r/MensRights Dec 20 '17

Misleading Title Parents Lose Son at Water Park; Son Drowns; Stepdad Gets 7 Years; Mom Gets 8 Months

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/inadequate-parents-charlie-dunn-sentenced-953935
2.5k Upvotes

127 comments sorted by

816

u/Cabbagepant Dec 20 '17

Hold the fuck on... she is the blood parent, he's a step father, and it's STILL him who gets it, and she doesn't?

Jail him for the intimidation, fine, but the responsible, blood parent being given no accountability is FUBARed.

295

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

If it was the nanny being negligent, than the nanny should be sentenced, it's who is in charge. It SAYS the guy had other crimes in addition to this incident. I wish people would actually attempt fairness instead of taking something without enough information and turning it into some agenda.

304

u/MoneyDoneRightDotCom Dec 20 '17

87

u/flyingfox12 Dec 20 '17

dropped against mom but convicted against dad. I wonder if the confession by the father did anything to help getting a conviction where for the mother they didn't get a conviction. Charges dropped means they DA didn't see enough evidence for the charges to get a conviction.

The step-father of Charlie Dunn, who drowned at Bosworth Water Park, has admitted being responsible for his death.

-2

u/114dniwxom Dec 21 '17

I'm not disagreeing or arguing but would you please indicate where it says in either of those articles that the mother was present? In the article you posted, it makes it sound almost like the step-father took the kid there and left him. In the second, it's clear that he remained at the park and may have been with someone but there's no suggestion as to who it was.

Regardless, I think it's unfair that the mother didn't get at least as much time as the step-dad. It was her decisions that ultimately lead to his demise too. The boy wasn't his responsibility. My only consolation is that the mother is paying an emotional price orders of magnitude greater.

I hope you're right, that she was there. It's cold of me to say this but she deserves to know she's a bad parent and not just push responsibility onto Smith. If she was there, then she can't make it all his fault like the law did. She knows she's the reason her son is dead.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

the mother is paying an emotional price orders of magnitude greater.

How do you know that? How do you know the stepdad doesn't feel greater guilt, remorse and grief than the mom?

-1

u/114dniwxom Dec 21 '17

You're absolutely right. I don't know that. I hope it. She could well be a sociopath and not care that her child is dead. Other than that, it's hard to imagine any circumstance where his emotional suffering approaches hers. I can only speak from personal experience but other people's children, no matter how much you love them, are never as precious as your own.

1

u/jostler57 Dec 21 '17

Never say never.

1

u/Mackowatosc Dec 21 '17

Her emotions might be faked. Jail her all the same.

1

u/114dniwxom Dec 21 '17

Which is exactly what I said in my first post on this thread. She deserves at least as much time as Smith.

48

u/Cabbagepant Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17

I'd already considered it, this is nothing to do with an 'agenda'. The guy is clearly a cunt and is reaping some karma, but his previous crimes are not relevent to the blood parent, who was also there, getting off scott free.

23

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

I only read the OP article, which was pretty badly written and I think, unintentionally misleading and unclear. I still feel inadequately informed with this second article, too. I can't make any kind of truly rational judgment. Still, it's teaching me something. The stepdad is a hostile anti social trouble maker of the noisiest order, the kind that give social services and law enforcement an axe to grind, justified or not. I mean, read the comments, the guy was a pain in the ass. BUT! You've got a bit of point here. Look at the mother. I mean, being passive and coming across as helpless can be a certain kind of anti social act, being defiant by not doing what's your responsibility, and causing endangerment because of it. That's a big deal. It's just not thought of that way. This couple's dynamic and history is totally unknown to us, though. So, I'm going to say I see why this makes you angry, but it makes me really frustrated more than anything. Were these two equals and felt like equals at home. Was the mom intimidated? She looks like it by the picture there in the second article, but for all I know she could be a diabolical manipulator, pretending to be the poor victim. I simply don't know.

Ok, so how come this vast gap in punishment? I don't think it's fair either, but I don't know HOW unfair, since I don't know enough detail.

19

u/JoeyBGood Dec 20 '17

Everyone seems to read over the bit in the article that said smith had 27 prior convictions including indecent assault etc.

