Talk:Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perjury[edit]

his perjury conviction is continually removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information[edit]

The Italian version of this page includes other relevant information, e.g. drug trafficking, corruption and more. See http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedimenti_giudiziari_a_carico_di_Silvio_Berlusconi -- R. 1 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.81.13 (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acquittal[edit]

I'm not sure whether Acquittal is the right juridical expression to characterize some of the verdict described here. Many of the sentences we are talking about don't say "not guilty", they instead say something like "he actually committed the crime but no punishment is deserved because the statuste of limitation expired".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you are right, but as you might know these pages are often edited, and taken care of, by Berlusconi's dedicated staff. No wonder. You might have also noted that this paragraph about his many trials and convictions has been split off from the main berlusconi bibliography, kind of hiding it. There are many oustanding NPOV issues related to Berlusconi entry, but .. it keeps staying as it is .. biased and misleading. <AT SALUDI> 07:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The statutory limitation does not mean he is not guilty; at the very least it says nothing about guilt, and in fact it may indicate that he is guilty if the statute of limitations is applied after conceding benefits for previous good conduct (i.e. it would be the first verdict of guilt), because such benefits can be granted only after guilt is ascertained. See sentence #5069 of the Corte di Cassazione, May 21 1996. 78.53.201.220 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As clearly expressed by the comments above, the Italian judiciary is a madness!!! You are acquitted, but you are not "not guilty": for an English-speaking person this is an absolute devious nonsensical byzantine system
In how many cases was he techically guilty then?93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of statute of limitations[edit]

I have added the following as an introduction, based on the discussion above-

  • The statutory limitation does not mean not guilty; at the very least it says nothing about guilt, and in fact it may indicate that he is guilty if the statute of limitations is applied after conceding benefits for previous good conduct (i.e. it would be the first verdict of guilt), because such benefits can be granted only after guilt is ascertained. ref sentence #5069 of the Corte di Cassazione, May 21, 1996
  • It would be great if someone could find out in which cases he is technically guilty.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer : none. Technically speaking he was not found guilty: Berlusconi did not obtain benefits for previous good conduct.
      • The above unsigned note by 217.201.135.245 (as well as the ensuing edits by the same anonymous user that I reverted) is in blatant contradiction with the first paragraph of the article (that 217.201.135.245 also attempted to remove and was reverted by another user). It is one of the tenets of Italian Law that statutory limitation does not imply a verdict of "not guilt". See the article on Not proven for a similar notion in Scots law and please stop this ludicrous vandalism. --DarTar (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy as Scotland? Absolutely not![edit]

Your argument are unconsistent. Scotland does not have a written constitution, instead the Italian Rupublic does:

  • Italian Constitution, Articolo 27, Comma 2: L'imputato non è considerato colpevole sino alla condanna definitiva

TRANSLATION: the defendant is not considered guily before the issuing of a final and unappealable sentence of guiltiness.

Therefore Silvio Berlusconi has a clear record up to now and you introduction is at least unappropriate.

The White Duke and DarTar are right. Also, let me make two points:

First: the parallel with Scots law *is* appropriate. The fact that Scottish and British constitutions are "unwritten" simply means that the status of constitutional legislation and ordinary legisilation is not as clearly differentiated as in the case of a written constitution, but this difference in itself has no consequence in terms of the status of individuals charged with an offence. In Scots law, "not proven" is a category of acquittal, just as in Italy, so the defendant for whom the "not proven" sentence is reached is technically not guilty of the offence s/he is charged with. The purpose of the "not proven" sentence is precisely to differentiate cases in which denfendants were *proven* innocent (covered by the other category of acquittal, "not guilty") from cases in which there was not enough evidence to reach a safe conviction *or* to safely discharge the defendant.

Second: since I am a translator, please note there are (relatively minor) errors in the translation provied for Art. 27(2), the Italian Senate's official translation for which reads "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed." (http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf). An alternative translation is "The defendant is considered not guilty prior to a final sentence [of culpability]". Klimt.eastwood (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Court of Cassation[edit]

The italian Court of Cassation say more than once:

"Qualora l'applicazione della causa estintiva della prescrizione del reato sia conseguenza della concessione di attenuanti, la sentenza si caratterizza per un previo riconoscimento di colpevolezza dell'imputato ed è fonte per costui di pregiudizio"

I try to translate but is hard:"If the extinsion of the trial for statue of limitation is due to extenuating circumstances, the sentence recognize guilty and is reason for legal prejudice"

