Ministero della Giustizia

The juvenile justice in Italy

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
GENERAL DIRECTORATE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDICIAL MEASURES

 

INDEX

JUVENILE JUSTICE IN ITALY

CHAPTER 1 - MINORS, RIGHTS AND JUSTICE
1988: A new beginning: the Code of Criminal Procedure for Minors
The Code of Criminal Procedure for Minors: Principles
Juvenile Justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
How the Juvenile Justice system has changed: from a closed centralized system to an open system
Criminal chargeability of a minor
Age ascertainment

CHAPTER 2 - COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
The competences of the various judicial authorities

CHAPTER 3 - THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
The Ministry of Justice
The Juvenile Justice Department
The Juvenile Justice Department:
The Head of Department and its offices
The Juvenile Justice Department: Geographical Subdivisions
The Juvenile Justice Department: professionalism at work
The “external” custodial sector and the “internal” non custodial sector.

CHAPTER 4 - STRONG POINTS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Probation
Working with families
Restorative Justice: principles and tools
The dynamic safety model
The Central Training Institute
The Nisida International Study Center
Juvenile Justice treatment models from 1934 to the present

CHAPTER 5 - RECENT TRENDS: JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM DATA AND EVIDENCE

CHAPTER 6 - CUSTODIAL STRUCTURES IN JUVENILE JUSTICE

 

 

JUVENILE JUSTICE IN ITALY ▲

The Italian Juvenile Justice system is considered, rightly so, one of the most advanced in the world, especially because of the attention it pays to the welfare of the child. During my years of experience at the judicial offices I had the opportunity to learn all about this system but it was only after I started working for the Ministry of Justice however, that I had the possibility to further appreciate the professionalism, competence and experience of those who work in this area. The system, which was drawn up more than twenty-five years ago now, is referred to as an “open system” or, to use a more modern expression a “multi-actor” system. It is sufficiently flexible and able to answer to the variety of needs of it’s users and the changes regarding the other institutions and organizations involved in the educational projects for minors in the Justice System. To achieve this goal the Legislature intervened by enriching the system with new professional figures skilled in the specific fields of psychology, sociology, education and pedagogy and at the same time, setting the conditions for a greater involvement of civil society. The traditional structures of juvenile custody have been almost entirely replaced in favor of a shared taking of charge of children and young adults, which involves various “actors” (teachers, parents, doctors and trainers). In this sense it is important to note that the entire Juvenile Justice System strives towards the implementation of the principles of restorative justice, which is based on the concepts of responsibility, overcoming the conflict, the educational value the offense can impart and the minimal intrusiveness of the justice system.

The work of hundreds of professionals across the country who with dedication, skill and great affection take care of about twenty thousand minors, often with a complex family background, is the main reason our Juvenile Justice System so appreciated. A commitment further motivated by the encouraging results achieved in recent years: high rates of successful reintegration, relatively low risk of recurrence, many cases of successfully completed probations leading to less and less custodies within juvenile detention centers.

This publication is credited with highlighting the current situation and the large collection of photographs are there to prove the results of twenty-five years of work and also as an incentive to continue along this path. It is up to the institutions to keep the Juvenile Justice System functioning well and sustain the constant improvements that today’s ever evolving society inevitably demands.

Cosimo Maria Ferri
Deputy Secretary of State Ministry of Justice

 

We are left alone, without excuse.
That is the idea I shall try to convey when I say that man is condemned to be free.
Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects is free; because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
(J.P. Sarte, Existentialism is a Humanism, Mursia, 1963, p. 47)

This famous phrase by Sartre, a sort of comment on Dostoevskij’s Brothers Karamazov and his statement “if there is no immortality of the soul, then there is no virtue, thus everything is permitted”, is certainly characterized by a dramatic vision of life, yet I wanted to put it as an exergue for this brief introduction to this volume on Juvenile Justice in Italy as it reminds us, ascitizens, educators, and judges, of the meaning of responsibility and the value of freedom.
 It is precisely because we want to be free that we must, we have to, feel responsible for our actions just as we are, we have to be, aware of what happens to us. In my opinion this is the principle that inspires those who work within Juvenile Justice today: to give dignity to the children we care for by helping them to feel their responsibility and to be proud of it; at the same time we reconstruct, with them, the value of being part of society, even, and especially, when they are to be held accountable for an offense they have committed.

I am convinced, and believe that many others share this conviction, that merely understanding what it means to be part of a society, sharing the same vital space, emotions and goal with others, can teach these kids why everything is not permitted.

In fact, when you understand that not everything is permitted, you also understand the meaning of freedom.
When referring to the Juvenile Justice system the word “condemned” sounds like a provocation, but in this case we are referring to the human condition.
Each of us has a sentence hanging over our head as we must all pay for the sins of our fathers, because if it istrue that no man created himself, then it means that he carries the weight of those who preceded him; he must live in a world that imposes its twisted logic.
This, unfortunately, is something that is useful to remember when working in Juvenile Justice; as many of our children remind us, either with their biographies or with the marks on their faces, this world is not a world that gives equal dignity to all.
It was with great pleasure that I accepted this Department’s Director General for the Implementation of Penal Measures Serenella Pesarin’s idea, to create a publication on Juvenile Justice in Italy.
Beyond my present role as Head of the Department, which leads me to focus particular attention on this key segment of the justice system in Italy.
I believe that the work done in the past twenty-five years to implement the principles of Presidential Decree 448 of 1988, and the reafter the provisions of the New York Declaration of 1989 on the Rights of the Child, deserves to be known not only in Italy, but also abroad.
It has been, and is, very demanding and hard work, involving all actors in the system, but it has led to the transformation of Juvenile Justice: a justice that today is mainly carried out in non-custodial settings, or outside detention centers.
It is a justice that has brought us closer to the contexts of young people’s lives: their families, schools, the job market.
It is a justice that, as mentioned previously, has sought and intends to work on the sense of responsibility of the minors in its charge: a sense of responsibility that can only be instilled if shared by the penal institutions involved.
This publication would not only like to be seen as a gesture of responsibility to show how committed we are to abiding by the principles that lawmakers, with such foresight, codified in 1988, but also to ensure that these principles are alive and in keeping with our times just as we would like our youth to be increasingly alive and, to the extent possible, happy. [Caterina Chinnici Head of the Juvenile Justice Department].

More than 25 years ago, lawmakers provided our country with a juvenile penal code that is truly inspired by the wellbeing and protection of minors: thus it is not in this context that we will remark upon what is already present in the following pages, pages that describe succinctly but completely the effort made to give absolute pre-eminence to the educational function of the Juvenile Justice System, to reduce it’s afflictive nature, even at the trial stage, and to recognise the minor as an individual bearer of rights.

In short, it is not my place to reiterate the appreciation that I believe, the whole Italian society as a whole feels towards the task completed way back in 1988 by those who are rightly called the “fathers” of the Italian Juvenile Justice System.

Nor is it up to me to speak of the satisfactory job done over these twenty-five years by the Italian magistrates in applying both the spirit and the words of Presidential Decree 448 of 1988; the numbers speak for themselves and are there to testify to the silent revolution that has taken place within the Juvenile Justice System.
These figures are proof of the residual nature of custodial sentences and of the growing number of successfully completed probations.
The data is also proof that difficult challenges, such as that of the ever increasing number of foreign minors, many of whom unaccompanied, have been addressed and overcome.
In fact, Justice Systems are put to the test by the weak and that is how we can verify whether the system really works and whether the law is truly equal for everyone.
Within the Juvenile Justice System the weakest remain the unaccompanied foreign minors, minors who because they have literally been abandoned to their own devices, with great difficulty were granted the possibility of probation.
However, even in these desperate cases, the magistrates accepted the challenge and the data is there to prove it, more and more unaccompanied minors have been granted probation.
Besides, this journey could not have been accomplished if it had not been for the hard work, dedication, competence and love of their job of those who work in the Juvenile Justice System.
It is thanks to them if the lawmakers and magistrates’ intent has been carried out and respected and if each individual is accompanied through the delicate process of maturing an active citizenship and a responsible social identity.
I think it should also be pointed out that the spirit which has characterized the actions of the entire Juvenile Justice System, is based on the individualized rehabilitation, promoting the responsibilities of the minor and on the reduction of custodial sentences.
So far, this has proved to be successful, as confirmed by the research conducted by our offices, which show a reduced percentage of recurring offenders.
Perhaps, it is no coincidence that a recent amendment in the law, now foresees that whoever commits a crime while still a minor will remain in the charge of social services until the age of 25.

It is up to me, however, to say exactly how the Juvenile Justice System, a system that puts into practice the measures imposed by the Magistrates, interprets it’s role, given that for the past 10 years I have been the Director General in charge of implementing the sentences issued by Juvenile Magistrates. In the past 10 years the country has profoundly changed, at least where the coordination of services is concerned.
This can be seen especially in the way the Justice System deals with minors, no longer relegating young offenders to Juvenile penitentiaries (only 5% are in custodial care) effectively segregating and “taking them away” from society, but rather opting for open facilities where they can “atone” for their crimes. For this reason we now use the term “outside” and “inside” the penitentiary area.
Thus, Juvenile Justice is ever more a Justice for the community inside the community.
And young offenders are no longer exclusively in the care of Juvenile Justice workers but more often than not, are in the care of or “under the responsibility” of various components of the community, be that their family, a school, healthcare workers or social workers.

Juvenile Justice has a special responsibility towards the minors in its care that it fully accepts. However, everyone is involved in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Juvenile Magistrates because everyone should feel the educational responsibility towards these minors: especially those who are more in need or in a more fragile condition, like the minors who have trouble with the law, for example.

This, hence, is what has happened in Juvenile Justice particularly in the last 15 years: it has gone from a system that is spread across the country and, despite being incresingly enmeshed with other educational services, has been able to maintain a strong sense of authority.
As the system changed from one of closed penitentiaries to open spaces of social integration, other important institutional transformations were coming about. When Title five of the Constitution changed and with the Regional Councils acquiring more independence, Juvenile Justice became even more Glocal, if you will.
 In fact, the previously centralized nature of the Juvenile Justice Department had to find a way to adapt to the local or regional contexts, contexts which had developed somewhat differently across the territory because each region chose to organise their services and facilities in order to suit them best. Juvenile Justice, or rather, the offices that answer to this Directorate General had to increase their capacity to create network local actors and develope strong, comunicative relationships with different levels of governament in the area.
At the same time as this was happening, not only Juvenile Justice but the entire Justice System in general was slowly becoming more regional with the ulterior passage from Penitentiary Healthcare to the National Healthcare System.

Italy deeply believes in the universal right to healthcare, a right which is primarily guaranteed to all citizens by the National Healthcare System. Obviously this right is also extended to whoever is serving a sentence, a fact which underlines the effort made by the lawmakers to guarantee the utmost dignity to each and every citizen.
And yet, these organizational adjustments have not been easy and have required time and dedication in order to safeguard and guarantee the wellbeing of the weakest, who in this case, are the minors.

Although these transformations generated from the passage from one Institution to another (from Penitentiary Healthcare to the National Healthcare System) have been an ongoing challenge, one which still sees us struggling after many years to reach the objective which we albeit see very clearly in front of us, we, from the Head of Department to the social services are still happy for this transformation.

At all levels of the Juvenile Justice System organisation, there is the knowledge that this transformation has contributed, even if in a symbolic way, to make Justice a matter of interest to the community in general. In the end in fact, this is our and that of the lawmakers main objective and we believe, even more important for lawmakers: minors should be able to undergo developmental processes where they live with their family if possible, in their school, and in their hometown.
Still, the Justice System, which collaborates with other educational organizations, must also make the effort to acquire the cultural skills needed to carry out it’s principles. It is no coincidence in fact, if this Head Office has greatly invested in two approaches: the first being the families of the minors.
Often the families and the Juvenile Justice System feel a mutual distrust towards one another, a distance which can only but harm the minor.
The minor needs it’s family and the Justice system, and indeed the education system, to work together and share the sense of responsibility.
That said though, the Justice System has already come a long way by adopting a more restorative form of Justice which no longer keeps young offenders segregated from society but on the contrary, strives to reinstate them in the best way possible.

Restorative Justice means many things: it means using community service work as a means to re-educate and teach the young offender to be a responsible citizen and the importance of being part of a community; it means creating Juvenile offenders mediation centres to help also the victims and highlight the fact that crime produces suffering and offends the dignity of others.Through the work done in these centres the young offenders can learn what consequences their actions had; it means introducing the Group conferencing experience organized by social services as a means to put young offenders together to talk about and share what they have done and build a sense of awareness and responsibility.

This is an example of how my Head Office and all the services have worked together to create a small but effective cultural revolution within the Justice System and the various outlying services. Work, however, must be the word to focus on in this final part of my introduction because work is my and our real obsession. I do not intend my work but work for and done by the youngsters. A large number, maybe even too many of these young people need to have the learning opportunities that only a job can give them and they also need to go through training courses that will then give them a chance in the job market. But, as we all know, now a days there are no jobs for the young, let alone young people who have had problems with the law or the so called NEET “Not (engaged) in Education, Employment or Training”. It is with regards to these particularly fragile and directionless youngsters that we strive everyday, and towards whom we feel a profound responsibility. The quality and the competence which characterizes those who work in the Juvenile Justice System, even those who still work behind the sad enclosures of the Juvenile Detention centres, is not something that can emerge from the pages of the following report. I would however, wish for some of the love and sense of responsibility which we pour into our work to be perceived from these lines. I would also like to thank all of those who by dedicating so much of their lives, their passion and their intelligence have contributed in making the Italian Juvenile Justice System one of the most valid systems across the globe.
[Serenella Pesarin, Director-General for the implementation of judicial measures]

 

 

CHAPTER 1 ▲
MINORS, RIGHTS AND JUSTICE

1988 A NEW BEGINNING: THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR MINORS

Twenty-five years ago the Lawmakers set a challenge: combining the necessity for justice while still safeguarding the rights of the child. Within this challenge, there was the whole essence of the gradual realization of a “new” way of looking at the “issue” of childhood and adolescence. Indeed recognizing the urgency with which minors needed to be protected and also understanding that they were bearers of specific rights, changed the perspective of the legal system. It brought about the realization that these minors had to be guaranteed the right to grow up and be educated in order to be able to be rehabilitated and that this was a collective duty which could not be neglected nor underestimated.

Presidential Decree (DPR) 488/88 is the law which was adopted to meet this challenge as it outlined a new trial system for juvenile offenders. It was created to make sure that particular solutions could be found in order to prevent, suspend or know in advance the outcome of trials involving minors, protecting them and sustaining them throughout. In effect, it is thanks to this new outlook that confining young offenders to serving their sentences in detention centres is becoming a practice of the past. Part of this new approach in fact, is to make the whole experience less traumatic as possible by offering not only psychological support but educational courses and dedicated social service workers as well. The intent of the new System is to give the minor the means to get his/her life back on track through a series of combined efforts, on the part of the family, the educators and the social services. Not only that though, it also wants to give more emphasis to the reeducation and re-socialization factor of the sentence which intends to rehabilitate the offender and re-introduce him/ her into the community as a valid and conscious citizen.