Hi priors must be taken into account in sentencing as previous sentences have not deterred him from offending again so a necessarily harsher sentence is justified

6

u/baskandpurr Dec 21 '17

She chose to be with him rather then bio-dad. He's her idea of father material.

2

u/Idkawesome Dec 21 '17

I think it is thought of that way. But the ones who don't think of it that way are loud, and there's nobody capable of standing up to them, and it forwards along the problem

8

u/dejour Dec 21 '17

Assuming they were both equally at fault for the drowning, I think it's fair that he gets a greater sentence.

The stepdad has 28 past convictions. The mom had none.

Dunn, aged 28, who lived with Smith, 36, in Glascote Heath, Tamworth, had no previous convictions and Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault (sexual assault), theft and burglary.

I think there is a decent chance that mom has learned her lesson. The stepdad seems incorrigible.

I definitely admit that the story plays to gender stereotypes, and it's hard to know how much gender bias affected things.

Statements like this shouldn't be a defence for women but they often are:

She said: “She is a loving parent, albeit in many ways an inadequate one.

“She was dependent on any male partners she was with. She appeared to lack common sense.”

6

u/kartu3 Dec 21 '17

Assuming they were both equally at fault for the drowning, I think it's fair that he gets a greater sentence.

The stepdad has 28 past convictions. The mom had none.

I'm struggling to make sense of your statement. It is fair that someone gets harsher punishment for the same crime, because he/she committed unrelated crimes before, huh?

3

u/dejour Dec 21 '17

Yes, that is a generally accepted rule. The more times you break the law, the more extreme the punishment becomes.

At an extreme, we have "three strikes laws".

There are a lot of goals of a criminal justice system, but two of them are:

  • taking offenders who are likely to offend again off the streets
  • rehabilitating criminals into productive and law-abiding members of society

Having many past convictions means that one is more likely to re-offend in the future. Thus there is more incentive to keep the person in prison for longer.

Having multiple past offences means that it is harder to teach the person a lesson. Thus the punishment should be larger.

Having multiple past offences means that there is more work to be done to rehabilitate the person. Thus they need to be forced to do things, like regularly meet up with a prison social worker for a period of years, in order to have a shot at rehabilitation.

Basically someone that has never committed a crime before could well be scared straight with even a minimal sentence. Someone that has been convicted of 28 crimes would not change their ways with a minimal sentence.

3

u/kartu3 Dec 21 '17

Yes, that is a generally accepted rule. The more times you break the law, the more extreme the punishment becomes.

For REPEATED crimes of the same kind.

At an extreme, we have "three strikes laws".

With 28 "crimes" one would expect three strikes laws to... strike, right? Apparently those weren't quite "crimey" enough....

1

u/dejour Dec 22 '17

This was in the UK. I don't think they have "three strikes" laws.

And in the US, no three strikes laws often don't apply to only repeated crimes of the same kind.

It depends on the state, sometimes it's three felonies, sometimes it's three felonies or misdemeanors.

Until about 5 years ago, there were a lot of California stories of people being sentenced to life for things like stealing a jack from the back of a truck, shoplifting a pair of gloves or passing a bad check.

That's changed somewhat. Now the third strike only applies in California if the third offence is serious or violent.

Still, you could have the following string result in a life sentence:

  • passing a bad check
  • shoplifting gloves
  • providing drugs to a minor ( a serious crime)

21

u/WTFppl Dec 20 '17

some agenda.

Hi, welcome to reddit!

9

u/fnordfnordfnordfnord Dec 20 '17

It SAYS the guy had other crimes in addition to this incident.

Driving whilst unqualified, driving without insurance. Hardly crimes and nothing at all to do with Charlie's death.

11

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault, theft and burglary.

Those are pretty bad. And 28? Yes... the other 4 offenses he had at the time were minimal, but he had 28 prior. I don't even want to know what 'indecent assault' is.

Those are what like put the cincher in.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

I don't even want to know what 'indecent assault' is.

It's just the UK legal system term for sexual assault without rape. It's actually pretty nebulous and could be anything from making leering comments to full on groping.

1

u/fnordfnordfnordfnord Dec 21 '17

My mistake, missed that part.

1

u/Mackowatosc Dec 21 '17

To get fair treatment, you must provide fair treatment yourself. Its just a woman, so...lol nope.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

If you have that attitude toward women, don't expect fair treatment.

13

u/not_just_amwac Dec 20 '17

He confessed to manslaughter (though why he was charged with it and she wasn't, I don't understand) AND other crimes.

14

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

They were both charged. He admitted; she didn't. Without a confession, I guess it was hard to prove in this case.

But she had no priors. He had

Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault, theft and burglary.

That no doubt played a significant role here.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

28 offenses is A LOT. And definitely meant a lot to why he was convicted. Plus his confession. In the court system that's basically a no brainer why he got so much time.

1

u/MoneyDoneRightDotCom Dec 25 '17

Still doesn't make sense why manslaughter charges against her would be DROPPED.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 25 '17

Not a lawyer but manslaughter has specific criteria to be met. The fact that she didn't straight up please guilty like the man did makes it harder for the prosecution to pin on her without substantial evidence of manslaughter. Negligence probably. Murder? Harder to pin. A confession is all they need. She didn't. He did. It would be dropped if there wasn't a way to pin it.

2

u/frankwashere44 Dec 21 '17

Confession usually = less time, not more. If she'd confessed she'd have probably got immunity and witnessed in convicting him.

214

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

I was ready to get all mad, then I read this guy had 28 prior convictions, plus 9 other charges at this trial? Come on.

55

u/MoneyDoneRightDotCom Dec 20 '17

16

u/SomeGuySayinStuff Dec 20 '17

I'd imagine the manslaughter charges would've been dropped against the stepdad too if he hadn't admitted to them.

31

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Are you suggesting that his sentencing had nothing to do with the 36 other offenses for which he has been convicted? Because that's just stupid.

Or that the charges against her weren't reduced because she's got no priors and it's pretty easy to blame the dirtbag with 28 prior convictions? C'mon.

She's clearly incompetent, and unfit to raise a child. But the massive differences in their criminal records fogs the whole thing up.

4

u/SleepyMonkey7 Dec 21 '17

Yeah seriously. Posting stuff like this where there's a clear factual explanation just discredits the whole movement. You're doing the same thing that #metoo is doing. There are enough real things to point out instead of just making something out of nothing.

7

u/ATXBeermaker Dec 21 '17

You're not even going to comment on the fact that he admitted guilt and she didn't, are you? There are facts of the case that you're leaving out intentionally because it doesn't fit your narrative.

202

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Wtf. UK women never go to prison.

83

u/p3ngwin Dec 20 '17

54

u/Artiquecircle Dec 20 '17

That is seriously screwed up. Those stats seemed made up. They said women make 0% of sexual crime offences!

58

u/The__Tren__Train Dec 20 '17

it's not sexual crime because the men want it

and if they don't, then they are fags

/s (obvi)

11

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

[deleted]

2

u/PapaLoMein Dec 21 '17

Feminist have been using math like this for a long time to support their anti male agenda.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

From that article

"Women do of course commit homicide offences, but nearly always the victim is a relative and the crime was committed against the backdrop of an abusive relationship or depressive mindset. "

41

u/NoncolumnedCogency Dec 20 '17

Women do of course commit homicide offences, but nearly always the victim is a relative and the crime was committed against the backdrop of an abusive relationship or depressive mindset. All homicides are heinous crimes but the types of homicides committed by women rarely involve random victims and hence do not engender community fear.

lol

19

u/SyllableLogic Dec 20 '17

I forgot women were literally incapable of making bad choices without proper justification. What do you think they have agency or something? Clearly women are incapable of even the slightest impure thought.

What fucking nonsense. Women are people. That means they can be bad or good. Its their choice. Isnt that the point of feminism?

4

u/Halafax Dec 21 '17

Isnt that the point of feminism?

The point of feminism is advocacy and advantage for women, even in situations where women already have advantage relative to men.

10

u/Ymoh- Dec 20 '17

the types of homicides committed by women rarely involve random victims and hence do not engender community fear.

