I generally believe the punishment should fit the crime, not the offender.
Stupid. Their rationale is that women are more often victims of crime (false) and that they should be given softened sentences because of their mental health (more men kill themselves that women). Women already get dramatically shorter sentences for the same crime as it is because of biases that women are less culpable than men, specifically targeting women for fewer jail sentences is unbelievably sexist.
might not be a bad idea. i'm actually pro harsh sentencing (i want to be a criminal prosecutor) but if we're talking non-violent crimes and chances are the person won't re-offend there must be better ways of rehabilitation. jail is expensive for the community and should be reserved for real criminals.
God help us, the Tories are growing a feminist wing and signaling some virtue to keep up with social-media societal trends. In another front, pressure for action on NI's abortion laws by that emerging core within the party, it's going to be the next stop for the feminist agenda. The Tories want to be careful with this, if the BBC latch on to it they will have a serious issue with the DUP and these women in the party don't seem to realise the potential consequences of their grandstanding. The BBC will most probably latch on to it, ticks all the boxes and their own in-house activists are buzzing right now.
A woman is already less likely to go to prison than a man, and if she does, it will be for substantially less time for the same crime (all other factors taken into account). But this person wants more special treatment?
Men and women should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Gender isn't a good reason for harsher or softer treatment. With equal rights comes equal responsibility.
Historically women are statistically far more likely to be sent to prison for a first offence, whereas young male offenders can accumulate many convictions before being given a custodial sentence. There needs to be some way to redress this imbalance.
Is a politician allowed to say that men and women make different choices for different reasons? I mean, that does explain the 'gender pay gap' and all.
However, prison isn't just about rehabilitation. You also have it as a deterrent, justice/revenge for the victim and prevention (while they're behind bars they can't hurt the public). Having lesser sentences based on gender fails on all those three, and quite possibly rehabilitation too. If you based it on the individual which judges are supposed to do anyway (though they don't have complete license over a sentence), then that starts to make sense, but to make a blanket statement that someone's chromosomes make them somewhat less culpable of their crimes, and less deserving of prison makes no sense.
we're talking non-violent crimes here. if a woman commits a violent crime she will do the time, make no mistake. it just so happens that violent crimes which deserve serious sentences are committed way more often by men. as in 78% of violent crimes are committed by men, not women.
hence, this is not about special treatment nor is this a gendered issue just for the sake of being a gendered issue. CRIME itself is a gendered issue. criminal justice is expensive so we can't keep everyone in there. rehabilitation is desirable because we don't want repeat offenders; we want people to get jobs and get a handle on their lives so they aren't burdens on the rest of us. it seems few members here haven't thought about this issue holistically. again, we think we know better than people who've studied law and law enforcement for years; indeed they must be dummies.
Why doesn't anyone say 'gaol' anymore?
Go to first unread
