Crime, but no punishment

17 November 2005


Look at that quaint little building, surrounded by trees and looking like a pretty English country cottage. In actual fact it’s a jail, Styal Prison For Women to be exact.

I know it’s almost a cliche for people to rant on about how prisons are “like holiday camps” these days, but lets face it, it’s not too far from the truth when it comes to prison for women.

After all, compare it to the foreboding men’s prison.


Anyway, the reason Styal Cottage Prison is in the news is because of an enquiry into the fact that four women killed themselves during 2003, and it was decided that Something Must Be Done.

Of course, men have been killing themselves in prisons at a greater rate than women for years, but hey, who cares eh? Occasionally it makes a small impact on the local news if there’s a spate of suicides at one particular prison, but only when a female inmate dies does it cause people to demand that Something Must Be Done.

Women make up just 7% of the prison population in the UK, and although it is right to point out that men commit more crimes, nonetheless women also are more likely to get probation, suspended sentences or just much shorter sentences than a man would for the same crime. Recently there was an inquiry into the treatment of female prisoners – not prisoners on the whole, just female ones – in Northern Ireland, and in the subsequent report that predictably demanded softer treatment and better conditions for women convicts it was stated that:

An important consideration is the fact that, often, the women in our care come to prison by default as the services in the wider community cannot adequately meet their needs.

So, in other words, women usually end up in prison because it’s the fault of the community (i.e. society, no doubt the male half of it) for not meeting women’s needs. Hmmm. Right. Note the use of the word “care” as well. Female criminals get care, male ones get punishment.

Earlier this year there was an article about how the government was pouring huge amounts of money into making two new prisons for women…sorry, not prisons, but “female rehabilitation centres.” A spokesperson for a victim’s charity rightly points out that it is unfair that women should be treated differently from male prisoners but that’s not what the Fawcett Society says.

Some spokeswoman for the Fawcett Society insisted that female criminals should be given softer treatment because 50% of them were abused as kids and also they are usually convicted for theft, which is no big deal apparently. Unless men do it. This Fawcett Society are a bunch of whining retards who desperately want “equality” between men and women, but obviously not if it would be to the disadvantage to women. Also, the claim that half of female inmates were abused as kids is false; it’s the case that half of female inmates report being abused as kids, knowing that if they claim this they’ll get sympathy from judges, politicians and journalists. Statistics show that, whilst girls are somewhat more likely to be sexually abused than boys, boys are far more likely to be physically abused (and usually by the mother) than girls. Not that men can use the abused excuse of course, that’s solely reserved for women.

I have to hand it to this Fawcett woman for having the nerve to utter two of the most bold statements ever to be uttered by a feminist:

Some evidence suggests women also suffer from harsher sentences if they don’t appear vulnerable in court.

Oh really? We’d never have guessed. Note the way she doesn’t say that women get harsher sentences if they are more vulnerable, merely if they don’t appear more vulnerable. She’s obviously pissed off that some women aren’t very good at appearing vulnerable when up before a judge and would probably like them to be given training on how to pretend to cry before their trials. Also, when she says “harsher sentence” what she means is “the same sentence that a man would get for the same crime.”

Here’s the absolute killer statement:

“We’re not asking for them (women) to be treated better, but appropriately.”

This is the absurd – yet evidently highly efficient – trick feminists have pulled off in Western societies in the last five-decades; saying they don’t want women to be necessarily treated “better”, just “appropriately,” because that way they can still insist they’re just seeking equality between the sexes…even though they quite obviously want women to be treated better.

I don’t see why feminists even bother claiming to be seeking equality in the justice system, why not just admit that they simply want women to above the law? They practically are anyway. For example there’s the case of a teenage girl who was arrested for Grevious Bodily Harm, and not only did she avoid prison whilst whilst awaiting trial but didn’t even have to wear an electronic tag simply because she’s female. A tag would look unfeminine, apparently.

Tattoos, nose-rings and big fat wobbly arses look unfeminine, but I don’t see many modern women in a rush to ditch them.

Then there’s the case of a Scottish woman jailed for a measly four-years for viciously battering to death a 58-year-old woman in an argument over a car parking space. What’s worse, this pitifully short sentence was only handed out on appeal; the original sentence had been probation.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 2:43 PM

At 9:46 AM, Anonymous said…

Rich Zubaty wrote that something along the lines that if men commit more crime than women then there is something wrong with the laws. Clearly from what you have written it is easy to see that there is something wrong with the judicial system but Zubaty’s comment goes beyond this. On another blog I read the comment that it is maleness itself that is being criminalised. Makes you think!

But sadly I don’t see how complaining about it on the net will change anything.


At 9:06 PM, TestSubjectXP said…

At least online some people will listen. You think if he said it in public people would listen?

Maybe it’s not always about change and activism. Sometimes it’s more about your own mental health than being a zealot.


At 9:54 PM, Anti Misandry said…

in further response to Anon, having a pitch about it on the net means that people can read it any time they want, it will be online for years to come – perhaps quoted on other sites too.

public speaking gets a few people to listen, a limited audience.. this is the world we’re touching!


At 11:05 PM, Slaytan said…

Exactly. If it wasn’t for places on the net like this one, I’d go insane. Mainstream media’s just too biased, I’m constantly bombared with their bigoted nonsense and I need to see the opposing views and views which call it bullshit, when they see it!

I need a daily dose of sarcastic antidote for venom spouted by feminasty swarm and/or PC bigots – and here I get it.

%d bloggers like this: