“There is very little talk about it; better not to talk about it because the three most popular questions, those on the end of life, cannabis, and magistrate civil liability, which would have prompted people to vote, have been ‘eliminated.'” Realistically, it appears to me that the desire to make a decision on the repeal of the Severino directive or the reform of the CSM is driving people to the polls. The president of the Union of Italian Criminal Chambers, lawyer Gian Domenico Caiazza, has complained to the AGI about the “quiet” on the vote on justice slated for June 12th.
“I don’t believe there is a ‘design’ behind it, says Caiazza; the reasons are complex: clearly, the information system hasn’t done enough so far, and I’m referring first and foremost to the public, radio, and television services, which have a responsibility to communicate on specific problems. However, the way the questions were formulated does not help: for example, no one has asked us anything where we could have offered valuable advice instead. On the political side, I’d say there’s a certain convergence.”
“We have given indicators for the yes, and we expect to reach quorum,” the head of criminal lawyers continues, “but I reaffirm that the Council’s choice to reject the most popular questions in the end risks having consequences.”
“In essence, the judiciary does not accept the idea that its legal organization is put in place without the norms being created and dictated by the judiciary itself,” Caiazza argues. “The robes are acting in good faith, but in the name of a misunderstanding of autonomy and independence, they don’t want Parliament to do its job, and they don’t believe that those who are institutionally entrusted to do so should make decisions on matters of justice.”
Even the Cartabia reform is problematic for the president of criminal lawyers “Apart from the reform of the CSM’s electoral system, which in and of itself does not change anything, it has the merit of “trying to fix important problems.”
There are two major concerns: The first is judges’ professional responsibilities. The fact that it has a negligible impact on their jobs is insignificant, but it drives the togas insane: also because the intended checks have so far shown to be untrue, and progress has been made automatically. Second, the executive was taken over by out-of-office, seconded magistrates. The sheer possibility of introducing effective stakes destabilizes them, and it is no accident that they do not discuss them “.