Less prison sentences for women? Sexist?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Interesting little article from RTÉ News here:

Call for alternatives to prison for women
Thursday, 22 May 2008 09:15
An independent member of the Seanad has called for alternatives to prison to be considered for women who commit minor offences.

Senator Ivana Bacik made the suggestion ahead of a seminar on the issue of women in prison to be held in Dublin this evening.

Senator Bacik said the Government should adopt the findings of a British report, published last year, which looked at vulnerable women in the prison system there.

AdvertisementIt concluded that many women should not be behind bars and only the small number who commit serious violent crimes be kept in custody.

Most of the women involved were mothers, and the report found that many of them had been imprisoned for minor offences which caused stress for their families, particularly their children.

Baroness Jean Corston, the author of the British report, will address tonight's public seminar, which was organised by the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice.

This afternoon, Senator Bacik and Baroness Corston will meet women members of the Dáil and Seanad.

Is this not sexist? Why should women be given easier sentences in comparison to men for commiting the same crime? I truly believe in sexual equality but this seems like discrimination to me. As the saying goes, if you do the crime, do the time. And if your prison term affects your family, you should have thought of that before commiting a crime.

And if this is implemented then organised gangs will just start using women more and more for criminal work due to them receiving easier sentences if caught, just like they are already using minors to move weapons etc.

Load of bull.

Sherifu

Bad Girls. Senator Bacik and Baroness Corston, never heard of them. I can see this coming into law alright.

po0k

"Speaking as a Mother..."

dlofnep

Same punishment for the same crime tbh. But in fairness, prison does very little to rehabilitate someone anyways. People end up coming out worse than they were in most instances.

Caoimhín

Its hard to say without knowing the details of the British report, but on the face of it, it is nonsense.
This Bacik one comes out with some hum-dingers from time to time. Shes clearly a smart person so I can only presume it is self publicity.

Ponster

Mack Crooked Crater wrote: »

And if your prison term affects your family, you should have thought of that before commiting a crime.

I imagine their point is that a mother in prison will probably lead to the state paying more to care for any kids. The affect on the kids may lead to a new generation of law-breakers?

I think the debate isn't about women in prison but mothers in prison and should children be punished for their mothers crimes.

What does 'minor offence' mean anyhow?

p.s. An old Time article here on the subject if anyone is interested...

Gone West

Mack Crooked Crater wrote: »

Is this not sexist?

Yes, but Bunreacht na hÉireann does have special provisions for women/mothers, and this would be more than constitutionally sound, especially if it only affected women with children.

spurious

Where does it say women should get lesser sentences than men 'for the same crime'?

Gone West

spurious wrote: »

Where does it say women should get lesser sentences than men 'for the same crime'?

Thats ridiculous! Who suggested that!
Or are you simply misrepresenting what I said?

SimpleSam06

dlofnep wrote: »

But in fairness, prison does very little to rehabilitate someone anyways. People end up coming out worse than they were in most instances.

Its not meant to rehabilitate. Its meant to punish.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Its not meant to rehabilitate. Its meant to punish.

Therein lies the reason for the failure of the prison system and the cuase behind the high reofending rate, but that;s a different argument.

Sexual equality is a myth in this country. Look at the cases of unmarried fathers or seperated fathers trying to get equal access to their kids.

um7y1h83ge06nx

spurious wrote: »

Where does it say women should get lesser sentences than men 'for the same crime'?

Well, maybe I'm interpreting the article a bit too much, but if this idea does become a reality and a woman commits a 'minor offence' that wouldn't result in jail time due to her sex but a man commits the same 'minor offence' that normally does warrant jail time, then a woman could really get a lesser sentence for the same crime.

Just an opinion but it does seem to imply something like that.

EamonnKeane

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Yes, but Bunreacht na hÉireann does have special provisions for women/mothers, and this would be more than constitutionally sound, especially if it only affected women with children.

