More female privilege

[Derec]

Teen continues to seek justice after ex-girlfriend’s mother slices penis with box cutter

Imagine if a man attempted to mutilate his son's ex-girlfriend's genitals? If he threatened to kill her? He'd go to prison for a very long time! But because she is a woman, and her victim a man, she only gets 10 months home confinement. And I bet her male accomplice gets a higher sentence, because, well he's a man.
But let's continue to spread the sexist and ridiculous notion that there is a "war on women". Quite the opposite is the case!

Reminds me of another case where a group of women illegally detained a man and glued his penis ended up getting similarly light sentences (no jail time).

 

[laughing dog]

Imagined hyperbolic scenarios are not evidence. They do not tend to buttress an argument but reduce its credibility.

 

[Derec]

Imagined hyperbolic scenarios are not evidence.

What imagined hyperbolic scenarios? Just because you deny that women are treated with kid gloves by the criminal injustice system doesn't mean it's not happening.

They do not tend to buttress an argument but reduce its credibility.

Do you think it's ok to give home confinement to a woman who illegally detained a young man and attempted to cut off his penis and threatened to kill him?
Do you think it's ok to give no jail time to a group of women who kidnapped a man and glued his penis to his stomach?

Do you really think any man who did something like this to a woman would have gotten away with no jail time? Our society sees such attacks on females as very serious, but unfortunately not when females engage in such attacks against men. Fifth column men like you are making the situation worse as you keep denying there is any problem at all.

 

[bigfield]

Now would a be a good time to post the examples of men getting long jail sentences for comparable offences.

Hypotheticals alone aren't good enough, just as they don't suffice when somebody says 'if he was white the cop wouldn't have shot him'.

Lenient sentences are given out frequently, to a variety of people for a variety of crimes, including violent assault. Therefore I suspect the courts have some other motivation other than that the perp is a woman and the victim is a boy.

 

[Derec]

Now would a be a good time to post the examples of men getting long jail sentences for comparable offences.

40 years for a man who kidnapped and attempted to sexually assault a woman

Again, when a woman does it to a man it's treated as not serious at all, when a man does it to a woman it's treated as one of the most serious crimes ever.

Lenient sentences are given out frequently, to a variety of people for a variety of crimes, including violent assault. Therefore I suspect the courts have some other motivation other than that the perp is a woman and the victim is a boy.

Funny how often they happen when the perp is a female and her victim a man.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Teen continues to seek justice after ex-girlfriend’s mother slices penis with box cutter

Imagine if a man attempted to mutilate his son's ex-girlfriend's genitals? If he threatened to kill her? He'd go to prison for a very long time! But because she is a woman, and her victim a man, she only gets 10 months home confinement.

Time to help you connect the dots as to why Vela was only given a home confinement sentence versus a jail sentence :

Prosecutors said Vela’s status as the primary caregiver for six children figured into her sentence, and the state’s inability to find Dail at the time of sentencing.

Now...what type of alternative to ending up in Foster homes (and I doubt all 6 children would be kept together in the same Foster home) can you suggest? You do realize that if Vela had been sentenced to detention in jail, those 6 children would be left without their primary caregiver, right?


The Judge's decision, which you rushed to dump in the category of "female privilege" without paying attention to which specific influenced the Court's ruling on sentencing, had nothing to do with "female privilege" rather a Judge who (contrary to you) was not oblivious to the fate of those 6 children and what would happen to them if their primary caregiver, their mother, was to be entirely removed from her role as the primary caregiver to 6 innocent children.

And I bet her male accomplice gets a higher sentence, because, well he's a man.

Is that man the father and primary caregiver to several children?

But let's continue to spread the sexist and ridiculous notion that there is a "war on women". Quite the opposite is the case!

You have pathetically failed to demonstrate that the Judge's decision was based on any notion of "female privilege". That because you did not pay attention to what influenced the Court's ruling. And now as if the Court's ruling is to be evidence that there is no "war on women" in this nation when it has been documented so many times how GOP legislature dominated States have been pursuing to restrict or limit women's access to women's Health Care clinics.

With the added typical GOP Right Wing exclusion of women from high responsibilities positions in the House Committees...Once more Speaker Boehner reappointing the ONLY female among all House Committees Chairpersons, which by order of importance, the Administrative one being the least important.

Are you somehow unaware of what has been happening across this nation that you *think* that such ruling and what influenced it is a reflection of there is "no war on women" from both the Religious Right Wing and GOP Right Wingers and further that such ruling was in any way motivated by "female privilege"?

