Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Gender, going to jail, male victims, etc.: the Caroline Brennan case, etc.
Comments
-
Old news - what should we do about it??? There are no particular women I want to spank just now:)
I think we should really worry less about the BS arguments from the past -if you deal with current issues.
Lots of it is the difference between right and wrong and saying "whoa there Neddy" when you hear the New Age Wooly thinking.0 -
Whatever about some aspects of sentencing (whether gender differences in the rate of incarceration and length of sentences), one difference in sentencing is the conditions that face men and women for the same crime - reminds me a bit of the cane for the boys but not for the girls.I think we should really worry less about the BS arguments from the past -if you deal with current issues.0 -
Allegorically yes - I agree with you. Personally, I am glad the girls didn't get caned. It says more about the people doing the caning then the girls.
There are some girls that feel they missed out :eek:
We live in a different era. Where an unfair decision at something like family law can wipe a guy out financially for life too.
Where would you stand on this hypothetical question. Just say a guy killed his partner, sister or mother after years of abuse. Put some abuse issues in there like she drinks and likes to slap him around when drunk. If he snapped and killed her should he get off with a suspended sentence.0 -
Of course, it's important to point out that this wasn't an isolated incident. I went to an all-boys school and there was corporal punishment there but my sisters went to an all-girls school with no corporal punishment. That doesn't mean that there was no corporal punishment ever for girls - both my parents were hit at schools.Allegorically yes - I agree with you. Personally, I am glad the girls didn't get caned. It says more about the people doing the caning then the girls.
Of course, it wasn't just in schools. There was a family I was friendly with where the boys were hit by a belt but the girl wasn't. I have bigger problems with that than what we had in school, where only the principal was allowed hit you, it was with a leather strap, it could only be on the hand, three strikes, no lasting damage. I'm not saying it was the best system but it wasn't as random as either an individual teacher losing their temper or a parent.
(probably not important) Not sure what you are talking about (unless you're talking about something sexual.There are some girls that feel they missed out :eek:.
Unless it was accidental or it was immediate self-defence (preferably, where the other person was going to use a weapon on you at that moment and you weren't going to use a weapon), I'm not sure I could see circumstances where I'd be happy with a suspended sentence. I might decrease a sentence but I'd want him to reflect on what happened as well as send a message to others. There can be other ways of dealing with situations. Death doesn't give people a chance to change. If it was an accident, I'd be looking whether the defendant was in any way responsible for the accident happening.We live in a different era. Where an unfair decision at something like family law can wipe a guy out financially for life too.
Where would you stand on this hypothetical question. Just say a guy killed his partner, sister or mother after years of abuse. Put some abuse issues in there like she drinks and likes to slap him around when drunk. If he snapped and killed her should he get off with a suspended sentence.0 -
I went to an all girls convent primary school, there were no boys, we were up until 5th class hit with, rulers, metre sticks, the strap, the strap with coins in, the long black roll ledger and hands. The worst offenders were the nuns who taught. So it's not just boys who got hit.0
-
Advertisement
-
Yes, I mentioned that girls were sometimes hit (my parents).I went to an all girls convent primary school, there were no boys, we were up until 5th class hit with, rulers, metre sticks, the strap, the strap with coins in, the long black roll ledger and hands. The worst offenders were the nuns who taught. So it's not just boys who got hit.
But to "balance out" what happened in my friend's school (boys caned, girls not), one would need examples where the girls were hit but not the boys. And what happened in another friend's family (boys hit with a strap, girl not), examples where in the family the girls were hit by a strap but not the boys.0 -
Unless it was accidental or it was immediate self-defence (preferably, where the other person was going to use a weapon on you at that moment and you weren't going to use a weapon), I'm not sure I could see circumstances where I'd be happy with a suspended sentence. I might decrease a sentence but I'd want him to reflect on what happened as well as send a message to others. There can be other ways of dealing with situations. Death doesn't give people a chance to change. If it was an accident, I'd be looking whether the defendant was in any way responsible for the accident happening.
So you are not sure if you could justify it in all cases but you could in some.
Is it fairer to say then that your beef isnt that women are treated too leniently but guys are treated too harshly.
For example, lots of people had serious doubts about the evidence used to convict Joe O'Reilly was a bit on the dodgy side and that it wasnt a case of him been proved guilty but his failure of being able to prove himself innocent.
So maybe guys are treated too harshly and should be given the benefit of the doubt more often. Would you go along with that.
Are there any cases that you have misgivings about that you feel that well a guy has been convicted and sentenced on less than satisfactory evidence.0 -
What I said was:So you are not sure if you could justify it in all cases but you could in some.
"Unless it was accidental or it was immediate self-defence (preferably, where the other person was going to use a weapon on you at that moment and you weren't going to use a weapon), I'm not sure I could see circumstances where I'd be happy with a suspended sentence."
