CONSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY BETWEEN THE OFFENDED PERSON AND THE ACCUSED: NECESSARY REGULATORY EVOLUTION OR SIMPLE GUARANTEED PROPAGANDA?

In recent days, a bill aimed at amending the art. is being discussed in the Constitutional Affairs and Justice commissions of the Senate. 111 of the Constitution on fair trial, providing constitutional protection to people offended by the crime, effectively equating them to the figure of the accused, already widely protected by the highest source of law in our country. This proposal, apparently shared by all political forces, provides for a consolidation of the institution of free legal aid and the guarantee of final compensation by the State where it is not possible to identify the person responsible for the crime or he is not sufficiently capacious. But, and this is the most critical point, the accused would no longer be required to face one, but two “adversary” parties both of constitutional rank, with the most varied procedural consequences on the right of defence, which is certainly much more difficult to exercise. Outside the unanimous chorus of approval is the very authoritative voice of Professor Ennio Amodio who, in a certainly agreeable way, underlined how the offended person is already amply protected by ordinary law, which offers multiple tools for intervention in the process alongside the Public Accusation. An elevation of the victim to a constitutional level, on closer inspection, would not lead to any concrete advantage for this figure but, on the contrary, would greatly restrict the right of defense of the accused, satisfying the thirst for justicialism of which today, often in an unscrupulous way, the public opinion is increasingly eager. Proof of this is the aforementioned essentially unanimous sharing of all political forces.