This new approach, moreover, fits perfectly with the radical transformations that came about during the 60’s and 70’s in Italy. These transformations gave way to a sort of “cultural revolution” with regards to the approach towards minors, especially the most vulnerable, and saw the country as a forerunner regarding the abolition of special classes for disabled children, integrating them in mainstream classes, a first in Europe and, indeed, the world. Until the end of the 60’s, in fact, the whole system was based on “social prevention” which saw disabled children as well as problematic children segregated from the rest so as not to disturb[1] and taught or “looked after” by a sort of doctor/tutor. It was a system which did not consider the possibility of overcoming differences. These were also the years in which family law was modified and marked by a new way of looking at the parent-child relationship. With the reform of family law in 1975, the rights of the child, become absolutely paramount through the recognition of the commitment of parents towards their children, a commitment to educate and bring them up in such a way that their inclinations, abilities and aspirations find the maximum achievement possible.

As mentioned previously, it was within this context that the Juvenile Justice System was reformed, a reformation which brought with it a new way of conceiving the rights of the child and consequently the Justice System. The system became one of justice for minors and not against minors and in full recognition of the Constitutional rules[2], the objective became to re-educate and give the minor a second chance in society. In this regard, the curtailing of detentive sentences in favour of alternative ones (such as: prescription, house arrest, placed in the care of social services, suspended sentence, probation or community service) reflect the wishes of the Lawmakers not to harm the child during the criminal proceedings and “not interrupt the educational process”.

 

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR MINORS: PRINCIPLES

The Italian legal system, through the prosecution system of minors and the social institutions involved, tends towards the rehabilitation of the minor who for one reason or another has fallen into trouble with the law. The entire legislative system, substantive and procedural, aims for the so-called favor minoris and, in particular, wants to ensure that the various sanctions handed down to the minor, do not hinder or interrupt unnecessarily his educational path and evolution into adulthood. The Principles of Presidential Decree 488/88 are testament to this. These principles can be summarized as follows:

1. Principle of suitability
   The juvenile criminal procedure must be suitable – both in its general conception and in its concrete implementation – to the minors’ personality and to their educational needs, as it must aim at the minors’ reintegration in society. Therefore the criminal procedure, as it is the occasion to assess a possible suffering on the part of the minor, must aim at restoring the subject to the normality of social life, avoiding interventions which might harm their personality. This implies the need for all the involved subjects to keep in mind the minors characteristics and personality and their educational needs, which must be the parameters to consider whilst making choices during the criminal procedure.
   Art. 1 of D.P.R. 448/88 – The criminal procedure must aim at making the youth more responsible and educated. It is, in fact, the judge’s duty to explain the meaning of the procedure, the contents and even the ethical and social reasons behind the decisions.
    
2. Principle of minor offensiveness
   This principle generally points out the need to keep in mind that the minors’ contact with the Justice System might put at risk the harmonious development of their personality, thus compromising even their social image with the risk of provoking their exclusion. This implies the need for judges and operators to try, when making decisions, not to interrupt the educational processes in progress and therefore to avoid as much as possible the minors’ entrance within the penal system. In this way, they will allow them as much as it is possible to make use of alternative solutions. Operatively speaking, the aim of this principle is to favour the minors’ quick exit from the Justice System, without interrupting the educational processes in progress. This is obtained thanks to measures such as:
   Judicial Pardon (art.32 of D.P.R. 448/88): when it is assumed that the minor will not commit other offenses. Allready forseen by art.19 R.D.L. 20 July 1934, n.1404.
   Nonsuit for irrelevance of the fact (art.27 of D.P.R. 448/88): it is applied when it concerns a minor or occasional offence and any further proceedings would jeopardize the minor’s educational needs. The judge, upon request of the Public Prosecutor may hand down a safety measure.
   Special Conditions (art.20 of D.P.R. 448/88): the judge may impose, within the context of criminal sanctions, rules of conduct concerning study, work or other activities which are useful to the minor’s education, at the same time entrusting the minor to the supervision and assistance of the juvenile services of the Justice administration.
   House Arrest (art.21 del D.P.R. 448/88): the judge may order the minor to stay at home, as an alternative measure to detention. This implies that the minor stays in his family home or at another place of private residence, and at the judge’s discretion continue his studies or job or do other activities which contribute to his education always under the surveillance of his parents or whomever is looking after him.
   Suspended Sentence and Probation (art. 28 del D.P.R. 448/88): once the judge has heard both parties, he can order the suspension of the sentence and probation for a period not exceeding three years. If he deems it necessary he will have the minor’s personality assessed and an intervention plan laid out by the Juvenile Justice Social Services Department. The minor must agree to follow this plan and this implies also the collaboration and involvement of his family, school or employer.
    
3. Principle of de-stigmatization
   With the same aim of preventing minors from being compromised on a social level by their criminal procedure, regulations tend to guarantee the protection of privacy and anonymity. This can be ensured through various systems, among which:
   • A ban on mass media from printing information or showing images of minors;
   • Conducting the trial without a public audience (a socalled closed door trial). This disposition may be changed only on the minor’s direct request, if he is over the age of sixteen and only if it is in his best interest;
   • The possibility to cancel criminal records from the criminal records office when the minor turns eighteen years old.
      
4. Principle of residuality of detention
   According to this principle the regulations provide for adequate provisions so that imprisonment is the last and residual measure to be chosen (extrema ratio). To this purpose, completely new measures have been thought of so as to make minors more responsible and in order to reduce their coercive and afflicting impact, so that imprisonment (both precautionary or as the execution of the punishment) is limited to the cases where there are in suppressible worries concerning social defence, which could not otherwise be protected.
   Art.22 of D.P.R 448/88
   This principle is applied using measures such as the community. The judge may place the minor in the care of a community. As a precautionary measure half way between house arrest and a young offender detention centre. This is to promote his re-habilitation through socially useful initiatives.
    
5. Principle of self-selection of the criminal procedure
   This principle aims at guaranteeing the pre-eminence of the minors’ educational experiences on the prosecution itself of the criminal procedure, which is thus somehow “self-limited”. On the grounds of the information gathered with reference to personality, family and life environment of the minor, along with that concerning the offence, the procedure may be concluded by the statement of “irrelevance of the fact”. In the same view, the lawsuit may be suspended in order to start an operative route which replaces the trial proceedings through Probation, meant as a programme whose aim is to increase the knowledge concerning the minors’ personality, and to test their capacity to change and to be rehabilitated. Also in this context we can observe the importance of Social Services, both those depending on the Ministry of Justice and those depending on Local Authorities, which are entrusted with fundamental duties of participation and collaboration by D.P.R. 448/88, in order to integrate the legal activity as we shall see more in depth later on. 

 

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

As pointed out, the Code of Criminal Procedure for Minors laid the foundations for a profound cultural transformation where recognizing the minor as bearer of particular rights and need for protection are concerned. Presidential Decree 488/88, as a fact, anticipated by one year the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, which added to the importance of this transformation: the 54 articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in Italy with law 27.5.1991, n.176) in fact, symbolize how the Judicial System must act in regards to the rights of minors.

“A historical milestone” which changes the old-fashioned view towards minors from being considered merely “persons who are not yet adults” to “individuals who must be cared for and treated according to their needs”. The key point of the Convention is the fact that the child’s rights are not “granted” by adults but are their prerogative as human beings. Child’s Rights furthermore, are based on the arch principle of the UN Convention or rather, that their best interests be a priority (Art. 3) and at the basis of this principle is their very wellbeing (Art. 3). To promote Childs Rights thus means promoting their wellbeing, in other words, guaranteeing their life and their best possible development (Art. 6). In order to be able to develop a minor must have “care and protection” (Art. 3) seen as “a child, needs to be in a harmonious and familiar setting, where he can experience happiness, love and comprehension”.

Of course, these rights are valid even when a minor has committed a crime: Art. 40 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child is very clear on this point and states “the rights of the Child suspected, accused or recognised to have committed an offence must be guaranteed. The child must not, under any circumstance be denied of his dignity or self worth but must be treated with respect and accordingly to his age, as well as being rehabilitated into society where he can detain a constructive role”.

By now it is clear that the wellbeing of the child involves an entire system of rights which places minors at it’s very core and protects them even if they have not entered in conflict with the law. We have also mentioned that the New York Convention of 1989 represents a “milestone” as it is an important legal tool put in place to guarantee the fundamental rights of children. It constitutes the foundation for those minimum standards owed to each and every minor. Fundamental rights such as the following should be guaranteed to every child and adolescent across the globe; the right to live, the right to integrity, the right to be in the best possible health, the right to be protected from any form of violence be it psychological or physical, the right to be looked after and not neglected, the right to not be abused or exploited, the right to be respected, educated and to have access to information, the right to safety, to have an adequate living standard and to be able to develop physically, mentally, spiritually, morally and socially, the right to receive assistance for their parents or family, the right to rest and to leisure time, etc…

In this context however, it is only fair of us to focus our attention on four of these fundamental rights which the Penitentiary system defines “treatment elements”[3]. This definition must not be misinterpreted though, in fact, what they intend are a series of opportunities offered to minors in order to allow them a better quality of life, more in line with legality and civil existence. Furthermore, such “elements”, on one hand can be considered to be what defines the personality of the youth and, therefore, their absence could seriously compromise the delicate psychological-physical balance of minors in trouble with the law. On the other, are the elements which convey more a sense of shared “responsibility”. Responsibility which does not only fall upon the Ministry for Justice but also upon all those whose job it is to maintain the wellbeing of minors, from their families to their school to the social services.

The right to safety and protection (under the care of the Juvenile Justice System). This implies the protection of the general wellbeing of minors in order to guarantee and promote their physical and mental integrity and also their psychological development. The limitation of freedom of minors is only done with the aim of “overseeing their education”. Taking these minors away from their normal social context aside from protecting society from delinquency, safeguards the minors themselves and ensures that they avoid committing the same mistakes again, (we will see further on in fact, how the social context plays a major role in the minor’s development).
Participating States should monitor that all institutions and Social services charged with the responsibility of looking after minors shall conform with the standards established by the competent authorities particularly with regards to the number and suitability of the staff as well as adequate supervision. NY Convention 1989, art. 3 co. 3

The right to wellbeing (under the care of the Juvenile Justice System). The Juvenile Justice System and the National Health care system collaborate to ensure the general wellbeing of minors in virtue of the changes made to the legislation by the DPCM of the 1st April 2008, which in fact, transferred the care of minors to the National Health care system. All minors, even those subjected to criminal procedure, undergo medical, physical and psychological tests. Legislative Decree of the 22nd June 1999, n. 230 «Reorganisation of Penitentiary medicine» states that all inmates, the same as for regular citizens, have the right to preventive medicine, diagnosis, cure and rehabilitation. The National Healthcare System guarantees to all inmates and minors in criminal procedures:

• Prevention, information and education aimed at teaching individuals and the collective the importance of health;
• Complete access to information regarding their personal health status upon entering the Justice System, during their stay within the system and at the time of exiting the system;
• Interventions to prevent, cure and support psychological and social discomfort;
• Pregnancy and maternity healthcare;
• Pediatric and childcare assistance for the children of detained women or inmates whose children live with them in penitentiaries.

Participating States must recognise the rights of minors to benefit from the best possible healthcare. They must strive to ensure that no minor is deprived of such care. NY Convention 1989, art. 24 co. 1

The right to education and training (under the care of the Education Ministry; Local Authorities). Education and further education are both guaranteed (in collaboration with the Education Ministry where education is concerned and with Regional Authorities where further education is concerned), so that minors can have an active and productive role within society. From what emerges from the Memorandum of Understanding between the Education Ministry and the Justice Ministry “Special Education program in correctional facilities”, they commit to: organize education and training courses in order to promote the acquisition of abilities and personal skills; set up educational and technical workshops to support and help with schoolwork and training courses undertaken in the correctional facilities; organise programs to develop and improve personal skills, also using digital technology; enable foreigners, travellers and those with serious educational deficits to study the Italian language in order for them to be better integrated into society and find employment upon their release. In agreement with various companies, the Juvenile Justice System operates training schemes which give the opportunity of personal growth and self-improvement in order to gain stance in society.

Participating States must recognise the minor’s right to an education and, in particular, based on the principle of equality, they must guarantee this right to each and every individual. NY Convention 1989, art. 28 co. 1

The right to leisure time (private/local organization). As the right to healthcare, housing, work, rest, education and social benefits, leisure is also indispensable for the development and dignity of the individual, even more so if a minor. Activities such as sport, culture, art, training or entertainment constitute important factors not only for a harmonious development of the personality but an effective integration in society. And, because social reintegration is the main objective of the Justice System, it is no wonder that a great deal of importance is given to the positive outcome of these activities. The Justice System collaborates with local organizations delegating to them the responsibility of overseeing minors in these leisure activities.

Participating States recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.
NY Convention 1989, art. 31 co. 1

The 1988 Code of Criminal Procedure for Minors slightly anticipated what was a year later established in the UN Convention in New York. For the first time in fact, the D.P.R explicitly speaks about the best interest of minors and their need for education and protection. It also kept Italy out of the heated debates which were going on in other European Union countries regarding lowering the age limit for which a minor could be charged with a crime and tougher sanctioning.

 

HOW THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS CHANGED: FROM A CLOSED CENTRALIzED SYSTEM TO AN OPEN SYSTEM

The Code for Criminal Procedure for Minors has proved to have respected all of the above mentioned rights. In fact, it must be said that D.P.R 488/88 is constantly striving to maintain two fundamental points – closely connected to one another:
The first point is to ensure that the minor’s experience within the Juvenile Justice System is the least traumatic possible so as not to have a lasting negative effect on their mental development. For this reason great emphasis is placed on the educational aspect of criminal procedures as expressly indicated in art. 1 of D.P.R 488/88[4].

The juvenile criminal procedure is designed to combine both the need to respond to the offense and to protect the evolutionary development of minors, preventing as much as possible, the eradication from their family and their natural context of socialization, safeguarding their educational needs and growth. And the whole system is, to some extent, carried out to avoid trauma in any way: as an example of the care taken towards minors, we can look at the mixed composition of the judges at the trial. The ordinary court, in fact, is the one which provides interdisciplinary judgment in relation to minors and provides a valuable link with the social context, while maintaining the impartiality of the judge. The presence of the ordinary courts, in other words, states and, in a sense, confirms the need for dialogue with the territory, that is, with the “community”: the need to take into consideration and understand that world, which lies outside of the criminal procedure, but that affects the life of the minor who has entered into the Justice System.

The second point that is constantly repeated and directly connected to the first, concerns the fact that the impact of the system, in order to be the least traumatic possible, must be able to “welcome” the minor into it’s complexity. Taking care of minors who are in conflict with the law calls into question the ability of the system to reconnect all of the realities that affect minor’s lives: from their families to the context in which their personalities are explicated. In this sense, the correctional facility, an institution by definition, represents the maximum element of trauma in this whole experience, precisely because it symbolizes separation. Therefore the objective is to break down both the physical and the mental barriers.

