Those who make mistakes do not pay. Only 15 convictions for magistrates in the last 15 years
An examination of the lack of accountability for Italian magistrates reveals only 15 convictions in 15 years, questioning the effectiveness of civil responsibility for judges.
The article discusses the significant lack of accountability faced by magistrates in Italy, as evidenced by an alarming statistic—only 15 convictions of judges in the past 15 years. This revelation raises issues about the enforcement of civil responsibility among the judiciary, a topic that has been contentious in Italian politics for decades. The piece reflects on a historical letter from Justice Minister Giuliano Vassalli in 1987 addressing former Prime Minister Bettino Craxi, proposing a law that would hold judges accountable for their judicial errors in line with practices observed in other professions worldwide and other countries’ judicial systems.
Vassalli's letter outlined a proposal that emphasized the constitutional principle of equality before the law, suggesting that judges should not be exempt from the consequences of their decisions and mistakes. This reflects broader discussions around judicial reforms and the necessity for accountability within the legal framework. With such few convictions, one might argue that the Italian justice system lacks adequate mechanisms to supervise and penalize judicial conduct effectively, which could have implications for public trust in the legal system as a whole.
The historical context presented in the article serves to illustrate the ongoing debate surrounding judicial accountability in Italy. With the population's right to seek justice in a system perceived as fair and responsible, calls for reforms continue to echo, especially in light of the minimal repercussions faced by those in positions of power within the judiciary. This situation calls into question the integrity of public institutions and the need for robust mechanisms to enforce accountability among all professionals, particularly those who wield significant decision-making power in the courtroom.