Do women get more lenient sentences?

The Corinthian · 09-11-2013 02:05PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I don't consider most of what Bacik says to be misandrist as such, more just blatantly one-sided feminism. I've been involved in a number of events with her during her time in Trinity, and I haven't got the impression that she hates men.

She always gave me the impression, as far back as her time in Trinity, that she didn't really like men all that much, whatever about hating them.

But I suppose it comes down to how you see things. I've no doubt that if a politician were to support laws promoting ridiculously unfair rights for men, that would often impact negatively the rights of women you'd be screaming misogyny. But oddly, being a blatantly one-sided feminist is fine. Is being blatantly racist fine too as long as you agree with some of their policies?

It probably says more about your own attitudes than Baciks.

Comparing supporting Ivana Bacik to Golden Dawn or Front National is beyond moronic.

Dismissing such a comparison out of hand without bothering to rebut it logically would be more moronic methinks. All it is, is an easy way to avoid facing up to them and see if they have any merit.

Bottom line is that some of the policies that she supports are reprehensible. To argue that one gender should effectively become almost immune from custodial sentences would be no different to arguing that one race should effectively become almost immune from custodial sentences. The only difference is that, ironically, neither the Golden Dawn or Front National have gone that far.

And to support any politician that actively promotes such policies, just because you agree with 'some' of the milder ones, is frankly morally bankrupt.

Amirani · 10-11-2013 08:59PM

Well I think we can agree that we're viewing the situation quite differently and have obviously differing views on Bacik based on the experiences we've had with her. I don't really think there's any point in engaging any further if you're going to continue sensationalising to the extent you have been.

For what it's worth, Bacik has done plenty of speaking about reducing the number of people in prison in general, not just female. She also is keen to have prison conditions for males in Mountjoy improved, this single story we've been discussing doesn't represent her complete view on the matter.

http://www.ivanabacik.com/archives/484

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/ivana-bacik-radical-reform-of-our-penal-system-will-lead-to-a-safer-society-for-us-all-29159935.html

Maguined · 11-11-2013 10:52AM

Deleted User wrote: »

She wasn't talking about herself; she was talking about the other women she met in prison. Of herself, she said "I did something, I paid the price of it and that is it."

It's good to see someone with a degree of self-perception who can see when something is her own fault and take responsibility, and not have a chip on her shoulder about the world - while still having empathy for other prisoners she met to whom life had been a lot less kind than it was to her.

In my view, we could all learn from that.

Who says we should? I don't. I just don't see the value in men whinging about how tough they have life compared to women. It's all a bit beta, to be honest.

I am finding it hard to understand exactly what point you are trying to make at this stage. The thread is about women getting more lenient sentencing and you posted a link to an article which basically said women go to jail for reasons to do with the men in their lives. The article says that when a woman commits a crime it is because she is vunerable and that when she is in prison her vunerability is not being dealt with and it costs the government so much money keeping women incarcerated so it asks wether a better alternative should be pursued ie vunerable women who commit crimes shouldnt do jail time.

The entire article only cares about how women who commit crimes might be vunerable so therefore shouldn't go to jail, the same reasoning could be applied to vunerable men who commit crimes but it isn't.

You say we shouldn't take such a gendered approach to sentencing but you are the one who posted the article as a "different angle" even though you are now disagreeing with it.

So what point are you trying to make on this thread since you are disagreeing with your own points?

Maguined · 11-11-2013 10:58AM

NiallSparky wrote: »

Well I think we can agree that we're viewing the situation quite differently and have obviously differing views on Bacik based on the experiences we've had with her. I don't really think there's any point in engaging any further if you're going to continue sensationalising to the extent you have been.

For what it's worth, Bacik has done plenty of speaking about reducing the number of people in prison in general, not just female. She also is keen to have prison conditions for males in Mountjoy improved, this single story we've been discussing doesn't represent her complete view on the matter.

http://www.ivanabacik.com/archives/484

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/ivana-bacik-radical-reform-of-our-penal-system-will-lead-to-a-safer-society-for-us-all-29159935.html

So her complete view is that there should be no womens prisons as women should not go to jail as they only commit crimes out of vunerability and necessity but men should get nicer conditions in prison. It's still an extremely sexist argument to make.

