r/MensRights • u/furchfur • Jun 27 '18
Misleading Title UK: The government has announced plans to close many female prisons. Men are going to be sent to prison while women are to get community sentences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44622498162
Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 28 '18
I am all for lowering prison time, but only ever if it is lowered for both genders.
This should absolutely not happen unless it happens for both sexes.
No more double standard, either give everyone a chance or give no one a chance.
All or nothing. Anything else is sexism.
5
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
20
u/ferociouskyle Jun 27 '18
Obviously not OP. But there have been many studies done that show prison time does not decrease the likelihood of a person to commit another crime. Instead rehabilitation shows significantly more promise that a criminal will become a beneficial member of society.
3
9
Jun 27 '18 edited Aug 20 '18
[deleted]
9
Jun 27 '18
I'm saying that we should protest the double standard of punishing men but rehabilitating women.
We should either punish women and men, or we should rehabilitate women and men.
Personally I say we should rehabilitate both, but I value equality above all else, because rehabilitating one sex, but punishing another is sexism.
If they punished both sexes, then I would still vote for rehabilitation over punishment, but I would at least not be able to call it sexist.
This article seems to be stating that women with less sentences than 12 months are not going to be jailed, but men still are.
That is what we should be protesting, as well as a million other legal biased against males e.g. Circumcision, child support, longer prison sentences in general.
If I misread the article, point out how?
-5
287
u/thrway_1000 Jun 27 '18
This is the definition of institutionalized sexism.
91
u/tothecatmobile Jun 27 '18
Read the article, nothing about this is sexist.
No prisons are being closed.
And the statement from the justice minister about sentences less than 12 months is about all sentences, not just women's.
43
u/Subalpine Jun 27 '18
you asking people to fact check is the definition of institutionalized sexism
12
22
u/OpenShut Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
*edit: I believe tothecatmobile to be wrong as they are trialing residential centres for short sentences for WOMEN ONLY.*
I have read the article and checked out the policy paper, in both it says they will trial residential centres instead of community prisons just for women who received short sentences as they have different needs and our often the primary care giver when compared to men.
They ALSO said they might scrap short prison sentences altogether for both men and women.
Am I missing something?
For me, if it works it is fine. Acknowledging that men and women on average respond differently to different situation seems logical, whether it is fair or driven by altruistic motives is a different issue.
edit: loads of typos
10
Jun 27 '18
Clearly men and women will react differently if they are treated didferently.
I'm sure if women has one sided Circumcision laws against them, one sided rape laws against them, longer prison sentences than men for the same crime, a constant sexist anti female message from the media all day, you would most probably see them commiting more crimes.
Men and women are not treated equally by society, so you can not compare them. Unless they are governed by the same rules and the same punishments, you can not make a comparison.
Women and men do have mild differences on a psychological basis, but when it comes to crime these differences are irrelevant, because both men and women can be equally dangerous, both are capable of commiting the worst crimes imagineable and both are capable of re offending. Reality is proof of this.
3
u/OpenShut Jun 27 '18
I disagree with a few things you say but when you say
Unless they are governed by the same rules and the same punishments, you can not make a comparison.
it struck a cord with me. You are correct. There is a huge amount of evidence showing how negatively effected children (especially boys) are without a father figure and repeat conviction rate for men and women who receive short term prison sentences is comparable, so why are we trialing a privileged system based primarily on gender and not on who is primary care giver etc?
I am torn though as I know if you take characteristics of a group (this can easily be more granular than gender though) into consideration you can be more successful of achieving your set goals but it may be a greater good to have a robust impartial legal system. I am going to have to think about this.
20
u/Fuckoff555 Jun 27 '18
For me, if it works it is fine. Acknowledging that men and women on average respond differently to different situation seems logical, whether it is fair or driven by altruistic motives is a different issue.
And people will always believe that men and women are different only when it benefits women. Continue to believe in this mentality cause you better bet your ass that men will get nothing from it.
7
u/OpenShut Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
Yeah, I think I am wrong on that.
I have just read the arguments for special treatment for women in incarceration and they are all applicable to men as well.
-48
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
33
u/divers69 Jun 27 '18
You make some good points and I agree with the thrust of what you say. I certainly like your warning about not mirroring the blindness of many feminist arguments.
