![Strengths and Criticisms <br> Dolci A. [1] , Capece M. [2]](https://www.lirpa-internationaljournal.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/immagine-che-contiene-dipinto-vestiti-arte-jean.jpeg "Strengths and Criticisms <br> Dolci A. [1] , Capece M. [2]")
Keywords: Alternative measures to imprisonment, recidivism, Assignment to Social Service Supervision, Penitentiary System, social reintegration.
Abstract: This article aims to explore the effectiveness of alternative measures to imprisonment, with a particular focus on the phenomenon of recidivism and its interpretation as a lack of socialization. The analysis primarily centers on the “Affidamento in prova al Servizio Sociale” (Assignment to Social Service Supervision), considered one of the least restrictive measures of the Penitentiary System, designed for individuals sentenced to serve their sentences. The goal is to understand the correlation between the effectiveness of this specific rehabilitative intervention and the reduction of recidivism. The article also highlights the effects of assignment on beneficiaries and the further improvement of social service intervention in promoting a lifestyle away from criminal behavior.
Introduction
Since the 1970s, the Italian penal system has undergone significant evolution in the conception and application of criminal sentences, aiming not only for punishment but also for the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the convicted individual. This change found expression in the 1975 Law No. 354, which introduced institutional, political, and cultural changes in the Italian penitentiary system. The law, although amended over the years, represented a radical renewal in the execution of criminal sentences and the treatment of the convicted person, introducing alternative measures to the main sentence.
Law No. 354 of 1975 is divided into two titles: the first deals with penitentiary treatment, regime, guiding principles, and general conditions, as well as alternative measures to imprisonment; the second regulates the penitentiary organization, the role of penitentiary institutions and the supervisory magistrate, the supervision procedure, and probation service.
The centrality of the individual in the prison system is emphasized, requiring treatment in line with the concept of humanity and ensuring respect for individual dignity. The goal is to introduce a rehabilitative treatment that promotes social reintegration through contact with the external environment.
The law recognizes the importance of individualizing the treatment, emphasizing the need for a scientific observation of the personality of the detainee to tailor the rehabilitative program to their specific needs. This observation is entrusted to a treatment team composed of professionals with specific skills.
Subsequent modifications, such as Law No. 663 of 1986 and Law No. 165 of 1998, expanded alternative measures to imprisonment, introducing benefits such as house arrest, assignment to social service supervision, and semi-freedom. The approach further evolved with Presidential Decree No. 230/2000, which introduced new provisions on the penitentiary system, focusing on the detainee’s sensitivity.
The most recent change is represented by Ministerial Decree No. 84 of 2015, which separated the External Penitentiary Execution Offices (U.E.P.E.) from the Penitentiary Administration Department, reflecting an idea of serving the sentence in the community and with the community, in line with the European approach.
The introduction of alternative measures to imprisonment emerges as one of the most significant aspects of Law No. 354/75, outlining a range of options in Chapter VI of Title I. When the prison sentence does not exceed four years, the possibility of assignment to social service (UEPE) is a key innovation, placing the convict under a set of prescriptions aimed at their social reintegration. This mode, integrated with social service control and periodic reporting to the supervisory magistrate, emphasizes the active role of the convict in the rehabilitation process.
The Presidential Decree (D.P.R.) 309/90 replaces Article 47 bis of Law No. 354/75, introducing Assignment to Social Service Supervision in special cases, targeting drug addicts or alcohol dependents. This measure, defined as “therapeutic,” aims to avoid detention and provide therapeutic treatment to overcome addiction. The transition from a punitive response to a therapeutic approach is highlighted, emphasizing the special preventive nature of the penalty.
Home detention[3] emerges as an alternative when the sentence does not exceed three years. This form of execution allows the convict to serve the sentence in their own home or care facilities, with authorized outings coordinated with the Supervisory Judge. The categories of people suitable for this measure reflect an approach focused on specific needs, such as health, age, and family situations.
The semi-freedom regime[4], applicable to sentences up to six months, presents an intermediate solution. Admission is based on progress in treatment and suitability for gradual social reintegration. This regime stands out as a special mode of execution, with the detention state interspersed with daily contacts with the external environment.
