SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Common Dreams reports
Reviled Florida State Attorney Angela Corey lost her reelection bid on [August 30], prompting widespread celebration as the woman The Nation once suggested was "the cruelest prosecutor in America" was ousted.
"Corey's loss is an encouraging sign that the public will no longer tolerate overzealous and unprincipled criminal prosecutions, including women and children", University of Miami law professor Mary Anne Franks said in a statement.
Corey, whose eight-year tenure in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court saw her charge 77 children as adults in 2016 alone and sentence more people to death than any other Florida prosecutor, gained widespread notoriety for her inadequate prosecution of Trayvon Martin's killer, George Zimmerman, and for seeking a 60-year sentence for Marissa Alexander, a domestic violence survivor with three children, for firing a warning shot in the direction of her abusive husband. (Alexander spent three years in prison.)
[...] Corey was defeated by unknown opponent and corporate lawyer Melissa Nelson, who will now face off with write-in candidate Kenny Leigh in the general election--although Jacksonville media noted that no write-in candidate has ever been elected to the state attorney position in Florida, and that Leigh has yet to make a single campaign appearance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @09:01AM
including women and children
How is that relevant? Does it mean it's okay to tolerate overzealous and unprincipled criminal prosecutions on men?
I understand that this sentence is probably related to the story of the 12-year old being judged as an adult or the Marissa Alexander's case (or lack thereof), but still, are we so far gone that it's okay to be abusively prosecuting men?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @09:26AM
Too bad there's not a -1, Professional Victim mod.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @04:50PM
When men on average serve 60 more time for the same crime
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx [umich.edu]
you have no idea of how ironic your profession victim quip is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @01:14PM
Yes. In case you hadn't noticed, yes, yes it does.
You are an expendable un-person. You have no value to the species unless you have a fat bank account. Get used to it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Friday September 02 2016, @02:10PM
Yes, there's a massive disparity in terms of prosecution of women versus men. Men are more likely to be tried, convicted and when convicted see longer prison terms than women do for the same crimes.
I don't hear feminists clamoring for parity in those regards.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @02:33PM
> I don't hear feminists clamoring for parity in those regards.
Could that be because you deliberately aren't listening?
http://fcx.sagepub.com/content/5/3/263.abstract [sagepub.com]
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_1_wald.html [americanbar.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @03:46PM
> I don't hear feminists clamoring for parity in those regards.
Could that be because you deliberately aren't listening?
http://fcx.sagepub.com/content/5/3/263.abstract [sagepub.com]
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_1_wald.html [americanbar.org]
Are the articles you linked supposed to be proof? Neither seem to address the key point of the previous poster.
The first article you linked discussed the difference between white girl and black girl treatments (i.e. racism), and the second article discusses why women deserve less harsh sentencing for the same crimes (i.e. asserting that women should get more lenient treatment solely because they are women).
Neither of these address the, in my opinion valid, question of "why do feminists keep clamoring for parity when women are disadvantaged, but ignore it when sex discrimination favors women over men?" Somehow it's bad when "natural talents" (e.g. running fast) favor men, but they quickly accept "natural talents" (e.g. "more empathetic") when it favors women.
In this specific case, your second article suggests sentencing should be lighter for women because the same punishment, "impose far greater deprivations on [a woman] because of her gender, or deny her essential human needs that her male counterparts do not require." Imagine if you replace "woman" with "man" in that previous sentence. What would the reaction be?
Yay double-standards.
There could be feminists arguing for equality rather than woman-superiority, and there could be deliberate non-listening of that. However, you had better find better examples if you want to demonstrate it, because as it is I think the person not listening is not the person you think it is...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @04:57PM
Here's an example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/?utm_term=.47a211c0716b [washingtonpost.com]
Oh, wait, that's arguing against putting women in prison at all.
My bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @07:42PM
In this specific case, your second article suggests sentencing should be lighter for women because the same punishment, "impose far greater deprivations on [a woman] because of her gender, or deny her essential human needs that her male counterparts do not require." Imagine if you replace "woman" with "man" in that previous sentence. What would the reaction be?
You are a really piece of work.
Here's the full quote:
In sum there is a strong case to be made that those who sentence women offenders are morally and ethically justified (perhaps even mandated) to ensure that the same sentence levied on a woman as on a male offender does not in reality, albeit inadvertently, impose far greater deprivations on her because of her gender, or deny her essential human needs that her male counterparts do not require.
