In Parliament were filed 5 bills: one of the League, the first signing of the parent company in the Senate, Massimiliano Romeo; one of popular initiative; a third plaque by Fratelli d’Italia and two by Forza Italia. All five texts, from Wednesday, will be examined by the Senate Justice Committee.
Common objective of the center-right forces, both government and opposition: “to widen” the meshes of self-defense, aiming to ensure that this, in practice, is always presumed and, therefore, recognized. Such as? “Taking utmost account of the victim’s emotional and psychological state”.
Currently, the art. 52 of the Criminal Code provides that “it is not punishable who has committed the fact for having been forced by the need to defend a right or that of others against the current danger of an unjust offense, provided that the defense is proportionate to the offense” . In particular, in the cases provided for by art. 614 (violation of domicile, ed) “there is a proportional relationship if someone legitimately present in one of the places indicated there uses a weapon legitimately held or other suitable means for the purpose of defending: one’s own or the other’s safety; others, when there is no desistence and there is danger of aggression “.
In addition, “the provision also applies if the fact occurred within any other place where a commercial, professional or entrepreneurial activity is carried out”. The Lega proposal, unique among the proposing parties to the government, modifies the art. 52, adding a paragraph with the aim of always recognizing the legitimate defense, without any principle of proportionality: “It is considered that he acted for legitimate defense the one who performs an act to reject entry or intrusion by theft or against the will of the owner or of who has the legitimate availability of the property, with violence or threat of use of weapons by one or more persons, with violation of the domicile referred to in Article 614, paragraph 1 and 2,
The League also aims to exacerbate the penalties. And modifies the art. 165 of the Criminal Code, limiting the maximum suspension of the sentence, which is “subject to full payment of the amount due for the recovery of damage to the injured person”. The proposed law of popular initiative, however, aims to change the art. 614 on the violation of domicile, exacerbating penalties, and art. 55 of the Criminal Code, which regulates “excess negligence”.
The Fdi proposal modifies the art. 52 of the Penal Code, extending the recognition of self-defense to the places adjacent to those under protection. And extending the scope of his “presumption”. Finally, the two proposals marked Fi intervene on different sides: on art. 52 of the Criminal Code, providing that “punishability” must be “in any case excluded when the act has been committed through excitement or fear”; on Article. 55, disposing that “the fault is excluded when the excess” defense is due “to the psychological conditioning determined by the behavior of the person to whom the reaction is directed”.