Is this not the same as an extremist Muslim saying all women should have to wear a full burqa but it's okay they don't have to be black you can have them in as many pretty colours as women want. Sure it's nice and all having variety but the core argument is still sexist, men don't have to wear a burqa while the women do.

Arguing that men should have nicer prisons and smaller sentences is completely pointless if your next point is that women shouldn't go to prison at all. It is still a purely sexist point of view.

The Corinthian · 11-11-2013 12:10PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

Well I think we can agree that we're viewing the situation quite differently and have obviously differing views on Bacik based on the experiences we've had with her.

TBH, I judge her as a politician principally on the basis of the policies that she supports. In this regard she has repeatedly supported extreme geocentric policies, often to the detriment of men. Anecdotal experience of her is irrelevant, in this regard, because of how extreme some of these policies are.

We don't have to agree with everything that a politician supports to vote for them. However, if they support policies that are extreme and offensive, then it becomes impossible to justify voting for them; the good no longer outweighs the bad.

This is the case with Bacik, unfortunately.

I don't really think there's any point in engaging any further if you're going to continue sensationalising to the extent you have been.

I suppose it's easier than arguing against points that have been made against you, because you've gone out of your way to avoid doing that.

For what it's worth, Bacik has done plenty of speaking about reducing the number of people in prison in general, not just female. She also is keen to have prison conditions for males in Mountjoy improved, this single story we've been discussing doesn't represent her complete view on the matter.

Please don't try to distract from the core sexism of her policy; that women would be immune from prison, even if men got 'nicer' prison. I do hope that you realize that this pure, unadulterated sexism of the worst kind? Hiding behind 'better conditions' doesn't change the fact that what she proposes is chauvinism on a par with anything you'll see in Saudi Arabia - or is the fact that it's in reverse, what makes it acceptable?

Actually, I have to ask, do you share her sexist views on custodial sentences for women?

v638sg7k1a92bx · 11-11-2013 01:54PM

Old Dan Tucker wrote: »

Just read this case for two weeks back and I honestly can't imagine a guy getting such a lenient sentence had they been guilty of what the following woman was:

To be honest, I can't even imagine a barrister daring to suggest that a man who arranged to meet a 14 year old girl in a toilet cubicle, then had oral sex with, and further sexual activities in his own home.. was in fact: in love with the girl. I imagine the very notion of such a defense would be seen to be more likely to anger the court and avoided.

Does anyone agree or is this sentence on par with what a man would get here if found guilty of a similar crime.

Another case in point http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-garda-is-jailed-for-defiling-boy-in-graveyard-29740067.html

iptba · 11-11-2013 07:39PM

Some Irish research:

HOMICIDE IN IRELAND
1972 1991

Dr. Enda Dooley
Director of Prison Medical Services
Department of Justice

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Dooley,%20Homicide%20in%20Ireland%201972-1991.pdf/Files/Dooley,%20Homicide%20in%20Ireland%201972-1991.pdf

Summary

This study has reviewed all homicides occurring in the Republic of Ireland during the period 1972 to 1991 (inclusive). To date there has been no similar study examining the criminological aspects or Irish homicide with emphas is on any changes that have occurred over this period. Unlike other crime the number of homicides committed annually has shown no sustained increase. The rate of homicide in Ireland appears to be among the lowest in Europe.

Homicides predominantly involve the killing of a male by another, somewhat younger, man. Most homicides occur at night and a high proportion involve intoxication in one or both parties. Most often the motive is some form of anger or rage and the incident occurs with out planning or premeditation, In the small number or homicides involving female perpetrato rs the victim is significantly more likely to be a spouse or family member. The vast majority of homicides are detected by the police and a conviction occurs in approximately two-thirds of all cases. The exception to this high detection rate are those cases considered due to subversive or terrorist motivation where planning and the availability of a support system contribute to low detection and conviction.

Female perpetrators are significantly less likely to be convicted, and if convicted they receive significantly shorter sentences than their male counterparts. There has been a significant increase in the length of discretionary sentences applied. Infanticide appears to be relatively rare. "Psychiatric" homicides show a significant temporal shirt from "normal" homicides in that they occur more often during the day-time period. In addition they show more pre-meditation and less involvement of alcohol. Victims are more likely to be young and also more likely to be family members.

