Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Yes. I did indeed mean more equality

Women were less likely to be detained before trial. They were 46 percent less likely than men to held in jail prior to a trial.
Women who were released on bond were given lower bond amounts. Their bonds were set at amounts that were 54 percent lower than what men were required to pay.
Women were 58 percent less likely to be sentenced to prison.
For defendants who were sentenced to prison, there generally was no gender disparity in the length of the sentence. There were disparities in sentencing for some individual types of crime, however. For example, female defendants convicted of theft received longer prison sentences than male defendants convicted of theft. Women convicted of “other property offenses” – a category of crimes that includes arson, receiving stolen property and breaking and entering — received shorter prison sentences.
Black female defendants were, in some ways, treated differently than white female defendants. Black women were assigned higher bond amounts and were more likely to be sent to prison than white women. Women of both races were equally likely to be released prior to trial.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F

Lots of grumpy men not seeing the circumstances here :P Circumstances are everything.. the law recognises this.. you may choose to see it as men vs women.. that says more about you than the reality.. but you need to reflect that within men committing exactly the same crime, sentences will vary.. they do so because of circumstances..

Women and men are different.. whether it's biology or conditioning.. the fact remains that generally speaking women commit less violent crimes and are seen as less of a danger while waiting for trial. it does depend on the crime.. and I strongly suspect no one is comparing like for like here..

In terms of race.. that's not to say that there is not still horrendous racism within our systems. but even there there are circumstances that contribute.. such as poor educational opportunity, poorer background, more disadvantage, less choice etc etc etc..

CIrcummstances matter and we cannot gloss over them with statistics. WHY someone commits a crime and what influenced it as well as how much control they had over the circumstances that led to the crime will always be taken into account.. one can take an uninformed glance at stats or one can look into and try to understand why.

People are not the same.

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@Adaydreambeliever [quote]Women and men are different.. whether it's biology or conditioning.. the fact remains that generally speaking women commit less violent crimes and are seen as less of a danger while waiting for trial.[/quote]
The fact is, even for the same type of offence and similar circumstance, women automatically receive lesser sentences.

I can give an example as I know the people involved.

One woman and two men were jointly and equally involved in a forgery operation. The woman and one of the men were previous offenders who pleaded not guilty. The other man was of previous good character and pleaded guilty. Under UK sentencing guidelines that early guilty plea entitled him to a sentencing discount. All three were convicted and the sentences were: two years; one year; and probation. No prizes for correctly matching the sentence with the offender.

Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F

@suzie1960 one swallow does not a summer make.. we can all offer examples.. but even if the same crime the circumstances, the reasons why the crime was committed, how it was committed, the degree of severity, and importantly intent matter.. we are almost never comparing like for like.. And there ARE circumstances outside of that that are relevant..

I wasn't sure exactly what you meant.. did you mean in order of appearance within your description the woman got 2 years, the man got one year and the other man got probation? If not what order did that come in.. and what were the circumstances? Their background, why they did it.. mitigating circs..

All i mean too is that we need to understand the complexities of the law and of human beings.. we can't treat all people and all circumstances as the same.. just because they aren't.

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@Adaydreambeliever [quote] wasn't sure exactly what you meant.. did you mean in order of appearance within your description the woman got 2 years, the man got one year and the other man got probation? If not what order did that come in.. and what were the circumstances? Their background, why they did it.. mitigating circs..
[/quote]
They were all equally guilty and the circumstance were the same. The man with previous convictions got two years. The other man got one year. Two mitigating factors were his previous good character and his guilty plea. The woman, with previous convictions, got let off with probation. The only reason being her sex.

Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F

@suzie1960 well in your opinion.. with greatest respect.. you or I don't know enough to know if all were equally guilty. we don't know the dynamics.. I accept you think that.. but we cannot know and we aren't trained in the law. unless you were in the court and you knew all the circs and have full understanding of the letter of the law... then you just cannot know.. I can't know.. To think we can would be foolish.. Enough said.

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@Adaydreambeliever Didn't you read what I wrote? I [b]knew[/b] the people involved. Admittedly I didn't know what they were doing until after they were arrested but I did get the story then. I was also in court watching the trial so I know exactly what evidence was put. Enough said!

Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F

@suzie1960 I did read it.. with respect I understand you think you know.. I don't want to be unkind or disrespectful..

Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F

@Adaydreambeliever There are reasons behind such decisions.. to think that courts simply favour women, when many of the judges are still men is naive.. that you don't understand the reasons and maybe I don't know enough to either.. doesn't mean that there aren't reasons.. The law's sophisticated not just a matter of oh, she's a woman let's be kind to her.. that really wouldn't work .. As I say I accept that to you you believed it was because she was a woman.. but we see from even your example.. the man of good character got a lighter sentence.. so there were circumstances beyond a simplistic idea that all were guilty all should be punished the same.. There would have been reasons the woman was probated.. It's over-simplistic to believe it's just that she was a woman.. it's really not helpful to engage in them vs us thinking, especially based on one case where we cannot think we know exactly all the circumstances..

https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/32081/1/Hedderman_Barnes_SentencingWomen_AcceptedManuscript.pdf

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@Adaydreambeliever [quote]that you don't understand the reasons and maybe I don't know enough to either.. doesn't mean that there aren't reasons..[/quote]
The court can only go by what was presented to it. I was there so I heard exactly what the court heard.

[quote]but we see from even your example.. the man of good character got a lighter sentence.. [/quote]
Yes, he got a lighter sentence than the man with previous convictions but a [b]much harsher sentence than the woman with previous convictions[/b].

[quote]There would have been reasons the woman was probated..[/quote]
None that were presented to the court. I was there, remember.

[quote]It's over-simplistic to believe it's just that she was a woman.[/quote]
That was [b]the only difference[/b] between her and the man with previous convictions.

That was just one case where I knew the circumstances. There are many other example where, almost invariably, women receive lesser sentences than men for the same offences with similar aggravating and mitigating factors and antecedents.

Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F

@suzie1960 So you knew all the circumstances of the three individuals? whether their father/mother was an alcoholic, whether they had past mental health issues or trauma, there wasn't one person who was egging the others on.. all three came up with the idea together and all were equally responsible for planning and carrying it out. there wasn't one who was the ringleader and there wasn't one who organised it more or was more active?? And they all have the same caring responsibilities? and same health? None of them was reluctant and pushed into it? Realistically, unless they were your brothers and sister it would be pretty hard for you to REALLY know the level of information necessary to make a fully informed judgement.. but you made it anyways...

And you are well trained in the law aren't you? You know all the relevant statistics on offending and reoffending... you knew how likely each would reoffend? You heard many days evidence and you read the background reports which would have been prepared didnt you? I truly want to be kind.. I really do.. it doesn't please me to have to be specific on this..
But your assertation is simplistic.. you aren't aware of what you aren't aware of.. and that puts you at a disadvantage that you seem unable to comprehend...

WOmen generally receive less harsh sentences.. but to take that simplistic statement and use it to bleat, (not saying you are) is overly simplistic, it's unrealistic, it's dangerous.. and worse, it fuels a ridiculous them and us mentality which is unbelievably detrimental to men and women.. we should be working together, supporting each other, understanding and celebrating difference not taking pot shots at each other just because of gender..

There *are* reasons why women receive less harsh sentences, starting with factors like that women tend to commit less serious crimes, that they have often come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds including often abuse and substance misuse, they have been victims well before the act... and women tend to repeat offend less often, they tend to get out early for good behaviour - BECAUSE they, let's see, behave well, keep their heads down in prison.. and many have caring responsibilities and kids.. the list is endless.. but with black and white mentality some just cannot see or understand why people are NOT all the same.. even in similar circs.. You and I are of similar age, possibly similar culture, we grew up in the same era... we may have had similar upbringing.. but clearly we are very different and there are a whole host of factors that affect and have affected me that you haven't experienced.. and vice versa.. but you cannot see this?

PS.. I see you quite often post anti women things.. I am sure there's a reason why.. but it is definitely a trait you display, along with anti-christianism (I'm with you on that one!) There are more than a few anti-women women out there.. I would love to study some of them to work out what's going on with them.. I have even wondered if they believe that by sticking up for men, and being anti women, they think they will have more success with men... just a theory.. of course they wouldn't as the trouble with supporting men in hating women is.. that those women would still be women... and of the species that are considered bad. mad, selfish, shallow etc.. so it would include them.. Interesting tho!

Here's a link...
https://lylawyers.com.au/why-do-female-criminals-get-lighter-sentences-than-men/

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@Adaydreambeliever As I said, I know the people involved very well and I sat though the trial so I heard all the evidence presented to the court.

[quote]all three came up with the idea together and all were equally responsible for planning and carrying it out. there wasn't one who was the ringleader and there wasn't one who organised it more or was more active??[/quote]
Actually, the woman was although that was glossed over in court so isn't really relevant. They all had the same caring responsibilities and similar health.

I have some legal training as I'm called upon to write forensic reports and give expert evidence on occasion. Again, that isn't relevant to the instant case.

[quote]You know all the relevant statistics on offending and reoffending... you knew how likely each would reoffend? [/quote]
The statistics are irrelevant. As I said, the woman had previous convictions, she was an habitual offender. Not surprising really as she tended to be let off lightly when was prosecuted so there was a high probability she would reoffend. As it happened, as soon as her probation was over she did.

[quote]There *are* reasons why women receive less harsh sentences, starting with factors like that women tend to commit less serious crimes,[/quote]
In the instant case all three had committed the same crime but she still got the most lenient sentence despite her antecedence.

[quote]and women tend to repeat offend less often, they tend to get out early for good behaviour - BECAUSE they, let's see, behave well, keep their heads down in prison[/quote]
Actually, women's behaviour in prison is worse than men's. It's sometimes claimed that women are treated unfairly in prison because they are up on disciplinary charges more than men are.

[quote] I see you quite often post anti women things..[/quote]
That's untrue. I believe in equality and recognize that men often get a raw deal. Not hating men doesn't make a person anti-women, except in the eyes of misandrists.

Equality is a two way thing, that means men must have the same rights as we have, we can't have equality any other way. We can't expect men to support us unless we support them.