Under War. 02 Community and Crime

There are no communities1 without crime.2 Even in the houses of God, crime is common currency.3
Cronus mutilates his father, devours his own children; Prometheus fashions man from clay and steals fire from the gods to give him life; Oedipus kills his father, marries his own mother…
Original sin is the transgression that inaugurates human history and suffering; Cain kills his brother; the golden calf marks the betrayal…

It has been said that crimes exist because laws exist to create them. Without those laws, there would be no crime. This observation is less trivial than it may appear, if one agrees with the idea that law creates reality: from today, this cannot be done; from tomorrow, this tax must be paid; a parent is responsible for their child, if a minor; and so on.4

Yet the objection misses the point: every community gives itself norms of coexistence, however small, however non-hierarchical.
A couple is a community, the smallest of groups, and anyone who has loved knows how many norms exist in that life together (not to mention the peculiarities of two-person groups).5
On Robinson Crusoe’s island, Crusoe and Friday do not need a law manual to coexist — expectations suffice: I saved your life, I expect you not to eat me; I showed you generosity, I expect you to be my friend.6

Where a norm exists that is recognised by a group, there exists some form of community.
Expectations become customs, usages, mutual obligations. And an obligation presupposes a right.7
Sometimes norms define what is not tolerated. The threshold beyond which one must not go. Let us say: where a norm exists, other behaviours (if noticed) are excluded.8

It is another matter whether that community is just: there are many places, societies, and regimes where we would never want to live, just as there are many norms we would want to change.9

Those who contest the existing order simultaneously propose its supersession. A kind of law of change.10

It has been observed that during crises, the end is as keenly felt as the outcome is uncertain — all the more so when it presages an overturning of existing relations. A void, an in-between realm, in which the old is compromised while the new is not yet certain.11

In that void, those who govern have a free hand. If those in power define as criminal or enemy anyone who proposes change, violence becomes actual rather than merely possible.12

It seems possible to agree that criminal behaviour is never meaningful or sensible in and of itself, but acquires meaning in relation to the broader context in which it develops. At minimum, we can always read it as an indicator of the times. This is an aspect that escapes us when we become absorbed in individual criminal cases.

In these posts we propose this interpretive key: the emergence, the intensification, or the disappearance of criminal behaviour offers indications about the state of the times and, perhaps, about evolutionary tendencies.

But they are not predictions.
One thing is to observe how things evolve; quite another is to predict how things will go regardless of observable facts.
It seems to me that every prediction of this kind carries within it both a seduction and a danger. Therefore I avoid it.
The seduction. Who would not like to predict the future? Who would not like to foresee coming events through Science or divine Illumination, through knowledge of natural Laws or of History? Whatever the source, the fascination is the same.
Predicting which crimes will emerge has the advantage of being able to prevent them, of putting in place effective protective measures: this will happen, so now I do this. At minimum, I will be well prepared.13
The danger. Contesting is difficult when governing choices are correct according to the laws of science, Nature, History, or the will of God.
When we say that a certain behaviour is against nature, are we not calling on Nature to confirm our position and condemn those who are different?14 When we say it is God’s will, are we not saying that God is on our side and those who criticise us are against God before they are against us?15 Likewise, when we say that history is on our side, are we not saying that we will certainly win and that dissent makes one an enemy?16

To speak of such prevention is not to speak of facts (criminal ones), but of the governing of facts (or of intentions…).17
Governing, that is, the power relation between those who govern and those who are governed.
In this sense, the temporal gap between what I say might happen tomorrow and what I certainly do today is an easy path to abuses of power.18
The casual use of the word prevention has the advantage of projecting an image of good governance: intervening before a crime occurs seems sensible to anyone. All the more so when one has the support of the laws of Nature, God, Science, and so on.
But, in human affairs, the range of interests protected by such prevention is not necessarily the general interest of all citizens.19 And this is a great danger.

It is different, on the other hand, to observe what happens and draw indications from it as to how things might evolve in the future, and to make provisions accordingly.
One thing is to create something now for what does not yet exist but which I believe will happen; quite another is to observe an ongoing fact and try to understand how things will evolve.

The next post, ‘Sotto la guerra. 05 — The crimes that await us’, deals with this second aspect: which crimes emerge with regularity in contexts of severe social crisis? Which are the crimes that someone living within such contexts encounters, suffers, or risks committing?

In every significant conflict, it is not only geopolitics that changes. Crime also changes: its typologies, its perpetrators, its statistics. Even attitudes towards those who commit crimes change.20

There are no communities without crime. And the meaning changes according to the form of their appearing and succession. Of collective conflict, war is one of the most extreme forms.21

Automatic translation by Claude, Anthropic. The original text is in Italian and may be updated relative to the English version.

