to ask if you think women should be imprisoned

[manicinsomniac]

NB - I'm not talking about murderers and child abusers etc, obviously those women pose a risk to society and need to be away from it.

But the majority?

I've started to get quite involved with prison volunteering, campaigning etc and have just read this on the women in prison website:

*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.

Prison is often a very expensive way of making vulnerable women?s life situations much worse. Women are often incarcerated miles from their homes and families ? they lose their homes, their relationships with their children and their mental health in the process.

Better outcomes for women mean a reduced use of prison and an increased use of community alternatives. Prison does not work. The best way to cut women?s offending is to deal with its root causes. *

What do you think? Instinctively I agree with it but I don't know if I'm just being too idealistic and/or have just watched too many episodes of Bad Girls!

So WIBU to want to campaign against the imprisoning of vulnerable women? Or is it no different to imprisoning men?
Should I be equally bleeding heart about men?
Or do all these prisoners just deserve what's coming to them?!

Among first and repeat offenders, women convicted of violence and
d rug offences we re always more like ly to be disch a rged and men
m o re like ly to be f ined. But again, this seems to be less a
consequence of a policy of leniency than a reluctance to impose one
particular sentence ? the fine ? on women.

Because they regarded women offenders as troubled, magistrates
responded to their offending with measures (a discharge or
probation) designed to assist them to lead law - abiding lives rather
than punishing them. Fines were regarded as particularly unsuitable
for women with children to care for and because they were seen as
lacking ?independent means? for paying fines.

news about report of the Women's Justice Taskforce with a link

The female prison population has more than doubled over the last 15 years.

'Really - can't you work up more of a dander for the victims ??

Of course I can. But the majority of society has sympathy for the victims and there is lots of help available'.

No there is not a lot of help available for victims - where on earth did you get that idea?

Have you ever been a victim of serious crime? Believe me, there is much more support and general bleeding heart hand wringing for offenders than for the victims. Victim support is largely voluntary and inadaquete, where it exisits at all.

I dont think anyone is arguing that prison works edam.

28% of women in prison had no previous convictions ? more than double the figure for men (13%). [Source: Table A1.26, Ministry of Justice (2011) Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2010, London: Ministry of Justice]

13% of women serving sentences of under 12 months had no previous convictions, compared with only 8% of men. [Source: Table A1.27, Ibid.]

Most of the rise in the female prison population can be explained by a significant increase in the severity of sentences. In 1996, 10% of women convicted of an indictable offence were sent to prison, in 2010 14% were. [Source: Table A5.19, Ministry of Justice (2011) Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to December 2010, London: Ministry of Justice and Table 1.8, Ministry of Justice (2007) Sentencing Statistics 2006, London: Ministry of Justice]

I work in criminal justice too. Catgirl your document is a 1997 one which may be outdated now. My experience day to day indicates that women are on average dealt with more severely by the courts than men are. We don't get many on DRRs for acquisitive crime - they're more likely to get custody. We also only have 2 women's prisons to deal with: New Hall and Low Newton (nearly 100 miles away). There are several male prisons, some Cat C, which neither of the women's prisons are.

thats interestuing sooty and i am willing to accept i may be looking at out of date data

why would you say the rise from 10% to 14% has occurred? Is it because women being treated more harshly for some reason or is it because women are committing more violent or serious offences?

I honestly think they're given more custodial sentences because there are few suitable women's programmes in the community (my clients on the whole haven't committed violent offences). A lot fail on DRRs because they don't engage well well lumped with men, often being the only woman in a mandatory group.

I'm still upset when I remember a client, severely mentally ill, 27 years old, with a long history of self harm. At 13 she was put on the streets to fund her mother's heroin habit and of course quickly became an addict hereself. Her arms were a mass of holes and tracks where she'd slashed them. On Christmas Eve, her day of release, when she had no release address other than her abusive mother, she sat in our offices and sobbed: "I don't know how to live out here". She'd also been released without her mental health medication.

She's been in prison for most of here adult life and I can honestly say she's never had the help she needs.

That's very sad :(

I still dont think women should be treated differently than men when it comes to sentencing, but from what you are saying sooty they are being treated differently becuase the facilities to offer the DRR a man would get in the same circumstances dont exist.