It is indeed clear, how this new approach over time, has radically changed the intervention of juvenile services: an intervention that takes place only to a residual extent in closed structures such as correctional facilities, while for the majority of minors it must instead be implemented in their home environment. The criminal procedure against minors, is conducted with a systemic perspective, due consideration is given to the social, personal and familial resources of the youth and there is full collaboration between the services of the Administration of Juvenile Justice and the other network services that deal with minors. It is therefore an intervention that must be tailored to the uniqueness of each minor’s characteristics; their family, the environment they have grown up in and the resources and indeed, services available to them in that particular area, whether from the State (Justice, Education, Healthcare, etc), the Local Authorities, private social services or the voluntary sector. Not only that, therefore, the criminal measure also must be tailored, and consequently the intervention is to be built on the specific needs that emerge. The challenge underlying the new criminal procedure, which today makes Italy so different from other European countries, which are also very child-conscious, relies both in the ability to activate processes of empowerment and gradual autonomy of the minor, and on the services and therefore the personnel, which must accompany minors in their individual paths to maturity and personal growth. Hence the importance for the Juvenile Justice System to accept this challenge with the help of strong, deeply motivated “partners”, like the minor’s family, but also the professionalism of those who work within schools, the local health authorities, social services and the local authorities. As we said at the beginning of this introduction, the Juvenile Justice system has gone from being a closed system to an increasingly open system, where “open” refers to the community.

In other words, the Juvenile Justice System does not exhaust its role in dealing with the rehabilitation of minors taken into care, then “putting them back” into society, but rather it assumes instead a kind of responsibility towards the minor, which persists until the reintegration has been successful. As if to say, that the responsibility of the Juvenile Justice System towards minors does not merely remain inside the perimeter of correction facilities, but goes beyond, and is tied to the fate of the minor in society. In this way, actions in favor of juvenile offenders are increasingly the result of an interdisciplinary network, in order to respond adequately to the complex nature of the phenomena that affect them. Therefore, although the Juvenile Justice System is the guarantor of young offenders, because of the role that it exercises and it’s level of involvement, it does not replace the other entities that govern the educational functions of the minor, but coordinates them so as to share problems, solutions, experiences, work, in order to achieve the welfare of minors and therefore their best interest, just as enunciated in the New York Convention.

These past 25 years of the Juvenile Justice System have highlighted what Dpr 488 had set out, or rather:

• The implementation of an “open system”. The educational project is always the result of an inter-institutional holistic path that includes all aspects, such as the accompaniment of minors through education, training, social reintegration, family and work especially in view of their release from the system: Juvenile offenders come from the territory and must return to it with their criminal parentheses used as a resource.
• The tendency towards “external” correctional solutions: because it is the “outside” that is the final objective for minors; an outside that must accept minors back from their encounter with the Justice System, assuming that they have undergone a process of personal growth that will allow them to be “better equipped” to deal with their actions.
  As we shall see in the final part of this report, the numbers give clear evidence of these achievements:
• There is a reduction in the number of minors detained in IPM’s in favour of those in the care of communities;
• There is an increase in the recourse of “alternative measures” foreseen by the law and an increase in probation. The following chapters will further highlight the path undertaken by the Juvenile Justice System in these past years and it’s current state. To start off with is the concept of Chargebility of the minor which is the main issue between the Juvenile Justice System and minors who have commited an offence.

 

THE CONCEPT OF CHARGEABILITY

Before getting to the heart of the matter, it is important to remember that the Italian juvenile penal system is based upon the concept of chargeability: in order to be able to take legal proceedings against a minor, it is necessary for them to be chargeable. That is, there must have been an assessment of the minor’s capability of being found guilty of a crime and thus subject to a punishment.

Art. 97 of the penal code states that minors who are not over fourteen years of age are never chargeable. Art. 98 of the penal code states that “those who, at the moment of committing a crime, were over 14 years of age but not yet 18 are chargeable, if they had mental capacity.” Therefore, according to art. 98 of the c.p., for minors between 14 and 17 years of age mental capacity referring to the committed offence must always be ascertained, whereas for adult offenders it is given for granted.

Nevertheless, the minor of 14 years of age which is considered socially dangerous can be subjected to security measures. The social danger that the minor poses must necessarily and concretely be ascertained. For the social danger that the minor poses to be affirmed we must make reference to art. 37 co. 2 of Presidential Decree 448/88, according to which one can apply a provisional security measure if “meeting with the conditions laid down in Article 224 of the Penal Code and when, for the specific procedures and circumstances of the offense and the personality of the accused, a real danger exists that he/she commits crimes with the use of weapons or other means of personal violence or directed against the collective security or the constitutional order or otherwise show as serious organized crime offenses.

Safety measures
The D.P.R. also states which safety measures are applicable to minors. They are probation and judicial residential home institution for young offenders (art.36)2. We must point out that the lawmaker has given wide scope to safety measures, with the intention of not changing their substantial aspects compared to those applicable to adults. On the other hand, the aim was to find new regulations only for the operational aspects by adapting them to minors’ educational needs.

• (art.36 of D.P.R. 448/88) are applicable to minors who are not chargeable according to artt.97 and 98 penal code (for not yet being 14 years of age or/for “lack of mental capacity”, so-called immaturity)who have committed an offence, and to minors who have been found guilty.
• For minors, probation is performed according to what stated in art. 20 and 21 of the D.P.R. 448/1988 and the measure of residential institution for young offenders is used only for the crimes stated in art. 23 and it is carried out as stated in art. 22 of D.P.R. 448/1988.

AGE ASCERTAINMENT

When the age of the charged person is uncertain, or it is not sure whether they are under fourteen, the judge orders an examination[5]. If, even after the examination, doubts remain concerning their age, they are considered minors according to art. 8 of the D.P.R. 448/88.

According to the circular n.5, prot. 19413 of 17th June 2008 issued by the Head Office for the implementation of judicial measures, in First Reception Centres, in order to ascertain age, SPAID equipment is used.

This performs a photo-dactyloscopic survey through video-cameras and digital scanners.

 

 

CHAPTER 2 ▲
COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

The whole apparatus of juvenile Justice starts from the establishment of the Juvenile Court, as an answer to the need for a specialized organ which may protect the peculiarity of its users and the developing – and not definitive – character of the adolescent period. With the R.D.L.. 20th July 1934, n.1404, “Institution and functioning of the Juvenile Court”, the Courts for minors and Re-educating Centres for minors are established, which implement civil and administrative measures of the Juvenile Court. In Italy the Juvenile Court was established in 1935 with an almost exclusive penal competence: minors were considered in the pathological moment of their deviancy, rather than in the moment of formation of their personality. Finally, the Constitutional Court recognised the importance of juvenile courts with sentence 222 of 1983, which stated that the protection of minors is an interest granted by the Constitution and that the Juvenile Court itself must be included among the institutions that the Republic must foster and develop, thus fulfilling its constitutional duty of protecting youth. Later on, with D.P.R. 24 July 1977, n.616, the functions relating to the implementation of measures of a civil and administrative matter issued by the Juvenile Court were transferred to the Social Services of Local Authorities.

In the penal field, the Juvenile Court (TM) is the body whose competence it is to decide upon the penal liability of a minor. To sum up:

• the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over the offences committed by minors under the age of eighteen;
• the Juvenile Court and the surveillance Magistrate for minors have jurisdiction until the youngsters (who committed an offence when they were minors) are 25 years old;
• the Juvenile Court is a specialized collegiate body, as it is composed of four judges: two are stipendiary magistrates, two are honorary and chosen among experts of human sciences (biology, psychiatry, criminal anthropology, pedagogy, psychology).
   

Among the regulations in the civil field within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court, we can find:

• • measures relating to natural children: for instance the acknowledgement of a natural child, the declaration of fatherhood, protection of minors, surname attribution;
  • the authorization to get married for minors between 16 and 18 years of age, which may be granted – making an exception to the principle according to which it is forbidden to get married under 18 – only when there are serious reasons making the wedding necessary and once the minor’s psycho-physical maturity has been proved;
  • measures relating to the limitation or deprivation of parental authority and for the removal from the family home for those parents whose conduct is harmful for the children;
  • measures relating to the proceedings for national and international adoption (Law n. 184 of 1983, modified by law n. 1412 of 2001 and by law n. 476 of 1998) and for adoption in special cases.

In conclusion, in the administrative field, the law provides the arrangement of some instruments for the protection of minors who are socially at risk, in order to avoid the possibility for them to be involved in criminally relevant situations. Such measures, which are meant to control minors’ conduct even when no criminal proceedings are pending against them, can be taken by the Juvenile Court when minors give evidence of some character irregularities with their own conduct.
These measures may be made to cease at any time.

 

THE COMPETENCES OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Juvenile Court
It is the Office of the juvenile Public Prosecutor. It is an investigating organ, in charge of the penal proceedings against minors who have been charged with an offence (whose age is between 14-18 at the time of the offence), as well as the initiatives in civil proceedings (adoptability, de potestate, i. e. relating to the relationship with those who hold parental authority), safeguarding minors, as well as the so-called “administrative” concerning minors for the application of re-educational measures, when necessary.

Juvenile Court - T.M.
It is a first degree ordinary judicial organ, specialized and mixed. This means it is made up of both magistrates (professional judges) and honorary judges (also called “private components”), who are experts in juvenile issues. It can be found in the 29 towns of the district of the Court of Appeal. It has functions of first degree judge for all penal affairs and civil proceedings (adoptability, de potestate, i. e. relating to the relationship with those who hold parental authority), safeguarding minors, as well as the so-called “administrative” concerning minors for the application of re-educational measures, when necessary.

Court of Appeal - C.d.A.
The Court of Appeal is a second degree judicial organ, which judges in a collective form upon the decisions issued by the first degree Court.

Public Prosecutor - P.M.
It is a magistrate of the Public Prosecutor’s Office who investigates and supports the charge following the committing of a crime. Its functions are: investigating and, if elements can be found which support the charge, formulating the charge and requesting a committal for trial. In the civil field, the public prosecutor has investigating functions safeguarding minors.

Judge for Preliminary Investigations G.I.P.
It is a magistrate who can decide upon single questions concerning the stage of preliminary investigations and admits as evidence what cannot be left till the hearing. The juvenile G.I.P. mainly has two functions: stating the first measures regarding personal freedom and the decision of nonsuit for irrelevance of the fact.

Judge in the Preliminary hearing - G.U.P.
In the juvenile sector it is a collective organ made up of a professional magistrate and two (a man and a woman) honorary judges. Formally the juvenile P.M. calls the minor before the juvenile G.U.P. and requests a committal for trial before the T.M. In the preliminary hearing, the proceedings might be defined with a summary procedure (which normally implies a decision in the current conditions, with a discount of a third on the punishment if the person is found guilty) and, in some cases, with the sentence of substitutive sanctions (probation or semi-detention).

Surveillance Magistrate
It is a magistrate whose task is to control the implementation of the sentences and safety measures, to authorize permits for the prisoners and to decide the ways of performing substitutive sanctions (probation, semi-detention). The juvenile surveillance magistrate’s competence includes those who have been found guilty of offences committed while they were minors, until they are 25 years of age.

Surveillance Court
It is one of the functions of the Juvenile Court itself, in the collective form of two professional judges and two honorary ones. It provides for alternative measures to detention (trial release on probation, house arrest, semi-freedom).

The panel of judges
In the juvenile penal proceeding decisions might be made, depending on the stage of the proceeding, either by an individual judge (G.I.P.) or by a collective organ: in the preliminary hearing, the Panel is made up of a professional judge and by two honorary judges (a man and a woman); in the trial hearing the Panel is made up of two professional judges and by two honorary judges (a man and a woman). In the other fields (civil and administrative) the Panel of judges is made up of two professional judges and two honorary judges (a man and a woman).
The honorary judge is an expert on juvenile issues, defined as a “meritorious citizen of welfare services, expert of biology, psychiatry, criminal anthropology, pedagogy or psychology” according to art.2 R.D.L. 20 July 1934, n.1404 and the following changes, who is at least 30 years of age”. They are appointed by the Magistrates’ Governing Council with a mandate of three years, which can be renewed twice.

 

 

CHAPTER 3 ▲
THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Center of the judicial policy of the government, the ministry is responsible for the Judicial organization and the administrative functions relating to civil and criminal jurisdiction, such as: the management of notary archives, supervising orders and professional colleges, the administration of criminal records, international cooperation and the investigation of claims of pardon to be put forward to the President of the Republic. The Legislative Office, which reports directly to the Ministry, manages the proposal of legislations. In the prison sector, the Ministry implements the policies of order and security in institutions and correctional facilities, the treatment of prisoners, prison staff and the administration. Finally, the Ministry takes care of children and young adults undergoing criminal trials and procedures.

The Department of Justice Affairs performs the functions and duties relating to the Judicial activities: manages the administration of the civil and penal judicial activities; handles the preliminary activities of the Ministry before trials; administers the criminal records; civil and penal international cooperation; study and proposal of new legislations.

The Department for Judicial organization, of personnel and services performs the functions and tasks of organising Justice services according to the DPR 6 March 2001 n. 55: organization and function of services relating to Jus-
tice; management of the administrative personnel and IT; activities relating to the order of magistrates; study and proposal of new legislations.

The Penitentiary Administration Department has the following responsibilities: Implementing policies and security enforcement in institutions and prison services, overseeing the treatment of prisoners and internees, as well as inmates eligible for alternative forms of imprisonment; technical and operational coordination, management and administration of staff and external collaborators of the Administration; direction and management of technical support for the general needs of the Department.

The Juvenile Justice Department is governed by art.8 of D.P.R. 6 March 2001, n.55 and has the task of managing all aspects relating to children and young adults undergoing criminal procedures, as is more fully explained in the following paragraphs.

 

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

The Juvenile Justice Department is part of the Ministry of Justice and is responsable for the protection and enforcement of the rights of children and young adults between the ages of 14 and 21 (that is, if the offence was committed while still a minor). It deals with minors for the most part using preventive and educational measures in order to re-introduce them into society.

The particular care and attention that minors need when they enter in conflict with the law warrants the existence of a specific Justice Department dedicated to Juvenile Justice. This is also in conformity with National and International laws regarding the treatment and safeguarding of minors rights. The sanctions handed down to minors by a judge in fact, aim at his/her re-education rather than merely their punishment. Of course minors must learn that the offence they committed was wrong and unacceptable but the responsibility of the Department is also to give the youth the tools not to re-offend and the understanding that they also can become valuable assets to society.

In order to carry out these particular provisions a team of proffesionals such as; educators, psychologists and social workers specifically trained to deal with minors, are there to see the youth through this experience.

The Department is composed of a centralized office which handles and coordinates all the National interventions on minors in the various regional and local subsidiaries. Spread throughout the country there are Juvenile Justice centres, Correctional facilities, social services offices, communities for adolescents and reception centres which deal with minors serving both detentive sentences and alternative sentences.
More specifically, there are 97 structures across the territory and 4 central offices:
12 Centres for Juvenile Justice
19 Penal Institutions for Minors
29 Social Services offices for Minors
27 Reception centres
12 Communities
1 Day centre

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ITS OFFICES

The Head of Department makes use of its offices in order to perform the coordination tasks and functions for the offices at a general managerial level; to ensure the continuity of the administrative functions and the results currently being implemented from the guidelines given by the Minister, for the collective work negotiations. The security service, the management control service and the secretary’s office operate directly under the Head of Department.

Offices of the Head Of The Department

• OFFICE I OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
  General affairs, external affairs, private components, general planning and balance, statistics, informative systems.
• OFFICE II OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
  Central Conventional Authorities
• OFFICE III OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
  Inspectorate
• OFFICE IV OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
  Studies, researches and international activities,
  European Centre of studies in Nisida Observatory and data banks concerning the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency in Europe.

