The morbid attention on Garlasco’s murder is exceeding the imaginable. In recent weeks, attention on this story has increased further, thanks to twists and discoveries that should not even have been made public.

In general we know that crime news arouses an unhealthy curiosity, especially in cases where a story becomes famous, which happens with some crimes that are relaunched by the media and then commented on by experts and commentators. It happened with Cogne, with Erba, with Avetrana and so on. Time and time again, things get out of hand and we end up with details about the lives of those involved that have no real relevance, that shouldn’t be of public interest.

With the enormous diffusion of the ‘true crime’ genre, this attention on similar themes has spread further and has become an increasingly normal thing: everyone, more than before, feels capable of making evaluations and hypotheses. The result is that people’s lives become a topic of conversation everywhere, as if they were VIPs who chose to flaunt their affairs in the streets and as if these concerned simple gossip and not murders and violence.

Crimes and convictions experienced in prime time

The case of Garlasco is taking on particularly disturbing proportions in this already negative situation. It is now a sort of soap opera followed in real time by Italians with popcorn in hand: elements of the investigation discussed in prime time even before in court, details and information revealed to the press when they should be private. This is a very serious fact, which instead becomes an exciting novelty, a juicy scoop that satisfies everyone: the newspapers, the armchair criminologists, and the eager citizens. Everyone except those involved.

When an affair lasts so long, the monster to point out – the one to wish for the premature demise in prison and other good things – can change, the important thing is that there is one. We have therefore had Alberto Stasi for years, considered guilty by everyone, first of all by public opinion, who had already decided, without waiting for the sentence. Now it is Andrea Sempio’s turn, which raises the question of a possible wrongful conviction and therefore of a possible innocent person in prison: a thorny, cumbersome topic.

We don’t see the difference between a TV series and reality

But it is not on this that the attention is focused, that is, not on the possible injustice, possible ruined lives, further suffering for the victim’s family. No: always on the itchy detail, on the ‘plot twist’, in short on the spectacle. As usual, in the end no one cares about the victim, it fades into the background and is just an excuse to be a Sunday detective.

We don’t know what guaranteeism is, and a frightening ferocity falls on the alleged culprit: send him to prison, no further proof is needed, he must rot in prison! We vent on people unknown to us, of whose events we have partial knowledge, filtered through media narration, anger, frustration and violent instincts, as if they were not human beings. And there’s no one to stop us.

A certain cruelty of the masses is perhaps inevitable, but it certainly should not be fomented and capitalized by those responsible for information and dissemination: psychologists and various experts who spend hours on TV carrying out analyzes or monetize through continuous videos abdicate their role, instead taking advantage of a misfortune to highlight themselves.

In short, wherever you look at it, a spectacle that we should be ashamed of but which continues to be fueled without anything being done to stem it.