US Parole board denies battered woman's clemency plea

MilesMorales1

OKLAHOMA CITY — Tondalo Hall, a battered woman whose lengthy prison term in a child abuse case has outraged women’s rights advocates, had her plea for clemency denied on Wednesday.

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board voted down her application for a commuted sentence, meaning Hall will remain in prison until at least 2030, when she becomes eligible for parole.

Hall is serving a 30-year sentence for failing to protect her children from her abusive boyfriend, Robert Braxton. Braxton received only a two-year sentence after he admitted to breaking the ribs and femur of their 3-month-old daughter. He has been free since 2006, while Hall, who was not accused of abusing her children, remains behind bars.
A BuzzFeed News investigation found that Hall was one of at least 28 mothers in 11 states who had been sentenced to 10 or more years in prison for failing to protect their children from abusers — despite evidence the mothers themselves had been abused.

Hall has alleged both in and out of court that she, too, had been violently abused by Braxton — Hall says that he had choked and punched her.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexcampbell/parole-board-denies-battered-womans-clemency-plea?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.jvBKolgK

American legal system is crazy as ****. Apparently only the state governor can pardon her, which is mad, considering the abuser is already out of prison. It makes my blood boil reading **** like that.

Timberrrrrrrr

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexcampbell/parole-board-denies-battered-womans-clemency-plea?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.jvBKolgK

American legal system is crazy as ****. Apparently only the state governor can pardon her, which is mad, considering the abuser is already out of prison. It makes my blood boil reading **** like that.

Nothing that happens over there surprises me anymore.

steddyeddy

Actually they should both be in prison. He should serve a slightly longer sentence though.

MilesMorales1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually they should both be in prison. He should serve a slightly longer sentence though.

Is it that simple if she was abused by him as well? Seems the american policy of just throwing people into jail doesn't really work in practise.

Samaris

Wait, he's out already? And she's still in there?

I...*splutter*.

So the abuser gets less time than one of his abused? Bizarre. Which is not to say that failing to protect her baby from a monster isn't a terrible thing, or that she doesn't deserve prison.

But the perpetrator gets two years and one of his victims doesn't even qualify to apply for parole for another 15 years. in spite of never harming the child herself? Sounds like someone has too much sympathy for male abusers, and not enough for victims.

Penny Tration

I really don't see the problem with jailing someone for allowing their children to be abused.

He should have a much longer sentence, and that's the problem here. He did the worst part, he should be jailed for a hell of a lot longer than her.

I feel awful for her because she was also abused and it fcuks you up mentally. But she had a duty to protect her children and she failed them monumentally.

I'm sorry she was abused, but she's an adult and had the ability to seek help in whatever way she could. The child could do nothing to protect itself.

steddyeddy

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Is it that simple if she was abused by him as well? Seems the american policy of just throwing people into jail doesn't really work in practise.

I come from a similar family. I escaped at sixteen. I have zero time for anyone who keeps their kids in a situation like that. If I could do it as a kid a grown up (man or woman) with kids has to do it.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually they should both be in prison. He should serve a slightly longer sentence though.

Actually I should say he should serve a longer sentence.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I come from a similar family. I escaped at sixteen. I have zero time for anyone who keeps their kids in a situation like that. If I could do it as a kid a grown up (man or woman) with kids has to do it.

People are all different Eddy. What you might have found within yourself to escape abuse might be missing in someone else, no matter how harshly we judge people for it. We are who we are, there's no escaping that.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

People are all different Eddy. What you might have found within yourself to escape abuse might be missing in someone else, no matter how harshly we judge people for it. We are who we are, there's no escaping that.

Indeed but does that variable in personality excuse action or inaction? Some abuse victims go on to be abusers themselves. I would throw myself off a cliff before hurting a kid. Another person may go on to abuse to deal with their demons (I think abuse is about control IMHO). Does the fact that they have a different personality from me excuse that?

steddyeddy

Not to say I don't have the upmost sympathy for this woman. Abuse warps the mind and he most likely controlled her through fear.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed but does that variable in personality excuse action or inaction? Some abuse victims go on to be abusers themselves. I would throw myself off a cliff before hurting a kid. Another person may go on to abuse to deal with their demons (I think abuse is about control IMHO). Does the fact that they have a different personality from me excuse that?

