Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Chacham's Journal: News: Gender of minor decides jailtime for adult 24

Journal by Chacham

Just loaded with stories. Fox News has an article mentioning a Kansas law that discriminates on the gender of a minor in a consensual relationship. "Limon could have received a much lighter sentence had he or the 14-year-old boy, identified only as M.A.R, been female because a 1999 statute, known as the "Romeo and Juliet" law, provides lesser penalties". Isn't that discrimination?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

News: Gender of minor decides jailtime for adult More

News: Gender of minor decides jailtime for adult

Comments Filter:
  • Isn't that discrimination?

    Yes. Just like me only being able to marry a woman, or the two of us refusing to let anyone else have sex with either of us.

    But it's not wrongful discrimination. We have a right to discriminate, as embodied in, IIRC, the First Amendment.
    • Just like me only being able to marry a woman

      That doesn't bar actions (does it?). It's just recognition by the state. A person can still be with more than one person.

      We have a right to discriminate

      True. But can the state give different amount of jailtime for what seems to be the same crime? The only difference her is gender. And not that one is a specific gender, but whether they are *both* the same or not.
  • Women are on the whole less of a physical risk to the community. I therefore have no problem with them receiving less jailtime. Fines should be equal though and community service might be increased to compensate for less jailtime.
    • What!?

      Your statement makes No sense, especiualy when put in the context of the world we live in - where knives guns and cars are often used as weapons to hurt/kill someone. How is a woman less of a physical threat to society? A woman can pick up a gun and kill someone just as easily as a man.

      Also, jailtime, and punishments in general, are about the crime commited, and punishment for that crime, as well as being about what sort of threat the person poses to the community. The punishment should fit the c
      • You're assuming two things: That jail time is only used for violent crimes, which it isn't and that I believe that jail time is a suitable punishment in its own right, rather than primarily a way to protect society from potential risks to phyisical safety.

        As for your last comment, are we talking about justice or vengance?

        • We're talking about justice, my last comment used an example that included someone you love - as a friend/relative/etc of a victim, you should be interested in justice being done. To have the perpetrator recieve less time doesn't seem right due to thier sex.

          As for violent crimes - your statement was that women aren't as much of a threat physically to society. A physical threat is a violent threat, hence violent crime in my examples.

          If you want to talk about punishments for non violent crimes, then don't

          • If you want to talk about punishments for non violent crimes, then don't bring up physical threats...

            That people receive jailtime for non-viloent acts means that I can't avoid it.

            Anyway, your original post was relating to a "sex crime", not murder or whatever. In this case I would assume that a man would be considered more agressive and a woman less so. Without other evidence, I would expect a man who has committed a sex-related crime to be more likely to be a physical risk to the community than a woman

            • Ok, you are off your rocker - my original post had a sex crime as One of the possibilities, and you really are concentrating too much on that.

              To quote my original post:
              "got assaulted/taken-advantage-of-sexualy/killed,"

              Note that this was in the LAST paragraph of my post, and earlier in my post I mention "hurt/kill". '/' means 'and or'

              Maybe you should pay more attention.

              Secondly, there are MANY crimes that contain no violence at all, and to muddy the waters by claiming that 'most' crimes contain some vio
              • It is very easy to look at statistics and make broad claims that group X is more of a danger than group Y - but if you Act on such statistics then you are guilty of discrimination.

                Well, i would say acting upon it is a good thing. However, judging upon it is a bad thing, unless it is stringency, to rid it, or leniency, to understand it. But not to be cautious because of it, would simply be silly.

                ----

                BTW, interesting argument.
                • In the context of my argument, 'Act On' meant for the justice system to act upon, ie, pass laws based upon said effect and/or discriminate when passing judgment and/or sentencing.

                  Caution is another thing entirely, but even it can be dangerous if done for the wrong reasons. Life is not a game of statistics, and to be cautious based upon a statistic itself without a fuller understanding of the hows and whys of the issue at hand can lead to very bad things.
                  • Life is not a game of statistics, and to be cautious based upon a statistic itself without a fuller understanding of the hows and whys of the issue at hand can lead to very bad things.

                    That could be. However, if a statistic shows that a certain group steals more, placing more policemen in that area is a good thing. Spreading them around the city is useless. There should be some everywhere, but we need to be cautious where statistics tells us to look out. Of course the numbers must be reviewed again and aga
                    • Good point, But to take your example further, should we not use the statistic as an indicator that something is wrong, and then dig for the cause? Putting extra policemen there would be a stop gap measure - fixing the cause of the issue (if it can be fixed from the outside without stepping on any ones rights) would not only help the victims, but the whole group in question.

