Protecting juvenile defendants in the trial and from the trial: special safeguards in EU and Italian regulations
PDF (English)

Słowa kluczowe

juvenile criminal justice
criminal trial
privacy protection
childhood protection

Jak cytować

Zampini, A. (2023). Protecting juvenile defendants in the trial and from the trial: special safeguards in EU and Italian regulations. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny I Socjologiczny, 85(4), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2023.85.4.03

Liczba wyświetleń: 96


Liczba pobrań: 84

Abstrakt

Both the Directive 2016/800/EU and the Italian national law on juvenile criminal trial (presidential decree no. 448/1988) aim to provide specific safeguards for young suspects and defendants to protect their fragile and still-developing personality, and to ensure that any crime allegedly committed by the minor is an isolated incident in their past. These safeguards are required throughout criminal proceedings, especially during the trial stage, which can be confusing and overwhelming for a juvenile and may seriously impact their development. The trial phase – along with the precautionary limitation of personal freedom – seems to be the most dangerous procedural segment for children’s personalities. The trial is where the justice ‘play’ comes to life on its main stage, with its whole ritual, language, and characters. When attempting to identify safeguards intended to operate during the trial phase, two main fields seem to emerge: one focuses on the issue of assistance, which has to be more profound due to the unique nature of juvenile personality and experience of life; while the other one aims to protect children’s privacy so that their public image will be shielded as much as possible from the negative consequences of the trial. The article first focuses on these aspects by analysing legal regulations and the jurisprudence. In some cases, Italian legal regulation exceeds European directive standards, serving as a model for other legal systems. However, even though the internal regulation formally matches the EU requirement in some instances, it needs further improvement. Also, in terms of the law in action, the Italian jurisprudential approach sometimes weakens the safeguards provided by law, demonstrating the need for different interpretative solutions that are adequate to respect children’s rights fully. In the light of such issues, the author suggests some exegetical solutions.

https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2023.85.4.03
PDF (English)

Bibliografia

Abbruzzese, S. (2006). Avvocati e giudici onorari, un rapporto difficile. Minorigiustizia 1: 116-126.

Assante, G., Giannino, P., Mazziotti, F. (2000). Manuale di diritto minorile. Bari: Laterza.

Bargis, M. (2021). I soggetti. In M. Bargis (ed.), Procedura penale minorile (pp. 53-81). Torino: Giappichelli.

Bouchard, M. (2005). Il diritto ad una giurisdizione differenziata: punti fermi e orizzonti di una nuova specializzazione. In G. Giostra (ed.), Per uno statuto europeo dell’imputato minorenne (pp. 45–70). Milano: Giuffrè.

Bryan, K., Freer, J., Furlong, C. (2007). Language and communication difficulties in juvenile offenders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42(5): 505–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820601053977

Camaldo, L. (2016). Garanzie europee per i minori autori di reato nel procedimento penale: la direttiva 2016/800/UE in relazione alla normativa nazionale. Cassazione penale: 4572-4585.

Ceccarelli, E. (2015). Collegialità e specializzazione del giudice minorile. Minorigiustizia 3: 204-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/MG2015-003019

Ciappi, S., Dalla Chiara, E., Padovani, A., Perali, P., Santagata, B. (2022). A method to measure standard costs of juvenile justice systems: the example of Italy. Youth Justice 1: 21-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420924123

Ciavola, A. (2021). Comment on Article 2 of d.P.R. 448/88. In G. Giostra (ed.), Il processo penale minorile (pp. 29-46). Torino: Giappichelli.

Conti, A. (2021). Collegialità e multidisciplinarietà del Giudice minorile nella giurisprudenza costituzionale a confronto con le scelte della legge 26 novembre 2021, n. 206. Minorigiustizia 3: 77-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/MG2021-003007

Cras, S. (2016). The Directive on Procedural Safeguards for Children who Are Suspects or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings: Genesis and Descriptive Comments Relating to Selected Articles. Eucrim 2: 109-120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2016-014

de Vocht D.L.F., Panzavolta, M., Vanderhallen, M., Oosterhout, M. (2014). Procedural safeguards for juvenile suspects in interrogations: a look at the Commission Proposal in light of an EU Comparative study. New Journal of European Criminal Law 5(4): 480-506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500405

de Mause, L. (1974). The History of Childhood. New York: Harper Torchbook.

