Every now and then, in Italy, a ruling causes a stir. And if it causes a stir, you can be sure that it has something to do with violence against women; and you can be sure that that ruling will be said to be unfair. We are witnessing the same farce these days, this time because of the ruling of the Supreme Court that invites us to consider the severe stress experienced in the first Covid period as mitigating circumstances for the boy who strangled his girlfriend, which would therefore cancel the life sentence. This is the ruling. The resulting situation? Politicians and journalists who express indignation, scandalized statements, attacks by feminists, as if the Supreme Court had said that the defendant should be acquitted. And in fact this is what people, who do not even know the difference between a judge and the Court of Cassation, think about the matter: in Italy, femicides are not punished.

The opposite opinion: “On feminicides we take one step forward and two steps back”

The sentences must be read

In fact, if you kill a woman we send you on a reward vacation. The exact same old story as when the famous 10-second sentence came out: the newspapers headlined “if you touch a woman for less than 10 seconds it’s not a crime”, the politicians (who on this, on the right and left, are in absolute harmony) squawked, the patriarchy was not defeated once again. Too bad it wasn’t true that the defendant had been acquitted because he had touched the girl for less than 10 seconds: the reasons were actually different, but why on earth should a newspaper report the truth instead of inflaming the hearts of its readers with the sacred fire of indignation? Clearly, it’s the patriarchy’s fault. So people are led to believe that violence against women is systemic and that there is a culture of rape and femicide, as if these were not punishable and punishable crimes; go and explain to him that if a citizen is found guilty of a crime, he is expected to be punished, and that maybe if it seems too low it’s because we didn’t even open half a law book in middle school, and we don’t have the vaguest idea of ​​how a sentence is issued. After all, that’s why citizens rely on newspapers, right? We are not lawyers, we don’t have the skills to understand what’s going on, but luckily there are professionals who collect the information and transmit it to us in an understandable way! Oh, no.

In short, it is clear that this trend of commenting on news stories and the progress of trials is, as always, made possible by the fact that people do not realize in the slightest that law is a complex matter, and that if we do not have the tools to understand it we are not in a position to affirm that judges are sexist or condone violence. But as long as the average citizen reasons this way, even if we cannot legitimize it, we certainly understand it: the citizen is not required to be intelligent – unfortunately – and is free to express himself on things he does not understand.

Extenuating circumstances are provided for by law

But if it is those whose job it is to spread correct information precisely for the benefit of the ignorant citizen who tell the facts in a distorted way, things change, because the journalist has a responsibility towards the citizens, just as the politician does; or rather, he should. Extenuating circumstances are provided for by law, and they are not applied randomly. And they do not mean acquittal, nor debasement of what the victim has suffered. This does not mean that a sentence cannot be criticized; but perhaps it would be better if this were done by people who are able to understand it, who would most likely avoid writing that the State is femicide. In general, it is observed that many of the guarantees and protections provided by the rule of law today are passed off as aberrations, abuses and – for a change – signs of the pervasiveness of the patriarchy. The presumption of innocence has been forgotten; prisoners should not have the right to conjugal visits, rehabilitation programs, reductions in sentence, because otherwise “they are on vacation”; but these are not favors granted out of excessive magnanimity: they are measures provided for by law, and for very good reasons. Evidently, human rights have gone out of fashion; except for women’s rights. It is inevitable to observe that these things occur with a certain frequency, but substantially only for feminicides and other forms of violence against women. Sentences that to the layman’s eyes may seem unjust, or that really are, are issued perhaps every day; a truly random example and without any polemical intent, separated fathers, who however do not end up on the front pages of the national news.

An idea of ​​state that we hoped to have lost with the French Revolution

As always, the consequences and ramifications of this trend are many. Not only the widespread opinion that being a woman in Italy is an ordeal, because the State does not protect them (as if the State should not protect citizens, period); but also – even more dangerous – the idea that the State is complicit in crimes, that it justifies them, that it even absolves those who commit them. The police do not listen to you, so it is useless to report; the judges are sexist, so your attacker will never be punished; in short, you are alone in the world, the institutions let you die, basically the only ones who care about you are those who talk about internalized misogyny with the blue tick on Instagram.

Does someone who commits a crime no longer have rights?

And another idea, equally terrible: that anyone who commits a crime automatically loses the status of citizen and human being, and should therefore be deprived of his rights. That justice means only and exclusively sentencing to the maximum possible penalty, which will always and in any case be too little. That there is no possibility of recovery, of reintegration: you made a mistake, you should rot in prison for the rest of your life. It is shocking how little in line our thinking is with the principles of equality and freedom that inspire our legal system (and all those that are even slightly advanced); we do not know them at all, indeed, and if they were explained to us we would find them too soft. After all, we said goodbye to the presumption of innocence years ago, ministers of the Republic call for chemical castration, and the people want to see blood: no one wants sensible speeches, because – we know – they do not bring clicks.