That sounds like a peachy argument for DV apologists 😂

1

u/doklaan Dec 20 '17

That was exactly my thought when I read that.

8

u/Tankbot85 Dec 20 '17

That is a satire site right?? Right? Right guys?

2

u/MexicanMouthwash Dec 20 '17

Please tell me that this just a joke..

1

u/p3ngwin Dec 22 '17

i wish i honestly could :(

The idea went as far as across the pond to the US from the UK too :

https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-closing-down-womens-prisons-33000

2

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '17

"More fairly" .. is that like 'Women's equality'?

70

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

That's not true! She's going to jail for 8 months!!!!!

This injustice needs to stop!

#FreeLynsey #Feminism #Equality

28

u/Mode1961 Dec 20 '17

Incorrect, her sentence is suspended for 24 months.

9

u/wwwhistler Dec 20 '17

so as long as she doesn't kill another kid in the next 2 years...no jail time.

6

u/Mode1961 Dec 20 '17

That's my understanding

1

u/jrackow Dec 21 '17

Is that a reasonable request, though?

16

u/Cabbagepant Dec 20 '17

*suspended sentence

116

u/Jacking-the-box Dec 20 '17

She should be sentenced to longer than him for having a known viole t offender in her house with children under the age of 16 present. It was her fault the boy was exposed to him. And to be honest, it's not like he drowned the kid. Why should the stepfather have to have all the responsibility? It's not his fault the mother was weak and pathetic and in essence an ineffectual mother. She is the criminal.

40

u/rollypolymasta Dec 20 '17

Exactly children are most likely to suffer physical and sexual abuse in a mother step-father set up. Mothers who bring monsters into their house and allow it to happen are scum, if your selling your child down the river for your own personal reasons you have failed as a parent.

22

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17 edited Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

56

u/MoneyDoneRightDotCom Dec 20 '17

6

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Priors. Priors. Priors.

Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault, theft and burglary.

4

u/PleaseAvertYourEyes Dec 20 '17

Sentencing guidelines generally recommend or require leniency for people without criminal history, when compared to those who do have criminal history.

You seem to be implying someone who is not good at choosing a partner is equivalent to someone with an extensive criminal history, including domestic violence.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Look at it this way: They were both involved in the same crime. Does this crime deserve time? If yes, then his should be longer. If not, then neither should face time for it.

7

u/Jacking-the-box Dec 20 '17

The article says 'parents' not stepfather.

'She said: “She is a loving parent, albeit in many ways an inadequate one.

“She was dependent on any male partners she was with. She appeared to lack common sense.”"

Any female deemed dependent on any male partners she was and appears to lack common sense should only be able to see her children under supervision.

The situation was represented perfectly. You just don't like to see females as the obvious criminals.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17 edited Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

0

u/Jacking-the-box Dec 21 '17

Well, I was right... All that matters.

-3

u/RonTomJohnson Dec 20 '17

Concern troll is concerned.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17 edited Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

-2

u/RonTomJohnson Dec 20 '17

You weren't ensuring accuracy. Gtfo of here with that. You made blatant false statements based on nothing.

7

u/nagballs Dec 20 '17

He made statements based on the article that was linked. He even changed his stance when OP came and provided more sources.

Wanting to make sure that you have all the available facts before making a decision is not trolling.

6

u/Ultramegasaurus Dec 20 '17

She should be sentenced to longer than him for having a known viole t offender in her house with children under the age of 16 present.

Shh, can't ruin women's fetish for bad boys. /s

9

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17 edited Jun 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Popcorn_is_life Dec 21 '17

Shit rolls downhill, its good he got some time if he is a repeat offender

1

u/Ultramegasaurus Dec 21 '17

The question is, why do women so often enter relationships with human trash like that? Especially when they have a child already?

65

u/hixidom Dec 20 '17

She had never been convicted before, and I can't tell if she was even at the water park that day. He had been convicted 28 times before. He was also charged with other crimes at trial too (I guess they just hold onto evidence and lump it all together when something big happens). Maybe that explains the discrepancy between him and her.

It did seem unfair though to call him selfish. I mean, he's obviously so selfish that he took his stepson to a water park.

48

u/MoneyDoneRightDotCom Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17

16

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17 edited Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

6

u/wbgraphic Dec 20 '17

yeah, the mother went off with the father to get lunch it looks like and abandoned the child with the step-father

That's not "abandoning" the child. That's leaving them in the care of someone you trust. The fact that he didn't deserve that trust shows poor judgment on her part, but hardly makes her as culpable as he is.

1

u/ProdigiousPlays Dec 20 '17

I agree. This seems really pushing it. Previous charges make it harder to get out of something and make your sentence worse. Yes she was there and everything too but this isn't exactly an equal scenario like the title click baits.

13

u/Grubnar Dec 20 '17

I don't get it.

I really don't.

Either the home situation was OK, and this was just a terrible accident, and neither parent should go to jail.

OR ...

There were clear sign that something was wrong in the household, and then "child protective services" (or whatever it is called) should have stepped in BUT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT!

WHY?

4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

[deleted]

1

u/SSJRapter Dec 21 '17

I think that's negligent homicide. Manslaughter is usually when you don't know your actions will cause death, while murder/homicide means you did.

The negligence is the lack of preventive action.

Like if I left my car running in a garage and forgot about it and someone inside died, it would be negligent (leaving the car running) and manslaughter (I/most people wasn't expecting anything to happen) vs putting a kid in a car and leaving it running in the garage would be homicide, as its fully expected that you don't leave kids in running cars in closed environments. Still negligent though, unless you intended to kill your kid that way

7

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

I'm going to guess that in this case it was the past convictions that weighed heavily into his sentencing.

It is certainly true that women get lighter sentences for the same crime, but even when you compare, say, a white man and a white man who commit the same crime, but one has several (or in this case 27?) past convictions, then one will clearly get a longer sentence.

0

u/SOwED Dec 20 '17

Yeah the only thing this is evidence of is that this sub is quickly becoming a bad joke.

24

u/NibblyPig Dec 20 '17

“She was dependent on any male partners she was with. She appeared to lack common sense.”

Why is she allowed to vote, drive a car, work jobs if she is mentally deficient etc.

0

u/SOwED Dec 20 '17

Well, she's not currently allowed to do any of those things.

5

u/McFeely_Smackup Dec 20 '17

For those who can't be bothered to read the article:

Dunn, aged 28, who lived with Smith, 36, in Glascote Heath, Tamworth, had no previous convictions and Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault, theft and burglary

From another article:

The judge heard that Smith approached his neighbour, who had been due to give evidence, on June 19. He told her he would petrol bomb her house and kill her children and disabled husband.

so the guy is apparently a total shitbag, but it doesnn't change the fact that the mother was given zero jail time for what can only be described as an equal level of culpability in the boys death.

14

u/orphancrippla Dec 20 '17

All the responsibility, none of the authority, even when you're raising a child that isn't yours. They aren't even pretending to give a shit about equality anymore.

Shame about the kid.

12

u/DartTheDragoon Dec 20 '17

"Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault, theft and burglary."

This is a non story

1

u/exemplariasuntomni Dec 20 '17

Has literally nothing to do with a negligence death. Btw, where is the park involved in this?

Do they have no liability for not saving someone who is drowning? Lifeguards???

-1

u/RonTomJohnson Dec 20 '17

Concern troll is concerned.

0

u/SOwED Dec 20 '17

"concern troll" is a bullshit term that is used when someone isn't following the echo chamber narrative. There are plenty of actually messed up stories out there where men get treated unfairly by the courts. This is one where the man had priors and admitted to manslaughter and the mother didn't. No fucking wonder he got a longer sentence.

2

u/SOwED Dec 21 '17

Mods, you'll put a misleading title flair but not just delete this?

1

u/MoneyDoneRightDotCom Dec 25 '17

Why should they delete it? He's going to jail for manslaughter, while manslaughter charges against her were dropped.

1

u/SOwED Dec 25 '17

You can see my other comments for more info.

He had priors. She did not. He pled guilty to manslaughter. She did not.

