- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
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.
You must log in or # to comment.
Yea… I’m with the incels that don’t really understand the point. If murder was already a crime that would be punished by life in prison, narrowing the specificity of who was murdered doesn’t change much of anything.
“Cool, if it makes you happy I guess 👍”
Yea… I’m with the incels
If you ever find yourself uttering this sentence you really wanna rethink your stance
The one where I oppose sexist laws? Which stance?
I am with Hitler on treating animals better. So what? If you care where a stance comes from rather than what it stands for, you are an ignoramus.
Hitler didn’t originate animal kindness though
He supported it. And there probably isn’t just one originator for most stances. Multiple people can form the same ideas.
weird hill but ok.
Like, If I support animal rights I’d just say “I support animal rights” I won’t say “I’m with hitler on animal rights”
If you ever find yourself uttering this sentence you really wanna rethink your stance
I am making fun of your hill ;D Seems it is super effective :D
nah, I’m good.
It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn
Read?
Neither stalking nor revenge porn should count as gender-based violence. It is gender violence if it’s strictly based on because of someone’s gender with no other motivation.
My comment is very clearly specifically in reference to the term “femicide” and the official recognition of it within Italian law. It’s murder. If a woman kills another woman, it is not a femicide, that’s just a murder… the penalty is the same in the end… right??? Overall, it seems a relatively unnecessary level of specificity.
deleted by creator
Spot on! That’s exactly how agreeing with people works!
When I agree with women, I turn into a woman! When I agree with doctors, I become a doctor!
And every asshole upvoting that trap
I agree with doctors that vaccines save lives, so I’ll be taking that free medical degree now.
“You don’t agree with me, therefore you must be bad”
♡ step in the right direction ♡
I’m reading a lot of responses here that seem to rhyme with the “White lives matter!” responses to the BLM movement.
As was the case then, what seems to be getting missed by those saying this is the context. Italy has a major issue with domestic violence, including spousal murder. From the sound of it, it’s usually women who are the victims. Thus, a new law to target wife abusers specifically.
There may be some merit to debating whether this is an effective move or not, I’m not up on my research there; but let’s not deny that they see a need, and are attempting to address it.
This is confusing. So killing a woman is now criminally worse than killing a man? That seems absurd.
Prosecution is a very different thing than punishment. This is a change to how some crimes are prosecuted in response to a very disproportionate rate of violence.
No. You are just susceptible to right wing issue framing.
“Hate crime” exists in the US with pretty much the same logic.
The law… comes in response to a series of killings and other violence targeting women in Italy.
“Targeting” being the keyword here
How does one determine if the killer killed the woman because he hated her and not just for fun?
I’d guess most murders happen because somebody really hated that person. So that’s kinda stupid. But maybe I’m missing something.
Also, I’d think most murders are targeted, otherwise it’s just manslaughter, no?
Italian here: the crime arises when the homicide is committed because the woman refused to start or pursue a relationship with the perpetrator.
Just a poorly written article, omitting many key points about this and it’s causing confusion for those that haven’t been following this saga, which I guess is most non-Italians
Totally agree, not very clear
How does one determine if the killer killed the woman because he hated her and not just for fun?
What have you read on the legal basis of hate crime laws? What have you done yourself in order to answer your own questions?
You do realize that people have conversations on here, right? If everyone just went to google – why have lemmy?
There’s a lot of distinction around intent in US law: premeditated, 1st degree, manslaughter (as you brought up) v homicide.
And laws are often written in blood: if something is happening enough people want to curtail it, make more law/punishment. So this just recognizes that femicide has been a particular problem.
Is a woman losing her life worse than a man? Not inherently. Does Italy need a more severe deterrent for targeting women lethally than other cases? Sounds like.
I’m familiar with mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Is that what this is? The article is not very clear on this and it sounds like regardless of the circumstances, any murder of a woman will be treated as a femicide.
Edit: okay I found another article that does mention aggravating circumstances, like stalking and sexual violence. Which makes a lot more sense.
Usually because of statements made by the perpetrator, either before or after the attack, that show they targeted this person for that reason.
Yeah, this seems very odd…
At no point didn’t anyone ever say that it was “criminally worse” it has the same sentence…it’s just a different charging mechanism like infanticide.
