This post comes from a chat several months ago, stimulated by reading the book by Federico Stella ( justice and injustice , Bologna, Il Mulino, 2006) which were both used to write other posts. Stella's work is, after all, a long commentary on a phrase often repeated by many people: "I often hear on television or read newspapers regularly sentence pronounced by the families of the victims of evil and injustice : 'I do not want revenge, but justice'. Trying to understand the significance of this unique appeal to justice, I think I can say that it hides the truth or, in the sense that the appellant actually wants revenge, or expresses the need for a vision of salvation and never reached indefinable " (p. 179).
We will return to this text and valuable reflections of Stella. For now, we anticipate that the discussions that troubled us, the writing had called for an end only hours after another chat about the telematics recent posts of Gaetano [ Emmanuel Mounier and Personalism ]. We are not aware of Mounier's contributions on the subject, but his passionate thoughts on social and community aspects of people's lives, they gave us a reference point.
The question of justice has always been central to political debate, but in this period is very lively, because justice in our country is routinely trampled. Let's see every day of offenders convicted mafiosi or persons guilty of financial scams that wander quietly in the parliament, working in the government and express their "views" talking to journalists. In general silence and acquiescence in the face or feeble protests of the Left "official", read desperate appeals to justice, outside the choir, which are articulated in various ways: from the "fuck you" to the complaints detailed the protests against these outrages upon morality and the law. There is widespread outrage that covers several closely interwoven topics: the economic crisis has not rained from the sky, but it has to do with speculation nazionali ed internazionali e produce una sofferenza diffusa che colpisce gli strati sociali più deboli, mentre quelli privilegiati sfornano leggi vergognose e continuano a fare affari. Molta gente è infuriata e guarda alla magistratura come all’unica arma disponibile, ma verifica ogni giorno che è un’arma scarica, dato che l’intrico di leggi e leggine in vigore consente l’impunità per prescrizione anche ai responsabili accertati di vicende gravi in cui “affaristi”, politici, corrotti e mafiosi sono andati a braccetto.
C’è un desiderio di giustizia, ma anche di vendetta, che aleggia nelle conversazioni di tutti i giorni che riassume nell’idea secondo cui sarebbe giusto “sbattere certa gente in galera e buttare la chiave”. Questo sentimento, in realtà, non è nuovo anche se in passato toccava singole vittime di violenze personali. Ma andando indietro ritroviamo lo stesso dramma nelle persone vittime dell’olocausto, di colpi di stato, di guerre assurde, di guerriglie non sempre comprensibili, o del terrorismo.
Insomma, se è difficile elaborare i lutti riguardanti semplici perdite inevitabili e non imputabili a nessuno, è a maggior ragione difficile elaborare i lutti in cui qualcuno ha fatto del male e ha determinato una sofferenza personale o collettiva. Di fronte alla violenza sociale e all’esercizio irrazionale del potere politico, le singole persone hanno sia dei lutti personali da affrontare, has the responsibility to "take sides, along with other" on the injustices suffered. The tension between the desire for revenge and justice becomes particularly evident when size concerns many people. The events of Piazzale Loreto was certainly not a glorious page in the history of our democracy, and neither was the execution of Saddam Hussein. We must therefore be careful when you call to justice, because if it is really necessary to affirm the principles and translate them into laws and processes, such as ghosts and we need to understand what values \u200b\u200bare agitating the minds of individuals and groups who are affected by some form of violence.
The violence is also true for smaller, but at times destroy personal and family balance, however: think of the workers laid off from a small company that "fails with the money," or small business owner who must run in payment defaults by customers who take advantage of the fact that the time for justice are favorable to them [See POST times of justice and timing of people and POST Justice and Health ].
