As we know, our institutions have recently decided to face the problem of gender violence with courage. Based on inflated data, to satisfy the forkful desires, the government proposes a law on femicide, which is no longer a murder with aggravating circumstances, but a crime in itself, for which life imprisonment is based. Dergastol that those who kill a woman for reasons attributable to what we call feminicide already receives, as in the cases Turetta and Impignatiello.

The woman killed as a woman

There is no concrete repercussion on the facts: the sentences will be the same, because the aggravating people already existing led to the same result, also including those cases in which the woman was killed “as a woman”. What changes, then? Change that we officially written that killing a woman is more serious than killing a man. The crime, in fact, is specific: a woman killed by a man. This, if you are wondering, is not normal. Matteo Donini, professor of criminal law, notes that “in the multiple legislative interventions against gender discrimination, the legislator intervened so far without differentiating anyway between the genres, letting the reality of discrimination and inequalities would be criminalized more but only in fact, and not in the abstract”.

A law “for women”

That is: the law provides to include everyone (as it should do), and in the specific cases in which the genre of the victim and the executioner are decisive to intervene differently. You will rightly tell me that being killed as women can only happen to women. Apart from the fact that trans people exist, this is not the point: a special crime was not necessary, because that motivation is already covered by different aggravating circumstances, the difference is that it is now black on white that for women there is a dedicated law. And this is not normal, because “the legal good of life does not admit different protection according to the genre” (Andrea Pugiotto, professor of constitutional law).

The usual criminal populism

So why use the time of Parliament to discuss this law? The answer is the same that, unfortunately, we had to give us other times: to give the people a contentment. In fact, for a long time, criminal justice has been used as a shortcut to give an impression of greater safety, of timely intervention of governments on an implementation problem. The crimes have multiplied, and the idea is widespread that this is good: after more than two hundred years from Beccaria’s work, we still believe that the tightening of a penalty has a deterrent value and that justice must have a punitive purpose. In fact, the new crimes have mostly symbolic, communicative purposes: look at how much we care, as soon as there is an emergency (fake, oh well) we intervene, ready to protect you. The only result therefore is to indulge that part of the population that would like blood, and to further swallow the machine of justice; Which, among other things – as the lawyer Francesca Florio points out – does nothing but worsen the situation of women who denounce violence and who would need to see their case resolved as soon as possible.

The only theme on which dissent cannot exist

But it is clear here that it was simply something that had to be done, to confirm that she is attentive to this female problem and to be on the side of the vouchers. I would say that it is appropriate to focus on the fact that despite the thousand critical issues of this bill, the doubts of unconstitutionality, the senselessness, it has been approved unanimously. That is, not a single senator thought of objecting, nobody dared to say that perhaps it was not the best of ideas. Do we want to believe that nobody thought it? That in the Senate of the Republic there is not one person capable of analyzing a text of the law critically? I don’t think. Rather, I believe that, as already indicated by many facts, even very recent, simply this is the only theme in all the Italian public debate on which nobody can say anything. On everything else, even on the endless and tortured people, a different, even if aberrant opinion can be manifested; On this, no. Which politician would ever dream of risking to pass for what has hindered the protection of women? For what does not want to punish feminicides?