Man, Woman Commit Same Crime--She Gets 6 Months, He Gets 20 Years
January 21st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
It can be problematic to compare sentences in different cases, particularly if the jurisdictions and/or laws are different or if plea bargains are involved. Still, it is sometimes of use, such as in discussing the sentencing disparities between whites and blacks and the sentencing disparities between men and women.
Jack, a reader, sent me the two articles linked below. In one, a woman caretaker scalded a boy (pictured) with bathwater.
His toes may need to be amputated, he may not be able to procreate, and he has severely infected, oozing wounds. Prosecutors say that after scalding the boy, the caretaker forced him to do chores, even though he had first and second-degree burns. She didn't take him to the hospital for several days. Her sentence? Six months.
In the second article, a man did the same thing to his live-in girlfriends' son (minus the chores and with taking him to the hospital hours later instead of days)--and got 20 years.
The story about the woman--and an interview with the boy she victimized--is here.
The story about the man is here.
"));
19 queries. 0.390 seconds.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Ah yes, the lovely prison gender gap.
I believe this sexist disparity is due to two cultural forces:
1). Chivalry (a tendency for men to treat women with kid gloves). Perhaps chivalry is a natural byproduce of female sex-power.
2). Cultural perceptions of women as "sugar and spice" (i.e., women are morally superior to men). Make mommy proud!
It is bad enough that over 90% of prisoners are men................but to think that women are treated less severely for the same crime just makes me cringe that much more!
Masculist XY
January 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Women sure do have it tough in our sexist society. They must be so offended when cruel, vicious, violent women are given kid glove treatment by the legal system, thereby casting all women into the role of children -- persons less than fully adult and so not responsible for their conduct. I am sure the feminists are readying a public-awareness campaign to bring attention to this infantilization of women which will keep them from ever earning the respect of men as equals, right? Right? (Note to self(ish): never insist on equality if it may cost me something, rather than give me something. Insist that the coin has only one side. Yeah, that's it!)
January 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
We see this so much that it really is not surprising. She went into court crying and saying how sorry she was and blah blah blah blah.
He was was screwed from Jump street. Im willing to be to bet the judge the already had a good idea of what the sentancing was going to be when the man was brought into the courtroom.
The gender gap in sentancing is almost as major of an issue as Paternity fraud, child support and visitation rolled up into one. NO ONE wants to touch this because of the strong hold that the feminists have on the courts and anything political having to do with reform.
If we started seeing women sentanced and held to the SAME standards that men are we would see the feminists crying in agony over the unfairness of sentancing a poor women who after all MUST have done this crime at the behest or to gain the favor of a man so hes really to blame.
Its sickening.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I am going to look at the facts of the two cases and show that they are not comparable:
Woman: There was no mention of any previous record for her. The burns were listed as third degree burns. All comments about amputation or procreation are conjecture from a non-physician. From the definition of first or second degree burn, such complications seem unreasonable.
Man: Had a previous felony conviction for burgulary. The burns were listed as first and second degree.
From Wiki:
First-degree burns are usually limited to redness (erythema), a white plaque, and minor pain at the site of injury. These burns usually extend only into the epidermis.
Second-degree burns additionally fill with clear fluid, have superficial blistering of the skin, and can involve more or less pain depending on the level of nerve involvement. Second-degree burns involve the superficial (papillary) dermis and may also involve the deep (reticular) dermis layer.
Third-degree burns are which most of the epidermis is lost. They additionally have charring of the skin, and sometimes produce hard eshcars. An eschar is a scab that has separated from the unaffected part of the body. These types of burns are often considered painless, because nerve endings have been destroyed in the burned areas. However, there is in reality a significant amount of pain involved in a third degree burn. Hair follicles and sweat glands may also be lost. Third degree burns result in scarring elastic banding of the skin can smooth the scarred skin. Third degree burns over large surface areas are often fatal.
My conclusion: The man's severe sentence resulted from 2 things: his prior record, and the damage done: third degree.
With regards to other sentencing issues, I agree that sex does appear to play a dominant factor, but remember that we want the punishment to fit the crime. Third degree burns are BAD!
January 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
20 years to six months!!
That's a ratio of 40:1.
