Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

[Guest makapaka]

45 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

Absolutely. Making the kids victims is fair because?

I would say your arguably making it worse for the kids by being more lenient.

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

11 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I think replace "women" with "person" and you're onto something.

Circumstances DO matter.  Gender and sex don't.

Hear, hear.

[Voice of reason 0]

9 hours ago, makapaka said:

I would say your arguably making it worse for the kids by being more lenient.

 

Do you mean the kids having a criminal mother at home is worse than them going into care?

[GivenToFly 0]

On ‎21‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 08:12, ez8004 said:

Absolutely. Making the kids victims is fair because?

Can't you see that by being especially lenient towards mothers of young children will make them come under pressure to do criminal favours for the underworld?

[Cyclone 10]

We were arguing that circumstances, not motherhood, should be taken into account.

[Voice of reason 0]

16 hours ago, GivenToFly said:

Can't you see that by being especially lenient towards mothers of young children will make them come under pressure to do criminal favours for the underworld?

That is a point to consider, I'd agree. 

[Guest makapaka]

 

On 21/06/2019 at 18:41, Voice of reason said:

Do you mean the kids having a criminal mother at home is worse than them going into care?

Arguably overall and  certainly for some crimes which are exposing them to danger. 

 

Lets say you have someone out there working in the sex and drug trade operating out of the house their young kids live in.

 

They are convicted but the judge doesn’t jail them because they don’t want the kids affected? Doesn’t seem right to me.

[Voice of reason 0]

1 minute ago, makapaka said:

 

Arguably overall and  certainly for some crimes which are exposing them to danger. 

 

Lets say you have someone out there working in the sex and drug trade operating out of the house their young kids live in.

 

They are convicted but the judge doesn’t jail them because they don’t want the kids affected? Doesn’t seem right to me.

Sure, in that example, I'd agree. That would probably be the case regardless of a criminal conviction or not. A sex worker working out of a house where her kids were staying would no doubt have a strong possibility of them being taken into care regardless.

In other cases where the crime didn't necessarily affect the kids, the circumstances would have to be taken into account. That would be the case for either a single mum or a single dad. As the other poster mentioned though, it shouldn't be able to be used as an indefinite get-out-of jail Free card.

[Cyclone 10]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

 

Arguably overall and  certainly for some crimes which are exposing them to danger. 

 

Lets say you have someone out there working in the sex and drug trade operating out of the house their young kids live in.

 

They are convicted but the judge doesn’t jail them because they don’t want the kids affected? Doesn’t seem right to me.

Since nobody suggested that that's what should happen I think you can rest easy.

 

Circumstances should be taken into account. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Cyclone

[Cyclone 10]

On 20/06/2019 at 23:18, makapaka said:

 

Yes. I’d argue the woman is the worst of the offenders with the level of responsibility she has and the disregard for it.

 

are you advocating a women with children under 5  committing prison worthy crimes getting reduced sentences because she has kids?

 

Prison worthy could be a lot of things though, many of which wouldn't endanger the kids, and where putting them into care would almost certainly mean a worse outcome for them, right.

 

And the same should apply if it were a single father.

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Prison worthy could be a lot of things though, many of which wouldn't endanger the kids, and where putting them into care would almost certainly mean a worse outcome for them, right.

 

And the same should apply if it were a single father.

I don’t disagree I suppose - the post I was replying to originally didn’t state the crime though so was just demonstrating  a particular scenario.

[Cyclone 10]

12 hours ago, makapaka said:

I don’t disagree I suppose - the post I was replying to originally didn’t state the crime though so was just demonstrating  a particular scenario.

Nor did it say that they shouldn't get custodial sentences, but you got there somehow...

 

Anyway, don't disagree is as good as it gets, so the majority of us think that circumstances should be taken into account.  So far nobody has given any reason why women specifically should be given lesser sentences.