Fadiga, L. (2009). Un mestiere che cambia: il giudice onorario minorile. Minorigiustizia 1: 32-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/MG2009-001004

Forde, L. (2018). Realising the right of the child to participate in the criminal process. Youth Justice 3: 265-284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225418819086

Forza, A. (2005). Il diritto ad una giurisdizione differenziata: punti fermi e orizzonti di una nuova specializzazione. G. Giostra (ed.), Per uno statuto europeo dell’imputato minorenne (pp. 71-92). Milano: Giuffrè.

Gabrielli, C. (2021). Comment on Article 13 of d.P.R. 448/88. In G. Giostra (ed.), Il processo penale minorile (pp. 195-206). Torino: Giappichelli.

Garrido Carrillo, F.J., Jiménez Martín, J. (2021). Guide to good practices in procedural treatment of minor offenders: the procedural guarantees of suspected or accused minors in criminal proceedings. In C. Arangüena Fanego, M. de Hoyos Sancho, A. Hernández López (eds.), Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings Good Practices Throughout the European Union (pp. 73-80). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61177-4_5

Gili, A. (2013). L’analisi dei costi dei percorsi penali dei minori. In La recidiva nei percorsi penali dei minori autori di reato. Report di ricerca (pp. 99-110). Gangemi Editore.

Haines, K., Case, S., Smith, R., Laidler, K.J., Hughes, N., Webster, C., Goddard, T., Deakin, J., Johns, D., Richards, K., Gray, P. (2021). Children and crime: in the moment. Youth Justice 3: 275-298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420923762

Hall, I. (2000). Young offenders with a learning disability. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 6: 278-286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.6.4.278

Hughes, N., Chitsabesan, P., Bryan, K., Borschmann, R., Swain, N., Lennox, C., Shaw, J. (2017). Language impairment and comorbid vulnerabilities among young people in custody. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 58: 1106-1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12791

Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D.P. (2004), Empathy and offending: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior 9(5): 441-476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001

Kazdin, A.E. (2000). Adolescent development, mental disorders and decision making of delinquent youths. In T. Grisso, R.G. Shwartz (eds.), Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice (pp. 33-65). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lorenzetto, E. (2015). Incostituzionale la composizione monocratica del giudice minorile nel rito abbreviato instaurato dopo il decreto di giudizio immediato. Diritto penale contemporaneo, 12 febbraio 2015. https://archiviodpc.dirittopenaleuomo.org/d/3670-incostituzionale-la-composizione-monocratica-del-giudice-minorile-nel-rito-abbreviato-instaurato-do

Magno, G. (2019). Elementi di diritto minorile. Milano: Giuffrè.

Mazza, O. (2021). Comment on Article 33 of d.P.R. 448/88. In G. Giostra (ed.), Il processo penale minorile (pp. 653-666). Giappichelli.

Mazzucato, C. (2008). Commento a Cass. 38481/08. Guida al diritto – Famiglia e minori 11: 60-72.

Mestitz, A. (2003). Le garanzie del diritto di difesa nella realtà del processo penale minorile. Minorigiustizia 2: 300-308.

Muglia, L. (2006). Prospettive di riforma della figura del difensore nel processo penale. Minorigiustizia 1: 109-122.