Somehow you turned an argument for equal punishment into defense of unequal punishment. Professional victim is right.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @11:43PM
In sum there is a strong case to be made that those who sentence women offenders are morally and ethically justified (perhaps even mandated) to ensure that the same sentence levied on a woman as on a male offender does not in reality, albeit inadvertently, impose far greater deprivations on her because of her gender, or deny her essential human needs that her male counterparts do not require.
Somehow you turned an argument for equal punishment into defense of unequal punishment. Professional victim is right.
I see the complicated phrasing of the article has confused you. Let me simplify what they are saying to more plain English: "Those who sentence criminals need to be very careful that the same sentence given to a woman doesn't inadvertently hurt her more than it would a man."
It's like when a boss comes by a worker's desk and asks "are you SURE that the numbers say we should go with company B and not A?" It's a valid question, but when only asked for when the answer doesn't match what you want you bias the outcome (for women and against men, in this case). [lawcomic.net]
In other words, women need special consideration. Or are you reading that phrase a different way than I am? If so, how do you read it?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday September 03 2016, @01:29AM
Equal punishment by giving women a shorter sentence because men don't need all that freedom anyway? UhHuh
I get what it's trying to say in general, but I notice that instead of calling for the elimination of mandatory sentencing and considering the individual circumstances of each and every crime and criminal, it calls for relief for women. Instead of calling for consideration of any special family considerations or medical needs for any prisoner, it calls for relief for female prisoners (yes Virginia, there are single dads in the world too).
I'll grant that there are some particular needs that are biologically confined to women, but where that is not the case it seemed to dismiss the idea that any man might have any need for consideration of those special circumstances (single parent to young children for example) and so weakened the whole argument.
It does all carry a tinge of that same subtle (and perhaps subconscious) bias that men are frequently accused of.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 03 2016, @03:21PM
So, basically, a day in prison during menstruation should count as 50 days, or something like that? The passage of an unfertilized egg should count as a year of imprisonment, or only 9 months? We need to get a grip on this, before we can start mandating special consideration for women.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday September 02 2016, @05:09PM
There are genes which predispose many of us to violent acts: [jrbenjamin.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday September 02 2016, @09:28PM
At most that explains men committing more violent acts, it doesn't address the other issues with regards to being convicted and how we're sentenced.
I do question the credibility of anything genetic with respect to violence, there's a fairly long chain of events that have to occur and the typical neglect that boys face can't possibly be helpful. Death Row inmates are also disproportionately drug users and individuals of lesser intelligence as well. They also tend to be people who are generally ignored by society.
Genes may contribute to the problem, but ignoring most of the factors does not seem wise to me.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday September 02 2016, @09:56PM
Genes may contribute to the problem, but ignoring most of the factors does not seem wise to me.
Since you were harping on *women* and crime, I responded accordingly. Moving the goalposts now? No thanks, I'll pass.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 03 2016, @03:29PM
"Moving the goalposts now? No thanks, I'll pass."
And NotSanguine passes, 60 yards, to Takyon. It's right on the numbers! Takyon holds onto it! Takyon stumbles three yards into the endzone before being driven into the mud by the other team! TOUCHDOWN SOYLENT!!!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 03 2016, @03:26PM
The tyranny of the majority passed a bunch of stupid laws that discriminate against us who are violent. That's democracy for you. Two guys get into a freindly fight at the bar, and the cops want to lock up everyone in sight. That's just wrong, man. There are no guns or knives in sight, but the cops feel like they have to "control" the situation. In fact, there is no "situation" at all, we're just doing some male bonding! Neither one of us wants to be buddies with a pussy, after all!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @07:27PM
Oh pffft, throughout history women and children are the protected classes of humans. Men evolved to protect so as a species we're more tolerant of male abuse, its what we're here for!
For all the reactionaries that like to bring men's rights up every time they are excluded from a statement, grow up. Reverse sexism and reverse racism are dumb, only real issues should be brought up when relevant, not bitching about common phrasing. Plenty of hardcore feminists flip out over nothing, so don't go being hardcore male supporters (chauvinists?? Doesn't seem like the right word).