Reminds me of another case where a group of women illegally detained a man and glued his penis ended up getting similarly light sentences (no jail time).

I do not know which reasoning the Court relied on for that specific case. However I do know (and that because I paid attention to the content of the article you submitted) that the Judge's decision was influenced by Vela's status as the primary caregiver of 6 children and same Judge was NOT oblivious to the fate of those innocent children if their mother was to be detained in jail versus home confinement.

 

[thebeave]

Teen continues to seek justice after ex-girlfriend’s mother slices penis with box cutter

Imagine if a man attempted to mutilate his son's ex-girlfriend's genitals? If he threatened to kill her? He'd go to prison for a very long time! But because she is a woman, and her victim a man, she only gets 10 months home confinement. And I bet her male accomplice gets a higher sentence, because, well he's a man.
But let's continue to spread the sexist and ridiculous notion that there is a "war on women". Quite the opposite is the case!

Reminds me of another case where a group of women illegally detained a man and glued his penis ended up getting similarly light sentences (no jail time).

Not only is the punishment typically lighter, its a funny gag.

Maybe the "ladies" on The Talk will hear about this story and have a good laugh, like they did with this one:



Though, to be fair, I think the woman in that case got life in prison for it, so maybe there is hope.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I wonder how many posts will pop up while this,

Prosecutors said Vela’s status as the primary caregiver for six children figured into her sentence, and the state’s inability to find Dail at the time of sentencing.

will be either not be paid attention to or simply dismissed. I took the time to develop on why the Judge took into consideration Vela's status as the primary caregiver for 6 children. Why the fate of those 6 children, if their mother were to be detained in jail, would be greatly affected. Is anyone under the impression that the 16 year old would be expected to care for and raise her 5 siblings? Anyone here aware of what happens to minor children of adults detained in jail? Unless the Court can find a relative or family member able to assume the care of Vela's 6 children, those kids end up in Foster Care and certainly NOT all in the same Foster home.

 

[laughing dog]

What imagined hyperbolic scenarios? Just because you deny that women are treated with kid gloves by the criminal injustice system doesn't mean it's not happening.

Your insistence that of kid glove treatment does not make it so.

Do you think it's ok to give home confinement to a woman who illegally detained a young man and attempted to cut off his penis and threatened to kill him?

I think that the alternative of jail time meant that someone else would have to take care of the children is a mitigating factor in the sentence. Unless you are now volunteering to move to Franklin Indiana and take care of those children while she serves out your preferred sentence, I think you are over-reacting. She did not kill anyone. Hell, he did not even require stitches.

Do you think it's ok to give no jail time to a group of women who kidnapped a man and glued his penis to his stomach?

Looking past your hyperbolic characterization and the actual facts, yes.

Do you really think any man who did something like this to a woman would have gotten away with no jail time?

No, because a man would have flung acid in her face, raped her or killed her.

Our society sees such attacks on females as very serious, but unfortunately not when females engage in such attacks against men. Fifth column men like you are making the situation worse as you keep denying there is any problem at all.

Hate-filled illogical rants by misogynistics and "justice seekers" like you do not make help matters.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Imagined hyperbolic scenarios are not evidence. They do not tend to buttress an argument but reduce its credibility.

Self-Mutation used to do a lot of that, didn't he?
"If we had perfect proof of God, the atheists would still blah-blah-blah."
I really love "Imagine if i had proof of my point, therefore my point is proven" arguments. They're kind of like Scooby Doo cartoons. No one questions the villain's choice of cover, or why the cops didn't perform some basic detective work, or how the Mystery Machine just happened to be involved. It's just presented, THERE, there's your proof, now STFU.

 

[laughing dog]

40 years for a man who kidnapped and attempted to sexually assault a woman

Again, when a woman does it to a man it's treated as not serious at all, when a man does it to a woman it's treated as one of the most serious crimes ever.

The fact you would compare that case with either one of the instances in your original OP shows how utterly meritless your claims are. In this case, the perpertrator literally kidnapped a stranger in order to rape the stranger. The perp did not know the victim. The perp admitted the only motivation was to save money by not using a hooker. That is completely dissimilar to the 2 cases in the OP where the perp(s) knew the victim and were trying to teach the victim a lesson (albeit a boneheaded move). In the former case, it is clear the perp is likely do this again if freed. In the latter cases, the specifics of the situation are so unique that it is unlikely to be repeated. And the notion that having one's penis clued to one's stomach is somehow equivalent to being raped is nonsense.

[

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec, as usual you're simply focusing on a female getting a light sentence without looking at the details.

It looks like what's going on is that she got some contaminated drugs and went nuts. Of course she got a light sentence.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, wtf is a "fifth column man"?

 

[Bronzeage]

What imagined hyperbolic scenarios? Just because you deny that women are treated with kid gloves by the criminal injustice system doesn't mean it's not happening.

They do not tend to buttress an argument but reduce its credibility.

Do you think it's ok to give home confinement to a woman who illegally detained a young man and attempted to cut off his penis and threatened to kill him?
Do you think it's ok to give no jail time to a group of women who kidnapped a man and glued his penis to his stomach?

Do you really think any man who did something like this to a woman would have gotten away with no jail time? Our society sees such attacks on females as very serious, but unfortunately not when females engage in such attacks against men. Fifth column men like you are making the situation worse as you keep denying there is any problem at all.

Fifth column men? You are in serious danger of becoming a parody of yourself.

A 19 year old man is having sex with a 16 year old girl. The girl's mother is upset, but apparently lets the 19 year old stay in the same trailer with the family. After smoking heroin laced marijuana with him, she puts him through a threatening ordeal. The victim is upset about a lenient sentence, but apparently he could not be located by the prosecutors and was not present at the sentencing hearing.
The victim never filed a complaint against the accomplice who kept him in the room where the woman assaulted him. There's your fifth columnist right there. Whereas the woman now has a conviction and a criminal record, the man who made this assault possible has not been charged.

Since the woman got the worst of this deal, how does this count as female privilege?

Beyond that, the only two things made this story interesting. First, it was a vengeful mother, not father, and second, a Fox newsreader gets to say "penis" on the air.

This sort of story involving a man who is upset about his daughter's boyfriend is so common, it hardly registers.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Derec, as usual you're simply focusing on a female getting a light sentence without looking at the details.

It looks like what's going on is that she got some contaminated drugs and went nuts. Of course she got a light sentence.

While I have now pointed several times and directly from the article derec submitted, what influenced the Judge's decision to sentence her to home confinement versus detention in jail.

 

[NobleSavage]

Now would a be a good time to post the examples of men getting long jail sentences for comparable offences.

"Sonja B. Starr, University of Michigan Law School:

This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the earlier stages, and use the rich data to investigate causal theories for these gender gaps."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002##

 

[bigfield]

What difference does it make if the court sentences someone to twenty years of prison or ten months of house arrest?

Why not just give everyone house arrest sentences for this kind of violent assault?

If prison time is meant to be corrective, does this lenient sentence mean that the perpetrator's behaviour will not be corrected?

Or if prison time is meant to be a deterrent to future offenders, does this lenient sentence mean that future perpetrator's are more likely to commit similar crimes than if this woman had received a heavier sentence?

Or if prison time is meant to merely remove dangerous people from society, does this lenient sentence mean that this perpetrator may assault someone else when she might have been locked up in prison? What other crimes might this woman commit and be spared a prison sentence because of her children?

How does a judge weight up the welfare of a perp's children vs the welfare of potential future victims of crime?

Of if prison time is merely vengeance to satisfy the public desire for a feeling of justice, then abolish prison sentences altogether.

Unless the Court can find a relative or family member able to assume the care of Vela's 6 children, those kids end up in Foster Care and certainly NOT all in the same Foster home.

Presumably they at least tried to find a suitable relative or family member.

 

[fromderinside]

Now would a be a good time to post the examples of men getting long jail sentences for comparable offences.

"Sonja B. Starr, University of Michigan Law School:

This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the earlier stages, and use the rich data to investigate causal theories for these gender gaps."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002##

wow. So income, race, ethnicity (mainly brownness), and income are taken taken into account? I'm thinking no since this would then reflect sexual bias such as that reflected by age such as attractiveness since most crimes are committed by those between 15 and 25. Must sayin'

 

[bigfield]

Now would a be a good time to post the examples of men getting long jail sentences for comparable offences.

"Sonja B. Starr, University of Michigan Law School:

This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the earlier stages, and use the rich data to investigate causal theories for these gender gaps."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002##

Cheers.

From the paper:

3.3. Parental responsibilities.
Another possibility is that prosecutors and/or judges worry about the effect of maternal incarceration on children. The estimates are robust to controls for marital status and number of dependents, but these variables do not capture all differences in care responsibilities, including custody status. Other research shows that female defendants are far more likely than men to have primary or sole custody, and incarcerating women more often results in foster care placements (see Hagan and Dinovitzer [1999] for a review of the literature; Koban 1983). In an experiment asking judges to give hypothetical sentences based on short vignettes, Freiburger (2010) found that mentioning childcare reduced judges’ probability of recommending prison, but mentioning financial support for children did not.

Which means that the case in the OP is probably not a unique sentencing situation; that judges might regularly exercise leniency in order to keep children out of foster care.

 

[Derec]

Time to help you connect the dots as to why Vela was only given a home confinement sentence versus a jail sentence :

Having kids should not prevent a female criminal from serving a prison sentence for a crime that would have given a male perp many years.

Now...what type of alternative to ending up in Foster homes (and I doubt all 6 children would be kept together in the same Foster home) can you suggest? You do realize that if Vela had been sentenced to detention in jail, those 6 children would be left without their primary caregiver, right?

Given that she got high and illegally detained, sexually assaulted and threatened to murder a teenager I think they would be much better off in the foster system. By the way, it's lower case "foster" since it's not the beer we are talking about.
What she did was a serious crime and would have been handled like it had the genders been reversed.

The Judge's decision, which you rushed to dump in the category of "female privilege" without paying attention to which specific influenced the Court's ruling on sentencing, had nothing to do with "female privilege" rather a Judge who (contrary to you) was not oblivious to the fate of those 6 children and what would happen to them if their primary caregiver, their mother, was to be entirely removed from her role as the primary caregiver to 6 innocent children.

Many male criminals serving long prison sentences are fathers who have taken care of their kids before their incarceration. There kids are just as innocent. That doesn't excuse what they did and neither should it when the perp is female. Saying that it should is female privilege.
I know some defenders of Marissa Alexander said that she should not go to prison because she has kids as well. I do not think that should matter there either.

Is that man the father and primary caregiver to several children?

I do not see why that should matter. If you do the crime you should do the time regardless of your genitals or whether they popped out any offspring in the last 18 years.
Why should having children equate to a "get out of jail" free card? And again, that excuse works only for women. I have never heard of a man avoiding prison for a serious crime because he was a father. If this woman really loved her children she should have thought twice before engaging in a crime.

You have pathetically failed to demonstrate that the Judge's decision was based on any notion of "female privilege".

That so many people deny female privilege in the criminal injustice system is a travesty. Not even murders are exempt, as female murderers like Mary Winkler or Nicole Redmond can attest to.

That because you did not pay attention to what influenced the Court's ruling. And now as if the Court's ruling is to be evidence that there is no "war on women" in this nation when it has been documented so many times how GOP legislature dominated States have been pursuing to restrict or limit women's access to women's Health Care clinics.

That has to do with their opposition to abortions, not any "war on women". Note your evasion in calling abortion clinics "women's health care clinics".

With the added typical GOP Right Wing exclusion of women from high responsibilities positions in the House Committees...

What particular GOP woman do you think was passed over for leadership because of her gender? On the other hand, I think Nancy Pelosi was selected leader for her gender. I mean it's not like she is good at her job (biggest GOP majority since 1928).

Once more Speaker Boehner reappointing the ONLY female among all House Committees Chairpersons, which by order of importance, the Administrative one being the least important.

What you are arguing here is for some sort of quota or affirmative action for leadership positions. Not doing that is not evidence for a war on women. Quite the contrary, appointing less capable or qualified women solely because they are women would be sexist against men.

Are you somehow unaware of what has been happening across this nation that you *think* that such ruling and what influenced it is a reflection of there is "no war on women" from both the Religious Right Wing and GOP Right Wingers and further that such ruling was in any way motivated by "female privilege"?

I am aware that women are routinely given lesser sentences for same crimes as men. I am aware that a female can easily get rid of any male student she wishes by falsely accusing him of rape. I am aware that if a male and female both drink and hook up the male is considered "rapist" and the female a "victim" even though they both did exactly the same thing. I am aware that women can overhear men making PG-13 jokes and get them fired (Donglegate). I am aware that women can get contraceptives and sterilizations for free under Obamacare but not men. I am aware that even though female healthcare costs more than male healthcare it is illegal to charge women more, yet it is legal and widely practiced to charge men more for car and life insurance. And so on.

I do not know which reasoning the Court relied on for that specific case. However I do know (and that because I paid attention to the content of the article you submitted) that the Judge's decision was influenced by Vela's status as the primary caregiver of 6 children and same Judge was NOT oblivious to the fate of those innocent children if their mother was to be detained in jail versus home confinement.

So if Vela had murdered her victim should she also have gone without jail time because she has female genitalia that popped out children? And if not, why is kidnapping, sexual assault and death threats not a serious enough crime to outweigh her reproductive status?