In the main European countries, to be recognized as “dangerous” all it takes is a doctor’s report. Here, however, you must first commit a crime. And even in this case it is not certain that a structure will welcome you
Vincenzo Lannithe Milan stabber, had already struck. As a condemned man he was placed in Rems, the residence for security measures, then he underwent a course in the community. In the community, however, they judged that he was violent and dangerous. And they had pushed him away. But gone where? Maybe that someone cared about Lannionce it was known that the man was in a state of abandonment, free and evidently dangerous (because if he was dangerous in a protected and familiar context like that of the community, even more so would he have been once left free and without shelter)?
If it had happened in another country, what would have happened to Lanni and perhaps other people like him judged, with common sense, to be dangerous? Let’s see what would have happened in the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain. Not in Afghanistan or Libya, in short. In the United Kingdom, a special figure, with two doctors, would have arranged for his internment in a “secure unit” or in a “Picu”. In Germany, a judge would have committed him to the Forensische Psychiatrie upon medical notification. In France the prefect, based on a medical intervention, would have committed him to hospital. In the Netherlands, a judge would have committed him to a high-security TB clinic on the basis of a sufficient serious risk. In socialist Spain, an investigating judge would have interned him in the Unidad psyquitrìca judicial. In all of these countries, a report from the police, general practitioners, social services and local psychiatrists would have been more or less enough. A psychiatric diagnosis would not have been necessary. In the meantime he would be prevented from harming others and himself. In Italy, however, to recognize your social danger and put yourself in the place designated for dangerous people, which are the Residences for the execution of security measures (Rems), you must, listen, be condemned. It’s not enough. To be recognized as crazy and dangerous by the police, social services, mayor or doctor, you must first commit a crime. Then let’s see if you’re crazy too. So Lannionly now that he has stabbed another person can he be declared dangerous and treated, not before.
For the sake of further information, let’s look in detail at how the concept of social danger has evolved. The concept was born in the Rocco Code (1930) as an instrument of social defense and is modified by the Penal Code still in force. The art. 203 defines social dangerousness as the probability that a person commits new crimes. It represents the prerequisite for the application of the security measures referred to in the articles. 202–205 cp, which can be custodial or non-custodial, and must be disposed of with a reasoned provision from the judicial authority.
But maybe we can find a way in the law on psychiatry? Let’s see the rules for psychiatry and their evolution in brief. Law 180/1978 (Basaglia reform) and Law 833/1978 established the National Health Service, introducing the principle that mental illness cannot in itself justify the restriction of freedom. However, the protection of collective security remained linked to the Penal Code. With Law 81/2014, judicial psychiatric hospitals (Opg) were abolished and Residences for the execution of security measures (Rems) were established, intended exclusively for subjects, as previously mentioned, for whom the judge has ordered a security measure following a crime.
But then, at least when they are guilty, crazy and condemned will they find a structure that contains them, prevents them from doing further damage and cures them? Well, not even here… Currently, 31-32 Rems are operational in Italy, with around 606 patients present and almost 800 people on the waiting list for entry. This number, which is constantly growing, highlights the structural deficiency and insufficient accommodation capacity of the system. The Rems are unable to satisfy the need and operate exclusively after the commission of the crime, therefore not constituting a mechanism for preventing social danger.
The absence of regulatory tools for the management of high-risk subjects generates a “grey area” between the healthcare and judicial fields. Compulsory health treatment (Tso), governed by art. 33 of Law 833/1978, can only be ordered in the presence of an acute mental disorder requiring immediate treatment and if the patient refuses treatment. It is therefore not applicable to socially dangerous behaviors without a psychiatric diagnosis. Nor can the Anti-Mafia Code (Legislative Decree 159/2011), which provides for special surveillance measures, be extended to non-offender psychiatric subjects. The result is that subjects with antisocial conduct, potentially dangerous but not yet criminally relevant, remain effectively without containment or monitoring tools.
An unequivocal fact emerges from the regulatory and comparative analysis: Italy, while guaranteeing the protection of individual rights, does not have a structured system of preventive protection for social security in the cases of subjects at high behavioral risk. The Rems today represent the only national defense for criminals not attributable due to mental defect, but their function is exclusively post-crime. The number of facilities and places is limited and does not allow it to absorb requests from the courts, with around 800 people on the waiting list for entry. In the main European systems, however, a level of preventive clinical-judicial intervention is foreseen which allows potentially dangerous subjects to be contained and evaluated before the commission of a crime. The absence of similar tools in our legal system creates a gap in the protection of the community and leaves local psychiatric services without legal means to intervene effectively in the presence of concrete social risk.
The case of Lanni it should push us to calm reflections even if it is difficult to discuss certain taboos. But not doing so entails responsibilities and victims, certain for the future. It will be enough to open the pages of the news that certain politicians and psychiatry greats will skip.