Unlike the case in other jurisdictions there appears 10 have been little legal or public debate in relation to the classification of homicide, the appropriateness or necessity for a mandatory life sentence for murder convictions, the need for legal provisions in relation to homicide committed under possible psychiatric disability to be updated to reflect developments in psychiatric practice, etc. It is hoped that the information contained in this study will provide a factual basis to assist those who might engage in such a debate.

iptba · 11-11-2013 07:46PM

Here are the details from the 1972-1991 report

Female perpetrators were significantly more likely not to be charged or to have a Nolle Prosequi entered.

In those cases involving a female perpetrator (42) no charge or prosecution occurred in 14 (33.3%) compared to 36 (6.6%) of the 545 cases involving male perpetrators (Chi-squared = 35.75; p < 0.0001).

In a further 10 (23.8%) cases a conviction resulted in a suspended sentence compared to 51 (9.4%) in cases involving male perpetrators (Chi-squared=8.75; p< 0.003).

In the 205 cases which resulted in a Manslaughter conviction (Table 18) 193 cases resulted in an effective or suspended prison sentence. These cases involved 182 males and 11 females. It was noticeable that the 11 females convicted received an average sentence of 41.7 months whereas the 182 males received an average sentence of 63.9 months.

Amirani · 11-11-2013 11:39PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I have to ask, do you share her sexist views on custodial sentences for women?

I'd favour a reduction in the prevalence of prison sentence for minor offences, obviously a gender-neutral reduction though. I support no form of gender discrimination.

pwurple · 11-11-2013 11:49PM

iptba wrote: »

Here are the details from the 1972-1991 report

Thanks ipta. Nice to see some real numbers.

Pity the sample size is small. 11 man-slaughters and 42 murders over twenty years.

The Corinthian · 12-11-2013 11:31AM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'd favour a reduction in the prevalence of prison sentence for minor offences, obviously a gender-neutral reduction though. I support no form of gender discrimination.

Then how can you lend support to someone who clearly does favour gender discrimination?

If they supported race segregation, for example, would you still lend them support? If so, why? Or if not, is this different because gender discrimination, at least when directed against men, is more acceptable than race discrimination?

I'm curious, because there is an inconsistency in the logic of many people who appear to lend support people like Bacik. They get very upset if you suggest that they'd turn a blind eye to views such as racism, anti-Semitism or homophobia, for a politician with whom they otherwise hold common ground, yet have no problem turning a blind eye to sexism to this end.

Amirani · 12-11-2013 01:53PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then how can you lend support to someone who clearly does favour gender discrimination?

If they supported race segregation, for example, would you still lend them support? If so, why? Or if not, is this different because gender discrimination, at least when directed against men, is more acceptable than race discrimination?

I don't think there's any significant difference, they're both equally unacceptable.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm curious, because there is an inconsistency in the logic of many people who appear to lend support people like Bacik. They get very upset if you suggest that they'd turn a blind eye to views such as racism, anti-Semitism or homophobia, for a politician with whom they otherwise hold common ground, yet have no problem turning a blind eye to sexism to this end.

As I said previously, I support her views on certain issues. I don't offer a blanket support to anyone.

I'll happily criticise Bacik's stance on certain issues, while applauding her on others. Same goes for pretty much everyone else.

The Corinthian · 13-11-2013 02:13PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'll happily criticise Bacik's stance on certain issues, while applauding her on others. Same goes for pretty much everyone else.

Then, by that logic, you should be able to applaud Golden Dawn on some of their stances, such as the community and charity work they've been known to do.

If so, I disagree with you as there are some positions that can ultimately damn any politician, but respect at least that you're consistent.

If not, then I'm afraid you're guilty of a cognitive bias, that leads you to such an inconsistent position.

Sauve · 13-11-2013 02:21PM

Mod

Back on topic please

LostinBlanch · 19-11-2013 12:01PM

There is a thread on Reddit about this with links to articles like this showing that women get more lenient sentences.

ahnowbrowncow · 20-11-2013 10:45PM

Just saw this on the rte news website, a female prisoner was released after serving just 3 days of a six month sentence.

The judge asked was this because of capacity issues but the governor of the women’s prison, Mary O'Connor, said she didn't think more prison places was the solution, and she felt that "a lot of women in prison should not be there.