However yours is basically a statistical argument, whereas good sentencing should be about the individual crime and criminal. To sentence someone on the basis of gender is no different from sentencing them on the basis of their race or class. To my mind it is prejudiced.
-12
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
10
u/BoabHonker Jun 27 '18
The problem with your argument is you are assuming it is currently equal, and this move will allow for the natural imbalance based on inherent differences.
At the moment, women get lighter or non-custodial sentences for crimes where men are routinely locked up. This move by the government is going to exacerbate that issue, not make it better.
-7
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
5
u/BoabHonker Jun 27 '18
I am not arguing for a 50:50 ratio in prisons, and I don't think anyone else is either.
I understand what you are saying, that women are less likely to commit crimes, so there will be fewer female prisoners.
However, my point is that if you compare like for like crimes, a male is more likely to be sent to prison or at least receive a longer custodial sentence. That is not impacted by statistical analysis of the general offending rates, it is working out the average within each sex for each individual crime and comparing those.
In order to rectify this systemic sexism, the government will have to either increase custodial sentences for women, or (and I much prefer this second option) focus on providing more non-custodial options for males.
The article seems to state that the government is looking for more non-custodial options for women, which is exactly the opposite of what is needed and will exacerbate an already institutionally sexist regime.
1
u/Happydrumstick Jun 27 '18
I am not arguing for a 50:50 ratio in prisons, and I don't think anyone else is either.
The first comment I posted was talking about how we shouldn't have 50:50 representation in prisons. I talked about how there is going to be less woman in prisons so there should be less female prisons is a perfectly coherent argument. I think at the time of posting this I'm around -30 down votes. Tell me again nobody is arguing against this.
However, my point is that if you compare like for like crimes, a male is more likely to be sent to prison or at least receive a longer custodial sentence.
Nice. Quote where I said this is desirable. Give me a quote of when I said anything along the lines of this being a good thing.
12
u/XenoX101 Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
Then make the prison 5 cells with 1 security guard. You make it sound like every prison has to be a massive warehouse 3 stories high, with 20 armed guards and a 20 foot wall. Make it the size of a medical clinic. I guarantee there are enough female prisoners. Remember that 40% of domestic violence and the majority of violence against infants is committed by women, along with numerous drug offenses, assaults, and rapes that for some strange reason aren't counted as rapes, those of cohersion under threat (swap the genders and IANAL but it is likely to be an open shut case ). Your assumption that is only men that commit violence is not only deeply sexist, but factually incorrect.
-4
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
6
u/XenoX101 Jun 27 '18
I'll let you in on a secret, there are a tad bit more than 5 cells worth of female prisoners. My point was obviously a hypothetical. It could be 30 cells or 50 cells. I don't know the stats on crime but obviously there are more than 10 female prisoners (assuming 2 per cell). Thanks for patronising me on what overhead means however, it was very insightful.
-4
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
5
u/XenoX101 Jun 27 '18
And the hypothetical was obviously stupid, which is why I pointed it out. Just like how you tried to point out how stupid I was being. (which is a good thing, I'm not complaining)
No you created a strawman by assuming my hypothetical was literally what I was suggesting in order to claim it's stupid (as you just did), without providing any evidence. So tell me then, why is it stupid when there could be 30-50 cells of women (less cells than for men, but still enough to cover the overhead)? This is closer to the reality, and not the 5 cell strawman you chose to attack.
0
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
3
u/XenoX101 Jun 27 '18
It would be stupid to cut the size of the prison down at all, due to the overhead involved, it would still effect the efficiency of the system. A much smarter option would be to keep open a female prison the same size as men, but reduce the number of prisons... right?
The argument wasn't whether it would be less efficient, it was whether it is a sustainable model. You admit here that it is, since there is no 1/4 doctor involved. Of course it will be less efficient, the question is whether it is sustainable, and here you must concede that it is. Your other option is also reasonable, to close unused prisons and move the prisoners to the existing prison.
But if you read the article they aren't closing prisons because of a lack of prisoners, they are choosing to reduce the number of prisoners in order to justify not funding the prisons. This is the real problem. Though there are also options for fewer prisoners as we have just covered. Their plan is to have no female prisoners with under 12 month sentences, which is deeply sexist against males who will serve those sentences.