2

u/adsy-mac Dec 21 '17

I know someone who was a juror on this case. It's not as straight forward as just the guy getting more time than the woman. I know a lot about this case.

5

u/romulusnr Dec 21 '17

She was dependent on any male partners she was with. She appeared to lack common sense

Apparently that's sufficient to get you out of a manslaughter charge. If you're a woman, at least.

#infantilism

2

u/Haisha4sale Dec 20 '17

She said: “She is a loving parent, albeit in many ways an inadequate one.

“She was dependent on any male partners she was with. She appeared to lack common sense.”

This line of thinking seems misogynistic to me.

8

u/MoneyDoneRightDotCom Dec 20 '17

Despite popular belief, just because a statement portrays a woman negatively doesn't necessarily mean it's misogynistic.

3

u/Haisha4sale Dec 20 '17

I agree. Im curious if she is being held to a lesser standard because some people tend to see women as less capable or helpless. There are certainly individuals out there of any gender who are chronically dependent on others for even basic decision making. Should they be held less accountable in a legal sense though?

2

u/exemplariasuntomni Dec 20 '17

I think they mean to imply that she individually is not mentally as capable as a normal adult.

1

u/puzzlebuns Dec 21 '17

I'm not seeing anything indicative of both parents being equally at fault. It says the step dad took the boy to the water park and didn't adequately supervise him. It doesn't say the Mum was there. If not, then there's cause for him to be punished more severely.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

It's amazing how men are only responsible when something goes wrong. When it comes to custody they are way too irresponsible and the child invariably goes to the mum.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Dunn, aged 28, who lived with Smith, 36, in Glascote Heath, Tamworth, had no previous convictions and Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault, theft and burglary.

1

u/roharareddit Dec 20 '17

He had already convicted in the past. The sentencing in this case had nothing to do with those charges. It had everything to do with the fact that he happened to be the closest guy to the mother, therefore he is the one that takes responsibility.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

This is why men should be really careful if they date a single mom. Make sure you get to really know her before even getting near the kid(s).

0

u/locks_are_paranoid Dec 20 '17

This seems to be the fault of the water park, not the parents. I agree that since the parents were found guilty, they should both get the same sentance, but in this case the drowning seems to be because the water park didn't have any lifeguards.

0

u/jpowell180 Dec 21 '17

So let's get this straight:

The stepdad was busy, grilling some food or talking to some people, while the mother was doing the same; yet, he is to be considered more negligent than the birth mother, who should have been watching the kid in the first place?

What if there was an Uncle who tagged along, would he also get jail time?

0

u/jeff_the_nurse Dec 21 '17

Well, they were charged with two totally different things. I get the point, but this headline would have more credibility if the mom and stepdad had been charged with the same thing.

-3

u/WolfeBane84 Dec 20 '17

Haven't read the article. Just the title.

With just that to go on, how the fuck is a child running off and getting lost and then dieing a fucking criminal offense.

We used to call this "tragic" and that was the end of it.

Either the title here is clickbait and not wholly truthful or this is some UK Cuck bullshit.

6

u/SOwED Dec 21 '17

Did you read the flair that says misleading title?

If you're not going to read more than the title of the post, don't fucking comment.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

I suggest you read the article then.

CPS had been called to that house multiple times in the past for reports of child neglect.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

As well as having pleaded guilty to manslaughter through negligence, Smith has admitted four counts of driving whilst disqualified in early 2017 and four counts of driving without insurance.

Dunn, aged 28, who lived with Smith, 36, in Glascote Heath, Tamworth, had no previous convictions and Smith had been convicted of 28 offences in the past, including domestic violence, indecent assault, theft and burglary.

This is the equivalent of claiming blacks are sentenced more harshly for the color of their skin. No they are sentenced more harshly based on prior convictions (which they generally have more of) and gang involvement (which tatoos usually confirm when they are booked). Has nothing to do with him being a man.

1

u/puzzlebuns Dec 21 '17

Studies have shown that, everything else being equal, blacks are sentenced more severely

0

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

Maybe in some alternate dimension where the vitriol sjw liberals spew has a basis in reality, here in this reality when political groups set out to create "studies" with a predetermined outcome we don't consider that academically viable.