Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules (Times, 6 March 2025)

It's like they WANT people to vote Reform!

It's not far from "men are convicted of more sex crimes than women so we need to balance out this disparity by giving them less custodial sentences".

i would be happy if we had consistent sentencing. And i would be happy if owning images of CSA always resulted in a custodial sentence instead of a slap on the wrist.

Why do so many crap ideas in public life have Lammy's fingerprints on them?

Still, at least Starmer hasn't given him an important job where he could do any harm.

Ah. Light dawns. ‘Softer sentencing’ for minorities was based on David Lammy report

www.thetimes.com/article/c9cc1d32-e1fa-4844-910d-7a13ded21ea6?shareToken=5ee6f9efefa0243dde6654495b37cef3

What measure have they used to decide that transwomen are discriminated against and need to be advantaged in court?
Are they being measured against women?
Who knows what measures they are using to come up with this stuff but it makes me doubt the process they have used in all the other categories as well.

Not my area of knowledge at all, but isn't part of the reason black men (as an example) get longer sentences for equivalent crimes is that they are perceived not to comply/play by the right rules? So they don't dress "right" in court, stay aggy with the police, and don't necessarily access or trust advice that could help them. There is obviously structural racism underpinning all of this, but I can't see how the same is true for Trans Identifying Males?

Once again, how are trans identified males any different to other males who have committed the same crimes?

And the trouble with crunching numbers is that if you are actually crunching alphabet soup and offenders are in the wrong category, your conclusions are going to be shite.

It's important to note though, the equity lens is not just about thinking the process is biased. That's a different issue, although more complicated than people often think, as you can't just compare sentences without looking at the other circumstances that judges consider.

But the equity lens says that even if the judges sentences are perfectly appropriate in every case, if there is a disparity between groups where one is being imprisoned more etc, there needs to be an equity adjustment so the statistics for each group are the same..

This is interesting and it highlights a big part of the issue people have with DEI.

Essentially what they have said is that it's ok to use stereotypes of groups to advantage individuals, but not when it's to their disadvantage.

So I can say, oh, black men are more likely to be accused of crimes, therefore we will give them lighter sentences. But I can't say, black men are accused of more crime, so it is ok for police to stop their cars without cause.

And it's not just the evident inconsistency of this. It's also a real worry that if we, as a society, say the first approach is valid, people will soon begin to believe the second is as well.

SEEN in Journalism on twitter has an alternative take -

Ironically these new guidelines could be described as ‘transphobic’ because the trans-identified person would get additional scrutiny whether the offence is sexual or not.

Some insights on the ‘transgender clause’ in the sentencing guidelines which deserves more attention than it’s getting.

When an offender is convicted of a sexual offence a report is almost always needed to assess whether the defendant is a ‘dangerous offender’ and so needs a longer sentence.

Probation input is also needed on the content of a sex offender prevention order ie the criminal injunction that, roughly speaking, keeps them away from schools and the internet.

Reports in such cases can be difficult for defendants because probation assessors are able to force difficult questions around risk assessment. They are not bound by legal privilege and are able tell the Judge their real insights on risks posed.

Hope this context helps.

This should not be taken to assume that all trans-identified offenders are convicted of sexual offences because this is not the case. However it has certainly been the case frequently.

From what I understand from the article, black people specifically are more likely to be sent to jail for the same offences that other people don't get imprisoned for.

Yes, i was aware of this already, and of course it needs to change. I'm curious about other ethnic groups.

If more people identify as transgender to avoid jail, isn't this going to skew the statistics even more and make it look as if a higher percentage of transgender people commit crime?

From what I understand from the article, black people specifically are more likely to be sent to jail for the same offences that other people don't get imprisoned for. So it seems it is a problem of racism on the face of it. But the approach shouldn't be that being black or from another minority ethnic group means you are treated more leniently, which is what the guidelines seem to be implying. It should be that a review of sentences is carried out to see how judges are coming to their decisions. Or something like that. I'm not a professional.

Edited for clarity

No, not ethnic minority groups - the evidence says that black people are more likely to be jailed.

What about other ethnic groups?

Basically, it's become very clear that the reason for disproportionate numbers of certain groups in prison aren't just racial bias on the part of police and judged, it reflects differences in who is in fact committing crimes and the types of crimes.

To take a relatively minor example - anyone who reads the court cases in local Irish papers will know that the Lithuanian community is massively overrepresented in dangerous driving convictions. I don't know what the issue is with Lithuanian drivers. People who work with the community might have some useful ideas about prevention.

But I'm suspicious of an equity lens that leads well-meaning people to think "this bloke got a harsh sentence because he's an immigrant", when the reality is that he got a harsh sentence because he was doing 87 on the wrong side of the road.

“A source pointed out that some demographic cohorts suffer disadvantages in the criminal justice system.”

You can see a lawyer arguing that more TW than women are in prison for raping, shagging dogs etc and so this is a sign of prejudice. Of course it’s actually a sign that TW are men, sometimes with a range of unpleasant tastes.

I really hope the government is quick to sort this out, it is absolutely unacceptable that if a man suddenly states he’s a woman he will get a lighter sentence. What could go wrong..? 🙄🤔😵‍💫

This is the rationale. The reason I think this is bad is because if the attached reasons are good reasons to avoid custody then they should be considered for all offenders regardless of sex (and if they apply in more cases with women than men then that is fine). To add a process in for women that is designed to divert away from prison that is not in place for men seems unjust, as it leads to two similar cases being sentenced differently because one went though a different process.

Yes it's bad. Why would women be treated differently as a group in that way?

I think this is the same approach which we now have in Canada, and have for a few years.

It's an "equity lens" approach.

Basically, it's become very clear that the reason for disproportionate numbers of certain groups in prison aren't just racial bias on the part of police and judged, it reflects differences in who is in fact committing crimes and the types of crimes.

So to create equity, you need to have different sentencing.

It is the very same principle shown in that cartoon the DEI/I'd Pol people love to use:

equality vs equity

If anyone wonders why DEI has become so controversial, this is it.

I don’t like these guidelines, which do seem to formalise a two-tier justice system based on race. That seems bad.

The guidelines also state that pre-sentencing reports should be commissioned if the offender is female.

That is a two-tier system based on sex. Is that also bad?

(Also definitional problems like what counts as a ‘minority faith community’. As an atheist (8% of UK self-describe as such) I’d certainly argue I should count!)

It will back fire (and harm a lot of ppl in the process.)

The "it never happens thread" will be chocca.

We already knew trans was a bit of a get out of jail free card. Now they're stating it explicitly.

I suppose it's one way of solving the problem about which prison men pretending to be women should be sent to. Just don't send them to prison at all.

What could possibly go wrong?

We already knew trans was a bit of a get out of jail free card. Now they're stating it explicitly.

I expect prison onset gender dysphoria rates will rocket.

Do people really never think through these things properly anymore?

No, not ethnic minority groups - the evidence says that black people are more likely to be jailed.

Agree with KnottyAuty and Pri0n1 that the way the guidance attempts to address this is flawed, but it must be addressed somehow by the justice system.

The factors in the unmodified guidance all seem sound to me. Too many women are put in prison for relatively minor crimes. Young people might be turned around by education and training - prison is basically just university for criminals.

Edited for clarity

The two groups in OP's title already are avoiding jail, surely. We've all seen how many men discover their inner woman after arrest.