Scorned girlfriend threatens to kill boyfriend - here's how it's reported

gargleblaster

I can kind of see where Ficheall is coming from, in pointing out that he didn't need medical attention. But it was wrong, what she did, without a shadow of a doubt. This is the kind of thing that I have heard joked about but I'm shocked that someone has actually done it.

No reason to be hysterical about the reporting style as it is a blog, and I highly doubt that any feminist groups will leap to her defense. :rolleyes:

As for the issue of women snapping in order to commit murder, all one has to do is observe statistics to understand the reasoning behind that. These shows do not imply women are incapable of murder for no reason, they rely on the audiences understanding of the differences between the sexes where violent crimes such as murder are concerned.

Raze_them_all

Ficheall wrote: »

I'm fine, thanks And you?

Urinating in public and not paying your tv license are also illegal. What's your point?

Good point that is illegal, I propose amputation of a limb with a rusty saw blade seeing as how torture is understandable for non illegal things

SugarHigh

Why are people talking about "snapping"? That's not what happened here. I'd consider snapping to be doing something in the heat of the moment, this woman must have planned this days in advance and the torture went on for hours. She didn't snap and domsomething without thinking it through, she put a lot of thought into this which doesn't match up with someone who just snapped.

gargleblaster

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why are people talking about "snapping" that's not what happened here. I'd consider snapping to be doing something in the heat of the moment but this woman must have planned this days in advance and the torture went on for hours. She didn't snap and so something without thinking it through, she put a lot of thought into this which doesn't match up with someone who just snapped.

I believe it was mentioned to portray how overly kind the media is with respect to women who commit murder.

I_am_LOST

In no way am I condoning what the woman did here - I can understand that she was hurt etc. but what she did was awful and I hope she gets prosecuted.

However, that's just the moral and legal side of me speaking - I don't actually feel THAT sorry for the guy, I admit. Is that wrong? Probably. But I feel little sympathy towards cheaters. Todays society sees cheating as such a normal thing given that it happens so much. I take it very seriously.

(Not seriously enough to hold someone captive obviously!!)

iptba

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I agree that gender shouldn't impact the sentencing, but it happens.

If you don't agree gender should impact sentencing, I think you should then agree with that Galvasean that sentencing guidelines shouldn't mention gender specifically and should simply mention to take individual factors into account.

For example, in the example given:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html,

The rules say women criminals often have poor mental health or are poorly educated, have not committed violence and have children to look after.

If these are important, why not use them as factors in sentencing whether the offender is male or female.

And surely the violence point will come up (i.e. either a man or woman were or were not violent) so why the need to specifically try to make gender generalisations.

Also, a lot of the male criminals are poorly educated - I'm not sure if they get much "victim value" out of it.

I think Galvasean has a point when he says:

The way the incidint in the OP is being reported is just another symptom of this strange notion that when a woman does something wrong it's generally not her fault, while men do not recieve the same benefit of teh doubt.

The_Morrigan wrote:

On the other side of the coin, the males of the country held the better hand when it came to sexual assaults. It was the late eighties before a husband could be held liable for marital rape, so any man in Ireland could rape his wife without consequences as the law saw his wife as his property under a contract of marriage and he could do whatever he wanted to her.

I'm concerned there is an element to this suggesting/hinting that a justice system should have some sort of positive discrimination element to it/take what happened in the past into account i.e. women got treated worse in the past so let's treat them more leniently now (esp. as history can generally be looked at in numerous ways).
Another form of positive discrimination might be to say that some crimes weren't treated harshly enough in the past, so let's treat them extra harshly now.
Basically, I think it's best to not have "positive discrimination" as part of sentencing.

The_Morrigan

iptba wrote: »

I'm concerned there is an element to this suggesting/hinting that a justice system should have some sort of positive discrimination element to it/take what happened in the past into account i.e. women got treated worse in the past so let's treat them more leniently now (esp. as history can generally be looked at in numerous ways).

No there is no suggestive anything in my post, I was merely pointing out that courts of law do not deal with justice, they take the facts of the case and apply relevant precedent and legislation to it.

Galva raised the point of a campaign for courts to be lenient on women, and I agreed with him that it is wrong for justice to be dealt with differently based on gender, but that it is infact something we have to live with until laws are changed - like the marital rape laws that were amended in the late 80's, like there being no statutory rape for females....

iptba

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Galva raised the point of a campaign for courts to be lenient on women, and I agreed with him that it is wrong for justice to be dealt with differently based on gender, but that it is infact something we have to live with until laws are changed - like the marital rape laws that were amended in the late 80's, like there being no statutory rape for females....

But the guidance in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html is going in the opposite direction - it is specifically mentioning gender now.

The context of this discussion (and that UK guidance) is more about crimes other than sexual ones (like statutory rape/rape) - it is about when men or women are defendants - it is unclear that gender should be brought into sentencing in, for example, the example in the OP.

The_Morrigan

iptba wrote: »

But the guidance in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html is going in the opposite direction - it is specifically mentioning gender now.

The context of this discussion is more about crimes other than sexual ones (like statutory rape) - it is unclear that gender should be brought into sentencing in, for example, the example in the OP.

We don't have the same law as the UK - they have objective principles we have subjective. Doesn't matter what they do, it can never be applied properly to our legal principles.

The other case I mentioned was a murder one - there it was requested that the Judge be lenient on the accused, who was a man...

iptba

The_Morrigan wrote: »

We don't have the same law as the UK - they have objective principles we have subjective. Doesn't matter what they do, it can never be applied properly to our legal principles.

Some of us may spend time in the UK at one time or another. It is interesting enough to see how things go and look at the principles/attitudes/etc.

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The other case I mentioned was a murder one - there it was requested that the Judge be lenient on the accused, who was a man...

Not the same situation as the UK, I believe. That was the mother of the child making the point about a defendant, who happened to be a man, not some outside board saying that the gender should be taken into account.

The_Morrigan

iptba wrote: »

Not the same situation as the UK, I believe. That was the mother of the child making the point about a defendant, who happened to be a man, not some outside board saying that the gender should be taken into account.

Outside boards can say what they wish though, that doesn't mean it will make it's way into legislation, Our own law reform commission make recommendations all the time.

I've just gone looking for that direction to the UK Judges and I actually can't find anything in the reports and publications for 2010.

iptba

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Outside boards can say what they wish though, that doesn't mean it will make it's way into legislation, Our own law reform commission make recommendations all the time.

I've just gone looking for that direction to the UK Judges and I actually can't find anything in the reports and publications for 2010.

Here's what the article says in case it helps you look:

The controversial advice comes from the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary.

[..]

The latest guidelines have also caused anger, this time among campaigners for male victims of domestic violence.

The Bench Book <snip>

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html

Aside: Is there an equivalent board and book in Ireland?

The_Morrigan

iptba wrote: »

Here's what the article says in case it helps you look:
source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html

Aside: Is there an equivalent board and book in Ireland?

I've got the benchbook...the daily mail has sensationalised the story (surprise surprise). It doesn't say be more lenient on women - it says be mindful of the different impact sentencing has on men and women... the same book goes on to deal with children separately, different religions, gender re-assignment, those dealing with mental and physical difficulties/disabilities and so on and so forth.

The Sentencing Guidelines provide:
Sentencers must be made aware of the differential impact sentencing decisions have on women and men including caring responsibilities for children or elders; the impact of imprisonment on mental and emotional well-being; and the disproportionate impact that incarceration has on offenders who have caring responsibilities if they are imprisoned a long distance from home.
The Prison Service Gender Specific Standards (GSS) provide guidance on the various stages of custody and consider the needs of different women – such as young and older women, BME women, foreign national women, women with disabilities, women serving a life sentence and women with children.
23
The Gender Equality Act places a duty on public authorities, including prison, probation services and court staff to assess the impact of current and proposed policies and practices on gender equality

There is the law reform commission in Ireland

iptba

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I've got the benchbook

Is it on the web?

There is no mention of the domestic violence bit in the bit you quoted.

Regarding this quote:

Sentencers must be made aware of the differential impact sentencing decisions have on women and men including caring responsibilities for children or elders; the impact of imprisonment on mental and emotional well-being;

I googled it to see if I could find it. It's almost word-for-word the same as a Fawcett Society submission to the

Select Committee on Home Affairs:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmconst/467/467we12.htm

Sentencers must be made aware of the different impact sentencing decisions have on women and men before the courts, for example caring responsibilities for children or elders; the impact of imprisonment on their mental and emotional well-being;

I don't have access to the document but googling the phrase gives me:

Daran: Yes, it is flat wrong.

---
Not entirely. While the guidelines do not explicitly state that judges should treat women more leniently, they certainly do imply it:

Sentencers must be made aware of the differential impact sentencing decisions have on women and men including caring responsibilities for children or elders; the impact of imprisonment on mental and emotional well-being; and the disproportionate impact that incarceration has on offenders who have caring responsibilities if they are imprisoned a long distance from home.

The Prison Service Gender Specific Standards (GSS) provide guidance on the various stages of custody and consider the needs of different women – such as young and older women, BME women, foreign national women, women with disabilities, women serving a life sentence and women with children.

This guideline was preceded by comments like:

Women offenders have a broad range of complex problems, and present needs which are distinct to those of male offenders. Though problems may have begun long before they enter the criminal justice system, custody can exacerbate preexisting problems and disadvantage, and have a compounding impact on the lives of their children and families…

That was followed by a list of factors essentially explaining why women who commit crimes are less culpable for their crimes than men, despite that everything listed as an explanation are also things that most men who commit crimes experience and face. So while it is accurate to say the guidelines do not explicitly state “give women lesser sentences than men,” the wording of the guidelines do imply that women should be treated differently than men in a way that would very likely result in women receiving lesser sentences than men.

(some other poster) The issue of leniency or otherwise is a red herring. The overarching problem with this guidance is that it admonishes judges to pay close attention to women’s (including female defendants’) needs (which is a good thing) while simultaneously failing to so admonish them in respect of men. Rather it uncritically assumed that men’s needs are adequately met.

I would agree that the guidance fails to admonish judges to pay close attention to men’s needs. However, I disagree that the issue of leniency is a red herring because the concern for women’s needs while ignoring men’s needs can be fairly construed as an attempt at leniency for female criminals. If reasons were given for ignoring men’s needs then I would agree that the issue of leniency is a red herring. But the failure to mention men’s needs at all implies an explicit concern for women that will not be applied to men (a poorly constructed caveat about male caregivers and men with mental health illnesses does not change that).

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2010/09/08/september-status/

The_Morrigan

iptba wrote: »

Is it on the web?

There is no mention of the domestic violence bit in the bit you quoted.

Regarding this quote:


I googled it to see if I could find it. It's almost word-for-word the same as a Fawcett Society submission to the

Select Committee on Home Affairs:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmconst/467/467we12.htm

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Training/2009_etbb_6_gender.pdf

The domestic violence bit is dealt with on it's own, sentencing is further down.

6.1.8 Domestic violence – the judge’s role
The courts and judiciary have an important role to play in conveying to the public that domestic violence will not be tolerated and sending out a message that abuse and violence in an intimate relationship is a serious matter and is unacceptable.
Domestic violence is rarely a one-off incident, and could also be seen as a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour through which the abuser seeks power over their victim. Domestic violence occurs across society, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, wealth, and geography. It consists mainly of violence by men against women.
Children are also affected. Not only are many traumatised by what they witness, there is also a strong connection between domestic violence, sexual violence and child abuse.
Whilst most victims of domestic violence are women, men and partners in same-sex relationships might also be victims of domestic violence and should be treated similarly.
Insofar as possible, gender neutral language should be used to describe domestic violence without losing sight of the fact that the reality is that some of the most physically violent incidents are committed by men on female partners or ex-partners. The Sentencing Guidelines Council has produced definitive guidelines in relation to cases involving domestic violence and breach of a protective order

iptba

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Outside boards can say what they wish though, that doesn't mean it will make it's way into legislation, Our own law reform commission make recommendations all the time.

Ok.

Ideas from other countries could have influence on our political and judicial systems. Here's an exchange on an all-women meeting for members of the Oireachtas:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

(Ivana Bacik): This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of L[817]ords 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.
The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice will also host a seminar on Thursday evening on the future of women’s imprisonment. This is an issue which we could very usefully debate in this House and could lead the way in calling for a critical review of women’s imprisonment, as Baroness Corston has done in Great Britain.

The_Morrigan

iptba wrote: »

Ideas from other countries could have influence on our political and judicial systems. Here's an exchange on an all-women meeting for members of the Oireachtas:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

To be honest, any debates going on in the Seanad wouldn't worry me, they have no legislative power in their own right!

ShooterSF

The_Morrigan wrote: »

To be honest, any debates going on in the Seanad wouldn't worry me, they have no legislative power in their own right!

It's not so much the legislative power or the relevance that UK laws have to us but the lack of outrage society has towards positive discrimination that is on display publicly.
The fact that I would wager no Irish media or even few international social commentators freaked out over it is the problem. Plenty of law decisions in other states see public outcries from other nations. This doesn't and it should.

The_Morrigan

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's not so much the legislative power or the relevance that UK laws have to us but the lack of outrage society has towards positive discrimination that is on display publicly.
The fact that I would wager no Irish media or even few international social commentators freaked out over it is the problem. Plenty of law decisions in other states see public outcries from other nations. This doesn't and it should.

Freaked out over what?

iptba

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's not so much the legislative power or the relevance that UK laws have to us but the lack of outrage society has towards positive discrimination that is on display publicly.
The fact that I would wager no Irish media or even few international social commentators freaked out over it is the problem. Plenty of law decisions in other states see public outcries from other nations. This doesn't and it should.

Yes, it happens so much in the gender area.

Indeed, nobody freaked out about there being a women-only meeting for members of the Oireachtas, which is both a precedent and also the issue that was being discussed was to do with gender [i.e. there is a difference between a men-only meeting to watch/play/discuss football or whatever and something specifically to do with gender, with a speaker calling for men to be treated more leniently]. And contrast that with all the efforts and furore over private golf clubs (and the fact that there are plenty of women-only clubs so the distinction between having a club set up for one sex (which is allowed) and a club that has such rules but not explicity set up for that purpose is relatively minor if one thinks that clubs that are restricted to one gender are bad). Lots of hypocrisy.

Personally my theory for what it is worth is that it may come from the lack of balance in some fields of academia with regard to how gender issues are discussed.

LeeHoffmann

In response to the OP, I agree that such things are made light of when the victim is male rather than female. I watched a movie not too long ago in which a male character was raped by a woman while he was to a bed. (The plot was something about a man who decided to give up sex for 100 days to win a bet) I was shocked that this part of the movie was treated as some funny but unfortunate episode and the man apparently suffered no emotional upset! The men who watched it with me didn't really notice this until I pointed it out

Your OP seemed to my mind to suggest that women make light of male victims more often that men do - or that women were somehow more to blame for the double standard. I disagree with that idea. In my experience, I'd find men joking more often about abuse than women, regardless of the gender of the victim. Will this double standard ever go away? Yes I think so, considering that so many people on here agree with you - but as always, for that change in attitudes to come about, the double standard needs to be pointed out by more people more often. More serious discussion on abuse of male victims by female perpetrators (instead of jokes) will obviously help, so well done on the thread.

miec

I have to say as a woman who has been cheated on that the behaviour of that woman is disgusting and I do not condone it in any way at all. I may be strange in thinking this but to my mind torture is worse than cheating. I dumped the person who cheated on me, yes I was angry, hurt and betrayed but women who carry on like this are ridiculous and dangerous. They also given the female gender a bad name. I do think men should campaign against the frivoloty of female abuse against men.

LeeHoffmann

I do think men should campaign against the frivoloty of female abuse against men.

We all should, just as I'd want men to campaign if it was the other way around.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Anyone watch vincent browne just now? The panel reviewed a story of a man who was offered a threesome. He was then beaten and robbed of 900 euro.

Vincent and some of the panel (maybe all but not sure) proceeded to joke and have a great laugh about it. Browne even mentioned it wasn't so funny a story but continued laughing.

Imagine a girl was promised a photoshoot and on arrival was beaten and robbed. Would seem in appropriate to joke about that.

Otis Driftwood

Big difference in someone being offered a photoshoot and someone being offered a threesome in fairness.

Now Im not defending what happened yer man (didnt see the show),its a pretty despicable act but to make that comparison makes no sense.

Raze_them_all

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Anyone watch vincent browne just now? The panel reviewed a story of a man who was offered a threesome. He was then beaten and robbed of 900 euro.

Vincent and some of the panel (maybe all but not sure) proceeded to joke and have a great laugh about it. Browne even mentioned it wasn't so funny a story but continued laughing.

Imagine a girl was promised a photoshoot and on arrival was beaten and robbed. Would seem in appropriate to joke about that.

Who the hell carries 900 on them??

Otis Driftwood

Nikolai Stepanov,post deleted.If you dont have anything to add to this or other threads other than stupid internet meme's then dont bother posting in here.

Nikolai Stepanov

In my opinion, she is clearly a crazy woman.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Who the hell carries 900 on them??

Someone who got paid for a job then went to the pub. Someone who got cash out to pay his rent but his landlord couldn't make it over. Its not a crime like.

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Big difference in someone being offered a photoshoot and someone being offered a threesome in fairness.
Now Im not defending what happened yer man (didnt see the show),its a pretty despicable act but to make that comparison makes no sense.

See its just that the difference in the promise is irrelevant. In both scenarios the person has compromised their personal security by accompanying unverified people to a vulnerable place in exchange for something that appeals to them. neither is illegal.

Maybe the guy was naive to accompany them. Though the girl is equally naive for not going to a registered modelling agency.

Honey trap schemes are often used for kidnappings. Would be a terrifying experience. Are we that sexually repressed an audience that a threesome is funny enough to make light of a serious crime?

To give a non-female related analogy - This was done up north to abduct soldiers and police. I doubt Vincent or any other current affairs presenters would be joking(and laughing their balls off about it) in that scenario. Though it seems when its the ordinary male, violence and crime aren't a big deal if there's any sexual aspect, like in the OP

Will be on this page tomorrow. Skip to the final 15 minutes when its up. link

LeeHoffmann

Ok well let's use the same example and just switch the genders. If a woman went off with two men to have a threesome but was then beaten and robbed, would people joke about it? serious question. I think they would. I think lots of people would say she was stupid for going off with them