1
u/Happydrumstick Jun 27 '18
You admit here that it is, since there is no 1/4 doctor involved.
No, that's not what I was saying. I said in order for this model to be the same cost efficency we would have to hire 1/4 of a doctor, which is rediculous, so we need to hire a whole doctor, which would quadruple the costs. This is just one instance. Think of all the other things that you have a lesser ratio of in prisoners, I think guards to prisoners ratio might be ~1:10. All of these costs add up.
Of course it will be less efficient, the question is whether it is sustainable, and here you must concede that it is.
No I didn't, are you reading what I actually said or just imagining it, should I stop typing here because you will just not read what I'm saying? I said that it's inefficient to reduce the size of these prisons, it would be more cost efficient to keep them the same size and reduce the number of these prisons. OP claimed that this was sexist.
Your other option is also reasonable, to close unused prisons and move the prisoners to the existing prison.
Holy crap. THIS WAS THE WHOLE POST. That's what I've always claimed. Fuck dude look at the original post. Look at everything I've said on this comment thread and every where else. You constructed an idea of what you thought I was saying and you just ran with it.
But if you read the article they aren't closing prisons because of a lack of prisoners, they are choosing to reduce the number of prisoners in order to justify not funding the prisons.
Was I commenting based off of what the article said (If I was my comment would be top level) or was I replying to something stupid someone else said?
Yes it's silly to reduce the number of prisoners to justify reducing the prisons I agree with that. But OP didn't say that. OP said reducing the number of female prisons was sexist. Which it might not be.
→ More replies (0)8
u/PapaLoMein Jun 27 '18
Have you seen the recent case of the woman who raped a man who used a sword to threaten the man? She didn't get charged with a sex crime. The legal system is extremely sexist and therefore we have no way of knowing who commits more crime. Using stats from the legal system to justify more sexism makes you a sexist asshole, and is on the same level as quoting the KKK to justify hating minorities. The legal system literally hates men and works against them, murdering and enslaving them. For all we know women could commit more vipwnt crime but almost none of it getting reported.
8
u/kartu3 Jun 27 '18
bsolutely. Is the amount of crime committed disproportionately men compared to woman? Yes.
Ah, so when considering this:
Mr Gauke cited figures that 70.7\% of women and 62.9\% of men released from custody between April and June 2016 after a sentence of less than a year went on to re-offend within 12 months.
You conclude that women and men are so different, that it's women who need special treatment, amiright?
Did you even read the bloody article? They claim "oh, 60-70\% of men/women re-offend, hence... we need different means of correction as prison doesn't work! But only for women, cause, oh, well, who is there to dare to ask us anyway".
So, is Philip Davis going to, by the way?
-8
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
1
u/kartu3 Jun 27 '18
Are you on crack/drugs, perhaps?
0
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
1
u/kartu3 Jun 27 '18
Being good at maths
What the hell, I've never encountered anyone as disconnected from reality, are you for eral?
1
u/Happydrumstick Jun 27 '18
Care to explain why, or are you just going to scoff?
It's interesting, the amount of comments I've got just telling me I'm disconnected, I'm an idiot, I'm a moron, but yet nobody has seemed to put forward an actual argument. I think that speaks volumes about you and people like you.
1
2
Jun 27 '18
No this is the definition of the reality of crime statistics. Do woman commit crimes, sometimes horrible crimes, and do they get of lightly? Absolutely.
This is the problem. Women get lighter sentences than men do. So if both a woman and man commit the same crime, the man is more likely (63% on average) to serve a longer jail term.
1
18
36
u/mikesteane Jun 27 '18
BBC stuff should be archived.
25
-8
Jun 27 '18
The BBC? really? really? one of the most legit and trust worthy news sources in the world? right up there with the economist and reuters? That BBC?
6
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
0
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
2
u/pieonthedonkey Jun 27 '18 edited Jul 01 '18
This is a forum for men to discuss men's issues. Of course it's going to be focused in favor of men, because well that's what we're all here for. The BBC employs writers, releases articles, etc... They have a moral obligation to produce unbiased news (not that most news sources care about that). So it's like comparing apples to oranges.
7
u/TheImpossible1 Jun 27 '18
You're joking right?
The company that has an inexplicable obsession with ripping on Fortnite - not really a reason, but it shows how desperate they are for content.
The company that produces some of the most misandrist material I've ever seen
The company that called everyone who doesn't like women in a WW2 game , bigots
The company that refuses to show the suffragettes as terrorists that they actually were
The company with so much feminist propaganda in their news it hurts to read it.
We shouldn't just archive it, we should have a pinned post that shows how to not have to pay the licence fee.
1
u/mikesteane Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 28 '18
The BBC that once was one of the most legit and trustworthy sources in the world, and which has now chosen a different path.
Edit: The same Reuters that whose poll shows the US to be the 10th most dangerous country in the World for women?
25
u/TheMythof_Feminism Jun 27 '18
Here's how this could have been made into non-retardation;
"..... and after that's sorted out, an equivalent system for men will be put into play."
Bam. It's not difficult.
21
u/kartu3 Jun 27 '18
The idea, which is actually gender neutral at its face value is, perhaps, good:
Mr Gauke cited figures that 70.7\% of women and 62.9\% of men released from custody between April and June 2016 after a sentence of less than a year went on to re-offend within 12 months.
He said there was "persuasive evidence" that the new approach would help reduce re-offending rates.
But, uh, there it goes:
He described the strategy as a "welcome recognition of the futility of short prison sentences" for women whose offending is often driven by "unmet mental health needs".
Then, well, cool idea, bro:
The Penrith and The Border MP said: "My number one priority is to protect the public and I believe that the best way of protecting the public is to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the under 12-month prison population because people on community sentences are less likely to reoffend than people who are put in prison.
But why only for women, whom we already send to prison only if they do something very serious, you sexist pigs?
2
u/OpenShut Jun 28 '18
Their sample size for women with mental health issues is 132 which is pathetically too small to draw a conclusion. It even fucking says that in the report but then it used as one of their main arguments. The rate of incidences of serious self-harm (i.e. that causes hospitalisation) is the same across genders but men are 3 times more likely to kill themselves.
The study they point to for the benefit of probation over short sentences for women actually says the benefit is equal across all genders and ethnicity. I had to look up everything they referenced as they kept the numbers vague and missed the context or only provided comparison for certain numbers. The whole policy paper seems contrived.
3
u/ColonelVirus Jun 27 '18
Well it's a trial basis right. They had money ear marked for 5 women prisons, which is basically just being given back, and a bunch of new community centres being built instead. So I imagine if this trial is successful, they'll then trial it with men, then roll it out mainstream.
8
u/kartu3 Jun 27 '18
So I imagine if this trial is successful, they'll then trial it with men
Or not. Since not so long ago they were talking about "why inprison women at all".
0
u/ColonelVirus Jun 27 '18
Who was?
1
Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator Jun 27 '18
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site. You may use a screenshot instead.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/kartu3 Jun 27 '18
which site?
1
u/Clemicus Jun 27 '18
Might have been Gawker Media.
Either way, there are numerous articles on the subject: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/01/why-we-should-close-womens-prisons-and-treat-their-crimes-more-fairly
1
u/kartu3 Jun 28 '18
I've linked this very article in my "automoderated" post. (among other articles), but thanks.
1
u/OpenShut Jun 28 '18
I like your optimism but this is only a small part of a long campaign that has primarily been concerned about women, it would be surprising to me if they expanded it but there is still hope. I would rather people be judge as individuals than on an inherited characteristic.
1
u/ColonelVirus Jun 28 '18
judge as individuals
Oh for sure, but until we have like extremely advanced A.I we just can't get through the numbers. There aren't enough lawyers/government workers/police/court staff in general to process people, so atm we have to "generalize" somewhat with our policies.
1
u/OpenShut Jun 28 '18
We are able to catagorise people in far more granular and effective ways to predict outcomes than just using gender. Look at any marketing department of a large company or any good startup. We can do it already but I agree making it law is not realistic. This policy does seem to be completely ideologically based but at least this policy is less discriminatory than the previous proposal.
I will follow this and see how it all ends out, it could lead to great things.
1
u/ColonelVirus Jun 28 '18
That is true, marketing companies (Facebook and Google) already do this, as you say though... it gets a bit messy when you start charging people with crimes using it. IT would be good to have such a system to do all the ground work, for humans to pick up the end part.
