Two women throttled and tortured vulnerable man in 'sickening' 24-hour after internet date

[perka123]

28 months? They get at least 5 years in fucking isolation

[Geikkamir]

[QUOTE=Beetle179;52437655]Yes, women are favored in the court in some cases -- marital and child custody, for example -- but you've gotta be on some shit to look at this story and spin some wild narrative about a "pussy pass". The only explanation I can think of is that the article brought it up for some reason, but the website seems to be down at the moment and I can't read it in full.[/QUOTE]

Not gonna weigh in too much on the subject because I don't even know how we got on this track in the first place, but I do want to say that simply saying that "women are [i]favored[/i] in the court in [i]some cases[/i]" is an enormous understatement. Statistically speaking, women are almost universally (across crimes that is) given noticeably lighter sentences, are given more leniency in plea bargaining, and are more likely to not be charged to begin with, all by a fairly significant margin. It depends on where in the world you're looking at of course, but in general the justice system is overwhelmingly biased against men, not just in marital disputes and child custody.

[sir whoopsalot]

Just to make this look even more pathetic, you know that dude who kicked a woman down the stairs of a Berlin subway station last year? Got jailed for almost 3 years.

Yeah, different country but still.

[Elowin]

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52436302]Its a constant in FP crime threads for people to angrily post about how the obviously terrible people need to be in jail for however many years more than their existing sentence, or if they're in for life how they need to be put to death. The male/female sentencing disparity is worth pointing out too. Following that advice though, we'd just endlessly increase sentences because someone once saw a different sentence that they felt was harsher.

It's a lot less common for anyone to go "Nah that sentence is OK" or "but this sentence could be lower" for guilty crimes because in the moment the obviously terrible person needs the worst possible punishment. But that won't get prison populations under control or reduce repeat offenders, UK or US.

I agree, I've posted about the bias in convictions and sentencing before (though that was about the US) but i observe people usually jump to balancing that through harsher sentencing rather than lighter sentencing. it's easier since nobody wants to be perceived as defending a horrible criminal.[/QUOTE]

I am usually strongly in favor of lighter sentences because yeah, the vast majority of the time throwing someone in prison for a few decades is just dumb. This though, I don't know. This is kind of different from most crimes. I don't know if they really can be rehabilitated but worse is, I don't think you could tell if they're rehabilitated.