Dear Director Feltri,
How do you comment on the words of Nordio about Alberto Stasi’s condemnation? Even the Minister of Justice has exposed himself by saying that Alberto is innocent. Strong words, because they come from those who are at the top of the ministry.
Daniele Vitto
Dear Daniele,
Well, there are. The Minister of Justice, Carlo Nordio, has torn that veil of silence which to date has always prevented those who are the head of aforementioned dicastery from being critical of that judicial machine that too many times turn into a mince of innocent, slaughtered without pity and forgotten. And Alberto Stasi, whose innocence compared to the crime of which Reo was proclaimed has declared the minister himself on the language without hair, is part of this large body of souls in pain, damned yet without fault.
Attention. Nordio did not redeem the judges, he did not despise them, he did not threaten measures against them or references or disciplinary proceedings and insights, it is not with them that he took it, but he highlighted an anomaly of the system, which must necessarily be correct, and I have been repeating it for years: after two acquittal judgments, as can happen that the Cassation, a judge of legitimacy, that Examine the judgments issued by the judges of merit (first and second instance, court and Court of Appeal) in order to verify its legitimacy, the correct application of the right without going into the merits of the facts, can it condemn the defendant already, precisely, acquitted not one but twice? The latter would be definitively exonerated, taking into account the previous judgments that have dismissed facts, evidence, clues, testimonies, and not, on the contrary, definitively sentenced.
These are common sense and also rationality, logic. The legitimacy judge cannot condemn those who were acquitted of the judges of merit. End. Point.
However it happened. And this represents a shame of which the Italian state has become author, who deprived an individual of personal freedom, moreover a young man who was overlooking life, respectable, clean, without the prerequisites and those probing elements such as to make a guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, as provides and establishes our Constitution.
I can only agree with Nordio, on the contrary, I correct myself, it is Nordio who agrees with me, if we want to say it all, since I have been in solitude for years, to beat me for that truth that now seems to emerge which absolute truth and by anyone recognized. I rarely attribute to me and I do in virtuous actions and good works, but now and here I care a lot. Because on these things, on freedom, for me you don’t joke. And similar junkies no longer have to manifest themselves, we no longer have to be victims, we must no longer treat them, we must no longer read them.
So, yes, as the Guardasigilli says, it is “unreasonable that, after one or two acquittal sentences, a sentence intervened without redoing the entire process. It is irrational. If one or more judges have doubted the point to be fulfilled, you do not see how it can then be condemned ». But a question blend in my head and I can’t help but export it: did Nordio have to explain it to us? And this without taking anything away from the minister, to whom we are grateful to have defended, in his prestigious and authoritative role, a principle of rightness, justice and balance.
What to do at this point? Store the gap that this tragic judicial case has shown us in all its danger. Modifying the law, therefore, so that no more than judges of legitimacy happen to condemn an accused already acquitted in the first and second instance by the judges of merit.
When this is realized, as in the mentioned affair, we can only conclude or that the first two degrees of judgment are useless, so much so that it cancels them with a third degree sentence, or that the third instance is useless to be useless when the accused has already been considered innocent twice consecutive.