Judge Di Nicola: Why it is incorrect to say, “He killed his wife in a jealous rage”

Jealousy, disappointment, fear. These emotions are humanly understandable when we talk about love. However, when we discuss male violence against women, these same emotions turn into excuses—alibis. This is why, according to international law, the judiciary is required to eliminate emotional language from rulings, and avoid the risk of secondary victimization. We discussed this with Paola Di Nicola Travaglini, a judge on the Court of Cassation and former consultant for the Parliamentary Commission on Femicide. She was the first in Italy to refer to herself as “the judge” using the feminine form.

Why is it incorrect to say, “He killed his wife in a jealous rage”?

When we talk about jealousy means trivializing, romanticizing, justifying, and ultimately leaving the crime unpunished. In every country around the world, it has been recognized that crimes of male violence against women are not driven by emotional or psychological reasons. They are deliberate crimes of power.

What is the role of the judiciary?

Sticking to the facts, analyzing the evidence. Prejudice, moralistic or compassionate attitudes do not belong in the realm of law. Think about it—would we ever say that a mafia crime was driven by feelings of dislike or anger? No. 

Is there a connection between court rulings and a Country’s culture? 

Court rulings do more than determine who is right or wrong; they establish the social order deemed legitimate in the name of the State. The use of emotional language in crimes against women prevents institutions, society, and educational systems from recognizing the true root of the crime and driving change. 

Do you see gender disparity in the way emotions are narrated?

Yes. When a woman is killed by her husband, we only hear that she wanted a divorce, but we do not learn why—we don’t hear about the violence she endured. On the other hand, we do hear that the husband was upset or frustrated. This emotional and psychological disparity should not be relevant because the law must judge only the facts. 

Let us end on the topic of emotional language with one word: fragility. 

There is a double gender bias. Women are seen as fragile—meaning weak and emotional. Men are seen as strong and rational. However, in court, these biases are reversed: the man is portrayed as fragile in the face of a woman who, overcoming social barriers, asserts her right to freedom. And so, for men, this becomes an affront to be punished—an affront that unjustly serves as justification without any legal or factual basis. 

by Carmen Vogani
Journalist and author