More than ten years after the introduction into our legal system, the survey on the "beyond any reasonable doubt" rule has shown that the issue continues to pose delicate hermeneutical problems with which the jurist and the lawyer are called to confront, also in light of an interpretative practice that still perseveres in wanting to quantify, according to mathematical or even probabilistic criteria, the criterion of judgment inserted in art. 533 c.p.p. Moving from the historical and cultural origins of a "formula" that, in the delicate balance between authority and freedom, assumes a clear matrix of guarantees, the results of the research lead us to argue that only the maximization of the bard rule ensures an authentic protection of the presumption of innocence. And for this reason, the clause should operate at any time during the proceedings in which the judge is called to express a judgment on the imputation, in order to return to the jurisdiction - if well measured - its value as an effective guarantee.
Ad oltre dieci anni dalla introduzione nel nostro ordinamento, l'indagine sulla clausola dell’“oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio” ha dimostrato che la tematica continua a porre delicati problemi ermeneutici con i quali il giurista e l’operatore del diritto sono chiamati a confrontarsi, anche alla luce di una prassi interpretativa che persevera nel voler quantificare, secondo criteri matematici o addirittura probabilistici, il criterio di giudizio inserito nell’art. 533 c.p.p. Muovendo dalle origini storiche e culturali di una “formula” che, nel delicato equilibrio tra autorità e libertà, assume chiara matrice garantista, gli esiti della ricerca inducono a sostenere che soltanto la massima valorizzare della regola assicura un’autentica protezione della presunzione d’innocenza. E per tale motivo, la clausola dovrebbe operare in ogni momento del procedimento in cui il giudice è chiamato ad esprimere un giudizio sull’imputazione, al fine di restituire alla giurisdizione – se ben dosata – il suo valore di effettiva garanzia.
Convincimento giudiziale e ragionevole dubbio
dalia
2018-01-01
Abstract
More than ten years after the introduction into our legal system, the survey on the "beyond any reasonable doubt" rule has shown that the issue continues to pose delicate hermeneutical problems with which the jurist and the lawyer are called to confront, also in light of an interpretative practice that still perseveres in wanting to quantify, according to mathematical or even probabilistic criteria, the criterion of judgment inserted in art. 533 c.p.p. Moving from the historical and cultural origins of a "formula" that, in the delicate balance between authority and freedom, assumes a clear matrix of guarantees, the results of the research lead us to argue that only the maximization of the bard rule ensures an authentic protection of the presumption of innocence. And for this reason, the clause should operate at any time during the proceedings in which the judge is called to express a judgment on the imputation, in order to return to the jurisdiction - if well measured - its value as an effective guarantee.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.