The Head Office for the Implementation of Judicial Measures
Along with the other head offices and with the offices of the Head of the Department, the Head Office for the Implementation of judicial Measures sees to the fulfilment of Juvenile Justice interventions and to the implementation of judicial measures. The Head Office for the Implementation of Judicial Measures is composed of:

• OFFICE I
  Organization and coordination of services - execution of measures in the external penal area and in the internal penal area. Interventions and check.
• OFFICE II
  Technical-operative planning, Juvenile Justice plan-making and interventions, relationships and agreements with Regions, with public and private local Authorities, with volunteer/work/business organizations.
• OFFICE III
  Protection and preservation of minors’ rights: promotion of interventions in favour of subjects who are at risk of greater social exclusion.

The Head Office for Personnel and Training Human Resources
The Head Office for personnel and training cooperates with the other Head Offices and with the offices of the Head of the Department for the accomplishment of Juvenile Justice interventions and for the implementation of judicial measures. This is achieved through an adequate administration, development and optimization of human resources and through specific training and updating programmes for the staff. It is composed of:

• OFFICE I
  Administration of human resources:
  the staff’s juridical status, classification and pensions, accountancy, penitentiary Police personnel, discipline and contentious procedure.
• OFFICE II
  Development of human resources: competitions and external mobility, human resource management and optimization, planning of training activities.
• CENTRAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
  Offices in Rome, Castiglione delle Stiviere and Messina

The Head Office for Material Resources, Property and Services
The Head Office for material resources, property and services cooperates with the other head offices and with the offices of the Head of the Department for the accomplishment of Juvenile Justice interventions and for the implementation of judicial measures, through an adequate administration and management of supplies, material resources and structures, thus guaranteeing the functioning of the offices and juvenile services. It is composed of:

• OFFICE I
  Supplies and management of property and services
• OFFICE II
  Administrative and technical estate management.

Conventional Central Authorities
Office II of the Department Head
Office II of the Department Head of the Department of Juvenile Justice is the Central Authority for the application of international conventions and regulations related to international child abduction, custody, parental responsibility, and the protection of minors (including the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980, the Convention of Luxembourgh of 20 May 1980, the Hague Convention of 5 October 1981, and Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003). In relation to this activity, the Central Authority’s tasks include: the provision of information and counseling; cooperation with homologous authorities abroad; and collaboration with jurisdictional authorities (both adult and juvenile) for the implementation of laws of reference for the protection of weak subjects, for the activation of procedures for the repatriation of the contested children, and for the effective exercise of the right to visit or the recognition and execution of the decisions relating to parental responsibility. As of 18 June 2011 Office II of the Department Head is also the Central Authority for Council Regulation (CE) 4/2009, which regards, in accordance with applicable law, the recognition and execution of decisions and cooperation in matters related to alimony obligations. In regards to the cooperation-related activities fulfilled by the Central Authority for the recovery of trans-border alimony, the new Council Regulation (CE) 4/09 asks the Central Authority to engage in cooperative activities in order to protect children and weak subjects in general that need to recover alimony from a provider residing in a country other than the country of residence of the rights holder.

This competence entails a complex set of activities involving: the search for information, counseling and legal assistance (both in the pre-contentious phase and the successive contentious phase), mediation for the agreed upon definition of the controversy, execution of the title establishing the alimony, and the facilitation of access to the justice system from the moment that a request for cooperation is made through the Central Authority; all of these are activities designed to effectively satisfy the alimony.

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: GEOGRAPHICAL SUBDIVISIONS

The Centres of Juvenile Justice (Centri per la Giustizia Minorile – C.G.M.) depend on the Department of Juvenile Justice.They are organs of administrative decentralization, established by art. 7 of the legislative decree 28th July 1989, n.272 “Regulations for the implementation and coordination of D.P.R. 448/88) – whose competence may include the territory of several regions and, in this case, they refer to several Courts of Appeal.

Each one of the 12 Centres operates upon the territory through the Juvenile Justice Services (as established by article 8 of the legislative decree 28thJuly 1989, n. 272). Their functions are the technical and economical planning, the control and check of juvenile Services under their jurisdiction such as the Social Service Offices for Minors, Penal Institutions for minors, First Reception Centres, Communities. Currently 12 CGM are operating upon the national territory, in the cities of Turin, Milan, Venice, Bologna, Florence, L’Aquila, Rome, Cagliari, Naples, Catanzaro, Bari and Palermo.

The activation of all the interventions meant for minors information, awareness, support, operative connection are entrusted to Juvenile Justice The Juvenile Justice

Department services (CPA, USMM, IPM, COMMINITIES, DAY CENTRES) are there expressly to recuperate and rehabilitate through the use of educational and vocational programs, young offenders of the law. These programs offer minors the chance to understand where they went wrong, learn new skills and most importantly start living their lives to their full potential.

The services can be divided into the following functions:

• informative function  with the aim of gathering information to inform the judge regarding the minor’s psycho-social background, his family and the context he grew up in. It also reports on the results obtained from a particular educational/training program;
• The function of guiding and helping minors upon their entry into a correctional facility such as a detention centre.
• The function of supporting the minor and clarifying the procedures to him/her, not only where the legal matters are concerned but also where understanding their wrongdoings are concerned;
• The function of intervention and “treatment”. For “treatment” we intend not only the so-called “punishment” for the crime but also the implementation of a correctional procedure. When young offenders enter into the Juvenile Justice System an individual plan is drawn up with the aim of rehabilitating and re-educating them. All of the factors characterizing the minors are taken into consideration and from these evaluations the local authorities and the other institutions working with the Juvenile Justice System place them on a program to help them turn their lives into more socially constructive ones;
• The function of control. For the duration of the minor’s stay within the Juvenile Justice System they will be constantly monitored by a case worker or so-called “operator”. The relationship between the two should be one of mutual trust - an exercise aimed at making the minor more responsible;
• The function of relating. The operator working alongside each minor must periodically relate the minor’s progress to the judge, not only that, but all the services the minor comes into contact with must relate to one another so that the information and indeed, progress regarding the minor is shared. Thus, within the Justice System there is a complex network in place to monitor, control and supervise young offenders. In compliance with National Legislation, the aim of this system is to strengthen the work done by the Juvenile Justice System.

Services operating under the Juvenile Justice System
Reception centres - CPA (n. 27)
Reception centres are structures which temporarily house minors who are under arrest or are being detained. The maximum amount of time that they can be held in the centre is 96 hours after which their arrest must be validated or annulled. The main reason for reception centres is to avoid the potentially traumatic impact a Prison would have on a minor in accordance with the Rights of the Child mentioned earlier in this report. In fact, according to art.9 D.Lgs. n.272 1989, CPA’s “must ensure young offender’s stay without having the characteristics of a prison. If possible the centres are to be found within the Juvenile Judicial offices but by no means should they be inside, or part of, penitentiaries”. The main objectives of CPA’s are:

• Guarantee the young offender’s stay until their hearing date has been set;
• Mediate between the legal/penal obligations of the minor and their educational obligations;
• Provide an initial indication on how to intervene on behalf of the minor.

Among the team of professional figures working for the services there are: social workers, psychologists, penitentiary police and educators. The team’s job is to prepare a report on the psychological and social situation of the minor and on the local resources available.

This information will then be used by the competent authorities in the event that measures are taken against the minor. Each CPA, in order to ensure proper operation and compliance, must realise their own “CPA Service Project” (Regulations no. 3 Annex 3 to the Circular No. 1 of 18-03-013) which aims to enable a degree of uniformity with respect to those which are the activities offered and observed by the operators.

Penal institutions for minors - IPM (N. 19)
These institutions are aimed at ensuring the enforcement of sentences and custody of juvenile offenders. I.P.M.’s house minors and over eighteens (until the age of 21 if the crime they committed was done prior to becoming of age) and aim at the re-education of minors who have committed criminal offences. They can be divided into male and female sections which must always guarantee equal treatment and opportunities for the two sexes. As far as the female section is concerned however, there are also activities and services specifically aimed at those who are pregnant or are young mothers (Annex 2, 03.18.2013 Circular 1 “Model of intervention and review of the organization and operation of the Juvenile Justice Services System”). Although they are detention facilities, they, along with the other Juvenile services, are characterized by the aim of re-educating and resocializing young offenders. In accordance with the existing legislation, in order to promote the re-education of minors, activities are organized to stimulate their personal and mental development as well as courses to teach new skills which will be useful for their reintegration in society. Among the activities which are widely encouraged within the penal institutions there are; sporting and cultural activities, school studies, theatre and various activities which give the possibility of interaction with the “outside world”. In order to carry out all these activities there are a number of different professionals who work within IPM’s (educators, penitentiary police, etc.). The “Institute Project” (Annex of Circular No. 1 of 03.18.2013 “Model of intervention and review of the organization and operation of the Juvenile Justice Services system”) is the document which contains the rules governing the personnel of the institutions. It effectively establishes the fundamental criteria the project is based upon and which must be followed by each professional figure in order to achieve the common goal – rehabilitating young offenders.

Social services for minors
USSM (n. 29)
Offer assistance to minors who have committed offences throughout their entire criminal procedure. They gather information regarding the minor’s personality on behalf of the public prosecutor; formulating a plan for their rehabilitation in accordance with the juvenile judicial authority.

They actively support the minor from the moment of arrest and all through the subsequent provision taken whether probation, suspended sentence, etc. In accordance with the other Juvenile Justice services and local authorities they oversee the minor’s re-educational plan. The USSM furthermore operate interventions foreseen by legislation n. 66 of 15 February 1996 regarding the “ laws against sexual violence” (art.11) and the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 ratified in Italy with legislation n.64 of 25 January 1994.Within the social services there are various professionals, among which social workers, educators and psychologists who work together as a team. In this way they can better guarantee a multidisciplinary approach for the “treatment” of young offenders. In circular n.72676 of 1996, regarding the organisation and management of USSM’s all the functions that this service carries out are specified.

These functions are:

• gathering background information regrding the minor, especially where his/her family and provenance are concerned;
• planning and initiating individual courses aimed at recouperating the youth in question;
• assistance to the youth throughout his/her entire stay within the Juvenile Justice System – explaining along the way the various procedures;
• monitoring the progress of the youths once they have embarked on the rehabilitation course specifically formulated for them;
• verification of the results obtained from attending the rehabilitation courses. Furthermore, an important role of the USSM is to monitor young offenders who have been granted a suspended sentence and/or probation. Probation comes into effect in fact, when the judge requests the USSM to formulate a specific re-education course for the minor; once the minor embarks on this course his/her progress will be constantly monitored and evaluated until the judge declares that the offence has been repaid (positive probation outcome) or that the criminal procedure must proceed (negative probation outcome).

Communities (n. 12)
The work carried out by the communities is based on a few fundamental principles, which are: the necessity to limit the minor’s stay within the structure as much as possible, allowing minors to participate in educational, recreational and cultural activities and the promotion of the minor’s own resources. In light of said principles, the objective of a minor’s stay in a community are:

• establishing a re-educational course for the minor which takes into consideration his /her personal, familiar and social resources.
• promoting the minor’s sense of responsability and understanding towards the procedure he/she is going through.
• establishing what personal resources the minor has and use them accordingly.
• sharing information with the judge so that, based on that information, the minor can be given the best possible rehabilitation course to suit his/her needs.
• handling the minor’s move to another facility or dismissal once he/she has terminated the sentence.
• helping the minors adapt to his reinstatement in society

According to what is stated in Legislative Decree 275 1989, communities must observe three fundamental points regarding their role:

• they must have a “family” type organization (with a maximum number of ten so as to guarantee the individual attention and educational of each child) which must also include youths who are not going through criminal procedures.
• there must be on site the presence of a team composed of educators and cultural mediators, etc, who can guide and sustain the minors through this experience.
• they must collaborate with other institutions and local authorities in their area.

Upon entry to one of these structures, the minor must have all the relevant documentation relating to his/her previous experiences in order to guarantee a certain continuity within the correctional facilities. Following the minor’s arrival an Individual Education Plan (P.E.I) is drawn up: this is an educationl course aimed at promoting the minor’s sense of responsability and re-socialization. Taking into consideration the minor’s specific characteristics, the plan must include:

• the objectives the minor must reach
• the activities to be carried out.
• indications regarding how to carry out said activities.
• the methods in which his progress will be verified on behalf of the Judicial Authorities.

Day Centers (1)
These centres are non residential and welcome all those minors who are either going through a criminal procedure or are at risk of committing offences. This is where youths have to be if they are on house arrest, in the care of social services, on a semi-detentive sentence or a suspended sentence. They offer individual education courses, recreational activities, training courses and leisure activities. They are organized and managed by Juvenile Justice Centres as well as local authorities and are staffed by a team of experts in the various subjects on offer. They can also accomodate youths who are not in the Juvenile Justice System and they are housed alongside the Communities so as to share the personnel and management. All the activities organized by the Day centres whether educational or recreational, are done in collaboration with the institutions involved and are carried out by professionals (art.12 D.Lgs. 272 1989).
They collaborate with:

• Volontary associations, promoting participation and involvement outside of the structure itself
• The local territorial centre, offering educational and training courses
• Local authorities and Private Associations.

 

DEPARMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: PROFFESSIONALISM AT WORK

Over the years the Juvenile Justice department has assumed a multi-dimensional role, encouraging a dynamic approach to the youth’s re-enstatement in society. It therefore ensures that all parties involved, including penitentiary police, contribute to the growth of the individual, following a pedagogic, educational and socio-familiar path to consoildate the process. The growth and re-enstatement of the minor, are thus, sustained by the Juvenile Justice Sysyem who also ensures that the minor’s family and the local authorities are also fully involved.

The circular “Method of intervention and review of the organization and operation of the system of Juvenile Justice services” (no. 1 of March 18, 2013), has fully embraced the cooperative vocation of the Juvenile Justice system and is intended to support the latter by underlining the collaboration and focus of each party in the rehabilitation of minors throughout the entire process.This wide network of individuals who work within the system cooperate with oneanother with a shared sense of responsibility. The circular also explains how penitentiary police, educators and social workers have learned to share the same aims, work ethic and educational responsibility: guided by formation courses and research programmes (outlined in the 2013 programme concerning human resources).

Organizational structure[6]
The new staff classification is subdivided in areas depending on duties and abilities pertinent to the job. Within each area, the professional profiles are identified by declarations that describe the employee, through a brief description of the duties they perform and the level of professionalism required.

