Dear readers, this week I want to focus with you on a news story which, in addition to having particularly struck me, raises several questions about which I think it is appropriate to make some considerations.
The case, which has been widely talked about on the news, is the following.
A man, perhaps not accepting the end of the relationship with his partner, takes a persecute her and to offend her repeatedly. The man even goes so far as to go to his ex’s house: climb over the fence and starts throwing and destroy everything he finds.
Despite the fear that her ex-partner might also attack her – as the man had threatened to do several times – the woman manages to film what happened.
It is precisely thanks to this video that we proceed to the so-called deferred arrest of man.
Arrest in flagrante delicto deferred – introduced by Law 168/2023also called “Save life” law – predicts the possibility of arresting a subject responsible for mistreatment, persecutory acts or who has violated an expulsion or approach ban order, in the 48 hours following the commission of the crime, when his conduct can be demonstrated through videos, photos or other types of documentation (for example chat or information provided by a GPS).
Very good, one might say.
It seems that, in this case, the justice machine was activated quickly and smoothly, doesn’t it?
In fact, this would be the case if it weren’t for the fact that that video, shot amidst anguish and terror, was neither the first nor the only attempt by the woman to defend herself from her persecutor.
Well yes, because the woman had reported her ex-partner’s persecutory conduct to the Authority 30 times over the course of two years.
More than one complaint a month, however, was not enough to make people perceive the dangerousness of the man and to trigger the “action plan” envisaged by the Red Code and the “Save Life” Law for cases of persecutory acts.
Thus, for a good 24 months, the woman remained without any protection, without any measure to protect her from the threatening and harassing conduct that she had already reported so many times.
So what went wrong?
Going beyond an evaluation of the concrete case, which we cannot and do not want to do here, we cannot fail to highlight that this it’s not the only episode in which the victim found herself repeatedly reporting violent or aggressive conduct without anything being done to protect her: There are many cases and, unfortunately, they do not always have a positive ending as the one described might be.
WHAT DO I THINK?
The measures to protect victims of stalking, mistreatment and other violent crimes exist and are constantly implemented and strengthened, just as we tried to do with the Red Code first and then with Law 168/2023; the problem, if anything, lies in their effective and effective application.
It is no coincidence, moreover, that within the so-called Law. “Save life” provisions have been introduced aimed at reducing risk assessment times for so-called. “spy crimes” and shorter waiting times for decisions on precautionary matters relating to the crime of mistreatment, sexual violence and stalking.
At this point, we must ask ourselves whether it is not necessary to pay more attention to the operators in the sector and to their training, so that the forms of protection envisaged can find concrete application and not remain yet another good intention as an end in itself.
This is a legal information and dissemination column which has the sole purpose of wanting to contribute at a social level to the knowledge of one’s rights as it is my belief that only in this way is it possible to effectively protect them from a legal point of view.
If you have any questions or want to suggest a topic for me to talk about, you can do so by writing to me at the e-mail address [email protected] or by filling out the form you find on the site www.studiolegalefois.com.
Lawyer Fulvia Fois
