Do women get more lenient sentences?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Sauve wrote: »

Discussion on this issue coming up on Newstalk shortly.

Which show was it on?

Sauve

Alberto Rapid Supporter wrote: »

Which show was it on?

Lunchtime with Jonathan Healy.
I only caught the odd snippet but there seemed to be a big focus on Dochás.

Playboy

The Corinthian wrote: »

You shouldn't be, after all, you've inadvertently betrayed the same bias in your post; why did you say "I believe that there are a lot of women in jail that don’t really need to be there" rather than "people"? Subconscious slip of the tongue?

No, no slip of the tongue, I was refering to the article which discussed women in prison and not people in prison. I was hoping the second half of my post clarified my view.

Agree re the rest of your points but I still am shocked at how people who claim to be progressive in their thinking (certain feminists) can be so hypocritical and sexist whilst claiming to be the opposite. It displays a level of cognitive disonance that I find baffling.

The Corinthian

Playboy wrote: »

Agree re the rest of your points but I still am shocked at how people who claim to be progressive in their thinking (certain feminists) can be so hypocritical and sexist whilst claiming to be the opposite. It displays a level of cognitive disonance that I find baffling.

All I know is that such feminists will go to incredible lengths to protect this contradiction from question; try asking some to explain it and you'll see what I mean.

More curious is those self-identifying feminists who'll reject the more blatantly extreme policies, the so-called silent majority, will still only go so far in their criticism. Yet they too will not publicly admit that there's any contradiction.

Apparently you can still seek equality overall, while being partisan and only seek equality in those areas where women are disadvantaged, ignoring those areas where women have an advantage - assuming they even accept this exists, and many feminists reject this notion completely.

It is, as you call it, an incredible level of cognitive dissonance, that appears as much for the purpose of fooling themselves as anyone else, because were they to do so, then they would be forced to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the modern feminist movement.

iptba

I think there's a good chance a man would have spent some time in jail for this:

Woman collected €92k pension of stepmum 15 years after she died
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-collected-92k-pension-of-stepmum-15-years-after-she-died-29963565.html

sawdoubters

sentencing in Ireland is stupid, people convicted of rape, bodily violence ,theft,
all let off,

as for women,theres less chance of them commiting serious crimes,

I am not a fan of mandatory sentences even with some poor judges

http://www.lawreform.ie/news/law-reform-commission-publishes-report-on-mandatory-sentences.405.html

Liam McPoyle

iptba wrote: »

I think there's a good chance a man would have spent some time in jail for this:

And just how do you come up with that?

What examples are there to show that people found guilty of welfare fraud get different sentences?

Here is a case where all a man got was a €600 fine for collecting €22,000 in fraudulent benefits. That woman got a 2.5 year suspended jail sentence for €92,000 fraud so on balance considering the sums concerned there is no difference.

Pure speculation like you have posted above is nothing but nonsense and is veering into Walter Mitty territory to try and fit this mould of men getting screwed over to back up your arguments.

Maguined

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

And just how do you come up with that?

What examples are there to show that people found guilty of welfare fraud get different sentences?

Here is a case where all a man got was a €600 fine for collecting €22,000 in fraudulent benefits. That woman got a 2.5 year suspended jail sentence for €92,000 fraud so on balance considering the sums concerned there is no difference.

Pure speculation like you have posted above is nothing but nonsense and is veering into Walter Mitty territory to try and fit this mould of men getting screwed over to back up your arguments.

Did you just not provide an example yourself? Two people committed the same crime of welfare fraud. The person who stole almost 4 times as much as the other receives no jail time but there is also no mention of her having to pay any money back. The other person receives no jail time but has to repay back the money they stole, which since they are now unemployed is effectively sentencing them to a life of near poverty for 19 years. Also if he happens to miss one of his repayments then he does get imprisoned.

You honestly think that looks like fair treatment between both genders?

Liam McPoyle

As I said above, one got a fine and has to pay it back, no suspended sentence, one got a suspended sentence, no mention of a fine and will (I imagine as any case I've seen this has been the case) have to pay it back too.

The person that stole the most got a harder conviction (IMO) so again, IMO, the sentences were pretty even based on the amounts involved.

Maguined

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

As I said above, one got a fine and has to pay it back, no suspended sentence, one got a suspended sentence, no mention of a fine and will (I imagine as any case I've seen this has been the case) have to pay it back too.

