Chivalry for female criminals in the UK

Reward

From the Telegraph


"Judges told: 'be more lenient to women criminals'
Judges have been told to deal less severely with female criminals than men when determining how to sentence them.

Female criminals are more likely to have mental health or educational difficulties and to have parenting responsibilities, while a lower proportion will have committed violent crimes than men, according to new guidelines.

See the slight of hand of the feminist lobby in the wording? In reality, all criminals are more likely to have mental health or educational difficulties. Parenting responsibilities are already taken onto account in courts and there are women that don't have them and men that do and even if women are as a group less likely to commit violent crimes, (females actually dominate domestic violence and child abuse in most independent studies) the rational is no different from saying x race is less likely to commit Y crime therefore members of x race should be given lighter sentences than z race for the same crime.

Women already receive lighter sentences for the same crimes and are generally housed in better conditions.

Is it conceivable that the feminist lobby here if given the opportunity would support a similar two tiered legal system and do you know of any situations where the Irish feminist lobby actively seek mandatory discrimination against Irish men?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html

iptba

Interesting.

Back in February, I started this detailed thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055834129 . I said most of what I wanted to say in that I think. No reason there can't be a new thread of course.

Galvasean

I must echo the sentiment that in the statement
"Female criminals are more likely to have mental health or educational difficulties and to have parenting responsibilities, while a lower proportion will have committed violent crimes than men, according to new guidelines."
the word 'Female' really is quite superfluous. Let's dissect that bit:

B]"Female criminals are more likely to have mental health or educational difficulties[/b]

As with criminals in general. Gender should not come into the equation.

and to have parenting responsibilities,

As stated by others, what about women who don't have children, should they be treated leniently because others do? What about men who have children? By that logic all men should be treated leniently because many men have parental responsibilities.

while a lower proportion will have committed violent crimes than men, according to new guidelines."

Similar point to above. Why should a violent female criminal be treated leniently because most women are not violent criminals? Should atheists be treated leniently when they commit violent crimes because statistics have shown them to be less likely to commint violent crimes? The answer of course is a resonding "NO!" on both accounts. And darn right that's what the law should state.

If they wanted to state that people with a combination of mental health problems/educational difficulties/parental responsibilities should be treated with some leniency that would be adifferent matter. But to discriminate (and let's not fool ourselves folks, that is exactly what is occuring. 'Positive discrimination' automatically creates negative discrimination) on the basis of a person's sex is just plain wrong no matter what way you look at it.

CDfm

This really does seem inconsistant with feminism.

There have been some doozy teacher sex scandars in the USA where you see double standards in sentencing applied which is really inconsistant with the crimes commited or with the sentencing applied to similar male offenders..

http://www.zimbio.com/The+50+Most+Infamous+Female+Teacher+Sex+Scandals

Ask the mothers of the victims if they agree with the sentencing and you would probably get a different perspective.

With male fatalities , manslaughter and murder in Ireland the dead victim is often put on trial in a way that would not happen a female victim.

I have read newspaper accounts of victim impact statements by the mothers, sisters, daughters and female friends of casualties which make sorry reading. Would they agree with lenient sentencing.

Women as citizens should want consistant sentencing for female criminals, with the same vigour, that they want equality in other areas.

Most right minded people want to see equality across the board and this kind of thing gives the wrong message.

If your son or daughter was murdered , whether or not the killer was male or female would not make them anyway less dead, and you would want the killer punished equally severely.

killerking

If more women were robbing banks, if more women were picking up young boys, sexually abusing them, killing them and dumping their bodies, if more women were fighting with fists, kicks, bottles and knives outside of pubs, if more women were beating their husbands or children to death, if there was an all female priesthood who were sexually assaulting young schoolboys and altar boys, if more women were involved in drug smuggling, shootings, extorting money and trafficking young boys as sex slaves for middle aged women etc. etc.

THEN women would be treated the same as men.

goose2005

killerking wrote: »

If more women were robbing banks, if more women were picking up young boys, sexually abusing them, killing them and dumping their bodies, if more women were fighting with fists, kicks, bottles and knives outside of pubs, if more women were beating their husbands or children to death, if there was an all female priesthood who were sexually assaulting young schoolboys and altar boys, if more women were involved in drug smuggling, shootings, extorting money and trafficking young boys as sex slaves for middle aged women etc. etc.

