'Minus peccare videtur’. Sul perimetro applicativo dell’edictum de adtemptata pudicitia

Il saggio propone una rilettura di un noto passo ulpianeo, nel quale il giurista si occupa della rilevanza – ai fini della concessione dell’actio iniuriarum – dell’abito indossato dalla persona offesa. Abito che, contrariamente a quanto sostenuto da parte della dottrina, non sembra essere essenziale ai fini della configurazione di un’ipotesi di adtemptata pudicitia e della concessione della relativa azione

"Delirium Day": A nationwide point prevalence study of delirium in older hospitalized patients using an easy standardized diagnostic tool

Background: To date, delirium prevalence in adult acute hospital populations has been estimated generally from pooled findings of single-center studies and/or among specific patient populations. Furthermore, the number of participants in these studies has not exceeded a few hundred. To overcome these limitations, we have determined, in a multicenter study, the prevalence of delirium over a single day among a large population of patients admitted to acute and rehabilitation hospital wards in Italy. Methods: This is a point prevalence study (called "Delirium Day") including 1867 older patients (aged 65 years or more) across 108 acute and 12 rehabilitation wards in Italian hospitals. Delirium was assessed on the same day in all patients using the 4AT, a validated and briefly administered tool which does not require training. We also collected data regarding motoric subtypes of delirium, functional and nutritional status, dementia, comorbidity, medications, feeding tubes, peripheral venous and urinary catheters, and physical restraints. Results: The mean sample age was 82.0 ± 7.5 years (58 % female). Overall, 429 patients (22.9 %) had delirium. Hypoactive was the commonest subtype (132/344 patients, 38.5 %), followed by mixed, hyperactive, and nonmotoric delirium. The prevalence was highest in Neurology (28.5 %) and Geriatrics (24.7 %), lowest in Rehabilitation (14.0 %), and intermediate in Orthopedic (20.6 %) and Internal Medicine wards (21.4 %). In a multivariable logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05), Activities of Daily Living dependence (OR 1.19, 95 % CI 1.12-1.27), dementia (OR 3.25, 95 % CI 2.41-4.38), malnutrition (OR 2.01, 95 % CI 1.29-3.14), and use of antipsychotics (OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.45-2.82), feeding tubes (OR 2.51, 95 % CI 1.11-5.66), peripheral venous catheters (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.06-1.87), urinary catheters (OR 1.73, 95 % CI 1.30-2.29), and physical restraints (OR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.40-2.40) were associated with delirium. Admission to Neurology wards was also associated with delirium (OR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.29-3.14), while admission to other settings was not. Conclusions: Delirium occurred in more than one out of five patients in acute and rehabilitation hospital wards. Prevalence was highest in Neurology and lowest in Rehabilitation divisions. The "Delirium Day" project might become a useful method to assess delirium across hospital settings and a benchmarking platform for future surveys

Una 'puella habens spiritum phytonis' e un presunto esorcismo. Alcune considerazioni

The present contribution aims to provide a legal analysis of Act. Ap. 16. 11-24. During their preaching in Filippi, Paolo and Sila were brought to the agora by some Roman colonists, who accused them before the authorities of 'causing great turmoil in the city' and 'disseminating customs' that the Romans were not allowed 'to adopt or practice'. In the light of the peculiar formulation of these accusations and the various scholarly opinions expressed in this regard, this contribution will investigate the legal nature of the charges moved against them and the source of the power of the duumviri of Filippi to sanction the two missionaries.El estudio está dedicado al análisis de algunos pasajes de los Hechos de los Apóstoles (Act.Ap. 16. 11-24). Durante la predicación en Filippi, Paolo y Sila fueron llevados al ágora por algunos colonos romanos y acusados ante las autoridades competentes de “poner a la ciudad en gran agitación” y “proclamar costumbres” de que a los romanos no se les permitiría “adoptar o practicar”. La formulación particular de las acusaciones y las numerosas opiniones expresadas al respecto por la doctrina, han sugerido una profundización sobre la naturaleza jurídica de los cargos y sobre qué base, concretamente, los duumviri de Filippi había ordenado la sanción contra los dos misioneros

Giochi, spettacoli e disordini. A proposito di D. 48.19.28.3

Non di rado, in occasione di giochi e spettacoli a Roma e in provincia esplodevano tra gli spettatori gravi disordini, dei quali un celebre esempio è lo scontro avvenuto nell’anfiteatro di Pompei nel 59 d.C., descritto da Tacito negli Annales (14.17). Secondo una risalente tesi, vi sarebbe una stretta connessione tra il racconto di Tacito e un noto passo callistrateo (D. 48.19.28.3), ove il giurista si occupa delle sanzioni che avrebbero potuto essere comminate a coloro “qui volgo se iuvenes appellant”, per essersi associati alle adclamationes popularium. Tuttavia, l’idea di un fondamento giuridico comune non convince. Nel presente contributo, si osserverà come, in una prospettiva diversa rispetto a quella dalla quale muove Tacito, che riferisce esclusivamente delle sanzioni applicate all’organizzatore del munus e alla città di Pompei, Callistrato abbia significativamente ritenuto di prestare - sotto il profilo sanzionatorio - una particolare attenzione ai iuvenes che, durante gli spettacoli, avessero tenuto un comportamento turbolento e sedizioso, dal momento che troppo spesso i luoghi dedicati allo spettacolo, specialmente in alcune città di provincia, erano stati teatro di proteste violente - o comunque esternazioni troppo accese - da parte del pubblicoQuite often, during games and shows in Rome and the province, serious unrest broke out among the public, a famous example of which is the clash in the amphitheatre of Pompeii in 59 AD, described by Tacitus in the Annales (14.17). According to one author, there is a close connection between the facts described by Tacitus and a well-known fragment by Callistratus (D. 48.19.28.3), where the jurist deals with the sanctions that could have been imposed on those “qui volgo se iuvenes appellant”, for being associated with the adclamationes popularium. The idea of a common legal basis is not convincing. In this contribution, it will be observed how, unlike Tacitus (who refers only to penalties applied to the organiser and the city of Pompeii), Callistratus has decided to pay particular attention - as far as sanctions are concerned - to the iuvenes who, during the shows, had behaved in a turbulent and seditious way, since all too often the places dedicated to the shows, especially in some cities in the province, had been the theatre of violent protests - or, in any case, too much inflamed behaviours - by the public

Neque torqueri neque damnari. Sul divieto di torturare e condannare a morte la donna incinta

The present paper pursues a two-fold goal. On the one hand, it intends to clarify the content of the prohibition of torturing and sentencing pregnant women; on the other hand, it will explore whether the legal interest safeguarded by the norm at hand was solely that of the father, having particular regard to his interest of not being deprived of a legitimate progeny

State-sponsored torture in the name of public safety: warnings from the Roman legal experience

Moving from recent proposals, advanced especially in the US political and academic de- bate in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to reintroduce torture as a legal tool to pro- tect national security, the present article aims to analyze the normative developments re- garding the use of torture in the Roman legal experience, with a view to highlighting the risk of a gradual, but inexorable, expansion of the criminal offences allowing for its ap- plication. Indeed, although it is well-known torture was an integral part of the Roman judicial system and never emerged the idea of entirely abolishing it, one should not ne- glect that the quaestio per tormenta on freemen, which had been expressly forbidden for centuries, was initially admitted – only by way of exception – precisely for those hypoth- eses falling within the scope of the crimen maiestatis and, hence, for those crimes that could potentially endanger the established order, but ended up being applied to a far wid- er range of hypotheses