That's not the same as what you said.
Immediate self-defence or accidental deaths are different, in my book.
No, I don't think that is a fair summary. I see what seem to be inconsistencies. If you have a "mean" (i.e. average) sentence, there seems to me to be a trend for the men to get higher than the average sentence, the woman to get lower. That's what I'm not happy about - defendants being treated differently based on their gender.Is it fairer to say then that your beef isnt that women are treated too leniently but guys are treated too harshly.
It feels like you are trying to ambush me now?0 -
It feels like you are trying to ambush me now?
I am not trying to ambush you - I have already said that I felt that the evidence used to convict Joe O'Reilly was weak and IMHO he should have not been convicted based on it.
I dont think you should be so safe with it -if you feel that men are treated harshly then you shouldnt play it safe.0 -
I'm not sure what the answer is in that case. If there was a comparable case where a woman had got off, that would seem unfair. I want consistency and defendants not treated particularly differently because of their gender.I am not trying to ambush you - I have already said that I felt that the evidence used to convict Joe O'Reilly was weak and IMHO he should have not been convicted based on it.
I dont think you should be so safe with it -if you feel that men are treated harshly then you shouldnt play it safe.
If you think a woman would have got off in that case, that is interesting. I haven't thought about it much.
I come from a mathematical background and generally have a bit of a problem with "reasonable doubt" and what it means - there is not even an attempt to put figures on what that means which I find frustrating. There is virtually nothing that is 100% certain in life. So thoughts about whether "reasonable doubt" is being applied equally do cross my mind when I hear cases. It would be interesting if there was research and if different levels of proof were required for the same cases e.g. present people with hypothetical cases and vary genders, etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
I went to an all girls convent primary school, there were no boys, we were up until 5th class hit with, rulers, metre sticks, the strap, the strap with coins in, the long black roll ledger and hands. The worst offenders were the nuns who taught. So it's not just boys who got hit.Yes, I mentioned that girls were sometimes hit (my parents).
But to "balance out" what happened in my friend's school (boys caned, girls not), one would need examples where the girls were hit but not the boys. And what happened in another friend's family (boys hit with a strap, girl not), examples where in the family the girls were hit by a strap but not the boys.
I don't think this is really a part of this discussion really.
Back then schools were very different.Nowdays they are much more supportive of students and helping them learn.
Corporal punishment was a teaching aid.I'm not sure what the answer is in that case. If there was a comparable case where a woman had got off, that would seem unfair. I want consistency and defendants not treated particularly differently because of their gender.If you think a woman would have got off in that case, that is interesting. I haven't thought about it much.
I dunno. Its a moral issue
I dont think the prosecution would have proved the case without the media hype and dodgy technical evidence.
If the death penalty was there -would you hang him on it. I wouldnt.
The Birmingham 6 would have been hanged if they had been convicted 10 years earlier.I come from a mathematical background and generally have a bit of a problem with "reasonable doubt" and what it means - there is not even an attempt to put figures on what that means which I find frustrating....It would be interesting if there was research and if different levels of proof were required for the same cases e.g. present people with hypothetical cases and vary genders, etc
Its not a science.
But in the Brennan case and the Lillis case both killers admitted killing someone.
Now case management has strategies.
O'Reilly was convicted and the others were too.
So coming from a mathematical background you could tabulate what factors had to exist in mitigation to lessen the chances of conviction of murder or minimize the sentence.
Then ,of course, such a thread might read like how to commit murder and get away with it.
The same could be said if a killer was coached to present evidence in a certain way in defence of their crime.
So you might ask yourself could someone be coached in that situation.
Is that feasable and is there any situation in a crime where you could envisage that sort of thing happening??????????0 -
Well if a person, perhaps particularly a woman, claims abuse by a partner it looks it will often help. Giving a lop-sided account of the events to appear the dead person was always in the wrong might help. And as you've pointed out, the dead person won't be there to give their side of the story.I dunno. Its a moral issue
I dont think the prosecution would have proved the case without the media hype and dodgy technical evidence.
If the death penalty was there -would you hang him on it. I wouldnt.
The Birmingham 6 would have been hanged if they had been convicted 10 years earlier.
Its not a science.
But in the Brennan case and the Lillis case both killers admitted killing someone.
Now case management has strategies.
O'Reilly was convicted and the others were too.
So coming from a mathematical background you could tabulate what factors had to exist in mitigation to lessen the chances of conviction of murder or minimize the sentence.
Then ,of course, such a thread might read like how to commit murder and get away with it.
The same could be said if a killer was coached to present evidence in a certain way in defence of their crime.
So you might ask yourself could someone be coached in that situation.
Is that feasable and is there any situation in a crime where you could envisage that sort of thing happening??????????
