«The crime committed is a high one severityaccentuated by the absence of a motive and therefore by the total gratuitousness of a deadly action. Circumstances that are indicative of evil, of absence of awareness, of disinterest, of contempt for life.” Almost a year and a half has passed since a group of young people – three boys and two girls – threw an electric bike from the Murazzi del Po balustrade, seriously injuring the 24-year-old medical student Mauro Glorioso. And even today none of them would have become “aware” of the atrocity of the act committed and “of the personal contribution spontaneously given”.
In essence, there would have been no action on the part of the defendants «a critical elaboration». For this reason the Court of Appeal insists on denying the three minors the possibility of leaving prison: «There are no foundations for a positive outcome of a re-education program». The harsh stance is contained in the reasons for the sentence with which the panel, chaired by Carmen Mecca, confirmed the first degree sentences against them: 9 years and 9 months for the 17 year old, 9 years and 4 months for the 15 year old and 6 years and 8 months for the 16 year old girl (defended by lawyers Domenico Peila, Michele Ianniello and Annalisa Baratto).
During the trial, the lawyers had asked that the young people be admitted to a restorative justice process and transferred to a community (with access to probation). The motions were denied. For the judges, the time is not ripe: the boys have never made «a full confession», they neglected to «report when the wicked idea arose», tried «to belittle one’s responsibility by invoking a state of intoxication» and insist on saying «that they didn’t want to hurt anyone».
«These behaviors – they write – indicate that, despite the apologies made at the hearing, there is still a lack of full awareness of what they did and therefore it does not appear configurable in short the accountability of the accused e rebuilding ties with the community». The latter are the purposes of restorative justice. A program which was also opposed by Mauro’s family – assisted by the alawyers Simona Grabbi and Alessandro Argento – who had underlined how the defendants had never shown sincere remorse.
Furthermore, for the Court there remains the risk that the children may commit other crimes, especially with inclusion in an out-of-prison program. The excesses of adolescents during the period of detention also weigh in on the decision, resulting in some disciplinary measures. «A sentence which – lawyer Peila comments critically -, from an exclusively perspective prison-centricprefers alone punitive value of the sentence to the detriment of the re-educational and rehabilitative one which should instead guide the measures and especially those of sentencing of juvenile judges. With all due respect, in fact, to the peculiarity of the juvenile trial.”