I'm glad the average gap isn't as high as this. Although I understand it's somewhere around 2:1, an unacceptable standard.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
they should have BOTH been hung - we just had a deal a month or so ago in Phoenix where some white trash witch actually killed a child by forcing her to take scalding hot baths - I believe the girl was 9 or so - and the other sibling was 6 or so - and after the girlfriend killed the 9 year old the FATHER allowed the child to stay dead in the closet - I can only hope that some inmates take care of both of them before they have the chance to go to trial. The ONLY reason the father reported the girl dead was because it became obvious with the smell.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Stephen, a good point about the burns. However it also fails to take into account the fact that she waited days before allowing him to get treatment, he waited hours until his girlfriend arrived.
The context of the woman's scalding suggests it was a punishment, he was forced to do chores, an act of sadism.
However the context of the man's scalding, he dipped the baby into a bathtub, suggests more general incompetence and stupidity. Also, the burns were only on the feet and shins, suggesting he pulled the child out immediately, rather than placing the child in the bath as an act of malice or punishment.
Although the man should definately be punished for his crime, it seems more like an accident to me, whereas the women was being sadistic, and was not punished adequately for it.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Feminists are correct. There are inequalities between how men and women are treated.
Yet even if the government did sentence men and women equally, the jailer would release all the female prisoners anyway (recall Wisconsin’s La Crosse County Board approved the release of all the woman last month).
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2007/12/21/news/z01jail21.txt
I have a better understanding of why men in America change their sex to woman.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Lol Mark I don't think many men choose to become women because of the sentencing disparity they would receive were they to commit a crime!
Although it may be due to women being treated better by everyone...
January 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Callum said:
"Lol Mark I don't think many men choose to become women because of the sentencing disparity they would receive were they to commit a crime!
Although it may be due to women being treated better by everyone..."
I am not afraid to admit that there are times when I am very envious of the privileges women hold in society. Once in a while I feel trapped as a male. I don't want a sex change anytime soon, but sometimes being a guy really sucks lol!
January 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
@Stephen
Your post is self-contradictory. First you say the woman caused the more severe burns, then the man.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Callum: I searched both stories for clues as to intent and found only that on the woman's story she said there had been problems with the water heater, so she added boiling water. Since this is not physical evidence, and since no one reportedly checked the water heater, for our purpose, we have to ignore the claim. I agree that having the boy do chores while that injured does show malice, but we do not know the extent of the chores. Also, we do not know how visible the burn damage was. Reddening does not show as readily on very dark skin. With the man, no mention of motive was included. I agree that if the child suffered 3rd degree burns, and they were only on the feet and shins, then he pulled the child back out after the poor child cried. This shows lack of intent to seriously harm.
I am uncertain how reporting affects the issue. In the case of third degree burns, more immediate attention is normally required. For second degree burns, I do not normally go to the hospital, but then I know first aid and a long active life means I know how to keep blisters from becoming infected. So, it seems the mom thought that she could treat the child but when infection set in, went to the hospital. I am unclear how this is any more than dumbshit, on both sides, but then we only have a news report.
To me, the sentencing and process associated with domestic violence and rape as compared to women murdering men is the biggy discrepancy, and the one we can really focus on. We need objective damage assessments to clarify how severe 'date rape' is relative to murder. This is exactly the area where the feminist hate lobby at feministing.com do not want rational analysis. They seem to want to be allowed to murder or maim men with the excuse that they were 'afraid' without any corroborating evidence.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Foo: oops you are correct. The reason is that the story on the woman contradicts itself and since I could not initially remember the definition of burn degree, i looked it up after reading.
So, the claim of third degree burns is from the boy's grandfather, a non-physician. The prosecutors report first and second degree burns. I have to believe the prosecutors, who will use the evidence from the medical reports.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Stephen M Weiss is partially correct - however he does not go far enough in the analysis.
1. The man is a convicted felon (burglary - 1999.) No mention of other misdemeanors in the interim, but would have been taken into consideration at the sentencing.
2. The man was charged with two felony offenses - 1st degree assault and endangering a child.
3. The man went to trial - either presumably because unable to obtain what he thought was a good plea bargain or because he believed that he was innocent of the charges. Going to trial carries with it certain risks - one of which is that a jury that heard the evidence of the case is able to make sentencing recommendations.
