[ad_1]
After a brief period under house arrest, a Crotone Together with his wife, he put on his jacket, left the door in violation of the law and went to the police station closest to his home. «I prefer to enter prison instead of staying home with mine wifeThe prisoner had said, after another fight. Thus, in addition to the penalty to be served, he was awarded a second penalty: that of evasion. But the Supreme Court has now reversed the sentence, nullifying it for lack of crime. Or rather: he judged that the man could not be punished for the subtlety of the act. The sentence with which the Court of Crotone, first, and the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, later, had ordered 2 months and 20 days of additional prison for husband intolerant, accused of evasion, a few days ago it was canceled without postponement. It means that a new appeal process will not take place and that the man has been cleared of the disputes.
No detours
For the Cassation, in fact, the accused is not punishable by the small magnitude of the fact and also because he would not have made detours along the way: he would have left the house and went directly to the barracks, asking to be taken to prison because he no longer wanted to. living with his wife, with whom he constantly fought. A situation that became unbearable and that had made house arrest the worst punishment. Enough to literally push the man to flee and seek asylum in the barracks, begging investigators to aggravate the preventive detention against him. A request that had been granted to you and that will not cost you an additional judgment.
The appeal
The decision of the judges, however, is an exception linked to the specific case and the particular tenacity of the fact, since theevasion in question it lasted a few minutes, just long enough to reach the barracks. If he had continued leaving the house, the man would have been sentenced, even if he would have justified himself by saying that he wanted to be imprisoned and if he had presented himself spontaneously to the Carabinieri. The Ermellini, in fact, underline that for the crime of evasion to occur, a “voluntary expulsion from the place of domiciliary restriction” is sufficient.
The precedents are many and a sentence has almost always been ordered for the detainees.
Previous
The fact of having been presented spontaneously by the police does not, in fact, count as exempt. Not even if the accused requests that he be allowed to return to prison, justifying himself with the unsustainability of living with family members: in most cases the supreme judges have ordered the confirmation of the sentence, given that “the fraud of the crime of evasion by abandonment of The place of house arrest is generic, since the will to evict is necessary and sufficient – in the absence of authorization – in the knowledge of the restrictive measure against him, the purpose that the agent proposes with his action does not matter ” We read in the sentence, In this case, however, the husband would not have committed a crime, considering the ways in which the escape occurred.
The escape
The man, exasperated, would have left the house only with the aim of submitting to the control of the police as soon as possible. According to the Supreme Court, the Court of Crotone and the judges of the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, when passing the sentence, did not take into account one detail: the low intensity of the fraud and the offense caused by the conduct of the exasperated husband. The detainee had appealed against the sentence. Two reasons highlighted in the defense act: by violating the prohibitions, the will was to go to prison and not escape the control of the authority; the fragility of the fact. Only the second reason was recognized as valid.
Last updated: 07:36
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
[ad_2]