THEN women would be treated the same as men.

So men deserve collective punishment for what "they" have done? The legal system punishes people as individuals.

Person X assaults a person outside a pub, breaking their jaw.
Person Y assaults a person outside a pub, breaking their jaw.

X receives a heavier punishment because X belongs to the "evil" half of society. Seems fair.

iptba

From the Seanad from 2008:


http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate...&Ex=All&Page=3

Senator Ivana Bacik:
[..]
This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of Lords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.

I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.

Senator David Norris: Why not?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time.

killerking

goose2005 wrote: »

So men deserve collective punishment for what "they" have done? The legal system punishes people as individuals.

Person X assaults a person outside a pub, breaking their jaw.
Person Y assaults a person outside a pub, breaking their jaw.

X receives a heavier punishment because X belongs to the "evil" half of society. Seems fair.

No need to jump down my throat.:rolleyes:
I was making the point that because generally women are not involved in serious violent crime, therefore society views women differently.

If I may make a colorful example:

This female teacher, Debra Lafave, was convicted of having sex with an underage student.



The case shocked America because she looks like a beauty queen or a Hollywood starlet.

This male teacher Nathan J. Botnen was convicted of the same offence.



He looks every inch a pervert - glasses, nerdy clothes, fat face, atrocious hairstyle and dodgy facial hair.
A guy like him would be expected to be a pervert and a creep.
However Botnen had sex with a 17 year old girl.
Meanwhile Lafave had sex with a younger teenage boy.

The prevailing attitude is that the teenage boy is a 'legend' while the 'innocent' girl was taken advantage of.

amacachi

So you agree that black people in the US should be dealt with more harshly when convicted since "they" tend to commit more crimes?

parker kent

killerking wrote: »

No need to jump down my throat.:rolleyes:

I was making the point that because generally women are not involved in serious violent crime, therefore society views women differently.

If I may make a colorful example:

It is highly unusual for a 21 year old blonde beauty queen who is university educated and from a wealthy family to become a serial cannibal axe-murderer.
Society is less shocked when a hulking tattooed brute who is a product of junkie parents, years of childhood institutionalization and with a string of convictions for violent crimes is discovered to be a serial cannibal axe-murderer.

What about a 21 year old male with a face like Prince Charming who is university educated and from a wealthy family? Society would probably less shocked if a Vicky Pollard type from a broken family commits crime than if he did. Silly "colourful" examples are not needed.

The crime should be the main issue, not the genitals of the criminal.

Edit: I see you have changed most a lot of your post. And included extremely needless comments about a man "looking like a nerd" and therefore somehow being expected to commit crimes. Are women with bad hair and fat faces not as likely to commit crimes than their male counterparts?

killerking

parker kent wrote: »

What about a 21 year old male with a face like Prince Charming who is university educated and from a wealthy family? Society would probably less shocked if a Vicky Pollard type from a broken family commits crime than if he did. Silly "colourful" examples are not needed.

The crime should be the main issue, not the genitals of the criminal.

Edit: I see you have changed most a lot of your post. And included extremely needless comments about a man "looking like a nerd" and therefore somehow being expected to commit crimes. Are women with bad hair and fat faces not as likely to commit crimes than their male counterparts?

Women generally are not expected to be violent criminals.

That is my point.

That is why women are treated differently because people believe it is not in their nature.

amacachi

killerking wrote: »

That is why women are treated differently because people believe it is not in their nature.

Surely then if a woman is a violent criminal she should be treated even more harshly for being SUCH an aberration to society then?

killerking

amacachi wrote: »

So you agree that black people in the US should be dealt with more harshly when convicted since "they" tend to commit more crimes?

It is a statistical fact that blacks in the US commit more crime than all other groups.Therefore it is inevitable that there are going to be prejudices against blacks.

Relations of mine were burgled by travelers and I know of several local travelers who have been inside for serious crimes.

If I see travelers in my area I naturally assume they are up to no good and report what they are doing to Gardai.

If I see a beautiful woman walking near by home I assume she is out for a walk.

