• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The factual feminist: Criminal sentencing: Do women get off easy?

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,686
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usq-IHT5ARc[/youtube]

Partial transcript:
If you are a criminal defendant, it is far better to be a woman than a man. For the same crime, and with a similar criminal history, men in the U.S. are imprisoned much more frequently and for much longer sentences. This is one gender gap that we hear very little about. Coming up next on the Factual Feminist. We incarcerate people in the U.S. on a scale unheard of in most parts of the world. If you brought together all those now in prison and on probation or parole, it would constitute the second largest city in the nation. And it would be close to 90 percent male. Now the fact that more men than women go to jail is not itself a sign of discrimination. Men are far more likely to be rule breakers, risk-takers, and perpetrators of crime. But what happens when men and women are arrested for the same crime? To answer this question, Professor Sonja Starr of the University of Michigan Law School examined a huge dataset of federal criminal cases. Unlike other studies that looked only at the sentencing stage, she followed the fate of defendants from arrest through sentencing. Her findings were shocking. After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics—and looking at the process from beginning to end—she found that women are significantly more likely than men to avoid charges and convictions altogether and “twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.” On average, men received 63% longer sentences than women arrested for the same crime. Professor Starr estimates that the gender gap in sentencing is about six times as large as the sentencing gap between black and white defendants. Starr offers a few possible explanations for the gender disparity: Women are often viewed as “followers” of their male romantic partners,” so judges and prosecutors might perceive them to be less responsible. Second, women are more likely to be the primary caretakers of their children, and prosecutors or judges might worry about the effect of jailing mothers. It’s also possible prosecutors and judges are more easily persuaded that women who commit crimes have mental health problems. What is the solution? Harsher sentences for women is not the way to go. The U.S. is already known as Incarceration Nation—more prisoners is not the answer. But if the courts are indeed making exceptions for women for their special circumstances, they should consider doing the same for men. As Starr points out: “About one in every fifty American men is currently behind bars, and we could think about gender disparity as perhaps being a key dimension of that problem." So here we have a pressing gender equity issue—with huge social consequences. But If you look at the major women’s websites, you find mainly complaints about how women are treated in the criminal justice system. On the ACLU website you learn that, “Women receive harsher sentences for killing their male partners than men receive for killing their female partners.” The source is a 1980s fact sheet from a women’s advocacy group. But a newer and more serious study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that even if you exclude all the cases where women killed a husband out of fear or self-defense, Wives received shorter prison sentences than husbands (a 10-year difference, on average.)

Criminal sentencing: Do women get off easy?

So what say the TFT crowd? Should sentences be reduced for men to be made more similar to what women currently receive? Perhaps Derec was right about this issue but didn't know how to properly present the data?
 
There are deeper problems with criminal sentencing than gendered inequality, or even racial inequality.

The entire process used to determine sentences should be defenestrated and then redesigned from scratch, with clear and well-defined objectives and transparent sentencing formulae.
 
There are deeper problems with criminal sentencing than gendered inequality, or even racial inequality.

The entire process used to determine sentences should be defenestrated and then redesigned from scratch, with clear and well-defined objectives and transparent sentencing formulae.

Ya, it's not the kind of thing which needs a band-aid here and a little buffing there. There are so many instances of unfairness and disparity that it's probably time to just overhaul the whole thing.
 
There are deeper problems with criminal sentencing than gendered inequality, or even racial inequality.

The entire process used to determine sentences should be defenestrated and then redesigned from scratch, with clear and well-defined objectives and transparent sentencing formulae.
Sentence Length = crime rating * prior crime conviction ratio * donations from private prison corporation coefficient
 
There are deeper problems with criminal sentencing than gendered inequality, or even racial inequality.
Not the least of which is privatization of prisons.
The entire process used to determine sentences should be defenestrated and then redesigned from scratch, with clear and well-defined objectives and transparent sentencing formulae.
But...
But...
Then we can't lock'em up and throw away the key? We like that.
 