The person that stole the most got a harder conviction (IMO) so again, IMO, the sentences were pretty even based on the amounts involved.

The article never said she had to pay it back, I honestly don't know myself but if she does not have to pay the money back, if her only punishment is a suspended sentence would you then view the sentencing as unfair and biased?

Liam McPoyle

Maguined wrote: »

The article never said she had to pay it back, I honestly don't know myself but if she does not have to pay the money back, if her only punishment is a suspended sentence would you then view the sentencing as unfair and biased?

Absolutely.

I've not said that women don't get lighter sentences than men, or vice versa.

I questioned the posters suggestion that if a bloke was convicted of the same thing as the lady in the article, which now appears to be deleted, that a man would have gotten a custodial sentence.

IMO It was a ludicrous suggestion and a stretch even for this place.

Maguined

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

Absolutely.

I've not said that women don't get lighter sentences than men, or vice versa.

I questioned the posters suggestion that if a bloke was convicted of the same thing as the lady in the article, which now appears to be deleted, that a man would have gotten a custodial sentence.

IMO It was a ludicrous suggestion and a stretch even for this place.

I am not so sure it is a ludicrous suggestion, I don't believe it is exceedingly common but I don't believe it is that rare either myself. I have been trying to find out if this woman in question has to repay the money she stole. I can't find anything conclusive but to me it looks like you either have to pay fines or receive a custodial sentence. I got this from welfare.ie discussing their fraudinitiative2011. Again I am definitely not saying this is conclusive but from reading their document and from my experience most criminal convictions in newspaper tend to report the full sentencing at the moment I believe it is more likely she does not in fact have to repay the money she stole and having her prison sentence suspended effectively means she got off scot free.

I have no evidence or facts but my gut tells me that if the same crime happened in the below article but was perpetrated by a man I do believe he would receive a custodial sentence. The defense said it was consensual yet I do not believe if a 27 year old man had sex with a 14 year old that consent would even be discussed as it would be classed as statutory rape.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-admits-sexually-assaulting-teenage-relative-610591.html

Liam McPoyle

Dunno man, from cases I can recall (purely anecdotal re Irish law but UK law does stipulate it has to be paid back) repayment is required for any fraudulent claims. If you google "dole fraud repayment" it bring up cases where men and women convicted avoided jail terms but had to pay back what they got. I'm on mobile so can't link.

Re the above case, there is no doubt if the offender was a bloke that a custodial sentence, sex offence laws here are screwed up and massively skewed against men, no question.

Maguined

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

Dunno man, from cases I can recall (purely anecdotal re Irish law but UK law does stipulate it has to be paid back) repayment is required for any fraudulent claims. If you google "dole fraud repayment" it bring up cases where men and women convicted avoided jail terms but had to pay back what they got. I'm on mobile so can't link.

Re the above case, there is no doubt if the offender was a bloke that a custodial sentence, sex offence laws here are screwed up and massively skewed against men, no question.

I could be completely wrong but from my reading they break it down from repayment of overpayments and then genuine fraud. If you receive overpayments for any sort of welfare you are genuinely entitled to in the first place then you will always have to repay the total amount that has been overpaid to you. They even deduct it from any future payments you will be paid.

Genuine fraud though is for benefits you were not genuinely entitled to in the first place. Both the man and womans cases we are talking about would be of this variety and you are only supposed to receive fines or imprisonment (from my very limited reading). I know our legal system is very similar to the UK but I wouldn't trust the comparison as I believe both benefit fraud leglislation was updated in recent years so we are more likely to have divurged than many of our older and outdated shared laws.

iptba

Just to point out that I did post research on different sentencing of men and women in Ireland in this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87457233&postcount=38 and this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87457348&postcount=39.

iptba

(from Nov 2012)
(US study)

Prof. Starr's research shows large unexplained gender disparities in federal criminal cases
http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

Galwayguy35

Just reading an article now about a woman called Loren Morris who was convicted of having sex with an 8 year old boy 50 times and she received a 2 year sentence but the judge said he would be lenient because she "realised it was wrong" and will let her out after a year!

py2006

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Just reading an article now about a woman called Loren Morris who was convicted of having sex with an 8 year old boy 50 times and she received a 2 year sentence but the judge said he would be lenient because she "realised it was wrong" and will let her out after a year!