The drama of revenge for the arrogance of the criminals was well represented, for example, in two well-known film and directed by great directors. In the film The Untouchables (Brian De Palma) a police officer knocks in a vacuum, after trying to stop a ruthless killer who yells defiantly that his lawyers will pull it out, as always, with some caveats. In the film Once Upon a Time in the West (Sergio Leone) is preparing a child for twenty years to a duel with the person who killed her brother, laughing. In the crucial episodes of the two films, we feel that the death of the criminal, after all, puts things in place and we find it hard to express a conviction, even if we consider morally questionable choices of the two characters.
If we want to establish the principles embedded in our consciousness, to go beyond the limit of narrow and irrational revenge However, we must understand that this belief is a feeling that maybe in small amounts, can creep into our daily lives and can also pollute our conception of politics.
The rancor is a shade of hate in a situation that can not be modified with the anger of the struggle: a damage has already been done and is therefore not possible to any constructive use of anger. The grudge (which easily becomes the desire for revenge) is an irrational emotion, which only serves to block the contact with the pain of what has already happened. It does not reduce the pain, which is still "up", but only the awareness of that pain. Unfortunately impedisce anche l’elaborazione di un lutto e “avvelena la vita” di chi attiva tale risposta emotiva. Abbiamo già toccato nel blog il tema della rabbia irrazionale nel POST Alfabetizzazione emozionale (seconda parte) e non torneremo sull’argomento, se non per ricordare che la rabbia è razionale quando è costruttiva, cioè nei casi in cui combattere è l’unico modo per salvare qualcosa.
Se il rancore è un fardello inutile e dannoso per le singole persone, l’ideale di una società che amministra la giustizia per “colpire” i colpevoli di delitti costituisce un analogo fardello che pesa sulla convivenza civil.
Much progress has been made since the punitive law included principles that were nothing but a rationalization for revenge. From the law of retaliation from the Old Testament (also theorized in the modern age, for example, Kant) to today, many things have changed in the laws and also in the minds of citizens. We judge with incredulity and indignation of the few countries that still apply the death penalty is considered unjustified torture even against terrorists. In a dark past, not too recently applied the death penalty almost everywhere and were also provided "corporal punishment".
are very beautiful pages written by Camus on the death penalty ( Reflections on the death penalty , 1957, trad. Com. SE Edizioni, Milan, 1993) and deserve to be remembered various ideas expressed by Cesare Beccaria, of course "advanced" for its time. While reasoning in the context of retributive justice, Beccaria has emphasized the role of punishment and rehabilitation said that the purpose of these is to deter crimes, making it clear that in this respect is not the severity, but the certainty of punishment, to have a deterrent. He wrote: 'It's better to prevent crimes that punish them. This is the main aim of all good legislation, which is the art of leading men to the maximum of happiness, or minimum of misery as possible "( Crimes and Punishments , 1764, repr. Milano, Universale Economica, 1950, p. 93). Moreover, Beccaria reminds us that the law must never forget that it applies to people: "There is no freedom whenever the law permits that in some events the man ceases to be person and become something" (op . cit. p. 70).
Federico Stella leads to extreme consequences the demolition of the concept of punitive justice. In terms of civil law can apply a restorative justice, but when it comes under criminal justice can not "fix" no damage: those who have lost a loved one can not "recover" anything if the murderess gets life in prison. We must follow
stars in his reasoning if we determine that the societal response to crime must be reasonable and shall not express an irrational need for revenge. Those who have suffered violence or private policies no longer has the life he had before and that fact remains unalterable, and that the offenders are incarcerated, they receive both a medal and a paid vacation. Now, as we all think that society should "intervene" when crimes occur, activating the machinery of justice, we must understand whether such intervention should be a entrusted to the company or revenge must have a different meaning.