→ This is the third post in a series entitled ‘Sotto la Guerra’, category ‘War’. Published so far: 00 — Introduction; 06 Dehumanization. ←

NOTES

1 On the concept of community: this is a more complex object than common usage suggests and is for this reason the subject of extensive analysis in the social sciences; cf. Busino, Giovanni. (1978), entry “Comunità” in Enciclopedia Einaudi. Turin, Einaudi. Vol. 3, p. 696 ff.; Bagnasco, Arnaldo. (1999), Tracce di comunità, Bologna, Il Mulino; Agamben, Giorgio. (2001), La comunità che viene, Turin, Bollati Boringhieri.
In this post, Community is not differentiated from other objects such as Groups, Society, etc., for practical and expository reasons, resting on Searle’s reasoning on “Status function” and “deontic power”: Searle, R., John. (2010), Making the Social World. Milan, Raffaello Cortina. p. 119 ff., p. 140, p. 144. See also Ceri, Paolo et al. (1997), Manuale di sociologia. Turin, UTET. p. 87 ff.

2 With respect to crime, we refer generally to those behaviours considered as such in our criminal law, and in international norms (crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc.).
Those who work on criminality share the constant concern that criminal legislation is a battlefield of ideological contestation: proclamations of penal toughening have nothing to do with prevention-oriented criminal policies and more to do with acquiring cheap consent. There are very good reasons for decriminalisation and for not seeing prison as the normal outcome of conviction — it should be extrema ratio according to our legal system. Those who work in prisons know that prison does not prevent future criminal behaviour in approximately 70% of cases, while those subject to alternative measures reoffend in approximately 30% of cases. The opposite. And yet more prison is demanded, as Ferrarella, Luigi (25.06.2025), Corriere della Sera, reflects excellently on the punitive expectations that drive public debate. Emphasis in the original; links deactivated here.

3 On the relationship between myths, sacredness, and the use of violence: Girard, René. (2000), Violence and the Sacred. Milan, Adelphi, p. 347 ff. Also: Colli, Giorgio. (1990), La Sapienza greca. Milan, Adelphi; Graves, Robert. (1996), The Greek Myths. Milan, Longanesi; Sophocles, Oedipus Rex; Raveri, Massimo. (2026), Le albe del mondo. Bari Rome, Laterza.

4 This argument is not the task of this post, but we mention it as a widespread line of reasoning. The idea that language constitutes reality runs as a thread through: Genesis (in the beginning was the Word); Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations; Foucault, Michel. (1998), Society Must Be Defended. Milan, Feltrinelli, pp. 218–19; Butler, Judith (performativity: the subject is produced by the repetition of norms; power constitutes the body as intelligible or not, as human or not); Searle, R. John. (2010), Making the Social World. p. 145; Carroll, Lewis, Through the Looking-Glass: “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean.” “The question is which is to be master — that’s all.”

5 On group theory and the peculiarity of two-person groups (dyads): Bagnasco, Arnaldo., Barbagli, Marzio., Cavalli, Alessandro. (1997), Corso di sociologia. Bologna, Il Mulino. p. 80 ff.

6 Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe, various editions.

7 Customs and usages are sources of law (in our system: Art. 1 C.C.; Art. 8 Disp. prel. C.C.). On who establishes norms and why we take them for granted — addressed since Machiavelli. See also: Gheno, Vera. Potere alle parole (on prescriptivism and descriptivism: every system of norms implies a choice of power often invisible to those subject to it); Li Gotti, Luigi., Lodato, Saverio. (2025), Stragi d’Italia. Milan, RCS MediaGroup. pp. 13 ff.; Weber, Max. (1977), Il lavoro intellettuale come professione. Turin, Einaudi (on legitimate violence as the exclusive faculty of the State).

8 There is a significant difference between prohibited behaviour and behaviour that is merely unprovided-for. An authoritarian system typically restricts the field of unprovided-for behaviour as much as possible. One example is the Security Decree currently before the Chambers for conversion into law — consistent with a reactionary design. Among its aspects, particularly striking is the provision at Art. 30 bis of Decree-Law no. 23/2026 whereby lawyers are remunerated for persuading foreign clients to accept voluntary return. For a technical commentary: Gatta, Gian Luigi. (2026), “Dal legal aid alla remigration…” in Sistema Penale. Also: Giuffrida, Angela (19/04/2026), “Italian lawyers could win ‘wild west-style bounties’ if immigration clients go home”, The Guardian.
Authoritarian systems tend to the motto ‘everything unprovided for is forbidden.’ Control is put in crisis by human creativity and the unpredictability that stems from it — which is why such systems are enemies of culture and critical thought. Their legitimation deficit is compensated by growing repressive control and by co-opting consent through the spread of informal practices: corruption, parallel markets, black markets. The democratic criterion is the opposite: ‘everything not expressly prohibited is permitted.’ See: Vannini, Walter. “Auto aiuto in carcere” in Tognetti Bordogna, Mara (ed.). (2005), Promuovere i gruppi di self-help. Milan, F. Angeli.

9 On the human need for justice: Zoja, Luigi. (2007), Giustizia e bellezza. Milan, Bollati Boringhieri; Scarry, Elaine. (2001), On Beauty and Being Just. Milan, Il Saggiatore. “Beauty is peaceful… justice is opposed to wrong.” p. 99. On what constitutes a just social order: Gil, José. (1980), entry “Giustizia” in Enciclopedia Einaudi. Vol. 6, p. 824; Rawls, John. (1982), A Theory of Justice. Milan, Feltrinelli, vs. Nozick, Robert. (1981), Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Florence, Le Monnier; Veca, Salvatore. (2009), Dizionario Minimo; Bobbio, Norberto., Viroli, Maurizio. (2001), Dialogo intorno alla Repubblica. Laterza. p. 30; Martini, Carlo Maria., Sporschill, Georg. (2008), Night Conversations in Jerusalem. Milan, Mondadori. pp. 119, 123; Boff, Leonardo. (2000), Il creato in una carezza. Città di Castello, Cittadella Editrice.

10 Nisbett, Robert A. (1977), Storia e mutamento sociale. Milan, ISEDI; Canfora, Luciano. (1982), L’uso politico dei paradigmi storici. Bari-Rome, Laterza. “The idea of time is a conception of man… it is difficult not to notice that the consideration of past revolutionary events by moderns is subject to the outcomes those events have had in history.” pp. 5–6.

11 Koselleck, Reinhart. (1972), Critique and Crisis. Bologna, Il Mulino. p. 17 and p. 171. “It is precisely in the nature of a crisis that a decision is slow to come even though it has already matured… The general uncertainty in a critical situation is permeated by a certainty… that the end of the critical condition is imminent. The possible solution remains uncertain, but the end itself — an overturning of existing relations, threatening and feared or joyfully hoped for — is assured. The crisis reserves the problem for the historical future.”

12 Marx, Karl. (1977), Capital. Rome, Editori Riuniti. Book I, Ch. 24, p. 814. For the historical dimension of twentieth-century conflicts: Cordellier, Serge. (2001), Dizionario di storia e geopolitica del XX secolo. Milan, Bruno Mondadori. Entry “Impero russo, impero sovietico,” p. 388 ff.

13 On prediction in criminology: Mannheim, Hermann. (1975), Comparative Criminology. Turin, Einaudi. pp. 185 ff. And how could one not mention Minority Report.

14 “Do you want divorce? Then abortion will follow. And after that, marriage between homosexuals. And perhaps your wife will leave you to run off with the maid!” (attributed to Fanfani, Amintore — at the time of the divorce referendum). In any case it suffices to hear what is argued today about the “natural family” and what is therefore unnatural — if not against nature — in any family that does not fit the cliché.
P.S. It may not be a coincidence that the more current public conduct invokes absolute moral precepts, the more often those who declare themselves representatives of those precepts subsequently behave in contradiction to them. Not for nothing are we a complex and fragmented society.

15 Our Civil Code, entering into force under a monarchy, reads: “…Vittorio Emanuele III by the grace of God… King of Italy…” In this light, the image of President Trump praying together with a court of religious figures attests to divine endorsement. Bernardi, Giovanni (03/03/2020), La luce di Maria; SKYTG24.com; “Putin’s conversion: from communist orthodoxy to that of the church”; Meloni, 2019: “I am Giorgia, I am a mother, I am a Christian.” (all downloads 03/04/26).

16 Canfora, Luciano. (1982), L’uso politico dei paradigmi storici, op. cit. On the instrumental use of memory: Foa, Anna. (2026), Mai più. Bari Rome, Laterza. On the risk that the memory of the Shoah may lose value if deprived of its universal warning function, particularly in light of events in Gaza. p. 16.

17 There is a great difference between a fact and an intention. The principle of strict legality in democratic legal systems anchors crime to a real, perceptible fact, not to a thought. See: Amsterdamski, Stefan. (1980), entry ‘Previsione e possibilità’ in Enciclopedia Einaudi. Vol. 6. Turin, Einaudi. pp. 1126 ff.

18 See in this sense many of the concerns expressed by supporters of No in the recent constitutional revision referendum.

19 Manzoni, Alessandro. (2015), The Column of Infamy. Milan, Feltrinelli.

20 To my knowledge, the criminological effects of war were among the first to be analytically systematised by Mannheim, Hermann. (1975), Comparative Criminology. Turin, Einaudi. The seven changes he identified in criminality produced by war are the subject of the next post: ’05 — The crimes that await us.’

21 For war as a form of collective conflict: Gallino (cit. note 1), entry “Guerra.” For political and social transformations produced by war: Revelli, Marco. (2001), Oltre il Novecento. Turin, Einaudi. For armed conflicts of the twentieth century: Cordellier (2001), op. cit. note 2. For legitimate violence and the state monopoly: Weber (cit. note 1). For the hybrid nature of contemporary warfare: Ottaviani, Marta Federica. Brigate russe. For comparative analysis of contemporary armed conflicts: Arielli, Emilio; Scotto, Giovanni. (1998), I conflitti. Milan, Bruno Mondadori.

NB: Unless otherwise specified, links cited were verified on 04.04.2026.

Crediti / Credits