The only special provision is

1. In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Which has nothing to do with prison, and is the sort of thing Ms. Bacik has railed against in the past. What about a more important article:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

kevmy

A few points:

It's probably a good idea to use an alternative to prison for minor offences to people who are in vulnerable situations, first time offenders, single parents etc. However this should be applied across the board and not just to women

Also the argument that putting mothers in prison costs the state more is bollix. Most men in this country are still the primary breadwinners. Put the fathers in prison and you have to support the whole family.

The system is screwed up in relation to fathers as single parents and should be rectified but thats for a different thread

WindSock

Ponster wrote: »

I imagine their point is that a mother in prison will probably lead to the state paying more to care for any kids. The affect on the kids may lead to a new generation of law-breakers?

I think the debate isn't about women in prison but mothers in prison and should children be punished for their mothers crimes.

What does 'minor offence' mean anyhow?

p.s. An old Time article here on the subject if anyone is interested...

I agree with this post. No point in perpetuating the problem onto the childers.
I can't remember where I rad it, maybe it was NZ, but they were talking about letting Women raise their kids with them in the prison. I think this is a good idea. The child would probably get more care and attention this way too.

GirlInterrupted

Mack Crooked Crater wrote: »

Interesting little article from RTÉ News here:



Is this not sexist? Why should women be given easier sentences in comparison to men for commiting the same crime? I truly believe in sexual equality but this seems like discrimination to me. As the saying goes, if you do the crime, do the time. And if your prison term affects your family, you should have thought of that before commiting a crime.

And if this is implemented then organised gangs will just start using women more and more for criminal work due to them receiving easier sentences if caught, just like they are already using minors to move weapons etc.

Load of bull.

To be fair it doesn't say that women get easier sentances than men, just that they're imprisoned for minor crimes. Are more men imprisoned for minor crimes given the overcrowding? If it's like for like, then it's sexist, but I think the concern is that when the women in question are mothers, especially single mothers, imprisonment imposes a burden on the entire family, especially young children, in a way that paternal imprisonment doesn't.

Caoimhín

Wimmin shouldnt be commitin crime anyhow, they should be;

• At home washin dishes,
• At home havin babies,
• Being quiet,
• Being pretty,
• Thinking nice thoughts about kittens and curtains and such.

GirlInterrupted

caoibhin wrote: »

Wimmin shouldnt be commitin crime anyhow, they should be;

• At home washin dishes,
• At home havin babies,
• Being quiet,
• Being pretty,
• Thinking nice thoughts about kittens and curtains and such.

Now you are a catch, arent you?

Duggy747

WOMEN!

Know your limits!!

Caoimhín

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

Now you are a catch, arent you?

Quite.

Reku

Don't see why the mother being sent to prison should be any more detremental on the child's sense of morality and civic duty than if the father is sent to prison.
As such if this change to the penal code is applied it should apply to both, otherwise I'm thinking a woodchipper and a full slurry spreader could make for a fun day outside the Bacik househould.;)
If they do try push it through in this raw, and blatently sexist form, I wonder how many "feminist groups" will protest, bet it'll be a rather miniscule number if any.

seamus

Bacik's a moron.

Of course it's sexism.

If anyone asked for men to receive less harsh punishment because their incarceration affected their families, they'd be laughed at.

Equal crime, equal time.

GirlInterrupted

farohar wrote: »

Don't see why the mother being sent to prison should be any more detremental on the child's sense of morality and civic duty than if the father is sent to prison.
As such if this change to the penal code is applied it should apply to both, otherwise I'm thinking a woodchipper and a full slurry spreader could make for a fun day outside the Bacik househould.;)
If they do try push it through in this raw, and blatently sexist form, I wonder how many "feminist groups" will protest, bet it'll be a rather miniscule number if any.

It's single mothers I'm referring to. If all accused absent fathers pulled the 'oh the poor kids' card the prisons would be empty (if it worked).

Trev M

caoibhin wrote: »

Its hard to say without knowing the details of the British report, but on the face of it, it is nonsense.
This Bacik one comes out with some hum-dingers from time to time. Shes clearly a smart person so I can only presume it is self publicity.

Nail on head , couldnt agree more.

seamus

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

but I think the concern is that when the women in question are mothers, especially single mothers, imprisonment imposes a burden on the entire family, especially young children, in a way that paternal imprisonment doesn't.

