that politics is cruel to mislead public opinion feeding citizens in the misunderstanding of the underlying controversy on house arrest requested by the prosecutor in Rome for the rapist of a girl at New Year, as if he had got away with it simply because they now under arrest at home instead of in jail.
The regulations in force, in fact, the custody is not the anticipation of the future "punishment" that the "offender" deserves for the crime committed, the punishment is not a starter, is not the way to compensate the injured party for the wrong suffered and the community for the infringement of the rules. The punishment for the pain caused to the victim, the punishment fair for the crime committed, the penalty which may disregard the reasons "Do-gooders" sketched from asking (I was drugged, I was not me, I'm sorry), the decision process must be asked, not now, the detention of the young. The pre-trial detention, however, is only a tool used by judges, for a limited period of time and whether there is any reason proceeds from specific elements in order to protect the authenticity of the investigation by the danger of tampering with evidence, to counteract the danger that the suspect may flee, to contain the risk that the offense ricommetta.
Three dangers that, in the case of the suspected Roman (self-confessed, clean record, easily manageable in the home of parents) the prosecutor has already evaluated met by arrests at home while awaiting trial. Solution, for example, may or may not be feasible for an Italian with a specific criminal, or an alien suspected of rape, which could not remain in prison because of ethnic discrimination, but the absence of an established certain that leaves some risk of unavailability and then re-offending. All this policy knows, but it looks good from explaining to the public. In fact remains lost and disoriented, for example by feeding the illusion that if "the law is wrong," then "you change it" so that for serious crimes such as rape-trial detention before trial 'to be compulsory' is an outlet around, because those who propose it knows that the consultation has repeatedly stressed that contrary to the constitutional principles which would establish any standards for certain offenses to automatic application of pre-trial detention, insisting instead on the basis of those principles must always be left to judge an area-specific assessment of the suspect in the case-specific. But the absurdity and at the same time the most glaring contradiction comes from the political, arrest suspect in rape, the absence of censorship "exemplary punishment without mercy" (as the right of the Equal Opportunities Minister Mara Carfagna) , or complains that "so do not pass a message severity of rape ' (As his colleague left the Democratic Party, the shadow minister Vittoria Franco).
Absurd, because the task of judges is not to launch 'details' on 'events', and even produce "exemplary", but judging individuals in specific cases. Is contradictory, because a judiciary as running "messages" or produce "examples" would not substitute their own work but of politics or sociology, that is exactly what the political criticism, and rightly so, when is the policy to be that " messaging 'or those yearning for "exemplary" that sometimes emerge in the folds of a judicial confused, abundant, they are disproportionate. Perhaps most useful of the ritual of sending inspectors to the Prosecutor of the ministerial round, maybe it would give substance to many times announced, and many times delayed or kept in a water bath, practical action to speed up prosecution of. Even in the case of rape Roman, in fact, on this ground that we really judge the state's ability to give a real answer to the girl who was raped, not the handful of more or less days in jail prior to his abuser now, but the speed of joining the trial, to celebrate the ordinary collateral proceedings, and for ensuring the effectiveness of the final sentence.
Louis Ferrarella
January 26, 2009 Ricci Law Report 
