Until recently Americans especially, have realized that Italy has a disorganized, inefficient and failing criminal justice system. Like most governments Italy several components that make up the criminal Justice system. Like the U. S. , Italy has three different branches of government that manage the numerous checks and balances; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. There are also many different levels of police forces that help manage the crimes and borders and waterways to keep some control in the country.
Within the court system not only are there different court levels that handle different aspects their criminal procedures are also divided up into three different phase. While trying to switch from an inquisitorial system to an adversarial system of Justice, Italy had some difficulties that ended up including both aspects of the two. This created an issue especially when it came to the high profile case of an American exchange student studying in Italy, Amanda Knox, and her trial for killing her roommate Meredith Checker.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
The Italian Criminal Justice System The roots of the Italian penal code can be traced back to Roman and middle age canonic law, with its general principles deriving from the French Enlightenment (Marooning & Bidder, 1997). Principles included laws such as no punishment without trial, proportionality between punishment and crime based on a system of written saws and fixed penalties and clarity of the law (Marooning & Bidder, 1997).
In 1988, the criminal Justice system in Italy underwent a major reform known as the fair trial’ (SIT, Italian Criminal Justice System By significance Code. Prior to this new criminal procedure code Italy’s criminal procedure process was like many other civil law countries who had inquisitorial criminal procedure systems (Memorabilia, 2012). In the inquisitorial system Judges were referred as ‘investigating Judges, who would not only issue a verdict but would also be responsible for searching and collecting evidence (SIT, 2009).
By the late sass, the Italian inquisitorial system started to fail do numerous problems throughout the country which lead to it being replaced by a distinctly Anglo-Saxon centered adversarial system (SIT, 2009). This lead Italy to “open up’ its criminal Justice system… To reflect its status as a modern democratic society’ (Memorabilia, 2012). In 1989, with the new adversarial system in place, the New Criminal Code Procedure was introduced in order to make the criminal trial more consistent with various different democratic principles (SIT, 2009).
The new adversarial system eliminated he investigating Judge replacing them with public prosecutors, who are now in charge of collecting evidence, and with adjudicating magistrates, not only issue the verdict after evidence has been presented during a trial, is additionally, to guarantee during the investigative phase that the work being done by the public prosecutors is in compliance of the law and respects the individual who is under investigation (SIT, 2009).
With the creation of the New Criminal Code Procedure, the criminal proceedings process was divided into three different and separate phases (Memorabilia, 2012). The criminal proceedings are an essential role in the Italian criminal Justice system, but there are also other different factors that are Just as significant and crucial to the criminal Justice system. In Italy there are a variety of different branches of police corps that are crucial to Italy and its Justice system. Along with numerous smaller forces there are four main forces that handle the day to day tasks throughout Italy.
After the police there is the Italian court system. Under the Italian legal systems there are three different categories of court Jurisdiction: the Constitutional court, ordinary courts, and various special courts. Each court level handles different matters ranging from civil, criminal or labor disputes, Juvenile matters, appeals, fiscal, administrative, military, and the Constitution. Italian Legal System In Italy there is no federal government nor federal system of Justice and all criminal laws are contained in the Penal Code (Marooning & Bidder, 1997).
Different parts of the criminal Justice system are part of the state systems which operates all over the nation through different districts (Marooning & Bidder, 1997). Each district has its own laws and they are allowed to change them as long it doesn’t conflict with the Constitution (Marooning & Bidder, 1997). The administrative functions of the criminal justice system fall under the authority of the Minister of Justice which is currently occupied by Marinara Canceller. In Italy, the State government has three branches; Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary branches.
Just like the branches of government in the United States each branch of the Italian government has a specific purpose/duty as well. Legislative Branch The legislative branch is vested in Parliament and is composed of two Chambers; the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic (Constrain, Bibb). Both hammers have equal power and functions between each other (“Chamber of Deputies,” n. D. ). The Parliament has the ability to grant legislation, steer and monitor and can permit and revoke confidence in the Government (“Chamber of Deputies,” n. D. ).
The Chamber has 630 deputies, 618 that are elected by Italian constituencies (voters) and 12 that are Italian constituencies that live abroad. The Senate has 315, and like the Chamber, 6 of those seats are for Italian citizens who live abroad (Constrain, Bibb). Executive Branch Similar to the one in the United States the Executive branch in Italy is exercised by he Government of the Republic of Italy (COSEC, 2014). Next to the President of the Republic (Presidents Della Republic); the President of the Council (Presidents del Consigliore) and the ministers, makes up this branch of government (COSEC, 2014).