I don't know what happened in the Brennan case and wasn't thinking of that specifically when wrote the paragraph above. But I don't like the fact that not even a few months will be spent in jail. As long as the trial went on, she was probably trying to think about ways to justify her actions. But she had choices and she (and others?) might have reflected on them more if she had to spend some time in prison. She didn't have to go to the party, and she certainly didn't have to go to the party with a knife for one thing.
It's the "no time in prison" cases I have a particular problem with i.e. 0 to 3 months is a bigger issue than 3 months vs 12 months.
Also when there might be doubt (like the OJ Simpson case), I'd prefer a slightly lower standard of proof (still high) for a lesser sentence - a sort of intermediate sentence so it's not all or nothing (maybe a bit like expected values with probabilities, but not necessarily linear). Similarly in the case of hanging (which I'm not in favour of), different standards of proof for hanging. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if manslaughter is supposed to be an intermediate sentence or if juries sometimes use it like that, even if it's just to keep everyone happy in the jury room. But as I say, if you're convicted of taking a life, I'd generally expect some time to be spent in prison.0 -
Well if a person, perhaps particularly a woman, claims abuse by a partner it looks it will often help. Giving a lop-sided account of the events to appear the dead person was always in the wrong might help. And as you've pointed out, the dead person won't be there to give their side of the story.
is it possible that someone or some organisation is preparing the women to give evidence in this way
http://www.klgates.com/files/Publication/9b04df70-ba15-4ac9-94fc-4b44f0de012b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b7aa8d17-288c-4b4a-919f-4cc8fc2a450c/legal_ethics.pdf
Are women coached for Family Kaw cases to obtain barring orders etc ie is it endemic.I don't know what happened in the Brennan case and wasn't thinking of that specifically when wrote the paragraph above. But I don't like the fact that not even a few months will be spent in jail. As long as the trial went on, she was probably trying to think about ways to justify her actions. But she had choices and she (and others?) might have reflected on them more if she had to spend some time in prison. She didn't have to go to the party, and she certainly didn't have to go to the party with a knife for one thing.
So you are uncomfortable with the sentence
Even being accused of murder can mean someones life is ruined and if a person is remanded the effect on their lives is massive.It's the "no time in prison" cases I have a particular problem with i.e. 0 to 3 months is a bigger issue than 3 months vs 12 months.
Also when there might be doubt (like the OJ Simpson case), I'd prefer a slightly lower standard of proof (still high) for a lesser sentence - a sort of intermediate sentence so it's not all or nothing (maybe a bit like expected values with probabilities, but not necessarily linear).
That really does not answer the question as facts are facts. They either support a guilty verdict etc
Similarly in the case of hanging (which I'm not in favour of), different standards of proof for hanging. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if manslaughter is supposed to be an intermediate sentence or if juries sometimes use it like that, even if it's just to keep everyone happy in the jury room. But as I say, if you're convicted of taking a life, I'd generally expect some time to be spent in prison.
If you are convicted of murder you can spend 17 years in jail as a man but a lot less as a woman.
The standard of proof should be the same as if the death penalty applied.
So you did have standard accepted defences at law and reasonable force meant an obigation toi retreat.
So I have a few questions here.
The abused woman defence gets rid of both "reasonable force/retreat" and guilt by" insanity". Is this right?
Is it possible that women who use this defence either have planned it or are they coached to use the ploy?
I dont agree with you on the lesser standard of proof and sentence -as muder follows fact and it is 100% or zero guilt.
So the question I have on that is if the ideology put forward by lawyers or the feminist movement to support this defence is correct. ie knowing she could get away with Agnes took the shotgun and shot her husband in the back while he was sleeping on the basis that she would spend no time in jail?
Following on -have we dropped the ball on this morally on spousal murder? What standard of proof should their be or is there that the abuse existed and could a smart woman get away with murder.0 -
I accept that if you are falsely accused of killing somebody, that could be very unfair.So you are uncomfortable with the sentence
Even being accused of murder can mean someones life is ruined and if a person is remanded the effect on their lives is massive.
However, in this case, we know she did kill him - she brought this on herself.
I think a non-custodial sentence sends out the wrong message. We shouldn't go around killing people even if they have been abusive to us in the past and, to an extent, are still a bit mean to us.
This was a general point of mine nothing to do with gender in particular. It seemed to me that OJ (Simpson) got off because his lawyer convinced them that "reasonable doubt" could mean almost any doubt. I think in cases like this juries should have a choice of an intermediate sentence. Maybe it is going off-topic but I thought I'd say. (I might reply to other points again).That really does not answer the question as facts are facts. They either support a guilty verdict etc.0 -
Maybe it is going off-topic but I thought I'd say. (I might reply to other points again).
They are very hard questions. There are no wrong or right answers and they werent particularily aimed at anyone.