FFS :rolleyes:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1120/488017-dochas/

Playboy · 21-11-2013 11:22AM

To an extent I agree with the sentiment. I believe that there are a lot of women in jail that don’t really need to be there. The role of Prison imo should be two-fold, to protect the public and to rehabilitate offenders. There is an argument that Prison should be used as a deterrent or punishment but people need to realise that it costs the state a small fortune to incarcerate an individual and in a lot of cases the person is more a danger to society when they leave prison than before they entered it.

So while I agree that we should be looking at alternatives to prison especially for non-violent offenders, I am shocked that this is been driven as a female only issue. I can’t understand how in an issue such as this campaigner’s can blatantly adopt a one sided sexist position. The arguments they are making should self-evidently apply to both sexes and not to just one. Women do not have exclusivity on vulnerability. Men are also products of abusive environments, have dependency on substances and through circumstance have ended up in a place where they really shouldn’t be.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 21-11-2013 12:28PM

Playboy wrote: »

To an extent I agree with the sentiment. I believe that there are a lot of women in jail that don’t really need to be there. The role of Prison imo should be two-fold, to protect the public and to rehabilitate offenders. There is an argument that Prison should be used as a deterrent or punishment but people need to realise that it costs the state a small fortune to incarcerate an individual and in a lot of cases the person is more a danger to society when they leave prison than before they entered it.

So while I agree that we should be looking at alternatives to prison especially for non-violent offenders, I am shocked that this is been driven as a female only issue. I can’t understand how in an issue such as this campaigner’s can blatantly adopt a one sided sexist position. The arguments they are making should self-evidently apply to both sexes and not to just one. Women do not have exclusivity on vulnerability. Men are also products of abusive environments, have dependency on substances and through circumstance have ended up in a place where they really shouldn’t be.

Exactly, by recognising that women have a special place in the family home, could employers then not use the same methodology when deciding whether or not to hire a female employee on the basis that she won't be able to work late because the kids need to be collected from the crèche, she may get pregnant and be out of work for a year while I still have to keep her position open or because when young children are sick she won't be able to come into work that day, and as we all know the duty of care of young children primarily rests with the mother.

The Corinthian · 21-11-2013 01:12PM

Playboy wrote: »

So while I agree that we should be looking at alternatives to prison especially for non-violent offenders, I am shocked that this is been driven as a female only issue.

You shouldn't be, after all, you've inadvertently betrayed the same bias in your post; why did you say "I believe that there are a lot of women in jail that don’t really need to be there" rather than "people"? Subconscious slip of the tongue?

What it comes down to is that women are still viewed as the primary carers, as weaker and less accountable for their actions, and thus neither responsible for them nor is it desirable to hold them to account for them.

Or as Jack Nicholson's character succinctly put it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbA-KAgj-ko

Now, naturally this is a sexist, chauvinistic viewpoint. How has feminism worked to overturn it, you ask? It hasn't.

The suffragettes were willing to do this, to act against the interests of women for the sake of equality, and demand that the protection that came with such prejudices be reversed and women be held as accountable as men, but second+ wave feminism hasn't done anything of the sort.

If anything it's reinforced these prejudices through it's constant portrayal of women as victims; even when they're perpetrators of violent crime.

And given that feminism essentially has the whole gender rights racket sown up, and that the influence of their lobby far exceeds that of any other 'rights' lobby, why should you be shocked that such views are perpetuated.

Sauve · 21-11-2013 01:35PM

Discussion on this issue coming up on Newstalk shortly.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 21-11-2013 04:18PM

Sauve wrote: »

Discussion on this issue coming up on Newstalk shortly.

Which show was it on?

Sauve · 21-11-2013 04:22PM

Alberto Rapid Supporter wrote: »

Which show was it on?

Lunchtime with Jonathan Healy.
I only caught the odd snippet but there seemed to be a big focus on Dochás.

Playboy · 21-11-2013 05:30PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

You shouldn't be, after all, you've inadvertently betrayed the same bias in your post; why did you say "I believe that there are a lot of women in jail that don’t really need to be there" rather than "people"? Subconscious slip of the tongue?

No, no slip of the tongue, I was refering to the article which discussed women in prison and not people in prison. I was hoping the second half of my post clarified my view.

Agree re the rest of your points but I still am shocked at how people who claim to be progressive in their thinking (certain feminists) can be so hypocritical and sexist whilst claiming to be the opposite. It displays a level of cognitive disonance that I find baffling.

The Corinthian · 21-11-2013 05:57PM

Playboy wrote: »

Agree re the rest of your points but I still am shocked at how people who claim to be progressive in their thinking (certain feminists) can be so hypocritical and sexist whilst claiming to be the opposite. It displays a level of cognitive disonance that I find baffling.

All I know is that such feminists will go to incredible lengths to protect this contradiction from question; try asking some to explain it and you'll see what I mean.

More curious is those self-identifying feminists who'll reject the more blatantly extreme policies, the so-called silent majority, will still only go so far in their criticism. Yet they too will not publicly admit that there's any contradiction.

Apparently you can still seek equality overall, while being partisan and only seek equality in those areas where women are disadvantaged, ignoring those areas where women have an advantage - assuming they even accept this exists, and many feminists reject this notion completely.

It is, as you call it, an incredible level of cognitive dissonance, that appears as much for the purpose of fooling themselves as anyone else, because were they to do so, then they would be forced to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the modern feminist movement.

iptba · 31-01-2014 06:42AM

I think there's a good chance a man would have spent some time in jail for this:

Woman collected €92k pension of stepmum 15 years after she died
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-collected-92k-pension-of-stepmum-15-years-after-she-died-29963565.html

sawdoubters · 31-01-2014 08:05AM

sentencing in Ireland is stupid, people convicted of rape, bodily violence ,theft,
all let off,

as for women,theres less chance of them commiting serious crimes,

I am not a fan of mandatory sentences even with some poor judges

http://www.lawreform.ie/news/law-reform-commission-publishes-report-on-mandatory-sentences.405.html

Liam McPoyle · 31-01-2014 08:24AM

iptba wrote: »

I think there's a good chance a man would have spent some time in jail for this:

And just how do you come up with that?

What examples are there to show that people found guilty of welfare fraud get different sentences?

Here is a case where all a man got was a €600 fine for collecting €22,000 in fraudulent benefits. That woman got a 2.5 year suspended jail sentence for €92,000 fraud so on balance considering the sums concerned there is no difference.

Pure speculation like you have posted above is nothing but nonsense and is veering into Walter Mitty territory to try and fit this mould of men getting screwed over to back up your arguments.

Maguined · 31-01-2014 10:13AM

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

And just how do you come up with that?

What examples are there to show that people found guilty of welfare fraud get different sentences?

Here is a case where all a man got was a €600 fine for collecting €22,000 in fraudulent benefits. That woman got a 2.5 year suspended jail sentence for €92,000 fraud so on balance considering the sums concerned there is no difference.

Pure speculation like you have posted above is nothing but nonsense and is veering into Walter Mitty territory to try and fit this mould of men getting screwed over to back up your arguments.

Did you just not provide an example yourself? Two people committed the same crime of welfare fraud. The person who stole almost 4 times as much as the other receives no jail time but there is also no mention of her having to pay any money back. The other person receives no jail time but has to repay back the money they stole, which since they are now unemployed is effectively sentencing them to a life of near poverty for 19 years. Also if he happens to miss one of his repayments then he does get imprisoned.

You honestly think that looks like fair treatment between both genders?

Liam McPoyle · 31-01-2014 10:27AM

As I said above, one got a fine and has to pay it back, no suspended sentence, one got a suspended sentence, no mention of a fine and will (I imagine as any case I've seen this has been the case) have to pay it back too.

The person that stole the most got a harder conviction (IMO) so again, IMO, the sentences were pretty even based on the amounts involved.

Maguined · 31-01-2014 01:21PM

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

As I said above, one got a fine and has to pay it back, no suspended sentence, one got a suspended sentence, no mention of a fine and will (I imagine as any case I've seen this has been the case) have to pay it back too.

The person that stole the most got a harder conviction (IMO) so again, IMO, the sentences were pretty even based on the amounts involved.

The article never said she had to pay it back, I honestly don't know myself but if she does not have to pay the money back, if her only punishment is a suspended sentence would you then view the sentencing as unfair and biased?

Do women get more lenient sentences?

Comments