                      An example I would give is middletown Ohio - which used to be the central hub of Armco, a now defunct steel company. Crime rates are
                    • Good points.

                      Sometimes the cause may just be historical - the area is bad, people born and raised there are in that bad area and thus are exposed to crime and not presented with other opportunities. Perhaps it's just jobs - the lack of them, which started a downward spiral. Cities give tax breaks to attract employers all the time - so why not give such breaks where they could do the most good?

                      First many disagree with tax breaks. So, extending it would be met with much resistance. Also, the tax breaks are
              • Your words make it appear as though you believe there is no biological difference between men and women. PC crap aside, women and men are different and behave differently. It is physically difficult for a woman to rape a man, excluding the use of a foreign object. Not impossible, but more difficult. Are you going to claim this isn't the case?

                For the same crime executed in the same way, sentences should be the same. However, since how a crime is committed is often taken into consideration I wouldn't not

                • Ok, now you seem to be twisting the argument. Yes, mean are genetically different from women. But different races have different genetic traits as well... Just because there is a genetic difference doesn't mean that we should treat people differently. As for the use of a foreign object and such - what bearing does this have on the discussion at hand? We are talking about sentencing based upon your proposed physical risk idea. Your argument on female versus male rape is off base and has nothing to do wi
                  • Okay, one last go. Boiling it down;
                    • I believe that jailtime should be reserved for people who are a phyiscal risk to the community.
                    • Violent offenders are the group I would typically consider to be a physical risk to the community.
                    • Now, I think we're getting mixed up between a group and and individual. As a group, women commit less violent crimes, or commit crimes less violently. Therefore sentencing on the whole will reflect that -- even when each case is dealt with in a way equal to a man's. If an indivi
                    • "Maybe I have a more intuitive feel for statistics or something."

                      That is an interesting, and again completely off-base statement that had nothing to do with the debate.

                      Let Me boil it down:

                      - Jail time for violent or non violent crime is Not the issue that was being debated - discrimination was.
                      - Who You consider a risk to the community Was a point of contention, since you stated that women were less of one, and should get less jail time.
                      - your third point actually makes very little sense - again, the idea

                    • Statistics show that women tend to be involved in less violent crime, thus pose less of an physical risk to the community. The sentencing for women tends to be less harsh due to the nature of the crimes committed and the circumstances involved, and I have no problem with that.

                      Instead, your original post, and subsequent replies until your post previous to this one, seemed to be saying that You thought that women were less of a danger and that their sentencing Should reflect that

                      This is definately the prob

                    • I think you two are arguing a different point. Kris J believe jail is used for *prevention*. Coventry believes jail is a punishment.

                      When it's a punishment, the punishment fits the crime, not the individual. When it's a prevention, it matches the individual, not the crime. This can also be seen at the end of a jail term. If the offender will ostensibly do it again upon release, the prevention would have to continue past the end of his term, where as if it is a punishment, the offender must be let free anywa
                    • Actually, I think jail time is punishment And prevention - whcih leads to an odd middle road. My point was that Kris's original statement was phrased in a way to advocate disciminatory sentencing - which he is now turnign into a statistics argument and is trying to say that he was just making a statement of fact. Ok.

                      Unfortunatly, I don't think you can legaly (in the US) have the sort of sentencing you describe Chacham - even if the sentences were different due to an individual judge's similar belief, or
                    • "This is definately the problem we're having because I can't see the distinction between these two statements."

                      The distinction is that in the original, you were making a personal statement of belief and used the word Should - in the corrected version, and you later arguments, you instead are saying that you agree with the actuality of the situation and can understand it. These are two very different things - akin to:

                      A) I think everyone with green eyes should be punched in the face.

                      and

                      B) I see that peop
                    • I understand it couldn't work within the current framework. Just talking about what i think would b ebest. Then again, i'm against jail (except in certain cases of prevention) and would much rather institute corperal punishment. :)

                      Actually, I think jail time is punishment And prevention

                      Yeah, yeah. But i think your arguments were based more on one of them, if only to counteract his statements.
                    • Ugh! Corporal.
                    • Thank you. I'm happy with your first two paragraphs and am willing to leave it there if Coventry is too.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close