More unfairness for males
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 20 Dec 17 12.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
That was my interpretation of diplomacy. There is certainly a core of offenders who need taking out of circulation and it is inevitable that they will almost always be men. I'm not sure what you can do about that percentage that are sex offenders without a good case against them. They are innocent until proven otherwise. Indeed, there in lies a very specific problem that relates to sex offences where in the system itself isn't fit 'for purpose' functionally, in delivering the element of the Criminal Justice protocol of protecting the public (and rehabilitation - assuming that those who get away with it, won't come into contact with sex offender therapy programs - such as they are). Its a unique problem, because unlike other offences, such as assault or theft, the impact on those who are victims is far reaching (in a way that most offences against the person or property aren't - and can incur serious need of support services). If Murder had the same kind of conviction rate we see in rape and sex offences, we'd all agree that the justice system was failing in regard to what is probably the most serious offence. However rape probably ranks as the second most serious offence against the person, and it seems that the general consensus is 'well, what can you do, the system is the system'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stirlingsays 20 Dec 17 12.27pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Crime isn't really driven though by genetics. Rape or assault, aren't behaviours, they're classified as deviancy. People can be born with a genes and biological factors that affect aggression or impulse control, but by and far, those that are and turn up in the criminal justice system are found in Forensic Psychiatry, to be only a percentage of those possessing such traits in society. When you look at forensic psychology and psychiatry in relation to offenders, environmental factors play a huge role in correlation between offence and offender. If crime isn't driven by genetics then why do males commit more of it? Of course it is......That's not a criticism of males but rather a recognition of testosterone reality. Of course environmental factors make a difference.....most people, who aren't in desperate situations don't commit crime. However, environment does not explain the differences in behaviour between men and women even slightly......the fact that many progressives resist this causes much damage and misplaced value judgements in the world.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Dec 17 12.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Indeed, there in lies a very specific problem that relates to sex offences where in the system itself isn't fit 'for purpose' functionally, in delivering the element of the Criminal Justice protocol of protecting the public (and rehabilitation - assuming that those who get away with it, won't come into contact with sex offender therapy programs - such as they are). Its a unique problem, because unlike other offences, such as assault or theft, the impact on those who are victims is far reaching (in a way that most offences against the person or property aren't - and can incur serious need of support services). If Murder had the same kind of conviction rate we see in rape and sex offences, we'd all agree that the justice system was failing in regard to what is probably the most serious offence. However rape probably ranks as the second most serious offence against the person, and it seems that the general consensus is 'well, what can you do, the system is the system'. It's simply that it is hard to prove whether sex is consensual and that many victims prefer not to pursue the matter through the courts. Murder is a bit easier.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Dec 17 1.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's simply that it is hard to prove whether sex is consensual and that many victims prefer not to pursue the matter through the courts. Murder is a bit easier. I don't blame them, the experience of being cross examined can be pretty grim, and the end result is likely to be two years ending up a ruling for the defendant. Police handling of cases can be patchy, and being processed is itself a grim experience to go through, just after experiencing probably the worst moment of your life. Hardly encouraging people to come forwards. Realistically, I suspect women would be better served through the civil courts and damages, where there is a lower threshold of proof. Of course that still would leave offenders 'out in public'
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Dec 17 1.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Hardly encouraging people to come forwards. Realistically, I suspect women would be better served through the civil courts and damages, where there is a lower threshold of proof. Of course that still would leave offenders 'out in public' So do you support what private American universities have done with 'listen and believe' in terms of rape?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Dec 17 1.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
So do you support what private American universities have done with 'listen and believe' in terms of rape? I don't really know enough about them. I would regard that taking a completely 100% approach to accusations would be foolish. However if Universities were to take action based on a balance of evidence I'd have no problem with that. Only criminal action requires beyond reasonable doubt.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Dec 17 1.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I don't really know enough about them. I would regard that taking a completely 100% approach to accusations would be foolish. However if Universities were to take action based on a balance of evidence I'd have no problem with that. Only criminal action requires beyond reasonable doubt. So throwing kids out of university and ruining them with unproven sexual charges is ok with you? What exactly qualifies as a 'balance of evidence'? Only rich kids have been able to afford taking these universities to court.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Dec 17 2.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
So throwing kids out of university and ruining them with unproven sexual charges is ok with you? What exactly qualifies as a 'balance of evidence'? Only rich kids have been able to afford taking these universities to court. Then obviously you have issues with the removal of legal aid and no rights if you are sacked in the first 2 years of employment, been cases of women who call out their boss for sexual harassment are simply let go...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Dec 17 2.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Then obviously you have issues with the removal of legal aid and no rights if you are sacked in the first 2 years of employment, been cases of women who call out their boss for sexual harassment are simply let go... It's too easy to accuse and to adjust what is sexual harassment to suit. You either have a system where innocent people are more likely to be wrongly convicted or where some guilty parties get away with it. Which do you prefer?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Dec 17 2.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Then obviously you have issues with the removal of legal aid and no rights if you are sacked in the first 2 years of employment, been cases of women who call out their boss for sexual harassment are simply let go... The position isn't related. A university taking a 'listening and believing' approach to accusations and the removal of legal aid are different situations. These universities simply shouldn't be doing this and indeed some of them are stopping due to legal costs from the few rich kids who can take them to court. However, on the question of legal aid.....I've never been a fan of its removal but rather a better review of how its applied. Justice should have a minimum safety net......but once something is given away for free it is always abused. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Dec 2017 2.29pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Dec 17 2.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The position isn't related. A university taking a 'listening and believing' approach to accusations and the removal of legal aid are different situations. These universities simply shouldn't be doing this and indeed some of them are stopping due to legal costs from the few rich kids who can take them to court. However, on the question of legal aid.....I've never been a fan of its removal but rather a better review of how its applied. Justice should have a minimum safety net......but once something is given away for free it is always abused. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Dec 2017 2.29pm) It is related in that those that can afford it get access. That was my point. Creates further divides and treats people as second class citizens.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Dec 17 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
It is related in that those that can afford it get access. That was my point. Creates further divides and treats people as second class citizens. It's a difficult area.....employers shouldn't be forced to continue to employ people they don't want....by the same token people deserve to be treated fairly. Fairly funded arbitration should be available yes. We live in a society with a certain amount of money coming in and a certain level going out. The reality is that the working class can't access the same levels in society that the wealthy can. That will never happen by dint of reality. However, a safely net to ensure that employers can't just abuse employees is fair......how that system is set up should be fair to both sides.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.