Femicide or homicide?
The demand for a legislative act that would establish the crime of femicide as a distinct – and more serious – form of homicide has been fueled recently by the brutal murders of women which have featured in the media.
The proponents of the demand invoke a rise in the number of deadly crimes where women are the victims and argue that acts driven by contempt for the female sex are more heinous. In their opinion, the way in which this category of criminal behavior is treated by the general provisions of the law on homicide falls short.
Homicide with intent is covered in Article 299 of the current Criminal Code and foresees a life sentence for those who take another life. Life is at the very top of the list of individual rights and its protection, for everyone in this country, is enshrined in Article 5 of the Greek Constitution. As the renowned law professor Nikolaos Androulakis argued, the protection by law of human life is absolute and unconditional, irrespective of circumstances.
The gravity of the crime is reflected in the fact that the law threatens the ultimate punishment for its perpetrator. With the reservation of recognizing mitigating circumstances, a judge does not have the authority to impose any punishment other than life imprisonment on the perpetrator of homicide in a calm mental state.
There is no room in this legislative framework for the addition of femicide as a crime. Whether the victim is a man or a woman, the legislator reserves the same treatment for the murderer. The victim’s ethnicity, religion, age or other factors are likewise irrelevant. Such uniform and equal treatment is consistent with the absolute protection of human life. There is also no room for evaluating human life, with some forms being treated as superior to others. The blood-soaked experience of the Nazi regime, which identified and exterminated human life deemed of lesser value, is as instructive as it is painful.
The introduction of femicide as a distinct crime is, therefore, inconsistent with the legislative status quo in this country. It can also prove dangerous. Indeed, making femicide distinct could fuel fresh demands for other special forms of homicide where the victims belong to vulnerable groups (migrants, minors, the elderly etc).
Whether the victim is a man or a woman, the legislator reserves the same treatment for the murderer
This would result in a peculiar framework of punitive “unionism,” whereby parties could demand the lawmaker to create a colorful catalogue of the different forms of homicide, thus overturning the abstract – in terms of equality – description of the crime.
As criminology professor Effi Lambropoulou aptly argued recently, creating a distinct category for femicide would violate the Constitution and particularly the principle of equality and that prohibiting bias based on gender. The paradox of the demand is obvious: By seeking to eliminate inequality, such a legislative act would, in fact, create a new condition of inequality.
The incredible amount of interest being shown in what is basically intended to be a symbolic legislative initiative ultimately detracts the public’s attention from the true roots of the problem. The much-needed bolstering of the protection mechanisms for women against acts of violence demands careful planning and organization on the part of the state and other relevant agencies, more effective prevention by the police and social structures, and consistent advocacy for a culture of equality and mutual respect.
Yet another symbolic and cost-free legislative amendment may placate public sentiment in the short term, but it would leave future victims to their fate.
Ilias Anagnostopoulos is a professor emeritus of the Athens School of Law and head of the Hellenic Criminal Bar Association.