Together they create the Council of Ministers (Consigliore die Ministries) (Constrain, Bibb). The president of Italy has the power nominate the President of the Council, which in England is the equivalence of the Prime Minister. The President of the Council controls along with takes on the responsibility of the general policy of the government. Judicial Branch Judicial power in Italy is divided in two different categories: the ordinary jurisdiction and the special Jurisdiction (COSEC, 2014).
In a special Jurisdiction there are four different areas that are considered a special Jurisdiction. The first is the administrative Jurisdiction which is carried out by the Regional Administrative Courts (Tribunal’ Ministration Regional), controlling the reviews of executive decisions made by public authorities. Next is the State Auditors’ Department (Correct die Count) which handles public accountancy decisions. Third is military Jurisdiction which valuates transgressions by individuals in the military (COSEC, 2014).
This is controlled by the various Military Courts (Tribunal’ Military). Lastly, is the fiscal Jurisdiction which is controlled by the District Fiscal Commissions (Commissions Tributaries Distractedly) and they control concerns dealing with taxation (COSEC, 2014). The ordinary jurisdiction includes matters that deals with civil and criminal law that have not been deemed as coming within the scope of the special Jurisdiction (COSEC, 2014). This jurisdiction is controlled by the various courts within the Italian Judicial System.
Criminal Procedure In Italy the Novo codices did procedure penal (New Code Criminal Procedure) focuses on instilling adversarial procedures into the Italian Judicial structure. Under the previous code, in the inquisitorial system, the Judge would lead in the development of the case while the public prosecutor and defense attorney only ask occasional follow-up questions or to suggest any other lines of inquiry (Memorabilia, 2012). This placed a large amount of trust in the abilities of Judges to make reasoned decisions which lead Italy to switch to the adversarial system. (Memorabilia, 2012).
In the adversarial system the criminal proceedings were now divided into three different and separate phases: the preliminary investigation phase (indicating preliminary), preliminary hearing phase (Dunedin preliminary), and the trial phase (divertimento) (Memorabilia, 2012). Preliminary Investigation When a crime is committed/reported the police have forty-eight hours to notify the public prosecutor of the crime. The maximum time limit of the preliminary investigative phase can last is six months however, for more serious crimes the maximum time limit can be extended to two years.
The actual start of this phase officially documented (SIT, 2009). During this phase the prosecutor(s) will gather both incantatory and exculpatory evidence to present during the preliminary hearing which will determine if the case will go to trial or not. Prior to the hearing, the prosecutor will notify the defendant of the pending charges against him/her. He/she can also provide additional evidence to the prosecutor and also request that the prosecutor advance with the investigation further for an additional thirty days (SIT, 2009).
In each investigation a Judge for the Preliminary Investigations is (Guide per e Indicating Preliminary) will be assigned (Constrain, AAA). They can review any of the prosecutors requests if it is believed that the suspect’s personal rights are at risk such as wiretapping as well as if any precautionary measures (misuse acidulate) need to (I. E. So defendant doesn’t flee, commit another crime etc. ) (Constrain, AAA). Preliminary Hearing At the preliminary hearing, a Judge of the Preliminary Hearing (Guide per Alignment Preliminary) is assigned.
This phase starts when the prosecutor believes that there is enough evidence for a conviction and if not the charges are dropped (Constrain, AAA). If there is a Justifiable conviction the prosecutor will then call the defendant to appear before the Judge. The defendant is allowed to make a statement to prove that the conditions required for a trial and a guilty verdict have not been met. The Judge then evaluates the evidence presented by the prosecutor and will decide whether or not to issue an order of indictment before the Court or to drop the charges (rennin a studio) (Constrain, AAA).
In the new adversarial system this helps to limit the prosecutor’s powers. Trial Phase The last phase of the Italian criminal procedure is the trial phase (divertimento). Before the adversarial phase the trial phase and the preliminary investigation were one phase. In the inquisitorial the file that was prepared after the investigation for the preliminary hearing would be delivered to the Judge at the beginning of the trail whereas, now the two parties calls for the evidence to be produced at trial (Memorabilia, 2012).
Just like in the United States trial phase the prosecutor and defendant will try and make their case. In an adversarial proceeding the defendant’s attorney is allowed to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, as well as the testing that was inducted in the preliminary investigation (Constrain, AAA). Additionally, defendants can speak at any point during the trial to challenge a witness’s testimony (decorations soapstone delimitation). The victim can also become a party of the trial through a formal act, if so, the victim’s attorney can present as well as cross examine witnesses (Constrain, AAA).