Instinctively, I feel that the moral issues have become blurred and the rights and wrongs obscured.
Anyone who wants to should give the questions a shot and you wont do anybetter or worse than me and ipta here.
Its not just the sentencing issue its whether or not you think there are miscarriages of justice or people escaping justice as a result of these approaches.0 -
(Apologies this is a bit late - only got a chance now to read these messages closely)A very crude political analysis - but these two private individuals Martin & McKay who are not elected to the Dail probably have more power than most government ministers.
And they are huge movers and shakers on deciding justice policy towards women in Ireland and family law and social policy too.
They are not responsible to any electorate or constituency anywhere, cannot be questioned by the opposition in the Dail or any of the other bits and pieces in a democracy.
Did you vote them in?????
And maybe its not that crime among women has increased but maybe more women are getting caught and convicted.
So the Criminal Justice system is not anti women and women dont need protection or special treatment by it. Its against people who break the law and what kind of public servants or private organisations do affect law enforcement.
Where are the laws and enforcement against female lawbreakers??
I think the point about the influence of organisations such as Women's Aid (which, as you pointed out, says it is a feminist organisation) is important.
The electorate are influenced by the work of such organisations. Politicians feel pressure in terms of both what they should be doing because of such groups. Feminist/womens groups (and academics) are an influential lobby group.
The gender power balance equation is much less clear-cut than some would have us believe.
The justification for the women-only meeting of the members of the Oireachtas was that women are some sort of minority group like Asians, blacks, etc and have little power.
As you pointed out, women make up half the electorate so the figures about the percentages in the Dáil are misleading especially given the influence of some pressure groups.
I have seen no evidence that there is some male lobby group within the Dáil that is striving to make laws explicitly to help the male population as a group. One hears the phrase "women" more than "men" in the Dáil - I don't recall many speeches on the issue of men dying younger than women/men's health, male suicide, men as victims of domestic violence, the rights of single and separated fathers, different conditions you face in prison based on your gender, etc.
There are plenty of men's issues that politicians could talk about but there is not much talk, and certainly there are not more talks about men and their difficulties than women.
The baroness was presenting a report which claimed prison was not a suitable place for women in many/most cases. Ivana Bacik agreed with this position. It should make us very uneasy that a meeting of legislators excluded men on this issue. It's a dangerous precedent as well as being important in itself (i.e. its an important issue).0 -
Found this top 10 list on askmen.
Top 10: Anti-Male Court Rulings
By Marc Voyer
Start With No.10
Have you been found guilty of a speeding ticket? If yes, it’s probably safe to say that it was more a judgment against your lead foot than your gender. For more serious cases like child custody battles, restraining orders, support payments, and even adoption, it’s clear that certain judgments aren’t giving guys a fair shake. To give you an idea of the worst anti-male court rulings, we’ve put together a top 10 list that covers them all.
Whether these anti-male court rulings are ones that appear to work against men or cases that are blatantly one-sided in favor of women, our anti-male court rulings showcase justice’s injustice in plenty of forms.
Read on for our verdict on top 10 anti-male court rulings
No.10 - Wrongful paternity
Consider this: You just got a divorce, which requires you to pay child support. No problem, they’re your kids and you’re here to support them. But then DNA evidence shows they’re not your kids and you’ve been paying for another guy’s offspring. Now you want your money back, which seems fair and reasonable. Not according to some judges.
Parker v. State (Florida)
Richard Parker found out his 3-year-old child wasn’t his. The twist: The court ruled unanimously that he has to continue to pay child support, which is expected to total $200,000 over 15 years.
********
No.9 - Deadbeat-dad rulings
A deadbeat dad is a negative label given to dads who fall behind on their child support payments. This largely refers to men who consciously avoid paying every month. The stigma also includes fathers who may have been laid off and can’t keep up on their payments.
State of Wisconsin v. Oakley
This defendant -- David Oakley -- will never win father of the year. The guy has outstanding child support payments for nine children from four women. Here’s the issue: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled he could no longer procreate until he proves he can support kids. This sets a precedent that could hurt dads who may have legitimately fallen behind on payments from being laid off.
********
No.8 - False rape cases
Rape is a serious crime that deserves to be punished within the full extent of the law. When it’s a false accusation, however, rape can destroy an innocent man’s reputation as soon as the claim goes public. By their nature, these cases prove a man’s innocence, but suspicions and a tarnished reputation aren’t as easily abolished.
Hudak v. Johnson
RCMP officer Hudak was accused of sexual assault. The judge threw it out after the female accuser admitted to lying about it. Hudak transferred to a new detachment, but women still refused to work with him. He then moved to a different province where someone said she "didn’t want a rapist on the force." Redemption: Hudak was awarded a provincial apology plus an undisclosed settlement from his $5 million claim.
