The Marquis del Grillo the time that a court of the Papal State had given him reason in the dispute over a serious crime he had committed had the improntitude of having the bells of the churches of Rome ring dead. To those who asked him why he did so, he mockingly replied: "Because justice is dead".
In addition to being a man of spirit, the Marquis also had a clear idea of justice, prerogatives that are lacking in the current government and above all in that PD that would like to represent the new.
Not only do Gypsies and associates go blindly behind what gives birth to the bipolar mentality of the 5Stelle, they confirm the forcaiola tendency that accompanies them from birth, like an indelible DNA. Moving from the Bottegone to the Nazarene, the story has not changed: every individual is a latent criminal, no matter what crime he is responsible for, he must be kept under slap for immemorial times.
The queen proof of that way of being was provided by themselves, accepting the rule, wanted by the Grillino minister Bonafede, which blocks the prescription and hands down the criminal trial indefinitely.
In Italy and in the world, it is universally recognized that one of the major obstacles preventing the full development of Italian society and its economic system is precisely the uncertainty of justice and its times. But, fooling citizens and voters with the promise that it will soon be remedied, with changes that no one knows about, and the addition of a commitment to determine a fair length of trials is an old fraudulent practice.
On the merits, it might be useful to make Zingaretti and his companions aware of the thought of an unsuspected person such as Gerardo Colombo, the investigating judge of the P2 trial, of the investigations on Michele Sindona and the murder of Ambrosoli, the public prosecutor of "clean hands" and of the "Mondadori award", as reported by the newspaper IL FOGLIO in an interview which appeared last December, just on the eve of the entry into force of the Bonafede law.
Here it is (in summary): “Certainly […] the abolition of the statute of limitations cannot be motivated by the desire to make the penal process quicker (rectius, less slow). We keep the arguments separate, on the one hand the prescription, on the other the reasonable duration of the process. Let's start with this last theme. Do we, rightly and according to the Constitution, want a quick process? Do we want it efficient? Let us think of tools that make it effective quickly and efficiently: We decriminalize […] We liberate the criminal courts, which have become the places where all the conflicts and tensions, even insignificant, in this country precipitate. If we want the criminal process to be swift, there must be few things to process. The important ones. Criminal law must be brought back to what it should be: the extreme ratio ”. And again “In addition to decriminalizing - and therefore finding solutions in the civil or administrative sphere - we should resort to tools that avoid the continuation of investigations or the celebration of the trial. Testing, plea bargaining, abbreviated judgment are encouraged. Consider introducing restorative justice practices, which exist in many other countries […]. Moreover, in some respects, paradoxically, the prescription can benefit speed: its occurrence can be the basis for the establishment of a disciplinary procedure against the magistrate who caused it; we remove the prescription, we remove the urge to avoid the disciplinary, justice becomes even slower. [...] not only the Bonafede norm is harmful because it lengthens the processes: But it is even useless. "
What are the crimes that "are easily prescribed". “Crimes punishable by life imprisonment are never prescribed (for them the question does not arise). For the others, the limitation period is commensurate with the maximum penalty set for that crime [...] Very substantial terms also apply [...] for kidnapping (here even 37 and a half years), for aggravated robbery (25 years ), sexual violence (15 years), multiple theft (12 years and 6 months). […] So who can really hope for a prescription? I would not even say the perpetrators of corruption, because the maximum penalties, depending on the type of corruption, vary from 8 to 20 years. The statute of limitations often intervened for manslaughter, but even there, for the most alarming situations, the penalties were increased [...] So in the end, the statute of limitations mainly concerns crimes that are not particularly serious which, given a maximum penalty not exceeding 6 years, it is prescribed in six years, seven and a half years in case of interruption, it concerns many of those things for which in prison there are people who should stay out, entrusted to social services or to serve other alternative sentences [...] "But I would like to repeat: We keep separate the timing of the prescription and the reasonable duration of the processes, because they are only partially overlapping. The legislator moderates the impulse to insert new crimes every time he thinks he has to make a new law. Rather, look behind you and thin out, not just a little, the existing criminal cases. Other than prescription ".
To Gypsies and companions the duty to ring the bells of their church.