The “Romania Without Violence” Act
A bill amending Law No. 286/2009 on the Criminal Code and amending and supplementing Law No. 26/2024 on protection orders (PL-X 54/2024 – https://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck2015.draft…)
The media has already covered this proposed law (also known as “Romania Without Violence”) with headlines such as “Penalties for violence to be doubled,” “No more getting off with a slap on the wrist for violence,” “Dark days ahead for abusers,” “Zero tolerance for abusers,” etc.
When you work in the field of criminal law (and not only there), you can’t help but burst out laughing at such statements. A bitter laugh, of course, because the subject is serious and must be treated as such. But I will say it whenever I get the chance – 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐬̦𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐮 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞, 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞, for the diminutive form of the name information gathering. Of course, sometimes an increase in sentencing limits may be necessary—for example, to allow for preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty or technical surveillance, or to prevent the discontinuation of criminal proceedings, the postponement of sentencing, or the waiver of sentencing (and in some cases even the possibility of suspended sentencing under supervision), or even to allow for the detention of repeat offenders.
None of these consequences are addressed by the amendment to the Criminal Code proposed in the aforementioned bill. Moreover, the change in sentencing guidelines is not even explained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
What is actually changing:
• The penalty for the standard form of the offense of assault or other acts of violence—Art. 193, para. (1) of the Criminal Code – will be imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine (compared to imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years or a fine, as it is now);
• for the aggravated form described in paragraph (2) – an act that causes traumatic injuries or harms a person’s health, the severity of which is assessed as requiring up to 90 days of medical care – the penalty shall be imprisonment for 1 to 5 years or a fine (compared to 6 months to 5 years or a fine, as is currently the case).
This is the so-called “doubling of penalties,” which is supposed to lead to a country free of violence… So we continue to delude ourselves, tweaking the penalties without addressing the real causes of violence (especially domestic violence).
Another change concerns the fact that 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐳𝐚̆𝐭𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐢 𝐳𝐢𝐥𝐞-𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚̆ 𝐯𝐚 𝐟𝐢 𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚̆ 𝐢̂𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞 𝟔𝟎 𝐥𝐞𝐢 𝐬̦𝐢 𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐥𝐞𝐢 (compared to 10 lei and 500 lei), due to inflation.
However, the effects of the amendment to Article 158(4) of the Criminal Code, which concerns the requirement for a prior complaint, will be far more significant. Context:
• The organizers have set out to 𝐢̂𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭̦𝐢𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐢̂𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭̦𝐢𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐩𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐢 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐚̆ 𝐢̂𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐬̦𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬̦𝐢 𝐝𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐮, 𝐝𝐞𝐬̦𝐢 𝐢̂𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝 𝐮𝐳𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐚̆ 𝐩𝐥𝐚̂𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐢 𝐯𝐚̆𝐭𝐚̆𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 (the victim is a person lacking legal capacity or with limited legal capacity, or a legal entity represented by the perpetrator; assault as defined in paragraph (3); domestic violence), 𝐚𝐜𝐭̦𝐢𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐬𝐚̆ 𝐩𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐚̆ 𝐟𝐢 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐚̆ 𝐢̂𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐬̧𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬̧𝐢 𝐝𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐮, 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐜𝐚̆ 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐚̆ 𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐚̂𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐬𝐚𝐮 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐚̆ 𝐩𝐥𝐚̂𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐝𝐮𝐩𝐚̆ 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐢𝐚;
• The proposal sought to nullify the effects of ICCJ Decision No. 30/2024 – Criminal Case, which ruled that “𝑖̂𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑧𝑢𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡̧𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑠̧𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑝𝑙𝑎̂𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑖 𝑣𝑎̆𝑡𝑎̆𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑢 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑢, 𝑖𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑛𝑎 𝑣𝑎̆𝑡𝑎̆𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑗𝑎 𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑙𝑎̂𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑎 𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑢𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑝𝑙𝑎̂𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑖 𝑣𝑎̆𝑡𝑎̆𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒, as well as the return of the𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑖 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑡. 158 𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛. (1) 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙.”
How did it turn out?
In the Chamber of Deputies, the Legal Committee completely revised the proposal—and the underlying philosophy of the Criminal Code—by introducing the following text:
“In the house of the infrastructure𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑠̧𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 of the pre-existing, 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒂𝒄𝒂̆ 𝒂𝒄𝒕̧𝒊𝒖𝒏𝒆𝒂 𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒂̆ 𝒂 𝒇𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒑𝒖𝒔𝒂̆ 𝒊̂𝒏 𝒎𝒊𝒔̧𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒊̂𝒏 𝒖𝒓𝒎𝒂 𝒖𝒏𝒆𝒊 𝒑𝒍𝒂̂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒊 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒖 𝒅𝒊𝒏 𝒐𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒖, in the context of the law, the process of producing𝒖𝒄𝒆 𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒊 𝒅𝒂𝒄𝒂̆ 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒆 𝒊̂“I’m going to the park.”
This effectively means that, in any situation, regardless of the offense (e.g., theft among family members, breach of trust, vandalism, or even the most minor assault), the prosecutor may decide to “proceed” with the criminal proceedings even if the victim decides to withdraw their initial complaint.
In this regard (𝑚𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑠), in the aforementioned HP, the ICCJ had stated that “𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑙 𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑎, 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑚𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟, to have the necessary resourcesto the extent that it is necessary𝑟 𝑙𝑎 𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑝𝑙𝑎̂𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑒, 𝑑𝑜𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡̧𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑠̧which has the following𝑡𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑠-𝑎 𝑓𝑎̆𝑐𝑢𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑢, 𝑎𝑣𝑎̂𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑎 𝑛𝑢 𝑖̂𝑠̧𝑖 𝑖̂𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠̧𝑖 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡̧𝑎̆ 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑛𝑒in the form, the form in the contextthe legal framework𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑎̆, 𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑒 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑖̂𝑠̧𝑖 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑡 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑚𝑜𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑠̧𝑖 𝑠𝑎̆ solar energy𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑎 𝑓𝑎̆𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖.” (par. 153).
