Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In theory you would think so, but in practice they rarely, if ever, are. Just think of all the crimes where both say a man and his wife/gf participate in some horrible act yet all the time in the end you get the man getting sent to life in prison and the woman getting 10 or so years, or a man getting sentenced to 25-50 years and again the woman gets about half that.
Or in the case where a female teacher gets caught having sex with underage students and doesn't get near the sentence a man of the same age does.
Yes. Feminazis preach equality, that means you get the good and the bad.
You're right, and there are groups like the Innocence Project that are working tirelessly to make sure that people who are unjustly convicted get a fair shake.
Some of us are wary that the OP has an axe to grind--if there is bias, it's not women in general who are responsible for it (heck, anyone who faces a judge wants to get off with the lightest punishment possible.) It's not productive to point the finger at women, who are not the parties making these legal decisions. We should be looking at a better way to advocate for justice than just piling up statistics and saying it's not fair.
I agree that the OP likely has an axe to grind. And the dynamics of employment discrimination, for example, are quite different from inequities in sentencing. Generally, women getting lighter sentences doesn't result in men getting heavier sentences, except perhaps if we accept the revenue generating aspect of traffic fines. In that case a few more young women getting tickets might take the pressure off of the quotas, which we're told don't exist. But if there's one job or one promotion you and I are vying for and I get it because I'm male, you suffer areal loss. But if I get 10 years for a crime and you get 10 years, I'm no better off than if you had gotten 2 years. I'm stuck with 10 years either way.
But from a purely principled perspective, there is some common ground. If I'm asked to acknowledge and in some cases renounce my privilege on principle in areas like employment or education, at least in terms of accepting the big picture benefits to society if a woman advances at my apparent expense, shouldn't women do the same regarding sentencing? I agree that I shouldn't have the advantage I often have where I have it, but should women in the courtroom?
I don't see too many men fighting to get rid of their male privilege or ethnic privilege. VERY few people will work against their own best interests - that's a HUMAN trait. People will take any advantage they can get.
And there is a whole movement out there to remove *privilege* from men.
Where is the movement to remove this *privilege* from women?
What if it were reversed? What if men were getting lighter sentences?
Would it be met with a shrug, as eh, it's just the bias of the jury, no big deal, that's how it goes, or with a planned political march on Washington to rectify that wrong and demand equal treatment?
You seem to think that it is OK to strip privilege from men. But not from women. Why is that?
Having men (officers, attorneys, judges, etc.) with the perception that women are week, delicate and in need of protection is not a privilege. If men feel they are being marginalized it is on them to do something about it. Why is it men, especially, feel its up to women to right any bias or infraction against men. Aren't men suppose to be the strong ones, the ones in power?
I agree that it's based on a type of benevolent sexism, but are you renouncing the advantage that comes from that corrupt view?
As far as what men expect, in my case I agree that women are still marginalized. It's often more subtle than in the past, but sometimes not. So I believe that men have advantages and privileges compared to women. I'd agree that for me as someone whose background and privilege and age make it unlikely that I'll end up in a courtroom, civil, family, or criminal, so this abstraction for me isn't a balanced comparison to the more real issues you face. And I don't want women to suffer worse treatment in the legal system. I'd rather that the gross disparity in sentencing be leveled a bit by reducing fines and sentences for non violent offenses that men receive.
Now we're right up against the 20% snark I mentioned earlier, but women often state that they're looking for equality, and not special treatment. If that's how you feel, why not turn down special treatment when it's offered, or at least support men trying to get the same deal?
And then regarding men being in power, sure, most identifiable people in power are men. And the powerful men who abuse their position have no more use for me than they have for you.
Or in the case where a female teacher gets caught having sex with underage students and doesn't get near the sentence a man of the same age does.
I see this all the time. Women get lighter sentences for doing the same thing. But I think women can be just as violent or perverse as men. I get tired of hearing that she's probably just mentally ill.
