Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

[Bash Street 10]

8 minutes ago, Waldo said:

You know, I have a different view on this topic to you Bash Street. I'm totally fine with you (or anyone else) having a difficult view to me. Once upon a time, I'd have totally gotten my knickers in a twist over someone holding an opposing view and not understanding their rational, I think in your case though (based in the first 6 pages of this thread I read though), you're not arriving at your position through a logical rationale, it's more of a gut feel kinda thing?

 

Anyhow....

 

My position (rightly or wrongly) is people are all equal, and should be afforded no special privileges because of body they happen to inhabit. At the same time though, people do have different natures, and I think it makes a lot of sense to account for a person's nature when dealing with them.

 

Having said that, I'm asking myself is there is a conflict between the above two statements...

You're correct Waldo, I think the same or at least very similar. Should women be tret equally (the same) or equitably (fairly). My point is that by treating men the exact same as women whilst sentencing is sexist and disadvantageous to women.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Bash Street

[WiseOwl182 10]

4 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

All will eventually be revealed, but I'd like to do it after contributory factors have been discussed. I've already answered the OP in as much I think that males and females should be tret differently in respect of sentencing.

What we are doing now is discussing why I think that and how I came to that conclusion.

 

So, why do we put people in jail?

Remember what the past tense of the verb "to treat" is. You seem to have forgotten again.

 

Why do we put people in jail? 

1) Punishment - removal of their freedom

2) Deterrent - showing society the consequences of what would happen to them if they committed the crime

3) Public safety - keeping dangerous people away from the general public so they cannot reoffend for the duration of their sentence

4) Rehabilitation - the prisoner should not want to go back to prison once (and if) released and should have learnt a lesson from the experience, and be given the skills and training required.

49 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Stop accusing them of trolling because you disagree - I think theyve put forward far more reasoning then you or cyclone for their views.

 

youve spent pages demanding evidence for the counter argument without putting forward any justification for your own position.

 

 

Really? I've repeated my reasoning several times and being quite straight about it. Here is an example from a couple of pages ago:

 

"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."

4 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

You're correct Waldo, I think the same or at least very similar. Should women be tret equally (the same) or equitably (fairly). My point is that by treating men the exact same as women whilst sentencing is sexist and disadvantageous to women.

So treating men and women the same for committing the same crime is sexist? Wow.

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

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? 

It doesn't alter my opinion, why would it?  Are you arguing that it should?  Or just making random statements about information processing in our brains?

56 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Stop accusing them of trolling because you disagree - I think theyve put forward far more reasoning then you or cyclone for their views.

 

youve spent pages demanding evidence for the counter argument without putting forward any justification for your own position.

 

 

You seem to be missing the point by a country mile.

I have no problem with people disagreeing, look at the idiocy of refusing to explain why or justify the opinion giving.  Constant non sequiturs posted as if they support the opinion, claims that it has been explained, then back tracking on those claims and claiming that it will be explained in the future, but not now.
This is the behaviour of a troll.

 

There is literally no reasoning put forwards for their views, I've no idea what you think you've read.

1 hour ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You've not defeated anyone because you still haven't put forward any reasoning for your position yet (by your own admission it won't come for another 2 or 3 pages). Putting people off by trolling my thread is not "winning" an argument. In any case you're quite entitled to think genders should be treated differently, and vice versa, but you should explain your reasoning when debating on a public forum. If the reason is "I just do" then just admit it.

 

Just to add, Cyclone isn't somehow colluding with me in some kind of "totalitarian" conspiracy against you either. We usually clash on most threads, but at least we give reasoning behind our views and positions.

Absolutely, we often disagree and can spend pages arguing over minutiae.  But we do at least try to justify the positions we take.

[Waldo 96]

2 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

You're correct Waldo, I think the same or at least very similar. Should women be tret equally (the same) or equitably (fairly). My point is that by treating men the exact same as women whilst sentencing is sexist and disadvantageous women.

Don't forget that some male individuals are more feminine in nature than the average female; and likewise, some women are more masculine in nature than the average male.

 

Are you proposing we should treat people more or less favourably on the basis of the existence (or not) of dangly bits between the legs, or on the basis of (masculine or feminine) nature?

 

My feeling is that none of that should be accounted for, with regards to sentencing etc. If a person is sentient and aware they're doing wrong (or at least what the law considers wrong, *pffft*), then the body they inhabit shouldn't afford them special privilege. Perhaps their nature should though, but that's more about their general decency and honesty and likelihood of reform etc.

 

It does raise the question though, is a feminine nature innately more valuable or worthy, than a masculine nature?

[Bash Street 10]

7 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Remember what the past tense of the verb "to treat" is. You seem to have forgotten again.

 

You're going to have to live with that one I'm afraid, it's just part of my dialect.😊

 

9 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Why do we put people in jail? 

1) Punishment - removal of their freedom

2) Deterrent - showing society the consequences of what would happen to them if they committed the crime

3) Public safety - keeping dangerous people away from the general public so they cannot reoffend for the duration of their sentence

4) Rehabilitation - the prisoner should not want to go back to prison once (and if) released and should have learnt a lesson from the experience, and be given the skills and training required.

Ha, deterrent, I missed that one.

 

So making a judgment would the judge weight these reasons whilst coming to an overall sentence?

 

I'd certainly agree I think that the punishment part of it should see equality (I think).

