Recently, the Court of Cassation ruled on the possibility of subjecting a cleric who had already been judged for the same facts before the canonical justice system to new criminal proceedings. The ruling, which is worthy of support in terms of its reasoning and final outcome, offers an opportunity to discuss other aspects of the case, from the possibility of a ban on double jeopardy to the hypothesis that the two judgments were conducted in parallel and, therefore, the two convictions were concurrent, to the limits of tolerability, by the secular system, to the execution of a confessional penalty.
Recentemente, la Corte di Cassazione si è espressa sulla possibilità di sottoporre a procedimento penale un chierico già giudicato per gli stessi fatti avanti alla giustizia canonica. La sentenza, condivisibile quanto a iter motivazionale ed esito finale, offre l’occasione di ragionare anche su altri aspetti che emergono dalla vicenda in commento, dall’eventuale configurabilità di un divieto di doppio binario sanzionatorio all’ipotesi in cui i due giudizi si svolgessero parallelamente e, dunque, le due condanne fossero contestuali, fino ai limiti di tollerabilità, da parte dell’ordinamento secolare, all’esecuzione di una pena confessionale.
Distinzione degli ordini e bis in idem tra giurisdizione canonica e statuale. Riflessioni a partire dalla sentenza Cass. pen. n. 34576/2021 = Distinction of orders and bis in idem between canonical and national jurisdiction. Reflections starting from Criminal Court of Cassation judgment no. 34576/2021 / A. Negri. - In: DIRITTO E RELIGIONI. - ISSN 1970-5301. - 2021:2(2021), pp. 826-842.
Distinzione degli ordini e bis in idem tra giurisdizione canonica e statuale. Riflessioni a partire dalla sentenza Cass. pen. n. 34576/2021 = Distinction of orders and bis in idem between canonical and national jurisdiction. Reflections starting from Criminal Court of Cassation judgment no. 34576/2021
A. Negri
2021
Abstract
Recently, the Court of Cassation ruled on the possibility of subjecting a cleric who had already been judged for the same facts before the canonical justice system to new criminal proceedings. The ruling, which is worthy of support in terms of its reasoning and final outcome, offers an opportunity to discuss other aspects of the case, from the possibility of a ban on double jeopardy to the hypothesis that the two judgments were conducted in parallel and, therefore, the two convictions were concurrent, to the limits of tolerability, by the secular system, to the execution of a confessional penalty.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.