0
   

Do ugly people get punished more for crime?

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:36 pm
timberlandko wrote:


And here's a thought for The Wabbit - I think that in much, if not most, sexual abuse, the sex is all but incidental to the power - the strong (whether by main strength, perceived authority, weaponry or some combination thereof) taking untoward advantage of the comparatively helpless. Its often more an ego thing than a libido thing.


Yeah...that's been pretty much the received wisdom for the last 30 years or so.....certainly what you have to say when you are interviewed to work in rape clinics, for instance.


I must say I have been rethinking that line since I have worked so much in sexual abuse. Like the last 20 years.


I think it is way more multi-faceted than that.....and that the reasons you want to be abusive are varied (but mainly, I venture to say, abuse and trauma related, and hence occurring in folk who have not developed empathy and the ability to reflect, with reflection used in its sense of mentation, or ability to be still and deal with abstractions)....but also taking into account testosterone, a particular cultural environment re gender roles, and the because.... like the reason a dog licks its balls...we can.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:50 pm
RexRed wrote:
Lifetime likelihood of going to State or Federal prison

If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime.


Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for
-- men (11.3%) than for women (1.8%)
-- blacks (18.6%) and Hispanics (10%) than for whites (3.4%)


Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm



Yeah...that's irrelevant for the argument, though.


Wome still generally commit less criome (though we are slowly catching up in the west). You have to look for relative incarceration rates....for the SAME crime....for men and women.




The study I cited a way back was from the eighties, and we looked for the research because, working in corrections, we had developed a strong feeling that women were receiving nastier sentences for persistent or "male type" (like robbery, armed robbery, assault etc) crimes.


It is interesting, the thing that spurred us, finally, to look for real data was driving back to the office after a day in court with a couple of males from my office.


During the day, we had been in various courts for various reports we had written.


Between us, we had 16 reports. 15 were for violent crimes committed by males. Of those, we had one serial rapist, who used weapons and implements in his rapes; two were for guys who had abused little kids sexually; one fella had raped a mum and then her 12 year old daughter, forcing each to witness the rape of the other; one had murdered his wife. The others were more routine assaults and such.


One case involved a woman who had viciously assaulted another woman.


On the way home, the guys went on and on about how disgusting and horrible the woman was (not that she was a nice gal, at great length, then launched into how disgusting women are when they are nasty, much more horrible than men.


My female colleague and I were gobsmacked at firts...that none of the male violence received so much as a comment, and the one woman ended up pretty much condemning all women by the time we fouind our tongues and pointed out the problem with their view.

This led to a general discussion of gender and crime, and led to us looking up the research.


I am way out of date on that stuff now...I do not see a lot of court stuff.


But the attitudes were damned interesting.


IT may not obtain any more......though I CAN say that women sexually abusing male students are getting far more punishment by way of publicity than males.

If you looked at my local rag, for example, you would draw the conclusion that only female teachers did it, since I have not seen a case of a male publicised for more than a year, and I KNOW a number og males have been done for it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:58 pm
Oh...I am not saying that is always true, BTW.


I had a client who got caught committing a break and enter. She was nabbed because her 8 and a half months pregnant tummy got her caught in a window.


The cops kind of had no idea what to do with her...she was just 18...and let her go!!!!


Also, women can be given, I think, an easier time for a first offence..especiially if they are cute...but for persistent or "male" offences, I would not be surprised if they still get relatively harsher treatment.


The thing is, too, though courts cannot take this into account, that women often do much harder time than men....in terms of the effect on their lives.


The average fella is likely to find he still has a home, furniture, kids etc when he gets out, cos there is likely to be a woman of some ilk on the outside keeping stuff going.


Women normally lose their kids, all their stuff...things like that, cos the kind of fellas they are generally with aren't much chop at keeping things together.


Like I said, I am not suggesting this ought to influence sentence, but it is a fact little known outside of the system.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 11:04 pm
Interesting stuff to think about, bunny - thanks.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 11:29 pm
dlowan wrote:
Like I said, I am not suggesting this ought to influence sentence, but it is a fact little known outside of the system.
Why not? Why shouldn't harder time be recognized at sentencing? Doesn't ignoring it unfairly result in harsher sentences for women overall? How is that more fair?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:30 am
Well, partly because it is so hard to quantify......sometimes it DOES get recognized, but the other way around...ie the effect on the kids of losing their only parent and having to go into foster care and so forth is recognized.


Or not.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:57 am
Actually, to argue against myself, it seems that a number of women in the Family of God cult regularly took part in sexually abusing little kids......as part of the cult's philosophy, which was enthusiastically practiced at one time.



'Twas a woman who took part in that that the poor young fella murdered recently, when he couldn't find his mum, who had also abused him.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:57 am
I guess throughout this discussion my trouble has been reconciling how "difficult to quantify" results in not trying. I need not know how bad something is to know it's bad. Said knowledge should count for something.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 01:01 am
Have you got a furball, or something, Bill?


You seem justy bound and determined to find something to disagree with!

We have you enthusiastically promoting that juveniles be punished as adults in one thread, and pushing that very sensitive adjustments be made to sentencing in another.



It might help to know that, here at least, judges are often provided with a lot of background information on offenders prior to sentence, including likely impact of various sentencing options. Good lawyers will give that same sort of information to a sentencing judge, too, where professionals have not provided such reports.

Mostly judges looking at prison time will have that information to consider, and many do so.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 01:13 am
Laughing I don't see the contradiction there.
Sentencing in the hypothetical Bill's world; would make violent crime repeats practically suicidal... mostly for the purpose of protecting innocent women and children. Protesting tougher sentences for women than men, while believing men actually commit the greater crime (even when it's legally the same) fits right in with that, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 01:29 am
I might add that this was not intended as a sexist post...

I personally couldn't be farther from being sexist...

I do sometimes briefly stereotype people but I am quick to see the fault in doing so...

But:
I do remember an DWI I had 15 years ago. I went to this weekender program to get my drivers license back and I was astonished. There was not one single woman in a room of over fifty men... I thought at first it was segregated... I asked and was told that then predominantly male police officers in Maine rarely ever arrest women for DWI.

They figure their husbands made/forced them to drive or they just are more sympathetic and let them go...

50 to 0 that is rather sympathetic I might add...

I had another near OUI (10 years ago) and a woman cop let me go...

I don't trust my charm so much today...

Smile
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:31 am
This is from a book called The Myth of Male Power (by Warren Farrell)... Sorry I couldn't get the table to line up right in this format, but the headings are 'Offense', Female, Male, and 'percent of added time males serve'. If you look at the numbers from left to right under those headings, you should be able to decipher.

I'm still looking, but I can't find anything that would substantiate the rabbit's claim that females get treated more harshly for sex crimes. Or were you only referring to media treatment, dlowan?


Number of Months to Which Females vs. Males Were Sentenced for the Same Offense

Offense Female Male % of Added Time Males Serve

Rape 117 159 74
Agg Assault 49 83 59
Burglary 46 66 70
Larceny 36 48 75
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:53 am
Nope...I was referring to sentencing.


It may have changed as we have got more used to violent female crime...when we were looking it was very iunusual in this country.



In re teachers preying on students, I was referring to media treatment.



Re rape and agg assault, you actually need to look at the details of the offense and number of priors.

Burglary and larcenyare more straightforward, but again you need to look at number of priors.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:57 am
BTW...I have been reading that book (with great gaps) and I recall some of the figures from it looked utterly bizarro.....I had meant to do some real checking out re them in areas I know about, but frankly haven't had time.


I would be double checking stats from there. Not that I am specifically doubting those you give, but I remember some were way out of whack with any other stats I have looked at in some areas, and it has a strong agenda.


That being said, some of the stats commonly quoted in the areas he deals with are decidedly rubbery.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 07:00 am
Okay, so when you get time, we will look at the supporting stats you can find...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 07:02 am
Oh, and I wasn't specifically referring just to sex crimes re harsher treatment...I was referring to recidivism, and "male" crimes...I gave several examples of "male" crimes.


The picture re violent crime has changed with the heavy drug addiction scene....and fallout from it in various areas (and other things, but drugs seem to be a really common denominator for women, at least in Oz, incarcerated for any length of time).


When I did a therapy project in the local women's prison in 1995 it was a totally different place from how it was when I last had to do with it in 1984.....overflowing with women, for starters, whereas there had been about 15 at any one time in the past.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 07:07 am
snood wrote:
Okay, so when you get time, we will look at the supporting stats you can find...


Nah.... am most unlikely to be bothered to find any, Snood.


If you find stats contradicting me, go for it, I won't be taking time to search for differing stuff...except, again, to caution that often just tables do not look at important differentiating detail. I am researching stuff really to do with my work when I have any time for research...at least until mebbe Easter, not A2k stuff.


The stuff we found previously WAS from the US, but it was from late seventies/early eighties.


Hmmmmmmm.....I MIGHT be able to get something from a contact when I am on leave.....
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 07:12 am
dlowan wrote:
snood wrote:
Okay, so when you get time, we will look at the supporting stats you can find...


Nah.... am most unlikely to be bothered to find any, Snood.


If you find stats contradicting me, go for it, I won't be taking time to search for differing stuff...except, again, to caution that often just tables do not look at important differentiating detail. I am researching stuff really to do with my work when I have any time for research...at least until mebbe Easter, not A2k stuff.


The stuff we found previously WAS from the US, but it was from late seventies/early eighties.


Hmmmmmmm.....I MIGHT be able to get something from a contact when I am on leave.....


Okay, well if you can't be bothered to find verification for what I deem outlandish claims, I certainly won't be further bothered to try to find verification to contradict them.

In fact, let's all restrict our claims about such easily quantifiable things such as trends in criminal sentencing to conjecture from now on, deal?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 08:58 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
dlowan wrote:
The thing is, too, though courts cannot take this into account, that women often do much harder time than men....in terms of the effect on their lives. [..]

Like I said, I am not suggesting this ought to influence sentence, but it is a fact little known outside of the system.

Why not? Why shouldn't harder time be recognized at sentencing? Doesn't ignoring it unfairly result in harsher sentences for women overall? How is that more fair?


dlowan wrote:
We have you enthusiastically promoting that juveniles be punished as adults in one thread, and pushing that very sensitive adjustments be made to sentencing in another.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing I don't see the contradiction there.


Well, the contradiction would be that apparently, for women you want the sentence to be moderated in order to take into account that women have a harder time in prison -- but for juveniles, who arguably face a much harder time still in jail, you want to hear nothing of such a thing being taken into account, and instead insist that they should be punished just like adults.

I mean, I know you have a different perception of how, say, 14-year olds take things than me, but in terms of what they lose, outside, what they face, inside, and how it will impact them, on the inside, a minor will suffer more from 3 years in jail than an adult - that's a case even easier to make than that a woman faces a harder fallout from a 3-year sentence than a man. So why would you want the latter to be taken into acocunt, but the former not?
0 Replies
 
Vega
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:23 am
well i think that being smart is just one of teh best things taht can happen to you... but also with out that extra help you get from look u would never really get the chance to show ur potential to ppl... i vote and well i voted onbeauty i thign that it teh only way ppl can notice u adn give u the chance to express ur intellect...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 04:32:42