Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

[Guest makapaka]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

No, simply not true.

No you haven't.  You've continually referenced the fact that they ARE treat differently and then said you agree with it.

You've made reference to the "fairer" sex, but not explained how this should have any impact on sentencing.

It seems quite clear that you can't actually explain your opinion.

This was your last link and it sets out why individuals should all be equal before the law.

We've established though that they aren't and you (without being able to explain why) think that they shouldn't be equal.

It is true that men and women process information differently so it's wrong to say its "simply not true".

 

 

[Bash Street]

On 17/04/2019 at 11:24, Cyclone said:

The legal system however shouldn't.  There is no justifiable reason to punish anyone differently depending on gender or sex.

Interesting to see you using the word "punishment". Where does rehabilitation  fit in? I think fining someone can be seen as punishment and my view would be that this went along the lines of that persons circumstances and their ability to pay.

In respect of rehabilitation then custodial sentences gives society the chance at least to go someway towards rehabilitating the offender.

That being said, I know there are instances where voluntary rehabilitation courses are used to say reduce a fine or sentence which is outside custodial sentences.

So, as far as fines go then it could and should be that a rich woman be fined more than a poor man but this wouldn't be because of their gender it would be based on their ability to pay the fine.

As far as custodial sentences go, there is no way locking a woman up is of any benefit to her or society as a whole.

There is also another criteria to be taken into account when sentencing which would be the protection of the public as well.

So, if we consider, punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society, I could perceive that the punishment could be neutral with a fine or a part of the custodial sentence being attributed to punishment. But rehabilitation and protection of society are not served by parity, a male should face longer terms for this.  

Edited April 18, 2019 by Bash Street

[Cyclone]

3 hours ago, Bash Street said:

Don't think I said that although I can understand you think that.

Yes, you've repeatedly said that they aren't equally sentenced and that you agree with this.

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

It is true that men and women process information differently so it's wrong to say its "simply not true".

 

 

No, it isn't true, and yes it's correct to say that it's simply not true.  Beyond physical maturity of the brain there is nothing to distinguish between how men and women assess risk and consequence.  Prior to that women's brains develop a little faster in that area, so they develop that ability slightly faster than men do (on average of course).

13 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

Interesting to see you using the word "punishment". Where does rehabilitation  fit in? I think fining someone can be seen as punishment and my view would be that this went along the lines of that persons circumstances and their ability to pay.

In respect of rehabilitation then custodial sentences gives society the chance at least to go someway towards rehabilitating the offender.

That being said, I know there are instances where voluntary rehabilitation courses are used to say reduce a fine or sentence which is outside custodial sentences.

So, as far as fines go then it could and should be that a rich woman be fined more than a poor man but this wouldn't be because of their gender it would be based on their ability to pay the fine.

As far as custodial sentences go, there is no way locking a woman up is of any benefit to her or society as a whole.

There is also another criteria to be taken into account when sentencing which would be the protection of the public as well.

So, if we consider, punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society, I could perceive that the punishment could be neutral with a fine or a part of the custodial sentence being attributed to punishment. But rehabilitation and protection of society are not served by parity, a male should face longer terms for this.  

Incarceration specifically serves 3 purposes, punishment, rehabilitation and protection of the public.  But in layman's terms a sentence is a punishment.

Despite your attempts at pedantry we all know that we are talking about equality in sentencing and that you can't justify why sentences for women should be lighter than for men.

You've made a clear statement about men there, so why, justify it.  What is it about men that means that they need longer jail terms to serve either or both of the purposes you've mentioned?

Edited April 18, 2019 by Cyclone

[Bash Street]

4 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Yes, you've repeatedly said that they aren't equally sentenced and that you agree with this.

No, it isn't true, and yes it's correct to say that it's simply not true.  Beyond physical maturity of the brain there is nothing to distinguish between how men and women assess risk and consequence.  Prior to that women's brains develop a little faster in that area, so they develop that ability slightly faster than men do (on average of course).

No, I just wanted to make clear that my views are about sentencing and nothing to do with being found guilty or not.

[Branyy]

24 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

As far as custodial sentences go, there is no way locking a woman up is of any benefit to her or society as a whole.

Why not?

[Cyclone]

Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

On 13/04/2019 at 13:32, Bash Street said:

Yes, of course it is.

This looks like a pretty clear answer that you think gender inequality in sentencing is okay.  The OPs link makes it clear that we're talking about for those convicted of the same crime, should gender affect the sentence and you've said that it should.  You've gone on for pages quasi defending this position whilst refusing to ever explain why.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

15 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Yes, you've repeatedly said that they aren't equally sentenced and that you agree with this.

No, it isn't true, and yes it's correct to say that it's simply not true.  Beyond physical maturity of the brain there is nothing to distinguish between how men and women assess risk and consequence.  Prior to that women's brains develop a little faster in that area, so they develop that ability slightly faster than men do (on average of course).

 

It is true - you are the one limiting it to risk and consequence alone. I didn't.

[Bash Street]

7 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

This looks like a pretty clear answer that you think gender inequality in sentencing is okay.  The OPs link makes it clear that we're talking about for those convicted of the same crime, should gender affect the sentence and you've said that it should.  You've gone on for pages quasi defending this position whilst refusing to ever explain why.

I think it's fair to say that men and women are physiologically different.

 

As for the OP, I maybe misunderstood. I thought we were discussing sentencing in general, not specifically to this case. Are you saying the judge in this case got the sentence wrong? I must admit to having only a cursory look at the case so wouldn't have a view.

 

17 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Why not?

Because we are made up differently, that is beyond reproach.

[Bash Street]

37 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

No, it isn't true, and yes it's correct to say that it's simply not true.  Beyond physical maturity of the brain there is nothing to distinguish between how men and women assess risk and consequence.  Prior to that women's brains develop a little faster in that area, so they develop that ability slightly faster than men do (on average of course).

Don't get confused with these two as many do, consequence is an integral part of risk so there is no need to mention them together, a small equation to demonstrate this would be as follows,

Risk = Probability x Consequence.

[Cyclone]

Continuing your pedantry to try to avoid the fact that you can't explain the basis for your opinion.

34 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

I think it's fair to say that men and women are physiologically different.

 

As for the OP, I maybe misunderstood. I thought we were discussing sentencing in general, not specifically to this case. Are you saying the judge in this case got the sentence wrong? I must admit to having only a cursory look at the case so wouldn't have a view.

 

Because we are made up differently, that is beyond reproach.

The case in the OP is an example/

 

How do minor differences in physiology justify a difference in sentencing?  You keep making non sequiturs.  A true statement, men and women are difference physically, as if that somehow explains your opinion that the justice system should sentence them differently.

51 minutes ago, makapaka said:

It is true - you are the one limiting it to risk and consequence alone. I didn't.

Try again, this entire line of conversation start with post #59 where I specifically mention the understanding of consequence, and #60 where Bash makes an incorrect statement in reply.  That incorrect statement is what I quoted when I said "No, it isn't true".