Miedico outlines the obstacles to accessing alternative measures

Melissa Miedico, Associate Professor of the department of legal studies and member Baffi Centre is also the principal investigator of “Early release from a custodial sentence: an investigation in Italian prisons” research project. We have asked her some questions about the project.

The PRIN research project “Early release from a custodial sentence: an investigation in Italian prisons” has recently concluded. What was the main goal of the study?

The aim of the project was to understand, through an empirical investigation, why many individuals continue to serve their sentences in prison even though they meet the legal requirements to access alternative measures.

The initial data already pointed to a significant issue: a very large proportion of sentenced prisoners were serving residual terms of less than four years and were therefore potentially eligible for probation – and thus release from prison – or for other measures designed to foster a gradual process of social reintegration as they approach the end of their custodial term. In addition, there are particularly vulnerable categories – elderly prisoners, individuals with substance dependency under the care of addiction services (SerD), and women with minor children – for whom the legal system provides specific alternatives to custodial detention.

The project sought to move beyond the formal legal framework and investigate the concrete reasons – legal, social, and organizational – that hinder effective access to these measures.

What methodology did you adopt?

We conducted an empirical survey based on a representative sample of inmates detained in all eighteen prisons in the Lombardy region, which accounts for approximately 14% of the total prison population in Italy.

Data collection involved the analysis of legal positions, consultation of individual rehabilitation files, and, in some cases, semi-structured interviews. The empirical research was accompanied by a doctrinal analysis of the legal framework governing alternative measures, including legislative preclusions – particularly those under Article 4-bis of the Prison Act – as well as relevant case law and prison practices.

The findings were further enriched through structured discussions with prison staff, probation officers (UEPE), and supervising judges, both during intermediate workshops and at the final conference.

What are the main findings of the research?

The study confirms that the obstacles to accessing alternative measures are multiple and cannot be reduced to a single factor.

Alongside formal legislative preclusions, which in some cases prevent access from the outset, we identified significant social and personal barriers: lack of suitable housing, fragile family networks, absence of employment prospects, difficulties in obtaining documentation, and limited access to information. In many cases, these factors overlap, making release pathways particularly complex.

The research also highlighted the presence of so-called “unknown inmates”, individuals who, despite the absence of legal preclusions, do not apply for alternative measures due to lack of adequate support or awareness of their legal situation.

Another important finding concerns the impact of discretionary practices and differing prognostic assessments by the competent authorities, which may lead to non-uniform outcomes.

What impact could these results have on the penitentiary system?

The collected data provide a solid empirical basis for guiding both legislative reform and improvements in administrative practices.

From a normative perspective, the findings offer valuable insights into the actual rationality and effectiveness of certain automatic preclusions. From an organizational standpoint, they highlight the need for systematic monitoring of inmates’ legal positions and for strengthened social and rehabilitative support, particularly for the most vulnerable individuals.

Reducing the number of people who remain in prison despite being eligible for alternative measures is not merely a matter of alleviating overcrowding: it directly concerns the protection of fundamental rights, the working conditions of prison staff, and, in the longer term, the prevention of recidivism.

On 26 February 2026, the final conference of the project was held. What was the significance of this event?

The conference, hosted at the University of Milano-Bicocca, represented an important moment of public dissemination and interdisciplinary dialogue.

The first session focused on presenting the research results and discussing the meaning of rehabilitation in the current penitentiary context. The second session was devoted to identifying plausible proposals for a rapid change of direction, bringing together judges, scholars, and representatives of the prison administration.

The debate confirmed the importance of maintaining an ongoing dialogue between empirical research and judicial and administrative practice.

In your view, what is the most important message emerging from this research?

Perhaps the most significant insight is that imprisonment often remains an automatic response, even when the legal system provides alternative tools that are more consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of punishment.

If we aim to intervene effectively, we must start from reliable data, distinguish between the different types of obstacles, and address them in a targeted way, ensuring that no one is left behind, least of all the most vulnerable. Only in this way can we contribute to a penitentiary system that is more respectful of constitutional principles and more conducive to social reintegration.