Court case sexism

Inspired by a tangent in the "what would you do in this murder case" thread, I figured it would be worthwhile to discuss more generally the issue of the supposedly leniant sentencing of women in comparison to men for similar crimes.

To what extent are women treated leniantly by the justice system, and how incompatible is this with the "gender-equality" expectations put upon the workplace? Also, if there's an underlying hypocrisy involved here, then whose fault is it?

Just to get this out of the way:
correlation != causation. Just because women get more lenient sentences on the "same" crimes doesn't mean they get those more lenient sentences because they are women. There could be factors that require more leniency that just happen to be more often present in sentenced women. The question is how you actually define the "same" crime. I think it simply depends on the paragrap used for the sentence, which doesn't necessarely mean those crimes were truely the same.
Though pro-feminist statistics or normally just as weak, so feel free to carry on.

So if their statistics are just as weak, then whose fault would you think this implicit hypocrisy is? o.o

Let me guess, is it the feminists?

Correlation may not be causation, but if the trend holds across a large enough number of cases that the only clear difference left between cases is the gender that is a pretty strong indication of some major differences in the way the justice system handles men and women (or how men and women handle the justice system, but honestly the system should be made such that this doesn't matter)...although I don't know if this is the case.

edited 13th Feb '11 1:12:17 PM by deathjavu

^^^
Uh, don't know what hypocrisy you are actually refering to, but if you mean the different believe in statistics, I wouldn't call it hypocrisy but simply human nature. People like the comfy feeling of being right. That's why I'm often criticizing such statistics - just because it supports your point of view, doesn't mean it's right. Without further investigation into the actual causes and justifications of the sentences the statistic that women get more lenient sentences doesn't really mean anything.
Even further investigation hits some problems - one reason for a relatively lenient sentence is showing that you regret your actions. If you believe this in a specific case though is a judgment call heavily dependent on your point of view or "biases". How do you compare these cases objectively?

[edit]
^
You hit the problem that there are causes that may influence both. Unless you have controlled for such factors (I already mentioned one above) your statistic has about as much worth as the correlation of pirating activity with climate warming.
I'm not saying statistics are pointless in general, but they should be a starting point for research about the facts of live, not the goal where you lay back and say "See? I'm right!".

edited 13th Feb '11 1:14:37 PM by Uchuujinsan

Okay, before we move further, can you cite the studies that say women get lenient sentences for the same crimes? Often, I've seen people talk about "Women get preferential treatment in divorce courts" and in the same breath say, "The justice system is sexist against men", which is kind of unfair because civil courts and criminal courts are separate entities. Also, I'd like to know if it's only for violent crimes that women are given comparatively lenient sentences, or all crimes.

Also, the "same" crimes can be hard to determine. There's premeditated versus "crimes of passion", there's provocation versus unprovoked, etc. Could it be that women are more likely to commit certain crimes that get more lenient sentences?

Or that womens' crimes are more likely to be classified as these lesser crimes?

Just playing devil's advocate.

That could be the case, but no one can say anything until someone produces a peer-reviewed study.

Men are more likely to be charged, found guilty, and sentenced to longer periods of time in jail, period.

I can already hear the cries of BIAS

edited 13th Feb '11 1:36:13 PM by CommandoDude

Well, linking to that site probably wasn't a good way of avoiding accusations of bias.

It did kind of bear out one theory I would have on more lenient sentences- at least the one dealing with spousal murder. Not getting into the issue of whether female-on-male abuse is under-reported, but it seems quite likely that in cases of women murdering husbands, a lot of those might have involved them killing an abuser, which regardless of the gender of the abuser, is something I'd think would deserve a more lenient sentence.

For whatever reason, maybe men who killed their wives did so in less sympathetic circumstances.

Wouldn't that be operating under the assumption that women are abused more than men, which is refuted by that same article?

Unfortunately they don't link the actual studies/statistics...

edited 13th Feb '11 1:42:54 PM by deathjavu

I still don't see any studies.

That, besides my disinclination to believe the website, they didn't give any citation for that one.

But assuming it is true, it doesn't necessarily conflict with my supposition. Even if there are more female abusers, maybe it's still the case that more women who kill their spouses are killing abusers than men who kill their spouses.

Edit- I also kind have to ask, what is the policy aim that the men's rights people here/elsewhere have? I mean do they think that women who receive lighter sentences didn't deserve them? That men who do deserve lighter sentences aren't getting them? What? Really, you need to give some actual case examples for this to be meaningfully considered.

edited 13th Feb '11 1:50:56 PM by Jordan

Yeah, that article didn't do a good job of arguing its case. Calling all of these things indisputable is bad enough, let alone without citing your sources.

Here, this Cracked article argues some of the same things (especially the one about abuse) much better.

Okay, that's 1000 times more reliable-looking than the first article, but it's still a Cracked article, and they do regularly exaggerate things, phrase them in misleading ways, or leave out important details. For instance, this article says that Jules Verne had no way of knowing that people would be weightless in space, even though that can be predicted with simple Newtonian mechanics by anyone who cares to do the calculations.

Which is fine, since they're a humor site and not intended to be an actual source of information.

Kind of sad isn't it that Cracked has the more reliable looking article.

Well, I suppose that a substantial analysis of relevant cases would be necessary before any kind of categorical conclusion on the subject could be made. Some questions I have to wonder about. Are men more likely to have charges brought against them? Are more men brought to trial than women? If so, is that because a greater proportion of suspects are male? If that is so, is it just because there are more men than women?

I'm not really sure I have an opinion on this, other than that.

"Okay, that's 1000 times more reliable-looking than the first article, but it's still a Cracked article, and they do regularly exaggerate things, phrase them in misleading ways, or leave out important details." - jewelleddragon

But it cites its sources. Are you saying its sources are exaggerating things, phrasing them in misleading ways, and/or leaving out important details?

edited 13th Feb '11 5:54:26 PM by neoYTPism

I was always confused about the statistic that men are abused more, but report it less. It may well be true, but how do they know? I mean, if it's not reported, how do they even find out about it?

I've wondered the same thing with statistics about rape. If I were to guess, I'd suppose it means that while x number reported the crime to the police y (a larger number) told people at shelters/someone collecting data about the crime.

@neo: It's possible to lie even citing sources. In fact it's fairly easy.

Statistics are not at all difficult to manipulate or misinterpret.

They'd probably base it on correcting for reasons each gender has to report vs. not to report in their interpretations of reported incidents.

See also my thread about "abuse is okay when female on male" and the reaction video cited in the topic. If people's preconceptions that a guy started it are going to influence their interpretations of a confrontation right in front of them, then obviously a stereotype that strong is something female abusers are in more of a position to exploit than male abusers are.

edited 13th Feb '11 9:16:05 PM by neoYTPism

neo: Did you read the sources?

(Disclaimer: I'm 90% sure that the OP's claim is true. But we can't possibly have a meaningful discussion about it without reliable data.)

edited 14th Feb '11 11:52:20 AM by jewelleddragon

This study shows that men do get longer sentences on average than women (and that race, age and education play a part as well, with uneducated young black men getting the harshest sentences).