Reduction of the Criminal Sentence During Its Execution (A Comparative Study Between the Legislations of France and Italy)

Abstract

When a criminal offense is committed, the State activates its punitive mechanisms and brings the offender before the criminal judiciary, which examines the establishment of criminal responsibility and, upon conviction, determines the type and extent of the penalty to be executed within correctional institutions. Traditionally, criminal justice systems adhered to the principle of full execution of the imposed sentence, without any possibility of reduction during the execution phase. This rigidity was rooted in the original objectives of punishment, particularly retribution and deterrence, as well as in strict adherence to the principle of legality, which requires predictability of penalties.

However, modern criminal policy has witnessed a fundamental shift in the philosophy of punishment. Contemporary penal thought has increasingly emphasized rehabilitation, reintegration, and the moral reform of offenders as central objectives of criminal sanctions. This transformation has led to the emergence of various legal mechanisms that allow for the modification, mitigation, or early termination of criminal sentences during their execution, including conditional release, suspension of execution, semi-liberty, probation, and sentence adjustment measures.

Within this evolving framework, the reduction of criminal sentences during execution has become a significant legal instrument aimed at balancing societal protection with humanitarian and rehabilitative considerations. This research examines the concept, legal foundations, and objectives of sentence reduction during execution through a comparative analysis of the French and Italian legal systems. It seeks to identify points of convergence and divergence between the two legislations, evaluate their effectiveness in achieving penal reform, and contribute to the broader discourse on modern criminal justice and sentencing policy.