We should stop putting women in jail. For anything.

Packrat

Holsten wrote: »

We should drastically drop the rate of incarceration for both male and females.

Unless the person is an immediate threat to others or has committed a violent crime every other avenue of punishment and rehabilitation should be focused on before custody.

Imprisonment should be the last resort.

Like your mate Larry Murphy who you regularly defend?

Or that animal from O Devanney gardens who raped a woman vaginally, anally , then orally, and then with a bottle who you spoke up for there recently when some fcuking moron saw fit to let him out?

I won't get an answer, but I'll ask again anyway: What's your agenda?

gizmo555

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Is Senator Bacik a loon? She is one of the most prominent feminists in Ireland.

Given her claim in the "Irish Times" last week that prostitutes are "invariably" women, I think she qualifies as a loon, yes.

Of course, adult consensual sex is not an offence; but the buying of a person – invariably a woman — for the purpose of sexual gratification should be.

eviltwin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

More feminists need to come out publicly against this kind of sh!te of their own initiative and not on the defensive after someone has pointed out their silence on the issue, IMO.

First I heard of it was this thread. We can't speak out until we know.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

First I heard of it was this thread. We can't speak out until we know.

In fairness though Harriet Harmen and Ivana Bacik have been coming out with this sh!te for years and are still highly regarded among a lot of feminist groups, which is more the kind of thing I'm referring to.

gizmo555

eviltwin wrote: »

First I heard of it was this thread. We can't speak out until we know.

The woman member of the UK House of Lords mentioned in the article linked to by the OP was invited in 2008 by "one of the most prominent feminists in Ireland" - Ivana Bacik - to speak about her ideas to Oireachtas members. Only female Oireachtas members, that is. Can you imagine the uproar from her if male TDs and Senators proposed to exclude all women Oireachtas members from a meeting on prison reform?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I ask the Leader for a debate on imprisonment, specifically the imprisonment of women. In a week when Thornton Hall is in the news, it is time for us to take a critical review of the need for imprisonment and, in particular, the need for this super prison initially proposed by the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell.


Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.



Senator Ivana Bacik: This prison seems to be forging ahead without anyone questioning whether we need these places. I was going to use the “L” word but I hesitate to use it, other Members of the House having fallen into problems, so I will say that misinformation rather than lies have been told about the need for more prison places in this country. The reality elsewhere shows us that if one builds bigger prisons, judges and sentences will fill them with people. This is the sad reality and we need to reappraise whether we need this many prisons, especially for women.

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.

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

Rubberchikken

Women fiught for equal rights.
If a woman insusts on comitting a crime for which jail is the only answer, then she has to accept that.

masculinist

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Women fiught for equal rights.
If a woman insusts on comitting a crime for which jail is the only answer, then she has to accept that.

Exactly. And they already get an easier ride when they break the law. For example:


A man is approximately 165% more likely to be convicted than a woman

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-54.htm

Women receive lighter sentences and a higher chance of acquittal, simply for being women

http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf


The law should be gender neutral.

Spunge

gizmo555 wrote: »

Given her claim in the "Irish Times" last week that prostitutes are "invariably" women, I think she qualifies as a loon, yes.

Of course, adult consensual sex is not an offence; but the buying of a person – invariably a woman — for the purpose of sexual gratification should be.

holy sh1t that is full retard :pac:

Pwindedd

I agree with the article entirely but only on the proviso you remove the word women and replace with person. Very shortsighted to only come at this issue from a female perspective. All non violent/small time crimes IMO should have an alternative form of punishment to prison. (Where there is no risk to the general publich. The criminals gender shouldn't come into it.

DoYouEvenLift

masculinist wrote: »

Exactly. And they already get an easier ride when they break the law. For example:


A man is approximately 165% more likely to be convicted than a woman

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-54.htm

Women receive lighter sentences and a higher chance of acquittal, simply for being women

http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf


The law should be gender neutral.

I wonder why that is. Would it be possible to ever have the law/court completely overlook and disregard gender but instead sentence criminals almost anonymously? Would be hard to setup but basically conceal the defendant and the accuser and only referring to them by "the defendant" and "the accused". Have the details of each as anonymous as possible so that the judge and jury look only at the evidence provided and assess it as critically as possible. No preferences or bias from judges, minimise human/emotional interference.


This kind of setup would also prevent people's reputations being destroyed by the news if the laws were also changed to keep it all under total anonymity until there is a conviction handed out.


Probably sounds like something from a sci fi movie lol

The_Captain

*see thread title*

I bet 90% of the comments are along the lines of 'but what about men?!'

*vindicated*

bodice ripper

The_Captain wrote: »

*see thread title*

I bet 90% of the comments are along the lines of 'but what about men?!'

*vindicated*

I think, given the nature of the topic, saying "but what about men!?" is pretty reasonable.

tritium

The_Captain wrote: »

*see thread title*

I bet 90% of the comments are along the lines of 'but what about men?!'

