Is gender inequality in sentencing ok?

[WiseOwl182 10]

You keep repeating that you'd favour women over men with sentencing for the same crime, but won't explain why? 

 

Ps. The past tense of the verb "to treat" is "treated".

[Bash Street 10]

3 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You keep repeating that you'd favour women over men with sentencing for the same crime, but won't explain why? 

 

Ps. The past tense of the verb "to treat" is "treated".

Take your point over the verb.

 

If you'd been paying attention you'd be under no illusion why  I favour ladies over men. Just because you didn't like the first answer or answers doesn't mean you are due an alternative.

The facts are like this if you don't understand, in the UK and the US, the judiciary view women as different to men in so much as they administer lighter sentences. And I agree with them.

Please refer to my previous posts and i'm sure your head will light up like a 60 watt bulb at some time, although I wouldn't wager on it.

[Bash Street 10]

4 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You keep repeating that you'd favour women over men with sentencing for the same crime, but won't explain why? 

 

Ps. The past tense of the verb "to treat" is "treated".

Problem with me is that I'm a dyed in the wool Tyke.

 

From Wiktionary,

In the dialects found in Yorkshire and North East England, the past tense and past participle form tret (/tɹɛt/) is sometimes encountered.

 

Tyke? Just in case that confuses you as well. here's the explanation,

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tyke

 

[Guest makapaka]

59 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

Take your point over the verb.

 

If you'd been paying attention you'd be under no illusion why  I favour ladies over men. Just because you didn't like the first answer or answers doesn't mean you are due an alternative.

The facts are like this if you don't understand, in the UK and the US, the judiciary view women as different to men in so much as they administer lighter sentences. And I agree with them.

Please refer to my previous posts and i'm sure your head will light up like a 60 watt bulb at some time, although I wouldn't wager on it.

I think you’re wrong that judicial senses should be dictated by a persons sex.

 

I agree that people treat each other differently based on their sex and if this isn’t oppressive or prejudicial there isn’t really an issue.

 

[Bash Street 10]

15 minutes ago, makapaka said:

I think you’re wrong that judicial senses should be dictated by a persons sex.

 

I agree that people treat each other differently based on their sex and if this isn’t oppressive or prejudicial there isn’t really an issue.

 

I only speak as an individual and how i've conducted myself throughout my life.

I'm male and I've fought with other males at times (not clever I know) but I have never and could never strike a female. These are standards I've lived my life by, I've always tret women differently and I don't apologise for it, it's natural.

 

What I do have trouble understanding is the fact that some people on here think you a troll because you have a differing opinion from the one they hold, what's that all about.

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Bash Street

[Cyclone 10]

23 hours ago, makapaka said:

It shouldn't that's clear.

 

I don't see why people are pretending we don't treat each other slightly differently due to sex though - its clear we do that.

 

It doesn't mean people have to be treated any less fairly.

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

18 hours ago, Bash Street said:

 

@Cyclone Try and stop stamping your feet up and down, settle down will you. You may wish to correct what I'm about to say but hey ho.

My argument was that traditionally we cut women more slack than men hence the links to the Old Bailey website. Now I don't know whether you read it or not but historically women are viewed differently to men, in fact, at one time if a Husband and Wife committed a crime together the law would be sympathetic to the Wife as they viewed it as taking instruction from her Husband, this is how it's been for many years and appears still to be the case. Certainly the link to the USA still shows women are treat differently to men in as much they get lighter sentences.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I have seen many occasions where a gang of 4/5 people with one woman in the gang finishes up with the woman coming away with a lighter sentence.

So, if this is the case, and you accept this, then you'd like to know why I suppose, well I can't answer that in respect of why it is, but your next question will be why do I think it should be, or isn't it?

@makapaka I think you are correct, and women are treat differently to men, here's a bit of interesting reading,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

 

It mentions a state of affairs again in the US, where health benefits were bestowed on the wives of US service men but wasn't allowed the other way round but I think I may be drifting a little off topic.

 

I can't agree that everyone should be treat the same all the time in the eyes of the law, I think that the judge needs to determine that, and when he favours a women over a man, then in most cases I'd probably agree with the Judge (obviously dependant on individual scenarios).

You keep referring to how things are, but that's not in dispute.

The topic is whether it SHOULD BE, not IS.

 

You've said that yes, it SHOULD BE as it is, but so far have failed to give any reason for why.

12 hours ago, Bash Street said:

Take your point over the verb.