"From a practical perspective, the model of justice as ... hope for a future vision of salvation, while valuable as all hope is clearly inadequate for a definition of the idea of \u200b\u200bjustice: the ethics of popular justice can not merely a hope, but must be incarnated in something actually tangible, that is, a repair of wrongs in the recovery of losses incurred in a reward for the suffering "(p. 221). Stella, however, highlights the atrocities that neither social nor individual crimes make any conceivable justice understood in this sense: "the definitività della sofferenza e delle perdite subite fa capire che i torti non possono essere in alcun modo riparati e che in alcun modo possono essere recuperate le perdite (…) il riscatto non è possibile con la vendetta, perché a nulla serve l’inferno per i carnefici, quando il martirio è già avvenuto ” (pp. 221-222). Stella si aggancia qui alle riflessioni di Luderssen, uno studioso europeo di discipline penalistiche, secondo cui il diritto penale è un anacronismo.
Klaus Luderssen (2005, Il declino del diritto penale , Milano, Giuffrè) prende posizioni molto radicali sulla carcerazione: “Non escludo che stia preparing a profound paradigm shift, accompanied and stimulated by increasing doubt that the deprivation of liberty, which the State is guilty, has now lost his claim for the same reasons that operated at the time against corporal punishment (in as inadequate in terms of purposive and inhuman) "(p. 147). He, starting (as many now) by the conviction that the idea (expressed by Beccaria) the deterrent effect of punishment (although the penalty is not cruel but certain) is far from proven, recognized the justice remaining two objectives: to repair (when possible, thanks to an expansion of civil law) and re-socialization, challenging the conception "Salary" of the sentence (ie, the penalty established in relation to the harm caused), the function espiativa thereof (whereby the suffering of the offender in some way makes him pay his "debt" to society). Luderssen The book is very "technical" and deserve the most qualified of our comments, but expressed with good arguments for a criticism of the criminal law which the author sees the decline. He points out (p.70) that hinder rather than promote re-socialization detention, damage the already fragile personality of the offender and then fails in a deterrent. Obviously, the author is not advocating the idea of \u200b\u200bimpunity for law, it examines the various ways in which the state must do so without the intent to "punish".
The question remains: what can and should do the state (and society) for victims of crime? If the lawyers more "radical" recognize that the state should intervene, that function must have this surgery if it can not reasonably be fiction to express a revenge of the company or a vendetta pursued by individual companies?
We believe that State intervention is an absolute necessity for the life of society, without which the members of society are perceived as radically detached from everything, and then forced to scegliere privatamente se farsi vendetta o giustizia. La fiducia nell’intervento rapido, equo, imparziale e adeguato dello Stato è proprio ciò che consente al cittadino di non sentirsi solo e in balia della violenza altrui. Qui ci può essere d’aiuto l’ideale di Mounier di una società intesa come comunità di persone .
La vittima di una violenza può riuscire a superare il desiderio di vendetta, ma non può ragionevolmente accettare che la società non dia peso a ciò che è accaduto. Le vittime vogliono comprensibilmente che la società riconosca la loro sofferenza e le loro ragioni e pretendono che la società intervenga. Ma cosa possono aspettarsi da tale intervento se tale intervento non coincide con l’inflizione di una pena? Possono, crediamo, aspettarsi che la società riconosca la loro sofferenza, esprima una ferma condanna nei confronti di chi ha determinato tale sofferenza e quindi stia dalla loro parte . Il crimine ha creato una frattura e la comunità, se è una comunità giusta, deve schierarsi apertamente dalla parte di chi ha sofferto e non di chi ha procurato sofferenza. Questo è ciò che realmente serve alle persone che fanno parte di una comunità, perché l’indifferenza nei confronti dei suoi membri trasforma una comunità in un’accozzaglia di individui.
Il dramma della giustizia nel nostro paese non is that the criminals (or individual associated with the "clique" that runs the power) are not subjected to cruel: is that the company is no longer a community but a collective nightmare. We do not need then to a police state, but of a just state in which citizens - people can identify and from which they can feel respected. At that point can be resolved in a more rational application of the sanctions and questions can also discuss the best ways to make possible the rehabilitation of criminals and not to respect their human rights. But first of all need for the policy, which envisages a particular type of social organization, said the project of a state that protects people in a community space.
Gaetano and Gianfranco
0 comments:
Post a Comment