The justification of the use of firearms and other means of physical restraint – art. 53 of the Italian Criminal Code - is throughout examined, covering all the aspects that such a defense involves. After having enucleated the limits and differences of the justification in comparison with other defenses such as the self- defense and the public duty defense, the article examines the categories of public officers to which it applies, concluding that they are defined by laws that in specific parts of the legal system give the possibility of using physical force or even firearms in order to enforce other duties (i.e. preventing a commission of a crime, effecting an arrest, or a seizure, etc.) . A particular focus is used in mentioning the limits that the local police encounters in using firearms under this rule. The specific elements – violence and resistance to authority –, necessary for the justification to arise, are defined, and attention is centered on the problem of applying the defense in occurrence of disobedience or escape. Proportionality, not expressly mentioned in the norm like necessity, is surely affirmed as a requisite, given that the article 53 is interpreted in the light of the Constitution and also in the light of the article 2 of the ECHR, viewed here as an instrument to restrict, not certainly to expand, the limit of the justification. These limits are affirmed in the special rule for the prevention of crime too, disciplined in second part of article 53. A final part is dedicated to special laws that mention the use of force or firearms in different areas of the legal system, such as in the article 41 of l. 354/1975, in the article 24 of the t.u.l.p.s. and in the l. 100/1958.

Art. 53 c.p.

RIPAMONTI, GILDA
2006-01-01

Abstract

The justification of the use of firearms and other means of physical restraint – art. 53 of the Italian Criminal Code - is throughout examined, covering all the aspects that such a defense involves. After having enucleated the limits and differences of the justification in comparison with other defenses such as the self- defense and the public duty defense, the article examines the categories of public officers to which it applies, concluding that they are defined by laws that in specific parts of the legal system give the possibility of using physical force or even firearms in order to enforce other duties (i.e. preventing a commission of a crime, effecting an arrest, or a seizure, etc.) . A particular focus is used in mentioning the limits that the local police encounters in using firearms under this rule. The specific elements – violence and resistance to authority –, necessary for the justification to arise, are defined, and attention is centered on the problem of applying the defense in occurrence of disobedience or escape. Proportionality, not expressly mentioned in the norm like necessity, is surely affirmed as a requisite, given that the article 53 is interpreted in the light of the Constitution and also in the light of the article 2 of the ECHR, viewed here as an instrument to restrict, not certainly to expand, the limit of the justification. These limits are affirmed in the special rule for the prevention of crime too, disciplined in second part of article 53. A final part is dedicated to special laws that mention the use of force or firearms in different areas of the legal system, such as in the article 41 of l. 354/1975, in the article 24 of the t.u.l.p.s. and in the l. 100/1958.
2006
9788821721595
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/1496511
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact