It’s rare for Italian lawmakers from across the political spectrum to agree on anything. But on Tuesday, the lower house of Parliament unanimously ratified a law introducing the crime of femicide into Italy’s criminal code, punishable by life in prison.
(title from entry in NYT’s The Morning newsletter)
A bunch of dudes were melting down when this was posted on another thread.
It’s threatening our god-given right to murder our women, after all. The woke agenda has gone too far.
You knew they were dudes?
You don’t object to gender discrimination in the law?
A bunch of mysoginists were melting down. It’s a huge problem in Italy and a lot of women are being killed. The maximum sentence is 25 years so what this does is tack on another charge. Motive always is examined in murder trials. If there was a billion dollar propaganda industry telling women to abuse and subjugate men and that was resulting in an epidemic of murder then that would have to be addressed by the law.
As you scientifically deduced from what? Objecting to gender discrimination?
Maybe you need to get over your bias. Justice is not a 0-sum game: generalizing the increase in penalties to any gender hatred accomplishes the same without gender discrimination. They could even give it a snappy name like gendercide.
Sorry for all the down voters, but this guy is right. Modern western societies have struggled to make laws equal for everyone. This is a step down for on good reason.
If half of the murder victims in any unchangeable demographic are killed because they are part of that demographic, why not extend hate crime coverage to them? It doesn’t preclude you from charging other women with femicide, nor does it preclude you from making men or non binary people a hate crime category if they become targeted for their gender, but extending it to gender in general if that’s not reflective of crime statistics increases the costs of investigation by a lot.
So, your defense of gender discrimination is unsubstantiated economic expediency? Do you even pretend to care about morality or equality before the law?
Unresearched claims of increasing “costs of investigation by a lot” don’t justify immorality & violating a universal human right for equal protection of the law. It’s not hard to quit rationalizing the indefensible & admit femicide should have been addressed through a nondiscriminatory law on gendercide.
How many of the men who are murdered in Italy are killed for being men? If it’s a large proportion (for women in Italy, it’s over half), then sure, apply it to them.
Maybe bring that up with the Italian government. I’m sure they’d respond well to a letter with the same tone as your comment. I’m not continuing this conversation with you though.
Irrelevant, because again
Not arguing with them, arguing with your immoral defense.
As if anyone should care? Abandon your argument: it’s clearly not worth defending.
Ifs and buts.
Russians would love this stuff. Killing a Russian on occupied territory as a hate crime against minority for Ukrainians with stiffer penalties or even death sentence.
…as an example.
The minute you start creating special groups it will be abused. Lessons from history is the reason why “all equal under law” was something to strived for.
Why not make the rich a hated minority, so we can get back to good old aristocracy.
Laws are different during wartime against an invading army. If it’s a random Russian who’s been living in Ukraine lawfully for the last thirty years, then yeah, it is an ethnically motivated crime and should be punished differently.
The reason that hate crimes are handled differently is because a person who commits one is more likely as a whole to commit more hate crimes than one who kills an individual for individual reasons (though sometimes it’s just a crime of opportunity, which happens to involve a targeted group, in which case it should be determined in court not to be a hate crime).
How do we even know you’re not working in a troll farm?
To the uncritical, any critic is a troll. To question is to troll.
Because it doesn’t make a difference.
So a woman murdered by a man is somehow more murdered than one murdered by another woman, a sister, a lover?
This is an arbitrary distinction. Someone was murdered, why they were murdered doesn’t change the fact they were murdered, and frankly if you’re going to say it will change sentencing, it shouldn’t.
Murder is murder, the end.
Motivation is what can split murder and manslaughter in some countries.
Yes it should change sentencing, because the primary goal of the justice system should be rehabilitation, not punishment, and there are absolutely people who have commited murder and are capable of being fully rehabilitated, and those that can’t, and they should not be sentenced the same.
Or do you seriously think, for example, people who end up murdering their abusers out of revenge or desperation should actually receive the same punishment as someone who murders a random person purely because they hate something about their identity, or an abuser who murder their victim ?
It’s a huge problem in Italy and a lot of women are being killed. The maximum sentence is 25 years so what this does is tack on another charge. Motive always is examined in murder trials. If there was a billion dollar propaganda industry telling women to abuse and subjugate men and that was resulting in an epidemic of murder then that would have to be addressed by the law.
When a cop murders a black man it’s self defence, when a man murders a woman it’s a brief display of bad judgment in a moment of passion. Society has never seen murder as murder “the end”.