Professional profiles within the Juvenile Justice Administration[7]
In the first sector only one figure is foreseen.
Auxiliary: the duties of the Auxiliary are; supporting the organization and management personnel also using IT skills, transporting/delivering documents, basic secreterial duties (photocopying, sending and accepting deliveries, contact with the public). In the second sector 7 professional figures are foreseen, each with their specific role, salary and qualifications.
Driver
Operator: possesses technical knowledge, carries out administrative and/or technical assistance, as well as specific tasks related to business operations and logistics which also means using equipment and tools ensuring their safekeeping and maintenance.
Administrative Assistant: within the set guidelines they perform specific tasks relating to the particular objectives, activities related to the administrative management that require knowledge of practical techniques, standards and methods.
Accountant: assisting the management with calculations, accounts and financial statements of medium complexity as well as accounting data and cash flows with the aid of IT equipment.
Technical Assistant: carries out theoretical and practical operations.
IT Assistant: personnel engaged in the installation and configuration of systems and standard software packages according to the specifications requested by the administration, user support duties in the resolution of problems related to the application of safety procedures by verifying the integrity of the system, making assessments of complaints of malfunction, interfacing with external suppliers contractually employed to solve IT problems.
Pedagogical Assistant: they asses, tutor and educate in their specific field of expertise, carry out duties of educational support of the minor, ensure the proper implementation of the criminal provisions against minors inside and outside of correctional facilities, collaborate and prepare the educational projects for the minors, for the part concerning the relations with the judicial authorities and the identification act as a liason with other juvenile services and with the local authorities. In the third sector 11 professional figures are foreseen, each with their specific role, salary and qualifications.
Administrative Officer (see previous job description)
Accounting Officer (see previous job description)
IT Officer (see previous job description)
Linguistics Officer (see previous job description)
Statistics Officer: highly specialized in the field of statistics, with management tasks for the implementation of guidelines and objectives defined by the Office Manager. Has the direct responsibility of setting procedures for collecting/compiling and processing statistical data, involved in the drafting and the execution phase of projects, directly responsible for the collection and processing of data and the interpretation of results.
Pedagogical Officer (Educator): highly specialized in the treatment and social reintegration of youths subjected to criminal measures on the part of the Judicial Authority, responsible for the implementation of the guidelines and objectives defined by the Executive office, establishment of methods of educational intervention in collaboration with other professionals involved in the socio-pedagogical intervention of minors, assessment of the minor’s family and social life for the achievement of institutional goals. Collaboration with the Head Office for the definition and implementation of the guidelines and objectives. Social Services Officer (Social Worker): highly trained in the treatment and social reintegration of juvenile offenders or at risk of offending, preparation of methods of intervention in collaboration with other professionals involved in the socio-pedagogical rehabilitation of minors, gathering and analyzing information regarding the minor’s personal, family and social background for the achievement of the institutional goals.
Organizational Officer: specialized role with managerial and mediation tasks aimed at the implementation of guidelines and objectives defined by the executive office.
Technical Officer: employees whose work requires highly specialized expertise in their specific technical field in order to implement the guidelines and objectives defined by the Executive Office.
Cultural Mediation Officer. Introduces the professional figure of the cultural mediation officer (newly created). Highly specialized employees, with duties of facilitating communication between foreign minors who have entered the penal system and the institutions mandated by the criminal courts, gather information regarding these minors and relate to them the kind of treatment that will be implemented, engaged in mediation between the different cultures in the respect of pluralism and diversity, as well as creating and managing interventions inside and outside of detention facilities for foreign minors, alongside the other professional figure their aim is to promote integration and social inclusion, in accordance with the guidelines and objectives defined by the executive office Manager.

Juvenile Penitentiary Police[8]
The role of Juvenile Penitentiary Police was established by the Decree of the Minister of Justice of 19 October 2009. They are specifically assigned to the treatment of juvenile detainees and must be able to do their job with a positive attitude, self-control and to use communication to sedate any critical moments as well as having an optimal ability to interact with other professionals working in this particular field.
For some years now, the Juvenile Justice has been investing in the training of the permanent staff of it’s detention centers. This training is geared to enhance and strengthen the qualifying aspects of personnel in the Juvenile Justice field. The tasks assigned to the penitentiary police are varied and fairly sensitive: their mandate is to ensure the implementation of measures restricting personal freedom, to guarantee order and security within the detention centres, to carry out the rehabilitation treatment of prisoners. Therefore, juvenile penitentiary police, the only case in the penal system, have two responsibilities, security and treatment, constituting a unique role: one cannot be performed neglecting the other and vice versa. The task which has pre-eminence is safety because without it they cannot ensure the implementation of the detention measures nor ensure “good conduct” within the penitentiary. This priority, however, does not lend lesser importance to the “re-educational” aspect of the job.
The lifelong learning directed at the penitentiary police officer who works in the field of Juvenile Justice, takes into account the complexity of this role and therefore, constantly strives to promote good integration between the development and the execution of the professional skills that are essential when the inmates are minors or young adults.

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: INSIDE THE PENITENTIARY AREA AND OUTSIDE THE PENITENTIARY AREA
The Juvenile Justice System, as previously stated, has more and more taken on the aspect of an “open system”: a system which, while retaining the ownership and responsibility of the intervention on minors includes, with its work, the full involvement of family and the local authorities, who, each according to its ability, contribute to the welfare of the minor and his/her best interests. Precisely for these reasons, and in full compliance with the rehabilitative purpose of the punishment, the intervention of Juvenile Justice has tended to focus progressively on rehabilitating young offenders “outside” of the penitentiary, or in the “area” where, once repaid their debt with Justice, the minor must return.

The area outside the penitentiary concerns, in fact, all those minors who are serving their sentences outside of detention centers, through alternative measures. These measures (which include, for example, semi-freedom or being placed in the care of social services) have the objective of avoiding “segregating” minors from society in order to facilitate their re-instatement. The final objective is to avoid the potentially traumatic experience of having their freedom taken away. By keeping minors out of closed penitentiaries in fact, they maintain contact with their families and their communities and promotes their sense of responsibility which helps them once they have finished serving their sentences. Furthermore, in compliance with the principles discussed previously in this report (DPR 488/88) the needs of the minor are fully respected.

The area inside the penitentiary concerns all those minors who are serving their sentences inside closed correctional facilities (IPM). We must highlight the fact though, that in accordance with the laws regarding juvenile offenders, juvenile penitentiaries now offer more contact between the minor and the “outside”. In order for minors to maintain contact with outside life and indeed society, there are various organizations they can count on. These organizations guarantee the continuation of the minor’s education, their re-socialization and promote their sense of responsibility, which is the ultimate goal of the Juvenile Justice System.

 

 

CHAPTER 4 ▲
STRONG POINTS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

THE PROBATION PERIOD

Suspension and probation constitutes the most innovative in the proceedings of the legal institution of Juvenile law (art. 28 DPR448/88). It takes the form of a temporary waiver of the State towards the trial by consenting in an effective activity of change in the minor, which with a positive outcome of the probation may lead to the extinction of the offense. The suspension of the criminal process and putting the minor on probation provides for the possibility of suspending the legal proceedings and the preliminary hearing, or during the trial, for a period not exceeding one year (up to three years for more serious offenses). The applicability of the measure is not compromised by the possible existence of criminal records and criminal penalties, nor by previous applications or by the type of crime. The judge’s decision is based on evidence obtained through socio-environmental investigations of the personality of the offender. (Article 9 of Presidential Decree 448/88).

With the order of suspension the court entrusts the minor to Juvenile Justice services in collaboration with local services, engaging in observation, treatment and support. The suspension may be revoked in cases of serious and repeated transgressions of the imposed requirements.

Upon expiry of the suspension period, the court shall set a new hearing where it may be declared through sentence that the offense be extinguished in the case that probation proved to be successful. Otherwise it provides for the continuation
of the criminal proceedings (art. 29 DPR 448/88). The judge shall initiate the procedures for the probation period requesting an intervention project by social services. Such requests are made to juvenile services with the expectations of collaboration from the social services of the local authorities. In fact, the recipient of such a request is that of the Office of Social Service for Minors (USSM). The preparation of the project requires the involvement of the minor and the consequent identification of requirements that he accepts and undertakes to respect, thus assuming an agreement of contractual nature. The judge does not participate in the elaboration phase of the project but may however suggest amendments and additions.

The prepared project must be: consensual, adequate, feasible and flexible.

Consensual: The acceptance of the measures and of the project by the minor are a vital prerequisite to the operational level as the acceptance of this social contract facilitates the seal. The most significant principles of social service such as respect for self-determination and the will of the minor to change play on these levels. In this space the social service measures with all the problematic natures of the context in which the project is built, including that of the option of a consensus of opportunity which can induce the minor to accede in viewing the solution as being advantageous to him/her. Consensus presupposes the ascertaining of responsibility of the subject. Such a condition is not expected explicitly by the norm is yet considered an implicitly essential element because it would be contradictory to have the testing done with anyone who claims innocence, as well as in the case of an explicit statement of responsibility as this would have a stigmatizing effect on the minor which is inconsistent with the aim of social rehabilitation proposed by the institution in question. Still treated as a penal measure although with elements of educational support, logically there must be a connection between responsibility of the fact and positive proof with extinction of the offense or negative proof and imposition of sentence. The lack of explicit reference in the provisions of the prior assessment of responsibility still remains an area of controversy fuelled by an improper and indiscriminate use of the measure.

Adequate: The contents of the project should match the personality of the minor, his/her personal abilities, social and cultural, the type of crime committed, the extent of the injury to the social pact upon which modulating the activity of repairing the damage and eventual reconciliation with the victim of the offense as well as the environment in which they will be realized.

Feasible: The explanatory hypothesis of discomfort must be translated into concrete operations highlighting the objectives to be achieved and the methods intended to
achieve them with, intermediate times to be respected and subjects who participate. The norm in this regard (art. 27 DL 272/89) specifically indicates that the project must include: a) details of the involvement of the minor, his/her family nucleus and surroundings; b) the specific commitments of the minor; c) the procedures for the participation of legal practitioners and local authorities in the project; d) the procedures for implementing appropriate measures to restore the consequences of the crime and to promote reconciliation with the victim.

Flexible: The project because of its procedural nature favours a circular logic of definition and redefinition of goals, based on the performance of actions and intermediate verifications. Flexibility allows for the remodelling of the current project in the case of unforeseen events, if the needs of the minor change or if resources should fail to come through. This allows one to have the flexibility of not experiencing the the probation phase as a rigid container that once defined is impossible to modify. In the preliminary phase of the intervention the activity of social service concerns several fronts: the individual history of the minor; b) the family context; c) the environment. Its an activity which is designed to recognise all the potentials in the context of the minor in order to connect him/her with the project. It is a difficult and intricate weaving job and delicate in such as it activates on the ingrained prejudice that only the Ministry of Justice should bear the penalty. It contemplates, other than the connection with the network of services, the research of informal resources that can ensure the implementation of parts of the project such as job placement, social activities, etc. An essential condition is the actual feasibility of the project, given the presence of those necessary elements such as the consent of the minor, the availability of resources, the participation of the family, etc. Probation without a project, or with a formal project, an alliance in content and actions is not feasible: means eradicating significance both from a legal and pedagogical point of view to an experience which on the contrary can be filled with educational goals. Another element to consider in merit is therefore the power of proposal on the part of social services. The significant role that the law assigns to the service includes the opportunity to express operating hypothesis to the court, including the proposal to be put on probation, this presupposes a dialogical style in the relations oriented at mutual recognition. It however becomes ethically hard to comprehend situations where the social worker expresses a non-viability of probation but the judge still decides on this measure. The Italian probation period can be assimilated to the probation[9] and diversion[10] of foreign legal systems. In particular it seems to combine positive and beneficial aspects of both.

 

WORKING WITH FAMILIES

The involvement of the family of the child offender within the treatment program realized by the Juvenile Justice system has represented, based on the centrality of the intervention on the minor sanctioned by the penal system, a theoretical and operational area which, if one hand presents an elevated complexity for matters of order, both theoretical and procedural-organizational, on the other hand, constituted for a long period a sort of “gray area” little guarded by the services, also due to an undefined attribution of ownership of the intervention and modality of realization thereof.

Recently, however, the work with the families of minors that had come into conflict with Justice has developed in assuming an ever increasing centrality because of the need to make the educational course more efficient and effective and encourage full social reintegration of the minor who commits a crime. On the basis, in fact, of the consideration that the minor who has came into conflict with the law, once completing the measures ordered against him, will return none-the-less to his/her family, (in a large number of cases and of course where family is present), it is important to ensure continuity of the preventive interventions realized not to waste energy and resources and, above all, not to generate feelings of abandonment, frustration and transgressive relapse. However, well beyond this obvious overall finality (common to the whole of the work of the Juvenile Justice) work with families of children subjected to measures has a very specific purpose: it lies in answering in an appropriate manner, to the needs and to a predominantly psychological requirement of these families, that arises as a result of the taking into care of the minor by the operators of Juvenile Justice and facing the consequent amendments and suspensions - albeit partial and temporary of that function of responsibility and protection usually carried out precisely by family members (especially by the parents). In this way methodologies and specific and effective work tools and modes have been identified and developed together with other actors and local agencies. In addition, always in order to enhance and encourage work with families, collaboration agreements were implemented between the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department for Family Policies[11].

 

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: PRINCIPLES AND INSTRUMENTS

As already highlighted in the premise, the Juvenile Justice System, in its work, has made use of principles and intervention techniques typical of restorative justice. Restorative justice can be defined as a paradigm of justice that involves the victim, the offender and the community in finding solutions to the effects of the conflict caused by the offense, in order to promote the repair of the damage, the reconciliation between the parties and the strengthening of the sense of collective security.

According to Lode Walgrave, Restorative Justice is a model of justice -different from the paradigm of ‘Retributional’’ and the ‘Re-educational’ models – mainly oriented towards the reparation of suffering and damage caused by the criminal event. Unlike the punitive-retributive justice system which is typical of traditional criminal justice systems in which attention is focused on the gravity of the act, rather than on its consequences, focus is more on the author of the crime rather than on the victim, this being contrary to the rehabilitative justice system, focused once again on the offender, but more attentive to his/her needs and the preventive needs, Restorative Justice focuses on the harm caused by the offense and the person who has suffered it. Actually it represents the last stage of this slow and inconsistent path of “humanization” of penalties, developed through the progressive abandonment of punitive logic in favour of conceptions of less afflictive penalties and probably more effective as such.

Howard Zehr defines it as the paradigm of justice that involves “the victim, the offender and the community in search of a solution that promotes reparation, reconciliation and reassurance.” Burnside and Baker put the emphasis on communication and the concept of the crime understood as ‘Relational Conflict’, a conflict that exists even in cases in which the offender is not personally acquainted with the victim by virtue of the mutual pact of citizenship. Seen in this light, the peculiar element of the restorative model is the reconstruction of relational bond broken by the criminal event.

Tony Marshall identifies Restorative Justice in the particular process that involves all interested parties in confronting the effects derived from the criminal act, for joint management of these consequences and their implications for the future. For the author, ‘the effects resulting from the offense’ consist very much in the need of material reparation, as much in the need to give way to the emotional instances of the victims.

The core principle around which restorative justice rotates is the reconciliation between the parties and the repairing of the damage caused by the minor against the social community. More specifically, the main purpose of restorative justice consists of : a) “restoring” something to the victim in order to repair the damage evoked by the offense; (“Recognition” of the victim, the value of that victims’ subjectivity as well as the needs resulting from the damage suffered by the crime); b) “reconstructing” the fracture to the social bond, of which the offense is the emblem, by repairing the damage caused to the entire community, to which both the offender and the victim of the offense belong to; c) replace, or where possible, the “reparation” of the actual harm caused by the offense (in material or symbolic terms) to the prescription of affective penalties in regard to the offender, because the first option results to be more effective in both compensation of the victim as in creating an awareness to the responsibility of the offender and his/her reintegration, and to promote social peace within the community; d) “Restore” the levels of social communication, between the offender, the victim of the offense and the community to which they both belong, that have been interrupted as a result of the crime itself.
General aims of Restorative Justice:

• The acknowledgment of the victim
• The reparation of the offense in its “global” dimension
• The self-accountability of the offender
• The involvement of the community in the process of reparation
• The strengthening of collective moral standards
• The containment of social alarm

Restorative justice is carried out, essentially, via autonomous instruments among which, for importance, ranked at first place is “mediation”, without however renouncing the use of different techniques already known in the penal system such as, for example, work in favour of the community, or useful social work (which we will discuss below). These are instruments that favour the execution of the sentence in an external criminal area, or in social and non-isolated settings, in consideration of the principle by which when the subject is removed from society, negative consequences may be determined, contrary to the maintenance of social contact that helps the minor firstly to achieve accountability, reducing, in this way, the risk of recurrence.