If the Judge of the Trial (Guide Della Provo) believes that beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty they must convict him/her, and if not they must acquit. An important difference between Italy’s rears the United States’ trial phase is that Italy does not use a Jury of peers; but instead the verdict is determined by the Judge and in serious crimes there are 3- headed court of Judges or 2-headed court of Judges and 6 Jurors (Constrain, AAA). Special Proceedings Italy also has a variety of trials that are known as special proceedings that are alternatives for defendants to choose instead of a long and drawn out trial.
The first special proceeding is a fast track trial (studio abbreviate). This is where the trial defendant by looking at the evidence gathered during the investigation (Constrain, AAA). In this proceeding the defendant is ultimately giving up his rights to have new evidence presented and being tried by a Judge of the Trial. However, if found guilty the defendant is rewarded by law a one-third reduction in his/her sentence. The second special proceeding is plea bargaining (potentiometer).
Which is where the defendant believes that the punishment that originally would be handed down is less than five-year imprisonment or fine may plea-bargain with the prosecutor. If granted the defendant receives a reduction in sentence along (Constrain, AAA). Like in the U. S. Lea bargaining proceeding the defendant must plead guilty to the charges no matter how serious the crime. After coming to an agreement, the proposal is submitted to the Judge who weighing the evidence will either reject or accept the plea bargain.
Italian Police Today there are four different branches of police corps in Italy: National Police (Politic did Stats or Politic Stale), the Crabbiness (Arm die Crabbiness), the Financial Crime Investigation Unit (Guardia did Finance) and the Penitentiary Police (Politic Penitentiaries). Additional police forces in Italy include the Italian Anti-Mafia Investigation Department (Direction Investigative Antinomian), the Central Directorate for Anti-Drug Services (Direction Central per I Service Antiradar), the National Forestry Department (Corp. Forestall dell Stats), as well as other local police forces throughout the country.
National Police The National Police or known as Politic did Stats or Politic Stale with its main Has located in Rome. This branch is both a local and regional police force located throughout Italy and are considered as a civil police (corps) service (COSEC, 2007). The National Police help assist the local police but their main duties are to patrol the sashays, railways, and the major waterways (COSEC, 2007). They fall under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. In Ministry of Interior (Ministers delectation) which is a government agency in Italy that is in charge for public order and security maintenance.
Crabbiness Founded in 1814, the Crabbiness, who are also known as Arm die Crabbiness and are a police corps that have military ranking who are responsible for maintaining public order and securing a save environment (COSEC, 2007). They are a special branch of the army and have similar functions as the police especially when it involves criminal investigations (“The Italian Police,” 2014). Unlike the National Police, the Crabbiness reports to two different government agencies: the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior (COSEC, 2007).
Though their main responsibility is to maintain public order and a secure environment they also are mandated to carry out other functions. The Crabbiness must also carry out various duties such as carrying out antiterrorism and anti-organized crime investigations, conducting forensic investigations as requested by Judicial authorities or by the Crabbiness Command ND providing security for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Rome (COSEC, 2007). Financial Crime Investigation Unit Guardia did Finance or the Finance Guard focuses on the various economical, judiciary, public safety, and financial matters.
They are mainly responsible for controlling national as well as international financial crimes like tax evasion, credit have focus on crimes like illegal immigration, cybercaf??s, smuggling, and international illegal drug trafficking (COSEC, 2007). The Finance Guard is under the authority of the Ministry of Economy and Finance and are essential part of the Italian away enforcement agencies. Since the Guard is considered a military force they are more active at border crossings, airports and ports where they can apprehend smugglers entering the country (“The Italian Police,” 2014).
Penitentiary Police Penitentiary Police or Politic Penitentiaries was established by Law nor. 395 of December 15, 1990, and falls under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, Department of Penitentiary Administration (COSEC, 2007). Individuals who are Penitentiary Police are the equivalence of corrections officers in the United States by operate and controlling the Italian prison system. They are basically responsible for keeping Italian prisons secure, keeping out unauthorized individuals out, and keeping prisoners in.
Penitentiary Police also transport, guard, and escort prisoners and inmates to and from court, hospital, or other medical appointments, serve as protection and security of individuals who belong to the Central Administration of Justice along with various other tasks (COSEC, 2007). Italian Courts Similar to the United States, in Italy there are different types/levels of court jurisdiction: Constitutional court, ordinary courts, and special courts. In the ordinary routs are overseen by Judges who are competent for general civil and criminals matters.