What about single fathers? Should we give less harsh sentences to parents in general, or only those who happen to have fallen on hard times?

You can't make allowances for a person's personal life when considering sentences. It's very easy to *not* go to prison. If you have children depending on you, then you should be making an extra effort to not go to prison, you shouldn't be rewarded when you do commit a crime. In fact, the children would be better off removed from your care.

Trev M

What about midgets, I mean they have shorter life expectancy and all? Shoudl there be some kinda system based on life expectancy....just throwing out there.

GirlInterrupted

Trev M wrote: »

What about midgets, I mean they have shorter life expectancy and all? Shoudl there be some kinda system based on life expectancy....just throwing out there.

WHAT?? You're throwing midgets out there?? They're needed for stag parties.

Trev M

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

WHAT?? You're throwing midgets out there?? They're needed for stag parties.

Even more to the point then - Shorter life expectancy coupled with a shortage(har har) of stag party entertainment , its beyond me how any government hasnt moved to legislate on this issue... Im callin Joe Duffy

Lockstep

Duggy747 wrote: »

WOMEN!

Know your limits!!

Wossack

This afternoon, Senator Bacik and Baroness Corston will meet women members of the Dáil and Seanad.

:rolleyes:

wtf is up with that? just meeting the women members?

'we want equality! .....when it suits us...'

kangaroo

Ponster wrote: »

I think the debate isn't about women in prison but mothers in prison and should children be punished for their mothers crimes.

If the quote was simply about mothers that'd be one thing, but it's about women.

Even if one accepts the "effect on the family" argument, why should a woman who isn't a mother not have to serve a non-custodial sentence while a father would for the same offence?

[Perhaps technically they may not have said same offence but some men are also in prison for "minor offences" e.g. not paying a fine - if they wanted to discuss "minor offences" why only mention one gender; so to have a sensible discussion on this specific aspect of what was said, IMO, we need to assume that they're talking about different treatment for the same offence, because otherwise the goalposts will keep being moved. One could still talk about the types of sentences were mentioned]

AckwelFoley

do the crime.

do the time.

AlmightyCushion

Most of the women involved were mothers, and the report found that many of them had been imprisoned for minor offences which caused stress for their families, particularly their children.

What about the fathers? Having the father imprisoned would cause stress for the family too.

Overheal

they should have the same punishments really. Lessening the sentence is like saying Oh its ok Mommy go commit crimes while you are supporting 3 kids.

Idiot Senator.

kowloon

I'm going to stir the $hit a bit here.
Women already, on average, get shorter sentences. For the same crimes.
And the time spent in prison is generally much easier. The regime is nowhere near as strict, the surroundings nicer and the guards encouraged to take a softer therapy style approach to conflict with the inmates.

Addition: http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0423a.html

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Moral of the story: If you're a woman and want some cash, have three insurance kids and knock off an off licence.

Sorted!

BraziliaNZ

come on, they should get less sentences, I mean they're not as dangerous as men, full stop. You never hear of women going on killing sprees etc or raping people. I pray for the day I get raped by a chick, or gang raped by them. Awesome.

kangaroo

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I pray for the day I get raped by a chick, or gang raped by them. Awesome.

Don't think it happens very often esp. in a way the man enjoys.

Some men are metaphorically raped of a lot of their hard-earned assets - one example (admittedly not finished) I read recently is of John Cleese where his (third) wife wants half is assets and £1m a year maintencance as "she was used to being "entertained by royalty and dignitaries in castles" [Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1016754/John-Cleese-faces-costly-divorce-battle-wife-demands-half-fortune-1million-year.html ]. Half doesn't seem unusual even when sometimes a lot of the money was earned (or at least "the ground work was done") before a couple were together.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

come on, they should get less sentences, I mean they're not as dangerous as men, full stop. You never hear of women going on killing sprees etc or raping people. I pray for the day I get raped by a chick, or gang raped by them. Awesome.

You're either trolling, deluded or a woman.

That are you beleive non-voilent crime is acceptable and jail doesn't need to serve as a deterrant (Hey! Lesser sentences! All I have to do is not kill or rape anyone!)