Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

[Bash Street 10]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I'm speaking generally too. The specific case was a trigger to asking the question, but the question is a general one.

 

In a society where gender discrimination is illegal and where everyone is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, is it ok for women to get lighter sentencing for committing the same crime?

 

Your answer is "yes", but what isn't "crystal clear" is why. Why do you think that?

 

My answer is "no" and my reasoning is because the outcome of the same crime is the same, and therefore the sentencing should be the same too, regardless of gender. That's in addition to the contextual background of a society where gender discrimination is illegal and where everyone is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

 

You are entitled to disagree and have your own opinion but what is frustrating is that you won't explain your reasoning beyond meaningless one liners and cryptic responses.

Grubs up, i'll be back.😊

[WiseOwl182 10]

5 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

Grubs up, i'll be back.😊

...beyond meaningless one liners and cryptic responses.

 

No wonder some posters accused you of trolling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I'm beginning to wonder.

[Bash Street 10]

15 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I'm speaking generally too. The specific case was a trigger to asking the question, but the question is a general one.

Good, pleased to hear that.

 

16 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

In a society where gender discrimination is illegal and where everyone is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, is it ok for women to get lighter sentencing for committing the same crime?

As we are seeing (as far as I'm concerned) it is a question which has complex answers.

 

18 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Your answer is "yes", but what isn't "crystal clear" is why. Why do you think that?

 

The discussion just has to take it's course as I'd like to influence the way you are looking at it. I may not succeed, but I'd like to try.

 

19 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

My answer is "no" and my reasoning is because the outcome of the same crime is the same, and therefore the sentencing should be the same too, regardless of gender. That's in addition to the contextual background of a society where gender discrimination is illegal and where everyone is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

You've changed you tune, in your OP you said you wasn't sure, what made your mind up?

13 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

...beyond meaningless one liners and cryptic responses.

 

No wonder some posters accused you of trolling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I'm beginning to wonder.

I'm not trolling, if you think that then I'll withdraw from the discussion if you'd prefer.

There's important points to make but if you think I'm coming the old soldier I'll leave.

16 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

...beyond meaningless one liners and cryptic responses.

 

No wonder some posters accused you of trolling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I'm beginning to wonder.

When my missus puts the food on the table she tells me to eat it immediately and she won't take no for an answer.😀

[WiseOwl182 10]

6 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

Good, pleased to hear that.

 

As we are seeing (as far as I'm concerned) it is a question which has complex answers.

 

The discussion just has to take it's course as I'd like to influence the way you are looking at it. I may not succeed, but I'd like to try.

 

You've changed you tune, in your OP you said you wasn't sure, what made your mind up?

I'm not trolling, if you think that then I'll withdraw from the discussion if you'd prefer.

There's important points to make but if you think I'm coming the old soldier I'll leave.

When my missus puts the food on the table she tells me to eat it immediately and she won't take no for an answer.😀

I've been clear with my opinion on the subject since my OP. Read it again if you think otherwise.

 

If you're not going to give me a straight answer then I'm done. You're not going to "influence" me or make "important" points by dragging out a thread pointlessly.

[Bash Street 10]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I've been clear with my opinion on the subject since my OP. Read it again if you think otherwise.

 

If you're not going to give me a straight answer then I'm done. You're not going to "influence" me or make "important" points by dragging out a thread pointlessly.

OK

[Cyclone 10]

15 hours ago, Bash Street said:

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

 

It was the 8 pages of us asking for an explanation and you refusing or being unable to give one.  You remember?

15 hours ago, Bash Street said:

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.

You provided links earlier that showed a clear and systemic difference in sentencing for equal crimes between men and women.  Now you're trying to argue the exact opposite.

Are you sure you even understand what's going on here?

14 hours ago, Bash Street said:

@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.

This is golden.

The reoffending rate is 23% lower.  The number of offences rate is 7.5% higher.  But you've just decided that 7.5% is insignificant...  And you've failed to make any link in this or the proceeding post to your opinion.

Non sequiturs again.  You post some random facts, fail to make any logical link to your opinion and claim to have "explained".

[Cyclone 10]

12 hours 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? 

You've spent 8 pages unable to explain your opinion and I don't envisage it happening any time soon.

