L'ACCERTAMENTO DELLA PERICOLOSITA' SOCIALE

THE ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL DANGEROUSNESS The aim of this thesis was to provide an examination of the meaning that the notion of social dangerousness takes on in our time, an aim that necessarily requires a precise analysis of the factors that contributed to the birth of this institution and its historical and normative development, and the re-evaluation of the concept itself by neurosciences, as it will be highlighted in this work. The modus procedendi of this work has been based on the timely and in-depth consultation of all the most authoritative sources in order to better analyse the various issues dealt with in this work, both in the doctrinal, regulatory and case law fields. As part of this examination, I have also taken into consideration the double-track system, and the problems connected to it, in relation to the above mentioned meaning and its assessment in court and debate. In our discussion, I also pointed out that the term "dangerous" is linked to a concept of human "subjectivity" that originates in the criminological determinism of a purely positivist matrix. In the first chapter of this thesis, I have extensively argued how such a preconception, which identifies such "social dangerousness" with the presumed inclination of an individual to perform criminal actions, has therefore deterministically evolved as an instrument to give evidence of the presence of dysfunctional and deficient aspects in a specific subject. I have also highlighted how the concept of social dangerousness was reformulated by the legislator in 1930 on the basis of a system that was extremely innovative for the time, that is, the "double-track" system mentioned above. This work analyses how, in contrast to the rigorous positivist approaches but also to the huge classical limitations present in the old Zanardelli code, in this framework the notion of social criminality begins to take on completely new characteristics, forming the foundations for what would become the modern multi-functional representation of punishment in the criminal justice system1. As I have highlighted here, this is in line with the contemporary vision that the jurist has of this institution, which is no longer an unchangeable stigma determined by characteristics of dubious scientific nature, but constitutes the founding element to achieve a possible prognostic judgement on the probability of the subject committing further criminal acts in the future. Without prejudice to the considerable complexity of the phenomenon in question, in the second chapter of this work I have attempted to provide an in-depth analysis of the legal institution of social dangerousness, 4 demonstrating how this is an instrument destined to affect the application of ante, praeter or post delictum measures. I have also examined in depth the main legal typological categories of social dangerousness, giving an account of the various safeguards (in term of both security and patrimonial measures) applicable in such circumstances, also trying to provide non-trivial cues on the adoption of such measures and the problem of recidivism. In the third chapter I have deepened the main subject matter, i.e. the assessment of the social dangerousness of the accused person, analysing both the theoretical and the critical aspects inherent in the very evaluation process of this complex and multiform concept, the case law guidelines and the complex process of examination of the subject's personality for the purposes of an overall assessment of his conduct and the preparation of the most suitable treatments and measures for the socially dangerous offender. In the fourth chapter, I have deepened the expert assessment for the evaluation of the accused person’s social dangerousness, focusing above all on the psychiatric and psycho criminological expertise, giving an account of the methods of the expert's intervention and the factual and empirical validity of the same (always within the scope of the law and within the framework of the current legal debate on the subject) in order to provide substantial assistance to the prognostic activity of the judgement in criminal proceedings.