We detect some of these signals. Many states are in debt, often due to mismanagement of public affairs. What's the answer? Often, unfortunately, not the implementation of virtuous management practices of public affairs, but the indiscriminate criminalization of prosperous companies and wealthy people; arousing the suspicion that (for the mere fact of being prosperous or being wealthy) they have made profits in an ethically incorrect way. To then adopt punitive tax practices and / or that tend to reverse the burden of proof: you are taxed not on the basis of what you declare but on the basis of a series of indications established by the State and it is up to you to prove that you have not defrauded the tax authorities. At a fast pace and with sometimes hysterical tones, serious accusations of self-styled or alleged victims (or groups of victims) against executives from the world of entertainment, politics or the economy or against companies accused have multiplied in recent years and months. of having caused irreparable damage to health, accusations that ipso facto transform the accused into pillory guilty before a trial with all the guarantees that modern justice has adopted in defense of the accused can be instituted. The loosening of the principle of the presumption of innocence or innocence is also noticeable in the sphere of justice, in particular that exercised by the courts for war crimes or that of the criminal courts tout court. I am thinking of emblematic events such as the Tortora case in Italy - the presenter indicted and unjustly branded as a mafioso by public opinion but also by unfortunate statements by judges to the press, against any established evidence or proof - events which unfortunately are not isolated but indicate a drift in place.
It should be noted that in all the above examples, today's mass media system contributes powerfully to undermining the presumption of innocence of the accused. If the right to information represents a conquest of the mass media that benefits society and must be safeguarded, it is a fact that today the great majority of the media tend to immediately see in every accusation a well-founded accusation, in every self-styled victim a true victim and in the accused a culprit. The mere fact of being blamed by someone is perceived - not only by the mass media but in today's collective opinion - as proof of guilt. This happens especially in fields where there is a strong pressure of public opinion or a movement in public opinion at a given moment, such as in the case of war crimes trials, the struggle for women's emancipation or against pedophilia or fight against companies that use potentially polluting or unhealthy materials or against mafia infiltration into economic activities. In these cases where the will to punish is urgent, the presumption of innocence often appears as a useless obstacle to exemplary punishment and the onset of reflexes that lead straight to the "popular and summary trial" is evident.
The temptation of the presumption of guilt instead of that of innocence is an expression not only of the information society (which is often disinformation or manipulation), but also of the so-called risk society. The legal doctrine itself in the context of the criminal trial (where there is a shift from the criminal law "of the event" towards the criminal law "of risk") now speaks of the need to take into account a social contract that is not solid but weak: that specific to today's risk societies - as Ulrich Beck defines them - in which the concept of collective insecurity plays a central role. In this context, the alleged victims have a much greater say (and a force of pressure) than in the past, also thanks to the megaphone of the mass media, with the risk that - for example in trials involving companies - justice will take hold “On the side of the victims”, who deems it appropriate to launch “strong moral signals” that recall the temptation of the ethical state. Perhaps hastily glossing over the possibility that the cause of an accusation there are large material interests and the hope of rich compensation. Without wanting to minimize the suffering of real victims, the dilemma of modern justice between the acquittal of a guilty and the conviction of an innocent cannot be liquidated or watered down by giving in to the screams of the square. Nor in an era of great uncertainty and demagogic populism like the present one, in which the social contract is cracked. It is useful to remember that the famous phrase of Cesare Beccaria "A man cannot be called an offender before the sentence of the judge, nor can society remove public protection from him, unless it is decided that he has violated the agreements with which he was granted Responds to the desire to put an end to summary justice, the inquisition and the pillories of previous centuries. Where we would not like to return. And it is equally useful to recall the profound link that Montesquieu established between the presumption of innocence and the freedom and social security of citizens: "When citizens' innocence is not guaranteed, neither is freedom". Not only the freedom of the individual citizen, but of the entire society. Here, I believe, lies the delicate and relevant point of the question. At stake is the legitimacy of the political and judicial power: the citizen's feeling of security and the strength of the social contract. I do not think that indulging the desire for popular trials serves to strengthen the relationship of trust of citizens towards their institutions and administrations. Not even the reversal of the burden of proof of the tax authorities of certain countries towards their taxpayers. Unlike. In doing so, a culture of suspicion is propagated which dangerously undermines institutional and social relations and favors the fractures that are visible to all. A recent OECD report indicates that the level of citizens' trust in the authorities has been steadily declining since the turn of the century. The OECD average does not exceed 40%. In contrast is Switzerland, where the level of confidence is fairly stable and is still close to 80%. Until when? A recent ruling by the Swiss Federal Court regarding the disclosure of data on tens of thousands of bank customers to the tax authorities of a European country is causing concern.
