I’d like to see a study that compared sentances of white men and white women. Since black and hispanic males are likely given harsher sentences, due to how prevalent the gangster stereotype is in the American pyche. Since that gets averaged into the male statistic, it would have to be removed to determine whether it is racial bias, gender bias or both that accounts for the stats.
However, traditional gender stereotypes do paint women as less aggressive and less violent, so I have no trouble believing that affects judge’s decisions. The next decision point is whether affirmative action is the way to go, or other options like having a separate judge who sentences based off of the transcript that’s been scrubbed of race and gender.
If affirmative action is the way to go, is giving women longer sentences better than giving men shorter ones?
Are you foolish? Quit threadshitting. The OP didn’t say anything about life being fair, the OP was talking about our legal system being fair. Learn how to read, or leave.
87 percent of police officers are male. two thirds of trial judges are male. If women have an easier time of it at arrest and trial, it’s because men give it to them.
Just to be clear about it, there are some issues in which men are legally discriminated against. Divorce laws and child support payments come to mind. I believe that the government should address these examples of unequal treatment under the law.
Well, if I received, as a man, a heavier sentence than a woman for the identical crime, all other circumstances being equal, then, yes, I’d consider it a problem. YMMV.
You are way out of line. Your response is seriously disproportional to what you perceive to be an offense. Your language is insulting. Your attempt to play junior Moderator, while ineffective, is strongly discouraged in this forum.
Knock it off.
This is just a discussion. If you have a rational response to another post, post that rather than simply venting.
The OP linked study was good, but probably not good enough to prove its thesis.
One factor not mentioned in the study is that women are often easier to catch because children slow down their ability to flee. So, in a criminal conspiracy, the woman might be the one caught even if not the ringleader.
If women who committed exactly the same crime were being given much shorter sentences, I think their recidivism would be higher, because deterrence is less. I’m not saying that long sentences tremendously reduce recidivism, but I wouldn’t expect the effect to go the other way.
Question: In federal sentencing, are rap sheet items which did not result in conviction considered? If so, women are getting shorter sentences because of being less likely to be career criminals.
I recall a thread here about some country’s (Norway’s?) very short max sentence and its potential positive effects on recidivism rates. I don’t know if sentence length alone is that much of a driving factor compared to culture and the legal system in general, but I wouldn’t necessarily count out lower sentences implies lower recidivism out of hand.
After reading this link, one can understand that sentencing is based on more factors than the OP University of Michigan Law School link took into account, and a lot more that what was considered in the British parliamentary debate covered in the other OP link.
The ratio of men to women in US federal prisons is greater than ten to one, as shown in Appendix Table 3 here:
Even if you accept everything in the OP, it still is the case that this disparity is mostly due to women being less prone to criminality than men. My hypothesis is that if a gender is far less likely to be criminal, when people in that gender do commit crimes, they do it, on average, in a less aggravated way, and this is properly considered in sentencing based on the facts of the individual case.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But the evidence for discrimination against men is too weak for the idea suggested in the thread title to be seriously considered.
Interesting. I wonder, if back in the time when women were fighting for the right to vote, would they have gladly backed down and said “Yes yes, you’re right. How silly of us!” if men said what you just did.
I wonder if anyone would say “Yes yes, you’re right. How silly of us?” if you compared abolishing a sexist law to imposing a new sexist law to counteract a statistic you disagree with.
Thanks for the response. I’ve read through this thread (despite previously making a promise to myself not to participate in threads about gender, they never end well) and I’m not sure I understand at least one aspect of the debate.
People seem to be suggesting that because women on average commit less crimes than men that should be reflected in the sentencing received, surely each case should be considered on an individual basis? If a woman, to take the extreme example, commits murder why should the fact that women commit murder much less frequently than men be taking into consideration when pronouncing sentence for that particular individual and particular crime.
Leaving aside whether or not women do or do not get lighter sentences in the justice system surely its not a controversial suggestion to suggest that gender should not be a factor when pronouncing sentence in individual cases?
The suggestion is that even if gender were not a factor in individual cases, women might still end up, on average, with lighter sentences if they tended to commit, on average, less aggravated instances of the same offenses. In other words, if the average simple assault committed by a female defendant is a less severe simple assault than the average simple assault committed by a male defendant, a gender bias would show up in the average sentence even though the defendants’ genders were ignored.