Women with children should not be imprisoned

Watch this thread
TurboCretin
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
According to an article in The Independent.

As if it isn't enough that women generally receive lighter prison sentences than men, are imprisoned in fewer numbers and the interests of dependents are taken into account, media outlets and charities are advocating alternatives to jail time for mothers.

Whatever happened to personal accountability in this country? I don't read many articles saying fewer men should be imprisoned for the sake of their children.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...internalSearch
0
reply
Y r u so dum
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Yeah but what if they are proper skanks.
*****es would be popping them out like bubblegum
0
reply
VannR
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Everything in this article just leads to the conclusion that women should not get themselves put in prison in the first place because they have children depending upon them.
1
reply
CherryCherryBoomBoom
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
Nonsense. As sad as it is for the children, the mothers (and fathers, for that matter) have the responsibility of not committing crimes in the first place.
0
reply
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by TurboCretin)
According to an article in The Independent.

As if it isn't enough that women generally receive lighter prison sentences than men, are imprisoned in fewer numbers and the interests of dependents are taken into account, media outlets and charities are advocating alternatives to jail time for mothers.

Whatever happened to personal accountability in this country? I don't read many articles saying fewer men should be imprisoned for the sake of their children.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...internalSearch
The law should definitely be gender neutral, but I think there's a case to be made for any primary caregiver to avoid a custodial sentence for all but the most extreme of non-violent offences.
0
reply
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
And feminists are supposedly for equality!
1
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
Nonsense. Certainly if someone is a primary caregiver this may be a factor in determining a sentence but obviously should not negate sentencing entirely.
0
reply
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Nonsense. Certainly if someone is a primary caregiver this may be a factor in determining a sentence but obviously should not negate sentencing entirely.
And it certainly shouldn't just be because they're female.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by Green_Pink)
And it certainly shouldn't just be because they're female.
I intentionally used the words 'primary caregiver' to be gender neutral
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Green_Pink)
The law should definitely be gender neutral, but I think there's a case to be made for any primary caregiver to avoid a custodial sentence for all but the most extreme of non-violent offences.
How would you characterise 'extreme' for the offence of fraud, say?

The sentencing guidelines, as they stand, take account of a multitude of factors in (i) categorising the offence by seriousness and (ii) adjusting the sentence within those categories.

Factors are categorised into:
- Culpability
- Loss caused to victim (quantitative)
- Impact on victim (qualitative)
- Additional aggravating/mitigating factors

So when you say 'extreme', do you mean in the sense of culpability of the accused, the amount of loss or the qualitative impact on the victim?
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by Green_Pink)
The law should definitely be gender neutral, but I think there's a case to be made for any primary caregiver to avoid a custodial sentence for all but the most extreme of non-violent offences.
I would argue that any caregiver who does something bad enough to deserve prison clearly isn't fit to be a caregiver. The children are probably better off spending some time away from her.
0
reply
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by TurboCretin)
How would you characterise 'extreme' for the offence of fraud, say?

The sentencing guidelines, as they stand, take account of a multitude of factors in (i) categorising the offence by seriousness and (ii) adjusting the sentence within those categories.

Factors are categorised into:
- Culpability
- Loss caused to victim (quantitative)
- Impact on victim (qualitative)
- Additional aggravating/mitigating factors

So when you say 'extreme', do you mean in the sense of culpability of the accused, the amount of loss or the qualitative impact on the victim?
Personally I'd say only cases where it is deemed:

a) The risk of re-offending is considered to be high.
b) There is a high qualitative impact on the victim.
c) There is no real prospect of a non-custodial sentence being sufficient to rehabilitate the defender and deter others (taking into account that the majority of these crimes are committed out of need, not greed, and thus the impact of the sentence on the likelihood to commit the crime is likely to be small).

Basically, sending primary caregivers to prison should be an absolute last resort.
0
reply
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Arbolus)
I would argue that any caregiver who does something bad enough to deserve prison clearly isn't fit to be a caregiver. The children are probably better off spending some time away from her.
I'd disagree with that: someone as in the article who commits fraud to alleviate extreme levels of debt or poverty is not necessarily a bad person or influence but a victim of circumstance. Note that a caregiver may also be for a disabled or elderly person, not just children.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
they should of course be imprisoned. what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
0
reply
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by PrimeLime)
You do realise with this rule they'll start having children and then committing crimes knowing they can't get sentenced? They'll still need some form of punishment that would actual stop them from doing this.
Have you ever had children? I don't think anyone would actually go through all that pain for a less serious sentence In any case repeat offenders would still have to eventually have more severe punishments, and I think there's scope for far less pleasant non-custodial sentencing than at present.
0
reply
Daenerys...
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
I love how the OP didn't mention the FACT that women are less likely to commit violent crimes, that is, which is the reason why on the whole women get "lighter sentences" lol.

