Filippo Turetta’s definitive sentence has aroused the foreseeable indignation of the public. I say predictable not because normally the sentences are unjust, but because they are now presented to us as absurd, and we are induced to get angry for this. And I say “public”, where I would normally have said “citizens”, because we are not individuals belonging to a community that are informed; We are an audience incessantly exposed to advertising. The news articles have no information intent: they have the sole purpose of inducing the user (profit generator) to interact. For this reason they must focus only on the reaction of the public: they cannot therefore obviously present a voluntary murder sentence with due scrupulous and correctness, but must highlight the most misunderstanding points, presenting them in a light that influences the reader.

In cases like this, a truly – horribly – easy topic is exploited: who would never feel empathy for a girl brutally killed? It is normal to think of this crime as one of the worst imaginable, and having an instinctual reaction: the desire for revenge, we could say, even if the girl’s death did not involve us directly. Revenge, yes, and not justice: in fact, we expect our judicial system has not foreseen any objective evaluation of the facts, in the smallest details, giving each of them the right weight. The judges should decide summarizedly, without too many quibbles: 75 stabbed has inflicted on them, is the very definition of cruelty. All possible aggravating circumstances, without being there to do the clarifications.

Shouldn’t you focus on Educare?

This is probably normal too; Or rather, we are used to the fact that citizens are a bit, so to speak, barbarians compared to the rules of the system in which they live – therefore the laws make them experts. But if so, shouldn’t we try to educate citizens, rather than foment their lowest instincts for profit? To those who benefit, as elsewhere I asked, this dirtying the information, this spread anger, suspicion, anxiety in the population? And why don’t the desire to breathe a cleaner air in the population?

Obviously I have no idea. What is certain is that information of this type cannot be said to be such. Not only does he only make what he wants and to the extent that he wants it, but instead of explaining complex news to people, who obviously would have difficulty understanding them, mystifying them. So people take garlic for onion and on the basis of this gigantic error gets angry, launch appeals, clog the communication channels, while the serious people who try to clarify the reasons for the sentence, explaining that the language of law is different from the common one, are submerged.

The opinions of the first who pass as well as those of the experts

And there is more: if you go to read the comments under the videos of lawyers and other experts, such as the lawyer Silvia Carlino, who explain the sentence, you will see that many continue to insist that “I don’t agree”, “it is not so”. But how is it possible? Obviously in democracy everyone is free to think what they want: you can live in democracy thinking that the government are aliens, or that the bottled water contains vaccines, or that above our heads, at sunshine, solchino the sky unicorns with blue hair.

However, usually, great prominence is not given to these opinions in a normal company. Everyone can have their own blog, their channel, and cianciating of what he wants, but it is not that they must necessarily invite him to have his say on television. Instead, in these cases, it is the information bodies considered serious to use ambiguous titles; They are influencer followed and considered professionals or activists to argue; And who would have the media resonance to correct the interpretations of the people a little avoids doing it.

Fortunately, the law does not change so easily just because some Instagram users are indignant. It continues to work in the way in which it was excellently summarized by Luciano Sesta: «Justice must reconstruct the facts and, as far as possible, proportion and penalty. But it is not a social tool of revenge against the culprit, nor does it claim to exhaust the mystery of evil ».