STATUE OF LIMITATION ISN'T A SENTENCE OF NOT GUILTY--The White Duke (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me attempt another translation: "Where the closure of a trial results from the satisfaction of terms for a statute of limitations incurred as a result of the application of extenuating circumstances, the sentence must recognize the defendant's culpability, and results in prejudice for the latter." In simpler English: "If extenuating circumstances result in trials being stopped because statute of limitations are incurred, then the sentence must recognize the defendant's guilt". Klimt.eastwood (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Court of Cassation is still subject to the Italian constitution up to now[edit]

The Court of Cassation is STILL hyerarchically under the legislation of the Italian Constitution. AND THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTION CLEARLY INCORPORATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NOT GUILTINESS IN THE ITALIAN RIGHT:

  • Italian Constitution, Articolo 27, Comma 2: L'imputato non è considerato colpevole sino alla condanna definitiva

TRANSLATION: the defendant is not considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable sentence of guiltiness.

Therefore Silvio Berlusconi has a clear record up to now because the defendant (i.e. Silvio Berlusconi) is not considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable sentence of guiltiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.70.136 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't correct, sorry but there is some legal difference...if you want you can write "not condamned" but "not guilty" isn't correct because "not guilty" is only in presence of a complete acquittal sentence --The White Duke (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But wtf...
Not guilty means... Not guilty!

Italian Constitution, Articolo 27, Comma 2: L'imputato non è considerato colpevole sino alla condanna definitiva TRANSLATION: the defendant is not considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable sentence of guiltiness.

Now I stressed that part where the Italian Constitution stated that the defendant
is not considered guilty
before the issuing of an enforceable judgement of guiltiness.

It is not so difficult to understand... That principle of law is called "presumption of not guiltiness".
It is interesting to underline that the Italian Constitution incorporates the principle of the presumption of not guiltiness,
but it does not incorporates the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Therefore Silvio Berlusconi is considered not guilty, but not innocent according to the Italian Constitution and law.

I am afraid that the latest comment by The White Duke is the sole correct interpretation of the statute of limitations under Italian law, not matter how long you keep editing this page. Repeating your point on and on, regardless of what other users say (your recent edits have been reverted by at least 5 registered users for the same reason) is not the best way to prove it. The section you have introduced at the top of the article is clearly an infringement of NPOV. I invite you to register an account, become accountable for your contributions, and if you so wish try to argue your point with legal sources you consider authoritative instead of shouting or making inappropriate references to the Italian Constitution. --DarTar (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the constitution IS appropriate[edit]

Are you serious or what?!?!
This is clearly not an unappropriate reference to the Italian Constitution. The reference I added became necessary because the continous reverting of the passages in the precesses' summary where it was clearly stated that the trials ended without an enforceable judgement of guiltiness against Silvio Berlusconi.

I do not understand why the reference to the Italian Constitution is unappropriate.
Without this reference is almost impossible to understand the juridical situation of Silvio Berlusconi... So where's unappropriate?

Is it right that Silvio Berlusconi has a clear record up to now?

Is it right that Silvio Berlusconi is not considered guilty because, according to the Italian Constitution, no enforceable judgement of guiltines was issued against him?

So where is the lie? Where is the lack of encyclopaediac value of the information added?
Deleting information is not a good policy and you are doing precisely so!

Let the users gather all the information and form an opinion for themselves without censoring useful and referenced sources!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insilvis (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2[edit]

Apart from a gross spelling error or typo ["False accunting is not a wrongdoing anymore"], the translation of the Italian headline needs to be reworded slightly. Possibly: "False accounting no longer an offence" [or crime].

Aiuto! I cannot find a way to do this in the Reference editing box myself. Part of the original Italian headline is: "All Iberian, Berlusconi assolto. "Falso in bilancio non è più reato" Ombudswiki (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslations[edit]


- The Section heading "Completed processes" should read "Completed trials";
- The Section entitled "Bribing a judge on Lodo Mondadori: statute of limitations", incorrectly states that "A Prima facie case was issued, but the magistrate decided to drop the charges." In English and Scottish law, a "magistrate" is a lay member of the judiciary, i.e. a member of the public who sits in judgement of certain minor cases instead of Crown Courts, so it looks like here 'magistrate' is a mistranslation of 'magistrato', and therefore should read "judge". Klimt.eastwood (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC);[reply]
- "Illegally financed political party on All Iberian 1" should read "Illegal financing of a political party"; "First Court" should read "Court of First Instance"; and "Appeal Court" should read "Court of Appeal".


Sections[edit]

Somehow all the listed trials are under "Completed trials"- can someone who knows the detail fix this, please? Also apply any updates.... Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trials_and_allegations_involving_Silvio_Berlusconi&oldid=1209674489"