Nowadays there is much discussion about the language used by Judges in their sentences.
Sometimes, offended people risk being a source of secondary victimization and a sounding board for old stereotypes.
Do you remember the famous ruling of the Court of Appeal of Ancona in November 2017 that acquitted two defendants convicted in the first instance for having participated in the crime of gang rape against a woman?
The one who called the offended person a “cunning Peruvian”…?
The one that referred to irrelevant and eccentric details with respect to the type of crimes such as the victim's appearance? Literally: “... it cannot be ruled out that it was precisely the ..." omitted "... who organized the "goliardic" night, finding an excuse with her mother, drinking like the others, and then starting to provoke the ..." omitted "... (who didn't even like the girl, so much so that he had saved her number on his cell phone with the name "viking" as per the PG's note in the documents -, with allusion to a personality that was anything but feminine, but rather masculine - which the photograph in the trial file appears to confirm".
It is evident that it is wrong to use such statements in a judgment. They are unfortunate sentences. In my opinion, not useful for the purposes of justifying the decision.
It is also evident that no maxim of experience can lead to the claim that the physical appearance of a victim is a deterrent that prevents violence. As if to mean that only the feminine and attractive woman can be an object of desire, therefore, an object of violence.
Moreover, the sentences must give an account of the logical reasoning followed not only by the parties but by the community as a whole. The motivation must therefore be clear, logical, and pertinent.
Through sentences, society receives and develops cultural and important messages. However, some sentences can hinder or slow down the cultural growth of a country.
We need to avoid this by paying more attention to how we use words.
The CSM, with a resolution approved on 9.5.2018, invited the Judicial Offices to implement the specialization of the Magistrates.
There are also specific training courses on the use of language. And this is a good thing.
What about the language used by journalists?
This is also a sore point.
There is a completely misleading headline these days: “The good giant” in relation to the case of a man who murdered a woman.
The language of Journalists must change!
We cannot and do not want to read anymore: “The murderer killed because of too much love, he couldn't accept being left, he was depressed, he had lost his job, he was exasperated by her behavior…”.
The message is misleading when we speak of “excess love” or “sick love” with accounts that recall a sort of justification of violent action instead of a natural manifestation of a deviant gender dominance. In doing so, the disvalue of the conduct is attenuated.
In fact, one should use unbiased language, provide helpful information, and treat the injured party with respect.
My speech at the conference organized by Fronte verso network for September 19th will focus on this topic.
But we will talk about much more.
We are waiting for you!
