In Italy, a widespread sense of insecurity is taking hold—one that cannot be interpreted solely through crime statistics. It is a deeper crisis, concerning the resilience of the justice system, its ability to provide timely and effective responses, and above all, the perception of certainty of punishment. The growing gap between formal legality and substantive justice fuels distrust in institutions and pushes part of the population toward autonomous forms of security organization. We discuss this with criminal defense attorney and university professor Michele Miccoli.
By Roberta Imbimbo
Attorney Miccoli, is the sense of insecurity people feel today real or merely perceived?
It is a real sentiment, rooted in everyday civic life. Security cannot be reduced to the mere presence of law enforcement on the ground, although they certainly perform a function of general prevention and deterrence. The problem arises afterward, when citizens do not feel like active participants in the justice system and perceive a gap between wrongdoing and its actual punishment.
Why do citizens today tend not to intervene or report crimes?
Because the individual cost of participating in the justice process is perceived as excessive. Reporting a crime or testifying often entails long timeframes, repeated formalities, lost workdays, and possible professional repercussions. The right to initiate criminal proceedings, in practice, clashes with an enforcement system that does not adequately protect cooperating citizens. Faced with this scenario, indifference prevails as a form of self-defense.
Does this fuel the idea that “those who do wrong don’t really pay”?
Undoubtedly. Today, the sanctioning system—especially for crimes punishable by up to four years—allows broad access to alternative measures to detention. The role of the sentencing judge is central, but the perceived outcome is that prison is systematically avoided. This affects the credibility of punishment as a tool of general deterrence.
Do you believe the criminal system has lost its retributive function?
In recent years, the retributive function of punishment has been progressively compressed in favor of rehabilitative and social reintegration aims, in line with the constitutional principles set out in Article 27 of the Constitution. However, the issue is that the rehabilitative function often fails in practice. Structural deficiencies in the prison system and the absence of effective rehabilitation programs render punishment ineffective under both perspectives.
Do media cases influence this perception?
Decisively so. Cases portrayed in television programs convey the idea of substantial impunity, with repeated unlawful conduct perceived as tolerated by the system. The most recent case—that of Signorini—highlights how the absence of immediate punitive consequences can produce irreversible personal and reputational damage.
Can the loss of trust lead to forms of private justice?
The risk is real. We are witnessing the emergence of civic aggregation phenomena which, while formally operating within the bounds of legality, compensate for perceived shortcomings of the State. In Rome, for example, there is the Carabella phenomenon: groups of citizens patrolling metro stations to support law enforcement, operating in more assertive and autonomous ways.
Why should these phenomena not be underestimated?
Because they represent a symptom of systemic distrust. Even if they currently act lawfully, they signal a fracture in the relationship between citizens and institutions. Similar phenomena are emerging exponentially in Milan, Venice, and Florence. Ignoring them risks a progressive delegitimization of the judiciary and the rule of law.
What reforms are needed to rebuild citizens’ trust?
Due process remains an essential principle: no one should be exposed to public humiliation without a fair trial. But alongside this, there must be certainty of punishment, understood as effectiveness and speed of enforcement. In jurisdictions such as Dubai, the Principality of Monaco, and several other countries, security is founded precisely on the predictability and immediacy of punitive response.
Is reform of sentencing also necessary?
It is necessary to at least review minimum sentencing thresholds, strengthening the retributive function of punishment. Prison must once again become not only a tool for rehabilitation but also a clear signal of accountability for those who break the rules. Without credible sanctions, the system loses its normative force.
In conclusion, the growing autonomous organization of citizens in matters of security cannot be read simply as civic volunteerism. It is an indicator of institutional unease that the justice system cannot ignore. Only a renewed balance between due process guarantees, certainty of punishment, and effective enforcement can restore credibility to the justice system and rebuild the pact of trust between the State and its citizens.
