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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 228 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (155 children)

People here seem weirdly confused about the term "feminicide": it means homicide motivated by misogyny. It's a subset of hate crimes.

They exist in all western societies I'm aware of, if you're confused it's probably only because you're unused to thinking of women as a protected class and hate for women as aggravating circumstances, the way hate for any race of religion is in most legal systems.

Yes they're 50% of the population, but also yes they're disproportionately the targets of violence because misogyny exists. Yet they are rarely treated as such in many legal systems.

  • source
  • hideshow 155 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Genuinely thought it just meant killing a woman and was confused

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    It does get misused in that exact way sometimes. I'm from Mexico, these cases have been making big headlines here for a while now, some prosecutors are misclassifying cases as femicide to grab attention to their political careers.

    Local one a couple of years ago where a dude ran over a woman. Local prosecutor was pushing for femicide, fortunately it was moved to manslaughter as it should have been from the start. Not everything constitutes a hate crime and cases like that (in my opinion at least) would make the distinction meaningless

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    Sometimes people run over others intentionally, so drag supports the recognition of vehicular murder, but yes, it's usually manslaughter. A prior history between victim and accused or history of hateful conduct by the accused should be used as clues that a deeper investigation is required.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 9 months ago (124 children)

    It seems weird to consider half the people as "protected class". But only one gender. Dunno why they didn't just make hate crime the charge and make misogyny fall under that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 124 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 9 months ago* (69 children)

    They're a protected class because they're singled out for violence because of their class. And it's a real world problem not a logic quiz. Misogyny and misandry are not equivalent in reality the way they are in the dictionary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 69 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (48 children)

    Does that make hate crime murder against men less worth prosecuting as such? Why shouldn't the legal definition be symmetrical?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    How many hate crime murders of men are there in Italy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago* (16 children)

    Idk probably less and so the law against hate crimes for men would be used less than the one against them for women. Again, why would you not treat them the same in each individual case? If 80% of thievery was committed against women, would you not also prosecute the 20% committed against men just the same?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    At no point did anyone suggest that they weren’t prosecuting murder against men, nor did they suggest they would do so with less effort. All this law does is allow the courts to take misogyny into account so that motive isn’t ignored or downplayed during the charging proces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (30 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I would assume the thinking is centered around wanting to draw specific attention to the issue. And to more clearly cite it as a unique thing for awareness purposes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    This. The goal is to send a message. Over half the women killed were murdered by intimate partners. Such a crime would already be punished by life imprisonment for Aggravated Homicide.

    However femicide also includes refusal for emotional relationship, or resistance to limiting her freedom as motivators, as admissible motives for femicide.

    https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20211564_mh0421097enn_pdf_0.pdf

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (45 children)

    Exactly. This should have been something that applies to all: 'murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime'.

    Having the law give more consideration to one sex over another, particularly with something like murder, is quite sexist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (43 children)

    This would be true if there were commensurate rates of murder where the motivation is misandry. Otherwise you just like the veneer of equality to cover up the rot underneath.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (30 children)

    If perpetrators happen to be of one sex more often, then it means the rates of being charged with the relevant crime will be higher for that sex.

    A crime must be treated equally, regardless of sex. The law treating one differently based on their sex is itself sexist. As I stated before, this should have been something that applies to all: ‘murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime’.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • load more comments (30 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (21 replies)