I'm not trying to excuse anything, as I clearly said in my first post. Just offer what might be an explanation.

There are no excuses for allowing abuse to happen - that neglect being another form of abuse.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

I'm not trying to excuse anything, as I clearly said in my first post. Just offer what might be an explanation.

There are no excuses for allowing abuse to happen - that neglect being another form of abuse.

Oh sorry Candie. You're right. My mother was a very docile woman. It seems likely that abusers go for women like this. If I ever get rich I'd put money into helping domestic abuse victims get out. Abuse is very common in Ireland IMHO.

Overheal

Stupid application of the law:

Braxton was charged with child abuse and Hall was charged with failing to protect her children from him.

Hall pled guilty, but Braxton did not, and went to trial. Hall testified at his trial, but frustrated prosecutors because she did not provide many details on witness stand about how he had abused her children. Fearful that without her testimony, they would lose the case prosecutors cut a deal with Braxton in which he pled guilty but was released from jail.

When it came time for Hall to be sentenced, the judge who presided over both trials faulted her for being “less than candid” about his alleged crimes, although also noted that she seemed to be afraid of him. Still, he sentenced her to 30 years.

Her boyfriend didn't protect the kids either, clearly.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nothing that happens over there surprises me anymore.

Dude, examine your own legal system before bashing Oklahoma's. How long did Halvey go to Mountjoy for, for running over that kid dead during a DUI?

asherbassad

Penny Tration wrote: »

I really don't see the problem with jailing someone for allowing their children to be abused.

He should have a much longer sentence, and that's the problem here. He did the worst part, he should be jailed for a hell of a lot longer than her.

I feel awful for her because she was also abused and it fcuks you up mentally. But she had a duty to protect her children and she failed them monumentally.

I'm sorry she was abused, but she's an adult and had the ability to seek help in whatever way she could. The child could do nothing to protect itself.

It's one thing ALLOWING it to happen. It's quite a different thing not being ABLE to prevent it from happening.

Little CuChulainn

asherbassad wrote: »

It's one thing ALLOWING it to happen. It's quite a different thing not being ABLE to prevent it from happening.

If it's a matter of being physically unable to do anything then that's one thing. But a call to police or child protective services outlining the abuse would generally be sufficient to get the ball rolling.

asherbassad

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If it's a matter of being physically unable to do anything then that's one thing. But a call to police or child protective services outlining the abuse would generally be sufficient to get the ball rolling.

Always seeking to imprison someone, anyone. Never once stopping to think about the terror and misery under which she might have lived. Sure...bang her up and that will put your mind at rest that the evildoer has, as usual, been apprehended and punished.

There's another thread on here about US soldiers being ORDERED to not intervene in the cases of child rape. These aren't battered wives. These are grown MEN. Men with guns. Men who are trained to kill other humans. This woman, this battered woman failed to protect her child and for that you want her hung or never to see the outside of a prison cell for the next 15 years. As if her incalculable suffering couldn't be exacerbated any further. She will never get to see that child grown up. When she gets out....that child will be grown and most likely with deep emotional and mental problems having been shunted from one foster home to another. That person will most likely be depressed and turn to alcohol, drugs and/or crime and when the turn comes for that kid to stand in court the hard-ass gang on here who know just about everything and have the answer to all society's ills will shout "Aww, boo-hoo! The kid had a tough upbringing. Jail the scumbag."

Yep, I've heard it all before.

Incidentally what punishment would you mete out to those who issue orders to NOT defend kids from rape when you would have this woman imprisoned for this long merely for the crime of not being ABLE to prevent abuse and violence?

Penny Tration

Where are you getting the part where she wasn't able? There's zero evidence of her being unable, only unwilling.

steddyeddy

We need a balance between understanding that the silent partner is being abused and making it clear that children need to be removed from the situation ASAP.

GLaDOS

I'd worry that fear of arrest may further hold back victims of domestic abuse from coming forward and getting help.

steddyeddy

asherbassad wrote: »

It's one thing ALLOWING it to happen. It's quite a different thing not being ABLE to prevent it from happening.

Do you know who are most definitely not able to prevent it happen? The kids.

steddyeddy

asherbassad wrote: »

Always seeking to imprison someone, anyone. Never once stopping to think about the terror and misery under which she might have lived. Sure...bang her up and that will put your mind at rest that the evildoer has, as usual, been apprehended and punished.

There's another thread on here about US soldiers being ORDERED to not intervene in the cases of child rape. These aren't battered wives. These are grown MEN. Men with guns. Men who are trained to kill other humans. This woman, this battered woman failed to protect her child and for that you want her hung or never to see the outside of a prison cell for the next 15 years. As if her incalculable suffering couldn't be exacerbated any further. She will never get to see that child grown up. When she gets out....that child will be grown and most likely with deep emotional and mental problems having been shunted from one foster home to another. That person will most likely be depressed and turn to alcohol, drugs and/or crime and when the turn comes for that kid to stand in court the hard-ass gang on here who know just about everything and have the answer to all society's ills will shout "Aww, boo-hoo! The kid had a tough upbringing. Jail the scumbag."

Yep, I've heard it all before.

Incidentally what punishment would you mete out to those who issue orders to NOT defend kids from rape when you would have this woman imprisoned for this long merely for the crime of not being ABLE to prevent abuse and violence?

It's a bit dicky to suggest the poster's primary motive is to imprison someone rather than rescue the kids.

asherbassad

Penny Tration wrote: »

I really don't see the problem with jailing someone for allowing their children to be abused.

He should have a much longer sentence, and that's the problem here. He did the worst part, he should be jailed for a hell of a lot longer than her.

I feel awful for her because she was also abused and it fcuks you up mentally. But she had a duty to protect her children and she failed them monumentally.

I'm sorry she was abused, but she's an adult and had the ability to seek help in whatever way she could. The child could do nothing to protect itself.

So what would your punishment be then for an 18 year old young man who is walking home at night with his 11 year old brother and they are set upon by 2 larger thugs. The thugs quickly break the 18 year old's nose and teeth and then one holds him down as he's bleeding, vomiting and in shock while the other thug punches up the 11 year old, kicks him around a bit and all for a bit of drunken fun?

What sentence would you hand down to the older brother....after he gets out of hospital?

After all he failed to protect a child, albeit a sibling rather than an offspring.

hatrickpatrick

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Is it that simple if she was abused by him as well? Seems the american policy of just throwing people into jail doesn't really work in practise.

Unless she can prove that and get a conviction, it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a mitigating factor. Any alleged crimes by somebody else shouldn't be allowed to be used as a mitigating factor in somebody's defense unless they can be proven in court, as far as I'm concerned.

Still disagree with the poster you quoted though. His sentence should be a lot longer - and not because hers should be relatively lenient either. As far as I'm concerned, people who violently assault children, and those who facilitate them, are among the only cases in which genuine life sentences (as in, rot in jail) should be considered.

steddyeddy

asherbassad wrote: »

So what would your punishment be then for an 18 year old young man who is walking home at night with his 11 year old brother and they are set upon by 2 larger thugs. The thugs quickly break the 18 year old's nose and teeth and then one holds him down as he's bleeding, vomiting and in shock while the other thug punches up the 11 year old, kicks him around a bit and all for a bit of drunken fun?

What sentence would you hand down to the older brother....after he gets out of hospital?

After all he failed to protect a child, albeit a sibling rather than an offspring.

You're talking about once off assault VS systemic sexual, physical or psychological abuse of an infant.

Abuse occurs in cycles. Stopping abuse doesn't necessarily involve beating up the abuser. It involves notifying police after sexual, physical assault has taken place in order to prevent it occurring again.

Penny Tration

asherbassad wrote: »

So what would your punishment be then for an 18 year old young man who is walking home at night with his 11 year old brother and they are set upon by 2 larger thugs. The thugs quickly break the 18 year old's nose and teeth and then one holds him down as he's bleeding, vomiting and in shock while the other thug punches up the 11 year old, kicks him around a bit and all for a bit of drunken fun?

What sentence would you hand down to the older brother....after he gets out of hospital?

After all he failed to protect a child, albeit a sibling rather than an offspring.

None, because he was incapable of protecting the child.

There's no evidence the woman was unABLE.

Stop making up ridiculous, incomparable scenarios.

If the mother were held down and beaten by a friend of her boyfriend, while the boyfriend beat the child, it'd be comparable. But that's not what happened.

Little CuChulainn

asherbassad wrote: »

Always seeking to imprison someone, anyone. Never once stopping to think about the terror and misery under which she might have lived. Sure...bang her up and that will put your mind at rest that the evildoer has, as usual, been apprehended and punished.

There's another thread on here about US soldiers being ORDERED to not intervene in the cases of child rape. These aren't battered wives. These are grown MEN. Men with guns. Men who are trained to kill other humans. This woman, this battered woman failed to protect her child and for that you want her hung or never to see the outside of a prison cell for the next 15 years. As if her incalculable suffering couldn't be exacerbated any further. She will never get to see that child grown up. When she gets out....that child will be grown and most likely with deep emotional and mental problems having been shunted from one foster home to another. That person will most likely be depressed and turn to alcohol, drugs and/or crime and when the turn comes for that kid to stand in court the hard-ass gang on here who know just about everything and have the answer to all society's ills will shout "Aww, boo-hoo! The kid had a tough upbringing. Jail the scumbag."

Yep, I've heard it all before.

Incidentally what punishment would you mete out to those who issue orders to NOT defend kids from rape when you would have this woman imprisoned for this long merely for the crime of not being ABLE to prevent abuse and violence?

You've attributed an awful lot to me that I didn't say.

asherbassad

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you know who are most definitely not able to prevent it happen? The kids.

That's pretty much stating the obvious. So what sentence would you hand down to the many battered wives in Ireland whose abusive partner/spouse managed to punch up her children before, during or after he punched her senseless?

There are battered women cowering in fear with their kids in "hotels" around this and every other country having finally grown the balls to escape from abuse and do what people like you insist is the duty of the mother in this case. And for their sins of fleeing and being put up in a shelter they are then vilified and being lambasted as living in hotels and how it must be so much more luxurious that being homeless. That's another fucking thread on here.

No woman should ever be in prison.. EVER!

Little CuChulainn

asherbassad wrote: »

That's pretty much stating the obvious. So what sentence would you hand down to the many battered wives in Ireland whose abusive partner/spouse managed to punch up her children before, during or after he punched her senseless?

There are battered women cowering in fear with their kids in "hotels" around this and every other country having finally grown the balls to escape from abuse and do what people like you insist is the duty of the mother in this case. And for their sins of fleeing and being put up in a shelter they are then vilified and being lambasted as living in hotels and how it must be so much more luxurious that being homeless. That's another fucking thread on here.

No woman should ever be in prison.. EVER!

No woman at all?

Penny Tration

asherbassad wrote: »

That's pretty much stating the obvious. So what sentence would you hand down to the many battered wives in Ireland whose abusive partner/spouse managed to punch up her children before, during or after he punched her senseless?

There are battered women cowering in fear with their kids in "hotels" around this and every other country having finally grown the balls to escape from abuse and do what people like you insist is the duty of the mother in this case. And for their sins of fleeing and being put up in a shelter they are then vilified and being lambasted as living in hotels and how it must be so much more luxurious that being homeless. That's another fucking thread on here.

No woman should ever be in prison.. EVER!

You really need to read threads properly instead of making crazy assumptions.

Nobody in that other thread said that battered wives are living the life of Riley in a hotel room. Jesus, exaggerate much?

osarusan

asherbassad wrote: »

No woman should ever be in prison.. EVER!

Never ever?

asherbassad

asherbassad wrote: »

No woman should ever be in prison.. EVER!

A lot of peoples believe this! It is coming to be a crazy world.

hatrickpatrick

asherbassad wrote: »

Incidentally what punishment would you mete out to those who issue orders to NOT defend kids from rape when you would have this woman imprisoned for this long merely for the crime of not being ABLE to prevent abuse and violence?

Those who issued the orders not to defend kids from rape should receive the same sentences as the rapists they facilitated. Those who followed those orders in full knowledge that they were facilitating rape should receive the same sentences as the rapists they facilitated.

