More female privilege

[NobleSavage]

one sec

 

[fromderinside]

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.

OK if you're going to use more than the abstract I suggest you provide a link to the free downloadable article which is Estimating Gener (sic) Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases http://file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SSRN-id2144002.pdf

There I find several dodges to limitations imposed by federal law on what can be analysed. (see 3.7 concluding paragraph). We find difference but we can analyze them because that would be illegal doesn't make a very good argument.

 

[bigfield]

From the paper:

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.

OK if you're going to use more than the abstract I suggest you provide a link to the free downloadable article which is Estimating Gener (sic) Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases http://file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SSRN-id2144002.pdf

From which I find several dodges to limitations imposed by federal law on what can be analysed. (see 3.7 concluding paragraph)

The URL you've provided is for the file's location on your PC, not on the web.

The download link is on the page NobleSavage provided, below the abstract, for anyone to use just as I did.

The section you refer to:

3.7. Gender discrimination: preference-based and statistical.

Although several of the factors above appear to explain portions of the gender gap, that gap is large enough that it is plausible that gender discrimination also contributes. If so, several types of discrimination could be at play. The theoretical literature suggests
“chivalry” and “paternalism” (see, for example, Franklin and Fearn [2008]). Another theory is selective sympathy: perhaps circumstances like family hardship or “bad influence” appear more sympathetic when it is women who are in them. Psychology experiments have found that attributions of blame and credit are often filtered through expectations that males are
“agentic” and active and women are “communal” and passive (see Eagly, Wood, and Diekman [2000] for a review). If so, prosecutors or judges might more readily credit societal or situational explanations for females’ crimes than for males.’

Statistical discrimination is also possible. Perhaps the likeliest such mechanism is that prosecutors or judges might assume men are more dangerous than women. Studies generally find that women have lower recidivism rates, though some of the difference may be explained by characteristics that this study controls for (see Gendreau, Little, and Goggin [1996] for a meta-analysis). I do not have recidivism data to test whether statistical discrimination might be “rational” here. Note that if recidivism risk perceptions are based on individual information about the offender (not based on gender), then it is perfectly permissible to consider them. But punishment decisions based on statistical generalizations about men and women are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that reliance on gender stereotypes is impermissible even if those stereotypes are statistically well founded (see J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B., 511 U.S. 127 [1994]).

The Supreme Court ruled says nothing about the researchers were not allowed to do, but what the judges are not allowed to do. Show me the 'several dodges'.

 

[Underseer]

Ah, rightist political ideologues are nothing if not consistent.

The Nazis believed they were being "persecuted" by Jews, gypsies, union leaders, etc., etc.

Apartheid South Africans genuinely believed they were being "persecuted" by black South Africans.

Modern Muslims in Muslim-majority countries genuinely believe they are being "persecuted" by religious minorities.

So of course modern conservatives and libertarians (who are completely different, honest!) insist that the rich are being persecuted by the poor and the middle class, whites are being persecuted by racial minorities, Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals, and yes, of course, men are being persecuted by women.

I'm sure the Muslims also insist that they are being "persecuted" by feminists.

 

[Toni]

I don't understand why Derec never mentions the most blatant evidence of female privilege: an entire IMDUSTRY devoted to female hygiene products! I haven't noticed that there are similar products designed to help men feel fresh and clean. That's just wrong. On so many levels.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't understand why Derec never mentions the most blatant evidence of female privilege: an entire IMDUSTRY devoted to female hygiene products! I haven't noticed that there are similar products designed to help men feel fresh and clean. That's just wrong. On so many levels.

You've never heard of Schweddy Balls Bath soap?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The mad face is comical. Derec is comical.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

You've only linked a few cases. It would take thousands of these cases to demonstrate a systemic problem.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Do tell.

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.

 

[TV and credit cards]

“and I just busted out in tears because I could not imagine...

Hey, the line's moving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From the paper:

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.

OK if you're going to use more than the abstract I suggest you provide a link to the free downloadable article which is Estimating Gener (sic) Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases http://file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SSRN-id2144002.pdf

There I find several dodges to limitations imposed by federal law on what can be analysed. (see 3.7 concluding paragraph). We find difference but we can analyze them because that would be illegal doesn't make a very good argument.