********
No.7 - Putative Father Registry law
This law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex to register with their state. This is done so that you, as a man, can be contacted if a woman you’ve slept with gets pregnant and she puts this child up for adoption. If you don’t sign up, you might not even know you were a father.
Huddleston v. State (New Mexico)
Mark Huddleston’s child was adopted when he was just 3 days old. The issue: Huddleston didn’t even know he had a boy until two months later. The adoption agency that gave away the boy did not contact Huddleston to tell him. The result: Mark Huddleston was denied the chance to bring up his biological son.
********
No.6 - Bradley Amendment
This law states that men’s outstanding child support payments will not be reduced for whatever reason. Just laid off from your job and want to reduce the amount of your payment until you find work? Nope. Had a medical accident and been out of work recovering in hospital? Pay up.
Sherrill v. State of North Carolina
This defendant was a Lockheed employee and a divorced father working in Kuwait during the Gulf War. One day, he was captured by Iraqis and held as hostage. He was released five months later. The second night he was back in the U.S. a sheriff came to arrest him for owing $1,425 in payments that accumulated when he was held hostage. Ouch.
********
No.5 - Proposition 13
Proposition 13 was recently voted in as Texas law. It states that any father accused of domestic violence will be denied bail before trial. Sounds OK on the surface, but if you read closely you’ll see it says any father "accused" of violence is denied bail. This means that if a woman simply says her husband was violent, her husband will be denied bail. While its intention is a noble one -- to keep abusive husbands from hurting their wives -- the side effect is that any spiteful, angry wife with a cross to bear can send an innocent guy to jail.
********
No.4 - Restraining order laws
In truth, it’s harder for an adult woman to buy a pack of cigarettes than to get a restraining order. She can tell a judge she simply "feels unsafe" with her husband or boyfriend and the court can issue an order against her husband. This, of course, forces him to move out and reorganize his life. For this reason, many people have dubbed this law "shout at your spouse, lose your house."
McLarnon v. Douglas and Jokisch
The father, Edward McLarnon, was issued a restraining order by his ex-wife with the help of her social-worker boyfriend Douglas. Douglas used his social-worker status to testify that McLarnon was an abuser when he’d barely met him. McLarnon lost the right to see his son.
********
No.3 - Trust assets from divorce
Sure, it’s one thing to split marital assets fifty-fifty, but what about an offshore trust or limited partnership you set up to build capital? Sorry guys, tack it on to the bill. Even in cases of private business practice, rulings on trusts generally favor women.
Riechers v. Riechers 1998, New York
The husband in this case set up a trust and a limited partnership. The reason: He was a physician and wanted to avoid a malpractice suit. He named his kids and wife as beneficiaries, but his wife’s name wasn’t explicitly mentioned. This meant, in a divorce, she would not have access to the trust. But she got it regardless, as the court ruled in her favor.
********
No.2 - Alimony/Spousal support
"I want half, Eddie." You don’t have to watch old Eddie Murphy stand-up to know divorce can cost men a lot of money. Until now, most U.S. states leave the length and amount of settlement up to each judge. In Florida, it’s on the books that men have to provide lifetime support. The result: Men can be on the hook for a long time for a lot.
Polksy v. Polsky
Trivia: What’s one of the largest divorce verdicts in U.S. history? Answer: $184 million dollars to Maya Polsky, wife of Michael Polsky, a successful power industry businessman in Chicago.
********
No.1 - Custody
It’s widely accepted that women will be granted custody for children in child custody cases and that men will simply make child support payments. Of course, men who are good fathers and want custody of their children suffer for it thanks to this scenario.
John Doe v. Province of Saskatchewan
The man in this case unknowingly impregnated a woman. Later, he found she was putting this child up for adoption. He took a DNA test to prove he was the biological father and applied for sole custody -- but he was denied. The judge ruled in favor of a couple to adopt him.******
0 -
Judges teached on how female criminals are different to men in the US
Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges [Lesson Plans]
Intervention effectiveness can be improved by understanding how women respond to sanctions. This 6-hour course addressed sentencing practices in relation to female offenders through the following modules: why focus on women offenders?; the judicial response to the woman offender; who women offenders are; what works, what is in place, and what do programs in the represented jurisdictions offer?; sanctioning the woman offender; what do we have and what do we need?; and wrap-up session and evaluation of the learning experience******
0 -
The kicker is that these type of rulings affect women too. Women have sons, brother, fathers's male relatives and friends.
So I am sure that people assume that there are adequete safeguards in place.
If you have a violent woman who is awarded custody of a girl then the girl is becoming an abuse victim.The system could do with a lot more honesty.