She is only doing a year apparently..

• Loren Morris, 21, started sleeping with the boy five years ago
• She continued doing it for two years, until the boy was ten

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583647/Female-paedophile-21-jailed-two-years-sex-eight-year-old-boy-50-times-starting-16.html

iptba

Luminita Perijoc, 31, forced Nicolae Stan, 35, to have sex with her

She stabbed him more than half a dozen times

Originally sentenced to five years but reduced to her medication she was on

She got a suspended sentence

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2600488/Sex-crazed-Angelina-Jolie-lookalike-given-suspended-sentence-forcing-taxi-driver-sex-twice-stabbing-not-manage-time.html

iptba

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/textagetaway-driver-fell-under-the-spell-of-gang-members-30226104.html

Text-a-getaway driver fell 'under the spell' of gang members

[..]

Pleading for leniency, solicitor for the accused Kieran Dillon said his client was the victim of other gang members: "She was used by other people and is still in recovery from a very serious incident when she was younger. She fell under their spell and became involved in things she regrets."

I think it is less likely we would read that a man "fell under the spell" of other gang members and was "used by other people" for criminal activity (from which the individual themselves financially benefited one presumes given money was paid back).

iptba

(from today's Irish Independent)

House of Horror garda hits out at dated incest law
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/house-of-horror-garda-hits-out-at-dated-incest-law-30344982.html

Garda on his last day of work hits out that politicians haven't changed the law where the maximum a woman can be sentenced to is 7 years for incest (men can get life).

The mother was charged and convicted under Section Two of the 1908 Punishment of Incest Act which carries a maximum sentence of seven years. But Section One of the same act provides for a life sentence for a man convicted of the same incest offence.

Sgt Hynes said he met former Justice Minister Alan Shatter in 2011 and was given an assurance that the minister was already looking at introducing a new sex offenders act which would bring parity to the sentences.

Henry9

Comment below the story says it all:

The law treats men and women differently. You won't get any equality quangos campaigning for gender equality when it comes to sentencing.

In fact if they get their way, women won't serve any time for crime at all.

Pawwed Rig

Interesting story re sentencing

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-27784658

Henry9

Yesterday in the UK a woman was given 3 years for false rape allegations.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/26/trainee-barrister-jailed-false-rape-claims

the judge Julian Lambert said she had acted in an "utterly wicked" way and argued that false claims made it more difficult for real rape victims to be believed in court.

She was found guilty of 12 offences relating to false allegations of five rapes, six assaults and one false imprisonment.

The judge said Brooker's "relentless" lies had created a "detailed web of falsehood". He said false allegations could have an "insidious effect" on the public, causing scepticism and making it harder for real victims to be believed.

Excellent. Nobody with sense could disagree with that. Oh wait:

There were cries of "Shame" and "Miscarriage of justice" as Brooker's sentence was handed down.

The support and campaign group Women Against Rape (WAR) was among more than a dozen organisations and lawyers who wrote to the judge arguing that a harsh sentence would put women off coming forward to report rapes for fear they would not be believed.

The prosecution was not in the public interest

The resources spent on prosecuting Ms Brooker should have been put into prosecuting rapists and other violent men

The position of this 'WAR' crowd is interesting. They are campaigning to ensure that men accused of rape don't have anonymity, because Rape remains uniquely stigmatising for the victim.

But the women who are charged with making false allegations should remain anonymous!!

Women like Ms Brooker who are accused of a false allegation of rape should remain anonymous until proven guilty

7 year suspended sentence after killing her 8 year old son http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0707/629071-diane-ward-court/

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/judge-gives-woman-suspended-sentence-for-sons-manslaughter-635602.html

This. There is no way this sentence would be suspended if it was a man. Unbelievable.

MarkR

Deleted User wrote: »

7 year suspended sentence after killing her 8 year old son http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0707/629071-diane-ward-court/

Her son is dead, and she's currently undergoing mental health care. I don't think anyone got out of that lightly.

py2006

MarkR wrote: »

Her son is dead, and she's currently undergoing mental health care. I don't think anyone got out of that lightly.

Her son is dead because she killed him. It is not like she is a normal woman and her son was murdered by somebody else and she is going through the shock and grief of that.

