Referendum on justice, because I’m going to vote
The intervention of Sister Anna Monia Alfieri
With the approach of the referendum on Sunday 12 June we return to talk about reform of the judiciary: I think, then, of you, dear young people, moved by the desire to try to give you the tools to be able to guide you in a topic that has very important repercussions. There can be no simple answers to complex questions, that's for sure; it is, however, only right that we, as citizens, fulfill our duty to the fullest, whatever the cost. It is absolutely necessary to go and vote, because we cannot think of changing history, of reversing the course of events, remaining mere spectators. The covid and the war have made us understand that we must get involved, we must be protagonists of a new welfare, we cannot be satisfied with just being bearers of needs. Voting is the only alternative.
When I think of the judiciary and the need for its reform, I immediately think of judges Falcone and Borsellino but I also think of Enzo Tortora. The first two were part of the system and did not bow to corruption, they wanted a reform from within, a very necessary reform, given that we have dismantled, in the eyes of our children, the value of the judiciary. The problem, however, lies in the fact that, by doing so, we have left our young people alone. Falcone and Borsellino: two magistrates who have become the symbol of a magistracy that does not bend, which does not deserve to be associated with the Palamara system. We have betrayed our young people, depriving them of the sense of the law, of justice, of the rehabilitation penalty, we have betrayed them with the lie of all corrupt. On the other hand we have Enzo Tortora, beaten on the front page with handcuffs on his wrists, accused of criminal association of a Camorra type and drug dealing. We all know how the affair ended.
The need for justice reform is evident to everyone. The problem, however, is given by the fact that, if a minister attempts the great enterprise, the minister will most likely be forced to resign the mandate. It is a reform, in fact, expected for years: just think of the issue of the civil liability of the Magistrate, a topic already advocated by Judge Falcone who, not surprisingly, before being killed by the Cosa Nostra, had to defend himself from the accusations of his own colleagues. Well, we are still stuck on that June 17, 1983, when Enzo Tortora was arrested, in favor of the camera, moreover! It was not and it is Enzo Tortora on duty that lost: the Magistracy, the image that it transmits to citizens, is the loser.
Obviously, I am not referring to judicial errors of a material nature, I am referring to the judiciary system, to that system that Borsellino and Falcone wanted to change from within. And, then, for the citizens, the points of reference, such as the judiciary, are lost. We must avoid it. What Palamara said is what Borsellino and Falcone had already said. What is the difference? That Borsellino and Falcone wanted to change the system, Palamara did it his own.
When one denounces having been part of a system, because one chooses to be colluding and corrupt, what happens? Is he or is he not punished? A student may ask himself: "How come the Magistrate who made a mistake does not pay?". It is perfectly normal that you ask. But it is not clear that, in a similar situation, the Magistrate has a personal civil liability not in the face of material error, but for having knowingly perpetrated and pursued a system made up of collusion and corruption. Obviously it is necessary to make great distinctions within the Italian judiciary, with great gratitude to those magistrates who daily give their lives, working with heroic scruple and dedication.
I would like to recall the wise words of a young and talented Italian lawyer, Fabio Viglione, in an interview of 2 December 2019 with Sicilia Press.it, in which, answering a question on what to do to tackle corruption, he replied as follows: "Prevention, strengthen a lightening of the suffocating and plastered bureaucracy that often produces the conditions for practices that are not very virtuous. Increasing transparency and easing of the paths in which State and citizen meet. Exaltation of virtuous models in the family as in the school. The value of honesty is born and nourished in everyday life with the examples and choices that parents and teachers must be able to explain. We must always start from training, from culture. I do not believe that corruption – a degenerate practice that is certainly not recent and not even modern – can be fought more effectively only with the increase in penalties and more imprisonment. However, the penalties are there and are extremely severe. Then there are the interdictions related to the main sanction that do the rest. Corruption has existed, unfortunately for thousands of years, from every age and in every society. It is certainly a disease, but if it becomes an obsession there is the risk of losing sight of even the most balanced and effective forms of contrast. Balance is also the key word when dealing with these phenomena. "
Another overturned principle of Italian justice is that of the presumption of innocence: until proven otherwise, the person under investigation is innocent. We, on the other hand, hold it guilty. There are three levels of trial, but the suspect is already found guilty. We need to radically change this system that condemns a person who, in the end, is also proclaimed innocent to the media pillory, first, to infamy, then. Punishment ceases to be redemptive, slander kills, destroys.
And the third important line opens up: the judiciary must be independent from politics. Therefore, the "separation of the careers of the magistrates" and the "separation of the three powers: legislative, executive and judicial" are necessary.
Justice serves not to be executioners, but to restore harmony, to put things back in order, for a punishment that is not only imprisonment, but redemptive; on the contrary and erroneously, we risk considering the judiciary as an ax that falls on the head of those we want to kill. By doing so, we empty the institutions of meaning, primarily the judiciary.
I still share the opinion of the lawyer. Viglione: "As long as we have this Constitution (we hope for as long as possible) we will not be able to put aside the function of the penalty and the need to always look at the personalization of the sanction, at the recovery path of the condemned, which cannot be irrelevant in this perspective . When the prison door closes, it's not all over. It cannot and must not be like this. A path begins that must be monitored carefully and seriously. "Throwing the keys" and making the condemned "rot in jail" are expressions that I let the supporters of the populism of justice pronounce and from which I distance myself culturally. I also reject the principle that a man, while undertaking a path of positive processing of the error, can lose the right to hope. ".
On June 12 we are all called to vote, to give a new testimony of civility and civil responsibility. If we want change, the voting booth is the only possible chance.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/referendum-sulla-giustizia-perche-andro-a-votare/ on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:32:16 +0000.