What’s absurd (but not surprising) is this notion that adding a class somehow diminished the existing classes.
At no point didn’t anyone ever say that it was “criminally worse” it has the same sentence
The article very explicitly says exactly that. Murdering someone due to their sex is very explicitly treated differently now, depending on the sex of the victim.
If someone murdered a male due to their sex, would you treat that any differently than someone murdering a female due to their sex?
Yes.
Removed by mod
Found the Republican.
Get your transphobic shit off of lemmy.
Does this imply that previously killing women wasn’t criminal in Italy?
I presume that femicide is a subset of “homicide”, but I can’t tell if it means “any killing of a woman”, “any killing of a woman by a man”, “any killing of a woman because she’s a woman”, or “any killing of a woman by a man because she’s a woman”.
And I shudder to imagine how trans-women and trans-men fit into this weirdly sexist label.
(In America we have nice gender-neutral crimes, with enhancers if it was done out of prejudicial hate.)
It means the murder of a woman motivated by misogyny. It is a subset of homicide and also a subset of hate crimes. It can be thought of as recognizing misogyny as a motive of hate and thus an aggravating circumstance to a homicide, and women as a protected class. Killing a trans woman or a trans man could very well get a “transphobia” label for a double hate crime, depending on the motives that get established. This is not as complicated as you seem to believe.
It’s not complicated, it’s just sexist and not explained in the linked article.
If a man kills a woman out of hatred for women that’s a terrible crime and should be severely punished. But if a woman kills a man out of hatred for men, that is exactly as horrific a crime and should be punished no less severely.
Sexism in law benefits nobody.
The whole point is centered around how sexism runs deep in society. Specifically men dominating the world and placing women below them.
the way you object to this sounds like someone on Reddit talking about men’s rights. To me.
Every time we draw a line and say “women need special protection”, we are implicitly saying “men don’t matter.”
The very simple fix for this is to keep laws gender-neutral, and let the disparity between prosecutions for hateful murders of women vs hateful murders of men be reflective of the actual disparities in the two sexist hatreds.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where a fact like “41% of American women report experiencing domestic partner violence” will be read as an excuse to ignore that 21% of men report the same thing.
https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html
I’ve encountered women arguing that all domestic violence and rape is from men, which would require one-in-five men to have had a homosexual relationship and all such to have been violent.
Yes, men tend to be physically stronger than women and thus male-on-female IPV is often more harmful, but we already have laws that distinguish based on level of harm. And, yes, too many counties are sexist hell-holes that make American red-states look like feminist utopias.
But I don’t think we as a species can sexism our way out of sexism.
These laws already are gender neutral, just like all anti discrimination laws.
If they were gender neutral, it wouldn’t be accurate to describe them as “banning femicide.”
Maybe you’re right, and the reporting is the sexist part and not the law. I can’t read Italian and am unfamiliar with the intricacies of their legal system, so I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.
But saying “oh no, it cant be that bad” is exactly how we got woman-killing abortion bans in parts of my country.
I just don’t see this as sexism. But I’m not against you sharing your opinion. I’m not trying to argue.
I’m really curious how you don’t see “we make crimes against one sex worse than crimes against the other” as sexism.
Do you mean it in a “racism is discrimination + oppression” kind of way, where no discrimination against men can be “sexism” due to the patriarchy? Or maybe you think this is more like “free tampon dispenses in the women’s restroom” and the disparity is simply right and proper due to differences between the sexes?
I personally react to this the same way I react to definitions of rape that go something like “the insertion of a penis into another human without their consent”, which excludes cis women rapists from even being charged as such. Or rules allowing “maternity leave” for new mothers (beyond mere recuperation from childbirth) but denying “paternity leave” for new fathers (who may be doing all of the parenting depending on the state of their [possibly deceased] partner.)
The whole point is centered around how sexism runs deep in society. Specifically men dominating the world and placing women below them.
Then invest in education. That’s the only effective way to handle these kinds of societal problems. Attack the root cause: ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills.
Adding some years to a sentence that should already have been deterrent enough won’t make it any more of a deterrent.
This does absolutely nothing to solve the problem and might actually increase it, all so some politicians can score some brownie points.
(Of course, though, increasing education and critical thinking and reducing ignorance A), costs money, and B) is anathema to populist politicians who need an ignorant unthinking population to have any voters, so they’ll just change the name of an already existing crime, further increase division, give themselves a medal for a job well done, and call it a day.)
It isn’t sexism in law. Laws are written in blood. If women are frequently being killed because they refused sex or a relationship, then a law should exist as a deterrent. It isn’t just “killing a woman because they hate women,” it’s specifically in cases where women are stalked, harassed, or pursued non-consensually for sex or a relationship. If women were targeting men in the same way, a law should exist in that case as well. That isn’t the case, though. Women are VASTLY disproportionately killed by men for reasons pertaining to sex and relationships compared to the other way around.
Italy sees a problem: women are being frequently killed by intimate partners, stalkers, and harassers specifically because of their gender. They made a law to deter that. If the opposite problem presents itself they should do the same.
Do I interpret your meaning correctly as less “it’s not sexism” and more “laws should reflect the issues of their time”?
What would be sexism in law in your view? Is it even reasonable to talk about “sexism against men” as a concept?
It would be sexist if they made a law that unfairly benefits one gender. This law does not. If women were killing men at nearly as high of a rate, then there should be a law for them as well.
It is not unreasonable to talk about “sexism against men.” It is unreasonable to go “well what about men?” in a circumstance where men are not being negatively affected to the same degree. It’s like going “well, ALL lives matter” in response to BLM. White people aren’t statistically targeted by the US justice system, where black people are. “All lives matter,” or the sentiment behind it, might not be technically incorrect, but it’s distracting from the present and current problem, which is systemic racism in the justice system.
It’s the same thing here. There is societal mistreatment of women and misogyny baked into our social systems and upbringings. Women are killed at a FAR higher rate than men are killed by women, and especially related to intimate partners, harassers, stalkers, etc. There is a significant population of men that see sex as a right and women as a means to an end, and rejection, denial, or unavailability makes them dangerously obsessive and/or violent. Until we spend the time to undo that societal conditioning through effective education, laws like this prevent violent misogynists from hurting more women.
Men commit murder far more than women do, but men kill women for the above reasons at an even higher rate. If women perpetuated this kind of violence at significant rates, then there should be another law for that case. In fact, I don’t think this law goes far enough, and has awkward implications when applied to those that don’t conform to gender norms and/or are transgender, let alone men. I think this law could’ve been written in a gender non-specific manner, which would undeniably be better, but they chose the wording they did as a strong stance against a rash of sexually motivated violence against women right now. Similar to outdated rape laws in some places, we can only hope that more inclusive laws are put into place in the future. A law for the vast majority of victims of a type of crime is better than nothing.
That’s a strong argument about whether this law is justified, not whether or not it’s sexist.
If the standard for sexism is “unfair” treatment instead of “unequal” treatment, then proponents of things like a lower minimum wage for women would argue that their proposed inequality is “fair”.
Thank you for responding all the same, btw
The law might not be equal, but it’s equitable. Women need specific protections that statistically, men don’t need. And thank you for engaging as well.
laws like this prevent violent misogynists from hurting more women.
As would a more general law.
If women perpetuated this kind of violence at significant rates, then there should be another law for that case.
We don’t need another with a general, nondiscriminatory law.
but they chose the wording they did as a strong stance against a rash of sexually motivated violence against women right now.
It would have cost nothing to word it without pinning down the victim’s gender. It likely would have been easier to pass, too. This is a deliberately discriminatory law. Discrimination is unjust.
then a law should exist as a deterrent
Why does it need to be discriminatory, though?
It isn’t just “killing a woman because they hate women,” it’s specifically in cases where women are stalked, harassed, or pursued non-consensually for sex or a relationship. If women were targeting men in the same way, a law should exist in that case as well.
They made a law to deter that. If the opposite problem presents itself they should do the same.
A law that doesn’t pin down the gender of the victim would cover all cases free. Did you know there are other genders than male & female?
They made a law to deter that.
Assuming murdering women was already considered murder, this law will make absolutely nothing to deter that, and might in fact increase violence against women due to the press about it causing an increase in misogyny.
It’s just politicians scoring brownie points by doing absolutely nothing significant.
The way to deter that is education, not adding some symbolic years to a sentence that should already have been deterrent enough.