I dont think the system is representative of what lots of women want.0 -
Interesting ruling although I think there are more interesting cases with regard to "dead beat dads". I have read on some of those men's forums and blogs that large numbers of men (can't remember the figure but they emphasised the size and it was large e.g. tens of thousands) are in jail because they can't afford to pay child support.citytillidie wrote: »No.9 - Deadbeat-dad rulings
A deadbeat dad is a negative label given to dads who fall behind on their child support payments. This largely refers to men who consciously avoid paying every month. The stigma also includes fathers who may have been laid off and can’t keep up on their payments.
State of Wisconsin v. Oakley
This defendant -- David Oakley -- will never win father of the year. The guy has outstanding child support payments for nine children from four women. Here’s the issue: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled he could no longer procreate until he proves he can support kids. This sets a precedent that could hurt dads who may have legitimately fallen behind on payments from being laid off.
Basically, courts often don't have sympathy if your circumstances change e.g. you become unemployed (that example was given). Even if a woman's financial circumstances improve, it is not unusual to send men to jail. Irish courts tend to give softer sentences generally than the US so probably not so much of an issue here.
ETA: Oops, I see this is covered in point 6.
This could be gone into in more detail e.g. with regard to the general lack of sentencing of women. And the whole politics of "false rape" cases is interesting e.g. there are huge variations in the percentages claimed depending on viewpoint. I've read "rape crisis feminists" say the problem either doesn't exist or there have only ever been a handful of cases.No.8 - False rape cases
Rape is a serious crime that deserves to be punished within the full extent of the law. When it’s a false accusation, however, rape can destroy an innocent man’s reputation as soon as the claim goes public. By their nature, these cases prove a man’s innocence, but suspicions and a tarnished reputation aren’t as easily abolished.
Hudak v. Johnson
RCMP officer Hudak was accused of sexual assault. The judge threw it out after the female accuser admitted to lying about it. Hudak transferred to a new detachment, but women still refused to work with him. He then moved to a different province where someone said she "didn’t want a rapist on the force." Redemption: Hudak was awarded a provincial apology plus an undisclosed settlement from his $5 million claim.
Not sure I understand this one. On the face of it, if you are going to split assets 50/50 or whatever (not 100% comfortable with that), it seems reasonable it should be included or am I missing something?No.3 - Trust assets from divorce
Sure, it’s one thing to split marital assets fifty-fifty, but what about an offshore trust or limited partnership you set up to build capital? Sorry guys, tack it on to the bill. Even in cases of private business practice, rulings on trusts generally favor women.
Riechers v. Riechers 1998, New York
The husband in this case set up a trust and a limited partnership. The reason: He was a physician and wanted to avoid a malpractice suit. He named his kids and wife as beneficiaries, but his wife’s name wasn’t explicitly mentioned. This meant, in a divorce, she would not have access to the trust. But she got it regardless, as the court ruled in her favor.
Some of these are more family law cases and are probably more suitable for a separate discussion. This thread should probably try to generally stick to criminal convictions and also sending people to jail (so sending people to jail for non-payment of maintenance payments might fit in to that).0 -
Advertisement
-
Some points are valid but are they relevant to Ireland. I imagine ATM in Ireland some women especially those working in the public sector are having qualms especially if they are married to guys in professions affected by the recession.There are cases where guys can sue for maintenance. They are becoming more common.
Cmon lads you will have to do a bit better than that and quote Irish cases and events. It would be cool if we could get some womens views on the sentencing of women.0 -
(Maybe going off topic a bit) But how socially acceptable is it? There's a case in my wider family where the woman has a well-paid while the guy is struggling to make the rent after they separated (no children). The attitude is that he will be shunned by their mutual friends if he looks for money. Of course, he did have an affair ...Some points are valid but are they relevant to Ireland. I imagine ATM in Ireland some women especially those working in the public sector are having qualms especially if they are married to guys in professions affected by the recession.There are cases where guys can sue for maintenance. They are becoming more common.
But know of another case where the man in the couple is ill and unable to work and they split. His mother said to me it didn't feel like the lawyer was that up for speaking up for him. Have a few more details on this case but I can't really share them.
I know these probably aren't the best examples but there are complex issues when men might be eligible for maintenance e.g. how "socially acceptable" is it. Perhaps more suitable for another thread as this thread probably has enough to discuss with regard to sentencing and the like.0 -
I dont think mutual friends give a proverbial.He should just instruct his solicitor to do her job.0
-
Not a "full" Irish case and it didn't go to trial but on the issue of false rape accusations, I remember the case of Annette Mangan in Cyprus in the mid- to late-90s. She accused two or three Irish guys of raping or sexually assaulting her and they were put in jail for a day or two while they awaited some sort of court sitting. She then admitted she made the accusation up and she was put in jail. There was a huge hullabaloo about this and there was huge sympathy for her and how unfair it was. Eventually, IIRC, the government in some capacity made some sort of representations and she was released.Cmon lads you will have to do a bit better than that and quote Irish cases and events.
