If you're a woman and you kill 10 women and kids, no jail for you!!!

[LJ_Reloaded]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/womens-prisons-should-all-close-within-a-decade-7240659.html

Only the most dangerous female criminals should be kept behind bars, a controversial Government report has said.
Thousands of women currently sentenced to two years or less would escape jail.

• Holloway Prison 'must be closed' to cut down suicides by women in jail

And those who are such a threat to the public that they must be sentenced to custody would no longer go to one of the country's 15 women's prisons – which would all close.

Instead, killers such as Rose West – serving life for the murder of ten young women and girls – would be sent to "homely" local custody units.

There they would be allowed to live as a "family unit" with between 20 and 30 other women prisoners, organising their own shopping, budgets and cooking.

The units would also allow them to stay close to their families.

The radical proposals are made by Labour peer Baroness Corston, in a report commissioned by the Home Office.

She said there are far too many vulnerable women in jail, many serving short sentences.

Instead of being imprisoned, the vast majority of the 4,300 behind bars would be ordered to attend new community centres during the day.

 

[subdued_passion]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/womens-prisons-should-all-close-within-a-decade-7240659.html

Only the most dangerous female criminals should be kept behind bars, a controversial Government report has said.
Thousands of women currently sentenced to two years or less would escape jail.

• Holloway Prison 'must be closed' to cut down suicides by women in jail

And those who are such a threat to the public that they must be sentenced to custody would no longer go to one of the country's 15 women's prisons – which would all close.

Instead, killers such as Rose West – serving life for the murder of ten young women and girls – would be sent to "homely" local custody units.

There they would be allowed to live as a "family unit" with between 20 and 30 other women prisoners, organising their own shopping, budgets and cooking.

The units would also allow them to stay close to their families.

The radical proposals are made by Labour peer Baroness Corston, in a report commissioned by the Home Office.

She said there are far too many vulnerable women in jail, many serving short sentences.

Instead of being imprisoned, the vast majority of the 4,300 behind bars would be ordered to attend new community centres during the day.

March 2007, that's when these proposals were made. Can you give us a follow up story telling us how has this proposal fared?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

March 2007, that's when these proposals were made. Can you give us a follow up story telling us how has this proposal fared?

Why would he possibly do that? It doesn't fit his narrative. You are obviously new to LeJackass' particular brand of disingenuous bullshit.

 

[subdued_passion]

Why would he possibly do that? It doesn't fit his narrative. You are obviously new to LeJackass' particular brand of disingenuous bullshit.

I'm beginning to notice the pattern... Threads with sensational headlines that make women come across as oppressors. But you see, he claims to be all about gender equality.


I amuse myself by watching people weaving sometimes.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'm beginning to notice the pattern... Threads with sensational headlines that make women come across as oppressors. But you see, he claims to be all about gender equality.

Have you ever seen any proposals, anywhere, to free all MEN who commit these crimes? Lease of all proposals at the GOVERNMENT level?

Another case where raw facts somehow misogynistic.

 

[dan_c00000]

To be fair if you kill a black kid you don't got to jail either.

George Zimmerman Trial: The Evidence Points Toward a Guilty Verdict
Peter Prime
in
Politics
3 months ago



Mic this!8


194


15




349

george, zimmerman, trial:, the, evidence, points, toward, a, guilty, verdict,
George Zimmerman Trial: The Evidence Points Toward a Guilty Verdict


According to the Los Angeles Times, the family of Trayvon Martin is gearing up for a "rough road" ahead as the trial sets to begin. It is expected that there would be a great deal of media attention on the trial because the killing of Trayvon was highly controversial when it occurred.

As in every trial, the two most likely resolutions are either guilty or not guilty. During the trial, the lawyers of George Zimmerman will try to help their client beat the charges by relying on legal maneuvers. The big question, then, is the following: Which of the two parties that are involved in the case would be vindicated at the end of the trial. But an examination of the evidence, thus far, does show that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon; even more importantly, Trayvon ended up being shot dead. Therefore, it would be a shocking outcome if Zimmerman were found not guilty.

Following the untimely death of Trayvon, there was a great deal of public outcry. This uproar was caused by the fact that the Sanford Police department decided not to arrest Zimmerman without conducting a thorough investigation. Because of the outcry, the governor appointed a special prosecutor to conduct a more comprehensive investigation. This prosecutor brought charges against Zimmerman after an in-depth investigation.

Having his back against the proverbial wall because of the evidence against him, Zimmerman's lawyers are getting ready to assassinate Trayvon's character. This strategy has been in full display during the pre-trial hearings. In the course of those hearings, Mark O'Mara sought to convince the judge that he should be allowed to portray Trayvon as a pothead and troublemaker with thuggish tendencies. But the judge forbade him to make such characterization in his opening statement.

