Parliament was split over the decision on whether or not to arrest the former minister of health, De Lorenzo. Each MP voted according to his conscience. Following are some motivations.

ABSTRACT: Contains a number of motivations of vote whereby several radical MPs rejected or accepted the request to arrest the former Minister. Says Tiziana Majolo: "De Lorenzo cannot manipulate the evidence"; Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio: "I'm voting in favour, in conformity with the principle that cases must be discussed and voted case by case"; Ottavio Lavaggi: "Yes to his arrest, because the request contains no intention of persecution"; Marco Taradash:"I find myself forced to decide for the detention of a person"; Roberto Cicciomessere: "There's no way De Lorenzo, who has confessed, can manipulate the evidence".

(1994 - IL QUOTIDIANO RADICALE, 25 November 1993)

I realize the public opinion will probably judge my actions negatively. I also realize that a fair and necessary measure of preventive custody would have been adopted for any citizen who had behaved like De Lorenzo. Nonetheless, I wonder the extent to which the judiciary can modify the structure of Parliament; also, are the conditions required by article 274 of the code of criminal procedure satisfied? The problem is not whether or not De Lorenzo wants to manipulate the evidence (and we know he would like to), but whether he has the material opportunity of doing so. He doesn't and neither does anyone else.

I will regretfully vote against the request to arrest him.

Tiziana Maiolo

Elected on the lists of Rifondazione Comunista and a radical member

Today's vote must restore the principle according to which the various cases must be discussed and voted case by case. We are not deciding that the request of authorization to prosecute should be accepted at all times. We are discussing a sensational case, a particularly serious case which is very different compared to other cases we have examined. Saying too much time has gone by since the request ultimately means saying that it will never be possible to arrest a member of Parliament. That is why I shall vote in favour of authorizing the arrest.

Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio

Elected on the Green Lists and a member of the Radical Party

I have serious doubts concerning the way preventive custody is being used in our country. Nonetheless, I think this concern is particularly valid for ordinary citizens rather than for political defendants. I believe a member of Parliament and an ordinary citizen are equal before the justice, except the former enjoys an extra guarantee: that he is protected by his in the event of politically motivated judicial persecutions. I can see no persecutory intention in the request to arrest De Lorenzo, so I shall consent to his arrest.

Ottavio Lavaggi

Elected on the republican list and treasurer of the Radical Party

I believe prison - in the form of preventive custody - is a substitute for torture: for this reason it should be limited to extreme cases. However, I am one of the members of Parliament who believe Parliament should decide on its integrity and on the possibility that a political attack come from the judiciary. In this case I need to see whether there were sound reasons to ask for an arrest or whether the intent was persecutory. To this argument I must legitimately answer to preserve the power of decision of Parliament itself. I am forced to decide with my vote to arrest a person.

Marco Taradash

Elected on the Lista Pannella and a member of the radical Party

Few realize that preventive custody is no longer used in Italy, thanks also to two decades of radical campaigns and struggles. The arrest is not "an advanced expiation of the penalty", but a preventive measure that should be adopted only in extreme cases when there is the danger that the defendant could either escape or manipulate the evidence or commit the same crime. For De Lorenzo the public prosecutor asked the arrest hypothesizing his capacity to hamper the gathering of the evidence. But how can the evidence be manipulateed and the witnesses influenced when the defendant has confessed? De Lorenzo confessed to accepting the money, and that he violated the law that regulates parties' financing. The public prosecutor believes he has also corrupted people; the trial will need to establish how to qualify penally that behaviour which De Lorenzo confessed and how it should be punished. So why decide that for De Lorenzo alone it is necessary to restore the notorious preventive custody? Would we want to authoriz

e such a patent violation of the law if the defendant were not the "monster" who "speculated on sick people"? Is the law equal for all?

Roberto Cicciomessere

Elected in the Lista Pannella and a member of the Radical Party