*vindicated*

Kind of hard to discuss this one on its merits without pointing out that pretty much every arguement made applies equally to the other 50% of the population.

Nothing worse than a post that uses the accusation of whataboutery purely to stymie debate.

SpaceTime

How about we stop using prisons for debt collection purposes : non payment of fines, television licences and minor tax and welfare stuff.

Replace it with community service and debt recovery techniques ... Far more cost effective.

Also look at alternatives for non violent crimes : vandalism, etc etc etc

Community service and restorative justice measures like being forced to fix what you've wrecked might make a lot more sense.

Then : the big one.

Deal with drug addicts as people with an illness. There's inadequate focus on getting them off drugs as an alternative to prison time for pretty offences.

Do all that and you've cut prison populations, reduced costs and made the place safer by opening up more space for violent offenders to be locked away safely.

As it stands someone goes to jail for something petty and non violent and it results in their whole life being welfare dependent as an ex-conn that's hard to make them employable again too.

On top of that it's creating a networking opportunity for criminals that we don't need. You're often putting petty offenders into a place with gang members, drug dealers and hard core criminals and naturally enough they get pulled into that life.

As for not jailing women three words : The Scissors Sisters.

It's sexist to assume that women are delicate flowers that don't commit violent crime.

I see Irish women kicking the #### out of eachother most weekends when sufficiently drunk.

Crime is crime is crime. What's your gender for to do with it?

gormdubhgorm

Is this the misandry thread now?

(I learnt that word from the misogony thread, never heard of the word "misandry" before that. But having learnt it does it apply to the article in question?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

The paragragh below from the artucle makes no sense!

The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with — women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.

Does this mean that women should not be send to space or drive a car because it was designed by a man.
In fairness they do have those reverse parking sensor things in cars now. Are they designed for men I wonder?

bodice ripper

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Is this the misandry thread now?

(I learnt that word from the misogony thread, never heard of the word "misandry" before that. But having learnt it does it apply to the article in question?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

The paragragh below from the artucle makes no sense!

The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with — women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.

Does this mean that women should not be send to space or drive a car because it was designed by a man.
In fairness they do have those reverse parking sensor things in cars now. Are they designed for men I wonder?

There sure as **** weren't designed for me. I can park on a ****ing dime, despite having a vagina.

ElvisChrist6

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

More feminists need to come out publicly against this kind of sh!te of their own initiative and not on the defensive after someone has pointed out their silence on the issue, IMO.

I agree that more need to come forward; the real problem with feminism these days are the sensible ones are being drowned out by the nutcases because people these days are more interested in the shocking. Those who spout nonsense about protecting all women from this, that and the other are not only doing damage to the cause of the moderates, but also damaging to other women. THis kind of action just infantalises women, and paints them as always the victim; keeps them as the weaker sex. It's a shame that it's happening, because the only way for the sensible moderates to get any hold is to first focus on dismantling the radicals before they can focus on the real issues or people won't listen. I have met many ill-informed who only know feminism from Tumblr (I go to university - the breeding ground of those types) but many more realistic and knowledgeable ones who hate those Tumblr types or at least take it with a pinch of salt.

As I said, these kind of suggestions (the thread's subject, I mean) just paint women as the weaker sex, who can hold no power and is the opposite of what feminism is supposed to be for.

Summer wind

I think it doesn't matter if you are a man or woman. The law of the land should apply to everyone. If you commit a crime of course you should do the time.

masculinist

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

disproportionately affected by a system designed for men

There are reams and reams of statistics showing women can be just as violent as men. Womens prisons are designed for women and any design flaws can be fixed for both male and female prisons with sufficient campaigning . To say the criminal justice system is designed for men is the demonization of men. We get the same ignorant attitude when someone from a deprived background used to get sent to the chain gang for stealing a loaf of bread, [they still get locked up far easier than someone posh] whereas a white collar criminal who caused far more damage to society would get sent to an open prison or a suspended sentence because ''that nasty prison wasn't designed for someone of his calibre''. Shame on Feminism for this. Really. People of all genders need to push for Egalitarianiam. I have no problem with compassionate egalitarianism so long as victims get to see justice done regardless of the identity of the perpetrator.

Playboy

Chris Huhne's ex wife Vicky Pyrce has been talking about this for a while now.

Vicky Pyrce wrote:

Her observations brought logical conclusions. "The majority of women, over 80%, are in prison on short sentences of less than 12 months for non-violent offences. A good proportion of these women are mothers. The annual cost per prison place for a woman is more than £56,000, yet intensive community orders cost less than a third of that and evidence shows they have more impact on reducing reoffending. It makes no economic sense to keep women in prison who present no threat of harm to others. Prison often exacerbates the problems these women were facing before they were sent away. The lack of co-ordinated governmental thinking on this is perpetuating the problems and doing nothing to lower costs or re-offending, which costs a staggering £9bn or £10bn a year."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/29/vicky-pryce-prison-does-not-work-prisonomics-economist

nokia69

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_4_chris-huhne-scandal.html

an interesting article about Vicky Pyrce and prisons