![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfO-Tq5grO45dp1BlW-PYRcq2hkmLd9mpUG3qS52P0w2NwDWz42V9SabhjFgI0dTtxrA85E8VokAGO_aJ3OD1kfAQMzDoZrQssu3dZ7rHVS8DpkewKfgRHW0Fi1-duPnxri7nRsDx1aWvr/s200/clandestini-2501.jpg)
Immediately after the passage of the law, some judges began immediately apostrophe from the Government, to ask the question. Then he followed another, and also the other day one of Pordenone. Judges politicized? The reasons for referral to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, expects that to accumulate a awhile to respond, have a legal basis (art. 3,24,25,27,97 C.): they are not right or left, are sensible or not, are legally justified or not. Here are some reasons
last reference:
1) the offense affects a condition not necessarily perceived as socially dangerous
2) is retroactive, as punishing those who were already illegal before the passage of Law
3) deportation could come even with the old rules
4) the law punishes not only the illegal entry, that would have provided for a "just cause" for detention in Italy
5) does not adhere to the principle of proportionality and reasonableness (the Court in 1995 had already declared unconstitutional the act of begging; overlaps with the administrative measures of expulsion, the machine will be burdened by these judicial proceedings and distracted by other more effective against crime)
0 comments:
Post a Comment