If I see a scruffy looking type with tattoos, gold jewellery, a tracksuit and runners looking around my neighborhood I assume he is a thief up to no good.

killerking

amacachi wrote: »

Surely then if a woman is a violent criminal she should be treated even more harshly for being SUCH an aberration to society then?

She should be treated the same as anyone else.

amacachi

So wait, you're agreeing with us that they should be treated the same as men and that we should expect the judiciary and the prison services etc. to manage that?

CDfm

killerking wrote: »

If more women were robbing banks, if more women were picking up young boys, sexually abusing them, killing them and dumping their bodies, if more women were fighting with fists, kicks, bottles and knives outside of pubs, if more women were beating their husbands or children to death, if there was an all female priesthood who were sexually assaulting young schoolboys and altar boys, if more women were involved in drug smuggling, shootings, extorting money and trafficking young boys as sex slaves for middle aged women etc. etc.

THEN women would be treated the same as men.

A real bear bug for me is gender stereotyping and profiling of abusers by some organisations campaigning for womens rights, and, even if you choose to analyse abuse perpetration on gender lines - women and girls are abused by women in huge numbers but the issue goes unaddressed.

You do have criminal profiling and in the area of sexual abuse alone earlier in the year Childline UK reported that complaints of female sexual abuse of children was on the rise. Esther Rantzen founder of Childline Uk wrote extensively about it and has written about the connection with high rates of suicide in teenage boys and young men.

All the research points to equal participation in domestic (partner) violence betwween the genders.

On child abuse/violence and neglect women/mothers are streets ahead on numbers and men do not even come close.

Women & mothers are not profiled as abusers and as a result are not detected.Priests went undetected in the past.

Anyway, I didn't post to have any anti-woman rant - but to point out that abuse is an area that you have mentioned has had gender stereotyping and profiling and which has meant that female perpetrators of abuse are neither detected or if reported are unlikely to be investigated.

Perpetrators should be investigated, prosecuted and punished irrespective of their gender. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, is to condone abuse.

I do not know many women as individuals who would agree with you but two women friends that I am very close to were both abused by women as children.

maglite

Thread defines sexism....


Seriously WTF...

The Gnome

killerking wrote: »

He looks every inch a pervert - glasses, nerdy clothes, fat face, atrocious hairstyle and dodgy facial hair.
A guy like him would be expected to be a pervert and a creep.

I wear glasses and nerdy clothes, have similar short hair and also sport a beard, nice to know I'm just a fat face away from being a pervert and a creep.

amacachi

The Gnome wrote: »

I wear glasses and nerdy clothes, have similar short hair and also sport a beard, nice to know I'm just a fat face away from being a pervert and a creep.

Ya might want to take it handy on the turkey and stuffing so.

killerking

The Gnome wrote: »

I wear glasses and nerdy clothes, have similar short hair and also sport a beard, nice to know I'm just a fat face away from being a pervert and a creep.

If you were in a club and you approached an attractive woman, she and her friends would probably be abusive and insulting.

However if you got a make over, shaved off the beard, got laser eye treatment and worked out more and you approached the exact same woman and her friends they would be far receptive.

That's just a fact of life.

CDfm

killerking wrote: »

Women generally are not expected to be violent criminals.

That is my point.

That is why women are treated differently because people believe it is not in their nature.

Women are not profiled in the media and by womens organisations as perpetrators of child abuse yet in dv and child neglect cases the most likely perpetrator is the mother by something like 4 to 1. I dont know the exact figures but there is a massive difference and women as child abusers far far outnumber men.

The statistics on couple violence show women as likely as men (if not more) to initiate violence and least likely to be prosecuted or convicted.

You seem to be saying -so what -it should not be tackled if the perpetrator is female and why on earth would you condone that.

I am surprised that more women and womens groups aren't outraged -but they don't seem to be.

The Gnome

amacachi wrote:

Ya might want to take it handy on the turkey and stuffing so.

Pffft, I'd rather be a pervert!

killerking wrote:

If you were in a club and you approached an attractive woman, she and her friends would probably be abusive and insulting.

However if you got a make over, shaved off the beard, got laser eye treatment and worked out more and you approached the exact same woman and her friends they would be far receptive.

That's just a fact of life.