If the possibility of being sentenced for murder didn’t deter someone, neither will the possibility of being sentenced by femicide, or any other form of aggravated murder.
What will deter them is understanding that murdering someone who isn’t an immediate terminal danger to society as a whole (billionaires and the like) is monstrous and inhumane and shouldn’t ever be done unless it’s the last option in self defence, and that “because they refused to have sex with me” is among the stupidest and most embarrassing justifications for murder they could come up with, but, again, that could only be achieved through education, something Italy doesn’t seem to be doing because, unlike inventing new names for already existing crimes, it actually costs money.
It’s not a redundant law any more than hate crime laws are redundant. You aren’t understanding the premise. It’s not a new crime entirely, it’s like hate crime charges. They can make sentences more severe or reduce the possibility of early release, among other reasons. By the same argument you’re making, hate crime enhancements for violent crime are unnecessary and performative, because those crimes were already illegal.
Hate crime enhancements do work. Why wouldn’t this? In any case, it’s a clear statement being made by society at large that that behavior is unacceptable.
Hate crime enhancements do work
Citation needed.
that behavior is unacceptable
And just plain old murder isn’t?
You want misogynists (or rather their children; most of the grown ones won’t learn, no matter how many of them you throw in jail) to understand that it’s unacceptable, fucking spend the time and money teaching them it’s unacceptable, and why.
This doesn’t teach anyone anything. It’s just empty political posturing. If it has any perceptible effect on the number of crimes against women (and that’s a very big if) it’ll be to increase them.
I am not suggesting that education shouldn’t happen. It’s the far more effective long term solution, part of addressing the underlying causes of hate-motivated crimes. Hate crime laws do not do nearly enough. However, in the short term, getting those that commit hate (or gender) related crimes off the street for longer is going to save lives, and maybe convince some offenders to change their mind. I think you misunderstood my meaning. Hate crime laws of any kind do not prevent hate crimes.
They do absolutely reduce hate crimes, as those that commit hate crimes are likely to reoffend. The benefits in proactive reduction are hard to prove and collect data on, as are all crime statistics, where there are simply too many variables to account for. However, reoffender rates are easily documented, and a law that takes those likely to reoffend off the street for longer than linked non-hate crimes would is absolutely reducing those types of crimes.
Nowhere in the law does it say “by a man”.
It’s only “sexist” insofar as it’s “sexist” that men are by far the most likely gender who commit murder.
Do you believe charging a person for the crime they commit is wrong, somehow? Like in the case of infanticide. Should that motivation be ignored and the person charged with homicide?
The legal system has always added classes of murder to address real life issues, not issues imagined in a thought experiment for the purposes of perpetuating the very problem the laws try to address.
Like in the case of infanticide. Should that motivation be ignored and the person charged with homicide?
You’re missing my point. If you kill someone out of hatred for babies, teenagers, the elderly, or whatever agist “generation” they’re a member of you should be charged with the exact same crime.
(Also,.FWIW, the term in American english and American law is generally “murder”. “Homicide” is just an unnatural death which may or may not be criminal.)
Oh, I definitely get your point. You believe, when assessing culpability, the system should be “one size fits all”. You’re arguing that the added classes of infanticide, assisting a suicide, etc shouldn’t exist. I disagree…and so does every legal system. Trials are always about culpability, and defining crimes help the system accurately assess culpability.
There are already (generally) no special classifications for the killing of teenagers or the elderly.
You’re incorrect: murder is homicide with culpability. Homicide is the killing of one person by another (“homi” is right there in the word). Homicide is the appropriate term for this conversation, because we’re discussing culpability when people kill other people - although both are appropriate because we’re not making a distinction between pre and post trial. “Any unnatural death” is a category so broad it doesn’t carry a definition, or rather…your phrase best defines your concept.
A definition of “homicide” as “killing by a person” is nonsensical – “regicide” or “infanticide” or “femicide” are not killings BY kings or babies or women.
Any unnatural death is a homicide with either definition though, because “unnatural” means “some human did it”, and the effect is the same – a formal investigation is undertaken by professionals to determine the most likely actual cause and possibly begin a criminal prosecution.
All those cop shows are about “homicide detectives” because each story is about some character who died of other-than-natural-causes.
You can just look these words up instead of making unforced errors.
