Italy’s parliament on Tuesday approved a law that introduces femicide into the country’s criminal law and punishes it with life in prison.
The vote coincided with the international day for the elimination of violence against women, a day designated by the U.N. General Assembly.
The law won bipartisan support from the center-right majority and the center-left opposition in the final vote in the Lower Chamber, passing with 237 votes in favor.
The law, backed by the conservative government of Premier Giorgia Meloni, comes in response to a series of killings and other violence targeting women in Italy. It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn.
So murdering a woman is now instantly life in prison or life in prison wasn’t on the punishment list for this before?
EDIT: I’m asking questions because I don’t understand something, not because I’m against it. Relax fascists.
No. The law has nothing to do with skipping trials or mandatory minimums.
It’s just a new way to charge somebody, and the sentence is the same as murder.
Ah I see. So somebody would be convicted of femicide instead of murder. What’s the intended affect of that?
Appropriate culpability and awareness. The law is designed to both serve as a mechanism for appropriate justice, as well as a way to highlight and ongoing problem in Italian culture.
Got it. It’s more than just murder. There should be a word for rape by men as well.
I appreciate you making the effort here to try to speak reason to a lot of really, really triggered men. It’s kind of absurd how even on what you would think is a largely progressive/leftist site like Lemmy, the moment a story about disproportionate issues between genders comes up, suddenly every other guy sprouts the biggest, bushiest beard from their necks and starts talking about why there aren’t enough state-mandated programs to help short, angry men get girlfriends or whatever.
“Triggered” is really good way to categorize these responses.
The topic makes them project concepts onto it, like the perpetrators must be male - which is basically telling on themselves.
I am seeing an absolute ocean of butthurt men in this post, and not a single alternative, solution or idea for making a more just and fair world in the face of an imbalanced problem. Everyone treats this like some kind of logic puzzle. “Well we don’t do X when Y is a problem, why should we we treat THIS any different?” as if the world is based on some kind of symmetrical, blind logic system and all things are equal.
I used to moderate a large gender-related subreddit, it was a nightmare. If you ever want to lose all faith in humanity, have a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the really bad shit that gets removed right away.
Feminicide means murder motivated by hate for women, also known as misogyny. If you kill your gran to get the inheritance and don’t have a family chat calling her a dumb broad that doesn’t deserve to be richer than the males of your line you’re only liable for regular murder
And regular murder isn’t life in prison?
This is about how crimes are prosecuted, since there is a disproportionate level of violence against a class of people, they are adjusting the law to make it easier to process and prosecute those crimes and ensure they see court. This isn’t about making the punishment worse. If you read the article you will learn something.
If you have a better idea from a legal standpoint how to address a disproportionate crime statistic against a specific group of people, I’m sure the world would love to hear it.
Not sure why people assume I’m against it for asking questions. I’m just curious. People are too aggressive.
So this is an attempt to make murder against women easier to prosecute? Meaning that murderers of women had not been getting life before?
Scroll through comments. There are a lot of people in here “just asking questions” but are really participating in bad-faith because they feel the law should be “symmetrical” or that this is some kind of logic puzzle. The article does outline the story and explains it, but again, this is just a response to a disproportionate level of a specific kind of crime. It’s not about the punishment per-say, it’s about how it’s handled by the legal system.
It doesn’t actually matter. This isn’t about how much “time” people are getting in prison, this is about defining a type of crime so that it can be prosecuted differently. Read up about why hate crimes exist or really any kind of law targeting a specific crime in specific circumstances. Prosecution and actual punishment are wildly different things. The law responds to what people are doing, it’s all it can do.
Well, I’m not those people.
The article does little to explain the law and its motivation.
Hate crime charges are completely different because they enhance existing charges. Would this then eliminate the degrees of murder? If murder of a woman then instantly life vs murdering somebody else and then deciding if first, second, etc.? I supposed you’d have to prove it’s femicide just like a hate crime?
I support this, I’m just curious. Thanks for the discussion.
The law isn’t symmetrical. Everything we do in every facet of society is responsive and proportional.
When there is an asymmetrical problem, we divert resources to addressing that problem in some attempt at making things more equal. It’s just that simple. I haven’t seen anyone offer a better solution or a reason for this attempt to make some small level of proportional response being a problem. Hate crime laws vary from region to region and by specific circumstances. Some parts of those laws address how crimes can be prosecuted, some how those crimes can be charged or punished. It’s besides the point. The point is, it’s laws addressing an imbalance.
No.