Special Regime for Law Enforcement: What Does the League’s Proposal Envisage?

The League’s Proposal on Special Treatment for Law Enforcement

In recent times, the League has been focusing on issues concerning security and defense, involving the Armed Forces and the Police.
The latest proposal revolves around the introduction of a special regime for law enforcement, protecting them from being investigated for crimes by public prosecutors.
Understandably, this matter is sparking a lot of debate, as the risk of leaving violations unpunished cannot be ignored.
Concerns of legitimacy have also been raised, as this initiative, if successful, would provide law enforcement personnel with significant benefits compared to other citizens.

The amendment, presented by Igor Iezzi and Laura Ravetto in the Justice Committee, aims to remove potential obstacles to the performance of law enforcement’s duties in controlling and preventing crimes.
The fear of being investigated and facing disciplinary actions can hinder officers from performing to the best of their abilities.
This creates a complex debate, balancing the undeniable right of personnel to work peacefully and efficiently—benefitting the entire community—against the equality of all citizens.

The League’s proposal introduces specific measures in the Criminal Procedure Code aimed at acts committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty involving the use of force or other means of physical coercion.
The public prosecutor, upon receiving information about such acts, would be required to promptly inform the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal.
Subsequently, the magistrate could only take urgent action regarding the evidence of the crime.
The Attorney General must also promptly inform the body’s command or office head and the State’s Legal Office to handle the investigations into the legitimacy of the actions in question and compliance with force protocols.

The State’s Legal Office may seek technical consultations to complete its assessment and promptly update the Attorney General with its conclusions.
Based solely on the Legal Office’s findings, the Attorney General can choose to prosecute the officers or immediately close the case without further review.

Challenges of the Proposal

The proposal to shift investigations regarding the use of force by law enforcement from the Judiciary to the State’s Legal Office raises several legal concerns.
The significant doubt lies in transferring investigative responsibilities from the Judiciary (as established by the Constitution) to an entity that, as part of the public administration, may lack the impartiality and neutrality required of judges.

Such a privilege does not exist in our legal system, not even for judges or parliamentarians.
While the intention of the proposal seems broadly agreeable, the proposed method faces considerable scrutiny.
Regardless of the objective, the implementation of this special regime challenges the constitutionally guaranteed democratic principles.

Relying on the rarity of criminal activities among officers is not sufficient, nor is entrusting the State’s Legal Office’s professionalism, as the division of duties and powers must be respected to safeguard the legal system.
If approved, this new method may disadvantage the majority of law enforcement officers who work honestly.