Sentencing and Penal Policies in Italy, 1985–2015: The Tale of a Troubled Country

The penal implications of austerity: Italian punishment in the wake of the Eurozone crisis

“…In terms of both punishment and political economy, Italy can be described as a ‘hybrid’. From the perspective of punishment, this means that the nation is simultaneously punitive and moderate (Gallo 2015; see also Gonnella 2013; Corda, 2016: 112, though note Corda’s characterization of Italy as more obviously ‘punitive’). As is typical – though not uncontested (Solivetti, 2010) – in the literature on contemporary punishment, punitiveness and moderation are here gauged by incarceration rates, with punitiveness represented by high and increasing incarceration, and moderation by incarceration either stable or decreasing.…”

“…Since the 1970s Italian incarceration rates have experienced a background increase (Gallo, 2015: 600), which has been particularly marked since the 1990s (Corda, 2016: 161; Scandurra, 2017: 2). However, Italy has also routinely enacted decarceration measures: clemency provisions and, more recently, measures directed at reducing prison numbers by reducing pre-trial incarceration.…”

“…This has produced an oscillation in incarceration rates, an expression of Italy’s ‘penal dualism’ (Gallo, 2015). This dualism is further encapsulated by Italy’s Prison Acts (1975 and 1986) geared to the ‘re-education’ of deviants, but simultaneously willing to withhold ‘re-education’ when in the presence of particular offender categories – typically organized criminals and political terrorists (Corda, 2016: 144; Pavarini, 1994). Italy’s penal dualism is also captured in Massimo Pavarini’s distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ criminalization: laws that are draconian in the books (primary criminalization) but softened in their application (secondary criminalization – see also Corda, 2016: 114).…”

“…This softening of the laws can be conceptually reconnected to Italy’s tension between formal and informal social controls (Melossi, 2001), with the latter still relied upon by citizens as a source of conflict resolution (for a contrast from ‘Anglo-American’ punitiveness, see Garland, 2001, 2013). Insofar as informal conflict resolution is limited to those able to tap into the sources of informal norms (Corda, 2016: 163; Gallo, 2015: 608) – kinship networks for example – this particular expression of Italy’s penal dualism maps onto a further line of differentiation: moderation is more obviously available to Italian citizens than it is to (especially non-EU) migrants, who often suffer the brunt of Italy’s formal social controls, including incarceration (Melossi, 2015). In sum: Italy is a penal hybrid, displaying punitiveness and moderation, both of which are differentially distributed.…”

“…In the short-term, austerity has been capable of stimulating a pragmatic form of moderation, where ‘the case for [penal] parsimony can be pressed with a Treasury-mindset [given that] prisons are a scarce and expensive public resource that need to be used sparingly’ (Loader, 2010: 354). Recent reforms undertaken in Italy on pre-trial remand in custody, which aim to reduce the prison population (Borrelli, 2015: 2) and achieve a speedier resolution of the early phases of the criminal trial (Canzio, 2013), can be seen as partly motivated by such fiscal concerns (Corda, 2016: 160). Admittedly, the need to decarcerate springs also from Italy’s international commitments, the European Court of Human Rights having demanded, in a 2013 judgment, that Italy reduce its prison population in order to comply with its human rights obligations ( Torreggiani v Italy ; 17 Gallo, 2015: 606–7; Corda, 2016: 157–61).…”