A questionable question of conscience
The month of May was certainly ripe with reason for self-examination concerning security and judicial issues in Italy. It started off with the approval of the Italian senate of a law proposing the abolishment of life sentences. This, after months of constant and repeated criticism of the United States for the rounds of executions that have been taking place there since February. By mid-month the parallel evasions of Masonic leader Licio Gelli and drug trafficker Pasquale Cuntrera presented the ruling leftist coalition as a sorry figure representing the country’s national security. In the past, the left would have accused this sort of mishap as evidence of obscure complicity with members of the state apparatus. However, they now represent that apparatus and these incidences caused a scene very reminiscent of what went on during the times of the Christian Democrats: false resignations. The disappearance of the Van Goghs and Cezanne from the Museum of Modern Art in Rome was just some extra icing on the cake of their general embarrassment. And although the month closed happily with the arrest of Cuntrera by Spanish authorities, his speedy extradition, and imprisonment behind the bars of the Roman prison Rebibbia, there is no less grounds to pause for reflection on the general malaise of the Italian judicial system and the need for the Italians to tidy up their own system before they can pretend to impart lessons on others.
The distaste that many Italians, and not only Italians, but most Europeans, have for capital punishment stems from a philosophical position that finds such an act barbaric, the antithesis of what represents civilized society. It is no demonstration, they feel, of a country’s moral and intellectual advancement for it to commit the inhumane and unethical action of suppressing its own citizens.
The Italian press, the government, and the Vatican are adamant in their criticisms every time an execution takes place in the U.S. Since February, they have had particular cause for their activism. They indicated Karla Tucker’s conversion to Christianity as proof of the efficiency of the prison system’s ability to rehabilitate. The executions of a citizen from Paraguay and one from Honduras were contested on the grounds that they had been denied the benefit of assistance from their respective consulates. Their reproach of the execution of Joe Cannon was pronounced in the name of the fact that he was only 17, twenty one years ago when he committed his crime. The guise of their appeals to the powers that be in the name of rehabilitation, international law, or minority rights are, in fact, only pretexts. The truth is that they find the death penalty unacceptable, particularly from the country which is supposed to represent par excellence the achievements of the modern civilized world. The inherent difficulty here is that in Europe decisions that regard such important moral issues are not trusted to the wrath or reason of the plebiscite. Such decisions are the domain of a discerning and discriminating government which is supposedly above the rage of ignorance of the masses. By contrast, the American system is categorically democratic concerning such matters.
The issue of abolishing life sentences which was passed by the Italian senate was also advanced in the name of what is considered "civilized" or morally upright. The argument has been called a question of conscience and therefore not easily defined according to party lines and platforms. And the Senate was indeed divided. Not only the parties of the governing majority, but those of the opposition were also divided among themselves on this matter which regarded every single senator’s sense of what is right or wrong. The most clamorous dissident was the government’s own justice minister who not only voted against the measure but was very vocal about his dissent.
Many editorialists expressed their concern for the disdain that such a decision was likely to communicate to many Italian citizens who are already concerned about the inefficiencies of their judicial system: that rather than assuring normality, this law would guaranty the exceptional. And this before authorities had arrested the serial killer that had been spreading fear among women who were forced to use the trains on the Italian riviera.
It has also been said that much more than a question of conscience, the idea of abolishing life sentences in a country still plagued by the Mafia was one of "inconscienza," playing on the double sense of the Italian word which also means irresponsible. Hopefully, the escape of Gelli and Cuntrera will make the legislatures realize that they need to set some new priorities. The fact is that although life sentences exist on the books, they are virtually never carried out. So it is indeed questionable why the Senate found it so pressing to debate this issue when there are obviously more urgent matters distressing the Italian system of justice. Rather than being overly concerned at modifying "uncivilized" laws that keep criminals in prison all of their lives, they need to reform those that allow criminals to walk free when the courts take too long to reconfirm convictions through the appeal process, something which occurs only too often.
The paradox of the Italian judicial system is that in practice one is presumed guilty before going to trial and innocent after conviction! When a person is first arrested, he can be held in prison until his trial if he is considered particularly dangerous, if it is believed that he will continue to commit criminal acts, or if it is feared that he will be able to tamper with evidence. This is called "preventive incarceration" and it has been the undoing of many an innocent soul and was the cause of a number illustrious suicides during the Clean Hands trials. By contrast, once a person has been convicted, the sentence is not considered final until the accused has exhausted all of his possibilities of appeal. Cuntrera had been convicted to 21 years in prison during his first trial. That conviction was confirmed to the letter by a court of appeals. However, during the interim in which the supreme court, or Cassazione, was making its decision, Cuntrera was a free man.
Italy may be the only country in the world where sentences are executed only after the last appeal which often takes as long as ten years. Is it any wonder that in 1995, 90 percent of those condemned with a definitive sentence became fugitives before they could be imprisoned? Out of 68 criminals condemned to irrevocable sentences, only 5 ended up in prison. The other 9 out of 10 flew the coop.
In a country where those who go to prison are suspects who are often innocent and where those who remain free are criminals who have been convicted and sentenced three times, it is hard to understand why the Senate was so obsessed with abolishing life sentences, since most of the hardened criminals who might deserve them don’t serve any of their sentences anyway. It may indeed be unenlightened for any modern democracy to extinguish the lives of its own citizens whatever their offense may be, but it is hardly a moral achievement to have laws on the books which presume the culpability and imprison the innocent and allow the guilty and condemned to escape thereby making a mockery of any sense of justice or civilization.
June 1998
Return to home page Return to list
Editors interested in subscribing to this syndicated column may request information by sending an e-mail to: giogia@giogia.com