This interdisciplinary study examines how Italian courts construct legal meaning around femicide/feminicide by analyzing three emblematic rulings: Castaldo–Matei, Gozzini–Maioli, and Turetta–Cecchettin. Using a legal framework and a sociological qualitative framing approach grounded in Goffman (1974) and Entman (1993), the research maps the narrative devices through which judges select facts, invoke psychiatric expertise, and apply – or deny – aggravating/mitigating circumstances. Two dominant frames emerge. First, jealousy is presented as a punitive emotional surge or – from a pathological perspective – as a clinical syndrome of “delusional jealousy”: the perpetrator of femicide/femininicide is either to be condemned to life imprisonment as a "monster" deserving hard punishment or acquitted as a "madman". Second, restrictive judicial interpretations of Article 612-bis (persecutory acts) and Article 61(1)(4) (cruelty) narrow the preventive reach of sentinel offences. Cyber-surveillance, digital records of the victim's words, and protracted suffering are downplayed, while selective citation of expert testimony can justify mitigation or full exculpation. These interpretive choices affect judicial outcomes, public perception, and victims' willingness to report harassment. Framing analysis does not aim to evaluate judgments: it can merely contribute to understanding the implicit social arrangements in which even legal actors run, although within specific limits. Despite recognizing the inherent limitations of a three-case study analysis, our article seeks to highlight the significance of interdisciplinary approaches, offering insights into how prevailing interpretive frames often individualize the crime of femicide/feminicide and conceal underlying structural gender asymmetry. Keywords: femicide, framing analysis, judicial interpretation, Italian legal system, forensic psychiatric role.
Lalli et al. (Fri,) studied this question.