Ottaviano Del Turco as Enzo Tortora: an uncivilized ordeal

The judicial affair of Ottaviano Del Turco went on for a decade. The Courts that have examined the case have, in practice, "leafed through the daisy" of the crimes of which he was accused: corruption, extortion, fraud, forgery and criminal association. And of course, each "petal" torn off corresponded to a reduction in the sentence. In the first instance, Del Turco was sentenced to nine years and six months. In the second-degree trial, 21 episodes of bestowal out of 26 were removed, and the sentence was more than halved: four years.

After a referral to another Court and a new judgment, the Cassation finally reduced the prison sentence to three years and eleven months, the disqualification from public office from perpetual to five years, while canceled the conspiracy. For the former president of the Abruzzo Region (Del Turco had previously been assistant general secretary of the CGIL, national and European socialist parliamentarian, Minister of the Republic) it was not possible – Piercamillo Davigo would say – to “get away with it” completely. The last ''petal'' remained attached to the corolla: Del Turco was found guilty of ''improper induction to give or promise benefits” and definitively sentenced.

Induction is a newly minted crime, introduced by the Severino law in 2012, to punish extortion (the public official or the person in charge of a public service who requires a levy) even when there is no threat or violence. Attention, because the case in point is suggestive. Especially if we put it in relation to the story for which he was investigated, tried and convicted: having extorted a sum of money from a private health boss in Abruzzo which - along the trial process - deflated from six million to eight hundred thousand euros , of which no trace has ever been found. But how do you commit a crime of "unlawful induction"?

Not having a robust culture in the field of criminal law (it is a serious mistake because this discipline has now become an integral part of everyone's daily life) I went to consult the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Cassation. And I found the following motivation: “According to the United Sections of the Court of Cassation (…) the case of undue induction pursuant to art. 319-quater code pen. is characterized by a non-irresistible pressure on the part of the public official or person in charge of a public service, which leaves the recipient of the same a significant margin of self-determination and is combined with the pursuit of its undue advantage, while in the crime of extortion pursuant to art. 317 code pen., there is a conduct of the public official which radically limits the recipient's freedom of self-determination''.

In the Del Turco/Angelini case (this is the name of the owner of a group of private clinics who denounced Del Turco) there was no "unfair advantage", given that the Regional Council has never withdrawn the resolution with which the relationship between public and private health was revised, recovering several tens of millions of euros from the Region's coffers. As for the "non-irresistible pressure which leaves the recipient of the same a significant margin of self-determination", I tried to get an idea of ​​what my friend Octavian's conduct could have been to incur a type of crime of "gentle extortion". (from gentleman thief).

Since a bag of apples played an important role in the story, it may be that each apple (rather than demonstrating the existence of the law of gravity) served to quantify the sum that Del Turco would have liked ("please, doctor, do as you think but don't bother too much". One aspect remains to be clarified: how can a citizen be charged for actions dating back to before 2008 (Ottaviano was arrested at dawn on 14 July of that year) which did not constitute a crime already provided for by law, why was induction introduced with law n.190 of 2012?

But this is not the place for the review of the trial (the related hearing has been set for April in the face of new evidence presented by the defence) nor is the writer entitled to do so. Today's problem is another. On the basis of a 2015 resolution (proposed by the then president of the Senate Pietro Grasso and immediately copied by Laura Boldrini in the Chamber) concerning former parliamentarians sentenced to a sentence of more than two years, the Presidential Council of Palazzo Madama suspended the annuity (initially of 6.590 euros, then reduced to 5.507 gross due to the so-called recalculation) of Ottaviano Del Turco, without taking into account that in this way he deprived a person affected by serious pathologies that prevent him from carrying out the most basic daily functions autonomously and that therefore require continuous assistance and care.

The news raised protests and indignation, also because, in the same session, the Council had "pardoned" other former senators who - unlike Del Turco - had negotiated the sentence. But what hurts the most are the "hairy" silences. Authoritative but individual criticisms have come from the Democratic Party (of which Ottaviano was the founder); while from the CGIL (Del Turco worked in that union since 1969 as an official of the Fiom and left it in 1993 as assistant general secretary, in the order of Luciano Lama, Antonio Pizzinato and Bruno Trentin) only a deafening silence continues to be heard and ( if I may) vile.

I'm not asking Maurizio Landini to question a sentence of the judiciary or a resolution that takes the liberty of introducing an accessory penalty extra legem. But I ask a large organization that had Ottaviano Del Turco among its leaders for a quarter of a century (there are still many in the CGIL who knew him and know in their hearts that my dearest friend is innocent) for a gesture of humanity, of feet. Solutions can be found without upsetting the rules. The Presidential Council of the Senate can do so by revoking the resolution awaiting the hearing in April and at the same time integrating it with a provision that contemplates particular caution in cases such as those of Del Turco.

Because justice (even assuming but not granted that the "candida Dike'' has anything to do with this sordid affair) cannot be cruel. The shame of the Tortora case he must not dishonor justice again.

PS – The protests raised by the resolution (which turned out to be more the result of disinformation than mental cruelty by the members of the Senate Presidency Council) have produced positive effects. On Wednesday 16 December, President Casellati reconvened the Council which, after an animated discussion (it seems that the pentastellati, primed by forcaioli newspapers, have settled on the line of the "dura lex, sed lex"), suspended the revocation provision of the annuity to investigate the case after having acquired the relative health documentation. It is an important first step in the right direction. It is worth noting that the PSI in a statement thanked not only the President of the Senate, but also the Head of State. Obviously there will be good reasons.