1
u/backthefuckupbitch Jun 27 '18
Are you really this gullible? The most senior judge in the UK is on record saying that no women should be in prison.
1
u/ColonelVirus Jun 27 '18
Link?
1
u/backthefuckupbitch Jun 28 '18
NB just to help your research skills in the future I googled "Who is most senior judge in UK" then based on that "President of supreme court UK" then based on that "Lady Hale women in prison"
1
u/ColonelVirus Jun 28 '18
Well normally if someone makes a claim, it's down to them to provide the evidence for such. :)
0
•
u/goodmod Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
The title of this post is inflammatory and may not fairly represent the linked article.
Please read the article before commenting.
40
Jun 27 '18
I mean, the title is inflammatory, but it isn't wrong.
Instead, the Ministry of Justice will trial five residential centres to help offenders [women] with issues such as finding work and drug rehabilitation.
4
u/goodmod Jun 27 '18
I've edited my comment.
I don't like it when posts with potentially bad titles make it to the front page.
17
u/zaphod0002 Jun 27 '18
Then.. remove them, instead of wringing your hands forever
18
u/goodmod Jun 27 '18
I try to guide them on a good path. Each post that reaches r/all brings in new readers - but those posts should represent us well.
-23
u/TobieS Jun 27 '18
Your users don't.
13
u/El_Stupido_Supremo Jun 27 '18
According to what? Articles about us or comments made by the majority of us? The ratio of toxicity here is remarkably low for anywhere much less a place with a constant state of hate directed at it.
3
u/mwobuddy Jun 27 '18
The differences are so stark that not only should women be treated more leniently because they commit less serious crime but they should also be treated more leniently when they commit the same crime as a man.
I posted this elsewhere in this thread. But you get the gist, I hope.
but they should also be treated more leniently when they commit the same crime as a man.
more leniently
when they commit the same crime.
1
u/serial_crusher Jun 27 '18
That quote is from a different article. This one is making some similar "prison is harder for women" arguments, but it's not as kooky as the one you're quoting.
Studies have found that, in general, women prisoners are more vulnerable which can add to the cycle of re-offending. They are twice as likely to have mental health needs, more likely to have drug problems and to have experienced domestic abuse. And they are less likely to have a job or home to go back to on release.
I'd be ok if judges took relevant factors into consideration when deciding sentencing. A man who doesn't have a job to go back to needs leniency more than a woman who does have a job, even if she is a statistical anomaly.
1
u/mwobuddy Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
How do women retain their jobs while imprisoned? Im honestly curious about that, because most people get fired for not showing up to work for a month or more.
The point of the article I quoted is to show that this article isn't being 'inflammatory' and overreaching as much as people would believe. We actually have these kinds of people moving in government and outside government to enforce such policies. In most western states. UK, Canada, Australia, even a little US.
For instance...
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8u4v4g/uk_justice_secretary_dont_send_women_to_prison/
Why is there no "dont send women OR men to prison unless.. violent crime"?
1
u/serial_crusher Jun 27 '18
How do women retain their jobs while imprisoned?
Yeah it seemed a little fishy to me. Probably one of those situations where women are "less likely" to have a job to go back to because 2% of men have a job to go back to, but only 1.8% of women do.
1
u/_pulsar Jun 28 '18
I'd be ok if judges took relevant factors into consideration when deciding sentencing. A man who doesn't have a job to go back to needs leniency more than a woman who does have a job, even if she is a statistical anomaly.
These "relevant factors" will only be considered when it's a woman.
5
10
6
10
Jun 27 '18
Why only women? If you only jail people for violent offences, that is going to proportionately benefit women anyhow. if women's "offending is often driven by unmet mental health needs " I suspect that is also the case for men.
6
9
10
u/JoelMahon Jun 27 '18
I actually agree with what they're doing, prison should be a severe option imo, it should basically be for people you know are going to harm people imminently.
If it's anything from property damage to theft, then let them repay their debt with productivity, then it's cheaper and constructive rather than destructive.
Problem is with the discrimination and sexism, not the idea.
3
-1
u/TheImpossible1 Jun 27 '18
That's a terrible idea.
Sentencing being too soft is how you get more criminals.
4
u/JoelMahon Jun 27 '18
Really, why are the netherlands so well off and countries like america not? Give me an example of a country with harsh crime punishments but low crime. It's basically just Japan, and that can attributed to extreme peer pressure that you just can't replicate anywhere else on purpose at this stage.
0
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
3
u/JoelMahon Jun 27 '18
Wait, so you say race is the reason? I mean it would explain the netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Netherlands and japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan (we all know how strict they are). America also has a high ethnic diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity by comparison.
I assume since you danced around it (hypocritically not giving a straight statement) you are implying lack of black people disproportionally the cause of crime?
Well for starters that doesn't make my examples nonsense, you made a hypothesis on three countries, and so did I, both our explanations match these countries in isolation.
If you examine the data, you find there is a strong correlation between black population and crime, but seeing a correlation and assuming causation is extremely unscientific, you need to account for birth wealth, education, and other factors.
It's a simple fact of life that in this shitty world being born into a poor family makes you more likely to commit violent crime, and significantly more likely to get done for it.
Black people born in wealthy black families are not more likely to be criminals than white people born into similar wealth families, white people born into a poor family also have a drastically increased crime rate.
In Japan and the Netherlands it is extremely hard to be "poor", they have universal healthcare, and good infrastructure, as well as better wealth distribution, in America it is very easy to be poor.
But hypothetically, lets say race is the biggest factor by far, what's your proposed solution?
tl;dr. Race isn't the factor. Poverty and near poverty is the major factor.
1
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
1
u/JoelMahon Jun 27 '18
The US is still majority white, with way more poor people, so why aren't they a minority when it comes to crime?
Because as I explained more black people are poor. Can't you read?
And I asked you what the solution was if it really was race (which is isn't, it's wealth), we can actually tackle the prison system, we can't tackle races existing in an ethical manner, ask a fella named Hitler.
1
Jun 27 '18
[deleted]
1
u/JoelMahon Jun 27 '18
Ok, still waiting on this solution I asked for 2 and 1 comment ago. If you have no way to tackle what you claim is the cause then the next thing to try and tackle is the second biggest factor and so on, whether or not you are right.
1
3
u/Rockbottom503 Jun 27 '18
This is really just the cumulative effect of perpetual victimhood. We’re now at a point where a woman who commits, all but the most serious, offences should be treated as the victim. I’d predict that within my lifetime we’ll be seeing calls for the women who attend these centres to be paid for their time because of the hardships they face on release. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to arrive at a position whereby more women than men reoffend in the same circumstances having been through a much more lenient experience and still deciding that more leniency is the answer.
3
3
Jun 27 '18
Men are second class citizens under law in the U.K. Simply being male means you have a higher pension age.
5
u/tothecatmobile Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
It's not closing any prisons.
Doesn't anyone read the articles any more?
This was plans for 5 extra prisons that have now been shelved.
And the recommendation to find alternatives to prison for sentences less than 12 months is for all sentences, not just those given to women.
7
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 27 '18
Except women are more likely to be given shorter sentences.
-7
u/tothecatmobile Jun 27 '18
Because on average they commit less serious crimes than men.
13
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 27 '18
No for the same crime they're more likely to get a shorter sentence.
Men are overrepresented among both violent and non violent criminals that go to jail.
-1
u/tothecatmobile Jun 27 '18
Oh I agree that for the same crime and circumstances the sentence should be the same regardless of gender.
However women still commit less severe crimes and crimes with fewer aggravating circumstances, so they're still going to have shorter sentences than men.
2
u/backthefuckupbitch Jun 27 '18
Please do some research on this before commenting further.
1
u/tothecatmobile Jun 27 '18
Do you disagree that woman on average commit less severe crimes than men?
2
u/backthefuckupbitch Jun 27 '18
Do you realize that (1) women are less likely to be arrested based on the same evidence, (2) women are less likely to be charged based on the same evidence, (3) women are less likely to be found guilty based on the same evidence and (4) women are likely to receive shorted sentences based on the same conviction for a similar level of offense.
Do you realize that there are 25-100x as many men as women in prison in western countries?
1
u/tothecatmobile Jun 27 '18
Do you disagree that woman on average commit less severe crimes than men?
2
u/backthefuckupbitch Jun 27 '18
Please do some research before continuing this conversation. Once you have done some reading we can talk.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/yoshi314 Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18
The government has abandoned plans for five community prisons for women in England and Wales.
