Alberto Stasi, no to the revocation of semi-freedom for the interview given to 'Le Iene'
As it is within the limits of continence, it does not prejudice the course of treatment. The grounds with which the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by the Prosecutor have been filed
An interview, which remained within the limits of continence, is not enough for the revocation of semi-freedom in the face of a path, in prison and out, recognised as positive by all prison operators. The Court of Cassation filed the reasons with which, on 1 July, it rejected the appeal by the Attorney General's Office at the Court of Appeal of Milan against the order of 9 April that granted the benefit to Alberto Stasi, convicted definitively for the death Chiara Poggi.
According to the public prosecutor's office, the Surveillance Court had not adequately assessed the offence committed by Stasi while he was benefiting from a permissio premio, obtained in March 2025, during which he had given an interview to Le Iene, a national television programme, without having obtained the authorisation. An initiative taken despite the fact that the benefit had been granted only to cultivate emotional reasons. The convicted had therefore 'taken advantage' of the space of freedom granted to him to gain 'a public forum' that he was not entitled to, moreover in the face of new delicate preliminary investigations in progress on the same murder, nor had the judges of the re-examination assessed the possible effects of the interview on the treatment pathway.
The Criticality of Personality
According to the Prosecutor, 'personological criticalities, that had already emerged at the time of the granting of the first leave, which would not have been overcome, appearing, if anything, exacerbated in the light of the subsequent prison observation, and that should have been the object, in view of the possible progress in treatment, of a pondered re-evaluation'. An interpretation successfully contested by the defence of Alberto Stasi.
The Supreme Court emphasises the value of thesemi-liberty regime, which presupposes, together with the expiry of the necessary portion of the sentence, a favourable prognosis, precisely by virtue of the progress made in the field of treatment, regarding the possibility of gradualreintegration into society.
The measure itself is an instrument of individualised treatment 'and responds,' reads the judgment, 'to the purpose of emendation through the most advanced prospect of resocialisation that work (which is the activity that, as a rule, substantiates it), a pivotal element of the modern re-educational prison system, is able to offer, extra moenia.
