Pagina dettaglio corso numero uno

by Gregorio Valducci, PhD student at the University of Milan 

Much has been said in recent days about the case of Emanuele De Maria, a 35-year-old man from Naples who was serving a sentence in Bollate prison for a femicide committed in 2016. For the past two years, he had been granted permission to work outside the prison. On Friday, May 9, De Maria failed to return to the facility after his work shift. In the 48 hours that followed, he stabbed a colleague from Hotel Berna, committed another femicide (the victim was Chamila Wijesuriyauna, also a colleague), and ultimately took his own life. 

The initial public and media reactions were marked by shock and fear, crystallizing into a demand for increased security. This has triggered a search for a scapegoat— here, easily identified as those who authorized De Maria’s external work permit without recognizing his continued social dangerousness. This discourse has reignited demands for “certainty of punishment,” which in practice translates into incarceration until the very last day of the sentence. In line with the neo-punitive tendencies currently shaping our society, this stance calls for the denial of prison benefits and alternative sanctions. Such requests are often made “in the name of the victims,” both to honor their memory and to prevent similar incidents from happening again. While these are deeply rooted concerns, they are often oversimplified in the media or reduced to slogans in political discourse. It is therefore crucial to undertake a thoughtful and informed reflection—examining this case through the lens of trust, as articulated by Tommaso Greco in “La legge della fiducia”. 

A case such as this may indeed generate a sense of distrust—towards both inmates and the broader rights-based justice system—which, if encouraged, risks leading to further restrictions in prison policies and a harsher penal approach. This distrust must be countered by highlighting the existing framework of trust and fiduciary relationships that already (and not only in a prescriptive or idealistic sense) underpin our legal system and have proven generally effective. The De Maria case, in which a trust-based expectation was tragically breached, should not lead us to deny this essential dimension. On the contrary, the very fact that trust can be betrayed indicates that the system is grounded in the expectation of horizontal interpersonal relations. Reliance—on fellow citizens, on the legal system, and on its functioning—produces positive outcomes in the vast majority of cases, even if such outcomes often go unnoticed: it is, in fact, the breach of trust that tends to capture attention. 

This is why it is useful to start with empirical data. These show that 69% of individuals who serve their full sentence exclusively in prison reoffend. This rate drops to 17% when part of the sentence is served through alternative measures, and to just 5% for those involved in external work programs. Of particular relevance to this case, only 1.2% of inmates granted external work privileges committed a crime during that period over the past five years, resulting in revocation of the benefit. These figures are decidedly encouraging and indicate that external work programs are effective in promoting social reintegration and reducing recidivism. 

This reflection is also closely tied to the role of victims, as mentioned above. Of course, data cannot "heal" the pain experienced by victims and their loved ones. Respect for individual suffering is essential. However, it is equally important to understand that this respect—as well as the pursuit of justice and the demand for safety—cannot be fulfilled through punitive or retaliatory measures. Rather, a more meaningful and just response can be achieved by reducing reliance on incarceration and through the active involvement of communities and local networks, which must be capable of supporting all parties affected by a crime. This approach is grounded in the strength of fiduciary bonds. As Glauco Giostra effectively argued in an article for Avvenire, if we truly wish to act "in the name of the victims"—without resorting to instrumental rhetoric—it is necessary to acknowledge that prison, in many cases, reproduces criminal behavior. Therefore, the expansion of alternative measures and benefits is not only appropriate but essential. 

In conclusion, despite the presence of a trust-based dimension within the legal system, there is an observable tendency to obscure it in favor of an emphasis on the “negative” aspect of punishment—perceived as the only effective means of responding to crises and addressing victims’ needs. In this context, the De Maria case is emblematic: there is a real risk that it may lead to an expansion of incarceration at the expense of non-custodial measures and prison benefits. This risk becomes all the more likely when criminal law is conceived in a strictly “Leviathan-like” manner—as a purely repressive and punitive force—where violence becomes the only imaginable and legitimate response. For this reason, it is more necessary than ever to reaffirm and strengthen the role of trust that permeates the entire system. Indeed, for the well-being of all—victims included—efforts should be directed toward easing the punitive and prison-centric grip of the current system.