Letters
Letters to the Editor •
To ensure security, it is better to resolve actual problems rather than perceived ones
Who wrote to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
17 OCT 26
Translated by AI
Photo: Ansa
To the Editor – In recent days, the debate on security figures has resurfaced. Two sets of data appear to contradict each other: according to the Ipsos Doxa survey published by Corriere della Sera, security – cited as one of the most pressing issues by 10 per cent of respondents in 2022 – is now mentioned by 35 per cent; according to data from the Ministry of the Interior, previewed by Il Sole 24 Ore, reported crimes fell by 1.8 per cent in 2025 and by 9.9 per cent in the first half of 2026. This is the paradox of the current climate: recorded crime is falling, yet the number of criminal cases is rising. The most plausible explanation lies in what the statistics do not measure: the perception of insecurity. To reduce this to an optical illusion is a mistake mirroring that of those who legislate on the back of emotional reactions. Those who are afraid go out less, and those who go out less are less likely to be victims of crime: this self-imposed restriction reduces muggings and assaults without actually lowering the risk for those who continue to go out. It is a form of security by subtraction, which grows in proportion to the curtailment of freedoms: it does not indicate a safer society but reflects a community that has ceased to put itself at risk. Perception must therefore be taken into account, without turning it into a blanket justification for punishment; this involves both relating crime statistics to instances where the protected interest is genuinely exposed to danger, and incorporating it into the assessment of the need for punishment, with the legislator asking themselves, before any new intervention, how much freedom has already been ceded to fear and what non-criminal measures have been seriously put in place.
Cristiano Cupelli
There is perhaps another factor to consider. Those who care about security should learn to distinguish, without shame, between real problems and perceived ones. Usually, however, those responsible for security, in order to avoid tackling real problems, focus on the perceived ones. Focusing on perceived problems means creating fictitious emergencies (the migrant invasion) driven by a desire to make people forget about everyday problems (safety in our towns and cities), the resolution of which depends more on concrete action than on tweets. Knowing the real figures, when it comes to security – net of any errors there may be – is important because it helps us understand who, when dealing with these issues, is interested in the truth and who is interested in mere chatter.
* * *
To the Editor – I have read the remote discussion between Ermes Antonucci and Filippo Facci on the subject of mafia-linked public contracts. I hold both of them in high regard; they are two fine journalists, but I do not understand Facci’s point: should court rulings be assessed not on the basis of the evidence, but on the basis of what they say?
Luca Maffei
I agree, Mr Maffei. On the subject of the Mafia and public contracts, there are many historical accounts that should be taken into consideration. And I believe there are some very interesting points – as Mario Mori also told this newspaper years ago – concerning the fact that Borsellino feared that investigation would be covered up. However, Facci advances a debatable argument. He says that ‘history is not written by court rulings, but also through court rulings’. I believe that, if there are judgements that merely help to reconstruct history, before reflecting on history we must focus on the most important fact: magistrates are not historians; they should seek facts, not historical reconstructions; and if a judgement does not prove a fact, we must focus on the investigations that have been dismantled – unless one wishes to argue that judges who use judgements as opportunities to offer their perspective on history may have chosen the wrong profession.
* * *
To the Editor – The much-coveted ‘French protest’, so often invoked in progressive editorials, has arrived here too – ‘but why don’t our young people kick up a fuss like their French cousins?’. Here we are. Adults are proud of you, not least because you make them feel young again: the same slogans, chants, American flags to burn in the square (with the new addition of the Israeli one, but it’s much the same – the Jewish-American lobby was a thing back in the Seventies too). Have fun, but be sensible, I urge you. Just one thing, though: at least come up with something of your own. I’m not suggesting a Ukrainian flag (that would play right into Meloni’s hands!), but at least burn one – say – from the Islamic Republic that is sentencing a girl your age to death for a social media post. Just like that. Just to shake things up. To surprise us. In short, to set yourselves apart from the sixteen generations of protesters who came before you – always shouting themselves hoarse against the utterly wicked Western democracies and never, not even once, not even by mistake, against the dictatorships all around.
Andrea Minuz
* * *
To the editor – “Picierno and Calenda are going their own way. Best wishes”. I was struck by these words from Luigi Marattin – for whom I have the utmost respect – spoken in an interview with your own Riccardo Carlino. If this were the case, it would be business as usual: “The centre is mine and I run it”. This kind of self-sufficiency does not win votes (though it certainly wins one: mine). A clarification is urgently needed from the leaders of Spazio Pubblico and Azione.
Michele Magno