This suggested to me that the general attitude here was that false accusations weren't that serious and people probably didn't want women going to jail for them. Some people on phone-ins also said "there was no smoke without fire".
I don't know how many specific court cases there have been in Ireland. I recall reading of some men being unhappy in the UK about sentences in cases of false rape accusation (where the accusation lasted a lot longer).0 -
The times are changing.
It must be difficult to sustain an argument about equal treatment under the law with this.
The law is there but what use is it if it is not being used.
Was it used in the Nora Wall case0 -
Actually she got a four month sentence but then Irish officials worked for a pardon for her which they subsequently got from the Cypriot president:Not a "full" Irish case and it didn't go to trial but on the issue of false rape accusations, I remember the case of Annette Mangan in Cyprus in the mid- to late-90s. She accused two or three Irish guys of raping or sexually assaulting her and they were put in jail for a day or two while they awaited some sort of court sitting. She then admitted she made the accusation up and she was put in jail. There was a huge hullabaloo about this and there was huge sympathy for her and how unfair it was. Eventually, IIRC, the government in some capacity made some sort of representations and she was released.
This suggested to me that the general attitude here was that false accusations weren't that serious and people probably didn't want women going to jail for them. Some people on phone-ins also said "there was no smoke without fire".
I don't know how many specific court cases there have been in Ireland. I recall reading of some men being unhappy in the UK about sentences in cases of false rape accusation (where the accusation lasted a lot longer).Rape claim woman in bid for jail pardon
Eire officials are trying to win a pardon for an Irish woman jailed in Cyprus after falsely claiming she had been raped.
Stephanos Stephanou, Eire's honorary counsul on the Mediterranean holiday island, is to make representations to the Cypriot attorney general on behalf of Dublin computer factory worker Annette Mangan, 22
She was jailed for four months on Friday after accusing three Irishmen, two of them soldiers on leave from United Nations peacekeeping duties in Lebanon, of raping her in an apartment in the resort of Ayia Napa.
She changed her story after being interviewed by detectives and said she had implicated the men because they allegedly took pictures of her in the nude.
Ms Mangan was on holiday in Cyprus with her sister Avril and two friends. They were all due to have flown home yesterday.
The Honorary Consul said he was confident a clemency appeal to Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides, via the attorney general, would be granted.
The move could be delayed until later this week, though, as both the President and the attorney are away in Geneva
Mr Stephanou said: ''There is no reason why the pardon should not be granted as I consider the sentence to be a little harsh.''
The consul added he had made arrangements to ensure Ms Mangan was as comfortable as possible and for her to be visited by her sister and their friends.
I can't see this full piece but this piece shows she was pardoned. Also shows a woman not happy with her release:Doing women a disservice.(Features)
Article from:The Mirror (London, England) Article date:August 15, 1997
The Cypriot judge who jailed an Irish woman for a false claim of rape did the right thing.
Annette Mangan filed a rape charge against three Irishmen while on holiday in Cyprus.
When local doctors informed the 22-year-old from Tallaght that there was no evidence of rape she promptly withdrew her accusation.
But the judge sent her to prison. The punishment was justified.
Not only had she wasted police time, but she'd also done a major disservice to genuine rape victims.
Rape is the ultimate power men have against women. It is the ultimate violation, something no woman can ever forget, an event which can and does ruin her life. …0 -
Also shows a woman not happy with her release:
Lots of women would feel that she needed conviction and jailing for this -not just the one.
I imagine it was a case of too much booze and regrets in the morning though. The consequences for the juys being convicted would be fairly massive.0 -
This piece gives an idea of how big an issue it was at the time.
<H1>Sharp division of opinion on sentence in Cyprus rape case
</H1>
Sat, Aug 16, 1997
Annette Mangan sat in her prison cell in Nicosia Central Prison in Cyprus this week "confused and terrified", according to her sister. Back home, hours of air time were being devoted to the divisive question of whether or not the 22-year-old Dublin woman should be there at all.
Her accusation of rape against three young Irish soldiers and her subsequent retraction have been debated with a passion normally reserved for the build-up to abortion or divorce referendums. The four-month sentence she received when medical evidence contradicted her claim of rape has been criticised and justified in equal measures.
For the most part, female commentators are remaining cautious and adopting the "two sides to every story" approach. Anne O'Neill, a solicitor specialising in family law, has a firm view that the four-month sentence was "innappropriate".
"How has society been bettered by putting her in prison?" she asks.
Some might be inclined to believe there is more to the story than claims about lurid photographs taken in the aftermath of a drunken binge. But speaking on RTE radio this week, the father of one of the soldiers said police found nothing in film seized from the camera of the falsely accused men. Then there are others who just shake their heads at Mangan, who in their eyes has dragged the Defence Forces and the country "through the mud".
