snood wrote:dlowan:
Quote:Nope.
Because I have had real experience in the corrections area and previous research to base mine on,
Care to share the results of your "research"? I think its a crock of **** to say women are treated more harshly by the courts than are men. Or maybe it's just true in Australia.
Quote:Have you any knowledge in the area at all?
Let's put it this way, by what either of us have
proved, I know at least as much as you.
Quote:You are one who loves to make "outlandish" claim based on YOUR experience, Snood....and who becomes hysterical with rage when someone questions your subjectivity.
"Hysterical with rage", indeed. You're blowing smoke faster than your avatar. Show me "hysterical with rage" in something I wrote. You're the one who appears to have a bee under her saddle here.
When related to the topic of this thread, your posts appear so off topic they're almost crazy. Are you trying to make the argument that the blonde teacher who's been referred to here has received worse treatment than would a man? If so, prove that crazy assertion. If not, what the hell are you babbling about?
Quote:I made comments in good faith, based on experience and older research, acknowledging clearly that things may have changed as violent female crime becomes more common, and also stated that my experience was out of date.
Out of date, yeah - maybe. Also off subject, crazy and wrong. You made them in "good faith" though, huh? Oh, well in that case, no one should say anything about how goofy the comments were.
Quote:Nor did I crack a hissy fit when you found stats from a source I believe is quite suspect to contradict me, and I acknowledged that they may be accurate, though I would certainly not accept them as definitive without some real research.
I did find a biased source - I'll give you that. But that's one more source than you've provided. And if a hissy fit has been thrown, you threw the first one.
If you could not read my pretty clear background that I was basing my comments on experience (ie anecdotal) evidence and adding to it research from when I was working in corrections, which I clearly stated was some time ago, plus my comments that I thought things might have changed over the intervening 20 years, as violent crime in women became more common, I do not see how I could ever make anything clear to you.
I can't fiond the research we looked up 20 years ago, becuuse I no longer have access to the journals we got it from.
Getting decent research on such things cannot really be done on the net, you have to pay for proper scholarly articles.
Here are some of the places I referred, quite clearly, I would have thought, to both the experiential basis of what I was saying, and the age of the research:
dlowan wrote: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.
dlowan wrote:nimh wrote:dlowan wrote:Dunno Nimh. There have recently been several woman teachers who have been prosecuted here just in the last little while [..]
I am unsure if this is really so, but the women certainly seem to have their cases far more widely covered in the press, presumably because they have more shock value.
I actually wonder if the boys are LESS adept at keeping it quiet, or their parents get MORE outraged, because it is seen as more aberrant behaviour in women.
Well, kindof a contradiction in that logic.
Yes, there's been a few cases the last year in the US, too, that got great media coverage as well. (Nothing comparable in Holland, that I know of.)
So you definitely seem right in your second point - that "the women certainly seem to have their cases far more widely covered in the press".
But why? Because of the novelty value, the unexpected-value. "More shock value", like you say yourself.
But why does it have more shock value? It's more unheard of, relatively new - something that you
don't actually hear often, or dont expect to hear. Something that's still a bit of a spectacle.
Why is it such an exception, a story like that coming out? Does it just not happen very often? Or is it still more of a taboo, something a boy wouldnt come out about - or would try to brag about, instead (which is how one of these cases came out)?
If, like you say, boys would be
less adept at keeping it quiet, then you'd actually hear about a lot more of those cases - and they wouldn't end up being run on nation-wide TV for a week like the couple of these cases are... they'd end up on page 16 of the local paper, just like the attacks on girls.
I mean, seriously ... up till a year or two, three ago, how often did you hear about a woman adult preying on a boy? Its getting so much press attention because its something most people didnt think, or werent willing to acknowledge, was happening..
It's interesting.
I have been waiting for years for an explosion of sexual abuse by women disclosures to occur.....since I always kind of assumed it was under-reported, and I thought we MUST be going to have a disclosure fest similar, if less numerically overwhelming, than the one for male sexual abuse a couple of decades ago, as it became less taboo to discuss.
I am still waiting.
My sense now is that women are, in general, less likely to sexually abuse than males.
I am in the centre of the abuse knowledge network in my state now, and we DO get the odd case of female abusers...but very few and far between.
I am not sure if this will remain as rare, as women generally become more violent, and so on...but at present I really think it is rare.
I DO think women get a rawer deal legally, though, when they do sexually abuse...which goes hand in hand with some research I looked at years ago, when I worked in Corrections, which confirmed our impression that, while women may get softer sentences for "female" crimes like shop-lifting, at first, if they continue to offend, or commit "male" crimes, they get treated more harshly. I have always assumed this goes with some visceral response to a woman being all monstrous and manlike and such if she steps from her assigned role.
As far as I can see that identifies clearly that I was speaking from my experiences, (anecdotal) and research looked up a long time ago.
I specifically say that this may no longer pertain.
Still, if you want to deride stuff clearly labelled as experiential and old research, as experiential and old research, go ahead.
Actually, I was thinking about research in this area today as I worked, and thinking how very complex it all is, and how on earth you would do it.
Comparing crime with crime is very difficult, unless a researcher was to look at all court documents....
Some reasons for this:
; Plea bargaining, where some defendants end up being sentenced for an offence lesser than that with which they were originally charged, and some don't....data published from criminal statistics will not capture this.
: Some defendants ask for a number of other ofences to be taken into account in one sentencing....hence they might get a longer sentence than another person charged with what appears to be the same crime...data published from criminal statistics will not capture this.
: A person with more priors will likely get a longer sentence...again, as with the others, you would have to go back and look at actual files to capture this.
: What a person is actually charged with has a lot to do with the local police, and may be inconsistent from defendant to defendant.
This is simply by way of posting my maunderings from today, rather than being part of any argument.
I wish I COULD access the research we looked at all those years ago, because I am far more sophisticated in critiqueing research stuff than I was then.
And yes, I WAS irked by your accusing me of things that I had been transparent about in my posts.
I know it is easy to skim posts, and not see stuff, I do it myself and feel an utter fool when I reread.....but your tone was most uncalled for.
As was the "goofy" crap. Because something does not mesh with YOUR prejudices does not mean it is "Goofy".
And so off topic they seem crazy? Actually, they were part of a discussion that had occurred with Nimh. But of course, anything you do not like is "crazy" and anyone who posts it is worthy of contempt because Snood does not like it.
The end.
, Huh? I'd say Snood needs the correction Nimh made.