Conditional release rules[5], rooted in Law No. 1634/62, offer a benefit linked to the detainee’s behavior. The assessment is based on criteria of repentance and behavior during the sentence, with a focus on intra-prison relationships, interest in victims, and the request for forgiveness. In addition to its rehabilitative function, this measure can contribute to special prevention by encouraging the repentance of other convicts.
In summary, the evolution of alternative measures in Italian legislation reflects a transition to more rehabilitation and social reintegration-oriented approaches, emphasizing the active role of the convicted individual in the process of change.
The Key Role of Social Service in Managing Alternative Measures
The work of social service operators in the External Penitentiary Execution Offices (UEPE) is characterized by a cultural orientation in the service of people, with a task-oriented method aimed at networking and integrating existing resources. This professional approach is closely aligned with the objectives of the Penitentiary System, which recognizes their role as coordinators and activators of resources to achieve institutional goals.
As emphasized earlier, the goal of alternative measures is to increase the responsibilities of the convicts, encouraging them to serve the sentence in a free environment, where they can establish positive relationships with the community. This approach, in line with European law against prison overcrowding, aims to prevent contact between convicts for minor offenses, promoting a less de-socializing environment than the prison system. Assignment to social service supervision becomes, for convicts, a way of serving the sentence that implies constraints on freedom and the obligation to maintain contact with social services, operating in a context of control and human support.
The Penitentiary Regulation (D.P.R. 230/2000) outlines the principles regulating social service intervention during treatment in an external environment. Professional action takes the form of a unified personalized process with key features: offering the individual an opportunity to experience an authority-beneficiary relationship based on regaining trust, supporting the use of family and social resources, monitoring the individual’s behavior to ensure compliance with the obligations set by the Supervisory Magistracy, and encouraging a critical evaluation of the individual.
The social worker, empowered by a mandate from the Supervisory Court, performs various activities at penitentiary institutions and External Penitentiary Execution Offices. This includes participation in the observation and treatment team, periodic interviews with inmates, mediation between the internal and external contexts, assistance to inmates’ families, and collaboration with territorial services to facilitate social reintegration. External Penitentiary Execution Offices see the social worker engaged in social-family investigations, social surveys, preparation of individualized social inclusion programs, monitoring the execution of treatment programs, support for individuals under alternative measures, and collaboration with public and private services.
Social investigations, conducted through social service methods and techniques, focus on collecting and organizing data on the individual’s life, aiming to understand family and social dynamics. The social worker plays a crucial role in the design process, identifying critical issues and new resources.
Table 1 – Adults in external penal area under alternative measures to detention, according to the type of measure. Years from 2014 to 2022. Situation at the end of the year.
Chart 1 – Adults in external penal area under alternative measures to detention, according to the type of measure and gender. Percentage values. Situation as of December 31, 2022.
Chart 2 – Adults in the external penal area under alternative measures to detention, according to the type of measure and nationality. Percentage values. Situation as of December 31, 2022.
It would also be appropriate to assess the flow data outcomes of these alternative measures to further understand their effectiveness. The outcome data is referred to the date of data processing[6]. As of the current date, the following is recorded for different types of assignments:
Probation to Social Service: 99% of assignments in 2018, 98% in 2019, 93% in 2020, 80% in 2021, and 60% in 2022.
House arrest: 99% of assignments in 2018, 98% in 2019, 95% in 2020, 89% in 2021, and 74% in 2022.