You’re probably wrong about the topic at hand.
https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_485.05
Killing of an infant, teenager, or elderly* person in NYS due to their age is the exact same violation of the NYS hate crime law.
There is a separate enhancer for assault of an elderly person, which is less about motivation of the offender and more a statement of presumed infirmity. Similarly, there are offenses like “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” which enshrine certain special protections for persons under a certain age irrespective of the mental state of the offender.
Sentence-enhancers concerning the categorical malice of the offender, though, don’t (and shouldnt) distinguish between states in that category. Because to do so would be to enshrine discrimination into law.
What legal system are you referring to?
that was a lot of words to write when you just misunderstood what I wrote.
No, it does not imply that other murder is less serious. The notion that you seem to believe it does is evidence of the problem that it’s trying to address. It take a certain type of flaw in logic to assume that because a group is “getting” something, it means another group is losing something. The legal system isn’t zero sum.
There’s no outcry when somebody is charged with infanticide, and there should (logically) be no outcry here.
Yo would be able to tell what the charge means if you read the law, instead of trying to guess. Nowhere in the law does it say “by a man”,for example. You’re projecting injustice where there is none.
Oh, you’ve read the law in question. Great! I can’t read Italian, and the linked article didnt have a statement of what the law actually said.
Does the law specify “woman” as a protected class or “gender”?
With the enactment of this law, is a man who murders a woman for the covered motivation treated differently than a woman who murders a man with the equivalent malice? What’s the actual difference?
You could also read the law if you used the internet, instead of writing a half-cocked message to me. I know you have it.
The difference is culpability. We don’t treat the murder of an infant, assisting a suicide, or indirect killing the same way as a “standard” murder charge…and femicide is no different. It’s just another tool in the toolbox so justice can be more accurately delivered.
So, what’s the link to this english-language translation of the law in question?
Here’s an unattributed quote presumably from such from a BBC article:
The Italian law will apply to murders which are “an act of hatred, discrimination, domination, control, or subjugation of a woman as a woman”, or that occur when she breaks off a relationship or to “limit her individual freedoms.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dzp050yn2o
As described in the above quote, it seems exactly as sexist as I presumed – special protection in the law for cis women, which categorically excludes cis men, trans men, and trans women from its protection.
Do you have a contradictory summary or, ideally, a link to the actual text and a professional translation?
You didn’t understand the link you posted to me correctly and I’d expect you’d misunderstand anything I pasted to you as well.
Nowhere in that quote does it mention the gender or orientation of the perpetrator. You seem to fundamentally project your own biases.
We don’t define in law the assisted suicide of a white cis man as categorically less severe than the assisted suicide of a black genderqueer female.
Are you familiar with the US Supreme Court case Moritz v. Commissioner (which my wife brought to my attention after she saw the movie.)?
An important advance in feminist law was literally about a man who wanted a tax deduction but was denied because the deduction was meant for women.
At no point does this law say femicide is more or less important than other murder.
It take a certain type of flaw in logic to assume that because a group is “getting” something, it means another group is losing something.
That’s not at all what their saying or implying. Presupposing someone else’s flaw in logic because you cannot fathom better is a flaw in logic.
They’re partly asking “is this law discriminatory?” & I’m wondering the same. A law can increase penalties for femicide by not specifying the gender of the victim: that would be nondiscriminatory.
Are you the layer for this commenter? “I know you are but what am I” doesn’t interest me, as a rhetorical tactic. Speak for yourself.
Yes, the law is discriminatory. Men and women are different, and we should discriminate between them in terms of culpability for murder - when appropriate. In this instance it’s appropriate because there’s an outsized number of women being targeted for their gender.
No, removing gender from a law designed to address a gender issue would discriminate against the gender it’s trying to protect. I’m guessing you were trying to say does it discriminate against men: no, it doesn’t.
Are you the layer for this commenter?
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but it seems you’re doubling down on inserting ideas that weren’t implied: strawman fallacy.
Yes, the law is discriminatory.
Then it’s unjust.
Men and women are different
It may come as a shock to you there are other genders in the world.
we should discriminate between them in terms of culpability for murder - when appropriate
Never appropriate: generalization achieves the same.
removing gender from a law designed to address a gender issue would discriminate against the gender it’s trying to protect
Not in the slightest: “higher penalties for murdering someone because of their gender” increases the penalties for femicide. What is your valid objection against that?
