Recently, Italy has been affected by a slow but persistent decrease in the crime rate, accompanied, however, by an exponential increase in the difficulties related to the detection of many types of crimes, which contribute to significantly increase the unreported crime rate. It is then clear that the classic (procedural) criminal categories are being put to the test by alarming modern challenges, making the activities entrusted to the authorities more numerous and more complex. As a result, there is a growing need to adapt the investigative response, both from a purely national point of view and from the point of view of European judicial cooperation, to the multifaceted nature of crime, as well as the need to provide articulated punitive responses, suitable both for the prevention and repression of criminal phenomena. The Italian legislator, in particular in the last decades, has shown to carefully consider above-mentioned needs: in fact, several strategies have been tested in our system, which we could define as “differentiated”, as they are heterogeneous with respect to the traditional repressive models used by the domestic punitive system, in order to conform the punitive response to the above-mentioned challenges. A keen interest in these issues has also been demonstrated by the European legislator, which has, however, mostly led to "weak" harmonisation measures, due to the difficulties of framing the instruments used by these strategies, as well as the reluctance of some States to implement them. Three of the above strategies will be the subject of this work; the first, consisting of infiltration into the criminal group, takes the form of the so-called “undercover operations”; the second, which takes the form of identifying incentives for the person who dissociates from the criminal organisation and carries out collaborative conduct with the authorities, corresponds to the reward measures. The third, which is very peculiar, translates into the reporting of offences, including criminal offences, by the employee of a work organisation and allows the emergence of offences which, otherwise, would in all probability have fed the unreported crime rate; it is called “whistleblowing”. Thus, these are particular forms of cooperation with the judiciary, characterized by both substantive and procedural aspects of criminal law and by a markedly preventive approach. They also appear to be in some ways dysfunctional with respect to a constitutionally oriented model of criminal law. This research is therefore aimed at examining the most critical profiles of these strategies and their political-criminal opportunity, with particular reference to corruptive phenomena, which is a privileged field of investigation as it is the subject of recent reforms aimed at introducing in this sector the differentiated strategies explained in this thesis.
In tempi recenti il nostro Paese è stato interessato da una lenta ma persistente decrescita del tasso di criminalità, accompagnata tuttavia da un esponenziale aumento delle difficoltà connesse all’accertamento di molte tipologie di reati, le quali contribuiscono ad ampliare in misura significativa la “cifra oscura” del crimine in Italia. È allora evidente come le categorie (processual)penalistiche classiche vengano messe a dura prova dalle allarmanti sfide moderne, rendendo più numerose e più complesse le attività demandate alle autorità. Ne deriva una sempre maggiore necessità di adattamento della risposta investigativa, sia in un’ottica meramente nazionale, sia in un’ottica di cooperazione giudiziaria europea, alla poliedrica fisionomia del crimine; così come l’esigenza di fornire risposte punitive articolate, idonee tanto alla prevenzione quanto alla repressione dei fenomeni criminosi. Il legislatore italiano, in particolare negli ultimi decenni, si è dimostrato attento alle suddette istanze: numerose sono infatti le strategie sperimentate nel nostro ordinamento, che potremmo definire “differenziate”, in quanto eterogenee rispetto ai tradizionali modelli repressivi di cui si è avvalso il sistema punitivo domestico, al fine di conformare la risposta punitiva alle suddette sfide. Un vivo interesse per queste tematiche è stato dimostrato anche dal legislatore europeo, il quale, tuttavia, ha per lo più portato ad interventi di armonizzazione “debole”, dovuti alle difficoltà di inquadramento degli strumenti di cui queste strategie si avvalgono, nonché dalla ritrosia di alcuni Stati al recepimento delle stesse. Oggetto del presente lavoro saranno in particolare tre tra le suddette strategie; la prima, consistente nell’infiltrazione nel gruppo criminale, si sostanzia nelle cd. “operazioni sotto copertura”; la seconda, la quale si concretizza nell’individuazione di incentivi per il soggetto che si dissocia dall’organizzazione criminale e pone in essere condotte di collaborazione con l’autorità, coincide invece con la cd. “tecnica premiale”; la terza, assai peculiare, si traduce nella segnalazione di illeciti, anche penali, da parte del dipendente di un’organizzazione lavorativa – cd. fenomeno del “whistleblowing” – e consente l’emersione di reati i quali, diversamente, avrebbero con ogni probabilità alimentato la cifra oscura del crimine, in ispecie economico. Si tratta pertanto di particolari forme di collaborazione con la giustizia, a cavaliere tra il versante sostanziale e il versante processuale del diritto penale, connotate da un’istanza marcatamente preventiva, le quali appaiono per certi versi distoniche rispetto ad un modello di diritto penale costituzionalmente orientato. La presenta ricerca mira dunque a esplorare i profili di maggiore criticità di dette strategie e ad indagare la loro opportunità politico-criminale, con particolare riferimento all’ambito dei fenomeni corruttivi, terreno di indagine privilegiato in quanto oggetto di recenti riforme volte all’introduzione delle tre strategie differenziate in esame in questo settore.
Le strategie differenziate di contrasto alla criminalità nella perenne tensione tra istanze preventive e rispetto delle garanzie. Prospettive nazionali ed europee
MASIERO, Anna Francesca
2021
Abstract
Recently, Italy has been affected by a slow but persistent decrease in the crime rate, accompanied, however, by an exponential increase in the difficulties related to the detection of many types of crimes, which contribute to significantly increase the unreported crime rate. It is then clear that the classic (procedural) criminal categories are being put to the test by alarming modern challenges, making the activities entrusted to the authorities more numerous and more complex. As a result, there is a growing need to adapt the investigative response, both from a purely national point of view and from the point of view of European judicial cooperation, to the multifaceted nature of crime, as well as the need to provide articulated punitive responses, suitable both for the prevention and repression of criminal phenomena. The Italian legislator, in particular in the last decades, has shown to carefully consider above-mentioned needs: in fact, several strategies have been tested in our system, which we could define as “differentiated”, as they are heterogeneous with respect to the traditional repressive models used by the domestic punitive system, in order to conform the punitive response to the above-mentioned challenges. A keen interest in these issues has also been demonstrated by the European legislator, which has, however, mostly led to "weak" harmonisation measures, due to the difficulties of framing the instruments used by these strategies, as well as the reluctance of some States to implement them. Three of the above strategies will be the subject of this work; the first, consisting of infiltration into the criminal group, takes the form of the so-called “undercover operations”; the second, which takes the form of identifying incentives for the person who dissociates from the criminal organisation and carries out collaborative conduct with the authorities, corresponds to the reward measures. The third, which is very peculiar, translates into the reporting of offences, including criminal offences, by the employee of a work organisation and allows the emergence of offences which, otherwise, would in all probability have fed the unreported crime rate; it is called “whistleblowing”. Thus, these are particular forms of cooperation with the judiciary, characterized by both substantive and procedural aspects of criminal law and by a markedly preventive approach. They also appear to be in some ways dysfunctional with respect to a constitutionally oriented model of criminal law. This research is therefore aimed at examining the most critical profiles of these strategies and their political-criminal opportunity, with particular reference to corruptive phenomena, which is a privileged field of investigation as it is the subject of recent reforms aimed at introducing in this sector the differentiated strategies explained in this thesis.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Tesi Masiero PDF A.pdf
Open Access dal 27/02/2022
Dimensione
2.04 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.04 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in UNITESI sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14242/73770
URN:NBN:IT:UNIFE-73770