4. The woman plea bargained and was only charged with one felony - assault. No charges for endangering a child.
5. The law allows only for sentencing of the charge that the individual plead guilty to - not events or circumstances that involve another charge that has been dropped.
6. In a plea bargain, the prosecutor typically offers a set sentence to be served, which the judge typically will accept in passing judgment (sentencing). No mention of what the prosecution asked for - only a statement about what the "sentencing guidelines" would SUGGEST for a sentence. Those guidelines ARE NOT written in stone.
7. The woman had no criminal convictions. She is portrayed as being an otherwise "law abiding citizen." As a result, the odds of her re-offending again are lower than that of the man.
Essentially - the differences between the two cases is remarkable. It is difficult to compare them equally. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
IF both cases had been before the SAME judge and the charges had been the SAME - and there had been a significant difference in the sentences, then there would be a prima facie case to argue that the woman received preferential treatment.
To argue that the man has been victimized is ludicrous given that the basic facts are in disparity (trial vs. guilty plea, backgrounds of defendants, etc.).
In reality - my personal opinion would be that the woman should have received more time. But, standing on the sidelines and knowing only what has been written, I really have no idea of what would be appropriate. No one else posting here does either.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
Glenn, could you have a professional comment on why it is that even male judges, social workers, and psychiatrists take positions that are unfair to men?
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Stephen,
I'd have to disagree with your analysis of the burns of the two victims. In the article about the man, it was determined that the boy had burns on over 10% of his body (from his feet to his lower legs). Using the Lund-Browder scale (a widely acceptable scale for determining the extent of burn wounds), that would certainly seem an appropriate estimation. Using the observations of the Gwen Ray, the mechanism of injury, and the Lund-Browder scale, I would estimate the victim's burns to be over 35% of the body (keep in mind that this is just an educated guess).
Now, I don't think it is appropriate to compare degrees of burns. Having second-degree burns on over 40% of my body, I can tell you that they are some of the worst pain that you can ever have (there is a reason why people tell you not to drink alone while on a private beach). Topical salves and pain medications are often times ineffective in alleviating pain. Third-degree burns, while mostly painless by themselves, often come with first-degree and second-degree burns on the out edges of the burn area, depending on how the burn occurred (wet burns "behave" differently than dry burns and are treated differently). Where I think the burns can be comparable is in the extent of the burn over the body. When you have a larger affected area it becomes more difficult to treat the burn. Third-degree burns covering 10% of a body, while being more painful compared to burns of a lesser degree on the same scale, would not be as painful on the whole as slightly or even moderately lesser degree burns on a much larger scale (I would consider almost burns that cover almost 4 times the area of a body to be on a much larger scale).
There is more to consider when talking about these burns. In the case of the woman, the boy was pushed into the tub and was, again according to the co-parent, burned up to his waist. This is brings into play an entirely different range of injuries. When you are immersed in scalding water up to your waist, you are at risk of permanently damaging or destroying the tissue in your penis as well as severely damaging your colon. Severe injuries of those types are on a level far exceeding tissue damage of a limb. As the boy's grandfather noted, this boy may never be able to procreate. He may also never be able to have sex and may have psychological problems later on as a result.
Also, to argue that burns are less visible on darker skin as a reason for the woman's lack of concern is also not entirely accurate. Slight to moderate first-degree burns might not be very visible on dark skin. Anything more than that would, after more than a couple of hours, become very visible. Wet burns tend to blister and puss and are visibly moist (up to the point that they become too severe (third-degree and beyond). I find it very, very hard to believe that a person living with a child would not notice this. If they did not notice this, it would further the argument that they should be tried for child neglect at a minimum and have all children removed from their home.
As for your and Doc's analysis of the other factors at play in these cases, I'd say that you guys are, for the most part, correct. Here is some more information:
- Shamia Lawson -
1. The boy was in her care because the biological mother had asked her to care for him while she dealt with a drug addiction. He is now back with his biological mother.
2. After she shoved him into the tub of scalding water, she threatened to beat him with a belt if he got out.
3. When the boy complained about the blisters on his feet when she asked him to clean the kitchen (which shows how little time it took for the blisters to form), her response was "So what."
4. To the surprise of many people, she has a degree in criminal justice. That's right. Criminal justice. This makes the fact that she lied to hospital workers and police even more incredulous.
5. The prosecuting attorney did not give sentencing recommendations. