NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been a call for women's prison's to be closed and offenders transferred to community programmes and treatment facilities.

Women responded differently to incarceration because they were primary carers and they suffered greater drug addiction and mental health problems than men, she argued.

Can I be the first to say what a stupid argument this is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5237030.stm

Bullshit. Equal rights means equal treatment.

Do the crime, do the time.

There has been a call for women's prison's to be closed and offenders transferred to community programmes and treatment facilities.



Can I be the first to say what a stupid argument this is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5237030.stm
Why should we be tret any differently?

If we do the crime, send us to jail.

Who's stupid idea was this?

Clearly, the author believes women are somehow less morally responsible for their actions then men.

And they call me sexist.

Clearly, the author believes women are somehow less morally responsible for their actions then men.

And they call me sexist.

Naw. Said author is just advancing blarney to get her own constituents of the hook.

There has been a call for women's prison's to be closed and offenders transferred to community programmes and treatment facilities.



Can I be the first to say what a stupid argument this is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5237030.stm
I wonder if feminists will defend them...

This is a double standard. Should they have a murderer and child abusser be a "servant of the community?" That's bull.

Of course they should.. Hell, I would never give it a second thought.

Double standards?

Yes, of course they should get the same punishment as a man would get.

The prison population has been increasing continously for over a decade. Does this mean that our government is getting tougher on crime, that crime is increasing, or that our government is crap at rehabilitation?

I would prefer to see more prisonners transfered to community service programs (nopt just women). Does it really serve the best interests of society to lock up low level offenders and shut them out from society? I mean there was one council that was willing to imprison an OAP for not paying her council tax, obvious menace to society that she was.

So I say that low level offenders should be transfered to community service programs, but not just female offenders.

The prison population has been increasing continously for over a decade. Does this mean that our government is getting tougher on crime, that crime is increasing, or that our government is crap at rehabilitation?

I would prefer to see more prisonners transfered to community service programs (nopt just women). Does it really serve the best interests of society to lock up low level offenders and shut them out from society? I mean there was one council that was willing to imprison an OAP for not paying her council tax, obvious menace to society that she was.

So I say that low level offenders should be transfered to community service programs, but not just female offenders.


Define 'crap at rehabilitation'.

Seems that an 80% failure rate for rehab-programs is common throughout most of the world. I mean, they have no rehab- failures in places where they just stone people instead.

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin: Easy. I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

This is not the kind of thinking that can bode well for society.

Bloody Labour peeresses.

I wonder if feminists will defend them...

If somebody sincerely says, "Women should not be sent to prison by virtue of the fact that they are female," then that person is not a feminist. Just so you know.

If somebody sincerely says, "Women should not be sent to prison by virtue of the fact that they are female," then that person is not a feminist. Just so you know.

Yep. She's a spin-doctor with a peerage.

Expect to see more of that :p : Alistair Campbell First Baron of Tower Hamlets?

LOL! It was just a matter of time before they showed their ugly faces. I like that in the article, there is no cross reference to the men and the numbers they provide.


Objection your honor!
On what grounds?
Because it's devastating to my case!
Overruled.
Good call!

Its a bit odd over there...even a dead conger has rights :D

Yep. She's a spin-doctor with a peerage.

Expect to see more of that :p : Alistair Campbell First Baron of Tower Hamlets?


Well, that rather depends on what peerage is created for him. He would most probably be a Life Baron, but if he is created a Baron then he can't sit in the House of Lords.

I had a (male) lecturer at Queen's who was completely convinced that no woman should ever go to prison. He had done a lot of research 'inside', and claimed he "had yet to meet a woman who should be in prison". He claimed he was a feminist.

Bullshit, I say. Equality means taking the same responsibility as others for your actions as much as gaining the same rights as others. As far as I'm concerned, those calling for more lenient treatments for female criminals are essentially (if more indirectly) espousing the same anti-feminist, inequal, antiquated crap that those whose misogynistic opinions they claim to oppose also espouse.

I had a (male) lecturer at Queen's who was completely convinced that no woman should ever go to prison. He had done a lot of research 'inside', and claimed he "had yet to meet a woman who should be in prison". He claimed he was a feminist.

Bullshit, I say. Equality means taking the same responsibility as others for your actions as much as gaining the same rights as others. As far as I'm concerned, those calling for more lenient treatments for female criminals are essentially (if more indirectly) espousing the same anti-feminist, inequal, antiquated crap that those whose misogynistic opinions they claim to oppose also espouse.
There's a difference between a feminist and a male apologist.

Can I be the first to say what a stupid argument this is?
Yeah, that's a pretty stupid argument.

Also:
The charity argues the current system does not meet rehabilitation needs, with two-thirds of women released from prison reconvicted within two years.
And what's the figure for men, hmm, Auntie? Without that you don't know whether they're any more or less likely to reconvict than men. (Looks like Cyber Perverts already said this, but I've written it now so it's damn-well getting posted.)

Two people commit the same crime? Then two people get the same punishment.

There's a difference between a feminist and a male apologist.Of course; that was part of the point.

I had a (male) lecturer at Queen's who was completely convinced that no woman should ever go to prison. He had done a lot of research 'inside', and claimed he "had yet to meet a woman who should be in prison". He claimed he was a feminist.

Bullshit, I say. Equality means taking the same responsibility as others for your actions as much as gaining the same rights as others. As far as I'm concerned, those calling for more lenient treatments for female criminals are essentially (if more indirectly) espousing the same anti-feminist, inequal, antiquated crap that those whose misogynistic opinions they claim to oppose also espouse.
Here's the wrinkle:

There are a lot of people who believe that women should be treated equally under the law, including when it comes to convictions and sentencing, but who ALSO believe that a huge percentage of the women who are in prison shouldn't be there.

Why? Well, for one thing, women who kill their boyfriends/husbands are sentenced to an average of 15 years in prison. Men who kill their girlfriends/wives are sentenced to an average of 2-6 years. And this, despite the fact that a 1993 study about the motivations for murder in intimate relationships found that 82 percent of men in custody who killed their female partners said that they did so because they were motivated by possessiveness, whereas 83 percent of women in custody described their motivation for murder as "self-defense." Regardless of the genders of the people involved, most people would agree that a killing motivated by self-defense should not carry a harsher sentence than one motivated by "possessiveness."

Most of the women in prison are there for totally non-violent offenses (primarily centering on drug possession). Many women are in prison for prostitution. These fit under the heading of "victimless" crimes, and many people believe that NOBODY should be in prison for them. A far higher percentage of the female inmate population were put away for these crimes, when compared to the male inmate population (which has a higher percentage of violent offenders). This would mean that a larger percentage of women inmates would be let go if we were to change laws to get rid of "victimless crime."

What I'm getting as is that there are many people who believe that lots of the women in prison are there for shitty reasons, but that does NOT necessarily mean that they believe the women should be let go because they are women.

This is why it ticks me off when some yahoo makes stupid statements about how women shouldn't be in prison because they're women. No, dumbass, it's not about them being women. It's about the fact that we have some stupid laws that fuck over EVERYBODY, and "everybody" includes people who happen to be women. That's what we should be working to fix, but instead we end up having stupid debates about girls-versus-boys bullshit.

Here's the wrinkle:

There are a lot of people who believe that women should be treated equally under the law, including when it comes to convictions and sentencing, but who ALSO believe that a huge percentage of the women who are in prison shouldn't be there.

Why? Well, for one thing, women who kill their boyfriends/husbands are sentenced to an average of 15 years in prison. Men who kill their girlfriends/wives are sentenced to an average of 2-6 years. And this, despite the fact that a 1993 study about the motivations for murder in intimate relationships found that 82 percent of men in custody who killed their female partners said that they did so because they were motivated by possessiveness, whereas 83 percent of women in custody described their motivation for murder as "self-defense." Regardless of the genders of the people involved, most people would agree that a killing motivated by self-defense should not carry a harsher sentence than one motivated by "possessiveness."

Most of the women in prison are there for totally non-violent offenses (primarily centering on drug possession). Many women are in prison for prostitution. These fit under the heading of "victimless" crimes, and many people believe that NOBODY should be in prison for them. A far higher percentage of the female inmate population were put away for these crimes, when compared to the male inmate population (which has a higher percentage of violent offenders). This would mean that a larger percentage of women inmates would be let go if we were to change laws to get rid of "victimless crime."

What I'm getting as is that there are many people who believe that lots of the women in prison are there for shitty reasons, but that does NOT necessarily mean that they believe the women should be let go because they are women.

This is why it ticks me off when some yahoo makes stupid statements about how women shouldn't be in prison because they're women. No, dumbass, it's not about them being women. It's about the fact that we have some stupid laws that fuck over EVERYBODY, and "everybody" includes people who happen to be women. That's what we should be working to fix, but instead we end up having stupid debates about girls-versus-boys bullshit.
Now see? That's a bandwagon I could almost jump on.

Now see? That's a bandwagon I could almost jump on.
To distill my point down a bit, I'm basically saying that a disproportionate number of the women in prison are there for shitty reasons. However, this does NOT mean that their femaleness is the reason they should be let go; they should be let go because they are in prison for a stupid reason.

I also believe that there are tons of men who are in prison for stupid reasons, and I strongly believe that those men should be let go.

The only reason gender is relevant is that if you look at the percentages of the respective inmate populations, a larger percentage of male inmates are in prison for what I believe are good reasons (i.e., they committed violent offenses, etc). I don't know why this is.

To distill my point down a bit, I'm basically saying that a disproportionate number of the women in prison are there for shitty reasons. However, this does NOT mean that their femaleness is the reason they should be let go; they should be let go because they are in prison for a stupid reason.

I also believe that there are tons of men who are in prison for stupid reasons, and I strongly believe that those men should be let go.

The only reason gender is relevant is that if you look at the percentages of the respective inmate populations, a larger percentage of male inmates are in prison for what I believe are good reasons (i.e., they committed violent offenses, etc). I don't know why this is.
No, I completely understand what you were saying. I just think that prostitution and heavy drug use are signs of a decaying civilization. So...almost.

No, I completely understand what you were saying. I just think that prostitution and heavy drug use are signs of a decaying civilization. So...almost.

I think that gingivitis is a sign of a decaying civilization.

No, I completely understand what you were saying. I just think that prostitution and heavy drug use are signs of a decaying civilization.
Well, I happen to agree that prostitution and heavy drug use tend to reflect problems in society. The thing is, I don't think sending people to prison does anything to solve these problems.

I mean, just pragmatically speaking, look at what you're doing. "This person was so desperate that they sold their body on the street. Let's teach them a lesson by locking them up in an environment where they will most likely be raped!" Or, "This person used drugs. Let's teach them a lesson by locking them in an environment where drug abuse is several hundred times more common than in society at large!"

I think that gingivitis is a sign of a decaying civilization.
Noted.

But seriously, if we didn't have women in prisons, what would happen with all the prison women movies? They'd become obsolete.

Fat chance this campaign has of succeeding, what with Blair waffling on about "rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of victims". What a mound of tripe. I cannot believe that anyone considers it acceptable to weight the courts against one side. It's absolutely atrocious and I have half a mind to write to the Earl of Dundee about it.

Noted.

But seriously, if we didn't have women in prisons, what would happen with all the prison women movies? They'd become obsolete.
I hate to break it to you, but porno quite often does not rely on real-world situations for its material.

For instance, when women are in the lockerroom at the gym, they don't actually walk around completely naked for hours at a time. Maids do not actually wear those little uniforms, and you wouldn't want most of them to do so anyhow. Nurses are rarely naughty, and are frequently male.

No, better that we not rely on the adult entertainment industry to give us a realistic view of the world around us. The real world is often quite a turn-off.

I hate to break it to you, but porno quite often does not rely on real-world situations for its material.

For instance, when women are in the lockerroom at the gym, they don't actually walk around completely naked for hours at a time. Maids do not actually wear those little uniforms, and you wouldn't want most of them to do so anyhow. Nurses are rarely naughty, and are frequently male.

No, better that we not rely on the adult entertainment industry to give us a realistic view of the world around us. The real world is often quite a turn-off.
You shut your mouth!:mad:

You shut your mouth!:mad:

Down boy. Doesn't really matter, there'll always be porn.

Define 'crap at rehabilitation'.

Seems that an 80% failure rate for rehab-programs is common throughout most of the world. I mean, they have no rehab- failures in places where they just stone people instead.As in cutting funding for training prison officers in social work and rehabiliation. Happened in 97. Not sure if this was the Major or Blair government.

But anyway, David Fraser, a Retired Senior Probation Officer, on this webpage says that reconviction rates under a pilot scheme for 200,000 were 57%. Depending how many offenders this scheme could have been expanded to then if could have meant up to a 40% reduction in the prison population. Even if it was only a 20% reduction then it could still concieveably be worth it.
http://www.csra.org.uk/Community%20Supervision%20Success%20or%20Failure.htm

I've ever really examined rehabilitation properly. So I'm sure my theory is full of holes.

Wow. Just wow. Lawmakers tend to try to pass reallly stupid laws. And once in a while they do. Like in Montana, where it's illegal to have sex in any other position than missionary.

A thought: Let's say this does get passed into law. What happens when a police woman books a lady? And if they get fined, what if they refuse to pay up? Why don't they just lie in court? Not like they can be held in comtempt.

Ah, but you forget that the funding for "how to defend yourself during a plastic spork attack" courses increased dramatically. Most probably Labour increased spending and reduced efficiency at the same time.

I hate to break it to you, but porno quite often does not rely on real-world situations for its material.

For instance, when women are in the lockerroom at the gym, they don't actually walk around completely naked for hours at a time. Maids do not actually wear those little uniforms, and you wouldn't want most of them to do so anyhow. Nurses are rarely naughty, and are frequently male.

No, better that we not rely on the adult entertainment industry to give us a realistic view of the world around us. The real world is often quite a turn-off.

Not all women prison movies are porno. What about 'Chicago'?

Not all women prison movies are porno. What about 'Chicago'?
Wait, they're letting women be in non-porno movies now? Phew! Next thing you know we'll be giving them the vote!

Not all women prison movies are porno. What about 'Chicago'?
LOL! You're right. There are burlesque shows and erotic thrillers and....

Frankly, I do not understand the hysteria shown by many of the posters in this thread towards the comments made by the Howard League for Penal Reform. Sentencing is determined not only by the aim for retribution (though, granted, this is perhaps the primary aim) where the need for equality is obviously quite important, but also by the goals for deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Judges consider all of these factors, including the relevant details of the specific crime, when determining punishment. The argument being advanced by the Howard League for Penal Reform is that incarceration is often a poor punishment option in regards to a number of women (excluding those who pose a danger to the public, which would include those in prison for violent offences) and that transferring many to community centres would reduce recidivism and improve rehabilitation of offenders.

I see no “feminist conspiracy” here…

Wow. Just wow. Lawmakers tend to try to pass reallly stupid laws. And once in a while they do. Like in Montana, where it's illegal to have sex in any other position than missionary.

A thought: Let's say this does get passed into law. What happens when a police woman books a lady? And if they get fined, what if they refuse to pay up? Why don't they just lie in court? Not like they can be held in comtempt.
Is Montana also where it's illegal to hand male and female underwear on the same clothesline?

Frankly, I do not understand the hysteria shown by many of the posters in this thread towards the comments made by the Howard League for Penal Reform. Sentencing is determined not only by the aim for retribution (though, granted, this is perhaps the primary aim) where the need for equality is obviously quite important, but also by the goals for deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Judges consider all of these factors, including the relevant details of the specific crime, when determining punishment. The argument being advanced by the Howard League for Penal Reform is that incarceration is often a poor punishment option in regards to a number of women (excluding those who pose a danger to the public, which would include those in prison for violent offences) and that transferring many to community centres would reduce recidivism and improve rehabilitation of offenders.

I see no “feminist conspiracy” here…
Wow. Nice segway. So...What about guys that are more nurturing and don't respond well to the brutal treatment of a prison? Are we really going to sit down and evaluate every single person that gets sentenced to determine if prison is the best choice? I know some women that are ANYTHING but nurturing. To make a blanket statement of this magnitude is ridiculous. It just opens up so much room for defense attorneys to do their little song and dance and get people off. And they really don't need any more options. They're doing fine with what they've got.

Are we really going to sit down and evaluate every single person that gets sentenced to determine if prison is the best choice?
Judges do, in fact, “sit down and evaluate” the specifics of every individual that is sentenced when determining the amount of time the offender should be incarcerated for, and the period of incarceration before such an offender might be eligible for parole. A multitude of different factors are relevant in determining whether parole should be granted, and the concern for rehabilitation is an important one. So I think your question has been already answered for you by practice.

To make a blanket statement of this magnitude is ridiculous.
Making generalised observations about how different classes of people respond to different punishment alternatives, and attempting to devise policy to reduce recidivism whilst deterring crime is not ridiculous, however. Do you also object to people talking about adolescents as a group?

The League made the claim that women, as a group, often respond differently to incarceration because they are primary carers, and that they tend to suffer greater drug addiction and mental health problems than men. It used this claim to try and show that prison is not the best choice for many women. It didn’t say that there are no women who are not “nurturing”. It didn't say that no woman should be in prison.

What about guys that are more nurturing and don't respond well to the brutal treatment of a prison?
The League was not talking about individual women, it was talking about female prisoners as a group of people. There is a clear inference in their claim, I think, that the same observations are not generally applicable to male prisoners as a group of people.

I'm a bit confused, CP. You go from this: Are we really going to sit down and evaluate every single person that gets sentenced to determine if prison is the best choice?

To this: To make a blanket statement of this magnitude is ridiculous.
If you think it is not realistic to expect our system to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, then don't we kind of have to generalize? If we cannot deal with each individual situation individually, then aren't we pretty much forced to deal with things on a group level (i.e. generalizing "male prisoners, as a group" versus "female prisoners, as a group")?

Well, that rather depends on what peerage is created for him. He would most probably be a Life Baron, but if he is created a Baron then he can't sit in the House of Lords.


Well, they can always get him a triple Blue Peter badge.

If we cannot deal with each individual situation individually, then aren't we pretty much forced to deal with things on a group level (i.e. generalizing "male prisoners, as a group" versus "female prisoners, as a group")?
Regarding the comments of Howard League for Penal Reform, I do not think that they encourage framing the debate in such a dichotomy. Though they advocate a general policy of reducing the female prison population (using generalised observations regarding women in prison), they recognise that individual analysis of the situation will always be important (incarceration being appropriate for those who "[pose] a danger to the public").

And, of course, this makes sense. No one would ever take seriously a "release every single offender of X class of people" position.

So many of those who have responded in this thread have taken one look at what the League has proposed, jumped to the hysterical "feminists are trying to take over the world" position, and misrepresented their argument or attacked it on spurious alarmist grounds.

Well, they can always get him a triple Blue Peter badge.

I want a blue peter badge

:(

Well, they can always get him a triple Blue Peter badge.

It might contain a capsule of killer gas! Or you might use it to deface the television monitor! You're not allowed to take umbrellas in, let alone badges.

It might contain a capsule of killer gas! Or you might use it to deface the television monitor! You're not allowed to take umbrellas in, let alone badges.


*thinks hard*

*dubs*

Arise, Sir Alistair Campbell of the Order of Veracity Turners!

I'm a bit confused, CP. You go from this:
To this:
If you think it is not realistic to expect our system to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, then don't we kind of have to generalize? If we cannot deal with each individual situation individually, then aren't we pretty much forced to deal with things on a group level (i.e. generalizing "male prisoners, as a group" versus "female prisoners, as a group")?
Ok. I knew you were going to say that. The difference is, there is a variance between women such that you can't say that all women shouldn't have to go to prison. However. If you commit a crime, it's black and white. You did this. You have to do this kind of penance. The sentencing already takes into account the situation in most circumstances. Repetition of criminal behaviour, likelihood to do so again, proper humility for what they've done, etcetera. Why should women receive carte blanche about prison terms?

*thinks hard*

*dubs*

Arise, Sir Alistair Campbell of the Order of Veracity Turners!


Nickname: the 45-minuters.

All it will take to get this implemented is for the Gruniad to State in The One Pure Truth that the premise is true and for the Sun to run a poll showing greater than 70% approval. BBC will follow their lead. Remember this is a penal system that is so touchy feely that it lets convicted rapists out on weekend furloughs during their time in prison to be with their drunken mates.

The jaeler's new motto. Let there be no crimes so heinous nor any man so incapable of remorse for his crimes that he cannot be pardoned and forgiven should he choose to change his gender.

The prison population has been increasing continously for over a decade. Does this mean that our government is getting tougher on crime, that crime is increasing, or that our government is crap at rehabilitation?

I would prefer to see more prisonners transfered to community service programs (nopt just women). Does it really serve the best interests of society to lock up low level offenders and shut them out from society? I mean there was one council that was willing to imprison an OAP for not paying her council tax, obvious menace to society that she was.

So I say that low level offenders should be transfered to community service programs, but not just female offenders.
I agree with this. Habitual criminals, serious criminals...they should be the focus of incarceration. Low level crime should be dealt with via restitution if at all possible and/or community programs. For example...we supposedly don't have debtors prison anymore, but quite a few people get jail time for not paying fines. Find another way...not only are the fines unpaid, but more money is spent in just having them sit in jail.

The current punitive system is not effective, for men or women.

"When a felon's not engaged in his employment
Or maturing his felonious little plans
His capacity for innocent enjoyment
Is just as great as any honest man's."

"When a felon's not engaged in his employment
Or maturing his felonious little plans
His capacity for innocent enjoyment
Is just as great as any honest man's."
So what you're saying is they just need some understanding...and a hug?

No idea, I thought I would just throw in some G&S.

Does it really serve the best interests of society to lock up low level offenders and shut them out from society?

I Canada selling weed is not a big offence (the first time), and back in college it was kind of a good thing to see your local dealer server a short period in prison as we would get better contact, better drug and cheaper price.

Also, for the bigger offender a big problem is how life in prison seems to be a jungle controled by a few. Having your butt destroyed for 3 years does'nt make you a better citizen when you get out.

I want a blue peter badge

:(

Ebay?

( my telegrams etc dont work today - sowwy - will have my own net-access tween 7 and 8 )

I Canada selling weed is not a big offence (the first time), and back in college it was kind of a good thing to see your local dealer server a short period in prison as we would get better contact, better drug and cheaper price.

Also, for the bigger offender a big problem is how life in prison seems to be a jungle controled by a few. Having your butt destroyed for 3 years does'nt make you a better citizen when you get out.
But it does make you reconsider your actions the next time you decide to break the law.

All it will take to get this implemented is for the Gruniad to State in The One Pure Truth that the premise is true and for the Sun to run a poll showing greater than 70% approval. BBC will follow their lead. Remember this is a penal system that is so touchy feely that it lets convicted rapists out on weekend furloughs during their time in prison to be with their drunken mates.

The jaeler's new motto. Let there be no crimes so heinous nor any man so incapable of remorse for his crimes that he cannot be pardoned and forgiven should he choose to change his gender.

make the outfits more fashionable and we'll WANT to go to prison

muwahahaha

I Canada selling weed is not a big offence (the first time), and back in college it was kind of a good thing to see your local dealer server a short period in prison as we would get better contact, better drug and cheaper price.



From the dealer networking with peers in prison? Or from fear that you'd turn him in again if he didnt provide you with perks?

make the outfits more fashionable and we'll WANT to go to prison

muwahahaha
Now see? It's statements like that that make me worry about this ever becoming a matriarchal society.

ebay... wow

I'll have to catch up on the plank walking scenario tomorrow then.

..wait.. you got your OWN access?


stop overinterpreting >.< :p

But it does make you reconsider your actions the next time you decide to break the law.
Prison rape is not a legal part of the punitive system. Therefore, it should not be in any way condoned or accepted as 'part of the punishment'.

From the dealer networking with peers in prison? Or from fear that you'd turn him in again if he didnt provide you with perks?
Hey...prison is the best place to learn how to be a REAL criminal after all...

Now see? It's statements like that that make me worry about this ever becoming a matriarchal society.


Pwease trust me - matriarchical societies do come into existence, and even live long - but they don't achieve a lot, really.

Oh, oddly enough, there is good reason to assume that Helen of Troy's society was actually matriarchical.

Hey...prison is the best place to learn how to be a REAL criminal after all...

I believe that the law should require that lawyers in criminal court serve the same sentence as the people they defend.

stop overinterpreting >.< :p
i do it so well

I believe that the law should require that lawyers in criminal court serve the same sentence as the people they defend.
Great...give them even MORE motivation to do anything at all to get their client off, regardless of whether that client is guilty or not.

I believe that the law should require that lawyers in criminal court serve the same sentence as the people they defend.


Which is why I intend to prosecute.

Prison rape is not a legal part of the punitive system. Therefore, it should not be in any way condoned or accepted as 'part of the punishment'.
Says you. That would be what's known as an opinion. Every junior high boy knows and shares jokes about prison rape. Yet how many end up going to prison. I dont' think I would want to submit myself to that more than once.

Great...give them even MORE motivation to do anything at all to get their client off, regardless of whether that client is guilty or not.

That by definition is a defense attorney's job. Not that you could see that from the efforts of most of the dump trucks that they call public defenders

That by definition is a defense attorney's job. Not that you could see that from the efforts of most of the dump trucks that they call public defenders
No, I get that...but some of the higher-paid defence attorneys are shady as it is...you want to give them a reason to be even MORE shady? Seriously?

And by the way...you sound as if you speak from some personal experience...got some story to share???:p

Great...give them even MORE motivation to do anything at all to get their client off, regardless of whether that client is guilty or not.

They already do that. It's a disgusting sight.

The only thing form of life I've seen that's lower than a flatworm (or a criminal defense attorney) is a plaintiff's attorney.

A bigger bunch of lying, sleazy, mother-selling bastards has never existed.

I would rather eat dinner with Nasrallah and discuss the politics of the Middle East than eat dinner with any plaintiff's lawyer.

Great...give them even MORE motivation to do anything at all to get their client off, regardless of whether that client is guilty or not.


We can't do a thing like that under British Justice.

By law and custom ( of which I approve! ) a Barrister has a moral and legal obligation to defend his client to very limits of his profesional capability.

And by the same token, no Barrister may turn down a prospective client who meets his fee.

We can't do a thing like that under British Justice.

By law and custom ( of which I approve! ) a Barrister has a moral and legal obligation to defend his client to very limits of his profesional capability.

And by the same token, no Barrister may turn down a prospective client who meets his fee.

Nor Should He

Nor Should He


Indeed.

We can't do a thing like that under British Justice.

By law and custom ( of which I approve! ) a Barrister has a moral and legal obligation to defend his client to very limits of his profesional capability.

And by the same token, no Barrister may turn down a prospective client who meets his fee.
I think that's kinda crap. What if they're guilty? Why should this barrister have to violate his own integrity and ethics to defend this person that he/she knows killed someone?

I think that's kinda crap. What if they're guilty? Why should this barrister have to violate his own integrity and ethics to defend this person that he/she knows killed someone?


His integrity consists of being a Barrister - and not a private individual.

equal rights comes with a price. equal treatment, good or bad, must come to all groups regardless of anything.

I think that's kinda crap. What if they're guilty? Why should this barrister have to violate his own integrity and ethics to defend this person that he/she knows killed someone?


The Barrister does not necessarily know this. It is up to the prosecuting counsel to prove that the defendent is guilty of the charges, but the defence has to prove nothing.

I think that's kinda crap. What if they're guilty? Why should this barrister have to violate his own integrity and ethics to defend this person that he/she knows killed someone?

The defendant is innocent until proven to be guilty in the court.

The defendant is innocent until proven to be guilty in the court.


Well, that is until Tony introduces this year's criminal justice bill.

The defendant is innocent until proven to be guilty in the court.
Legally speaking. But not if they confess to their lawyer, they're not.

No, I get that...but some of the higher-paid defence attorneys are shady as it is...you want to give them a reason to be even MORE shady? Seriously?

And by the way...you sound as if you speak from some personal experience...got some story to share???:p


Yes but it would bore you senseless.

Just personal observations of one of the most descried and seemingly corrupt criminal justice systems since Tamany Hall or when Huey Long ruled Louisiana.
It is as bad here as anything Ive even heard of in the US in the last 3 decades.

Do the crime, do the time.


I couln't agree more. I presume the whole suggestion is some ploy to save money but you cant do that.

The idea that women "respond differently" to prison, is highly questionable, and no reason to have a sexist criminal justice policy.

Do the crime, do the time.

Legally speaking. But not if they confess to their lawyer, they're not.
You don't usually convict people on one piece of evidence, you know.
All changing the system would do is give the judicial well a huge dose of poison.

The idea that women "respond differently" to prison, is highly questionable, and no reason to have a sexist criminal justice policy.

Do the crime, do the time.Seconded.

There has been a call for women's prison's to be closed and offenders transferred to community programmes and treatment facilities.

Can I be the first to say what a stupid argument this is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5237030.stm
Male, female or "genderqueer" ... if you can't do the time, then don't do the frakking crime! DUH!

You don't usually convict people on one piece of evidence, you know.
All changing the system would do is give the judicial well a huge dose of poison.


In that case, the British Judiciary is a seething pool of molten arsenic after the number of times Labour has monkeyed around with it. I believe the average is two new Criminal Justice Bills every year. Mad.

Ok. I knew you were going to say that. The difference is, there is a variance between women such that you can't say that all women shouldn't have to go to prison.

If I understand the arguments correctly (which perhaps I do not), some people appear to be saying that women--as a group--have some quality or qualities which make incarceration inappropriate for them.

It's kind of like how we say that juveniles, as a group, should be handled a particular way by our justice system, even though there will be tremendous variation between different juveniles. The quality of being juvenile is considered, by some, to be enough to warrant different treatment by the law. I think some people are saying that the quality of gender should be enough to warrant different treatment as well.

(PLEASE NOTE: I do not, personally, support this view)


However. If you commit a crime, it's black and white. You did this. You have to do this kind of penance.

But it's not black and white. A 15 year old girl who commits a given crime will not receive the same treatment under the law as a 35 year old woman. The same crime may carry different penalties based on who committed it.


The sentencing already takes into account the situation in most circumstances.

Well, some people appear to believe that the sentencing for female criminals should reflect the fact that women shouldn't be sent to prision. That's how they propose to "take the situation into account."


Repetition of criminal behaviour, likelihood to do so again, proper humility for what they've done, etcetera. Why should women receive carte blanche about prison terms?
Please remember, I do agree with you. I'm sort of playing Devil's Advocate on this one, since nobody seems to be arguing the opposition here. :)

I think that the argument is that women, as a group, possess some quality or qualities that make prison a non-viable solution. This could be compared to how certain options are not available when sentencing juveniles.

Define 'crap at rehabilitation'.

Seems that an 80% failure rate for rehab-programs is common throughout most of the world. I mean, they have no rehab- failures in places where they just stone people instead.

You know what rehab has a 90% rehab rate? Working in the hot Sun in the Nevada Desert building houses for no pay, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Everyone has to be in a chain gang (just 1 really long chain). That works.