Filippo Turetta continues to stir up controversy. The conversation intercepted in the interview room of the Montorio prison in Verona between the self-confessed murderer of Giulia Cecchettin and her father has sparked a wave of indignation and controversy. First of all for the content of the meeting. Some sentences said by the boy’s father seemed like yet another serious offense to the memory of the young 22-year-old student killed in Vigonovo on November 11 last year. The media and commentators condemned Nicola Turetta’s words unanimously. But the release of the interceptions, their arrival in the newspapers and their diffusion to the public has sparked a debate within the debate. Among those who have intervened in the case is Enrico Mentana, the director of Tg La 7, who offered his point of view on the story on Instagram.
“Many are discussing the words spoken by the father of Giulia Cecchettin’s murderer to his son during a conversation in prison,” he begins. “I join neither the chorus of indignation nor that of understanding.” After this brief introduction, Mentana’s thoughts: “However, I would like to understand how the words of a parent visiting his son who is detained awaiting trial in the visiting room of a prison are recorded and then released,” he explains, “despite being devoid of any content useful to the investigation and, moreover, uttered by a citizen who is not under investigation.” Finally, a question that, as is natural, has given rise to a back-and-forth between Mentana and the users: “Or do we want to add to the codes the rule according to which the father of the perpetrator of a brutal crime immediately loses all rights, as punishment for having raised a “monster”?”
Under the post of the director of La 7, the debate opened in which Mentana – called into question – took part. A user wrote: “Enrico, I respect your authoritative speech but I don’t agree with it. For procedural purposes these statements are useful at least to outline a psychological profile of the family. But above all they serve to make people understand what the consequences can be of a condescending and justifying education that can distance children from their responsibilities and empathy”. The journalist’s response was harsh: “Excuse me but it just doesn’t hold up: none of this exists in the codes, and in any case no word uttered after the crime can be used to redraw the previous picture. That a father has consoling tones towards a son who has a life sentence as a prospect, and for this reason tries to give him goals to move forward, such as a degree, can tell us nothing about the origin of femicide”.
Sky journalist Mariangela Pira also responded to the aforementioned user’s comment: “I don’t agree but I respect his opinion. I’ll give you an example. If my son were a murderer and I went to visit him in prison I don’t know what I would say as I’ve never been in that situation. I would certainly be worried though, it’s not like he stops being my son. Maybe my first thought would be his psychological state, for example preventing him from doing extreme things. And for this reason I would arrogate to myself the right to be able to tell him what I believe. WITHOUT BEING SENT TO THE MEDIA. And this is said by a journalist who has been getting tired for quite some time now”.
#lose #rights #raising #monster #Tempo
2024-07-28 23:08:03
