IL CANONE DELLA RIDUCIBILITÀ ALLA PROVA DEI FATTI: CRITICITÀ PERSISTENTI NEL MECCANISMO DI LEGITTIMAZIONE DELLA PENA PERPETUA

The dissertation examines the compatibility of life imprisonment with the constitutional and conventional principles governing the function of punishment in the Italian legal system, focusing in particular on the principle of reducibility as a structural condition for the legitimacy of life sentences. Starting from an analysis of the normative framework and the constitutional foundations of punishment, the work traces the emergence of reducibility as an essential criterion to prevent life imprisonment from degenerating into mere incapacitation. The core of the study lies in assessing the actual effectiveness of parole (liberazione condizionale) through an examination of statistical data concerning its application to life-sentenced prisoners, which highlights a significant divergence between the formal legal structure and its concrete implementation. This discrepancy risks emptying the rehabilitative function of its substantive meaning, turning life imprisonment into a sentence devoid of any real prospect of release. The analysis then turns to “ergastolo ostativo”, showing how, despite the reform introduced by Law no. 199/2022, reducibility remains, in practice, a residual and conditional outcome. The thesis argues that a reform of the parole mechanism is necessary, introducing periodic and substantive judicial assessments of the prisoner’s personal transformation, in order to restore coherence between the constitutional model of punishment and the actual dynamics of its execution.