Sleepy

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/judge-gives-woman-suspended-sentence-for-sons-manslaughter-635602.html

This. There is no way this sentence would be suspended if it was a man. Unbelievable.

Honestly, that sounds like a fairly genuine case of temporary insanity and I'd hope a man would receive the same sentence. (Though that could just be the impression I'm getting from the report.)

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - topic being discussed in 2 different threads. Merged posts.

eviltwin

If someone is sick as opposed to just bad or evil I don't really see the point of putting them in prison where they won't get the help they need and could be a danger to other inmates and staff. Better that she gets help in a mental hospital which has the specialist staff and facilities - the central mental hospital is not exactly a palace btw - and is treated. Its nothing to do with gender, a quick google search will show many men who have killed have been committed to the Central Mental Hospital. There is every likelyhood that people sent there will do more time there then they would in a jail anyway. At least this way on release hopefully they are less of a threat to the rest of us.

MarkR

py2006 wrote: »

Her son is dead because she killed him. It is not like she is a normal woman and her son was murdered by somebody else and she is going through the shock and grief of that.

I don't dispute that, I'm saying that no one got off lightly.

Azwaldo55

The woman who has been given the suspended sentence was mentally ill at the time she killed her son.
If a man was mentally ill at the time he killed someone he would be treated the same way.
If a person is not of sound mind they are by definition not capable of being responsible for their actions.
There was a high profile case more than twenty years ago when a young man suffering from mental illness killed his girlfriend and her mother with a firearm and was committed. He claimed he was temporarily insane and I believe while he was on day release he fled the jurisdiction. After a number of years and legal wrangling I think he was allowed to go free because he was not responsible for his actions at the time.
I do believe that if someone has killed someone in these circumstance and recovered they should be closely monitored.
Public safety should come before the rights of an individual who has already taken human life.

Galwayguy35

eviltwin wrote: »

If someone is sick as opposed to just bad or evil I don't really see the point of putting them in prison where they won't get the help they need and could be a danger to other inmates and staff. Better that she gets help in a mental hospital which has the specialist staff and facilities - the central mental hospital is not exactly a palace btw - and is treated. Its nothing to do with gender, a quick google search will show many men who have killed have been committed to the Central Mental Hospital. There is every likelyhood that people sent there will do more time there then they would in a jail anyway. At least this way on release hopefully they are less of a threat to the rest of us.

I agree with you on this, Brendan O Donnell was sent there instead of prison for murdering 3 people.

py2006

MarkR wrote: »

I don't dispute that, I'm saying that no one got off lightly.

Well in fairness you avoided a lengthy prison term. Although, she will be forever known for her act.

Azwaldo55

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I agree with you on this, Brendan O Donnell was sent there instead of prison for murdering 3 people.

You are missing the point here. If a person is insane they can't murder someone because to be a murder it has to be deliberate act by a rational person.

Azwaldo55

py2006 wrote: »

Well in fairness you avoided a lengthy prison term. Although, she will be forever known for her act.

She was out of her mind at the time of the killing. She has nothing to answer for.
If she was rational when she killed her child then yes she should be forever known for her act.
But this was not her act. She was not aware of what she was doing.

Galwayguy35

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You are missing the point here. If a person is insane they can't murder someone because to be a murder it has to be deliberate act by a rational person.

Fine, killed them then.

Galwayguy35

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The woman who has been given the suspended sentence was mentally ill at the time she killed her son.
If a man was mentally ill at the time he killed someone he would be treated the same way.
If a person is not of sound mind they are by definition not capable of being responsible for their actions.
There was a high profile case more than twenty years ago when a young man suffering from mental illness killed his girlfriend and her mother with a firearm and was committed. He claimed he was temporarily insane and I believe while he was on day release he fled the jurisdiction. After a number of years and legal wrangling I think he was allowed to go free because he was not responsible for his actions at the time.
I do believe that if someone has killed someone in these circumstance and recovered they should be closely monitored.
Public safety should come before the rights of an individual who has already taken human life.

I'm open to correction but I think he fled to NI and is wanted if he appears on this side of the border.

eviltwin

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm open to correction but I think he fled to NI and is wanted if he appears on this side of the border.

He didn't get discharged from the mental hospital, he absconded. I'm not sure legally where he stands if he comes back down South, if he can be recommitted.

Galwayguy35

eviltwin wrote: »

He didn't get discharged from the mental hospital, he absconded. I'm not sure legally where he stands if he comes back down South, if he can be recommitted.

Yeah thats what I thought.

Azwaldo55

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm open to correction but I think he fled to NI and is wanted if he appears on this side of the border.

The most important detail of the case is that he was assessed at the time and found to be insane. He is no longer insane now so he should go free.
In the same way this unfortunate woman should be treated and recover and get on with her life.

Galwayguy35

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The most important detail of the case is that he was assessed at the time and found to be insane. He is no longer insane now so he should go free.
In the same way this unfortunate woman should be treated and recover and get on with her life.

Do you even know the details of the case?

He wasn't found to be sane, he escaped.

Azwaldo55

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Do you even know the details of the case?

He wasn't found to be sane, he escaped.

He escaped because he wasn't insane any more but they still wanted to keep him inside because the state had tried him for murder and were miffed that he was declared not guilty by reason of insanity. He wasn't guilty of murder, he was no longer insane so why the hell should he still be in captivity. Apparently he has a partner and kids and a job and has moved on. Time everyone else did too.

Galwayguy35

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

He escaped because he wasn't insane any more but they still wanted to keep him inside because the state had tried him for murder and were miffed that he was declared not guilty by reason of insanity. He wasn't guilty of murder, he was no longer insane so why the hell should he still be in captivity. Apparently he has a partner and kids and a job and has moved on. Time everyone else did too.

Cold comfort to the family of his ex girlfriend.

iptba

Not sure where I stand on latest case but just to point out the following:

A psychiatric report prepared for the prosecution said while she did not meet the criteria for insanity required under legislation, her mental capacity to reason the situation and choices open to her were substantially diminished and it followed that any intention formed in deciding to kill herself and her son were the products of a diminished mental capacity.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0707/629071-diane-ward-court/

At least she has been detained until now, and will be detained a while longer. This hasn't happened in some other cases where women have killed people e.g. the Caroline Brennan case discussed extensively here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 [stabbed her brother through the heart, no talk that she was insane or anything close to it - got a five-year suspended sentence. Some people said she would have had to live with it for the rest of her life, but I think a few months in jail would have sent out a clear message to her and everyone else that she shouldn't have done it (and would have forced her to reflect which might not happen if you're not in jail)].

Azwaldo55

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Cold comfort to the family of his ex girlfriend.

He was insane when he killed her and her mother. Why should a man be punished for something he was not responsible for? An insane person is not evil. They are insane. The man is not insane any more so he shouldn't be in custody.

Azwaldo55

iptba wrote: »

Not sure where I stand on latest case but just to point out the following:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0707/629071-diane-ward-court/

At least she has been detained until now, and will be detained a while longer. This hasn't happened in some other cases where women have killed people e.g. the Caroline Brennan case discussed extensively here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 [stabbed her brother through the heart, no talk that she was insane or anything close to it - got a five-year suspended sentence. Some people said she would have had to live with it for the rest of her life, but I think a few months in jail would have sent out a clear message to her and everyone else that she shouldn't have done it (and would have forced her to reflect which might not happen if you're not in jail)].

People who have mental problems aren't rational so they don't listen to messages and respond rationally to them.

iptba

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

He was insane when he killed her and her mother. Why should a man be punished for something he was not responsible for? An insane person is not evil. They are insane. The man is not insane any more so he shouldn't be in custody.

An issue would be whether such a person had a good chance to become similarly insane in future and be a risk to others.

iptba

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Not sure where I stand on latest case but just to point out the following:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0707/629...ne-ward-court/

At least she has been detained until now, and will be detained a while longer. This hasn't happened in some other cases where women have killed people e.g. the Caroline Brennan case discussed extensively here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...php?p=64566921 [stabbed her brother through the heart, no talk that she was insane or anything close to it - got a five-year suspended sentence. Some people said she would have had to live with it for the rest of her life, but I think a few months in jail would have sent out a clear message to her and everyone else that she shouldn't have done it (and would have forced her to reflect which might not happen if you're not in jail)].

People who have mental problems aren't rational so they don't listen to messages and respond rationally to them.

It wasn't suggested that Caroline Brennan had "mental problems".