(Original post by From your article)
More than 80 per cent of women who go to prison have committed a non-violent offence; in 2013, 40 per cent of those were imprisoned for theft or handling stolen goods. “A huge percentage of women commit non-violent crimes so they don’t need to be there – they’re not a risk to the public,” said Ms Halford.

Many female offenders are a “special case” because they have been victims of crimes themselves (at the hands of men) from sexual abuse to domestic abuse and drugs and even mental health issues. The women require different treatment from many male offenders because they should have been saved and picked up by the system instead they have been marginalised and have become trapped.The fact that many women have more care responsibilities than men should also be considered because sending women to prison has a much bigger impact on society. And this is where reform programmes in the community, that's mentioned in the Independent article, come in and as they are WAY cheaper than imprisonment - it makes both social and economic sense.

One such programme that's currently up and running in the UK is a recently setup pilot scheme in Greater Manchester involving police, women’s centers, prisons and magistrates. Collectively intervening when women are arrested or sentenced to propose alternatives to imprisonment. They also ensure women have adequate support when they are released from custody and all those involved are reporting auspicious results so we know it works.

People who commit really serious including violent crimes deserve to be locked up for a very long time however a large proportion of female prisoners in the UK do not pose a danger to society because they don't commit such crimes.
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Daenerys...)
I love how the OP didn't mention the FACT that women are less likely to commit violent crimes, that is, which is the reason why on the whole women get "lighter sentences" lol.

Many female offenders are a “special case” because they have been victims of crimes themselves (at the hands of men) from sexual abuse to domestic abuse and drugs and even mental health issues. The women require different treatment from many male offenders because they should have been saved and picked up by the system instead they have been marginalised and have become trapped.The fact that many women have more care responsibilities than men should also be considered because sending women to prison has a much bigger impact on society. And this is where reform programmes in the community, that's mentioned in the Independent article, come in and as they are WAY cheaper than imprisonment - it makes both social and economic sense.

One such programme that's currently up and running in the UK is a recently setup pilot scheme in Greater Manchester involving police, women’s centers, prisons and magistrates. Collectively intervening when women are arrested or sentenced to propose alternatives to imprisonment. They also ensure women have adequate support when they are released from custody and all those involved are reporting auspicious results so we know it works.

People who commit really serious including violent crimes deserve to be locked up for a very long time however a large proportion of female prisoners in the UK do not pose a danger to society because they don't commit such crimes.
So the fact that women receive lighter sentences is down to adjustment for contextual factors such as children, nature of the offence, likelihood of reoffending, etc. - I'm glad we're on the same page. I included that to show that such factors are already taken into account in sentencing, not to claim sexism in sentencing.

Your quote from the article contains the following assumptions, neither of which can be taken at face value:
(i) non-violent = not a risk to the public
(ii) not a risk to the public = no justification for imprisonment
0
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
To quote a commenter:

Men in prison equals children without fathers.

Should we therefore simply allow everyone to commit any crime they like and not punish them? Or perhaps there will be a new law that says only childless people can be sent to jail.
0
reply
A5ko
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
Child should be imprisoned with the parent.

That way the child learns to loathe that parent young, driving them both up the wall.

This would increase rehabilitation 110%.
0
reply
Daenerys...
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by TurboCretin)
So the fact that women receive lighter sentences is down to adjustment for contextual factors such as children, nature of the offence, likelihood of reoffending, etc. - I'm glad we're on the same page. I included that to show that such factors are already taken into account in sentencing, not to claim sexism in sentencing.

Your quote from the article contains the following assumptions, neither of which can be taken at face value:
(i) non-violent = not a risk to the public
(ii) not a risk to the public = no justification for imprisonment
Let me come at you another way since my last post completely evaded your brain. Women make up just 7~ percent of the prison population. This means that women (and their families) are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men with no regard to the issues that plight women such as pregnancy/child-rearing/care-giving etc. Women in prison are nearly twice as likely to suffer from depression as male prisoners – 65 per cent and 37 per cent respectively. They're 10 times more likely than men to self-harm in prison.
Women who commit crime should be punished, but we must not forget that a significant number have been victims during their lives and need targeted support to break the cycle of offending

And in addition to the emotional cost of locking up all these women, the financial impact is huge too. The average cost of imprisoning a woman for a year is £41k. A community order would cost something like £15k. It makes no sense both financially and logically to then lock up women especially those that have dependents.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were exams easier or harder than you expected?

Easier (21)
27.63%
As I expected (23)
30.26%
Harder (28)
36.84%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (4)
5.26%

Watched Threads

View All