Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Differential Justice
27 Answers
https:/
Irritatingly, this excellently argued article is inside The Times paywall - it's well worth registering to read it though.
A couple of extracts :
"The Equal Treatment Bench Book has a section on Gender Equality which might be more appropriately titled Gender Special Treatment. It quotes Baroness Hale of Richmond, now the president of the Supreme Court, who argued that “a male-ordered world has applied to [women] its perceptions of the appropriate treatment for male offenders” and said: “The criminal justice system could . . . ask itself whether it is indeed unjust to women.” It also suggests that those sentencing must be “made aware of the differential impact sentencing decisions have on women and men”. All of which implies that if a man and woman have committed the same crime, the woman should be treated with more “understanding” and leniency. Her sex is a mitigating factor in itself."
"It is no surprise, therefore, that according to the criminal justice figures from 2015, men were almost twice as likely to be put into immediate custody for an indictable offence as women. Under similar criminal circumstances, men were 88 per cent more likely to be sent to prison. For vehicle-related theft as a first offence, men were three times more likely to be imprisoned. For violence against the person, again as a first offence, it was almost three times as likely. Across the categories men were much more likely to do time for a first offence."
This is just wrong - patently we are not all "equal before the law" - why should women be spared punishment purely because of their sex?
Irritatingly, this excellently argued article is inside The Times paywall - it's well worth registering to read it though.
A couple of extracts :
"The Equal Treatment Bench Book has a section on Gender Equality which might be more appropriately titled Gender Special Treatment. It quotes Baroness Hale of Richmond, now the president of the Supreme Court, who argued that “a male-ordered world has applied to [women] its perceptions of the appropriate treatment for male offenders” and said: “The criminal justice system could . . . ask itself whether it is indeed unjust to women.” It also suggests that those sentencing must be “made aware of the differential impact sentencing decisions have on women and men”. All of which implies that if a man and woman have committed the same crime, the woman should be treated with more “understanding” and leniency. Her sex is a mitigating factor in itself."
"It is no surprise, therefore, that according to the criminal justice figures from 2015, men were almost twice as likely to be put into immediate custody for an indictable offence as women. Under similar criminal circumstances, men were 88 per cent more likely to be sent to prison. For vehicle-related theft as a first offence, men were three times more likely to be imprisoned. For violence against the person, again as a first offence, it was almost three times as likely. Across the categories men were much more likely to do time for a first offence."
This is just wrong - patently we are not all "equal before the law" - why should women be spared punishment purely because of their sex?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sunny-dave. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
that was the question I posed, though (and it seemed to be an appropriate one here rather than on a thread of its own, since it was a direct response to your OP): why is equal jail time for women thought worthy of a thread when equal pay - mandated but never achieved - is passed over?
The benefits to society of equal pay seem to me infinitely more important to society than those of locking more women up.
The benefits to society of equal pay seem to me infinitely more important to society than those of locking more women up.
I've read the link. emmie
It does make disturbing reading (albeit from an organisation that has an agenda).
I'm sure a similar case could be made against the imprisonment of men - perhaps it should be.
I don't actually want more women sent to prison - for minor offences it is (by and large) a useless and often harmful punishment.
I want greater care taken that both men and women are dealt with in a way that reduces re-offending and has an element of punishment too. Crucially though, I want them treated equally.
It does make disturbing reading (albeit from an organisation that has an agenda).
I'm sure a similar case could be made against the imprisonment of men - perhaps it should be.
I don't actually want more women sent to prison - for minor offences it is (by and large) a useless and often harmful punishment.
I want greater care taken that both men and women are dealt with in a way that reduces re-offending and has an element of punishment too. Crucially though, I want them treated equally.
“…so perhaps some judges are swayed by the fact sending a woman to prison who has them, will be detrimental to the child's welfare.”
Indeed Emmie. Criminal sentencing is a complicated matter and simply trotting out the stats will not help much. Two things that immediately spring to mind when considering custodial sentences for women (both of which have been touched upon):
1. Women have responsibility for children. Yes, so do men, but men are often either absent entirely or do not have the qualities necessary. A principle of sentencing is that, as far as is practically reasonable, third parties should not suffer for the sins of those being sentenced. Some children clearly will suffer if their mothers are imprisoned and if there is a reasonably just choice, judges and magistrates will tend to avoid a custodial sentence for a woman purely on those grounds.
2. Women suffer a disproportionate amount of Domestic Violence (DV) (something like 88% if my memory serves me correctly). A domestic setting considerably aggravates any offence of violence and men are more likely to be on the receiving end of sentences where such aggravation is taken into account. More than that, far more women than men will have the mitigation available that they were provoked into violence because of the behaviour of men abusing them.
Indeed Emmie. Criminal sentencing is a complicated matter and simply trotting out the stats will not help much. Two things that immediately spring to mind when considering custodial sentences for women (both of which have been touched upon):
1. Women have responsibility for children. Yes, so do men, but men are often either absent entirely or do not have the qualities necessary. A principle of sentencing is that, as far as is practically reasonable, third parties should not suffer for the sins of those being sentenced. Some children clearly will suffer if their mothers are imprisoned and if there is a reasonably just choice, judges and magistrates will tend to avoid a custodial sentence for a woman purely on those grounds.
2. Women suffer a disproportionate amount of Domestic Violence (DV) (something like 88% if my memory serves me correctly). A domestic setting considerably aggravates any offence of violence and men are more likely to be on the receiving end of sentences where such aggravation is taken into account. More than that, far more women than men will have the mitigation available that they were provoked into violence because of the behaviour of men abusing them.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.