 

If you'd been paying attention you'd be under no illusion why  I favour ladies over men. Just because you didn't like the first answer or answers doesn't mean you are due an alternative.

The facts are like this if you don't understand, in the UK and the US, the judiciary view women as different to men in so much as they administer lighter sentences. And I agree with them.

Please refer to my previous posts and i'm sure your head will light up like a 60 watt bulb at some time, although I wouldn't wager on it.

See, what you've done here is claim to be answering the question why, but then actually not answer it.

[Bash Street 10]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

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

You keep referring to how things are, but that's not in dispute.

The topic is whether it SHOULD BE, not IS.

 

You've said that yes, it SHOULD BE as it is, but so far have failed to give any reason for why.

What you mean is I haven't satisfied your closed views on the topic, I've given my reasons, you either haven't been paying attention or you just don't accept my argument.

The female is far less capable of criminality than a male, they just aren't as bad as males are, it is in their make up, if you can't accept that then that's a problem you have to deal with.

[Cyclone 10]

11 hours ago, Bash Street said:

I only speak as an individual and how i've conducted myself throughout my life.

I'm male and I've fought with other males at times (not clever I know) but I have never and could never strike a female. These are standards I've lived my life by, I've always tret women differently and I don't apologise for it, it's natural.

 

What I do have trouble understanding is the fact that some people on here think you a troll because you have a differing opinion from the one they hold, what's that all about.

 

It isn't natural, it's social conditioning.

2 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

What you mean is I haven't satisfied your closed views on the topic, I've given my reasons, you either haven't been paying attention or you just don't accept my argument.

The female is far less capable of criminality than a male, they just aren't as bad as males are, it is in their make up, if you can't accept that then that's a problem you have to deal with.

You haven't given any reason to justify your opinion.  It's an entirely circular argument.  You've just said "that's how it is now and I agree with it".  'How it is now' does not explain why that is right.

 

Ironically you accuse me of having a closed view, when it's you that can't actually explain any justification for your opinion.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Cyclone

[Bash Street 10]

33 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

It isn't natural, it's social conditioning.

You haven't given any reason to justify your opinion.  It's an entirely circular argument.  You've just said "that's how it is now and I agree with it".  'How it is now' does not explain why that is right.

You'll have to read the whole topic again, they are the fairer sex and need  to be cut more slack than a male in a similar way an elderly person or a child would receive more understanding.

You can't have a regimented system where all people are tret the same as it is clear they are not.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Bash Street

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

It isn't natural, it's social conditioning.

 

Can you evidence that? To what extent our treatment of opposite sexes is nature or nurture?

 

Also when does this change in behaviour need to start. If you are right and we have all been socially conditioned - what will happen to our existing relationships if we all suddenly change our approach to each other.

 

I agree with you in the main, if a man or woman commit the same crime they should be punished equally, I don't agree that it's right to have a dig at someone for saying they treat sexes differently.

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, Bash Street said:

You'll have to read the whole topic again, they are the fairer sex and need  to be cut more slack than a male in a similar way an elderly person or a child would receive more understanding.

You can't have a regimented system where all people are tret the same as it is clear they are not.

This is just nonsense.

For that matter, with the exception of children, age shouldn't affect sentencing either.

Perhaps if you can explain why being "fairer" should qualify for you a lighter punishment then you might be onto an explanation, but at the moment you're saying absolutely nothing.

 

Children are the exception because there are quite clear biological difference in how they process information and their understanding of consequence.  Hopefully you're not claiming that women can't perceive consequences in the same way as men (the biological evidence would actually be the opposite, they are capable at an earlier age of accurately assessing risk and consequence than men are).

51 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Can you evidence that? To what extent our treatment of opposite sexes is nature or nurture?

 

Also when does this change in behaviour need to start. If you are right and we have all been socially conditioned - what will happen to our existing relationships if we all suddenly change our approach to each other.

 

I agree with you in the main, if a man or woman commit the same crime they should be punished equally, I don't agree that it's right to have a dig at someone for saying they treat sexes differently.

 

 

It's not my assertion is it, so the onus would be on Bash Street to evidence his assertion that it's "natural".  I won't hold my breath though.

 

Nobody is talking about suddenly changing our approach to each other, we're simply talking about equal sentencing for crimes, something which ought to already exist.  There is no legal basis for lesser sentences for women, it's a bias coming from the largely elderly, white, judiciary.

[Bash Street 10]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Children are the exception because there are quite clear biological difference in how they process information and their understanding of consequence.

Yep, same with women.