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

Just now, Bash Street said:

You're going to have to live with that one I'm afraid, it's just part of my dialect.😊

 

Ha, deterrent, I missed that one.

 

So making a judgment would the judge weight these reasons whilst coming to an overall sentence?

 

I'd certainly agree I think that the punishment part of it should see equality (I think).

 

I think all 4 reasons listed should be treated equally for either gender, and the sentence arrived at accordingly. Gender is irrelevant. 

[Bash Street 10]

2 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Don't forget that some male individuals are more feminine in nature than the average female; and likewise, some women are more masculine in nature than the average male.

 

Are you proposing we should treat people more or less favourably on the basis of the existence (or not) of dangly bits between the legs, or on the basis of (masculine or feminine) nature?

 

My feeling is that none of that should be accounted for, with regards to sentencing etc. If a person is sentient and aware they're doing wrong (or at least what the law considers wrong, *pffft*), then the body they inhabit shouldn't afford them special privilege. Perhaps their nature should though, but that's more about their general decency and honesty and likelihood of reform etc.

 

It does raise the question though, is a feminine nature innately more valuable or worthy, than a masculine nature?

I speak about what we want, as a society to profit from sending someone to jail.

Wiseowl has ventured 4 criteria to be taken into account for sentencing purposes which are, punishment, deterrent, rehab and protection of society- there may be more, I don't know.

My point is leading to that whilst the punishment part of a sentence could be argued should be equal that the other parts shouldn't be and that applying equality in these parts of the sentence, you are in fact being sexist.

[Bash Street 10]

4 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I think all 4 reasons listed should be treated equally for either gender, and the sentence arrived at accordingly. Gender is irrelevant. 

OK, if the rehabilitation part of the sentence should be equal, why is there a difference between the reoffence rates?

Women are less likely to reoffend than men by 7.3 % if I remember correctly. We have already agreed that and it has been demonstrated through various links that I have provided that women already get lighter sentences and they still reoffend less, why should that be?

[WiseOwl182 10]

4 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

 the other parts shouldn't be and that applying equality in these parts of the sentence, you are in fact being sexist.

1) Why do you think the other parts shouldn't be treated equally?

 

2) How is applying equal treatment to both genders being sexist?

 

Please answer in one post rather than promising to answer after another 2 or 3 pages.

1 minute ago, Bash Street said:

OK, if the rehabilitation part of the sentence should be equal, why is there a difference between the reoffence rates?

Women are less likely to reoffend than men by 7.3 % if I remember correctly. We have already agreed that and it has been demonstrated through various links that I have provided that women already get lighter sentences and they still reoffend less, why should that be?

Statistics may also show black people reoffend more. Does that mean judges should base sentencing on race? 

 

The averaged behaviour of an entire gender (50% of humans) is not relevant to the sentencing of an individual person for a specific crime.

[Bash Street 10]

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

1) Why do you think the other parts shouldn't be treated equally?

 

2) How is applying equal treatment to both genders being sexist?

 

Please answer in one post rather than promising to answer after another 2 or 3 pages.

https://cjinvolvedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Fact-Sheet.pdf

 

The link shows a graph eventually when you scroll down showing the reoffence rate, the 2 lines on the graph shows men and women reoffence rates, they are different and shouldn't be, they should be near enough the same.

There is a case that the disparity in sentencing, (which I think we all accept) isn't actually enough. To get the 2 lines to converge women should be getting lighter sentences or the men heavier.

 

All this is the basis of my opinion of why men and women should be sentenced differently to bring equality.

 

I've actually got there sooner than I wanted.

9 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

1) Why do you think the other parts shouldn't be treated equally?

 

2) How is applying equal treatment to both genders being sexist?

 

Please answer in one post rather than promising to answer after another 2 or 3 pages.

Statistics may also show black people reoffend more. Does that mean judges should base sentencing on race? 

 

The averaged behaviour of an entire gender (50% of humans) is not relevant to the sentencing of an individual person for a specific crime.

What’s the impact on the community?

Women who commit the same crime as men should, in most cases, receive lighter penalties. This should be so for three reasons:

Women re-offend less frequently than men – by a very considerable margin.

The impact of imprisonment on women is generally more damaging than on men. Women who are imprisoned for a long time can have their right to procreate effectively negated. Women also suffer more while they are imprisoned. They are more likely to have mental health issues and be victims of sexual abuse.

Women perform a greater portion of the caretaking roles in society than men. Removing women from society often has a devastating impact on their children, relatives and other dependants. This disruption should be minimised.

 

 

The above is an extract from the link below.

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/opinion-8-of-prisoners-are-women-that-s-about-8-too-many 

[Bash Street 10]

I'm done now lads/ lassies, there you have it. My opinion only.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Bash Street

[Bash Street 10]

22 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Statistics may also show black people reoffend more. Does that mean judges should base sentencing on race? 

 

The averaged behaviour of an entire gender (50% of humans) is not relevant to the sentencing of an individual person for a specific crime.

Sorry, missed this one, stats show that black people receive harsher sentences than white people in the things I've looked at which of course needs addressing.

 

The reoffence rates for a black man v a white man are I think quite different but now we are looking at man v man, a like4like comparison. If you want to address this, which we should be doing then that should be brought about via societal changes.

As a closing statement, Up The Owls, bring on the Canaries.

 

Would you at least agree on that @WiseOwl182