With judgment No. 48 of 2024, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled on the possible relevance in our legal system of the so-called ‘natural punishment’, which - from Kant onwards - has identified the suffering undergone by the offender as a consequence of the crime committed. In response to the manipulative-addictive request made by the referring court, the Constitutional Court argued that there is no constitutional constraint requiring a compensatory mechanism between the poena forensis and the poena naturalis. The appreciable solution followed by the Constitutional Court is a valuable opportunity to investigate the institution of natural punishment, dwelling on its philosophical elaboration, analyzing the numerous comparative experiences that - unlike what happens in our legal system - already give relevance to it in the positive law or case law, with a view to probing, finally, its axiological foundation, based on the principles of proportionality, humanity, and necessity of punishment.
Con la sentenza n. 48 del 2024 la Corte costituzionale si è pronunciata in merito alla possibile rilevanza nel nostro ordinamento della “pena naturale”, espressione con la quale vengono identificate - da Kant in poi - le sofferenze subite dal reo in conseguenza del fatto di reato. La Corte, alla richiesta manipolativo-addittiva del rimettente, ha opposto l’assenza di un vincolo costituzionale che imponga la previsione di un meccanismo compensativo tra poena forensis e poena naturalis. La condivisibile soluzione seguita dalla Consulta costituisce una feconda occasione per indagare l’istituto della pena naturale, soffermandosi sull’elaborazione dello stesso in sede filosofica, analizzando le numerose esperienze comparate che - a differenza di quanto accade nel nostro ordinamento - già vi offrono rilievo nel diritto positivo o giurisprudenziale, nell’ottica di sondare, infine, il relativo fondamento assiologico, innervato sui principi di proporzionalità, umanità e necessità della pena.
In uno specchio, in un enigma. La Corte costituzionale di fronte alla pena naturale
Emmanuele Penco
2024-01-01
Abstract
With judgment No. 48 of 2024, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled on the possible relevance in our legal system of the so-called ‘natural punishment’, which - from Kant onwards - has identified the suffering undergone by the offender as a consequence of the crime committed. In response to the manipulative-addictive request made by the referring court, the Constitutional Court argued that there is no constitutional constraint requiring a compensatory mechanism between the poena forensis and the poena naturalis. The appreciable solution followed by the Constitutional Court is a valuable opportunity to investigate the institution of natural punishment, dwelling on its philosophical elaboration, analyzing the numerous comparative experiences that - unlike what happens in our legal system - already give relevance to it in the positive law or case law, with a view to probing, finally, its axiological foundation, based on the principles of proportionality, humanity, and necessity of punishment.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.