I'm not particularly sure whether you're suggesting you wouldn't approve of that or not? Personally in my view when it comes to stamping out rape, child molestation, murder etc I believe in being absolutely ruthless. Anyone who knowingly facilitated such crimes in any way, shape or form, even just by knowing about them and not reporting them, should be regarded as co-conspirators and subject to the same penalties as those who committed them. If one's priority is stamping out such crime, then surely one would agree? If my best friend tortures a kid and I don't turn him in, I'm a f*cking scumbag and I should be jailed for conspiracy to commit violence against a child. There's no room in a civilised society for people who commit such crimes, but nor in my view should there be room for people who tolerate them.

asherbassad

Penny Tration wrote: »

None, because he was incapable of protecting the child.

There's no evidence the woman was unABLE.

Stop making up ridiculous, incomparable scenarios.

If the mother were held down and beaten by a friend of her boyfriend, while the boyfriend beat the child, it'd be comparable. But that's not what happened.

Then what would your sentence be if he ran away in fear?

A custodial sentence?

Azalea

No woman should ever be in prison ever?! Not even the excuse of a mother of Peter Connelly (Baby P)?

But anyway, in this case, if the mother was like the above - willfully neglecting the children/aiding and abetting their abuser, then prison seems perfectly just (although the primary abuser should receive a longer sentence - the sentencing here is baffling).

If the mother was really afraid of the abuser though (and it appears he did assault her too) I don't know... I agree very much that she should still have done more to protect her children, but I don't know if I agree with imprisonment of her.

hatrickpatrick

asherbassad wrote: »

Then what would your sentence be if he ran away in fear?

A custodial sentence?

Presume you meant she referring to the mother?

If she didn't report the abuse, yes.
But scratch your premise because in my view it's irrelevant. If a person knew about abuse, could have reported it, and did not, they should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit abuse. Unless there was no way they could make such a report, IE no access to a phone, false imprisonment so couldn't leave the house to go to a payphone or a police station, etc, then they are complicit.

Harsh? Sure. But we're talking about child abuse here. There's no room whatsoever for tolerance of non-coerced complicity.

ceadaoin.

The reason her boyfriend escaped a lengthy jail sentence was because she didnt provide sufficient details of the abuse in court, allowing him to make a plea deal. So not only did she not stop the abuse, she continued to protect him. I'm sure she wasn't expecting to go to jail for so long and didn't want to ruin their future together by testifying against him. I do think her sentence is a bit extreme but she does deserve punishment for her actions. Most women in domestic violence situations act that way through fear, a few are just plain selfish and put their relationship before their children. Ultimately, she had the chance in court to protect her children and herself from this man but chose not to

Hall pled guilty, but Braxton did not, and went to trial. Hall testified at his trial, but frustrated prosecutors because she did not provide many details on witness stand about how he had abused her children. Fearful that without her testimony, they would lose the case prosecutors cut a deal with Braxton in which he pled guilty but was released from jail./"

Penny Tration

asherbassad wrote: »

Then what would your sentence be if he ran away in fear?

A custodial sentence?

Nope. A sibling has not got a duty of care to their brother or sister.

Again though, you're just making up scenarios that aren't comparable. Instead of making things up, deal with facts

The bit that troubles me about her is her refusal to give details about his abuse on the stand.

I mean, I can understand battered wives syndrome, the mix of fear, the hope he'd change, so Id have some sympathy...but when the parties were giving evidence at a hearing it's hard to understand how that might still hold.

Of course that is not to excuse the mismatch in their sentences, but her role clearly led to them having to cut a deal with him, so she contributed to the difference in outcomes by ensuring he got a reduced sentence.

A friend of mine had a daughter who was battered and died at the hands of his exs subsequent partner. He got over 40 years.

Azalea

Ah, thanks ceadaoin. Makes more sense now. While her prison sentence is absolutely cracked, I don't know that it would be in the best interests of the children to be in her care until she has proven herself in that regard.

asherbassad

osarusan wrote: »

Never ever?

No....never.

A woman who is violent or a danger to society....and they are few (please don't spit out some anecdotes which in the grand scheme of things amount to maybe .2% of female criminals) is not best rehabilitated by imprisoning her. Women have no inherent violent tendencies and those that do are not the norm. The ones who drown their kids in a bathtub need obvious psychological counselling as they are mentally unhinged. The electric chair or a prison cell isn't going to accomplish a damn thing unless you are a big fan of revenge.

People are on here bleating on about the sentence for this and the punishment for that and it's like they can't seem to see their own hypocrisy and double standards.

What about Marissa Alexander, the battered wife who was jailed for 20 years in Florida for firing a WARNING SHOT over the head (or was it just into the ceiling of her gaff) to ward off her thug of a husband?

So.....20 years for attempted defence or maybe just trying to scare your tormentor. 15 years for not doing anything......and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

Penny Tration

asherbassad wrote: »

No....never.

A woman who is violent or a danger to society....and they are few (please don't spit out some anecdotes which in the grand scheme of things amount to maybe .2% of female criminals) is not best rehabilitated by imprisoning her. Women have no inherent violent tendencies and those that do are not the norm. The ones who drown their kids in a bathtub need obvious psychological counselling as they are mentally unhinged. The electric chair or a prison cell isn't going to accomplish a damn thing unless you are a big fan of revenge.

People are on here bleating on about the sentence for this and the punishment for that and it's like they can't seem to see their own hypocrisy and double standards.

What about Marissa Alexander, the battered wife who was jailed for 20 years in Florida for firing a WARNING SHOT over the head (or was it just into the ceiling of her gaff) to ward off her thug of a husband?

So.....20 years for attempted defence or maybe just trying to scare your tormentor. 15 years for not doing anything......and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

I assume men who are violent and a danger to society should also never be jailed, and instead be given therapy and rehabilitation?

darkpagandeath

Both should still be in Jail.

Little CuChulainn

I think Tumblr is leaking.

ceadaoin.

asherbassad wrote: »

What about Marissa Alexander, the battered wife who was jailed for 20 years in Florida for firing a WARNING SHOT over the head (or was it just into the ceiling of her gaff) to ward off her thug of a husband?

So.....20 years for attempted defence or maybe just trying to scare your tormentor. 15 years for not doing anything......and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

She fired a gun towards her husband and his children, not the ceiling. She went and retrieved the gun from her car, hardly self defence. Florida has mandatory sentencing laws for gun violence. 10 years for pulling a gun, 20 for firing and life for shooting someone. Those laws apply to everyone, male or female.

asherbassad

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She fired a gun towards her husband and his children, not the ceiling. She went and retrieved the gun from her car, hardly self defence. Florida has mandatory sentencing laws for gun violence. 10 years for pulling a gun, 20 for firing and life for shooting someone. Those laws apply to everyone, male or female.

Now can you tell me why she fired the gun "towards" her husband and children? Were they all just sitting at the table or was he threatening them? Was he beating them? Was he threatening to slit their throats?

What's that law all about of which you speak? 10 years for pulling a gun? So if she thought her abusive husband was about to box the sh1t out of one of her kids and she pulled a gun then she's get a mandatory 10 years? Yes?

Little CuChulainn

asherbassad wrote: »

Now can you tell me why she fired the gun "towards" her husband and children? Were they all just sitting at the table or was he threatening them? Was he beating them? Was he threatening to slit their throats?

What's that law all about of which you speak? 10 years for pulling a gun? So if she thought her abusive husband was about to box the sh1t out of one of her kids and she pulled a gun then she's get a mandatory 10 years? Yes?

And if she had hit the kid instead of the husband?

hatrickpatrick

asherbassad wrote: »

and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

The rest of your post is irrelevant - generalising and discriminating in the justice system on demographic grounds is not ok. Period.

Also, as I said in my own post, if someone wants to use the defence that they were coerced into committing a crime as a result of abuse, they should be able to provide evidence of that in court. You can't simply allow an unfounded and unproven allegation to affect the outcome of a criminal trial, that's lunacy.

osarusan

asherbassad wrote: »

No....never.

We could throw back and forth examples of women who are guilty of terrible crimes and women who have been wronged, but what would that achieve?

I simply couldn't disagree more. Some people deserve prison. Gender shouldn't grant an exemption.

asherbassad wrote: »

.and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

Yes, I do question it.

I don't see any link whatsoever between examples of women who have been very harshly treated by the justice system and a blanket statement that no woman should ever, ever go to prison.

Mother Brain

Women are capable of just as much twisted sadistic behaviour as men. I used to work in a solicitors office and would have seen my fair share of it first hand. (in the sense that I had access to crime scene photographs, police reports etc.)

The whole 'women are special' argument when it comes to application of the law is just incredibly moronic.