Dialogue with the government or strike? Santalucia (ANM): “We will ensure that the strike, if necessary, can be a tool to strengthen the communication of our good reasons”
“The reforms of and on justice have been made. This is too often forgotten. The justice construction site has been at work for years and we are living in a continuous season of reforms”, he states in an interview with Affaritaliani.it the president of the ANM Joseph Santalucia.
On the murder of Sharon Verzeniwith the killer reported several times but at liberty, Santalucia states: “Justice does not intervene with crime prevention tools, because it deals with the repression of facts that have unfortunately already been committed. I would not like to see a load of responsibility that cannot belong to the judiciary once again be unloaded on it”.
Clear words on the prison overcrowding: “The decree law from a few months ago does not address the prison emergency”, says the number of the union of judges.
Spoil system also in the Judiciary? “The spoils system does not concern us. Magistrates enjoy the guarantee of irremovability and therefore are not subject to rotation when the management of an office changes,” Santalucia replies.
On the problem of relationship between PM and judicial policeraised by some magistrates, the president of the ANM is equally clear and precise: “It would be very dangerous if we were to undertake reforms of the judicial police to loosen the bond of exclusive functional dependence on the judicial authority. This would be the oblique path to erode the independence of the judiciary, especially the investigating one”.
In the end, dialogue with the government or strike? “We are always available for discussion but there are issues, such as the constitutional structure of the judiciary, that cannot be the object of compromise solutions”. And Santalucia concludes: “We will ensure that the strike, if necessary, can be a tool to strengthen the communication of our good reasons”.
THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE ANM GIUSEPPE SANTALUCIA
Mr. President, do you believe that beyond the government reform (which you contest) we need some sort of overhaul or revision of the judicial system in general?
“The reforms of and on justice have been made. This is too often forgotten. The justice construction site has been at work for years and we are experiencing a continuous season of reforms. In 2022, the civil and criminal procedural codes were significantly reformed, especially with a view to recovering the efficiency of processes. At present, we do not need to add other reforms but to implement those already made. And in this effort, which is not insignificant, we would need a Ministry of Justice that is more attentive to the plan of resources, human and material, that the judicial offices need to make the extraordinary commitment to achieving the PNRR objectives of reducing the workload and trial times bear fruit. Today, we express dissent on reform projects, of a constitutional nature, which do not target justice, therefore the service provided to citizens, but the judiciary, the magistrates. The Government focuses its attention on justice in the dimension of power and therefore on relations with the other powers of the State, rather than on justice as a service”.
What are the points that should be changed and how to obtain greater efficiency in serving the citizen?
“We need to continue and deepen the reform themes that have already been tested. In civil law, we need to further strengthen the mechanisms for resolving disputes that are alternatives to the trial. Conflict mediation needs to be strengthened. Then, the control of legitimacy should be rethought because it is no longer sustainable that our Court of Cassation has such extensive litigation: not everything deserves to be devolved to the judgment of a Supreme Court, otherwise the guarantees of a control of legitimacy would be inefficient. In criminal law, it would already be a good thing to stop the push to produce new crimes. This government majority presented itself with a liberal program on criminal justice and instead is increasingly using, even in a merely symbolic way (I am thinking of the increases in sentences and the new types of crime in the so-called Cutro decree), the criminal lever. A calibrated decriminalization is highly desirable and on that front of intervention, the attention of the government and, in general, of the political majority is not seen”.
The case of Sharon Verzeni’s murder perhaps demonstrates a gap in the judicial system. Her killer, a self-confessed criminal, had been reported several times but was at large. Why did no one intervene before? Why do these things happen and can’t tragedies be prevented?
“I do not know enough about the judicial history of the person accused today of the murder of Sharon Verzeni and therefore I cannot say whether or not there were the conditions for a precautionary restriction for previously committed acts. However, it must be made clear that justice does not intervene with crime prevention tools, because it deals with the repression of acts that have unfortunately already been committed. I would not like to see a load of responsibility that cannot belong to the judiciary once again be unloaded on it. The prevention of crimes is the primary task of the executive, not of the jurisdiction. It is good not to forget this”.
On the issue of prison overcrowding, do you agree with the latest government measure or would decriminalization or alternative punishments be needed? Is the idea of building new penitentiary institutions not the right solution?
“The decree law of a few months ago does not address the prison emergency. It puts in place a medium-term intervention program (increases in staff) but does not take care of solving the overcrowding that is the primary cause of the strong prison discomfort and that contributes to making prison a place of excessive and unjustified suffering. A prison not placed in the conditions to fulfill the task of resocialization does not provide security. This must be said clearly. Recidivism rates are reduced if the re-education mechanisms work. If prison is only segregation, and overcrowding necessarily jams the re-education mechanisms, prison can even become criminogenic”.
Does the issue of the spoil system also concern the judiciary in addition to politics and economics?
“The spoil system does not concern us. Magistrates enjoy the guarantee of irremovability and therefore are not subject to rotation when the management of an office changes. Any mobility resulting from the arrival of a new manager, for example a new Prosecutor, is possible only within the ordinary transfer paths on request. The spoil system is something else”.
Some of your colleagues have raised the issue of the relationship between prosecutors and judicial police that often risks privileging some investigations over others. Is this really the case? Does this issue exist and how should it be addressed?
“The functional dependence of the judicial police on the judicial authority is required by the Constitution. If the judicial authority did not have the police, it would not be able to carry out its duties with the necessary independence, because the police would respond to the demands of the executive, curbing the autonomy and independence of the judiciary. It is obvious, however, that functional dependence is different from hierarchical dependence. Just as the judiciary must not intervene in the relationship of hierarchical dependence of the police on the command tops, which physiologically have a relationship with political power, so the hierarchical structure of the police must not interfere in the relationship of functional dependence with the judicial authority. Professionalism and ethical sense of the protagonists of both sectors can (as usually happens) make effective the balance and distribution of responsibilities required by the Constitution and which must not be touched. If then, in concrete cases, distortions occur, we must not think of reforming the system, but of censuring the individuals who have behaved in a way that is not in line with the law. We must not confuse the responsibilities of individuals by elevating them to flaws in the system, which do not exist. It would be very dangerous if we were to undertake reforms of the judicial police to loosen the bond of exclusive functional dependence on the judicial authority. This would be the oblique path to erode the independence of the judiciary, especially the investigating one”.
Ultimately, are you ready for a confrontation with Minister Nordio and the government in the fall? Do you rule out the option of a strike, for example on the separation of careers, or is this possibility also on the table?
“We are always available for discussion but there are issues, such as the constitutional structure of the judiciary, that cannot be the object of compromise solutions. Obviously we have no bargaining power, we only express ideas trying to argue the criticisms. But of course we can never say that some adjustments to a constitutional reform, such as the one proposed by the Government, can see us in agreement. Then, as is obvious, the final word belongs to Parliament, in which we trust. We trust that it will be able to realize that the constitutional reform is not a good thing. The national association of magistrates has already said that it will do what it can to express the reasons for dissent to a reform that seriously endangers the independence of the judiciary as a whole. Even the strike could serve as a tool for communicating the reasons for criticism, certainly not as an angry corporate reaction to the reform. We will ensure that the strike, if it is needed, can be a tool for strengthening the communication of our good reasons”.
#Santalucia #ANM #spoil #system #concern #reforms #judicial #police #dangerous