I’m guessing you were trying to say does it discriminate against men
Nope: your mindreading fails again. The text we write states what we mean. Try working on your reading comprehension & not jumping to conclusions.
There’s nothing interesting to me in this comment. You seem more concerned with semantics and self-assurance than engaging with the issue.
I said what I mean and I have nothing more to add.
There’s nothing interesting to me in this comment.
That’s a you problem. The fact is you have no valid argument. Thanks for accepting defeat.
I’ll come burn a cross on your lawn and then insist I can’t be charged with anything other than violating local fire ordinances…
If you come and burn a cross on my white church-going family’s lawn you should be charged with same list of assault, trespass, and arson charges as if you did so on my jewish, black, or pagan friends’ lawns.
A group of black men who banded together and murdered a white boy for dating one of their daughters should be charged with the same anti-lynching statutes enacted to stop the KKK.
The white christian guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn’t do what he wants should be charged under the same terrorism statute as a brown muslim guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn’t do what he wants.
Does this imply that previously killing women wasn’t criminal in Italy?
Are you being dense on purpose or what?
In America we have nice gender-neutral crimes
Wow, so progressive
It sounds like it’s killing someone specifically because they are a woman and not for another reason. So, intent is what they’re trying to target here.
Yet we don’t find the same applies to men
deleted by creator
It does. Laws like this are always written gender neutral. Same thing with laws banning discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It’s just as illegal to fire someone for being straight as it is to fire them for being gay.
These laws are always written to protect everyone. But conservatives such as yourself will read a headline and then whine about minority groups receiving “special treatment.”
Got a source that’s the case here? This is special laws for “antisemitism” all over again
This is false as far as I can tell; the change is to the Italian Penal Code, specifically Article 577. I can’t find a primary source for the text of the change, but all secondary sources (example) I’ve read say that the life sentence applies “when the act is committed as an act of hatred or discrimination or prevarication or as an act of control or possession or domination as a woman, or in relation to the woman’s refusal to establish or maintain an emotional relationship or as an act of limitation of her individual freedom” (translated to English). It appears like this could be a (near-?)direct quote of the legal language used in the change to the penal code. Do you have a source that contradicts this?
Huh, i though femicide mean mass killing of women.
That would be mass femicide.
It take a certain type of flaw in logic to assume that because a group is “getting” something, it means another group is losing something.
What if one group is getting something unproportionally more than the other.
That creates inequality, essentially meaning that the disadvantaged group is losing something. I.e. they get less that the other group.
So yeah, if you give one group much more than the other, they are losing something.
Recognizing group harassment is also benefitting individualism by recognizing that… inequity is real.
So are you guys getting less stalking, harassmentd, domestic violence and murder by your partner or are you just blowing smoke rings here
We’re no longer discussing stalking or harassment.
We are talking about equality between different groups and what it means.
They’re trying to use “logic” to justify giving one group more than the other.
And I’m using the same “logic” to argue the opposite.
Simple debate, nothing more.
Your “logic” is no such thing. And stop pretending your scenarios exist isolate of context. Damned fool.
You know you won the argument when the other party starts insulting instead of presenting valid arguments.
Keep your options to yourself in serious debates please. It just muddles the truth.
This isn’t giving one group more than the other, it’s not like you can murder men now.
Any criticism of this law should be around the ineffectiveness of harsh punishments as a deterrent, not that it’s sexist
As if you could murder women before?
This isn’t giving one group more than the other, it’s not like you can murder men now.
And that’s not what I’m arguing about.
The other commenter said “giving more to one group doesn’t take away from another” and apparently you have to have flawed logic to think otherwise.
THAT’S what I’m arguing about. In case you didn’t bother reading the comments properly…
There needs to be more accountability for law enforcement for this too have any real effect. Studies show up to 40% of law enforcement self identify as domestic abusers. So why would they investigate themselves?
That is a wild statistic! Is that study just in Italy or?
as far as I know that stat is for the united States, but pigs are pigs
Law enforcement in the USA is specific. It’s not the same in every country. Can’t speak for Italy though.
That is a wild statistic!
