Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

[Branyy 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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".

[Bash Street 10]

17 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

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

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.

What makes you think I can't explain my opinion?

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/british-population/demographics/male-and-female-populations/latest

The link shows the make up of the British population, which demonstrates that to all intents and purposes that the population is fairly even in respect of males and females although some ethnic minorities do appear to be offset a little more, but not that much.

Men are 22 times more likely than a woman to be jailed which demonstrates that your point about minor differences to be wrong, there are considerable differences between male and females, both  physiological and psychological. 

 

Why would you think that there's 22 more times men in prison than women, and you can't put it all down to inadequate sentencing.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Bash Street

[Bash Street 10]

@Cyclone

The reoffending rate for males was higher than for females, however, females had the highest number of reoffences per reoffender.

Despite the lower reoffending rate (23.4% compared to 30.7% for males), female reoffenders had the highest average number of reoffences per reoffender, 4.32 compared to 4.02 for males.

 

The above was taken from the link below,

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759770/women-criminal-justice-system-2017..pdf

 

The reoffending rate being 7.3% lower for females than it is for males which begs the question why should that be? 

The difference in the reoffending per reoffender rate is of no statistical importance due to the amount being insignificant.

Why is the rate different?

 

There is also some good data in the link as well.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Bash Street

[WiseOwl182 10]

18 hours ago, Bash Street said:

You need to keep up, read all the links I've so graciously supplied to you, especially the last one, and then if you don't understand I fear you never will.

No, you need to explain why you think different genders should be sentenced differently for the same crime. You still haven't and your links don't either.

 

3 hours ago, Bash Street said:

 

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.

 

 

So you didn't even bother to actually read the example case that triggered this debate that I so "graciously supplied you" with?

 

It was just an example but you should read it for the context.

 

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

The thrust of the debate is: in the context of a society where gender discrimination is illegal and all persons are equal in the eyes of the law, how can a judge reportedly say that if the defendant were a man, she'd be going to prison?

[Bash Street 10]

8 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No, you need to explain why you think different genders should be sentenced differently for the same crime. You still haven't and your links don't either.

 

We haven't got to the debates conclusion yet, youth runs, wisdom walks. If for instance I had thrown all the cards on the table at once, then where is the pleasure of debate there? 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Bash Street

[WiseOwl182 10]

2 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

We haven't got to the debates conclusion yet, youth runs, wisdom walks. If for instance I had thrown all the cards on the table at once, then where is the pleasure of debate there? 

We're 8 pages in so the foreplay can end and come to a pleasurable conclusion of you revealing your reasoning.

 

The thrust of the debate is: in the context of a society where gender discrimination is illegal and all persons are equal in the eyes of the law, how can a judge reportedly say that if the defendant were a man, she'd be going to prison?