AIBU to think that a mum of two should not be jailed for

[Mitmoo]

taking a pair of shorts that her friend stole in the riots.

She's got six months.

A young man who took £3.50 worth of water from a ransacked shop got six months.

I want justice, I want those who terrified my family even though we were fortunate enough to only view it through the television screen to be punished but I want some kind of proportionality.

Do we remove mum's from their children for six months because she took a pair of shorts from a friend who had been in the riots?

It was wrong of course, she should have shopped the "friend" but six months????

menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_mum-jailed-for-six-months-for-wearing-pair-of-looted-shorts-

Thank you TheQueen, he is doing brilliantly for himself, living abroad and travelling the world, its lovely to see

perry Thank you for providing that.

However I have skimmed through and can only see the briefest mention of differences in sentence between men and woman and that says:

"Accumulated research on whether women are sentenced differently from men suggests that ?sentencers treat women differently from men due to chivalry, paternalism, familial protection, or enforcement of gender appropriate behaviour."

That to me implies that woman are in fact getting less severe sentences. None of the references seem to contain factual info re male v female sentencing.

There is also a paragraph that states as a % more woman are serving short sentences than men (whch seems to be the opposite of what was being said earlier) but I accept the paragraph is almost entirely worthless without a statistical comparison of like for like sentence male v femal. The references don't appear to provide this info either.

I am not trying to be awkward. If evidence does exist that woman receive longer and harsher sentences then I would very much like to see it. It is certainly not what I have experienced (and YY I appreciate anecdote and data are two differenet things) . I just fear this is an urban myth, started on and perpetuated by MNers

Life isn't fair.

Sentences can vary around the country depending on the judge etc.

If you don't want to take part in the sentencing lottery, don't buy a ticket by participating in criminal activities. No-one held a gun to her head and forced her to "handle stolen goods" (which is a criminal activity).

Sadly, I suppose I'm not surprised at someone trying to imply that this woman's children will suffer through anything other than her own actions.

Some people won't take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, it's always not their fault. Hopefully social services will make sure the children are looked after by family or suitable alternative while the woamn in question serves her time as this is fair. She'll probably be out in less than 3 months and she has the rest of her life to spend with her kids. Hopefully she will have learn't to be a better role model for them in future and they will know that handling stolen goods is a criminal acts/bad and leads to unpleasant consequences.

FellatioNelson and thats my point whilst riots are breaking out their would be no sleepovers either taking place at my home or with any one else and as a parent if your child is sleeping over its down to you to cheap the other parents out their values and rules

Example my son has a friend who is allowed out till 10pm my son is 11 his friend is 10 also this boy is allowed to watch 18 rated movies my child is not allowed to say at this boys home the child is welcome here but that parent is clearlY not providing rules or boundaries

My child wants to stay at someones home the first thing I do is ring the parents and ask questions

And before any one starts going on about older teens some of these children involved in the looting were 11 and even with 14 year old their are time when the answer is no their is a riot going on you cannot leave the house end of its the fact that many parents seem to have forgot that word and ring their hand and say well you canny do anything with a teen is why were are in this mess my son would have to see me dead before he would have left the house and I would of slept in the door way if need be

But its the fact they would sneak out in the first place shows lack of respect with in the home if indeed half of these children did sneak out which wiffs of poor parents exuses

TheQueenOfDenial and rightly so mothers are the heart of the nation we raise children give them their values especially single mothers

If they don't know right from wrong then how can we expect their children its even more sickening when a mother commits a crime because it means she has total disregard for her role as a mother and the other reason is so awful is because you then ask the question ware were your children when you were out committing crimes

In care, on their own, wondering the steer themselves , with you

Much more difficult for a man you dose not have to see his children every day to think about the impact him going to jail will have on his children

like you tqod I am legal from a while back so all the actual stats i have come from the crimeinfo.org.uk website that used to have brilliant referenced links to govt stats etc..now it has become something else..with referencing and articles to everything I can pay for..

I'm not trying to be an arse but nor am I doing that, mn says it, so it must be true...I am amazed at how difficult stats now seem to be to view. The full Fawcett Society report backs what I am saying btw but is 119 pages or somesuch and I wasn't sure that you'd be interested

The old info I had was that the imprisonment rate for women in England and Wales had increased by 175% over 10yrs compared to an increase of only 85% for men. As the majority of offences committed by women were shoplifting and drugs related it suggested sentencing female offenders to imprisonment for less serious crimes.
(A large number of those sentences we sub 6 mths or served on remand and therefore did they really serve any purpose)
This was confirmed by sending over a third of the number of female offenders who have no previous convictions to prison.. a number proportionally much higher than men again from www.crimeinfo.org.uk
This all looks made up though doesn't it...

Thanks perry. Sometimes MN seems like a hang out for ex legal bods

Agree re stats being difficult to come by these days. I am genuinely interested if there is a sentencing bias.