Victim Offender mediation with Juveniles
Mediation is configured, as we said, as a privileged instrument of restorative justice, proposing a model of consensual conflict management, which appeals to the active participation of the parties in the search for possible solutions. More specifically, penal mediation can be defined as a relational process, that through the help of a mediator (third party who, after having assessed the feasibility and after gaining the consent of the parties, promotes and leads the path to juvenile penal mediation)[12] aims at encouraging the acceptance of individual responsibility on the part of those involved in the unlawful act, and at promoting the voluntary resolution of the conflict that has seen them on opposing sides.

The fundamental objective of the mediation is not, in fact, to verify guilt, but to analyze and understand the concrete reasons for the crime and the needs of the relative response, in such a way to elaborate, together with the parts, solutions capable of satisfying and mutually engage them. It allows for the expression of feelings and confrontation on the reasons for the conflict; it provides the necessary information to arrive at a practical solution to promote, if possible, compensation or repair or, at least, mutual satisfaction through a symbol of reconciliation. Mediation also allows the offended person to express their point of view, state of mind, needs and difficulties related to the experience, eventually making requests for reparation of the damage suffered; and allowing, in this way, the child offender to mature his/her state of mind, understanding the consequences of the fact and the sense of their own responsibility, as well as to repair, if possible, the damage done. Both parties must, therefore, reserve an adequate space and the time required to manage firsthand, the consequences of the crime, beyond that of obtaining evidence relating to the liability of the persons involved. Indicatively, one can say that penal mediation in the field of minors: satisfies the actors involved; reduces the degree of recidivism of the offender; helps the victim to overcome the trauma; compensates the damage to the victim; deflates the workload of the judicial system constituting a possible alternative to criminal prosecution and detention. In extreme synthesis:

1. The internal aim of justice: Mediation stands as the tool that allows for a reduction of the regular workload channelling confliction, specifically that of the minor - towards informal networks in which operators are willing to deal with any issues concerning civil society. In this respect, mediation is seen almost in function of law;
2. The purpose of social order: Aimed at constructing a less delegating culture within which values and new models are promoted, that will contribute to overcoming the conflict between the offender and the victim, and at the same time bring the community together in the problem of the management of the deviance.
3. The victim-centric purpose: The attitude of willingness on the part of the victim who, in juvenile criminal proceedings can not be constituted as a civil party (Article 10 of Presidential Decree 448/88), sometimes denied from the start, due to different obstacles (fear, anger, ignorance, cultures, etc..) may be developed through a proposed action and managed by a third party. Mediation offers the opportunity to build a new kind of relationship that can satisfy the reciprocal needs, emphasizing the need for the victim to be contacted, informed, not sustained only at the end of bureaucratic process, but throughout the judicial process, right from the moment in which the crime was committed and thereby put in a position to know and understand.
4. The re-educative purpose: towards the offender. The mediation process allows for the facilitation of a course of recovery of the perpetrator. The offender tends to be a leading figure in the management of the conflict, since mediation necessarily entails a “positive” activity by the offender himself.

The structure of the mediation process varies depending on the theoretical model of reference adopted and their respective techniques (eg: humanistic models, systemic relational model). However, despite the variety of forms, in the practice of certain segments common to step-by-step procedures the practice of penal juvenile mediation can be identified:

• the initiating / starting;
• the preliminary stage;
• the face-to-face meeting;
• the conclusion

Even in the absence of an explicit normative recognition of penal mediation, as a an autonomous technique in the response to the fact of the crime in the context of juvenile process, ‘mediation’ has emerged in practice as an “additional” and collateral possibility, compared to traditional mechanisms of conflict resolution and of the definition of the juvenile criminal procedure, filtering in a number of areas that the practice has been able to identify, grafting into the same process, taking place in parallel ‘timing’ or otherwise compatible with some of its phases, up to the point of influencing the outcome with the results thereof. The regulatory provisions which in this case emerge, not only because they “allow” for mediation interventions, but also because they permit to transpose the outcome, whole or in part , these are Articles. 9, 27, 28, 30, 32 Presidential Decree 448/1988.
In Italy, the first experiences of juvenile penal mediation were realized in 1995 in the city of Turin and subsequently further developed in Milan, Trento, Bari.
Currently juvenile penal mediation in our country covers the following contexts:
Calabria: Office for Justice Mediation of Catanzaro
Campania: Office for Juvenile Justice mediation of Naples
Lazio: Office for Conciliation and Reparation of the
Province of Latina
Liguria: Office of Liguria for Mediation for the conflicts of Genoa
Lombardia: Office for Juvenile Justice
Mediation of Brescia
Marche: Regional Center for Mediation and conflict in Ancona
Piemonte: Center for Penal mediation of Torino
Puglia: Office for Civil and Penal mediation of Bari
Office for Civil and Penal mediation of Foggia
Sicily: Office for Penal Mediation of Catania
Office for Penal Mediation of Palermo
Tuscany: Office for Penal Mediation of Florence

Socially useful work
Another important instrument in Restorative Justice is socially useful work, which does not represent a punishment for the minor, but the possibility of rendering himself/herself useful within society by offering his/her contribution. The work of social utility represents for the minor or young adult as an important opportunity to experience personal growth, self-realization, and education. In excluding the choice to isolate, punish and marginalize the subject (choices that would not help the recovery, education, integration and empowerment of the person) the importance of rebuilding the possible rift between a minor and society of which we have previously spoken is valorised once again.

 

THE MODEL OF DYNAMIC SECURITY

In keeping with its mandate, with the principles underlying the Code of Criminal Procedure for the minor and with the transformations that have affected the society and the same user, the Juvenile Justice system has been progressively rethinking its model of intervention in both their services, and the work with other socio-educational agencies and with the family, this on the basis of competence, professionalism and work styles thus far acquired. This course focuses on a new concept of security, understood as an indispensable prerequisite that the minor acquires responsibility with regard to his/her criminal offense and deviant behaviour, and in this same time, can develop a sense of confidence in himself/herself, as well as in others and in the institutions.  Security is thus the result of a full sharing of educational objectives and control on the part of all the actors inside and outside the system of Juvenile Justice, thus overcoming rigid distinction of roles and functions focused more on compliance than on the overall processes of intervention. Rethinking the model means to re-consider the concept of responsibility, which must always be intended as comprehensive and multi-dimensional, nonexclusive nor delegable, or limited to a specific function, but integrated and shared between all the actors of the system.

“[...] It is configured as a dynamic model of intervention and interaction in the system, which assumes the centrality of the rehabilitation project of the minor and considers the organization of work and the different functional expertise, in realization of the very same project.Within this framework the rehabilitation project is not dependent on the organization of the service but it is the service that must be able to organize on the basis of socio-educational and rehabilitative needs of the minor. In this model a multi-disciplinary approach is re-actualized (which contemplates namely, the social, pedagogical, psychological dimensions) and multidimensional (contemplates for namely the dimensions of the individual, family, group and social dimensions), but at the same time enhances the dimensions of reparative justice in addition to that of restorative. The dynamic security is thus understood as a co-essential condition to the achievement of the objectives of treatment and, as such, not only entrusts the burden and responsibility of the bodies responsible to control activities [...].”[13].

This approach makes the following possible:

• reduction in the number of children subjected to any restriction measures of freedom while progressively increasing the number of minors taken into care in external penal areas and subject to probation,
• the spread of juvenile criminal mediation and the development of conceptual and operational tools that have allowed the actors in mediation to be recognized as a community of practice,
• the increasingly frequent adoption, always in the context of restorative justice, of the instrument of socially beneficial work that aims to heal the socially open rift caused by the event of the offense,
• dissemination of models and instruments of intervention with families who progressively assert themselves on the practices little codified in the past
• Intervention with foreign child offenders: cultural mediation.

 

THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

The Central Institute of Education (ICF) is an organizational reality of the Department of Juvenile Justice, which designs and implements training activities for users of Juvenile Justice. The training services offered are organized at the premises of the Institute (Rome, Castiglione delle Stiviere and Messina), and at the offices of the services of Juvenile Justice (Reception Centers, Juvenile Detention Centers, Social Service Offices) located throughout the country. The commitment and training activities of the Institute are closely related to the tasks of assessing the personalities of minors reported by the Juvenile Judicial Authorities, the planning of educational interventions and social reintegration of young people involved in criminal proceedings, which the current legislation attributes to the services of Juvenile Justice. The activities of the ICF are therefore oriented to support the organizational and operational processes of juvenile services, in relation to the transformation of the problems of deviant adolescents, territorial contexts, the demands of the Judicial Authority of juveniles and social demands. In view of the distinctive characteristic of services of Juvenile Justice, the current legislation requires that all personnel (social workers, educators, penitential police etc.) working with young people has to be specialized to cope with the complexity that this system poses. It is the responsibility of the Central Institute of Education to ensure that the system of Juvenile Justice services training activities comply with the mandate of specialization, during both first entry of personnel, as well as throughout the entire arch of working life. The learning activities are designed by a group of trainers who work within locations, based on the analysis of the needs and demands of the organizational contexts of juvenile services located throughout the country. The implementation of the activities is supervised by the trainers of the ICF, with the participation of experts, identified in relation to the skills required by individual projects. The activities of the ICF are designed on the assumption that the juvenile services - in order to implement interventions impregnated with educational values that include the territorial relationship systems of these minors - must constantly refine and perfect their skills in reading contexts and problems. The training proposals offered by the ICF are therefore oriented to address the problems that people report in relation to minors, with their contexts, with different professional figures and with the Juvenile Judicial Authorities. The aim of these proposals is to support educational processes with knowledge that will help operators and services to orient with greater awareness and collective action in managing the complexity of our time.

 

NISIDA THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR STUDIES

With a view to improving their planning capacity, to making contributions, operational proposals, comparing different professional environments, therefore broadening their cultural and professional heritage in relation to issues such as adolescent distress and juvenile delinquency (complex phenomena for which it is necessary to have multiple perspectives of observation and analysis) Juvenile Justice has managed to develop a deep connection between studies and research on local, national and international territory. The European Centre for Studies of Nisida is incardinated in the Office of studies, research and international activities of the Department of Juvenile Justice (Office IV of the Head of Department) and carries out activities on both national and European levels regarding the field of study and planning. The European Center for Studies of Nisida (NA) originated as a service aimed at research, monitoring and investigation of the phenomena of juvenile delinquency in Europe is fully embedded in this perspective. The activities of the Center for Studies in fact, aims to construct a system of “shared knowledge” on the operation of Juvenile Justice in Europe, to support the programming of legislative policies and social prevention of juvenile crime. Within the framework of the Documentation Center of Juvenile Justice, representing a fundamental and integral part of the system, an idea is being realized and launched with the aim of comparing legal systems, policies and social justice to combat juvenile crime in the various states, including that of good practices in addition to collecting and cataloguing the material produced by Juvenile Justice. Among the primary objectives of the Study Center is the creation of a permanent European Observatory on the phenomenon of juvenile criminal deviance, open to services and social workers. A multi-media archive with a collection of artistic products of minors within the circuit of the penal system is already up and running. Within the Office of studies and research, recently, innovative studies have been initiated in the area regarding the work of social workers with families of minors and young adults as well as on the issue of juvenile criminal mediation, through a survey of existing mediation centres at national level and the monitoring of the activities implemented in the field. The information about the publications produced and the Reports of completed projects, are available at: www.giustiziaminorile. it in the section of studies and research. The website of the European Center of Studies of Nisida - Office of Studies, research and international activities of the Department of Juvenile Justice, activated in late 2013, is available at: http://www.centrostudinisida.it

 

JUVENILE JUSTICE TREATMENT MODELS FROM 1934 TO THE PRESENT

The figure that follows seeks to convey the evolution evident in the Juvenile Justice Department’s operational methods that, while always seeking to operate in the best interests of the child, are subject to continual revision both in terms of theoretical models and practical interventions. Hence, changes have taken place from the first approach which concentrates fully on the crime and responsibility, to – as indicated in the figure below – a progressive consideration of all actors and all of the roles of the Juvenile Justice system (i.e., young offenders, the victim, the family, the network of social service providers) in attempt to not only guarantee equal treatment, but also the efficacy and the durability of the social reintegration of the young offender.

 

 

CHAPTER 5 ▲
RECENT TRENDS:
DATA AND EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE ACTIVITY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

The following will present some data concerning the user flows of minors within the structures of Juvenile Justice, in the time between 2000 and 2013, which enables us to highlight some of the trends and of which we will give a brief account[14].
It is true that, in order to trace the history of strategies, measures, and of any changes it would have been interesting to carry out an analysis of all of the 25 years of work carried out within the system: from 1988 (the year of the promulgation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Minors) to date. The data in our possession, as we said, although able to cover only the last 13 years of work, nonethe- less enables us to offer a somewhat clear picture of what the orientations were over time, especially regarding the future perspectives in that which the system seems to tend toward. As mentioned in the introduction to this report, two essentials are the lines along which the work of the Juvenile Justice System has been developing during these years: the first relating to the expansion of work in the external criminal area; the second in that of considering the placement in IPM as an increasingly “residual” measure. The overall picture that emerges from the study of user flows in the period in question first of all highlighted the data on the increase in minors taken into care by the Offices of the Juvenile Social Services (USSM) from 2000 to date. 

In addition, as we have already mentioned, the majority of juvenile offenders are under the care of the Office of Social Service for minors within external measures: detention, in fact, has been taking the juvenile character of residuality, to leave room for alternative routes and answers, always of a criminal nature.
For foreigners, the application of custody in IPM confirms to be larger than that of Italians; however, the data also highlighted a progressive increase in the application of less afflictive measures. The majority of minors are discharged from the Reception Centers with the application of a precautionary measure. The measures applied most of all are the placements in the community and house detention, followed by the pre-trial detention; less frequent are the cases in which the judge shall issue the measure of limitations to minors. In recent years we are assisting an increasingly growing application of placement in the community, not only as a precautionary measure, but also in other judicial proceedings and for its ability to balance the educational needs with those restraining control.

This increase has focused in particular on the placement of foreign minors whilst the figure relative to Italian minors basically remains stable. Probation is configured as an institution that over time, has come to find an ever increasing application of users especially with respect to Italians compared to foreign users: often, in fact, the application of an alternative measure as this testing requires an entry into the territory (a house, a job, family member of reference, etc.), of which is often lacking in the case of a foreign minor. The data however indicates that over time this measure is becoming progressively more accessible even for foreign minors. The presence of foreigners is most evident in the Residential Services (Reception Centers, Community, Institutions for minors). With reference to the personal characteristics of minors, we observe that the users of Juvenile Services are predominantly male; the girls are mostly foreign. With reference to age it is possible to affirm that the most numerically significant group of users is that composed of by children between 16 and 17 years of age. However, especially in the last three years we are experimenting an increase in the number of young adults who have committed crimes as juveniles and remain under the charge of office until 21 years of age.

The minors under the charge of USSM
The historical analysis of the data shows an increase in the number of minors under the charge of the USSM office since 2007 and continued in subsequent years, attributable mainly to the Italian component. More in particular, the historical series exhibits an increasing peak in 2008 which is also attributable to the Italian component. In terms of percentage, the foreign component has experienced a superior increase compared to that of Italians, particularly in the last two years (+21%), was the period when the Italian component showed a decrease of about 6%.

 Entry into the Reception Centers
The historical series referring to the First Reception Centers (CPA) shows a trend in the total number of entrances in decline since 2005; the 2008-2010 period, in particular, shows an even more pronounced decrease (Table 2, Graph 1).
 The analysis according to the variable citizenship helps to better understand this trend: while the figure for Italians remained almost stable, with a slight hint of decrease only in recent years, that applicable to the foreign component presents subsequent visible decreases specifically from 2007 onwards and highly accentuated in the following years, which brought the number of entries of foreign minors reduced to half in time. As a consequence, the entry of foreign minors, who until 2007 were always higher than those of Italians (58% in 2005-2006), have become the minority and in 2010 had accounted for 37% of the total. As we will see below, the decrease of the entrants into the charge of the CPA corresponds to a parallel increase in placements in the Community. In regards to the variables of gender, data indicates that the female component represents on average about 40% of the foreign population which enters into the CPA, compared with approximately 5% being Italians.

The releases from the CPA (year 2012)
The Reception Centers are home to the minor until the validation of a hearing; thus said, the time spent by the minors in the CPA is very short and does not exceed ninety-six hours. The analysis of the data relating to releases (for year 2012) highlighted that the majority of minors transited through CPA was discharged with the application of a precautionary measure: in 2012, this category constituted 85% of the total of releases. In the breakdown between Italians and foreigners we note that there is a greater application of the precautionary measures for Italians (91%) compared to that of foreigners (78%). If one should examine the other types of releases for foreigners, results show that releases for remission in freedom were very frequent, this because the minor was not of an imputable age (especially for foreign minors).
Analysing in detail the releases (Table 3) with the application of a precautionary measure, the measure applied the most is that of ‘placement in the community’ (37%), followed by ‘home detention’ (27%) and ‘precautionary custody/ on remand’ (22%); Less frequent are the cases in which the judge gives the measure of limitations to minors (14%). Distinguishing between Italians and foreigners, even for the latter the placement in the community (35%) was found to prevail, followed by the application of preventive detention (31%); for Italians, placement in the community (38%) and home detention (31%) were primarily placed.

Entrants into Juvenile Criminal Institutes
The analysis of data relating to penal institutions for minors highlights a decrease in the number of entrants that began in 2005, this continued and became even more visible in subsequent years (Table 2 and Graph 3). Even in the IPM, the decrease of the entrants is attributable to the foreign component, whose incidence rate has gone from 61% in 2004 to 40% in 2010, also in consideration of the increase of Italian minors which had entered into the system from 2007 onwards.

Fluctuation of entries in communities
The number of placements in communities has experienced a considerable increase over time: the community is, in fact, a response system used progressively more and more by the Judicial Authorities for its ability to balance educational needs with the available mitigation control. Arranged mainly as a precautionary measure (art.22 DPR448/88), placement in a community is now also increasingly prescribed in relation to other areas of judicial proceedings. The analysis according to the variables of citizenship observed that the increase in placements mainly concerned the Italian minors: placements of foreigners, however, after the increases in the 20032005 period, decreased and the decrease was particularly evident in the period 2009-2010, and have come to constitute 31% of users, the lowest percentage of the whole historical series, the combined effect of the increase of Italians and decrease in that of the foreigners. (Table 3 and Graph 3).
In the CPA, as also in Communities, 2012 interrupted the downward trend in the foreign component with an increase of entrants of the latter: this increase has concerned both males and females[15].

Suspended sentence and probation period
We consider, finally, the data relating to minors who underwent the suspension of the sentence and probation (Graph 4). This sphere of action, external of the penalty area and therefore being that of the Offices of social services for minors, sees a lower presence of foreign minors. In the period from 2001 to 2010, foreigners accounted for at most 17% of the total number of minors on probation in a year. It may be noted, however, as the number of foreign minors in respect of those whom have been put on probation result as ever increasing over the years, also considering the increase in the population of second generation minors, who have a stable family and regularly established in the territory and in relation to which it is possible to intervene with educational projects involving the family and social resources, as is for Italian minors. In the year 2010 there was a further increase in the number of Italian minors put on probation and, conversely, a reduction in that of the foreign minors, which in turn affected almost all prevalent citizenships. 

Table 1
Minors taken under the charge of the USSM, years 2000-2013

YEARS	ITALIANS	FOREIGNERS	TOTAL
2000	10.059,00	2.435,00	12.494,00
2001	11.050,00	2.903,00	13.953,00
2002	10.811,00	3.233,00	14.044,00
2003	10.820,00	3.276,00	14.096,00
2004	10.501,00	3.391,00	13.892,00
2005	10.429,00	3.472,00	13.901,00
2006	9.970,00	3.096,00	13.066,00
2007	11.772,00	2.972,00	14.744,00
2008	4.397,00	3.417,00	17.814,00
2009	15.480,00	3.405,00	18.885,00
2010	15.672,00	2.691,00	18.363,00
2011	16.884,00	3.273,00	20.157,00
2012	16.630,00	3.777,00	20.407,00
2013	15.870,00	3.969,00	19.839,00

 

Table 2
Entrants to the CPA, years 2001 - 2013, according to citizenship and gender

YEARS	ITALIANS			FOREIGNERS			TOTAL
	male	female	total	male	female	total	male	female	total
2001	1.641	70	1.711	1.357	617	1.974	2.998	687	3.685
2002	1.475	86	1.561	1.315	637	1.952	2.790	723	3.513
2003	1.464	68	1.532	1.342	648	1.990	2.806	716	3.522
2004	1.517	70	1.587	1.476	803	2.279	2.993	873	3.866
2005	1.467	73	1.540	1.408	707	2.115	2.875	780	3.655
2006	1.404	76	1.480	1.462	563	2.025	2.866	639	3.505
2007	1.469	76	1.545	1.236	604	1.840	2.705	680	3.385
2008	1.462	85	1.547	1.021	340	1.361	2.483	425	2.908
2009	1.443	51	1.494	704	224	928	2.147	275	2.422
2010	1.355	68	1.423	616	214	830	1.971	282	2.253
2011	1.337	75	1.412	696	235	931	2.033	310	2.343
2012	1.191	65	1256	668	269	937	1.859	334	2.193
2013	869	53	922	605	291	896	1474	344	1818

 

Table 3
Releases from the CPA year 2012, according to nationality, gender and the provisions for release

RELEASES		ITALIANS			FOREIGNERS			TOTAL
		male	female	total	male	female	total	male	female	total
WITH APPLICATION OF PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES	Limitations	150	13	163	70	21	91	220	34	254
	Home Detetion	346	11	357	95	60	155	441	71	512
	Placement in the community	406	23	429	198	61	259	604	84	688
	Preventative Detetion	187	6	193	174	55	229	361	61	422
OTHER RELEASES	Remission of Freedom	95	9	104	118	49	167	213	58	271
	Expiry of team	2		2				2	0	2
	14 year old Minors		3	3	7	15	22	7	18	25
	Pregnant Minors					1	1		1	1
	Lack of Prerequisites	6		6	15	4	19	21	4	25
TOTAL		1.192	65	1.257	677	266	943	1.869	331	2.200

 

Table 4
Entrance into the IPM, years 2001- 2013

YEARS	ITALIANS			FOREIGNERS			TOTAL
	male	female	total	male	female	total	male	female	total
2001	681	17	698	729	217	946	1.410	234	1.644
2002	612	18	630	647	199	846	1.259	217	1.476
2003	659	27	686	666	229	895	1.325	256	1.581
2004	597	32	629	703	262	965	1.300	294	1.594
2005	548	55	603	669	217	886	1.217	272	1.489
2006	551	30	581	625	156	781	1.176	186	1.362
2007	609	36	645	536	156	692	1.145	192	1.337
2008	657	37	694	524	129	653	1.181	166	1.347
2009	666	33	699	414	109	523	1.080	142	1.222
2010	685	24	709	359	104	463	1.044	128	1.172
2011	714	21	735	409	102	511	1.123	123	1.246
2012	649	18	667	466	119	585	1115	137	1252
2013	644	19	663	412	126	538	1056	145	1201

 

Table 5
Placements in communities in the years from 2001 to 2013

YEARS	ITALIANS			FOREIGNERS			TOTAL
	male	female	total	male	female	total	male	female	total
2001	675	39	714	433	75	508	1.108	114	1.222
2002	637	32	669	490	66	556	1.127	98	1.225
2003	659	45	704	532	101	633	1.191	146	1.337
2004	786	37	823	728	137	865	1.514	174	1.688
2005	838	40	878	767	155	922	1.605	195	1.800
2006	924	44	968	681	123	804	1.605	167	1.772
2007	1.056	46	1.102	667	127	794	1.723	173	1.896
2008	1.130	65	1.195	651	119	770	1.781	184	1.965
2009	1.160	52	1.212	542	71	613	1.702	123	1.825
2010	1.189	59	1.248	490	83	573	1.679	142	1.821
2011	1.222	75	1.297	540	89	629	1.762	164	1.926
2012	1225	60	1285	631	122	753	1856	182	2038
2013	1118	71	1189	576	108	684	1694	179	1873

 

 

CHAPTER 6 ▲
JUVENILE JUSTICE CUSTODIAL SETTINGS

The attention to quality of life within the penal institutions for minors (IPM) has undergone a radical change in recent decades. On the other hand, the same conception of “detention facility’’ has been evolving from both the point of view of the role, functions and objectives, and from the point of view closely related to the internal organization (in this regard, please note the circular organization and technical management of penal institutions for minors, 17 February 2006).

The fundamental principle that permeates the structure and functioning at all levels of the Institutes of Juvenile Justice is to ensure the inmates and staff, a physical and relational environment based on respect for the dignity of the person, his/ her rights and his/her needs. In other words, a primary aim is to ensure a dignified physical environment, with premises cared for in regard to hygiene and furnishings, to ensure respect for and care of the basic rules of hygiene and health; of curing the system of relations operators/minors, operators/ operators, minors/minors; supporting a context marked by the principle of legality (clarity and certainty of the rules), in order to ensure a climate of civil cohabitation.
The focal point of the philosophy of the IPM project is represented, in fact, from protecting the dignity of the person (Article 27 of the Constitution: “Punishment cannot consist in treatment contrary to human dignity and must aim at the rehabilitation of the offender”) concept widely taken up by the Penitentiary Regulations, which art. 1 provides that “treatment should be consistent with humanity and must ensure respect for the dignity of persons.” Today, the reality of the Juvenile Penal Institutions may be regarded as the “happy islands” in view of the detention facilities, as these are structures that are of small size, in comparison with those for adults, open and in continuous exchange with the territory and the external community, full of educational, cultural, sporting and recreational activities useful to the growth and re-socialization of the juvenile offender. These are also the result of a long process that led to the modernization of the detention facilities, which involved almost all of the none recent Italian IPM buildings and has tended to overcome the shortcomings of the existing structures and physical space, as well as to set new distribution models in order to operate in the sign of a complete re-functioning.
This course, aimed at making the impact of the minor in conflict with the Law the least traumatic as possible essentially concerned four dimensions:

• the overall reduction of the size of the institutions, through a new design of cells and detention spaces also aimed to “contain the crowds”;
• modernization of the common areas, with the creation of multi-purpose classrooms and laboratories for the educational activities of rehabilitation;
• the establishment of “autonomous spaces”;
• the redevelopment of the external spaces.

Below we present a brief study of the plans of three juvenile detention centers (the Ferrante Aporti of Turin, Ipm of Pontremoli and that of Lecce) which gives way to directly observe what the impact of the structural re-organization carried out in the Institutes of juvenile punishment has been.

In order:

1. Containing the overcrowding means to try to renew relations between prisoners, amongst themselves and the environment. Minors detained in the IPM are divided into groups (not higher than 10/12 units) with the aim of achieving a good socialization. This organization is therefore reflected in the physical and structural arrangement of the institution: the wings, in which the organism of penitentiary is divided, are smaller than before, there are more guard posts and consequently the relationship that exists between agent and minor has narrowed and become closer and more direct. Structures of small size facilitate the achievement of the right balance between the personnel (social workers, prison officers, teachers, etc..) and of course the users themselves. In fact, the smaller physical and symbolic distance between the two subjects shows a positive effect on both: fewer difficulties in control; reduced sense of alienation and loss within a prison confinement; greater capacity in humanizing the context; greater ease in establishing ties based on respect and trust, rather than on authority.
   In full compliance with the Standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the minimum space available for each individual detainee was set to 7 square meters, the cells of IPM are designed and organized to ensure minors the necessary space for growth and coexistence.
   As we can see in the IPM of Ferrante Aporti, Turin, the cells are located on the first floor of the Institute, this reflects the principles of reduction and containment which the Penal Institutions for Minors have adopted: there are 2 sections of imprisonment (female and male), cells are organized in groups of 4 for each guard post and the rooms of the agents are arranged strategically within that structure enabling their control of the various groups of prisoners. The spaces are designed in such a way as to make the housing area more humane and suitable to that of accommodating minors, this in total contrast to the huge and wasteful prison systems of the previous era.
   The first floor plan sheds light on another fundamental aspect of the newly renovated organizational -structural setup, as in the designing of small-scale housing, the relationship of square meters and number of persons was taken into account: individual cells are home to a maximum of three inmates and are all equipped with private bathrooms, with windows and natural light, instead of communal showers.
   It is therefore important that the attention projected at the planning stage is given to the “comfort” in the cells intended as liveable spaces of accommodation where users spend both the night and the hours of rest between one activity and another. In the IPM of Lecce the organization of the detention spaces (cells and wings) is guided by the same principle of respect for the dignity of users. The wings are located on the first floor, situated along the corridors of the building, those of male detainees all have a guard post within; (divided into groups of up to 10 units max) they are housed in cells grouped together according to the group to which they pertain and each wing has its own recreational and cultural activities hall. This arrangement contributes on the one hand, to reinforce the sense of belonging to a community in minors and on the other hand, to make the work of the operators which are found to interact with smaller groups more effective and direct. The holding cells are all equipped with their own sanitary facilities and are well above the minimum standard of square meters to be inhabited. The renovated planning of the Lecce IPM focuses on controlling the number of prisoners and their grouping into small units, in order to achieve a good socialization, fundamental needs of the minor, and to prevent the formation of groups according to the dynamics of pre-eminence, negative and abusive leadership by promoting, on the contrary, the integration of members belonging to diverse geographical, social and religious groups. This structure is also consistent with the organization of the detention zones outlined above: The Institute is divided into several parts, separated and selfsufficient, but forming part of the same system of intervention and recovery of the housed minor.
    
2. The re-design of the spaces where minors are accommodated also led to a more modern restoration work, which has used the technique of the so-called Cromoambiente ®: interdisciplinary approach which favours, in particular, the scope of human behaviour and is based on some models of explanation concerning the influence of colour on human beings (humans, animals and plants), trying to integrate disciplinary contributions that use angles, fields of observation and different paradigms to analyze the complex phenomena of the influences of the signals and symbolisms of Light-Colour. Cromoambiente ® has developed practical applications in various fields, through research work, especially in green building, in the design, communication, educational psychology, in adult education and in therapy. The reference parameters are the Colours and their effects.
   In brief, after a thorough study done by the designer Paolo Brescia, the Department of Juvenile Justice (specifically the Director General of material resources of goods and services) always with the aim of rendering the IPM more liveable, breaking the monotony and the austerity of the prison building and encouraging positive dynamics within, has opted for the use of predominantly pastel colours for the walls of the cells, laboratories as well as areas that users, operators and prison officers live daily.
   In these two images it is clear that the focus was placed in the design phase, the modernization of the IPM of Pontremoli where the Cromoambiente formula has been applied to restore both the detention cell, and office workers, common areas for activities and the connection between different areas of the institute.
   The use of pastel colours such as wall coverings clearly has a direct effect on the minor who is in detention and that has to live that space for the duration of the sentence. In this way, the place of detention softens and loses its power of estranging affliction that can block the recovery process: the Penal Institute becomes a lively place more “capable” of hosting and above all of contributing to a positive path of treatment.
   As part of the modernization of the Penal Institutions for Minors, the spaces in collective activities (workshops, recreational, etc.). tend to favour, more than in the past, socializing and collaborative relationships. These common areas, including laboratories, classrooms, multipurpose halls and in some cases even theatres become social gathering places and primarily centers of culture for the detained youths, learning and activities, within which it is possible to stimulate the formation process that are “due” to any housed minor in view of a future reintegration into society. The creative activities of the laboratory in particular become essential for the harmonious development of the personality, especially in view of the particular conditions in which the minors live, once they have entered into a Penal Institution.
   The best known example in the context of the implementation of workshops for school activities, education and leisure is certainly that of the IPM in Turin, where the process of modernization of the prison buildings has relied on the re-use of the old pre-existing spaces, evolving to create a model of great impact and functionality.
   The industrial upgrading of the former FIAT factory in particular, adjacent to the building, gave birth to the conversion of the same into a large multifunctional space. This resulted in different premises destined for school activities and training as well as gyms, theatres, and a library.
   The laboratories and classrooms for the various recovery activities are built around a large central space that serves as an aggregator and audience for the theatre (the central square), which is accessed from the corridors nearby. Next to them are the offices of the operators of the different areas of intervention (administrative, educational, safety, health) together with the health center and the offices assigned to the entry phase. (reception and registration).
   The safety and regularity of the operation is ensured by the continuous presence of prison officers who have their offices in strategic points on the entire floor, for a smooth and direct control of all operational and workshop spaces. In today’s vision of IPM as a place of recovery and training of the minor in detention even the Criminal Institute of Lecce offers a variety of learning activities organized in classrooms and laboratories.
   Currently, the complex is divided into two levels: as mentioned earlier, the rooms for the permanence of the boys are located on the upper floor, as well as the halls reserved for workshop activities for each group of relevance, while on the ground floor there are three classrooms used in rotation, a classroom for the teachers, a room for social workers, an assembly hall, an infirmary and a local office.
   The institute is equipped with a large room used as a canteen area divided between the users area and the agents area with an adjoining kitchen.
   Five laboratories for vocational training activities, two laboratories for leisure, the gym, the dentist’s surgery, all overlooking the central courtyard. There is a designated area for the theatre in the sublevel, and each zone is equipped with the necessary sanitary services. A third arm, separated from the others and accessible from a private staircase, houses the offices of the operators and on the ground floor, the toilets for faculty and visitors.
    
3. Together with the laboratory areas and classrooms, the modernization of this IPM has led to the creation of autonomous spaces, such as the kitchen, self-managed by the IPM of Pontremoli or the recreation room of IPM, Lecce, where the inmates can perform normal daily activities, without directives from operators but under the control of agents. The preparation of these areas contributes to the awareness on the part of the minors own ability of self-control and self-sufficiency, and at the same time, creates a climate more similar to that of the family context. In particular, the IPM of Pontremoli, reserved for girls, is the result of a long process of modernization which has been inspired by the pre-existing structures of a Juvenile Prison. Today it has become the destination of all juveniles arrested in the central-north area and 16 positions of the institute are almost always occupied.
   The objectives of the work that takes place within this IPM for girls only, are the same as the work which orientates the other institutes for male or mixed minors. The peculiarity in this context lies, however, in the type of course of treatment, which must also take the needs of detainees into account and be able to promote a pattern of conduct for socializing, the strengthening of interpersonal relationships, the construction and the identification of social networks in the area, but it also must be able to provide adequate responses with a view in respect of maternity, many of these detainees being single mothers. The focus on motherhood and the resulting affective dimension represents, in fact, a focal point on which the dynamics of the training of the IPM of Pontremoli are based: mothers in prison should be put in a position to be able to keep their children with them until the age of three years during the period of the sentence. With this in mind, certain types of measures aimed at supporting young mothers with children within the structure should be considered, such as the insertion of the communal Nursery situated near the Institute, namely the creation of an appropriate environment and friendly atmosphere in which to enable them to live. On the other hand, as mentioned, the same interior spaces have been organized in order to meet the “specifics” of guests: in Pontremoli interventions that involved the sleeping area were oriented in the creation of cells welcoming single mothers with children and a room for the nursery, while a large outdoor area has been allocated to the interview room, this also to allow the inmates to stay with their children outdoors.
    
4. The attention devoted to the activities of the education and training to cultural and laboratorial is all aimed at the reintegration of youth into society, and is flanked, in full compliance with the respect of rights of each minor, from recreational activities -sports (the right to leisure). There are numerous sporting activities pledged in order to enhance the physical energy of the male juveniles to improve the relationship with the body and with the rules and, ultimately, promote self control in relation to others. The IPM of Lecce also has two large outdoor facilities equipped for physical and sporting activities which is in a large state-owned park. This feature has meant that the recreational and socializing on the outside of the Institute for Juvenile Criminals of Lecce are well prepared for the processes that provide incentives and opportunities in a recreational type of relational context, important requirements for the enhancement of the abilities of the minor and also providing the benefits to enable the minors to express themselves, communicate and improve their personal skills. Separate discussions relate to the CPA in Rome. The initial Reception Centers are characterized as non prison-like structures dependent on the Juvenile Justice Center, where children (aged 14 to 18 years old) arrested, stopped or dropped off in the act for which it is not possible to deliver to parents or carers, are accompanied by the police or by the carabinieri on the disposition of the State Juvenile Prosecutor, therein, hosted until the hearing before the magistrate which must take place within 96 hours of the arrest or detention, and in any event, within 48 hours of the remission of the acts by the Prosecutor. The character of temporary detention which the reception center assumes is reflected in the design of the system. The custodial part is formed by only 4 rooms of 20 square meters each, suitable to accommodate up to 3 people each, equipped with toilet and shower. The rooms open onto a large living room of almost 100 square meters suitable for both welfare interviews as well as the consumption of meals administered in the short period of stay. A kitchenette completes this section. Adjacent to the detention area are both the rooms for the administration, secretarial and direction as well as the space devoted to social workers whose task it is to support the minors in custody. Beyond the cross-corridor that separates the holding area from the rest of the structure are the offices, the interviewing room and control and registration rooms where entry into the CPA takes place.

INTERNATIONAL LAW IMPLEMENTED IN ITALY IN REGARDS TO THE PROTECTION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”), Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985 in New York.

(Rule 17 d) The well-being of the juvenile shall be the guiding factor in the consideration of her or his case;
(Rule 2 ) A juvenile is a child or young person who, under the respective legal systems, may be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult;
(Rule 2 c) A juvenile offender is a child or young person who is alleged to have committed or who has been found to have committed an offence;
(Rule 4) In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity;
(Rule 5) The Juvenile Justice system shall emphasize the well-being of the juvenile and shall ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportion to the circumstances of both the offenders and the offence; (Rule 6) In view of the varying special needs of juveniles as well as the variety of measures available, appropriate scope for discretion shall be allowed at all stages of proceedings and at the different levels of Juvenile Justice administration, including investigation, prosecution, adjudication and the follow-up of dispositions;
(Rule 12) In order to best fulfil their functions, police officers who frequently or exclusively deal with juveniles or who are primarily engaged in the prevention of juvenile crime shall be specially instructed and trained. In large cities, special police units should be established for that purpose;
 (Rule 13) Detention pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time; (Rule 13) Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be kept separate from adults and shall be detained in a separate institution or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults;
(Rule 13) While in custody, juveniles shall receive care, protection and all necessary individual assistance-social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical-that they may require in view of their age, sex and personality;
(Rule 14) The proceedings shall be conducive to the best interests of the juvenile and shall be conducted in an atmosphere of understanding, which shall allow the juvenile to participate therein and to express herself or himself freely;
(Rule 25) Volunteers, voluntary organizations, local institutions and other community resources shall be called upon to contribute effectively to the rehabilitation of the juvenile in a community setting and, as far as possible, within the family unit;
(Rule 26) The objective of training and treatment of juveniles placed in institutions is to provide care, protection, education and vocational skills, with a view to assisting them to assume socially constructive and productive roles in society;
(Rule 27) The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and related recommendations shall be applicable as far as relevant to the treatment of juvenile offenders in institutions, including those in detention pending adjudication;
(Rule 28) Conditional release from an institution shall be used by the appropriate authority to the greatest possible extent, and shall be granted at the earliest possible time;

Ratification and execution of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, New York, November 20, 1989 in accordance with Law n. 176, May 27, 1991
(Article 3) In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. In addition to the general principles, which are also recognized for adults, the State recognizes some principles and specific rights for minors that are in conflict with the law.
(art. 40, c.3) States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law;
(art 40, c.3, a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law;
(art. 12) States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child; For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law;
(Art. 40, c.3. b) Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. 4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence;
(art. 40, c2, III) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;
(art 37 d - Art. 40, c.2, II) Assure legal, juridical or other appropriate assistance for the defence of the child; (art. 40, c.2, VI) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;
(art. 37, c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;
(art. 37, b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;
(art. 40, c. 4) A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence;
(art. 40, c.1) States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.

Ratification and execution of the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, Strasbourg, January 25, 1996” in accordance with Law n. 77, March 20, 2003 Rights of minors under the age of 18 during proceedings in front of a judicial authority
(Art. 3) The right to be informed and express his or her views;
(Art. 4) the right to apply, in person or through other persons or bodies, for a special representative in proceedings before a judicial authority affecting the child where internal law precludes the holders of parental responsibilities from representing the child as a result of a conflict of interest with the latter. Role of judicial authorities during decisionmaking process:
(Art. 6, a) consider whether it has sufficient information at its disposal in order to take a decision in the best interests of the child and, where necessary, it shall obtain further information, in particular from the holders of parental responsibilities;
(Art. 7) act speedily to avoid any unnecessary delay;
(Art. 8) the judicial authority shall have the power to act on its own motion in cases determined by internal law where the welfare of a child is in serious danger;
(Art. 9) the judicial authority shall have the power to appoint a special representative for the child in those proceedings;
(Art. 6, b) ensure that the child has received all relevant information;
(Art. 6, b) allow the child to express his or her views;
(Art. 6, c) give due weight to the views expressed by the child;
(Art 5-9) the Parties examine the possibility to utilise other available rights such as the appointment of a lawyer;
(Art. 13) Parties shall encourage the provision of mediation or other processes to resolve disputes and the use of such processes to reach agreement in appropriate cases to be determined by Parties;
(Art. 16) establishment of a permanent Committee fort the implementation of the Convention.

 

NOTES

[1] This was also the case of the children of southern Italians who moved to the north-west of the country and who’s only “abnormality” was the fact that they spoke dialect and not correct Italian

[2] Constitution of the Italian Republic, Part one – RIGHTS AND DUTIES
TITLE I CIVIL RELATIONS art. 27

[3] The Penitentiary system exclusively refers to these elements of treatment: education, work, religion, cultural activities, recreation and sport, contact with the outside world, family relations.

[4] Dpr. 488/88: Art. 1. General principles of the Juvenile procedure

1. Criminal Proceedings against minors are governed by the provisions of this Decree and, if they are not provided, by the Code of Criminal Procedure. These provisions are applied in a manner appropriate to the personality and the educational needs of the minor.

[5] Given the extreme importance of the subject matter the increasingly systematic move towards a multi-dimensional approach that is fully coherent with the findings from numerous studies needs to be underscored: the approach is an integrated assessment of the data from the radiological survey (i.e., of the degree of bone development of the wrist and hand), from the physical exam performed by a paediatrician, from an interview during which, for foreign minors, a translator/cultural mediator must be present. This procedure arises from the protocol signed by the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interiorand the Ministry of Health following the work carried out by an inter-institutional and multi-disciplinary technical

[6] CCNI 29 July 2010 – National collective contract for non-management personnel of the Ministry of Justice 2006/2009 – Text and attachments.

[7] CCNI 29 July 2010 , art. 18

[8] For a more in-depth analysis of the subject see: Stefanelli C., Mandalari G., Polizia penitenziaria minorile e processo di specializzazione (Juvenile Penitentiary Police and Specialization), in Minorigiustizia, n. 1-2010.

[9] This is an alternative instrument to detention, subsequent to a conviction

[10] Subtracts the minor from the judicial circuit at the time when the suspicion ariss of his/her responsibility

[11] Refer to: Ministry of Justice - Office for Study and Research - Department of
Juvenile Justice; IPRS, Family Roots Project

[12] The consensual nature, intrinsic to mediation, in addition to defining the nature that the mediating course frames, at the same time, the role and functions of the mediator: subject and void of other authority beyond that which the parties freely attribute to him/her, in order to make the changes in methods for managing the conflict, actually arise from the capabilities of the parties in mediation, or “from below”. For these reasons, the figure of mediator is placed tending to an independent operational dimension that is not subject to hierarchical control by any administrative authority, even in cases where the mediator, the entire mediation team, or a component thereof, belong to the Public Administration. Thus said, compatibly with the complementary nature between juvenile criminal mediation and the formal justice system (especially in reference to the methods of activation of the service of mediation and of transmission of the final report of the referring authority).

[13] Head of Department’s Circular no. 1 of 18 March 2013: “Model of intervention and revision of the organization and operation of the System of Juvenile Justice Services” and related disciplines.

[14] Statistical analysis of the flows of minors in the Juvenile Justice Services – year 2012

[15] The data on the specific origins of foreign minors placed in the community are available only for the years 2010 and 2011: this data shows that the increase in the foreign component in 2011 was mainly due to increased placements of minors from Africa, especially Egyptians, Moroccans and Tunisians; the placement of Albanian minors also result to be increasing.

Edited by Juvenile Justice Department - General Directorate for the implementation of Judicial measures
Serenella Pesarin - Director-General for the implementation of judicial measures
Cira Stefanelli - Transitional executive manager - Office III
Thanks to Public Officers - Offices I, II and III
Psychoanalytic Institute for Social Research (IPRS)
Translation: Debra Mandatori, Serafinella D’Ambrosio