There are three different levels starting from the bottom with the Courts of First Instance, the Courts of Second Instance, and the Court of causation (Correct did cessations or Correct Supreme did Cessations) at the top (see Appendix A for chart of Italian court system) (ANNUAL, n. D. ). The Constitutional Court (Correct situational), which is a completely separate body of court that handles issues involving the constitution (Roomier & Tarragon, 2013). It consists of fifteen Judges, 5 that are elected y Parliament, 5 by the President of the Republic and that are at higher posts within the Judiciary (Roomier & Tarragon, 2013).
Judges can challenge the constitutionality of the legislation, debate over the division of powers, and procedures against the President of the Republic under the Constitution (ANNUAL, n. D. ). Courts of First Instance There are four different courts that fall under the Courts of First Instance: the Tribunals (Court), the Guide did Pace Justice of the Peace), the Tribunals per I minored Punitive Court), and the Correct disease (Court of Assizes), each one has a efferent role in the court system (ANNUAL, n. D. ).
For example the Tribunals is the default court of general Jurisdiction for handling all civil and criminal arguments along with those arguments that do not fall under any other court. There is typically only one Judge that will hear a case but when there is a case of importance there could be up to three Judges (ANNUAL, n. D. ). Next, the Guide did Pace deals with matters over minor civil claims such as motor vehicle accidents, real estate boundaries, and inferior criminal matters. On average only one Judge that presides over the cases (ANNUAL, n. . ).
In the Tribunals per I minored only cases that involve individuals under 18 years old are heard (ANNUAL, n. D. ). Additionally there are only includes 2 professional Judges along with 2 experts. The final court in the Courts of First Instance is the Correct disease, which includes 2 professional Judges Courts of Second Instance The Courts of Second Instance are the courts that hear the appeals from the Courts of the First Instance (“Ordinary Courts – Italy,” 2013). The Tribunals court in this category hears the appeals against the verdicts of the Guide did Pace and the
Correct did appeals, hears the appeals against the decisions made by the Tribunals court (ANNUAL, n. D. ). The two main courts in the Courts of Second Instance are the Correct disease dapperly (Court of Assizes of Appeal) and the Correct did appeals (Court of Assizes). The Correct disease dapperly is composed to two 2 professional Judges as well as 6 lay Judges (guide laic) (ANNUAL, n. D. ). Lay Judges, in the Italian Justice system are only present in the Correct disease dapperly and the Correct did appeals (SIT, 2009).
These Judges are not part of the Judiciary but instead are citizens of the town ho are chosen at random to carry out various Judicial activities such as determining if a defendant is guilty or not in cases of serious crimes (Fischer, 2013). In the Correct disease dapperly they also examine the decisions made by the Correct disease. The next court is the Correct did appeals which has Jurisdiction over the requests from the Courts of the First Instance on top of enforcing the actions of decisions made by foreign courts, Jurisdiction proceedings for nullity or damages in cooperation matters (ANNUAL, n. D. ).
Court of causation The last court in the Italian Judicial system is the Court of causation (Correct did Cessations). This is the highest appellate court in Italy, located in the Rome, is the equivalence of the United States Supreme Court (SIT, 2009). The Correct did Cessations is divided up for criminal, civil and labor law disputes and in serious cases the Judge may Join each section or “a session unite” (ANNUAL, n. D. ). However, the Judges in this court cannot Judge on the substance of the sentence given due to being limited to reviewing the decisions of the lower courts on points of law (SIT, 2009).
Amanda Knox On November 2, 2007, a British study abroad student Meredith Checker, was mound “strangled and with her throat cut, and wrapped in blood-soaked duvet” in her apartment that she shared with two legal assistants and an American student (Memorabilia, 2012). The murder shocked not only the town but the international community as well. As the murder gained more and more attention the identification of the prime suspect(s) was Searcher’s American roommate, Amanda Knox, her boyfriend at the time Rafael Solicit and a close friend of the two Rudy Guide (Memorabilia, 2012).
Background On the night of the murder, all of the flat mates were spending the night at their boyfriends in different locations except Meredith, including four men that lived down stairs in the cottage. One of the playmates Amanda was spending the night with her new boyfriend Rafael Solicit at his apartment. The next morning, Amanda left Raffle’s apartment and walked to the cottage, to shower and change clothes before they went on a sightseeing trip (Matthews, 2014). Upon arriving at the cottage, Amanda found the front door open, but didn’t think twice about it because unless the door was locked with a key the door lock would not latch.