Now we're right up against the 20% snark I mentioned earlier, but women often state that they're looking for equality, and not special treatment. If that's how you feel, why not turn down special treatment when it's offered, or at least support men trying to get the same deal?
And then regarding men being in power, sure, most identifiable people in power are men. And the powerful men who abuse their position have no more use for me than they have for you.
I'm not likely to ever be in this situation, but if I were standing in front of a judge for sentencing, how would I know if I were getting special treatment vs. a fair sentence? And how would this play out? "Your Honor, statistically men get a harsher sentence than women, so I demand more time/community service/a higher fine"? I don't see that being a realistic, logical solution to the problem.
And you're right that it's the old boys' network and the men with power who are making these kinds of decisions that affect the women and men below then on the ladder. What's frustrating for an internet discussion is that you get these guys who drift over from the mens' rights corners of the web and who toe their party line about how men get harsher sentences, men commit suicide more often, men die in accidents more often, etc. All of this is true, and it's not great, but again, these problems are not at the feet of women. Blaming women for this is not a productive way to advocate for men.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 04-05-2018 at 05:10 PM..
Well, when hiring agencies and corporate board just kind of FEEL that well, a man could do a better job and offers the position to him, what's anyone to do about it?
And what should the man do?
Should he turn the job down?
Same logic. Some human interpretation.
So no one should feel any outrage, male or female, when EITHER sex benefits from how they are perceived in any given circumstance.
No one expects the man to turn down the job or the woman to ask for a heavier sentence! That doesn't mean that the things in place that lead to the inequity should be allowed to stand. It means that the issue goes beyond the two people or the immediate people and the solutions will need to be larger - especially when institutions are involved. You're not a child - you clearly understand that.
Here's something from popular culture that apparently many men (and thus judges) believe:
In the movie, “As good as it gets”, Jack Nicholson, who plays a writer in the movie, is just leaving the publisher. The young female receptionist asks Nicholson a question.
Receptionist:
“How do you write women so well?”
Nicholson:
“I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”
So it's a double-edged sword - it may help women get off easier in terms of crime but it certainly doesn't help them in the workplace or just about any other place!
the researcher mentions that women may be more likely excused than men because of various economic hardships, having children, drug addiction, etc. Of course men certainly have these same hardships - she wonders if rather than women being informally given the benefit of these factors that these factors should instead be formally considered in sentencing so that men would also get the same benefits.
Now I know that doesn't sit well with men lusting for the blood of women to PAY as much as men do...but hey, "equality" (or equivalence) can be achieved either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
And there is a whole movement out there to remove *privilege* from men.
Where is the movement to remove this *privilege* from women?
What if it were reversed? What if men were getting lighter sentences?
Would it be met with a shrug, as eh, it's just the bias of the jury, no big deal, that's how it goes, or with a planned political march on Washington to rectify that wrong and demand equal treatment?
You seem to think that it is OK to strip privilege from men. But not from women. Why is that?
How do you define "stripping" privilege? Is it also stripping privilege from men by giving the same privilege to women? Or only if you deprive EVERYONE of the privilege? What is the best way to equalize? I'd say everyone should have the same privilege - don't you? But I have the feeling YOU'D feel stripped then - not special - as would a large subset of men.
Let's see - once again I'll refer you to the post I made earlier - from YOUR source the author talks about giving men the same benefit women seem to have in terms of sentences taking into their backgrounds more than men's. Do you even read?
Well, when hiring agencies and corporate board just kind of FEEL that well, a man could do a better job and offers the position to him, what's anyone to do about it?
And what should the man do?
Should he turn the job down?
Same logic. Some human interpretation.
So no one should feel any outrage, male or female, when EITHER sex benefits from how they are perceived in any given circumstance.
We aren't talking about fair hiring practices. As I said earlier laws were passed to prohibit discrimination but it still goes on just as it does in the court system.
Why cant you answer the question? What do you think needs to be done about bias in the courtroom?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