There are deeper problems with criminal sentencing than gendered inequality, or even racial inequality.

The entire process used to determine sentences should be defenestrated and then redesigned from scratch, with clear and well-defined objectives and transparent sentencing formulae.

Ya, it's not the kind of thing which needs a band-aid here and a little buffing there. There are so many instances of unfairness and disparity that it's probably time to just overhaul the whole thing.

Could anyone provide more specifics? I'd say there's really nothing wrong with the present system. It's the product of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, trial and error. If there is a particular problem, then what is it? FYI, each state has its own criminal sentencing guidelines which should be easily accessible online. Review them. This notion that we can replace what we have with something better is a bit naive. The sentencing guidelines did not just appear; they developed over time, through experience and compromise. Should you replace the current system with another, it'd be a safe wager that the "new" system contains pretty much what was in the old. The only problem with the current system is the same problem endemic with all human institutions - humans. Humans are not perfect and any system run by humans will remain imperfect. That's why we have appeals.
 
Not the least of which is privatization of prisons.


What data do you believe best exemplifies the problem of private prisons? Can you point to data on any of the following? Which of these do you think has been proven by the data, or is your disdain for private prisons more-so an appeal to emotion?

Do states with private prisons incarcerate a greater percent of the population?
Do states with private prisons have longer average sentences for the same crimes?
Are costs higher in private prisons?
Is the treatment of prisoners worse in private prisons?
Are rates of recidivism higher for inmates of private prisons?
 
Ya, it's not the kind of thing which needs a band-aid here and a little buffing there. There are so many instances of unfairness and disparity that it's probably time to just overhaul the whole thing.

Could anyone provide more specifics? I'd say there's really nothing wrong with the present system. It's the product of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, trial and error. If there is a particular problem, then what is it? FYI, each state has its own criminal sentencing guidelines which should be easily accessible online. Review them. This notion that we can replace what we have with something better is a bit naive. The sentencing guidelines did not just appear; they developed over time, through experience and compromise. Should you replace the current system with another, it'd be a safe wager that the "new" system contains pretty much what was in the old. The only problem with the current system is the same problem endemic with all human institutions - humans. Humans are not perfect and any system run by humans will remain imperfect. That's why we have appeals.

The ABA actually came out with a paper about this last year. It focused on economic crimes, but the same general principles can be applied to other types of crimes.

http://famm.org/heres-our-plan-to-fix-the-federal-sentencing-guidelines-for-economic-crimes/
 
Not the least of which is privatization of prisons.


What data do you believe best exemplifies the problem of private prisons? Can you point to data on any of the following? Which of these do you think has been proven by the data, or is your disdain for private prisons more-so an appeal to emotion?

Do states with private prisons incarcerate a greater percent of the population?
Do states with private prisons have longer average sentences for the same crimes?
Are costs higher in private prisons?
Is the treatment of prisoners worse in private prisons?
Are rates of recidivism higher for inmates of private prisons?

Have you looked into any reports, pro or con, with regards to private prisons at all? Do you have any understanding of the history of private prisons, any knowledge of the lobbying done on the behalf of the prison corporations?

IOW, is this trip going to start with both of us knowing where we are going or am I going to have to not only draw you a map, but teach you how to read one?
 
Not the least of which is privatization of prisons.


What data do you believe best exemplifies the problem of private prisons? Can you point to data on any of the following? Which of these do you think has been proven by the data, or is your disdain for private prisons more-so an appeal to emotion?

Do states with private prisons incarcerate a greater percent of the population?
Do states with private prisons have longer average sentences for the same crimes?
Are costs higher in private prisons?
Is the treatment of prisoners worse in private prisons?
Are rates of recidivism higher for inmates of private prisons?

Do judges in states without private prisons get kickbacks for sending people to prison?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges/
 
What data do you believe best exemplifies the problem of private prisons? Can you point to data on any of the following? Which of these do you think has been proven by the data, or is your disdain for private prisons more-so an appeal to emotion?

Do states with private prisons incarcerate a greater percent of the population?
Do states with private prisons have longer average sentences for the same crimes?
Are costs higher in private prisons?
Is the treatment of prisoners worse in private prisons?
Are rates of recidivism higher for inmates of private prisons?

Have you looked into any reports, pro or con, with regards to private prisons at all? Do you have any understanding of the history of private prisons, any knowledge of the lobbying done on the behalf of the prison corporations?

IOW, is this trip going to start with both of us knowing where we are going or am I going to have to not only draw you a map, but teach you how to read one?

I have read a good analysis. The short answer is we don't have good answers to any of these questions:

Somewhat surprisingly, for all the ink spilled on private prisons over the last thirty years, we have precious little good information on what are surely some of the most important questions: when it comes to cost or quality, are private prisons better or worse than public prisons?

It’s safe to say that, so far at least, the political process hasn’t encouraged rigorous comparative evaluations of public and private prisons. Some states allow privatization without requiring cost and quality evaluations at all. The nineteen states that don’t privatize might, for all I know, be right to do so, but of course their stance doesn’t promote comparative evaluation.

When studies are done, they’re usually so inadequate from a methodological perspective that we can’t reach any firm comparative conclusions. Section A below discusses the problems with cost comparison studies, and section B discusses the problems with quality comparison studies. Section C takes a broader view and notes that even well-done comparative effectiveness studies don’t answer all our questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-prisons-better-or-worse-than-public-prisons/
 
Have you looked into any reports, pro or con, with regards to private prisons at all? Do you have any understanding of the history of private prisons, any knowledge of the lobbying done on the behalf of the prison corporations?

IOW, is this trip going to start with both of us knowing where we are going or am I going to have to not only draw you a map, but teach you how to read one?

I have read a good analysis. The short answer is we don't have good answers to any of these questions:

Somewhat surprisingly, for all the ink spilled on private prisons over the last thirty years, we have precious little good information on what are surely some of the most important questions: when it comes to cost or quality, are private prisons better or worse than public prisons?

It’s safe to say that, so far at least, the political process hasn’t encouraged rigorous comparative evaluations of public and private prisons. Some states allow privatization without requiring cost and quality evaluations at all. The nineteen states that don’t privatize might, for all I know, be right to do so, but of course their stance doesn’t promote comparative evaluation.

When studies are done, they’re usually so inadequate from a methodological perspective that we can’t reach any firm comparative conclusions. Section A below discusses the problems with cost comparison studies, and section B discusses the problems with quality comparison studies. Section C takes a broader view and notes that even well-done comparative effectiveness studies don’t answer all our questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-prisons-better-or-worse-than-public-prisons/

A single analysis?

Are you familiar with the private prison scandals of Pennsylvania, Idaho, Mississippi, and or Arizona?

How about the lobbying efforts of the PP Corporations to enact more criminalization of behaviors and longer sentencing guidelines to ensure a steady and growing stream of prisoners to incarcerate? What about these corporations labor practices? The poor pay, long hours, and inadequate training?

Here is some more analysis for you to read

The Dirty Thirty
The Caging of America\
The Prison Industrial Complex
 
The factual feminist: Criminal sentencing: Do women get off easy?

Leftover of the patriarchal system, isn't it? Where male judges and jury members can't imagine women could be such heinous criminals, or they feel sorry for them as mothers and wives.

I imagine when that patriarchal attitude finally fades, so will any discrepancy in sentencing.
 
Ya, it's not the kind of thing which needs a band-aid here and a little buffing there. There are so many instances of unfairness and disparity that it's probably time to just overhaul the whole thing.

Could anyone provide more specifics? I'd say there's really nothing wrong with the present system.
Other than the terrible disparity of men being over-sentenced compared to women that prompted you to write this thread?

It's the product of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, trial and error. If there is a particular problem, then what is it?

Maybe the fact that each state has it's own quirky set of rules, suggesting that this "trial and error" (funny pun, don't you think?) doesn't lead to a common good place.

FYI, each state has its own criminal sentencing guidelines which should be easily accessible online. Review them.
Well, yes, just so.

This notion that we can replace what we have with something better is a bit naive.

Your OP is naïve?

The sentencing guidelines did not just appear; they developed over time, through experience and compromise.

coming out completely differently between jurisdictions because developing over time is such a good.... um... model?

Should you replace the current system with another, it'd be a safe wager that the "new" system contains pretty much what was in the old.

I don't understand why you think this. We have learned much about rehabilitation, education, reductions in recidivism, fairness, mandatory minimums, and humaneness.


Yes, toss it all out. Replace with a common, uniform, humane, fair, useful, appropriate and lasting set of rules. One that can treat men and women equally appropriately.
 
Maybe the fact that each state has it's own quirky set of rules, suggesting that this "trial and error" (funny pun, don't you think?) doesn't lead to a common good place.

Actually, that's not true. For the most part, the penal codes in each state are pretty similar. Much criminal law is based off the Model Penal Code, which is based off of centuries of practical law. There just really isn't any material disparity.

coming out completely differently between jurisdictions because developing over time is such a good.... um... model?

You'll get different sentences for the same crime here and there, but often those results have to do with things that can range from geographical considerations to public policy. For example, maybe a state that contains coal mining has more severe penalties for doing X to or in a mine than a state where mining isn't a big thing. But when it comes to different punishments for crimes against persons in a given JN, there's likely good reason for it. For example, in California, the crimes and sentencing guidelines for gang related crimes are more severe than in most other states because the problem is so prevalent there.

I don't understand why you think this. We have learned much about rehabilitation, education, reductions in recidivism, fairness, mandatory minimums, and humaneness.

Unfortunately, no. Throughout history every philosophy of punishment and treatment has been implemented for decades at a time. The results are the same. Incarceration is the most simple and effective method. This doesn't mean we give up trying--maybe some day someone will come up with something that changes it all, but with very little variance, the method of dealing with violent criminals produces the same results regardless of what it is.


Yes, toss it all out. Replace with a common, uniform, humane, fair, useful, appropriate and lasting set of rules. One that can treat men and women equally appropriately.

But as has already been said, there is a very common and uniform set of laws. And that commonality has evolved over centuries of trial and error.

Although most people don't realize it, the law is very accordion-like and eventually progressive in its application. When we hear about something with legal implications its usually a sensational anomaly that unfortunately gives an impression that everything is like that. It isn't. Go sit in a courtroom for a week and watch the parade of suspects go in and out. You'll see just how uniformly the same set of laws are applied to each individual.

The law handles the results of crime. And what gets someone into jail in the first place isn't something the legal system can realistically fix with any reliability and frequency. It has to start in homes and schools and communities. To expect the prison system to provide a fix to some, if not most of the living nightmares that enter into it is fantasy. I don't say that to be provocative, it just is.
 

The crazy cuts hard and deep, but my favourite sentence is this:

In Britain, advocates propose community sentences for nonviolent offenders and housing violent offenders in small custodial centers near their families.

So, her headline is 'don't put women in prison - for anything', but then proposes putting violent women in prison small custodial centers.

Can you imagine reversing the genders? Should we put violent male offenders in 'small custodial centers near their families'?

Oy vey.
 
The crazy cuts hard and deep, but my favourite sentence is this:

In Britain, advocates propose community sentences for nonviolent offenders and housing violent offenders in small custodial centers near their families.

So, her headline is 'don't put women in prison - for anything', but then proposes putting violent women in prison small custodial centers.

Can you imagine reversing the genders? Should we put violent male offenders in 'small custodial centers near their families'?

Oy vey.

Using solutions other than prison time is a good idea, but the author has taken it too far: violent offenders need to be adequately secured such that they pose no risk to their victims or to other potential victims until they have been rehabilitated.

I don't think she has justified her women-only solution, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom