In his last book, The Enemy in Criminal Law2, the influentialArgentine jurist Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni, today Minister of the Supreme Court, examines the contradiction between theprinciples of Democracy and the punitive State. Zaffaroniunveils the hidden transcript of the punishing Statethroughout history and, especially, in the contemporarycontext. What emerges is that penal juridical discourseunavoidably introduces the idea of an enemy, which unfoldsfrom the category of the hostis in ancient Roman law. WhileDemocracy is supposedly for all, criminal legislation speaksalways, in either more hidden or more explicit ways, of thefigure of an inimical other, for then to enshrine itself inopposition to it. Though the State belongs to all, it projects(and, as a matter of fact, e-jects), by means of Criminal lawdiscourse, the figure of an other people, to then, as part of the same maneuver, claim it as enemy.In the case of the law we debate, the enemy in Criminal lawis each indigenous people, the radical difference theyrepresent and their right to make their own history. This lawcriminalizes the village and attempts at punishing the other just for being other. The authors do not stand the possibilityof existence of a collectivity that is not a part of them.As for mischaracterizing the facts, this is expressly done in the author'sprimary focus, which is on the abolition of the traditional practice of infanticide. While it's true that some indigenous cultures still practicethis, it's nowhere near as prevalent as the authors suggest. The simplefact is it's a dying tradition that only a handful of Indigenous Culturescontinue to exercise.However, even if the practice of infanticide was as wide-spread as theyclaim, this type of legislation would simply not deter it from happening.