Muglia, L. (2020). Neuroscienze e reati minorili: categorie penalistiche e psicologia del giudicare. Giustizia insieme. 13 novembre 2020. https://www.giustiziainsieme.it/it/diritto-penale/1357-neuroscienze-e-reati-minorili-categorie-penalistiche-e-psicologia-del-giudicare?hitcount=0

Narvey, C., Yang, J., Wolff, K.T., Baglivio, M., Piquero, A.R. (2019). The interrelationship between empathy and adverse childhood experiences and their impact on juvenile recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 19(1): 45-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204020939647

Nelken, D. (2015). Foil comparisons or foiled comparisons: learning from Italian juvenile justice. European Journal of Criminology 12(5): 519-534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815581698

Nosengo, S. (2009). La funzione educativa del processo penale minorile: spunti per una riflessione. Minorigiustizia 4: 164-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/MG2009-004021

Panzavolta, M. (2019). L’enigma del diritto penale minorile comparato. Minorigiustizia 2: 75-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/MG2019-002006

Papini, G. (1932). Sulla gioventù. Il Frontespizio 10: 3-10.

Pazè, P. (2008). L’accompagnamento di un ragazzo al procedimento penale. Minorigiustizia 4: 7-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/MG2008-004001

Pepino, L. (1989). Comment on Article 1. In P. Pazè (ed.), Codice di procedura penale minorile commentato. Esperienze di giustizia minorile, special issue: 17-28.

Pulitanò, D. (2004). Etica della professione di avvocato nella giustizia minorile. https://www.giustiziaefamiglia.org

Radić, I. (2018). Right of the child to information according to the Directive 2016/800/EU on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings. EU And Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 2: 468-491. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/7122

Radić, I. (2020). Importance of the protection of privacy of juvenile suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings in the context of the EU law. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 4: 576-596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11917

Rap, S.E. (2016). A children’s rights perspective on the participation of juvenile defendants in the youth court. International Journal of Children’s Rights 24(1): 93-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02303006

Rap, S.E., Zlotnik, D. (2018). The right to legal and other appropriate assistance for child suspects and accused: reflections on the Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 26(2): 110-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02602004

Scott, E.S., Steinberg, L.D. (2008). Rethinking Juvenile Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv103xdxp

Sfrappini, P. (2021). Comment on Article 12 of d.P.R. 448/88. G. Giostra (ed.), Il processo penale minorile (pp. 185–194). Torino: Giappichelli.

Siracusano, F. (2015). Giudizio abbreviato richiesto a seguito di giudizio immediato: imprescindibile l’interdisciplinarietà del giudice collegiale minorile. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 1: 9-19.

Steiner, H., Garcia, I.G., Mathews, Z. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder in incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36(3): 357-365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199703000-00014

Stern, J.A., Cassidy, J. (2018). Empathy from infancy to adolescence: An attachment perspective on the development of individual differences. Developmental Review 47: 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.09.002

Stone, N. (2010). Old heads upon young shoulders: ‘compassion to human infirmity’ following R v. JTB. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 32(3): 287-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2010.520521

Torma, J. (2021). Child interviewing in legal cases: a European perspective. European Integration Studies 17(2): 92-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46941/2021.e2.92-105

Totaro, M.S. (2013). Aspetti quantitativi della recidiva. la ricerca sui percorsi penali dei minori: il piano di indagine statistica e la descrizione dei dati campionari”. In La recidiva nei percorsi penali dei minori autori di reato. Report di ricerca (pp. 52-67). Gangemi Editore.

Vaičiūnienė, R. (ed.) (2020). Individual Assessment of Suspected or Accused Children: Insights into Good Practice in the Light of the Directive (EU) 2016/800. Vilnius: Žara.

Ventura, N. (2008). L’anamnesi endoprocessuale della personalità dell’imputato minorenne. Minorigiustizia 4: 46-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/MG2008-004004

Whittle, S., Simmons, J.G., Dennison, M., Vijayakumar, N., Schwartz, O., Yap, M.B., Sheeber, L., Allen, N.B. (2014). Positive parenting predicts the development of adolescent brain structure: a longitudinal study. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 8: 7-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2013.10.006

Zhang, D., Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., Yoon, M. (2011). Juvenile offenders with and without disabilities: risks and patterns of recidivism. Learning and Individual Differences 21(1): 12-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.006