Why Is Sex Descrimination Ok If It's Against Men?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/more-women-to-be-spared-jail-under-new-justice-system-strategy-11386673

[dannyk13]

No problem as long as the same consideration is given to male offenders.

[ToraToraTora]

"More female criminals will be spared jail under a new strategy to be unveiled by the government." - says it all, women will be spared jail not men.

[dannyk13]

TTT, not all male offenders are sentenced to prison.

[Mamyalynne]

Non Custodial sentencing for non violent crimes should be looked at closely across the board.

Prison is often the last place some should be.

[ToraToraTora]

danny, I know but the article is specifically about sending less women to jail, ie offences that previously resulted in jail will no longer do so. Clearly that is discrimination that's what I'm talking about.

[jackthehat]

///More than 80% of women are in prison for non-violent offences and nearly two-thirds are jailed for six months or less. Short sentences are criticised for being long enough to lose housing or custody of children but being too short to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation.///

If a custodial sentence causes greater 'social problems' than could have been faced in a non-custodial situation, it sounds sensible.

And hopefully, it will eventually be applied across the board....

[nailit]

People saying that its OK if its across the board. But it isn't across the board though is it?
3T's link is specifically about females.
David Gauke talks about mental health issues, homelessness, non violent offenders etc. as if these things dont apply to male offenders as well.

[dunnitall]

IMO everyone should be treated the same in spite of gender. Punishment to fit the crime be it a male or female perpetrator ..... Equal for all. Women get away with far too much IMO just because some armpits think they are the weaker sex. Make no mistake, it's the mind set of male or female not the gender which should dictate the punishment ..... Just saying!!

[New Judge]

“Non Custodial sentencing for non violent crimes should be looked at closely across the board.”

They already are. As I keep saying here on AB whenever questions such as this are raised, the UK is far less prone to imprison people that many other European countries. To receive a custodial sentence you have to commit either a serious offence of quite a large number of minor offences. Those going down the second route can expect all manner of non-custodial disposals to have been handed down before prison is considered. Prison is reserved for those who simply refuse to respond to other disposals and continue offending or refuse to co-operate with other types of sentence. Eventually there are no options left because custody is the only disposal that requires no co-operation from the convicted.

There are currently no provisions in sentencing guidelines to provide lesser sentences for females (and nor should there be). I wonder if Mr Gauke intends to influence the “independent” Sentencing Council and persuade it to introduce some. And I wonder what his rationale might be to support such a move which is aimed solely at female convicts.

[Mamyalynne]

Thank you for correcting me.

//The government's delayed strategy on female offenders, due to be published last year, will be released "very shortly", says Mr Gauke.//

I suppose we shall have to wait until it is released to know more.

[pixie374]

The reasons are given in the link. Also, we already know that women are hugely disproportionately affected by prison sentencing. Socially and mentally... They are far more likely to totally lose contact with their children than men are and the impacts on them personally and their lives are much higher. If you want a man and a woman to be punished equally- a woman would need a shorter sentence, otherwise it would be discrimination as they have harsher punishment for the same thing.

[douglas9401]

Like the tennis at Wimbers, less work, same money only same crime, less time.

The sisterhood will be in a spin about such inequality but only on one side.

Much yer but, no but.......

[pixie374]

It is not "less work" Doug. It's the equivalent- they are women. That was my point.

[nailit]

//Also, we already know that women are hugely disproportionately affected by prison sentencing. Socially and mentally//
Any statistics for that Pix?
//They are far more likely to totally lose contact with their children than men//
Ive known loads of men who have lost contact with their children by been sent to prison.

Doesnt matter what sex you are, the repercussions are the same.

[pixie374]

They aren't the same, nailit. There are individual differences of course, but overall, women are far more affected. I haven't looked for a recent link, as it is commonly very well known anyway. But I'm sure Google will give the statistics x

[douglas9401]

You seem to be setting the wimmin's movement back to about that famous horse race.

They are either equal or not, without equivocation.

[New Judge]

"Also, we already know that women are hugely disproportionately affected by prison sentencing."

Then all the more reason why they should desist from offending. It helps to concentrate their minds if they know how badly they will be affected.

[sunny-dave]

I think there is an unconscious sliding scale in the mind of many (most?) judges which factors in ethnicity/class/education/age/sex when making a sentencing decision - regardless of any official 'guidelines'.

The likelihood and length of a prison sentence being greatest for a black/chav/uneducated/young/male and least for a white/posh/university-educated/middle-aged/woman - of these five factors I firmly believe that the sex is by far the most important and discriminatory.

[pixie374]

Men could just desist too? That theory hasn't seemed to work so far...

[pixie374]

They are equal, not identical, Doug. I don't know why ABers in general seem to have so much trouble with that.