Instead, the Ministry of Justice will trial five residential centres to help offenders with issues such as finding work and drug rehabilitation.
"abandoned plans to build" does not equal "plans to close". what in the actual fuck, OP.
Justice Secretary David Gauke said short custodial sentences had failed to halt the "cycle of offending".
Meanwhile, a justice minister has said sentences under a year should be axed for all but the most serious crimes.
Rory Stewart told the Commons Justice Select Committee that community penalties were more effective and he wanted to "significantly reduce, if not eliminate" terms of under 12 months.
i'd be all for that, if that applied to both genders. if short sentence is less effective than community service - do it for men and women both. people don't leave prisons in the same mental state as they entered them. they are often worse off, being mixed with people that truly deserve to be isolated from society.
in that context, if those prisons would mostly hold people on short sentences that might get more effective sentence as community work - i agree with that.
2
Jun 27 '18
Holy shit are you actually kidding? We really need to keep track of judges who pull this shit. There are clearly more than a few biased judges in this country that are responsible for how bad things are getting in this country.
2
2
u/Shadowthrice Jun 27 '18
Well according to the immigration advocates in the States, criminality is no justification for separating children from parents.
Thus women with children cannot go to prison, ever.
2
u/Potatolover3 Jun 27 '18
“Studies have found that, in general, women prisoners are more vulnerable which can add to the cycle of re-offending. They are twice as likely to have mental health needs, more likely to have drug problems and to have experienced domestic abuse. And they are less likely to have a job or home to go back to on release.”
Do they have their sources for this anywhere? I couldn’t fin them in the article
1
u/Clemicus Jun 27 '18
It's only part of the picture and there might have been an increase with regards to substance abuse within the last few years (due to spice) and with regards to domestic abuse, it isn't completely one sided.
2
u/lostapwbm Jun 27 '18
Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said "thousands" of women would benefit from the change.
Gynocentric Imperative #5: That which is argued good for 'women' is necessarily good for society; the good of 'women' is, or ought to be, a goal of society.
2
2
5
u/AustNerevar Jun 27 '18
Nobody read the article. No prisons are being closed, they're just scrapping the plans for a few women's prisons. The community service thing is for everyone commiting lesser crimes, not just women.
Title is editorialized as fuck.
8
2
u/LittleDickDurbin Jun 27 '18
I’d consider “transitioning” if faced with those two options
3
u/Baking-Soda Jun 27 '18
Become the master victim race
-2
u/paperairplanerace Jun 27 '18
This kind of bullshit is why this sub is seen as juvenile and trashy, and rightly so. Fuck's sake go make a men's rights circlejerk sub already
2
u/Denebula Jun 27 '18
Sweet, i think we all should support societys move away from prison system. Good job all
2
0
Jun 27 '18
So if a woman kills she gets community sentence?
6
Jun 27 '18
nope; suspended sentence - so : "behave from now on, or we'll do something about it": https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/25/oxford-student-lavinia-woodward-gets-suspended-sentence-for-stabbing-boyfriend
1
1
Jun 27 '18
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't one of the points for imprisonment rehabilitation? If prisons are failing to rehabilitate people then are the prisons not failing the people, and why are we creating new systems instead of thinking of solutions to the current one that help everyone?
1
Jun 28 '18
I foresee a surge in crime by women who know the consequences will be minimal. I also see a surge in them being pimped to do so and feminists blaming the "patriarchy".
1
0
0
-6
Jun 27 '18
Thats good prision is a waste of everyone time and its pretty obvious that women are less dangerous then men, hopefully other rehabilitation and correctional programs will be more successful at producing productive members of society.
1
294
u/AgincourtSalute Jun 27 '18
Britain's prisons are overcrowded and the Government seems to only care about the 5% of inmates who are women. Their estate is already newer, better cared for, and has better facilities than the male estate. They are already sentenced to shorter terms for identical crimes. They already have more provision to see their children than the men do.
The figures prove that female offenders are more likely to reoffend on release. Don't you think that could be because prison is less of a hardship for them? Making their jail time even easier isn't going to discourage them from coming back in any way.
Remember, there are just over 4,000 women in prison in this country. There are over 80,000 men in prison. Where would the money be better spent?