Serial drink-driver avoids jail 'for being a woman'

[Metaphor]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832

A judge gave a serial drink-driver a chance to avoid jail because she is a woman.

Victoria Parry, 30, hit three other cars after downing a bottle of wine.

Judge Sarah Buckingham said Parry, an alcoholic who had escaped an abusive relationship, would have gone "straight down the stairs" to jail if she were a man.

Although Parry "deserved" a prison term, the judge gave her three months to address her issues.

The comments are being investigated by a judicial watchdog.
...

The judge said: "If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs, because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol."




But, she said, the offence had been committed in May 2018, and Parry, who had admitted dangerous driving, had not been in trouble since.




"She has clearly got an alcohol problem. She is, whether she admits it or not, an alcoholic," the judge said.




Deferring sentencing for three months, judge Buckingham told Parry she "richly deserved" an immediate custodial term of 18 months.

The judge faced no action for the comments.

 

[TSwizzle]

Unbelievable.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The article isn't particularly clear. It says there was a complaint filed. It seems like a legitimate complaint. I'm not sure what additional context could save a comment like that. The article also says there is now no longer an outstanding complaint. Does that mean the complaint was withdrawn, or that the JCIO considered it resolved after investigation? If the former, is a complaint required to investigate misconduct.

I don't have a major issue with judges having discretion in sentencing/ added condition or weighing extenuating circumstances, although, with prior offences it's difficult to process the leniency. Regardless, the same circumstances could have applied regardless of gender or sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

The article isn't particularly clear. It says there was a complaint filed. It seems like a legitimate complaint. I'm not sure what additional context could save a comment like that. The article also says there is now no longer an outstanding complaint. Does that mean the complaint was withdrawn, or that the JCIO considered it resolved after investigation? If the former, is a complaint required to investigate misconduct.

I don't have a major issue with judges having discretion in sentencing/ added condition or weighing extenuating circumstances, although, with prior offences it's difficult to process the leniency. Regardless, the same circumstances could have applied regardless of gender or sex.

Yeah, let's not forget all those men and boys"from good families".

 

[ruby sparks]

The article isn't particularly clear. It says there was a complaint filed. It seems like a legitimate complaint. I'm not sure what additional context could save a comment like that. The article also says there is now no longer an outstanding complaint. Does that mean the complaint was withdrawn, or that the JCIO considered it resolved after investigation? If the former, is a complaint required to investigate misconduct.

I don't have a major issue with judges having discretion in sentencing/ added condition or weighing extenuating circumstances, although, with prior offences it's difficult to process the leniency. Regardless, the same circumstances could have applied regardless of gender or sex.

It was reported a few months later, in July 2019, that the Judge would face no action.

People of both sexes being let off a prison sentence by lenient judges for drink-driving if they show remorse and tackle a drinking problem is not entirely unusual, especially if there are extenuating circumstances, as here.

In this case, it was reported that the woman had, during the postponed sentencing time period, done as the judge ordered and addressed her drinking problems, so the sentence was a two-year suspended one.

The judge appears to have been a bit sexist against men. Some judges appear to have been a bit sexist against women. Neither is right. Metaphor never seems to somehow accidentally stumble across the latter type however.

Next.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The article isn't particularly clear. It says there was a complaint filed. It seems like a legitimate complaint. I'm not sure what additional context could save a comment like that. The article also says there is now no longer an outstanding complaint. Does that mean the complaint was withdrawn, or that the JCIO considered it resolved after investigation? If the former, is a complaint required to investigate misconduct.

I don't have a major issue with judges having discretion in sentencing/ added condition or weighing extenuating circumstances, although, with prior offences it's difficult to process the leniency. Regardless, the same circumstances could have applied regardless of gender or sex.

It was reported a few months later, in July 2019, that the Judge would face no action.

Right, but there is a difference between the investigation closing because a complaint is dropped leaving no more grounds on which to proceed, and an investigation closing because they found no fault with the judge's actions or just didn't want to pursue the issue. What I am curious about is which one is the case. There is a difference between facing no action and having an investigation find there was no fault.

The judge appears to have been a bit sexist against men. Some judges appear to have been a bit sexist against women. Neither is right.

Sure. And there are cases of judges exhibiting bias toward other segments of the population as well. Not all will be investigated, but when complaints are filed, I'd hope judges are held to the highest standards.

Metaphor never seems to somehow accidentally stumble across the latter type however.

I feel I've commented enough on metaphor's thread-starting habits in the past. This one piqued my interest because I find the general topic of how judges are (or are not) held accountable interesting. While I wouldn't expect massive penalties for this judge, I would have expected something. The whole 'this week in x insanity blah blah blah' shit can go fuck itself, though in fairness to metaphor, this particular thread didn't have the same stupid title formulation. I dunno. Maybe I'm just slumming it a bit today.

 

[Derec]

People of both sexes being let off a prison sentence by lenient judges

In this case the woman was let off becuase the sexist judge has an animus against men.

The judge appears to have been a bit sexist against men.

A bit? No, she is very sexist.

And despite this special treatment of women being very common in the criminal justice system (remember Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood and only served 60 days?) people on here still insist there is "male privilege" when in reality there is female privilege.

 

[ruby sparks]

Right, but there is a difference between the investigation closing because a complaint is dropped leaving no more grounds on which to proceed, and an investigation closing because they found no fault with the judge's actions or just didn't want to pursue the issue. What I am curious about is which one is the case. There is a difference between facing no action and having an investigation find there was no fault.

The judge appears to have been a bit sexist against men. Some judges appear to have been a bit sexist against women. Neither is right.

Sure. And there are cases of judges exhibiting bias toward other segments of the population as well. Not all will be investigated, but when complaints are filed, I'd hope judges are held to the highest standards.

Metaphor never seems to somehow accidentally stumble across the latter type however.

I feel I've commented enough on metaphor's thread-starting habits in the past. This one piqued my interest because I find the general topic of how judges are (or are not) held accountable interesting. While I wouldn't expect massive penalties for this judge, I would have expected something. The whole 'this week in x insanity blah blah blah' shit can go fuck itself, though in fairness to metaphor, this particular thread didn't have the same stupid title formulation. I dunno. Maybe I'm just slumming it a bit today.

Yeah. Just to be clear, I think she was out of line and should have been sanctioned in some way. A reprimand, I'd say.

I don't know the answer to your question though. The BBC report only says that 3 months after receiving a complaint, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said "there is no outstanding complaint". That's a bit opaque, and could mean a number of things. It wouldn't rule out an informal caution. Notably, it omits saying the complaint was deemed unfounded.

 

[thebeave]

Could be a case of female in-group preference:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women

Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men are to show such favoritism for their own gender, according to a study in the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 87, No. 4).