Let’s not forget the special “judgements” applied in many cases for our FN cohort. That is another level of systemic treatment above and beyond that mentioned in this analysis.
Ahhhh ..... David, you drop the disparity and then scurry away without providing a whole lot of conclusion.
I don't at all blame you.
I suggest that any conclusion that is offered that departs from "Women are oppressed!" will get you in severe trouble. Oh! Perhaps I am now the one in trouble.
The problem is that there are societal biases that we acknowledge and those that are so implicit that no one thinks to acknowledge them. Of course, that very much includes me.
So, what does that mean? Damned if I know! What I can say is that the first step in understanding and changing/defending these differentials is to acknowledge that they exist - so, good on you for this! - and then discussing the virtues/problems with these differentials.
Alas, I don't foresee such discussions as likely; in fact, I suspect that any potential discussion of these differentials will get lost in the argument of "Believe the women!" that we hear so frequently. Indeed, women need to be believed but life is much more complex than a simple slogan.
I imagine that defenses along the lines of “He hit me first,” “He was too controlling and made my life unbearable,” “He was stalking me and my only recourse was to kill him to keep him from raping me,” “I had to kill him, otherwise he would never have left me in peace” are often used by the lawyers of violence-prone women. I also wonder about the sex of the victim, and what effect that seems to have on sentencing.”
I would think that claims of violence or threatening behaviour with reasonable accompanying evidence should lead to outright acquittals rather than convictions with non-custodial sentences. But perhaps I'm naive.
Let’s not forget the special “judgements” applied in many cases for our FN cohort. That is another level of systemic treatment above and beyond that mentioned in this analysis.
Ahhhh ..... David, you drop the disparity and then scurry away without providing a whole lot of conclusion.
I don't at all blame you.
I suggest that any conclusion that is offered that departs from "Women are oppressed!" will get you in severe trouble. Oh! Perhaps I am now the one in trouble.
The problem is that there are societal biases that we acknowledge and those that are so implicit that no one thinks to acknowledge them. Of course, that very much includes me.
So, what does that mean? Damned if I know! What I can say is that the first step in understanding and changing/defending these differentials is to acknowledge that they exist - so, good on you for this! - and then discussing the virtues/problems with these differentials.
Alas, I don't foresee such discussions as likely; in fact, I suspect that any potential discussion of these differentials will get lost in the argument of "Believe the women!" that we hear so frequently. Indeed, women need to be believed but life is much more complex than a simple slogan.
I imagine that defenses along the lines of “He hit me first,” “He was too controlling and made my life unbearable,” “He was stalking me and my only recourse was to kill him to keep him from raping me,” “I had to kill him, otherwise he would never have left me in peace” are often used by the lawyers of violence-prone women. I also wonder about the sex of the victim, and what effect that seems to have on sentencing.”
I would think that claims of violence or threatening behaviour with reasonable accompanying evidence should lead to outright acquittals rather than convictions with non-custodial sentences. But perhaps I'm naive.