These two separate factions are split right down the middle. Olive Braiden, director of the Rape Crisis Centre, was "amazed" by the number of people who vilified Mangan while commenting on the case. "I found it incredible that ordinary people were calling radio stations criticising her [Mangan's] behaviour on the night in question. As far as I can see a lot of it is to do with their set views on how a woman should behave," she says.
As the controversy unfolded, Braiden was presented as taking Mangan's side in the incident, but she claims her comments were taken out of context. "I always stressed that a false accusation was a very serious matter, that the whole episode was very damaging for the men involved, and damaging in that it may discourage others from reporting genuine cases of rape.
"But I thought the publicity about it was disproportionate to the actual incident. There are men in this country who have pleaded guilty to rape and have not served one day in prison," she says. "Where is the media furore over that?
"If what has been reported is true," she adds, "I think four months in prison was very harsh."
Tommy Spooner of the Men's Network and Resource Centre in Dublin, a co-ordinating body of 40 men's support groups around the country, does not agree. His view is typical of many who say Mangan does not deserve the presidential pardon it is understood she will receive.
"Four months is too lenient for what that young girl did," he says. "If a man had made such an accusation the retribution would have been much harsher." Spooner claims the law is weighted more in favour of women when a complaint of this nature is made. He has come across "several" examples of false accusations during the course of his work, he says.
If the Cyprus case had gone ahead, the lives of the three Irish soldiers would have been "destroyed", according to John Lucey, general secretary of PDFORRA, the representative body for enlisted men in the Defence Forces.
The fact that Mangan "had a few drinks, met this guy and went home with him" is "her own business", says Lucey. "In a way I feel sorry for her . . .but then again if she had stuck to her story she would have destroyed the lives of three young men. The Defence Forces enjoy great respect internationally. It would have been terrible for the country . . . but even with what's happened the mud will stick."
Those who display a sympathetic approach to the situation are interpreted as wholeheartedly condoning what Mangan did, says Noreen Byrne, chairwoman of the National Women's Council. "If you don't completely leap on the condemnation bandwagon then you are accused of being soft on her.
"To falsely accuse anyone of such a serious crime is unnacceptable. But the media coverage, all this talk about her state of undress, is part of her punishment. We shouldn't forget that she has to come home to all that."
False rape claims are "extremely rare", she says, citing an American study where only 2 per cent of claims were found to be false. "We should put this in perspective," she says.
Anne O'Neill acknowledges that the three Irish soldiers did not deserve to be accused of rape. "But my sympathy for them is tempered somewhat by the reports. They are being hailed as these brave lads, when really they deserve a major kick in the arse."
Meanwhile, says Olive Braiden, Annette Mangan will need to be handled delicately when she returns home. "She will need a lot of help and care from her friends and family when she comes back. Prison is a very high price to pay for what appears to have been a thoughtless and stupid mistake."0 -
Any woman with a son who goes on foreign holidays would agree with the punishment thats who.Any girl with a brother would too.
Ok -so there were a few media types Anne O'Neill and Olive Braiden saying the deal was harsh.
I especially liked the has "society been bettered" comment .Jail is punishment for wrongdoing. Is society bettered by putting some doddering Christian Brother in jail for molesting kids in the 60's when he is no longer a threat - I think so.
It would be very interesting to see what modern women think should happen to women who falsely accuse a man of rape.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes. The judge also explicitly said part of the reason for the sentence was to deter others which seems a perfectly valid reason to give a sentence.I especially liked the has "society been bettered" comment .Jail is punishment for wrongdoing. Is society bettered by putting some doddering Christian Brother in jail for molesting kids in the 60's when he is no longer a threat - I think so.
Of course, Olive Braiden wasn't just a "media type", she was director of the Rape Crisis Centre. She can't seem to switch out of the "woman as victim" angle:Any woman with a son who goes on foreign holidays would agree with the punishment thats who.Any girl with a brother would too.
Ok -so there were a few media types Anne O'Neill and Olive Braiden saying the deal was harsh.
It would be very interesting to see what modern women think should happen to women who falsely accuse a man of rape.
"Olive Braiden, Annette Mangan will need to be handled delicately when she returns home. "She will need a lot of help and care from her friends and family when she comes back. Prison is a very high price to pay for what appears to have been a thoughtless and stupid mistake."
This is something I have observed that female perpetrators of crime seem to be seen more as victims than men. I have sympathy for lots of people in society - some people have quite a lot of sympathy for women and little sympathy for some men, seeing them as animals/similar.The director of the Rape Crisis Centre I think should appear to be more annoyed that such false accusations can make it harder for other women.
The crucial part of the case of course is that the Irish government intervened to look for a presidential pardon.
0
Advertisement