@Verbose, dear lard you type fast x.x
Well, actually, I was careful in saying ‘knocked up’, not ‘gives birth to 36 year olds spawn’ :) Semantics is a game of mine, hehe
But, on topic, I was assuming if she were pregnant then had an abortion (which, I assume the family would want for various reasons). I totally agree that birth would be different altogether. However, I extend a dreaded ‘but’ in saying that in neither situation (abortion or birth), they would spin the title to something as “news circusy” as what they did here.
(I’ll have you know that I think my head is quite the opposite of ugly, thank you very much.)
Psh, says you. lol, jk.
I will argue that the insinuation that she impregnating herself makes it, for lack of a better word, ‘better’, than if a man were to impregnate someone else. Because of reproductive rights, she got the final say in what happened (abortion, or birth), something the child or the childs family would never have even a glimpse of opportunity to object to (per example, they wanted an abortion because they think that will help them put this all behind them, the court will still rule: “Her body, her choice”, oh the irony.)
In addition to that, in justice, intent is everything. The outcomes may be different but if a woman intends to take advantage of someone underage (which, I just realized, what would be the reception of the child was the same sex as the offender? because, then you have no pregnancy, but all the child abuse. What do you think?), she shouldn’t be given any more or less punishment than a man who had identical intent.
In a case where you want to pursue the man for costs of abortion/pregnancy you would take him to civil court for emotional damages or child support for the child. (I’m not opposed to that, I just hate the amalgamation of two pursuits into one, i.e. sexual crime and pregnancy damages/costs, because then you have a clear cut difference within the same crime for different denominators, i.e. male, female, homosexual, heterosexual. If that makes sense x.x)
I’ll concede to the Casey Anothny case, as it is more that just “she’s a woman” but I will contend that if it were a man in question of harming the child, I don’t think the jury would bat an eye as to whether they can define probable cause, or not.
Actually, I think you’re missing the point in that, I stated that I’ve never once in my [albiet it short] life, come across the proposal of “lets close down mens prisons”, or that we should go easier on men when it comes to criminal punishment (if anything, I’d say people believe in the opposite.) Even if a large portion, just like how you point out, are non-violent crimes (drug possession/distribution in particular). You show me that men commit the majority of violent crimes (which, I completely accept), but that doesn’t mean the majority of crimes they commit are violent [.vs non violent ones]. So, why is it this concept is so vehement for female criminals that some insist they close down womens prisons altogether (in juxtaposition to where no one thinks the same about mens prisons, or cases where they suggest lesser sentences for certain crimes that are gender neutral, never explicitly about men).
In the case of emotional disturbance and crime, I’m not sure how to respond (besides the fact that, personally, I detest the twinkie defense of ‘heat of the moment’ protection clauses). I’ve said before that women act differently from men (on a hormonal level) much like you have just done, and been attacked as ‘sexist’ because ‘men and women are the same’. Adversely, I then adapted to saying we are the same, and been attacked for being biologically unlearned. So, I’m between a rock and a hard place here as to how to respond, if the case of lesser sentencing is based on gender differences.
I will however say, as a side, that in the case of depression, there has been light cast on to whether we’re seeing the full picture. It’s been proposed that men suffer depression more than women but simply shrug it off (thus, explaining why women have higher rates of suicide attempt, but men have far higher suicide success, by about 4 or 5 times more.) That meaning that, like rape victim projections, there are more than we think because they refuse treatment or help, or even to identify as depressed. But, have at it what you will.
Um, I must point out with the Tender Years Doctrine, although it has been abolished, it still leaves an impression (trying to dismiss my example would be tantamount to dismissing racism existing because in Brown vs. BoE ended segregation. It still obviously exists, just as such does the courts favoring that women receive custody.)
Well, yes, it is. It’s also about data manipulation. When you have certain groups who have a final say in the statistics or evidence, it can undoubtedly affect how laws will apply to such (thus my mention of jurisprudence--examining how laws are made). In Canada any research paper or report that is to be sent to the Minister of Justice (or any other Minister), must first be cleared by the Office of the Minister for the Status of Women, and in the US we have a similar chain of command. Not sure about the UK. Have at that what you will, as well.
(P.S. No, I’m not into social science work. I’m just a student and a scholar, not even in social sciences. I’m more fascinated by anthropology, biology and psychology, though, sociology is a rather interesting field too.)
(P.P.S. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I disagree with what you say, well, not all of it, but I didn’t think it was ‘wrong’ or outrageous. Sorry about mad peeps trying to put you down o.o)