Justice secretary claims fewer women should face jail. Watch

Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
https://news.sky.com/story/more-wome...ategy-11386673

This would be for non violent crime.
0
reply
HoldThisL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
I generally believe the punishment should fit the crime, not the offender.
2
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 months ago
#3
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.
2
reply
Joleee
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
#4
Report 8 months ago
#4
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.
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 months ago
#5
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.
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 months ago
#6
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.
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 months ago
#7
(Original post by HoldThisL)
I generally believe the punishment should fit the crime, not the offender.
That makes no sense though. A £100 speeding fine for a rich person is no punishment at all where as for others it could put them in debt. For some businesses and people fines due to illegal activity are just a cost of business.
1
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 months ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
That makes no sense though. A £100 speeding fine for a rich person is no punishment at all where as for others it could put them in debt. For some businesses and people fines due to illegal activity are just a cost of business.
Then that's the way the punishment is delivered that's the problem. In your example is you changed it to a % of salary for example then the punishment could fit the crime.
1
reply
mimsyborogrove
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 months ago
#9
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.
0
reply
HoldThisL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 months ago
#10
(Original post by ByEeek)
That makes no sense though. A £100 speeding fine for a rich person is no punishment at all where as for others it could put them in debt. For some businesses and people fines due to illegal activity are just a cost of business.
Yes, it is. What you mean is that the significance of the punishment varies relative to the person being punished.

Assuming no other factors, how is it just to punish two people committing identical crimes differently?
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 months ago
#11
(Original post by HoldThisL)
Assuming no other factors, how is it just to punish two people committing identical crimes differently?
Ok - so two people. Person A has a wealth in-excess of several million pounds. Person B earns £200 a week. Both commit the same offence. The penalty is a £1000 fine which both must pay. Who comes of the worst in that outcome? Person A simply instructs their lawyer to pay the fine and invoice their accountant whilst sat on a beach in Monaco. Person B can't eat for a month.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 months ago
#12
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.
0
reply
Joleee
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
#13
Report 8 months ago
#13
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.
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 months ago
#14
(Original post by Joleee)
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.
Then why didn't he say anything about non-custodial sentences for all (so men as well) if they commit non-violent crimes?
1
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 months ago
#15
Why doesn't anyone say 'gaol' anymore?
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 months ago
#16
(Original post by Axiomasher)
Why doesn't anyone say 'gaol' anymore?
Cos it's spelt wrong.
0
reply
Joleee
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
#17
Report 8 months ago
#17
(Original post by ThomH97)
Then why didn't he say anything about non-custodial sentences for all (so men as well) if they commit non-violent crimes?
i guess because it's a more serious issue. when mom goes to jail, only 9% of the time do kids stay with their fathers. where do the other 91% end up?

women also make up only 5% of the prison population, so maybe it's an easier issue to tackle.

i would have to do more research on the topic or you could do it yourself. i also suspect it has something to do with when men are criminal offenders, even for non-violent crimes, they probably don't take care of their kids on a regular basis, if at all.
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 8 months ago
#18
(Original post by ThomH97)
Then why didn't he say anything about non-custodial sentences for all (so men as well) if they commit non-violent crimes?
Because he is just another prat who thinks saying such things will make him look good, the Tories urgently need to establish a link with the people on the ground to stop making themselves look so sad. Some women must have convinced him it was his duty or something.
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 8 months ago
#19
(Original post by ThomH97)
Cos it's spelt wrong.
[sigh]
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 months ago
#20
(Original post by Joleee)
i guess because it's a more serious issue. when mom goes to jail, only 9% of the time do kids stay with their fathers. where do the other 91% end up?

women also make up only 5% of the prison population, so maybe it's an easier issue to tackle.

i would have to do more research on the topic or you could do it yourself. i also suspect it has something to do with when men are criminal offenders, even for non-violent crimes, they probably don't take care of their kids on a regular basis, if at all.
He does mention losing custody of kids among several other things, but if that were the main reason why is it not "Fewer custodial sentences for parents" or even "Fewer custodial sentences for primary carers"?

I get that there is prison overcrowding, and I think this is his reasoning for dumping more on local councils.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Do you give blood?

Yes (35)
11.15%
I used to but I don't now (11)
3.5%
No, but I want to start (113)
35.99%
No, I am unable to (69)
21.97%
No, I chose not to (86)
27.39%

Watched Threads

View All