would have gone far beyond the cases in which the end of life is desired by the consenting prisoner of his body due to irreversible illness, pain and psychophysical conditions that are no longer tolerable.
The Court found that the indictment of the murder of the consenting party, beyond the “statist” logic in which it was conceived, responds, in the changed constitutional framework, in order to protect the right to life, above all – but not only – of the weakest and most vulnerable people in the face of extreme choices, connected to situations, perhaps only momentary, of difficulty and suffering, or even just not sufficiently thought out.
When the good “apical“Of human life, the Court specified,” the freedom of self-determination can never unconditionally prevail over the reasons for protecting the same property, on the contrary it is always constitutionally necessary to have a balance that ensures its minimum protection “.
Legislation such as that of Article 579 of the Criminal Code can therefore be amended and replaced by the legislator, but not purely and simply repealed, without compromising the minimum level of protection of human life required by the Constitution.
This minimum protection would not have been guaranteed by the punishment in the three cases indicated above, of invalid consent. Situations of vulnerability e weakness does not end in minor age, mental illness and psychic deficiency, but can be connected, in addition to health conditions, to factors of various kinds (affective, family, social or economic), and on the other hand “the need to protect human life against collaboration by third parties in self-destructive choices […]which may be, in any case, not adequately weighted, goes beyond the same category of vulnerable subjects “.
CANNABIS – The referendum question on the “abrogation of criminal provisions and administrative sanctions on the cultivation, production and illicit trafficking of narcotic or psychotropic substances” is inadmissible, according to the constant jurisprudence onarticle 75 of the Constitution, because it is in contrast with the international Conventions and the European regulations on the subject, it lacks clarity and intrinsic coherence and is, finally, unsuitable for the purpose. This is what the Constitutional Court established with sentence no. 51 filed today, editor Giovanni Amoroso.
#Referendum #Consulta #reasons #rejections