28/02/2021
Sat, on my own, on a Sunday afternoon, I decide to have a look at The Guardian website.
One of the articles that pricks my attention is one that said:
Wouldn't that be great?
I honestly think that achieving a position whereby UK prisons held no female inmates at all would be absolutely fantastic; a true success story.
However, I actually think that achieving a position whereby UK prisons held no male inmates would be worthy of far more celebration.
Let me explain why.
We could achieve this dream world. We really could.
If only people would stop committing crimes.
Arguing that women shouldn't be sent to prison, when they are already far less likely to be incarcerated for their crimes than a man, is almost obscene. It really is.
The author of this Guardian article fixates on the statistics that say a significant proportion of female inmates are in prison as a result of supporting someone else's drug habit. There are other reasons she gives for preferential treatment she believes that women should get; the 'Get out of Jail Free' card they should be given at birth. But, much as I can empathise with some of the points she makes, there has to be some accountability for an individual's actions; even if there is some allowance given for the reasons behind their crime.
Most studies appear to indicate that women get less severe punishments for similar crimes. They are significantly less likely to be given a custodial sentence for any near identical offence.
The claims that they should not, in some circumstances, be sent to prison because this would deprive their children of a mother, is, in itself, a pretty extreme example of sexual discrimination.
About 17,000 children are affected (in some way) by their mothers being imprisoned each year, compared to about 180,000 whose fathers are imprisoned. Those statistics also suggest that 2/3rds of the mothers imprisoned were not actually providing home parenting at the time of their incarceration.
This suggest to me that the existing regime for imprisoning female criminals is already far lighter than for male prisoners; and to a large extent there appears to be insufficient justification for this leniency.
There appears to be very little actual data to support any move to remove prison as a punishment for female criminals.
Some female offenders have experienced trauma in their lives that might be used as, to some degree, mitigation for their crimes. However, this should be presented as part of their defence and should not be used as a reason to apply leniency to all women, irrespective of their crimes and any personal mitigating factors.
If women are forced to commit crimes for their partner, this should be used as a mitigating factor when deciding their punishment; possibly even leading to a decision whereby no punishment is considered appropriate.
If a woman's crime is one of violence against a partner who has subjected them to prolonged abuse, that to must be considered when deciding not just their guilt (or otherwise), but also what level of punishment should be applied.
However, it is unreasonable to conclude that all female convicts are criminals solely because of oppression or coercion. Many of the women who are caught and found guilty of criminal offences were in control of their actions and had the ability to make decisions about their actions; just as their male counterparts were.
I should stress that I am not calling for more women to be thrown in jail, or given longer sentences. I am simply saying that any suggestion that al female criminals should be assumed to be victims of controlling behaviour the by men in their life and protected from prison sentences should be dismissed.
Every case should be argued on its own merits; much as it is at the moment.
Comments