Women not to be jailed for any crimes they commit
2011 06 07
It is now seriously suggested that women’s prison close
By Paul Elam
Great Britain is about to lend new meaning to the pussy pass.
At least, that is the recommendation in a report issued by the Women’s Justice Task Force which has concluded that offering healthcare services, housing and drug abuse treatment to female criminals is better than holding them to the same standards of punishment to which they hold men….(Full Story)
Comment by F4L:
If women with children should be at home and not in jail, then the question remains why that should be so. Perhaps the report justified the recommendation by arguing, based on the evidence the authors selected, that it is better for such women’s children to be brought up by women criminals than by the government or by the children’s fathers.
How will that play out in a court of law, in a hearing in which it will be settled what is “in the best interest of the children”?
Millions of anti-father decisions in child-custody cases were rationalized by asserting that they were in the best interest of the children. Still, although there is plenty of evidence that father-custody is almost always better and in the best interest of the children, it has not ever been established in any court of law that obligatorily awarding child custody to mothers is in the best interest of the children.
The reality of the recommendation is that it comes after the fact and only establishes as a rule what is already being done with women criminals. Virtually all women criminals that should be serving time (94% in the US and 99% in Canada) are on the loose. All that will happen when the recommendation of the report is accepted (and that will most surely be not only in the U.K. but in all developed nations) is that the remaining small proportion of women criminals who had the misfortune of being incarcerated will be let loose, too.
Sex ratios of incarcerated prisoners
Unites States: 16 Men for every woman (Note 1)
Canada: 99 Men for every woman (Note 2)
- About 12 years ago, the ratio for federal prisoners in the U.S. was 17.6 men for every woman. I don’t know what it is now, but it is quite likely larger now.
- That was the sex ratio of prisoners in the Canadian federal prison system about 12 years ago. The total capacity of all six Canadian women’s prisons then was 258 inmates, while the women’s prisons housed only 150 women criminals, men’s prisons held 13,500 prisoners who were double-bunked.
Those ratios take into account only convicted and incarcerated criminals. The disparity of the ratios exists because, compared to men, women are,
- Far less likely to be suspected of having committed a crime, and, if suspected,
- Far less likely to be indicted, and, if indicted,
- Far more likely to have their crime plea-bargained down to a less severe category of crime, and, when having successfully done that,
- Far less likely to be brought to trial, and, if brought to trial,
- Far less likely to be judged guilty, and, once found guilty of crimes of equal severity to those committed by men,
- Far less likely to be sentenced to being incarcerated, and once incarcerated,
- Far more likely to be serving a shorter sentence for a crime of equal severity, and, once serving a sentence,
- Far more likely to be released early on parole.
We don’t know how many women criminals there are. All we know is that women are as human as are men and are as likely as men are to commit crimes and that vastly fewer women criminals are serving time in jails or prisons.
Judicial crime statistics are the worst possible source of criminal statistics, as they indicate only one of the consequences of judicial bias, namely how many prisoners of either sex were caught, brought to trial, convicted, found guilty and sentenced to serve time in incarceration. Judicial crimes statistics pertaining to both sexes are a good indicator of judicial gender bias.
It is not practical to make judicial bias applicable to an identical extent to men criminals, because then we would have a catastrophic number of job losses in the judiciary, in its adjuncts and in its support and service industries.
There is an aggravating factor that makes it necessary to be absolutely lenient with women criminals. To keep a woman incarcerated costs approximately 2.5 times as much money than to keep a man incarcerated for an equal length of time.
All of those are arguments in support of letting women go free if they have committed crimes.
Of course that promotes chaos and anarchy, and of course it is damaging to all of society and to the well-being of the children by such women criminals, but is it reasonable to argue that the comfort of some women should be sacrificed, so that society can be protected against them and to deter other women from committing crimes? Is that not looking at things the wrong way when it comes to promoting women’s rights? Should women’s rights and privileges not trump the welfare of society, even the future of civilization?
Those are age-old questions, and the answers to them were expressed and written down more than 2,400 years ago.
For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
–Aristotle, in Politics