Double standards

Remove all ads!

I was strictly metaphorically speaking BTA, but thank you ...

 

Just a quick update. I wonder . . .

If it's true, then the guy's a plea bargaining dirtbag and the girl's reticence about facing him in court is understandable. If she was/is lying and there was no force involved and she is merely making the claim of violence to cover her promiscuity, then she is truly a vile human being and the poor Arab fellow is REALLY being railroaded. I am tossed up on what to believe at this point.

 

Actually, that 'update' offers nothing new ... *shrugs*

 

The switch that she made, now claiming there was violence involved, seems to me to be new.

 

I agree there is something new here. Previously, we were led to believe she had consensual sex with a guy she thought was Jewish. Now, if her statements are true, we are led to believe that the sex was not consensual, and she actually was raped.

 

She originally claimed it was forced, and that he forcibly raped her.

 

Why then did the judge and the prosecutor stress rape by deception? Because based on the facts they could not establish rape by force.

In my experience a prosecutor would go for a clear cut case of forcible rape over a tormented construct like rape by deception any day. They are not out for the sport (i.e. the challenge to construct their cases as challenging as possible). They want to get the bad guys locked away (which in this case is questionable).

If it was forcible rape, as she claim(s/ed), and they went for rape by deception, the prosecutor was either a dolt, or they didn't believe her. And indeed, she retracted the allegation of forcible rape in the trial, after she started to contradict herself.

From the Telegraph article that I linked to six weeks ago, alas:

Emphasis mine.

The plea bargain (a procedural thing) and the rape (a material aspect) are not mutually exclusive.

 

Indeed. It could simply be that there was no evidence, but he really did use force. It can happen. Or it could be that she's a b*tch who's out for blood for being fooled.

 

'Prosecutors received evidence suggesting the encounter was consensual' strongly suggests it was the latter.

 

So, they killed that woman in Virginia. But that's not what this post is really about. Within that link was this quote:

Talk about your double standards. I know that more men commit violent crimes, but gimme a break. This says to me that feminist <snips> want equal rights but are too <snipping> stupid and venal to accept that along with those rights come equal responsibilities for their acts. And the courts have gone along with this blatantly sexist horse<snip>.

You can't tell me that women as a whole comit THAT many fewer capital crimes. Only .9%?? Utterly ridiculous.

 

Fixed.

This is why women wear the pants nowadays, more or less. More and more they enjoy preferential treatment under the law, and they enjoy the enforcement services of those whom they trample under their feet to make sure they get it. e.g., the one thing men have going for them over women is upper body strength. What do women do to get around this? They use enforcers who have that upper body strength to beat down those who would use it against women. So if a woman beats up her husband, the cops come and beat him up some more. If a man beats up his wife, the cops come and beat him down so bad that he'll never dream of doing it again, then take him to jail and force him to go before a judge and be punished some more. (And god help him if it's a female judge.) Pretty ingenious. In a less direct way, they also somehow get men to support concepts like feminism that ultimately result in further damaging a man's position in society. (When was the last time you ever saw a man at a feminist rally who didn't look like he was some sort of man-servant?) The fact that commensurate salaries in the marketplace are not quite yet there is only temporary; give it a few more years.

How did men ever succumb to this marginalization?!? Why did we ever give women library cards?!? I guess it's just that we really are that stupid and easily manipulated.

 

First off I would not be surprised if they actually do committ that many fewer capital crimes and secondly I doubt it is feminists who hold back punishment for women. That is rather the domain of weak hearted conservatives who just cant see past their old fashioned chivalrous upbringing to punish a woman as harshly as a man.

Fighting the idealization of women and allowing women to be "evil" is one of the most important parts of feminism.

 

Yes, men commit around 90 percent of capital crimes. When women do, it is generally against a family member -- like a cheating husband. However, sometimes it's reversed and women who are cheating try to bump off an unsuspecting husband. The worst cases are when women kill their own kids and I see quite a few of these instances involving women (I don't know the percentage). Juries tend to believe that these women are insane - like the Yates case here in Houston. If ever there was an evil woman whom I thought should get it, it was Yates, but she got out of it with that type of defense.

And remember the case I posted a while back, with the lady in Maryland who straved her baby to death for not saying "amen" and she only got probation? This was the lady who believed that God was going to make her baby "rise from the dead" and the judge was also stupid enough to put it into the official ruling in the case.

 

Come on guys, women are innocent babies who can do no wrong, and men are horrible human beings who deserve everything they get. If a woman ever cuts her unsuspecting husband into meaty cubes and feeds them to the kids, we can just consider this a pre-emptive strike against an abusive raping beast.

 

I kind of in between you and joa. While I think it is near certain that women commit far fewer capital crimes than men, less than 1% seems too low. According to Chandos' post, it's about 10%, which seems like a good ballpark figure.

However, if we go with that, it strongly suggests that women are executed far less frequently than men, and it may be because of insanity defenses as Chandos suggests.

If women commit 10% of capital crimes, then it follows that 10% of those executed would be women. However, since fewer than 1% are executed, that means they are about 10 times less likely to be executed as the statistics would suggest.

 

Chandos is quite correct -- men commit the vast majority of violent crimes. It makes sense that very few women are executed from that point of view alone.

 

Not exactly. Most murderers are not executed. We ordinarily reserve the death penalty for only the most egregious cases, usually involving multiple victims or extremely brutal means -- and no murderer who signs a plea deal is getting sentenced to death. If women commit around 10% of all capital crimes, it doesn't logically follow that 10% of people executed for committing capital crimes should be women. It is entirely possible that a larger percentage of women are willing to sign plea deals. It could also be that a lower percentage of their crimes are brutal enough to warrant actually imposing the death penalty. There is, in fact some basis for that argument in particular. 95% of serial killers are male, and male serial killers use overwhelmingly brutal means to commit their crimes. Their victims are also overwhelmingly helpless and overwhelmingly female. Female serial killers on the other hand are usually what is termed as "gentle" killers, pursuing less direct and brutal means to kill their victims. They also tend to kill for personal gain rather than out of rage. From my admittedly brief research, it appears that about three quarters of female serial killers are "black widows", motivated by money or revenge, and sporting far lower kill counts than their male counterparts.

Let's face it, guys, we don't have enough information to determine exactly how justified (or unjustified) the percentage of female executions actually is. I think we can all agree that cultural bias* plays some small role in getting some women out of some executions in some instances, but we should likewise acknowledge that, since more than 90% of the capital crimes brutal enough to warrant actually employing the death penalty are committed by men, that more than 90% of those executed for capital crimes should also be men. Exactly where the number should fall is hard to determine, but not impossible.

I won't be doing the research, though. I actually have term papers to write (I'm back in school again) on top of a full time job. And kids.

* on the part of women and men. Men have shown themselves just as unwilling as women to execute women in cases where capital punishment has been on the table, so those of you trying to blame women for what amounts to a shared double standard are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Quite simply, women get a ***** pass. All they need to do is turn on the water works, claim that they were abused, or that their husband looked like a bear, and suddenly everyone feels sorry for the child murderer/man killer.

The men who buy into this are stupid ****ing idiots.

 

Sweeping generalisations ahoy!

Mordea, i'm curious, did you read Drew's post atall? If so, did ANY of it make it through your skull and add to your clearly well thought out and logical reasoning?

At the moment you're coming off as a prejudiced prick with a massive chip on his shoulder, and I don't just mean in this thread.