Sometimes one never knows how to start a post and a good example of this is in reviewing this weeks tirade by the pro-women anti-male Fawcett Society over their report Engendering Justice where they accuse the whole British justice system of being institutionally sexist.
The basic premise is that too many women are being sent to prison and the reason for this is that the legal system is run as an old boys club because there are so few women working within it.
To be fair, they do raise worrying statistics about the level of self-harming amongst females in prison and of course, they are certain issues like this that show the prison system should improve.
However, the subtext behind all of it is that they want women to be treated more leniently than men for crimes they commit. The reason this is said is that nowhere in the report does it say that male criminals receive lighter sentences than women for the same crime.
In fact, it can be said that the opposite is true as a very early post on this site showed. Also far more community sentences are handed out to women than men in Crown courts (12,575 - men : 30,617 women) which suggests that with a prison population of 40,911 men : 3,123 women at face value judges are more likely to pass a community sentence than they would for a man. Though of course, the actual severity of the cases would need to be looked at and more men committing worse crimes (overall) than women.
The Fawcett Society have closed ears when it comes to increasing female violence (link).
The issue of childcare and child support is raised, however, this shows the inconsistency of organisations such as the Fawcett Society. On the one hand they do all they can to denigrate the family and proclaim that men are not needed (full stop) but then complain that women do not have people to look after the kids when they go to court or in prison. If they did not denigrate men so much then perhaps they might pause to think that perhaps the father could help.
Lastly, on the issue of the lack of women in senior positions in the legal system, they, like all proponents of the gender employment war, do not ask the simple questions. They don't ask whether women want a career in the senior ranks nor do they look at the progress being made. For example, there has been percentage increases in the number of police officers at every level since they did their previous research (First Report 03/04) and also a big increase in the number of High Court Judges (10% now: 5.7% in 03/04). In fact, the number of female applicants for QC positions have a success rate of 55% against a male success rate of 40%.
These things take time, but of course, the Fawcett Society does not do time (even though 63% of people signing up to the Law Society are now women) and with the disaster of the Equality Bill soon to be upon us they will be leveraging this to ensure that female candidates leapfrog male candidates for every position going. The legal system will be another target for the pro-women/anti-male witch-hunt.
In conclusion, the British justice system is supposedly blind (hence the blindfolded scales of justice) and that both men and women are treated the same whether plaintiffs or defendants. What the Fawcett Society are really saying is that they want to blind to slip whenever a women is accused of a crime and for the eyes to tip them the wink.
PS read this hysterical rant in the Guardian at your peril (you have been warned!) and she is slaughtered in the comments section.
PSPS Here is an example of the type of justice the Fawcett Society is talking about.
A big problem is the lack of women's prisons in certain areas - eg none in wales at all. The cause of that of course is the incredibly lenient sentences handed out to female offenders for most crimes.
The result of such a lack of prisons means that when women do get locked up, many are a long way from their families and it is harder for people to visit. So of course the feminists idiots see this and their solution is to close women's prisons and give even more stupid sentences out.
In reality we need women to receive appropriate and equal sentences - you could easily fill a good size prison with those making malicious false rape allegations, and then a further one with witht the vast number of female perpetrators of domestic violence who currently go unpunished/unreported (eg look at the displarity between crime surveys and police figures on the issue). A third new woemn's facility woudl easily be filled with female sex offenders if they were punished the same way as men etc etc.
It's fair to say the female sentencing discount actually harms the minority of females who are unlucky enough to receive the same sentencing as male offenders. They would actually benefit from fair sentencing for all females as more prisons could be built and they would be able to better maintain relationship with family and friends on the outside.
And of course this would greatly improve their wellbeing thus reducing the number of attempted suicides and self harming.
Posted by: John Kimble | Monday, 18 May 2009 at 02:13