Cheers, I'll keep that in mind when I'm out with my stereotypical pervert friends chatting up stereotypically shallow women.

killerking

The Gnome wrote: »

Pffft, I'd rather be a pervert!

Cheers, I'll keep that in mind when I'm out with my stereotypical pervert friends chatting up stereotypically shallow women.

CDfm

killerking wrote: »

I think the Gnome is asking why you are ambivalent about dv or child abuse when the perpetrator is a woman.

Esther Rantzen call's it gender blindness

Gender-blindness on child sexual abuse

The myth that sexual abuse is rarely committed by women is sadly contradicted as more boys are calling ChildLine to report it


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/09/boys-sexual-abuse-childline

I am intrigued as to where you stand.

Do you condone this.

The Gnome

CDfm wrote: »

I think the Gnome is asking why you are ambivalent about dv or child abuse when the perpetrator is a woman.

Esther Rantzen call's it gender blindness

I am intrigued as to where you stand.

Do you condone this.

Bingo, perhaps I should be more blunt in the future, gender blindness is rampant in a lot of ways and as CD says you seem to be subject to it.

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

I am surprised that more women and womens groups aren't outraged -but they don't seem to be.

The deafening silence that permeates from women's equality groups when something is made to be biased in women's favour is quite telling. If they truly were for equality they would oppose 'positive discrimination' every bit as much as negative.

iptba

Galvasean wrote: »

The deafening silence that permeates from women's equality groups when something is made to be biased in women's favour is quite telling. If they truly were for equality they would oppose 'positive discrimination' every bit as much as negative.

And a related and probably bigger problem is that academia and equality agencies have lots of people with similar attitudes.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

The deafening silence that permeates from women's equality groups when something is made to be biased in women's favour is quite telling. If they truly were for equality they would oppose 'positive discrimination' every bit as much as negative.

+1

It shouldn't ever be wrong to condemn stuff like child abuse.

I feel sorry for abused women but I also feel sorry for other victims of abuse whatever their gender, age or orientation.

I can't see how not being against abuse and crime by women can in any way be construed as being anti-equality or anti-feminism or misogynistic. It just isn't.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

I can't see how not being against abuse and crime by women can in any way be construed as being anti-equality or anti-feminism or misogynistic. It just isn't.

Although of course, those three things are not the same thing i.e. attitudes to feminism are not the same as attitudes to equality which are not the same as a measure of misogyny.

parker kent

killerking wrote: »

Women generally are not expected to be violent criminals.

That is my point.

That is why women are treated differently because people believe it is not in their nature.

There should not be special treatment for any criminal. Women may not commit as many serious crimes, but the ones that do commit them should be treated the same as any man that commits the same crime. A murderer is a murderer whether they have a penis or a vagina in their underwear.

killerking

parker kent wrote: »

There should not be special treatment for any criminal. Women may not commit as many serious crimes, but the ones that do commit them should be treated the same as any man that commits the same crime. A murderer is a murderer whether they have a penis or a vagina in their underwear.

I'm being descriptive not prescriptive.:rolleyes:

Women always get sympathy. Men don't. It's the way the world works.

parker kent

killerking wrote: »

If you were in a club and you approached an attractive woman, she and her friends would probably be abusive and insulting.

However if you got a make over, shaved off the beard, got laser eye treatment and worked out more and you approached the exact same woman and her friends they would be far receptive.

That's just a fact of life.

Surely you can make your points without being needlessly insulting or without resorting to stereotypes? Wearing glasses and having a beard does not make a man ugly, creepy or a legitimate target for abuse. I am actually astounded by such a post.

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

Although of course, those three things are not the same thing i.e. attitudes to feminism are not the same as attitudes to equality which are not the same as a measure of misogyny.

Of course they are not. But, some groups would have you believe that acknowledging abuse by women on others is to be anti-women and off message.

Normal people of both genders believe abusing others is wrong and child abuse is wrong.

There is nothing at all sophisticated or enlightened about that thinking. For me, it would be counter intuitive to believe anything else.

Lots of my friends of both genders feel the same way.

As people , we have responsibilties to others , call it civic duty but we should be able to condemn these things in a gender neutral way without any problem.