They can be and sometimes are put on DRRs catgirl but I don't think they're as well catered for on them as men are. This young lady had never been considered for one as her needs were considered too complex.

Also our male clients who aren't in Leeds (Cat B) end up in Everthorpe, Wolds, Wealstun etc (Cat C) where the regime is more relaxed. No Cat C women's prisons for our intake. And the men aren't under the same roof as lifers.

Argh my teeth grind when I hear 'vulnerable women' its very overused.

I take it people dont think vulnerable men exist.

mathanxiety

"Well you can twist what I said any way you like Verbiage (stunning example I might add), but sexual abuse of children is not usually done by the family cat."

"75% of sexual predators are male and 25% are female."

"86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren't believed, so the crimes go unreported and don't get prosecuted."

link

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC makes the point in her book "Eve Was Framed" that treating as equal those who are unequal creates more inequality.

Women offenders come up against the preconception of what a woman "should be" and because they fail to live up to "fragrant" Lady Archer they are dealt with more severely. Therefore, women are punished not only for their crime but for failing to fit into what middle / upper classes consider woman-like.

I don't think a person's home life, e.g. caring for children, should (generally) be taken into account when deciding a sentence. It's too much like the old argument of "We'll pay the men more as they have to support families, the women don't need the money as they're only doing it for a bit of extra cash."

As for "women tend to commit different kids of crime", well different punishments for different offences is fine, why wouldn't it be?

'I take it people dont think vulnerable men exist.

It's not something I'd normally say Archemedes, but have you read any of the thread?

If you have, I don't understand why you've written that. Plenty of posters have pointed out men can be just as vulnerable as women, even right at the start of the thread.

And why would it make your 'teeth grind' (which I much prefer to people saying they have itchy teeth ) when people talk about vulnerable women? There are plenty out there.

Allpast - the point is women are treated more harshly than men. Different sentences for different crimes are fine, but not if you are treated more harshly for the same crime in the same circumstances by virtue of your gender, race or other characteristic over which you have no control.

am quite pleased we have gotten this far without anyone mentioning "sad, mad or bad". Sorry.

Sentencing 'policy' doesn't differentiate between the sexes. Sentencing 'practice' def. does, and given most parts of society exhibits discrimination it is no surprise that the CJS does.

AgentZigzag sorry I didnt clarify I meant in rl its a very overused word not applying to this thread ive seen plenty of posters makes a similar point to me.

and your second question, like I said above its very overused.Its often used to excuse womens behaviour ime.

Sorry but in my experince somone who is involed in drugs or robberys are not usually the best of parents to start with really.

No one should be allowed to use the fact that their a parent as a get out of jail card

If they were thinking of their children they would not have committed the crime in the first place

And often with serial offenders their children are often already in care or been cared for by relatives so not putting them in jail because of children is a betting of red herring really

the tariffs don't diff by gender
interpretation does
but tbh some of the women are inadequate parents,whether in custody or not
and the mere act of being in community as opposed to prison,doesn't render one better parent

Scottishmommy and I actually think the near fact of having these women in prison might make them better parents as you can do things like teach them to read put them on domestic training and parenting classes you actally have a captive audience.

Do the crime do the time and IMO if these women have got children at home more fool them by not thinking of them when they are out commiting the crimes

it's a complicated mix,as intrinsic and extrinsic factors together have resulted in prison
certainly prison will detain and remove from community but not necessarily rehabilitate

I haven't heard anyone arguing that being a parent should be a 'get out of jail card'. What is being suggested is that, if we are serious about stopping reoffending - rather than just interrupting it for six months - we should think about whether prison really is the best option for some prisoners (male or female). For many prisoners, the prison gate is actually a revolving door.

And the point that still isn't really being addressed here is the effect on prisoners' children if they are taken into care (which is more likely to happen if the prisoner is a woman). Enough is known about the longer-term outcomes for children who have been in care for society to be wary about sending children into care if there is a better alternative. I dare say it is true that some offenders are not good parents at the outset (especially if they have mental health or substance abuse problems) but the statistics on educational achievement and so on for children in care - and the statistic I quoted above about how may end up on prison - show that the state is very often a worse parent even than that.

Anyone interested in the Observer article might also be interested in this book