this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
568 points (97.2% liked)

World News

50943 readers
1720 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] venusaur@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And regular murder isn’t life in prison?

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Not sure why people assume I’m against it for asking questions.

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.

Meaning that murderers of women had not been getting life before?

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.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

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.

[–] ISuperabound@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Ah I see. So somebody would be convicted of femicide instead of murder. What’s the intended affect of that?

[–] ISuperabound@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Got it. It’s more than just murder. There should be a word for rape by men as well.

[–] ISuperabound@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

It’s not “more than murder”, no. It’s a type of murder.

No there shouldn’t, the vast majority of cases of rapes are committed by men. If you were being logically consistent, you’d advocate for a different word/charge for cases of rape against men - because that’s one of the largest category of unreported sexual crime.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ISuperabound@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

“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.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ISuperabound@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

I absolutely agree. In my mind this is an example where people could be “yes-and”ing the law: Yes, female victims absolutely need more nuanced protection, and male sexual assault victims need more nuanced protection (for example).

The reason you don’t see a lot of these folks arguing for a men’s equivalent…is they know that it’s functionally not a problem…which also undercuts their own argument.

I can imagine…I work in poverty outreach and with at risk youth…I hear some grotesque things from across the spectrum.

I’m a full Reddit refugee…a few months ago I got a 3 day auto ban for directly quoting Worf from Star Trek. Not going back, this time…the time I was away from it made me realize what an enshitified mess it has become.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I've spent a few minutes on google during my lunch break. Turns out, it's as sexist as it sounds actually. Femicide is a crime that uniquely qualifies the victim as a woman, and the perpetrator as a man. In Italy, that specific crime now has a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison if convicted. Prior to today, I assumed that life in prison was the minimum sentence for any murder in Italy, but that was an improper assumption. The mandatory minimum is 21 years for murder in Italy. Femicide now has a higher mandatory minimum.

Par for the course of conservative governments.