After showering Amanda noticed tiny spots of blood in the sink and on the bathmat. After realizing that Meredith bedroom door was locked she then quickly walked back to Raffle’s apartment to tell him what she had Just seen (Matthews, 2014). Immediately both of broken in. After calling one of her playmates, Amanda called the police. The Crabbiness arrived shortly after receiving Manta’s call officers attempted to force open Meredith bedroom door only to find Meredith body on the floor (Matthews, 2014).
Four days after the murder, Amanda underwent a long and aggressive interrogation for as long as 12 hours being yelled at in Italian, a language she was only recently familiar with. She said that she was hit repeatedly on the back of the head, called a stupid liar, and how there was evidence linking her to the crime scene. But Amanda stuck by her innocence claiming that she wasn’t there (Matthews, 2014). At one point during the interrogation, Amanda asked if she should have an attorney present, but was told that getting an attorney would Just make things worse for her and prove that she is hiding something.
Frightened, exhausted, and facing a dozen Italian police officers alone, Amanda finally gave in and described to them what she imagined happened in the form of a dream or vision (Matthews, 2014). She in her vision she described that she was “in the kitchen of her cottage covering her ears to block out Meredith screams while her boss Patrick Lumbar, in Meredith room committing the murder” (Matthews, 2014). Patrick, Amanda, and Rafael were all arrested on November 6, 2007 for the murder of Checker. Police stated that all three suspects killed Meredith because she refused to participate in a ‘sex game’ (Matthews, 2014).
Forensic evidence soon revealed that there was only evidence linking a 4th suspect Rudy Guide to the crime scene. It was then discovered hat Patrick had an airtight alibi and if the police had investigated properly they would have realized that Rudy Guide had a history of breaking into homes and offices with a rock similar to the cottage. While in Jail the media was on a frenzy focusing most of their attention on Knox who they described as a sex crazed murderer and was given the name “Foxy Knox. ” The media also focused a lot of attention on was how both Knox and Solicit acted after the murder.
One photograph shows the two kissing outside the crime scene indicating that they were more interested in making out rather than the death of their friend. When in all actuality Rafael was Just trying to comfort Amanda who was terrified (Matthews, 2014). The media also exposed Amanda as being cold-blooded and unstable after being seen doing cartwheels at the police station while waiting for Rafael. Manta’s defense team later argued that Amanda was a 20-year-old college student in a very scary and stressful situational, so while waiting she did yoga stretches to handle her stress.
Trial Guide chose a fast-track trial and was found guilty of murdering Checker and was sentenced to 30 years in prison but on appeal was reduced to 16 years (Matthews, 2014). After being denied house arrest, Mamma and Raffle’s trial started on January 16, 2009. Unlike in the United States where the Jury is isolated from having contact with the outside world during a trial, on the other hand in Italy, it is standard procedure that Jury is allowed to listen media, and discuss the case with each other, lawyers or anyone else, while the trial was in progress (Matthews, 2014).
So the Jury in Amanda and Raffle’s trial the Jury heard everything about them in the past year. When it came to the evidence in the case there very little against either Knox or Solicit or even a motive. Forensic scientists and other “experts” that worked for the using such processes could result in contamination (Matthews, 2014). For the prosecution similar “experts” disagreed and when the defense asked for an independent review of the DNA, the Judge stating that there was enough information to decide (Matthews, 2014).
Though the defense did an outstanding Job in refuting even with the limited amount of evidence presented by the prosecution, the minds of the Jury where already made up by the start of the trial. Jury members had even fallen asleep forcing the defense to ask for a recess and the Judge was seen taking ell phone calls during the defenses presentation. On December 4, 2009, both Amanda Knox and Rafael Solicit were convicted for murdering Meredith Checker.
Rafael received 25 years whereas Amanda Knox received 26 years, an extra year for falsely accusing Patrick Lumbar (Matthews, 2014). Italian law allows an automatic appeal that will review all the evidence again and confirm or reject the verdict from first trial, thus giving both Knox and Solicit a second trial. Both Amanda and Rafael had their appeal heard in the Correct disease dapperly where the defense was finally granted an independent review of the DNA evidence.
Here the two Judge’s appointed to conduct the review of the evidence found that both pieces of DNA evidence were completely unreliable and were most likely to have been contaminated as well (Matthews, 2014). Not only was the evidence deemed unreliable but one of the witnesses that placed both Solicit and Knox near the cottage on the night of the murder because unreliable as well. On October 3, 2011, nearly 4 years after Meredith Searcher’s murder, both Amanda and Raffle’s guilty convictions were overturned and declared not guilty of murder and both were immediately released Matthews, 2014).