Partial freedom: 97% of assignments in 2018, 97% in 2019, 90% in 2020, 83% in 2021, and 61% in 2022.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the Penal System reform introduced by Law No. 354 of ’75 marked a significant turning point in the penitentiary context, shifting the focus from a punitive conception of punishment to one centered on the recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration of the convicted individual. This change in perspective has led to a broad development of alternative measures to prison, with positive impacts not only on the penitentiary and judicial system but also for the individual who committed the offense and for the entire community in which they are inserted. Contrary to the common perception that prison sentences indicate greater social security, the positive results obtained with alternative measures challenge this belief. The growing system of alternative measures not only does not compromise the safety of citizens but, by strengthening inclusion pathways, significantly contributes to making communities safer. The implementation of probation to social service has highlighted the benefits of detention within the community, expanding the rehabilitative and re-socializing function towards the convicted individual. The reduction in recidivism associated with these measures emphasizes the need to overcome an exclusively retributive approach to punishment, proposing a paradigm in which the conviction becomes an opportunity for recovery rather than a mere punishment. The increase in the use of alternative measures requires not only logistical and technical resources but also specialized personnel capable of interacting with the multiple individuals involved. Involving the offender in the community, offering them the opportunity to repair the violation of the social pact, reflects a concept of reparative punishment that contributes to restoring the bond between the individual and the community. Positive recidivism data results not only from favorable regulations but also from the presence of efficient institutions like the External Penitentiary Execution Office (U.E.P.E.), within which qualified and professional operators contribute to the effectiveness of these measures. The U.E.P.E. emerges as a functional apparatus, emphasizing the importance of qualified human resources for the success of rehabilitation and social reintegration initiatives.
Bibliography
Maiorano A, Di Spena A, Maiorano F, (2020) Esecuzione penale esterna tra sicurezza integrata e sovraffollamento carceri, Inpap Peper.
Beccaria C, (2008) Dei delitti e delle pene, Mondadori, Milano, 11° ristampa.
Conti C, Marandola A, Varraso G, (2014) Le nuove norme sulla giustizia penale, Cedam, Padova.
Lobascio D, Petralla E, V, Ficco Regina S, (2011) L’evoluzione del sistema dell’esecuzione penale esterna: nuovi approcci di gestione – nuove prospettive di studio, Rassegna Italiana di Criminologia, anno V n.3.
Petrini D, Neppi Modona G, Scomparin L, (2009) Giustizia penale e servizi sociali, Roma-Bari, Edizioni Laterza.
Terlizzese D, (2018) Persone dietro i numeri. Un’analisi del rapporto tra sistemi penitenziari e recidiva, https://www.questionegiustizia.it/rivista/articolo/persone-dietro-i-numeri-un-analisi-del-rapporto-tra-sistemi-penitenziari-e-recidiva_569.php
Infante E, (2014) Le misure alternative alla detenzione, la loro ratio e la loro vasta applicazione nella prassi, in A. Cadoppi, S. Canestrari, A. Manna, M. Papa, Trattato di diritto penale, Utet giuridica.
Fiorentin F, (2012) Misure alternative alla detenzione, Giappichelli Editore, Torino.
– (2014) Decreto svuota carceri, Giuffrè, Milano.
– (2014) Una sola volta nella storia giudiziaria del condannato, in Guida al diritto, 21.
Tabasco G, (2015) La sospensione del procedimento con messa alla prova degli imputati adulti, in Archivio penale, 1.
Degl’Innocenti L, Faldi F, (2006) Misure alternative alla detenzione e procedimento di sorveglianza, Giuffré, Milano.
Franchi L, Feroci V, Ferrari S, (2017)Codice penale e di procedura penale, a cura di G. Ferrari, Urlico Helpi, Milano.
Frudà L, (2006) Alternative al carcere. Percorsi, attori e reti sociali nell’esecuzione penale esterna: un approfondimento della ricerca di criminologia, Raffaello Cortina, Milano.
Izzo L, (2002) La giustizia ripartiva, in studiocataldi.it.
Cortesi M, Filippi L, Spangher G, (2019) Manuale di diritto penitenziario, V edizione, Giuffrè, Milano.
Website
https://www.studiocataldi.it/articoli/31602-la-giustizia-riparativa.asp
www.dirittopenalecontemporaneo.it
www.giustizia.it/documenti/allegato3
https://www.giustizia.it/cmsresources/cms/documents/UEPE_misure_alternative_2022.pdf
www.centrostudinisida.it/Statistica
- Dott.ssa Agnese Dolci, psicologa, esperta in psicologia giuridica, criminologia clinica e psichiatria forense. ↑
- Dott.ssa Marzia Capece, psicologa, esperta in psicologia giuridica, penitenziaria e criminologia clinica. ↑
- Introduced into the Penitentiary System by Law No. 663/86 (the so-called Gozzini Law). ↑
- Article 48 and Article 50, Law No. 354/75. ↑
- Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ↑
- Source: www.giustizia.it, situation as of October 31, 2023. ↑