CDfm

killerking wrote: »

I'm being descriptive not prescriptive.:rolleyes:

Women always get sympathy. Men don't. It's the way the world works.

Have I missed something or have you avoided commenting on gender blindness or your own thoughts on women who abuse.For example, abuse of children is often used in advertising on domestic violence but abuse of children by women is often ommited.

So the question I am asking has nothing to do with men and women, but to do with children, and am interested in your thoughts and feelings on it.

Of course, you can sit on the fence and people might infer that you condone it.

LostinBlanch

killerking wrote: »

I'm being descriptive not prescriptive.:rolleyes:

Women always get sympathy. Men don't. It's the way the world works.

But you still haven't answered cdfms question about condoning gender blindness in abuse cases. What is your stand on that, or is that just

the way the world works?

killerking

parker kent wrote: »

Surely you can make your points without being needlessly insulting or without resorting to stereotypes? Wearing glasses and having a beard does not make a man ugly, creepy or a legitimate target for abuse. I am actually astounded by such a post.

CDfm

killerking wrote: »

LostinBlanch wrote: »

But you still haven't answered cdfms question about condoning gender blindness in abuse cases. What is your stand on that, or is that just

CDfm wrote: »

Of course, you can sit on the fence and people might infer that you condone it.

killerking

LostinBlanch wrote: »

But you still haven't answered cdfms question about condoning gender blindness in abuse cases. What is your stand on that, or is that just

Of course it isn't just but sadly life just isn't fair.
The knee jerk reaction by most people is shock if a woman commits a violent crime. Most people simply do not think women are capable of violent acts.
The knee jerk reaction of most people when a man commits a violent crime is that he is a monster and if he looks like a stereotypical creep it is even more convincing.

Many people find it hard to believe that Ted Bundy, charming, sophisticated, highly educated and very attractive to women could have been a serial killer.
It was shocking that a monster could hide behind the disguise of a man that men would love to befriend and women would dream about going to bed with.
The evidence proves he was guilty but that didn't stop many beautiful women who were besotted with him from turning up in court to support him.
The Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway, meanwhile looked like a creepy Charles Bronson misfit.
Exactly the type of person we believe would abduct and strangle women.

Many people believe Amanda Knox is innocent. I believe she is innocent because the evidence against her is so flimsy but many people believe she is innocent because she looks like their own beautiful daughter.
However if she was instead a he and that he was a fat boy with glasses who stabbed the pretty British girl, Meredith, to death, very few people would think twice about his guilt or innocence.

CDfm

I forgot that you have already answered the question

killerking wrote: »

I'm being descriptive not prescriptive.:rolleyes:

pre·scrip·tive (pr-skrptv)adj.1. Sanctioned or authorized by long-standing custom or usage.
2. Making or giving injunctions, directions, laws, or rules.
3. Law Acquired by or based on uninterrupted possession.
4. Linguistics Based on or establishing norms or rules indicating how a language should or should not be used rather than describing the ways in which a language is used.

So you are not against it so and do not believe that women should be prosecuted .

Now , if it was a child abuser I would say , lock him or her up and throw away the key.

LostinBlanch

killerking wrote: »

Of course it isn't just but sadly life just isn't fair.

So that's it then? Just wash your hands of this situation and say life just isn't fair?

killerking wrote: »

The knee jerk reaction by most people is shock if a woman commits a violent crime. Most people simply do not think women are capable of violent acts.
The knee jerk reaction of most people when a man commits a violent crime is that he is a monster and if he looks like a stereotypical creep it is even more convincing.

And this knee jerk reaction wouldn't have anything to do with the constant reinforcing of gender stereotypes that feminists rail against in literature, but are still more than prevalent in real life. Many often seek to benefit from these cf the op or Ivana Bacick's quotes for a particular egregious example. Posters like CDFM are, in my understanding, asking why this should exist and what is driving this.

killerking wrote: »

Many people find it hard to believe that Ted Bundy, charming, sophisticated, highly educated and very attractive to women could have been a serial killer.
It was shocking that a monster could hide behind the disguise of a man that men would love to befriend and women would dream about going to bed with.
The evidence proves he was guilty but that didn't stop many beautiful women who were besotted with him from turning up in court to support him.

I think this is in danger of going OT, but to answer this there are lots of women who "are besotted" to use your words with people on death row.

killerking wrote: »

The Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway, meanwhile looked like a creepy Charles Bronson misfit.
Exactly the type of person we believe would abduct and strangle women.

We? Surely you mean you.

killerking wrote: »

Many people believe Amanda Knox is innocent. I believe she is innocent because the evidence against her is so flimsy but many people believe she is innocent because she looks like their own beautiful daughter.
However if she was instead a he and that he was a fat boy with glasses who stabbed the pretty British girl, Meredith, to death, very few people would think twice about his guilt or innocence.

So she's pretty and is therefore more likely to be innocent, and your hypothetical strawman is ugly and is therefore guilty? Have I got that right?

CDfm

A case that still shocks is the Moors Murders

Here is a not too old link on a mothers appeal to the killeers to reveal the location of her sons body with a snap of Hindley over the grave that the killers took as a momento.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Search-called-off-for-Hindley.5418286.jp

On Amanda Knox -she was convicted and Italian courts are not known to be unfair.Her victim was a young woman.

parker kent

killerking wrote: »

I'm being descriptive not prescriptive.:rolleyes:

Women always get sympathy. Men don't. It's the way the world works.

The roll-eyes are getting childish.

You continually produce examples of stereotypically attractive women who become media objects. That is not necessarily sympathy either. It is just that good looking women are used widely in the media.

To counter your argument, what about Aileen Wuornos? Read about her here if you don't already know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos.

Her life is pretty much the same as the "colourful" examples you give of male criminals. She got very little sympathy from the media or anybody else. The name of the movie about her was called Monster.

If you stopped the needless, insulting posts and just said that attractive people are dealt with differently by the media (not always positively either) when they commit a crime, people would probably agree with your opinion.

Reward

killerking wrote: »

If more women were robbing banks, if more women were picking up young boys, sexually abusing them, killing them and dumping their bodies, if more women were fighting with fists, kicks, bottles and knives outside of pubs, if more women were beating their husbands or children to death, if there was an all female priesthood who were sexually assaulting young schoolboys and altar boys, if more women were involved in drug smuggling, shootings, extorting money and trafficking young boys as sex slaves for middle aged women etc. etc.

THEN women would be treated the same as men.

You've made a few mistakes, most people that are charged with sex trafficking have been women, women run most brothels too. Mothers kill and abuse children more often than fathers and initiate domestic at least as often as men.

Following your logic...

Given that women commit more child abuse than men, male child abusers should receive more lenient sentences.
In countries where people that belong to certain races are more likely to commit certain crimes members of those races should automatically receive harsher sentences than people of other races that commit the same crime.

Ill wager you are thinking no, because that would be bigotry, so ask yourself, why do you support bigotry towards men and not women or other groups?

dearg lady

killerking wrote: »

If you were in a club and you approached an attractive woman, she and her friends would probably be abusive and insulting.

However if you got a make over, shaved off the beard, got laser eye treatment and worked out more and you approached the exact same woman and her friends they would be far receptive.

That's just a fact of life.

Hmmm, you seem to have moved from sexism to what is it, discrimination towards people you consider unattractive.
What sort of person is immediately abusive and insulting when a person approaches them in a club? Is this how you and your friends react?

The Gnome wrote: »

Pffft, I'd rather be a pervert!



Cheers, I'll keep that in mind when I'm out with my stereotypical pervert friends chatting up stereotypically shallow women.

lol, you and your 'pervert' friends can chat me up, I like a beard and glasses!!

killerking wrote: »

I'm being descriptive not prescriptive.:rolleyes:

Women always get sympathy. Men don't. It's the way the world works.

Can you clarify your position, are you saying this is the way of the world , I don't necessarily agree but who am I to change it?
OR, are you saying this is the way of the world and I accept and agree with it?
Your examples so far suggest you think it's correct that women gain more sympathy, get lighter sentences, and are perceived by some as lesser criminals.

To me, it seems crazy, the punishment should fit the crime, regardless of gender.

Reward

killerking wrote: »

If you were in a club and you approached an attractive woman, she and her friends would probably be abusive and insulting.

However if you got a make over, shaved off the beard, got laser eye treatment and worked out more and you approached the exact same woman and her friends they would be far receptive.