Other changes introduced by the bill under discussion concern protection orders. I would also like to note the introduction of an aggravating factor for violations of a temporary protection order, “for deterrent purposes.” Once again, I wonder if there are any studies on this deterrent effect or if we are continuing to make legislative changes without relying on evidence.
In this regard, the professor Marcelo F. Aebi from the University of Lausanne, in a recent interview with Quorum Magazine in Argentina, said the following:
“I have a dream-𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎̆: 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎̆, based on the data. In the place where the great story𝑖𝑖, 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑡: 𝑎 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡̦𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎̆, 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑐𝑒 𝑡̦𝑎𝑟𝑎̆, what kind of situation do we have?
(…)
𝑀𝑖-I have a dream that we will build 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑢 𝑟𝑒𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑙𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎̆𝑡̦𝑖𝑖. 𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑎̆𝑧𝑖, 𝑖̂𝑛𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑚𝑎𝑖 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖̂𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑛𝑎̆𝑡𝑎̆𝑡̦𝑖, since there is no other way, 𝑐𝑖 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑧𝑖. This is the most which is the result of thefor the necessarynewly built on the date, which is the result of the test, which is the result of the application of the𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡.
(…)
𝑁𝑜𝑖, 𝑖̂𝑛 𝐸𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑡̦𝑖𝑎, 𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑖 𝑎𝑚 𝑖̂𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑎𝑡 𝑢𝑛 𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑢 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡̦𝑎 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎̆. 𝐴𝑚 𝑢𝑟𝑚𝑎̆𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑧𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡̦𝑖𝑒 𝑝𝑒 𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑎̆ 𝑑𝑒 𝑠̦𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑖. 𝐴𝑚 𝑣𝑎̆𝑧𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑒 𝑠-𝑎 𝑖̂𝑛𝑡𝑎̂𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑏𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖, 𝑐𝑒 𝑠-𝑎 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑡, 𝑐𝑒 𝑠-𝑎 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑛𝑎̆𝑟𝑖. 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑝 𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑛𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑣𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑚 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑗𝑒𝑙𝑒. 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑓𝑒𝑙, 𝑐𝑎𝑧𝑖 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎̆. 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑧𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑚 „𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡̦𝑎 𝑏𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑝𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑎 𝑡𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑐𝑎̆” 𝑠𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑡𝑎̂𝑡 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛𝑐𝑎̂𝑡 𝑛𝑢 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑐. 𝑃𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎̆𝑟𝑒𝑖 𝐴𝐼 𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑖̂𝑚𝑖 𝑑𝑒𝑎 𝑧𝑒𝑐𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢 𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖 𝑠̦𝑖 𝑜 𝑣𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒. 𝐷𝑎𝑟 𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑎 𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑧𝑎̆ 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑠̦𝑡𝑖𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡 𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛𝑡𝑎̂𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑎̆, 𝑙𝑎 𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑎̆, 𝑐𝑢 𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖, 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡̦𝑖𝑖. 𝐼̂𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑒𝑖, 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑢, 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡̦𝑖 – 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑣 𝑒𝑢 – 𝑎𝑢 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑧𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑓𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠̦𝑡𝑒. 𝑂𝑏𝑖𝑠̦𝑛𝑢𝑖𝑎𝑚 𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑢𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡̦𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑖: „𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑣𝑎 𝑓𝑖 𝑢𝑛 𝑚𝑎̆𝑐𝑒𝑙”. 𝐷𝑎𝑟 𝑐𝑎̂𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑎̆𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖̂𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑢𝑛𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑢 𝑒𝑖, 𝑎𝑚 𝑣𝑎̆𝑧𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑎 𝑡̦𝑎̆𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎̆ 𝑛𝑢 𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑠̦𝑎. 𝐴𝑠̦𝑎 𝑐𝑎̆, 𝑖̂𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑢𝑛𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑢 𝑢𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠̦𝑖 𝑢𝑛 𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑎𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡 𝑜 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡̦𝑖𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎̆. 𝐴𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠̦𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑛𝑢 𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑢𝑟 𝑠̦𝑖 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑎̆𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡̦𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑐𝑖 𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎 „𝑠𝑐𝑎̂𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑎” 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑒 𝑎 𝑝𝑎̆𝑟𝑎̆𝑠𝑖 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡̦𝑖𝑎, 𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑟𝑢 𝑝𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑖 𝑏𝑎̆𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑡̦𝑖 – 𝑜 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑠𝑎̆ – 𝑛𝑢 𝑖̂𝑙 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑧𝑎̆. 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑢𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑢𝑖 𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑡̦𝑖𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑎̆ 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑎 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖. 𝐷𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙 𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡̦𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑝𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑧𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡̦𝑖𝑒𝑖 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑟.”
(Translated using DeepL.com and subsequently edited)
The article the professor is referring to: https://journals.sagepub.com/…/10.1177/10439862211054237
I quote from it, regarding penalties: “Legal sanctions for femicide differ radically across the six countries, ranging from 15 years of imprisonment to life. However, there is no correlation between the length of the sentences provided for in the Criminal Code and the number of femicides in each country. This supports the idea that imposing the harshest possible penalties, such as life imprisonment, does not guarantee any deterrent effect. This finding refutes the claims made by activists who have been advocating for and pushing through harsher laws as the solution to reduce femicides.”
As the saying goes, a word to the wise…