The Judge of the trial stated that the case could not prove that the two were guilty because key evidence was unreliable. On January 30, 2014, Amanda Knox now 26 years old and Rafael Solicit now 29 years old, were both reconnected of murdering Meredith Checker in November of 2007 (Messiah & Llamas, 2014). Solicit was resented to 25 years while Knox, who was originally sentenced 26 years was sentenced 28 h years, 2 h years longer due to a possible extradition battle (Messiah & Llamas, 2014).
After the two were acquitted in 2011, the prosecution appealed to the Italian Supreme Court in March of 2013, which ordered a third trial which began in September of 2013 (Smith-spark, Messiah, & Weidman, 2013). With the new guilty verdict for Knox bring the issue of extradition. The United States does have an extradition treaty with Italy however, U. S. Officials may reject an extradition request due it violating the U. S. Legal code that a criminal defendant can’t be tried twice on the same charge. Additionally, Italy lacks the absolute prohibition currently present in U.
S. Law that can prevent authorities from retrying a criminal defendant ho has already been acquitted of the same charge (Smith-spark, Messiah, & Weidman, 2013). Criticisms The investigation and trial of Amanda Knox triggered several criticisms from American’s who believe that the case was a “scandal of the first order,” along with a miscarriage of Justice (Memorabilia, 2012). One of the biggest differences between the United States and Italian criminal Justice systems is that in Italian legal system, both civil and criminal trials can be tried together (Memorabilia, 2012).
In Amanda Nook’s trial involved three different trials: a criminal trial for Meredith Searcher’s murder, a civil Lumbar for Nook’s false statements that led to his arrest (Memorabilia, 2012). Having three different suits heard altogether at once creates the issue that evidence that would be probative for one case such as the civil suit, could obtain more weight in a criminal verdict especially, if that evidence would not have been considered probative or unduly prejudicial in an American criminal trial (Memorabilia, 2012).
A clear example of this is Manta’s comments while she was being interrogated, which placed her at the cottage the night of the murder and identifying Patrick Lumbar as the murderer. Though the interrogation was were excluded in Manta’s criminal trial, when it came to the Patriot’s defamation suit against Amanda the Jury was not shielded from that piece of evidence (Memorabilia, 2012). Another large criticism that plays a part in the trial is the Jury sequestration. The court in Italy refused to sequester (separate the Jury). (Memorabilia, 2012).
Character evidence that was not admitted at trial was exaggerated by the Italian media, especially when it came to Nook’s sexuality, along with her good looks and nickname. By the start of the trial the Judges stated that they would only separate the Jury when t came time to deliberate. This meant that the Jury would be exposed as well as being influenced by the media frenzy occurring outside of the courtroom (Memorabilia, 2012). Summary and Conclusion Today Italy’s system of government is still that of a parliamentary republic.
In June of 1946, 10 months after the end of WI, the Republic of Italy was formed upon eliminating the monarchy by popular vote (COSEC, 2014). On December 22, 1947 the Constitution of Italy was adopted, creating a power that is divided equally amongst three separate branches of government similar to those of the United States overspent; the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. The Italian Constitution establishes a balance interaction between the branches rather than a rigid separation (Constrain, Bibb).
In 1989, while switching to the adversarial system from the old inquisitorial one, which replaced the investigating Judge with an adjudicating magistrate and added public prosecutors and as well as a Jury, Italy created the New Criminal Code Procedure that entirely changed their criminal proceedings process. Now the criminal proceedings process is divided into three efferent phases: the preliminary investigation phase (indicating preliminary); the preliminary hearing phase (Dunedin preliminary); and the trial phase (divertimento) (Memorabilia, 2012).
In Italy, like every criminal Justice system, there are different organizations that play a fundamental role in controlling the various entities in order to have a functioning Justice system. Along with the criminal procedure, Italy’s police force is divided into various branches though each has different responsibilities some branches work together and share their responsibilities throughout the country. In the Italian Judicial system there are three different categories of court jurisdiction: the Constitutional court, ordinary courts, and various special courts.
Each court level handles different matters ranging from civil, criminal or labor disputes, juvenile matters, appeals, fiscal, administrative, military, and the Constitution. Studying any part of another country brings up areas that one may agree or disagree with. In Italy, the past failure to transition into an adversarial system from the inquisitorial one and the issues that that it still created didn’t come to light of the