Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday September 02 2016, @06:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the notorious dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @02:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @02:33PM (#396664)

    > 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]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Offtopic=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @03:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @03:46PM (#396675)

    > 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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @04:57PM (#396697)

      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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @07:42PM (#396763)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @11:43PM (#396815)

        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

        by sjames (2882) on Saturday September 03 2016, @01:29AM (#396838) Journal

        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

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 03 2016, @03:21PM (#397037) Journal

    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.