 

The fact is that you don't have a justification, you know that all the "fairer sex" nonsense is outdated nonsense, and so you're giving us the run-around in the hope that we forget or give up on the question.

12 hours ago, Bash Street said:

Debate is to influence and change opinions, what it isn't is a quick exchange of views.

Did that slip your mind with your first post on this topic then?

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

Yes, of course it is.

Not just a quick exchange of views...

11 hours ago, Bash Street said:

There wasn't a question in the OP, it was an invitation to discuss, which I am trying to do. 

No you aren't.  In post #3 you gave a very clear opinion.  Since then you have done your best to avoid explaining why you hold that opinion (successfully).

11 hours ago, Bash Street said:

Well, to be fair, you'd have to ask the judge that. I'm speaking and debating generally and I think I've made my opinion crystal clear, 

Yes, your opinion is very clear.  What you've entirely failed to do is explain the justification for it.

10 hours ago, Bash Street said:

That wasn't in the OP, I am discussing the OP not this other question which has suddenly arisen, maybe you should start a new thread if you want that answering, I don't really want to comment on the individual case.

Pretending that you've forgotten the entire topic of the thread and the title now?  Despite not having read the original case until we were onto page 9.  Disingenous and transparent.

"Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?"

 

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

Yes, of course it is.

You seemed quite clear on what the topic was here, and it wasn't the case that is the example as you hadn't read it.

[Cyclone 10]

Quite clearly trolling, that's obvious.
But I find it funny to keep trolls twisting, they desperately turn more and more convoluted corners in order to avoid being pinned down. 

 

What reason will you give now to avoid answering the simple ongoing question of why you think women deserve lighter sentences than men?

Will you just post some random facts about the prison service, will you claim to have already answered it, or some new tactic.

[Guest makapaka]

18 hours 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.

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".

Ok so do you accept that it’s true that  other than understanding consequence - men, women and children brains process things differently?

 

how does that sit with your point about why children should be dealt with differently but no one else should? 

Edited April 19, 2019 by makapaka

[Bash Street 10]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Quite clearly trolling, that's obvious.
But I find it funny to keep trolls twisting, they desperately turn more and more convoluted corners in order to avoid being pinned down. 

 

What reason will you give now to avoid answering the simple ongoing question of why you think women deserve lighter sentences than men?

Will you just post some random facts about the prison service, will you claim to have already answered it, or some new tactic.

You and a few others posted in this topic with a preconceived notion the it was a simple question with a simple answer and that you all would jump all over anyone who had a different view to your own. The OP was raised to "discuss" which I have been trying to do (in the face of accusations of trolling) ever since in full view of you and your mates attempt to bully and ridicule.

In order to answer the question you allegedly put I want to understand how you and your mates feel about certain sub topics which eventually lead to our understanding and our conclusions using our own intelligence.

You, and your mates see it as a simple question which needs a simple answer but it's is way more complex than what you think it is.

[Bash Street 10]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

The fact is that you don't have a justification, you know that all the "fairer sex" nonsense is outdated nonsense, and so you're giving us the run-around in the hope that we forget or give up on the question.

I do have a justification which will become clear, I need probably 2/3 more pages of comments and responses to determine how posters on here view certain sub topics in the main discussion. At the end I will post a comprehensive answer on how I've come to my conclusion but all you want to do is get any one who disagrees with your agenda into a position where you can ridicule and bully.  As previously stated I am not trolling.

If you would like me to withdraw from the discussion then I will do.

[Bash Street 10]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

It was the 8 pages of us asking for an explanation and you refusing or being unable to give one.  You remember?

You provided links earlier that showed a clear and systemic difference in sentencing for equal crimes between men and women.  Now you're trying to argue the exact opposite.

Are you sure you even understand what's going on here?

This is golden.

The reoffending rate is 23% lower.  The number of offences rate is 7.5% higher.  But you've just decided that 7.5% is insignificant...  And you've failed to make any link in this or the proceeding post to your opinion.

Non sequiturs again.  You post some random facts, fail to make any logical link to your opinion and claim to have "explained".

Read it again, the reoffence rate was 7.3 different with the re reoffence being insignificant at 0.4.

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

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.

 

Read it again-here it is.

 

I'm not talking about the actual rates I am talking about the difference between the  males and female rate.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Bash Street