A link to your own hard drive doesn't do us much good.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why Derec never mentions the most blatant evidence of female privilege: an entire IMDUSTRY devoted to female hygiene products! I haven't noticed that there are similar products designed to help men feel fresh and clean. That's just wrong. On so many levels.

We have the shaving industry.

 

[Toni]

OK if you're going to use more than the abstract I suggest you provide a link to the free downloadable article which is Estimating Gener (sic) Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases http://file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SSRN-id2144002.pdf

There I find several dodges to limitations imposed by federal law on what can be analysed. (see 3.7 concluding paragraph). We find difference but we can analyze them because that would be illegal doesn't make a very good argument.

A link to your own hard drive doesn't do us much good.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why Derec never mentions the most blatant evidence of female privilege: an entire IMDUSTRY devoted to female hygiene products! I haven't noticed that there are similar products designed to help men feel fresh and clean. That's just wrong. On so many levels.

We have the shaving industry.

So do we.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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.

I am still awaiting for you to suggest an alternative to 6 children being placed in separate foster homes. You seem to not care at all what would happen to her children.

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.

Really? Do you have any data which confirms that several siblings displaced from their home to be placed in separate foster families is an improvement over being maintained in their home with their primary caregiver? Further, the only officially recognized and professionally credited and trained body who would actually evaluate whether Vela's 6 children are better off in separate foster homes is the Department of Families and Children Services. Meaning not someone musing on the Internet, notorious for speculating and drawing conclusions based on mere speculations.

By the way, it's lower case "foster" since it's not the beer we are talking about.

Here is a taste of your own medicine:

There kids are just as innocent.

By the way, it is "their" not "there". How does it feel to be corrected on your grammar by an ESL speaker , derec? If you want to play that game, beware that the moment you start it, your style of composition in English will fall under scrutiny.

What she did was a serious crime and would have been handled like it had the genders been reversed.

Did you mean to communicate that "what she did was a serious crime and would have been handled as a serious crime(or as such) had the genders been reversed?". Do you have any data demonstrating that fathers and primary caregivers of a number of minor children as high as 6 have been sentenced to detention in jail following a similar crime?

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.

As single fathers of a number of minor children as a high as 6 and as their primary caregivers? To add without family members able to care for those children? Are you not paying attention to the exceptional character of this situation?

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.

Well, Vela happens to be a parent who is a female. Surely, you are not suggesting that because she is a female, her 6 children ought to be drastically affected by displacement from their home while being placed in separate foster homes. Are you paying attention to how exceptional the specifics of her situation and her 6 children are?

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.

We are not discussing Marissa Alexander, are we? We are discussing a SPECIFIC situation and quite exceptional involving the parent of 6 minor children, whose children would be displaced from their home and relocated in separate foster homes if their parent and PRIMARY caregiver were to be detained in jail.

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 are still not comprehending that the Judge's decision has nothing to do with giving her " a free card out of jail " rather to take into account which drastic impact would affect 6 minor children if they were to be displaced from their home and relocated in separate foster homes while their primary caregiver single parent serves her detention time in jail.Again, contrary to you, this Judge did take into account the overall morale and emotional welfare of those 6 minor children and how they would be severely affected if they were to be displaced from their home to be relocated in separate foster homes while their single parent would serve her sentence in jail detention.

Somehow, you imagined that such taking into account was the product of a Judge who gives privileges to a convicted person based on their gender. When the Judge's focus was on what is in the best interest and welfare of those 6 minor children.

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.

Do me the favor to re read and comprehend what I stated :

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

I am speaking here of a specific Judge and addressing a specific situation related in the article you submitted in your OP. While you introduced your thread with an inflammatory title which you have in no way justified regarding this specific situation and this specific Judge. Clear enough?

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".

Are you not aware that whether it be Planned Parenthood facilities or/and North Florida Women's Services, they cover a variety of services intended to address women's health outside of being abortion providers?

Here is an opportunity to educate yourself :

http://www.aboutabortion.org/

How is that an evasion on my part to refer to such facilities as Women's Health Care Clinics? They provide health care centered services for women, do they not? If you wish to argue that they do not, we will take it to the Science Forum and I will gladly educate you as to the necessity of such services and procedure per procedure, test per test etc.... Clear enough?

As to this comment :

That has to do with their opposition to abortions, not any "war on women".

I will take you on in a separate thread as to why "their opposition to abortions" is in fact a "war on women". It is up to you. You will be given an opportunity to reflect on the complexity of the topic of abortion which I suspect never happened before.

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).

Do you just reply without reading which clarification or detailed comments will come next? Considering which comment came next directly related to the specific of "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.

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.

How revealing your statement is! As if the reason why Boehner appointed only one female (and that is a pattern with the House Speaker), it would because they could not possibly be any woman who is as qualified and as capable as a man to occupy higher responsibility positions among all available House Committees. Wow....

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.

And how does that justify your inflammatory thread title and accusation of "female privilege" addressing this SPECIFIC case and SPECIFIC Judge's ruling? Do you or not comprehend the reality that you have not made a case that this SPECIFIC Judge's ruling addressing this SPECIFIC case is about "female privilege"?

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?

How revealing your portraying of motherhood and parenting is! Wow.... When you come across a case of a female convicted of murder who is the primary caregiver of 6 minor children, we will discuss it because it will not be based on a "if". Reality check : Vela was not convicted of murder. What she did is highly reprehensible because she relied on taking justice in her own hands and that without any evidence that this young man had sexually molested her toddler. Even if she had any evidence, Justice belongs in a Court of Law not in the hands of private citizens who will hold someone against their will, torturing them with threats of death and attempts to inflict severe bodily harm.

However and again : the Judge took into account the welfare of 6 minor children in that SPECIFIC case, specifically detailed in the article you submitted in your OP.

And if not, why is kidnapping, sexual assault and death threats not a serious enough crime to outweigh her reproductive status?

6 minor children are NOT a reproductive status. They are human beings whose welfare has been important to the Judge. It appears you have great difficulties understanding why the welfare of those 6 children is important. So, let me enlighten you :

- no possibility of keeping all 6 minor children, all siblings, in the same foster home.

- highly improbable they would be placed in foster homes geographically close enough to each other that all 6 siblings would be able to socialize and remain a family as they would in their own home.

-highly improbable that among the 6 children, those who are schooled would be placed in homes geographically close enough to the schools they were already enrolled in.

-separation anxiety due to sudden displacement which FYI it is not uncommon for foster care dependent children to be moved around from one home to the other.

Essentially all the above can only create a trauma situation for those children. Over the period of 10 months, those 6 minor children would lose any sense of safety and security and stability. I am quite endeared by any Judge who will place the best interest of children above what adults will demand. To include adults musing over the Internet.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

This is really a thing in the US criminal justice system? You can get a lighter sentence if you can show that people depend on you? Does this apply to a man who is the primary earner for the family, if his going to prison will disrupt their ability to eat and pay rent? I have never heard of this as a consideration. How widespread is this? You can get away with less punishment if you have more dependents?

 

[laughing dog]

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



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?

This is really a thing in the US criminal justice system? You can get a lighter sentence if you can show that people depend on you? Does this apply to a man who is the primary earner for the family, if his going to prison will disrupt their ability to eat and pay rent? I have never heard of this as a consideration. How widespread is this? You can get away with less punishment if you have more dependents?

In some areas and in some cases (usually not serious felonies), judges have latitude in sentencing and can take different factors into account, regardless of the gender of the convicted person.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is really a thing in the US criminal justice system? You can get a lighter sentence if you can show that people depend on you? Does this apply to a man who is the primary earner for the family, if his going to prison will disrupt their ability to eat and pay rent? I have never heard of this as a consideration. How widespread is this? You can get away with less punishment if you have more dependents?

In some areas and in some cases (usually not serious felonies), judges have latitude in sentencing and can take different factors into account, regardless of the gender of the convicted person.

But do they do this in regard to dependents? Is this a common thing? Or is this a very rare case of it? You would think that many men who go to prison are fathers and primary or even sole providers for their families. If this is common, then I don't think Derec has a point, as Sabine has made a good observation. If it isn't common, then Derec may have a point, if it only gets thought of when it is a female defendant.

 

[Bronzeage]

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



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?

This is really a thing in the US criminal justice system? You can get a lighter sentence if you can show that people depend on you? Does this apply to a man who is the primary earner for the family, if his going to prison will disrupt their ability to eat and pay rent? I have never heard of this as a consideration. How widespread is this? You can get away with less punishment if you have more dependents?

A lot of factors are taken into account to determine a sentence. A person's history is probably the greatest. An assessment of how likely they are to re-offend is also considered. In this case, the woman's responsibilities to her family were a factor. It's not unusual to consider the overall effects of a sentence when determining what is best for society. A justice system with no compassion would not serve anyone well.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So is that a yes? Yes, men being the sole providers for their families can get them lighter sentences in the US criminal justice system?

 

[Bronzeage]

So is that a yes? Yes, men being the sole providers for their families can get them lighter sentences in the US criminal justice system?

It might be a factor, but it is only one factor out of many. If a defendant is a responsible father who provides for his family, and his incarceration would be a hardship on his family, a judge would take this into consideration. I'm sure it happens all the time. The purpose of a sentence is to do what is best for society, not simply punish a person for a crime.

 

[Sabine Grant]

So is that a yes? Yes, men being the sole providers for their families can get them lighter sentences in the US criminal justice system?

Let me expand on the difference between "sole provider" and "primary caregiver to 6 minor children" :

1) Primary caregiver implies a person who will 24/7 be providing the direct care which is part of parenting. Meaning living under the same roof, cooking meals, taking care of laundry, bathing the younger children, helping the schooled children with their home work, maintaining a safe and clean environment in the home, making sure any health issue will be addressed by a health care professional, providing the children with transportation, etc...Add to that the filial bond which occurs between the children and the primary caregiver parent.

2) "sole provider" implies the parent whose income supports Basic Living Expenses. If the Welfare system in the US can subsidize BLEs, such system CANNOT replace the physical person or primary caregiver involved in the direct care, 24/7, of those 6 minor children. I have detailed what would be the fate of Vela's 6 minor children if she were to be physically removed from providing direct care in the home itself, to those 6 minor children.

Further, what is generally recognized is that in the majority of households with such a high number of minor children, the mother versus the father is the primary caregiver providing 24/7 the direct care I have listed above. Meaning that instances of fathers assuming such direct care for 6 minor children are very rare. Meaning that we are not going to see cases in the US Judiciary system reflecting the SAME specifics as in the case presented in the OP, while involving fathers convicted of a crime, fathers who would have been assuming 24/7 the direct care I have listed above to 6 minor children in the home itself.

The Court will look to either appoint a temporary custodian (usually family member) who will become residential custodian of the said children(meaning children living under the custodian's roof and custodian able to assume the direct care I have listed above to those 6 children) or be reduced to placing those children into foster homes. I have detailed why the foster home alternative would drastically impact the welfare and well being of Vela's 6 minor children while she would be physically removed from being their primary caregiver and assuming the direct care I have listed above.

If this case were involving a father who had been assuming the role of primary caregiver to 6 minor children while providing the direct care in the home I have listed above, the Court would find itself having to consider what is in the best interest of all 6 minor children and how drastically affected they would be if such primary caregiver were to be physically removed from providing such direct care in their home. The Court would (as noted above) explore whether a willing and able family member could replace the primary caregiver to all 6 children while keeping them under the same roof while appointing such family member as temporary custodian and residential custodian of the 6 minor children. If such alternative is non existent, placing them in foster homes (and I have detailed what that would entail for 6 minor children) would be of great concern for any Judge.

If you could cite a case with the SAME specifics as the case presented in the OP involving a father assuming the role of primary caregiver providing the direct care I have listed above to 6 minor children and where the children were placed in foster homes due to the Court ruling the convicted primary caregiver father should be detained in jail versus home confinement, derec would have a justification to claim that "female privilege" was the motivation for the Court to rule in favor of Vela being sentenced to home confinement versus jail detention.

Please, you or derec cite such case.