Martina Semenzato issues critical warning on hasty judges endangering women after observing patterns in family and criminal courts that she believes place survivors of domestic abuse at heightened risk. In recent public remarks and parliamentary interventions, including comments reported by Vanity Fair Italia, the Italian lawmaker and advocate has argued that speed without adequate risk assessment can turn judicial decisions into fresh sources of harm. Her message centers on a simple but urgent idea: when courts move too quickly on protective measures, custody arrangements, visitation rights, or early releases, they can unintentionally strip women of safety nets they desperately need.
Semenzato’s intervention arrives at a moment when violence against women remains a stubborn public emergency across Europe. Advocacy groups continue to document femicides, coercive control cases, and repeated breaches of restraining orders. In that climate, her critique targets a specific procedural problem rather than the judiciary as a whole. She maintains that well-intentioned efficiency reforms and overloaded dockets sometimes pressure magistrates to decide before full evidence, expert evaluations, or survivor testimony can be properly weighed. The result, she says, is a justice process that can retraumatize victims and embolden perpetrators.
Understanding the Risks Her Warning Highlights
At the core of the warning is the mismatch between the timeline of trauma and the timeline of court calendars. Domestic abuse cases frequently involve cycles of control, intermittent violence, and complex psychological dynamics. A rushed hearing may capture only a fragment of that reality. When judges grant unsupervised contact, reduce protective orders, or accept incomplete risk assessments, women and children can be left exposed. Semenzato has pointed to situations in which prior violence was minimized, mutual accusations were treated as symmetrical without context, or technological evidence of stalking and harassment was underweighted because it arrived late in the file.
She has also raised concern about the language sometimes used in chambers and judgments. Framing abuse as a “conflict between parents” rather than a pattern of power and control can shift the court’s focus toward shared parenting ideals at the precise moment when separation heightens danger. International research has long shown that the period around separation and legal proceedings is among the most lethal for victims of intimate partner violence. Hastening decisions without specialist input, she argues, collides with that evidence.
Another strand of her critique involves the training and resources available to the bench. Many judges handle heavy mixed caseloads. Without consistent access to dedicated domestic violence units, forensic psychological assessments, or multi-agency risk conferences, even diligent decision-makers can underestimate lethality indicators. Semenzato has urged stronger institutional investment so that caution is not treated as delay but as due diligence.
Systemic Pressures That Encourage Speed Over Safety
Court backlogs are real. Parties wait months or years for final rulings, and prolonged uncertainty harms children and drains survivors’ resources. Policymakers understandably push for faster calendars, digital filing, and simplified procedures. Semenzato does not dismiss those goals. Her objection is to efficiency metrics that reward volume while undervaluing qualitative risk analysis. When clearance rates become the dominant performance signal, the quieter work of reading lengthy medical records, police call logs, or digital communication trails can be sidelined.
She has also noted the chilling effect hasty outcomes can have on reporting. Women who see peers lose housing security, face enforced contact with an abuser, or watch breaches of orders go lightly punished may conclude that the system cannot protect them. Underreporting then feeds a distorted picture of prevalence, which in turn weakens the political case for more resources. Breaking that cycle, in her view, requires courts to treat protective orders and interim safety measures with the seriousness of emergency medicine rather than administrative housekeeping.
Cultural factors compound the problem. Persistent myths—that false allegations are widespread, that leaving an abusive partner is simple, or that economic contribution excuses controlling behavior—still surface in some proceedings. Semenzato has called for continuous professional education that replaces those myths with trauma-informed standards grounded in empirical research. She stresses that such education must be practical, case-based, and refreshed as tactics of abuse evolve, including through digital surveillance and financial coercion.
Practical Reforms Implied by the Warning
Semenzato’s public stance points toward concrete improvements rather than abstract condemnation. First, specialized domestic violence tracks within family and criminal courts can ensure that cases are heard by magistrates with deeper experience and access to multidisciplinary teams. Second, mandatory risk assessment tools, regularly audited for bias and accuracy, can structure discretion without eliminating it. Third, survivor safety planning should be integrated into interim hearings so that any order accounts for housing, school runs, workplace proximity, and technology-facilitated abuse.
She has also highlighted the value of independent domestic violence advisors who can accompany survivors through proceedings and supply the court with contextual information that pure legal filings may miss. Where children are involved, assessments should examine coercive control’s impact on parenting capacity rather than defaulting to contact at all costs. Parallel criminal and family proceedings need better coordination so that findings in one forum inform the other without forcing victims to relitigate the same facts under different evidentiary rules.
Data transparency forms another pillar. Publishing anonymized statistics on breaches of protective orders, time-to-decision in high-risk cases, and outcomes after early release or unsupervised contact would allow lawmakers and the public to test whether speed is correlating with safety. Semenzato has suggested that judicial leadership itself has an interest in such data: it can defend careful judging against political pressure while identifying training gaps.
Balancing Fair Process and Protective Responsibility
Critics of cautionary approaches sometimes claim that slower, more investigative processes undermine the presumption of innocence or the rights of parents. Semenzato’s framing rejects a zero-sum contest. Fair process includes the right of respondents to contest evidence and present their case. It does not require courts to ignore patterns of prior harm or to treat every allegation as automatically suspect. Interim measures can be narrowly tailored, time-limited, and reviewable. The goal is calibrated protection pending fuller inquiry, not permanent punishment without trial.
She further notes that men and boys can also be victims of domestic abuse and deserve equal access to protection. A rigorous risk-focused system improves responses for all victims while recognizing that statistical patterns of serious injury and femicide remain heavily gendered. Gender-informed analysis and individual due process are complementary, not contradictory.
Legal practitioners, social workers, and survivor organizations have echoed portions of this analysis in multiple jurisdictions. Comparative experience from specialist courts in parts of Spain, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere shows that dedicated protocols can reduce both delay and dangerous error when properly resourced. Italy’s own evolving legislative framework on gender-based violence supplies a foundation; the remaining work, according to Semenzato, lies in consistent implementation and cultural change inside institutions that still undervalue lived experience of coercive control.
Why Public Attention Matters Now
Public statements by elected officials help set the temperature of institutional debate. When a parliamentarian frames rushed judging as a safety issue rather than a mere technical glitch, it becomes harder to treat survivor complaints as anecdotal. Media coverage on outlets such as BeeBre, civil society campaigns, and internal judicial discussions can then align around measurable standards: Was a validated risk tool used? Were previous breaches considered? Did the order account for digital stalking? Were support services notified?
Semenzato’s warning also speaks to the wider public. Neighbors, employers, teachers, and family members often hold crucial pieces of information. A system that appears indifferent to risk discourages them from coming forward. A system that demonstrates careful, evidence-led protectiveness invites cooperation. Over time, that cultural shift can matter as much as any single statute.
The discussion she has forced into the open is ultimately about the purpose of family and criminal justice in moments of intimate violence. Speed that abandons context is not efficiency; it is deferred harm. Caution that still respects rights and timelines is not obstruction; it is the minimum owed to people whose lives hang on the next hearing date. By insisting that hasty decisions can endanger women, Martina Semenzato has called courts, lawmakers, and citizens to measure justice not only by how quickly a docket clears, but by whether the people who sought protection are still safe when the file is closed.