I suppose briefly I would assume that at least some of the reason for the larger increase in custodial sentence for woman stems from the fact that woman historically did not receive custodial sentences as frequently as men (main carer/lack of female prison placesetc) The Fawcet report does accept that it is "most of this increase can be explained by a significant increase in the severity of sentences".

I think it is also worth noting (which the Fawcet report touches on) is that many of the drug offences for which woman are sentenced are trafficking offences - a very serious offence, which attracts a lengthy custodial sentences but committed by much larger numbers of women than men.

If you take a cross section of "drugs offences" it is entirely possible that it will appear that men receive shorter sentences because they don't tend to traffick.

I'm still not convinced that re like for like crimes there is evidence that woman receive longer sentences (according to Fawcet rport they certainly don't as a general %) than men. And I am not sure the info you have quoted suggests that either - unless I have misunderstood.

And apologies for threadhijack to everyone who just wanted a general bitch about sentencing crims

"know it might not suit your argument Quimby but it doesn't make it untrue.
"

what argument? people keep repeating this fact on different threads and it's not clear exactly what they are saying. i.e. do women get more custodial sentences proportionately for first time offences in all, or is it for similar crimes. do they get longer sentences for similar crimes or do they get the same sentences yet men serve less time etc.
I don't have any agenda, I'm asking for clarification on something which is being repeated as fact by some without backing it up.
I have no idea whether or not women get harsher treatment in terms of sentencing, they may well do and if it's true it's appalling. But I'm not going to accept it as gospel because someone makes an unverified statement on an anonymous chat board.

So if someone makes a statement of
"Women receive more custodial sentences compared to men for non violent crimes"
I'm going to ask where they are getting there facts.
I don't have any dog in this fight or particular line of argument to pursue

Women's Justice Taskforce July 2011 "More than 4,100 women were in prisons in England and Wales last week, up from 1,800 15 years ago. It is true that many women end up in prison for low-level crime as a result of repeat offending and a failure to respond to non-custodial alternatives"

The number of women in prison has risen disproportionately, but is this due to harsher sentencing for 'petty' crime, not harsher sentencing for women. Men tend to commit more 'serious' crime?

borderslass - I have not heard of the lorry driver story, but I figure this is because it could have been an accident? Forgive me if I'm wrong. The other matter here is that the rioters / looters need to be taught a harsh lesson, or they'll be out there doing it all over again. A couple of weeks in prison, a fine or community service is well worth it to some people.

OP, YABU. The fact that she is a Mum is irrelevant. Should a Mum who has killed someone also get a lesser sentance or have that taken into account? I don't think so...

"27% of women in prison had no previous convictions - more than double the figure for men" (its doesnt say how many of these were on remand)

But it does say that "over half of the women entering custody each year, do so on remand. These women spend an average of 4 to 6 weeks and 60% do not go on to receive a custodial sentence"

It doesnt say how many of the men with no previous convictions went on to receive a custodial sentence. Doesnt this suggest that women do not receive harsher sentencing, just that they are held on remand, more often than men? (probably due to the fact they are more likely to 'repeat offend' as per Women's Justice Taskforce report)

Im no expert, just trying to get my head around this.

I think it depends what crimes they are being imprisoned for, as well. It is possible that their first convictions are, on average, more serious than those of men. Or possibly that they are older at the time of the first conviction and therefore more likely to be sent to prison than say a 13 year old boy, who may spend a few years 'building up' a little stock of convictions, that finally lead to prison once he is an adult?

Without having very in-depth data it's impossible to know whether there is any substance in what Sakura said.

The prison population stands at 85,931 out of which there are roughly 5,000 Women.

Prison causes damage and disruption to the lives of vulnerable women, most of whom pose no risk to the public. Women have been and are marginalised within a criminal justice system designed by men for men.

www.womeninprison.org.uk/

Let's not make any mistakes here.

Stats and the constant use of them can be twisted, Women get a better deal than Men in general when it comes to being sent to prison.

I agree about stats - always utterly pointless to take them at face value.

Mitmoo is spot on about lack of proportion.

Lets say rape is 200 times worse than wearing a pair of stolen shorts. For this 6 month sentence to be fair, you would need to have a minimum sentence of 100 years for rape. In fact it is 3 years.

I'm not sure of her background, perhaps if she has previous she deserved it, but on the face of it, it seems over the top. My uncle was set upon by a group of rioters when he was riding his bike in London. He ended up with concussion and cuts on his face, and had to spend the night in A&E. Personally, I was furious when I heard about it, and I think those that participated in the violence towards people and property deserve the steepest punishments. However, when it comes to stealing something, 6 months is excessive. Even more excessinve when you are talking about handling something someone else stole. 10 days, max, would be reasonable, IMO.

Jane05, Its not 3 years, but as others have said its pointless agruing about stats, unless you know the precise circumstances involved.

By your calculations it wouldnt be fair for anyone to receive 6 months for anything though would it?

Latest news, a new judge has said she has been sentenced too harshly and the sentence was not proportionate he has freed her to do 70 hours community service.

Common sense judge at last.

sky news article

and she had no previous as stated in the article.