01 Aug therapeutic home detention

With final approval, by the Chamber of Deputies 29 July 2026, of the bill containing provisions on home detention for the recovery of drug- or alcohol-dependent prisoners, the legislator intervened significantly on the Presidential Decree. 9 October 1990, n. 309, introducing the new articles 94-ter and 94-quater into the Consolidated Law on drugs and at the same time amending some provisions of the criminal procedure code and the penitentiary system. The reform represents one of the most significant interventions in recent years in the criminal enforcement sector, pursuing the objective of strengthening the constitutional principle of the re-educational function of punishment through a system that enhances the therapeutic treatment of addictions as a tool for preventing recidivism and social reintegration of the convicted person. In this context, the new article 94-ter of the Presidential Decree takes on particular importance. n. 309/1990, rubricated “Home detention in special cases”, which introduces a new alternative measure to detention aimed at people suffering from drug or alcohol addiction who, despite not being able to access probationary custody in particular cases regulated by the article 94 of the same Consolidated Law, present concrete possibilities of recovery through a residential therapeutic path. The legislative choice arises from the awareness that mere intramural detention does not always constitute the most effective tool to combat the phenomenon of recidivism when the criminal behavior is closely linked to the state of pathological dependence, favoring instead a model in which healthcare and rehabilitation treatment becomes an integral part of the execution of the sentence. The new institution in fact allows the convicted person to serve his sentence at an authorized therapeutic facility or at a public residential facility of the National Health Service specialized in the treatment of addictions, transforming the therapeutic path into a method of executing the criminal sanction subject to the control of the judicial authority. However, access to the measure does not constitute an automatic right, but it requires the existence of rigorous subjective and objective presuppositions. The interested party must present a specific request accompanied by a therapeutic and socio-rehabilitative program prepared by the structure where the measure will be carried out, from which the actual condition of drug or alcohol addiction emerges, the connection between this pathological state and the commission of crimes, as well as the concrete suitability of the therapeutic path to promote the recovery of the person and to prevent the risk of new criminal conduct. If treatment has already started, the results achieved up to that point must also be documented, the degree of patient adherence to the program and the prospects of completing it. The Surveillance Court is called upon to carry out a particularly in-depth assessment of the personality of the convicted person, of the seriousness of the therapeutic project, public safety needs, the probability of social reintegration and the actual ability of the measure to contain the risk of recidivism. The new discipline differs from the therapeutic assignment envisaged by the article 94 precisely because it expands the tools available to the supervisory judiciary, allowing the application of an alternative measure even in cases where the conditions required for the already existing institution do not exist. From an executive point of view, the stay at the therapeutic facility is accompanied by particularly rigorous prescriptions, compliance with which constitutes an essential element for maintaining the benefit. The subject admitted to the measure is required to fully observe the recovery program, the prescriptions given by the magistrate and those established by the health facility, being constantly monitored both from a therapeutic perspective and from that of compliance with the conditions imposed by the judicial authority. The unjustified abandonment of the therapeutic community, the repeated violation of the provisions or any behavior incompatible with the aims of the program may lead to the revocation of the measure and the continuation of the execution of the sentence in a penitentiary institution. The reform, however, introduces an approach that is more in line with the characteristics of addiction recovery paths, avoiding automatic revocations and allowing the judge to evaluate the seriousness of any violations on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the fact that the therapeutic path can physiologically go through moments of difficulty without this necessarily leading to the failure of the treatment. Alongside the new article 94-ter, the legislator also introduced article 94-quater, aimed at regulating specific organizational and procedural profiles of the new system, also providing for the establishment of a central commission responsible for preparing uniform guidelines for ascertaining the state of dependence and for the evaluation of therapeutic programs, with the aim of guaranteeing greater homogeneity of application across the entire national territory and avoiding differences in interpretation between the different Supervisory Courts. At the same time, changes were made to the article 656 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the suspension of the order for execution of the sentence, in order to coordinate the new institute with the system of alternative measures and allow quicker access to therapeutic paths when the legal requirements are met. From a systematic point of view, the reform confirms the evolution of the penitentiary system towards a model in which the punishment does not take on an exclusively punitive function, but it becomes a tool aimed at recovering the person, especially when the commission of the crimes is strictly connected to a pathological condition susceptible to treatment. Legislative intervention does not reduce the level of protection of the community, but rather aims to increase it through tools that affect the causes of deviance, in the awareness that the success of a therapeutic path often constitutes the best guarantee against the recurrence of criminal behavior. For legal practitioners, the new regulation will require particular attention in preparing requests, in the collection of health documentation and in the construction of the therapeutic project, since the quality of the recovery program and its concrete sustainability will represent the central elements of the evaluation delegated to the Supervisory Court. The new article 94-ter is therefore one of the most innovative tools introduced in recent years in the field of criminal enforcement, expanding the possibilities of access to recovery paths outside prison and trying to combine, in a delicate balance, the needs of public safety with the constitutional principle of the re-educational purpose of punishment, placing the person, the treatment of addictions and social reintegration at the center of the legal intervention.