There legitimate defense It is one of the most sensitive legal institutions in Italy. In fact, there are many citizens who fear that they have little protection in this sense. In fact, a large proportion of Italians firmly believe that thieves and criminals enjoy special and undeserved protection compared to victims of crime, especially theft and robbery.
In fact, case law is full of convictions Excessive self-defense and even attempted murder (other than murder), even if the perpetrator claimed he was acting in self-defense. Finally the Conviction of the jeweler Mario Roggero for a penalty 17 years Imprisonment (first degree) for the murder of two robbers and attempted murder of a third, verdict of December 4, 2023.
The court has already commented on this Minister Salvini, expression of solidarity with man and renewal of attention to an issue that is very close to his heart. Matteo Salvini himself was the proponent of the 2019 self-defense reform, which brought improvements in the protection of those who act to protect themselves. However, there are many similar events, but the statement that “the defense is always legitimate” has no meaningful meaning from a legal perspective.
On the one hand, it can also be seen as true, since defense is always legitimate and if it is not, it is not defense (but aggression, revenge, etc.). On the other hand, the word defense is too general for its meaning in common usage to correspond to that of criminal law. The criminal code distinguishes precisely the legitimate defense that meets the legal requirements that ensure the boundary between the Protection and the substitution of justice. Here you will find out how self-defense works in Italy and what can and cannot be done.
Legitimate defense in Italy, which is what the law provides
Self-defense is regulated in Article 52 of the Criminal Code Condition of non-punishment. In detail: Anyone who commits a crime cannot and must not be punished for:
to have been forced to do so have to defend a right own or others against the current danger of oneunjustified offenseas long as the defense is proportionate to the offense.
The principles are therefore as follows:
- the need or lack of other means and means of avoiding the damage;
- the threat to one’s own rights or the rights of other people;
- L’reality of dangerthat must be neither future nor past;
- the injustice of the crime, which violates the provisions of the law (but is not necessarily carried out with force);
- There Proportionality between defense and attack.
These points may seem simple, but they leave room for different interpretations. The question of proportionality is one of the most debated issues in courtrooms as it involves various comparisons:
- THE means;
- The Legal assets involved;
- The severely threatened and that committed by the victim.
It is by no means easy to evaluate this concept, which requires careful analysis of the facts and circumstances by judges from time to time. However, the Criminal Code also stipulates this in some cases Proportionality always exists.
In particular, the defense in the event of a domicile violation is to be considered proportionate if it is exercised by a legitimate party (e.g. the owner):
- For Defend security one’s own or that of others;
- to defend one’s own or someone else’s property, but only in the absence of omission (interruption of criminal proceedings) and in Danger of attack.
In any case, a legitimate defense can be made by any appropriate means, but also with weaponsas long as held lawfully. The term residence includes any place where the entrepreneurial, professional or commercial activity is carried out.
In addition, the law always allows self-defense lawsuits Ward off intrudersprovided that the threat is made with violence or threats (use of weapons or other means of physical coercion).
What can be done and what cannot be done
Merely illustrating the concept of self-defense in our system is not enough to create a decalogue of right or wrong behavior, and the legal principles themselves are subject to many variables of interpretation depending on the circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible to make general distinctions to understand how one behaves and to what extent it is legitimate to defend yourself.
Particular attention is now being paid to the use of one’s own or makeshift weapons. In the first case it always has to be about that Lawfully owned weapons (with regular firearms license). However, there is still respect when it comes to makeshift weapons Proportionality to the crimebut since these do not involve firearms, it is easier to reduce any injuries to the level necessary to end the attack.
It cannot be killed unless it is the only way to protect yourself from death (or to defend another person, even an unknown one). That doesn’t work on the street preventiveout of fear of suffering a certain event in the future (even if the fear is in some way based on threats or something similar) and you cannot react to it vendettathat is, after the crime has been committed.
No action can be taken against the attacker if he interrupted the crime or he runs away and one cannot attack the other if there are valid ones non-offensive alternatives To defend. For example, defense is not legitimate if it were possible leak based on the context of the interests in the field (for example, the actual possibility of being able to save oneself, health problems that prevent the race, etc.).
You can act in self-defense when the danger is current and serious, but also when it just happens perceived, based on incorrect judgment, but based on objective facts. For example, someone who suffers a robbery fake weapon He can probably fear that the gun is real and protect himself accordingly.
It is not possible to justify self-defense in the face of danger personally provoked, unless there is an unjustified excess. The case of a fight is emblematic in which there is no legitimate defense unless one of the participants suddenly pulls out a weapon and the other does the same to defend himself.
