Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Still Don't Believe Me?

If you still think that women have a worse time in society than men, compare and contrast these two stories:

Wrongfully convicted rapist is freed after 17 years.. and hit with a $110,000 bill for backdated child maintenance
An innocent man jailed for 17 years after being wrongfully convicted of rape will not get any compensation for the time he spent behind bars - but he has been given a $111,000 bill for backdated child maintenance payments.

Alan Northrop and co-defendant Larry Davis were arrested following the January 1993 rape of a woman near Vancouver, Washington State. In July of that year, the pair were given jail terms of more than 23 years after being convicted of first-degree rape, kidnapping and burglary.

But in a dramatic turnaround last year, Washington State prosecutors were forced to withdraw the charges in light of fresh DNA evidence, and the men were released having served 17 years in jail.

DNA testing showed that skin cells found underneath the fingernails of the victim belonged to two other, unknown men.

But Northrop's relief at finally being exonerated was short-lived. Under Washington's law, exonerated inmates can try to sue for damages, but such cases rarely succeed because they need to prove intentional misconduct by law enforcement officials.

Instead, Northrop was told he owed $111,000 in back child maintenance payments. About half of that sum was owed to the mother of his children and half to the state, which helped support the family while Northrop was incarcerated.


Toddler found charred in front of gas fire had been dead three days after social services missed 17 chances to save him
Baby Alex Sutherland, 13 months, was found strapped into his buggy in front of a roaring gas fire in 2009.

He had been dead for at least three days and his tiny body was charred and burnt.

He had suffered severe nappy rash and had bruising on his head and body.

His mother, Tracey Sutherland, 39, a former pharmacist, who was found nearby by police walking in the rain in her pyjamas and smelling of alcohol.

She later admitted neglect and was jailed for 27 months.


What do you reckon?

6 comments:

ScareCrow said...

Ugh.

Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

It's exasperating.

How is it that definitely burning a child to death doesn't warrant a fraction of the penalty of possibly raping a woman?

How can anyone punish with such vindictiveness without there being enough certainty to rebuff future challenges to the conviction? How can one then claim sufficient care was taken?

The absurdity of it all is plain for all to see.

UnicycleGuy said...

I reckon one can prove anything by cherry picking isolated examples. This is not to say you are wrong, but that your method of demonstrating your case is flawed.

Better to use comparable crimes, such as murders by men and by women, and then to examine conviction rate, sentencing and so on, in a large random sample, such as the first 1,000 cases for each sex in a given year.

Personally, I strongly suspect you will be vindicated by the science.

Anonymous said...

see http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/01/18/more-on-husbands-and-their-entitlement-to-sex/#comment-7432

some bloke needs abit of support

Jim said...

Here's a little recent example:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8941433.Discharge_for_wife_in_law_firm_scam/

Man and his wife nick £1.4 from their employers, he gets sent down for 7 years, she gets an absolute discharge, despite the jury finding she was as much to blame as he was, because she has 'mental health problems'.

BrusselsLout said...

@Unicycle

The material of the second post (that women receive lighter -- if not negligible -- sentences for the same crime) has been demonstrated time and again. See Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power. Farrell, a university sociologist, has carried out an in depth study on this very issue. He quotes statistics and gives a number of harrowing case histories.