Reasons for voting Yes in the upcoming Italian justice referendum explained by a Public Prosecutor
Abstract: The interview addresses the issue of Italian judicial reform by removing it from ideological confrontation and restoring it to its ethical and constitutional dimension. Through a reasoned dialogue, three decisive aspects of the judicial system are examined: the separation of careers between judges and public prosecutors, the overcoming of factional dynamics within the High Council of the Judiciary, and the reorganization of disciplinary responsibility. The analysis shows how these measures, if implemented in compliance with guarantees of autonomy, do not weaken the judiciary but rather strengthen its impartiality, transparency, and credibility. The independence of the judiciary is thus reaffirmed in its original function: not a corporatist privilege, but a democratic safeguard in the service of citizens and public trust in justice.
Keywords: #ItalianJusticeReferendum #ItalianJusticeReform #Judiciary #JudicialIndependence #JudicialImpartiality #SeparationOfCareers #DueProcess #HighCouncilOfTheJudiciary #SelfGovernance #Factions #DisciplinaryResponsibility #GrandJury #PublicEthics #Constitution #RuleOfLaw #PublicTrust #ConstitutionalDemocracy #CristinaDiSilvio #AnnalisaImparato #EthicaSocietas #EthicaSocietasJournal #ScientificJournal #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli
Annalisa Imparato: Deputy Public Prosecutor at the Santa Maria Capua Vetere Court; legal advisor to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on Ecomafia of the Chamber of Deputies; legal advisor to the Ministry of Defence; lecturer at the CASD and the COVI; listed by Fortune Italia among the “Most Powerful Women 2024”. LinkedIn Profile
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION IN THE JUSTICE REFORM: INTERVIEW WITH GIUSEPPE BELLELLI
THE JUDGE’S IMPARTIALITY AND THE REFORM: INTERVIEW WITH MARCO TAMBURRINO
The debate on judicial reform is often marked by ideological clashes and oversimplifications that risk obscuring the central issue: the quality of justice in a constitutional democracy. In this dialogue, Cristina Di Silvio and Annalisa Imparato address some of the most delicate issues of the judicial system—such as the separation of careers, the functioning of the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM), and disciplinary responsibility—adopting a legal, rather than ideological or corporatist, approach, and reflecting on how to strengthen judicial independence without undermining its credibility in the eyes of citizens.
1. Separation of Careers: Independence and Impartiality
Cristina Di Silvio: “In what way would the separation of careers—already limited in practice today—be ethically and constitutionally wrong, and how would it undermine autonomy and independence, considering that judges and public prosecutors are two different professions and that their roles should be clearly distinct, just like that of the defense counsel?”
Annalisa Imparato: “The separation of careers is neither ethically nor constitutionally wrong, because the Constitution does not impose unity of careers between judges and public prosecutors; rather, it safeguards the independence of the judiciary and, above all, the impartiality of the judge in the trial. Judges and public prosecutors perform structurally different functions: the former decides from a position of impartiality, while the latter supports the prosecution and initiates criminal action. It is therefore natural that they have different professional cultures, objectives, and responsibilities. Remaining within a single order, with role transitions, cross-evaluations, and shared self-governance, does not ensure greater independence but risks weakening—at least in perception—the judge’s impartiality, an essential element of due process. Separating careers, while maintaining the same guarantees of autonomy for public prosecutors, neither subjects them to the executive branch nor weakens them; instead, it clarifies roles and strengthens the balance between prosecution and defense, making the impartiality of the judiciary more credible without violating any constitutional principle.”
1. The Random Selection of the CSM: Reducing Factions Without Weakening Autonomy
Cristina Di Silvio: “Why would removing political weight from factions through the random selection of the CSM be contrary to judicial autonomy, considering that the Constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary from politics and allows limitations on magistrates’ membership in political parties?”
Annalisa Imparato: “The random selection of the judicial members of the CSM is not contrary to judicial autonomy, because the real risk is not the loss of political weight by factions, but their consolidation into organized and permanent centers of power. Factions are not provided for by the Constitution and, over time, have taken on a para-political role that affects appointments, careers, and internal balances, generating dynamics of exchange and allegiance that have little to do with the independence of individual magistrates. Random selection does not eliminate cultural pluralism—guaranteed by the real diversity among magistrates—but reduces the formation of internal oligarchies and careers built on factional consensus. In this sense, random selection is consistent with the constitutional idea of a judiciary independent from politics, both external and internal, and with the possibility of limiting magistrates’ political involvement in order to preserve institutional neutrality and authority.”
2. The Disciplinary Grand Jury: Autonomy and the Perception of Impartiality
Cristina Di Silvio: “What risk would there be in establishing a Disciplinary Grand Jury, considering that it would in any case be composed of magistrates?”
Annalisa Imparato: “The establishment of a Disciplinary Grand Jury does not pose a risk to judicial autonomy if it is composed of magistrates and structurally separated from the bodies that govern careers and appointments. The problem with the current system is not that magistrates judge other magistrates, but that the disciplinary function is intertwined with self-governance and affiliation dynamics, generating a widespread perception of self-referentiality or selective enforcement of sanctions. A distinct disciplinary body, with neutral composition and a limited mandate, reduces the risk of reciprocal conditioning and makes the principle of accountability more credible without introducing political interference. In this way, judicial autonomy is strengthened: a system perceived as fair in assessing conduct is the very condition for citizens’ trust and for the legitimacy of judicial independence.”
4. Conclusion: A Credible Judiciary at the Service of Citizens
Annalisa Imparato: “The point is not to defend corporatist arrangements or entrenched balances, but to ask what kind of judiciary a mature democracy needs. A strong judiciary is not one that closes in on itself out of fear of change, but one that accepts rethinking its own forms of power in order to strengthen its credibility. Separating careers, breaking factional logics, and making disciplinary accountability effective do not weaken the judiciary; they restore its authority. Judicial independence is not a good to be defended for magistrates—it is a good to be guaranteed for citizens. Every reform should be judged by a single question: does it make justice fairer, more transparent, and more worthy of the trust of those who rely on it?”
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
IRAN, THE TIDE OF PROTEST CHALLENGING CLERICALISM
THE COALITION OF THE WILLING AND A GUARDED PEACE: THE WEST BETWEEN DETERRENCE AND DISENGAGEMENT
AFRICA: THE CONTINENT THAT SCREAMS AND THE WORLD THAT DOESN’T LISTEN
“PEACE CANNOT BE BARTERED”: A CONVERSATION WITH UN MINISTER ALBERTO FLORES HERNÁNDEZ
“LIFE DOES NOT BELONG TO US”: MINISTER FLORES HERNÁNDEZ SPEAKS OF DIPLOMACY WITH A SOUL
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS BY ANNALISA IMPARATO
SUSPENDED GENERATIONS: JUVENILE CRIME, PERIPHERIES AND THE LIMITS OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS
IRAN: REPRESSION AND THE CRISIS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER SUICIDE: TRAGEDY IN CORSICO
TRAIL CAMERAS WITHOUT CE CERTIFICATION OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM ARE UNLAWFUL
INSIDE THE PAIN, BEYOND THE UNIFORM: A TERRIBLE STORY OF SOLITUDE
CRIMES AND SUICIDES WITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT: AN INTERVIEW WITH VENICE POLICE CHIEF
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non.profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2026 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0