That's just a fact of life.

The first paragraph is more descriptive of a misandrist construct and female dating privilege.

If a man is unaware that the female he is approaching believes that she is out of his league it is not valid justification for insulting and abusive behaviour directed at the male by her and her friends, that is just something that you believe is correct behaviour, it may be a fact of life that many women (girls would be a more accurate description) will behave as you have described, but that doesn't make it correct.

Also, you go and presume to dictate a beauty regime that the male should complete in order to avoid being insulted and abused by the female girl and her girl friends... its no different from me claiming that its justifiable to insult and abuse you for being out of shape and not trimming your body hair to my specifications if you dare to speak to me in a night club.

CDfm

dearg lady wrote: »

To me, it seems crazy, the punishment should fit the crime, regardless of gender.

Ahoy, dearg lady.

A very balanced view there.:)

Would you class yourself as a typical woman ?

How do you feel when you see calls for leniency?

Do these calls represent you ?

dearg lady

CDfm wrote: »

Ahoy, dearg lady.

A very balanced view there.:)

Would you class yourself as a typical woman ?

How do you feel when you see calls for leniency?

Do these calls represent you ?

thanks
actually if I'm being totally honest I wouldn't really class myself a typical woman.
Calls for lenience based on gender are ridiculous imho.

It's stated 'Female criminals are more likely to have mental health or educational difficulties' it's irrelevant how likely they are if the individual woman in question hasn't suffered in this way.

'Female criminals are more likely to have parenting responsibilities' ok this is something I could potentially see being used as a reason for more lenient sentences, but the fear is this would be abused.

'a lower proportion will have committed violent crimes than men' again this is just bizarre, the % is irrelevant, the individual case is what matters.

What it all comes back to is that sentences shoudl be based on the individual and the crime they committed, sure there are norms or suggested sentence based on the nature of the crime, and the individuals previous record and personal circumstances, but I see no reason why a woman should receive a more lenient sentence purely because she's a woman

CDfm

dearg lady wrote: »

y.

'Female criminals are more likely to have parenting responsibilities' ok this is something I could potentially see being used as a reason for more lenient sentences, but the fear is this would be abused.

Thanks - lots of women I know have very balenced views.

That brought this to mind - I like my history
"Pleading the Belly" —

Angela Barnett Avoided

18th Century Death Sentence

By James Pylant © 2005

“Why, she may plead her Belly at worst; to my Knowledge she hath taken care of that Security. But, as the Wench is very active and industrious, you may satisfy her that I'll soften the Evidence.”
— The Beggar’s Opera (1765) Act I, Scene 21

BACKGROUND A British woman convicted of a crime and sentenced to death (mostly commonly for murder but also ranging to lesser crimes such as theft or pick-pocketing) could chance the gallows by claiming pregnancy, or as it was called “pleading the belly.” This practice was not uncommon for women between the sixteenth and eighteen centuries. She was first examined by what was termed a “jury of matrons,” and if movement of a fetus was detected, her execution was postponed, for it was against the law to execute a pregnant woman. Unless a woman was already “with child” when she was imprisoned, she found opportunity to become impregnated during incarceration by either a guard (called a “child-getter”)2 or a man serving along side; prisoners were not segregated by sex.
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/plbeanbaav18.html

The Gnome

I think dearg said it best, the punishment should fit the crime regardless of gender. It wasn't too long ago that the attitude of "he's black, therefore a criminal. Or he's gay, therefore a paedofile etc" existed, in fact I'm sure it still does in many areas. The sooner the "he's male, therefore more aggressive and prone to crime. Punish him harder!" attitude is gone the better.

Also...

dearg lady wrote: »

lol, you and your 'pervert' friends can chat me up, I like a beard and glasses!!

Score!

dearg lady

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks - lots of women I know have very balenced views.

That brought this to mind - I like my history
"Pleading the Belly" —

And a similiar recent case...
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mothers-tears-of-joy-as-pregnant-daughter-released-from-laos-prison-1853932.html

CDfm

dearg lady wrote: »

And a similiar recent case...
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mothers-tears-of-joy-as-pregnant-daughter-released-from-laos-prison-1853932.html

The world doesnt change much.