EDITOR'S BLOG: JUSTICE AND EVIDENCE
This is a country in which all those accused of the massacre of Piazza della Loggia were acquitted, after 36 years of investigations and false leads: due to insufficient evidence. This is a country in which Marcello Dell’Utri, condemned in appeal to seven years for association with the Mafia, was acquitted for those charges which related to crimes happening after 1992: again for insufficient evidence.
To be precise, the outdated ‘insufficient evidence’ no longer exists; now other legal expressions are used (such as: “insufficient evidential value of the results”), but in short, as my grandmother used to say, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. When evidence is lacking, we do not convict. This is the lesson of the ancient habeas corpus. It is the saying, “better a hundred guilty people free than one innocent behind bars”. From this derives the famous presumption of innocence, in which no one can be considered guilty until the final sentence.
Whether we like it or not, it is this which distinguishes a civilized country from those in which there exist no required guarantees for those accused of crimes. In all Western democratic nations, those who judge and decide on a guilty sentence must be convinced “beyond any reasonable doubt”. This is depicted in scores of Hollywood films and legal thrillers. Think for a moment what it would be like if the opposite occurred. If to send someone to jail it would be enough to have only a vague clue, a controversial testimony, a somewhat patchy investigation combined perhaps with the histrionic skill of those representing the prosecution. It would be frightening, wouldn’t it? Because each of us would be at the mercy of the anonymous letter, of the informant who wants to do us harm, of the necessity at times of finding a culprit at all costs. That, certainly, would be some regime.
On the quiet, many may even think that Dell’Utri, Delfo Zorzi and perhaps thousands of others who over the years were acquitted for insufficient evidence were in reality responsible for the crimes of which they were accused. However, it is not enough to “think it”: it needs to be proven. Beyond any reasonable doubt. Because justice for the victims cannot be done with the force of injustice.
I recall these banal arguments because the appeal process for the Perugia murder has started: the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher for which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were charged. Here I will not enter into the merits of the case; read the feature from page 20 and, if you want, buy the excellent book written by Maria D’Elia on sale with Oggi. I say only one thing.
Never, inquiring into a case in the news, have I found myself confronted with so much “reasonable doubt”: evidence lacking or disputable, judicial obstinacy, errors in the investigations, and so on. Perhaps it happened to me only with the massacre of Erba, with which we were occupied months ago: but in that case an alternative “truth” did not exist, or was totally unbelievable. For the murder of Mez, on the other hand, Rudy Guede has already been convicted twice: and therefore, even though the presumption of innocence prevails for him too, another path exists, another “truth” is possible (and, in my humble opinion, much more plausible).
The fact is we are not always able to establish the truth. The guilty person is not always found. There is not always justice for the victim. Unfortunately. At times the judicial machine must stop and confess its impotence. When it does not, because it decides to put the doubts and unanswered questions between parentheses, an injustice is committed. I hope that will not happen this time.