Although he was not successful in convincing the judge in allowing him to attack Trayvon's character in his opening remarks, O'Mara is still hoping that he could do so during the trial itself. Since it would be very difficult to refute the evidence that would be presented against Zimmerman, one of the key strategies of his defense team to help him beat the charges would be to vilify Trayvon

Despite the campaign to paint Trayvon negatively, it would be a big challenge for the defense team to get an acquittal. There is some key evidence that incriminates Zimmerman. First, he was pursuing Trayvon even though he was not doing anything wrong. Second, he continued his pursuit although he was told explicitly by a 911 operator to stop doing so. This pursuit showed that he was engaging in racial profiling. Since he presumed that Trayvon must have been doing something wrong, Zimmerman was more likely to initiate the confrontation that eventually led to the death of a 17-year-old.

Because of the evidence against his client, the defense team would attempt to question the character of Trayvon as a diversionary tactic. But this deliberate strategy of seeking to detract the jury's attention from the real evidence will likely fail. After all, Zimmerman who was armed with a gun decided to follow a teenager who was not doing anything wrong and he most likely instigated the confrontation that ensued. More damningly, he pulled the trigger that took the life of a High School student who was only carrying a bag of skittles and some ice tea. Taking into account all this incriminating evidence, it would be highly unlikely that the trial would result in an acquittal.

 

[EducatedOwl]

LJ tries to start a debate with a story about a dumbass proposal that went nowhere six years ago. Dan tries to make the thread about a murder trial that was decided months ago by posting the opinion of an internet journalist who wasn't at the trial. Reasonable people laugh and walk away.

 

[subdued_passion]

Have you ever seen any proposals, anywhere, to free all MEN who commit these crimes? Lease of all proposals at the GOVERNMENT level?

Another case where raw facts somehow misogynistic.

Really LJ?

Your argument is that someone made a ludicrous proposal for women (which got nowhere) but no one is making a ludicrous proposal for men?!?

You know I have never been dismissive of your ideologies. I really admire the passion with which you tom-tom your cause. But you're making it really hard for me to believe that you are gender neutral in your activism.

Attack the issue... stop with the gender attacks.


Of course you are entitled to your opinion and your manner to express it.

 

[dan_c00000]

LJ tries to start a debate with a story about a dumbass proposal that went nowhere six years ago. Dan tries to make the thread about a murder trial that was decided months ago by posting the opinion of an internet journalist who wasn't at the trial. Reasonable people laugh and walk away.

Technically, it's still on topic someone did die and was found innocent. I just like to blow up LJ's threads.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

interesting....*CLICKS*

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Really LJ?

Your argument is that someone made a ludicrous proposal for women (which got nowhere) but no one is making a ludicrous proposal for men?!?

You know I have never been dismissive of your ideologies. I really admire the passion with which you tom-tom your cause. But you're making it really hard for me to believe that you are gender neutral in your activism.

Attack the issue... stop with the gender attacks.


Of course you are entitled to your opinion and your manner to express it.

So pointing out the fact that GOVERNMENT officials are proposing no jail time for women serial killers, but no such proposition is put out there for men, is somehow sexism?

Really?

Please show where this is a gender attack. Please define what a gender attack is and how this fits.

Of course I know you won't do that - instead you'll just attack mindlessly. My point has been proven. What I said wasn't any kind of gender attack, I flawlessly pointed out a glaring example of sexism, and that simply hurts.

There was zero sexism on my part. ZERO.

 

[subdued_passion]

So pointing out the fact that GOVERNMENT officials are proposing no jail time for women serial killers, but no such proposition is put out there for men, is somehow sexism?

Really?

Please show where this is a gender attack. Please define what a gender attack is and how this fits.

Of course I know you won't do that - instead you'll just attack mindlessly. My point has been proven. What I said wasn't any kind of gender attack, I flawlessly pointed out a glaring example of sexism, and that simply hurts.

There was zero sexism on my part. ZERO.

I'm beginning to understand why so many posters warn me about you. LJ, I like you. So, I'm gonna try one last time.

You are angry that someone wanted to win the women's vote by proposing that women do not get jail time but nobody suggested the same thing for men. And... wait for it...

this happened 6 years ago!!!

If this was currently being considered you could argue to ensure that such a proposal not be passed. you don't argue that such a proposal be passed for the men as well.

Now do you see the whole gender vs issue thing?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'm beginning to understand why so many posters warn me about you. LJ, I like you. So, I'm gonna try one last time.

You are angry that someone wanted to win the women's vote by proposing that women do not get jail time but nobody suggested the same thing for men. And... wait for it...

this happened 6 years ago!!!

If this was currently being considered you could argue to ensure that such a proposal not be passed. you don't argue that such a proposal be passed for the men as well.

Now do you see the whole gender vs issue thing?

I don't care what other posters say about me. My questions are still valid. My facts are not wrong. As long as I am not factually wrong these questions will never, ever go away, no matter how many people hate me or trash talk. You totally do not know me if you think threats of turning against me are going to intimidate me into shutting up.

Here are the indisputable facts again.
1) Government officials proposed leniency for women who kill multiple people.
2) No such leniency has ever been proposed for men who do this.

Why would government officials suggest this kind of leniency for women but not men? Why do you claim that this is somehow sexist? Where am I factually wrong? You have accused me of sexism so please show where I have suggested that women should be deprived of any rights.

Why is everyone on Lit so totally scared to answer these basic questions?

This is why the men's rights movement is growing - you women refuse to answer, you go on the attack, and we realize it's going to be up to us to handle business. We want answers, and when we don't get them, we act.

 

[subdued_passion]

I don't care what other posters say about me. My questions are still valid. My facts are not wrong. As long as I am not factually wrong these questions will never, ever go away, no matter how many people hate me or trash talk. You totally do not know me if you think threats of turning against me are going to intimidate me into shutting up.

Firstly, some deep calming breaths.

No one is threatening or attacking you or your beliefs. I am questioning the value and purpose of this thread.

Here are the indisputable facts again.
1) Government officials proposed leniency for women who kill multiple people.
2) No such leniency has ever been proposed for men who do this.

Why would government officials suggest this kind of leniency for women but not men?

Would you be happy if such a proposal was passed as long as it afforded the same leniency to both sexes?

This is why the men's rights movement is growing - you women refuse to answer, you go on the attack, and we realize it's going to be up to us to handle business. We want answers, and when we don't get them, we act.

Do you see how you turned that into a you Vs us thing.

It was just me... no other woman has posted on this thread. So why would you generalise and make it about all women?

I'm not arguing with you. I am trying to have a discussion. But if you insist on blaming me for the neglect suffered by man... well so be it.

 

[dan_c00000]

Also didn't OJ get away with murder?

 

[EducatedOwl]

And why has Kid Rock gotten a pass for absolutely murdering two rock classics in "All Summer Long"?

 

[warrior queen]

I'd just like to point out that putting '20 to 30 women together' in a communal house would result in a HELL far worse than prison!
Women are bitchy and nasty... and let's not go near the PMS!
They'd end up killing eachother.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Firstly, some deep calming breaths.

No one is threatening or attacking you or your beliefs. I am questioning the value and purpose of this thread.




Would you be happy if such a proposal was passed as long as it afforded the same leniency to both sexes?

ROTFLMAO SERIOUSLY? Fuck no.

But I do want to know why a Government official can get away with such sexist remarks. There was like NO outcry about that. I guarantee you if they said let the men out of jail but not the women, Big Ben would not still be standing.

Do you see how you turned that into a you Vs us thing.

You mean by pointing out the fact that men, as a group, are never even considered for leniency in the criminal justice system, but women are?

Instead of accusing me of turning this into a you vs us thing, why don't you ask yourself why you are so opposed to addressing the existing inequality in the criminal justice system, and why you are so opposed to addressing the reason why government officials feel it's correct to suggest even GREATER inequalities?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'd just like to point out that putting '20 to 30 women together' in a communal house would result in a HELL far worse than prison!
Women are bitchy and nasty... and let's not go near the PMS!
They'd end up killing eachother.

Oh come on now.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't care what other posters say about me. My questions are still valid. My facts are not wrong. As long as I am not factually wrong these questions will never, ever go away, no matter how many people hate me or trash talk. You totally do not know me if you think threats of turning against me are going to intimidate me into shutting up.

Here are the indisputable facts again.
1) Government officials proposed leniency for women who kill multiple people.
2) No such leniency has ever been proposed for men who do this.

Why would government officials suggest this kind of leniency for women but not men? Why do you claim that this is somehow sexist? Where am I factually wrong? You have accused me of sexism so please show where I have suggested that women should be deprived of any rights.

Why is everyone on Lit so totally scared to answer these basic questions?

...

Back to basics: Your two facts are wrong.

1. It was a report to the previous government by a Labour politician. It did not propose leniency for serious women offenders at all.

2. It has been proposed for men as well. There are already open prisons in the UK where prisoners, including those convicted of murder, are allowed out on day release. At present Police are hunting a convicted murderer (male) who didn't return from day release and the public have been advised not to approach him if seen. Several murderers (male) are currently on the run from open prisons. No murderers (female) are on the run. Open prisons have been a feature of the UK justice system for decades and are intended for those approaching the end of the sentences to prepare them for release.

Beyond the report and your 'facts' is the reality that most women offenders in jail are there for minor offences. If more suitable community sentences were available for women - as there already are for men - then fewer women would need to go to jail. Women are being sent to jail unnecessarily because the alternatives don't exist in sufficient quantity. Women who commit crimes are already treated worse than men. The report IF it had been accepted, would have balanced treatment of men and women.

The main reason it wasn't accepted in full? Cost. Alternatives to prison and 'community units' need more staff and resources than traditional prison environments.

 

[EducatedOwl]

ROTFLMAO SERIOUSLY? Fuck no.

But I do want to know why a Government official can get away with such sexist remarks. There was like NO outcry about that. I guarantee you if they said let the men out of jail but not the women, Big Ben would not still be standing.


You mean by pointing out the fact that men, as a group, are never even considered for leniency in the criminal justice system, but women are?

Instead of accusing me of turning this into a you vs us thing, why don't you ask yourself why you are so opposed to addressing the existing inequality in the criminal justice system, and why you are so opposed to addressing the reason why government officials feel it's correct to suggest even GREATER inequalities?

Except nothing in this thread represents inequality in the criminal justice system. All you have produced is one person's crazy proposal, which no doubt was laughed at and dismissed as soon as it hit the floor. It had as much impact on the criminal justice system as the cereal I had for breakfast this morning.

You are trying to manufacture a controversy where there isn't one. If this proposal had been given any serious consideration or had come close in any way to becoming law, that would have been a controversy. "This guy has a stupid idea" is not a controversy.

 

[oggbashan]

The report was NOT about women murderers at all:


Quote from the introduction of Baroness Corston's report:

I do not believe, like some campaigners, that no women should be held in custody. There are some crimes for which custody is the only resort in the interests of justice and public protection, but I was dismayed to see so many women frequently sentenced for short periods of time for very minor offences, causing chaos and disruption to their lives and families, without any realistic chance of addressing the causes of their criminality. I acknowledge that some low-level offending women are persistent offenders who breach their bail conditions and this cannot be ignored. But breach is ratcheting up the use of custody to little avail and there are alternative community solutions which I explore in my report. The effects on the 18,000 children every year whose mothers are sent to prison are so often nothing short of catastrophic. I have concluded that the nature of women’s custody in many of our prisons needs to be radically rethought.

There are many women in prison, either on remand or serving sentences for minor, non-violent offences, for whom prison is both disproportionate and inappropriate. Many of them suffer poor physical and mental health or substance abuse, or both. Large numbers have endured violent or sexual abuse or had chaotic childhoods. Many have been in care. I have concluded that we are rightly exercised about paedophiles, but seem to have little sympathy, understanding or interest in those who have been their victims, many of whom end up in prison. The tragic series of murders in Suffolk during December 2006 rightly focussed public attention on these women as women first and foremost - someone’s daughter, mother, girlfriend, then as victims – exploited by men, damaged by abuse and drug addiction. These are among the women whom society must support and help to establish themselves in the community.

 

[oggbashan]

...

You are trying to manufacture a controversy where there isn't one. If this proposal had been given any serious consideration or had come close in any way to becoming law, that would have been a controversy. "This guy has a stupid idea" is not a controversy.

The proposal - see my post above - was nothing to do with violent women or those who had committed serious offences.

It was about the majority of women who were minor offenders, who, if they had been male, would probably not have been sent to jail at all.

 

[warrior queen]

The proposal - see my post above - was nothing to do with violent women or those who had committed serious offences.

It was about the majority of women who were minor offenders, who, if they had been male, would probably not have been sent to jail at all.

Surely you're not suggesting that LJ deliberately left those bits out, just so he could support his outrage?!
I'm shocked!

 

[oggbashan]

Surely you're not suggesting that LJ deliberately left those bits out, just so he could support his outrage?!
I'm shocked!

It might not have been LJ. It might have been those tabloid journalists.

By the way, the Baroness' report was accepted and implemented by the government as official policy.

It hasn't made any measurable difference except in producing more politicians' hot air about how much better women who are minor criminals are being treated by the Justice System

Of course the reality is that nothing has changed but the politicians' words.

Edited to add: In some Middle Eastern countries, a woman complaining that she has been raped is thrown into jail for sex outside marriage.

In the UK, a physically and mentally abused woman can be thrown into jail because her abuser has spent all the money on booze and drugs and she shoplifts to feed the kids.