It’s a demonstrably inaccurate number. The study was vague enough that yelling at a partner was included, and much more damning they included the officer even if they were the victim in the situation. It literally paints the victims as domestic abusers!
“40% of law enforcement self identify as domestic abusers” is demonstrably false and is not something that should be repeated.
The comment was UP TO 40%. Various studies range from 2 to 40%. But since they are SELF REPORTING, the number is likely higher.
Look through the various studies, but all still show higher rates than the general public. And if law enforcement are the domestic abusers, how can they be tasked with investigating themselves?
“Femicide” so… murder? Yeah, hasnt “life” been the typical punishment for murder? (Life is usually 25years) .
Did they not already recognize murder of women should be treated like murder?
Victims of relationships violence (myself), stalking and harassment (myself), should have justice. Unfortunately, I dont hear much about the men who suffer from this type of violence.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m interpreting this being in the vein of a crime being murder, but potentially also a hate crime. The motivation of a crime is part of its definition and affects sentencing especially in tertiary cases eg attempted murder, manslaughter etc.
It’s not just about murder. It’s about how men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women. As a woman, If I go out anywhere my #1 fear is a man. We are taught to never go outside alone at night, even in our own neighborhoods. We are taught not to trust strange men. We have to protect our drinks if we go out to socialize. Every position we find ourselves in we have to consider whether its safe or not. We can’t walk across a parking lot to our cars without worrying if a man will do something. Hell, we even have to consider if smiling at a man or not will trigger him. It sounds crazy and over the top but it’s the reality of being a woman. Constant awareness of everything and everyone around us. On average the weakest man is stronger than the average woman. It’s very easy to overpower us so we must be vigilant to never get into that position in the first place. It’s fucking exhausting having to think these things about every man we meet.
I’m sorry about what has happened to you, it’s wrong and you deserve justice. You shouldn’t be ignored just because you’re a man and it is perceived that you can’t be a victim in these cases. I don’t agree with that at all and I really feel for you. But you need to understand the things that happen to women every minute and that’s the point of what Italy is doing.
Did you even read the header? It was more than just murder.
It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn
But is it discriminatory or is anyone protected regardless of their gender?
Ok so it looks like incels CAN’T read. Just as much as they can’t pick a username.
Its best if everyone knows that they’re dealing with a special guy. Its an advantage im not trying to hide.
There is a massive imbalance in violent crimes, in that nearly half of all women murdered are murdered by a spouse, partner or boyfriend or other kind of male acquaintance.
This doesn’t skew the other direction, so that’s why women victims are getting special consideration and why there are special laws being made to make it easier to prosecute this kind of crime in a different or more efficient way. (Like we have “hate crime” laws that allow for special forms of prosecution.) This isn’t supposed to solve all the problems, but it may help by making the consequences of a man killing his wife or girlfriend far less likely to be reduced by pleas of temporary insanity or the like or be dropped by the court for minor reasons.
This isn’t a special law to make it easier to prosecute. It adds femicide to the list of elements that can elevate the sentencing.
Edit: I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, I am broadly skeptical that harsher sentences will do anything to reduce crime. This needs to be paired with strong cultural changes if it’s to do anything.
I don’t see how the femicide part makes any sense or difference. There were already the exact same punishments for killing of anyone, so isn’t this essentially copy pasting existing laws but with a specific group highlight? If that’s the case, it will do absolutely nothing.
The second part is fine, though I hope it’s meant for everyone and not just women. I don’t know about Italy specifically, but in many European countries if you fall victim to these crimes as a man, you’ll likely receive no help.
Would be great to see some more protections for everyone, as well as more serious punishments for violations against anyone. Making anything like this gender-specific will just fuel already problematic anti-other-gender sentiment.
deleted by creator
inequity is real.
If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that. It’s recognizing that a person may not be targetted for being an individual but a part of a group. And that is important. So That is taking their individualness into importance by recognizing the group they are being targetted by.
This should be allowed if you’re being legitimately concerned for EVERYONE’S safety here.
people who may be at their job as a sex worker. Or if they are simply female and that in itself could be weaponized against them.
They will face a violent discrimination just as another person fitting into a different group might. And it’s important to recognize that, make that a law, and keep them safe too. So if “Being targetted for”is a law , recognizing group profile is part of that.
I think a better law would be more generic in defining what defined group targeting.
Why only protect one group? How many other divisions will there be?
How balkanized will you make the law when ypu apply it to people?
Will more wealth entitle you to more protections?
It sounds lis you’re asking to have 4 more discussion on top of this one.
No. You missed the appeal to the absurd that was the basis of my reply.
Wonderful that you think human rights to life is absurd and a joke to you. Absolutely wonderful.
Trolls are shit on this sub.
Equal rights are just conceptually beyond comprehension to so so many people.
If you aim for equality, making separate laws for separate genders is not the solution. This is anything but equality. Especially when there are already laws protecting the groups in question, as part of the entire nation. The problem here is completely different and requires different solutions.
To note: I’m not who you responded to.
making separate laws for separate genders is not the solution
Absolutely it is. If there is a measurable inequality towards a minority, you should enshrine the protection of that minority into law - which is one reasons why many countries specify anti-discrimination laws. This law regards the same.
The problem here is completely different
Which you have failed to specify. So… the problem is what, exactly? I don’t see one.
and requires different solutions.
Which you also failed to provide.
I’m getting a strong “but won’t anyone think of the men!” vibe from you.
- Women are not a minority.
- Anti-discrimation laws generally apply to everyone. Otherwise they’d themselves be discriminatory.
- Not specifying problems/solutions, since it’s quite a sensitive and complex topic. It’s way easier to rate an existing proposition than to come up with an alternative. Though obviously, a good start would be to respect and enforce laws that are already in place. E.g., all EU countries already have laws prohibiting all kinds of sexual harassment and assault. However, many cases are still ignored for a variety of reasons. In this specific instance, adding more laws would accomplish nothing.
- I know this isn’t literally what you meant, but I am in fact trying to think of the men, as well as women. When striving for equality, you want to consider all of the groups in question and not just one or two out of many. Feminism used to be about equal rights between men and women, but nowadays it’s usually about more rights for women and fewer for men. While it’s not actually feminism, it does present itself as such and many people consider it to be, so it’s still relevant to the discussion. This may ‘work’ for a short while, but long-term will do nothing but pin men and women against each other. As designed, since it’s in most politicians’ best interests to keep us divided. This is not the way.
If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that.
Please note that, by all accounts I’ve seen, Italy’s femicide law does not cover any similar offense against men. It’s an elevated offense to try and reduce the disproportionate number of Italian women who are killed by intimate partners.
It sounds like we are agreeing here.
inequity is real.
Right, in discriminatory laws.
Generalizing the law to crimes attacking anyone for their gender would also increase penalties for femicide without legal discrimination. Did you know there are other genders in the world?
Oh geez no not until you just told me in such a good faith way to have a discussion.
Then maybe start acting like it instead of missing the obvious?
This post has helped me root out all the shitty piece of shit incels to block on Lemmy. Thank you for this.
A lot of people in here seem upset for some reason.
Pretty sure threads like this are why there aren’t more women on Lemmy…
And your mild comment is a magnet for downvotes… Which is really highlighting your point.
It’s actually pretty sad. Kinda scary to.
Fucking hell some of these comments read as redpill bullshit.
Lemmy is generally better than reddit on most issues, except on anything to do with women - when it is somehow spectacularly worse.
No they don’t.
Lemmy loves to assume criticism against stuff like this (and often out of misunderstanding as I read here), automatically means you hate women.
Just because you criticize something doesn’t mean you’re against it.
So, its already illegal, just going to make it more illegal ?
No effort to invesigate and address underlying issies ?
This is a legal response to a legal problem. If there are societal causes that can be studied and addressed, it’s not the job of the legal system to undertake that.
But let’s be real here. If it bothers you that women are getting “special treatment” due to a disproportionate level of violence against them, you’re really not going to like the outcome and findings of a “study” to figure out why it’s happening.
Nope. Just a more a more precise charging class so culpability can be more accurately assessed, like when somebody is charged with infanticide.
I mean you could read the article and find out
Too bad that this government also slashed the funds for shelters for women and forbade affective education in primary and middle school. Not to mention cops ignoring calls from women who’re being stalked or harassed and not intervening when a man remove his ankle monitor to circumvene a restrictive order.
op has a strange and bot-like post history
So do half the agitators in this thread
