Sicurezza sul lavoro e diritto penale“rischi” di responsabilità oggettiva e rimprovero personale

Laburpena

The advent of changes in science and technology has contributed to the incessant and profound modification of the characteristic features of civil society. It is from this premise that the present research takes shape, the main object of which represents the direct consequence of what, with not a few abuses of a political-criminal nature, is defined as risk. Safety in the world of work is one of the areas to which increasing attention is being paid. If, on the one hand, the legal system did not seem adequate to deal with situations of danger to health and safety at work, on the other hand, also in this field there has been an exasperation of the punitive response, masked in supposedly “necessary and urgent” repressive models, as vehicles for the realization of a broader constitutional discourse, whose objective would be not only work, but work in conditions of dignity and safety. This discourse can be extended to many sectors of activity that characterize the daily processes of modern society. In fact, there are several dimensions that, while presenting intrinsic risk factors by nature, are socially and legally permitted because of the benefits they bring. Think, for example, of the practice of sports disciplines, the driving of motor vehicles or the marketing of food products. In each of these areas there are potential risk factors that are “allowed” and, in some cases, “endorsed” both by society and by the law. In the general context of a substantial “systematization” of the Criminal Law of risk, and despite the fact that the principle of culpability has gradually taken root in the legal system, a fairly substantial residue of liability that, for various reasons, cannot be defined lato sensu as personal remains entangled in the meshes of Criminal Law. Therefore, an attempt has been made to shed light on the systematic scope of widely debated institutions, which also form hypotheses of objective liability. To this end, on the basis of the studies that have followed, an attempt has been made to highlight the link between the phenomenology of human action (or omission) and the consequences attributed to it by the legal system. Thus, to opt for one or the other solution - that is, to make any choice of law and criminal policy - corresponds, above all, to chiseling in the ius positum one’s own convictions in terms of the teleology of punishment. The considerations formulated in this paper lead to proclaiming the vulnerability of “personal responsibility”, thus enshrining the problem as a constantly topical issue in the criminal debate. If it is true that the provision of hermeneutic instruments of a normative-valorative mold is not tout court capable of eliminating all risk of objective liability, it is easy to understand how the attention of the doctrine can never lower its guard in the face of potential revivals of medieval institutions, incompatible with the constitutional requirements of contemporary times. It must be borne in mind, in fact, that a truly personal responsibility is the only one that can guarantee the link of criminal justice with the act committed, in order to avoid drifting into guilt by mere authorship. The research is aimed at looking for the profiles of objective liability in the field of criminal protection of safety at work, both in causality and in the complex structure of negligence, which reaffirms its relational and organizational characters. Finally, an attempt will be made to formulate a hypothesis de lege ferenda, going on to examine whether, in relation to artificial intelligence, the Constitution can tolerate some form of objective liability.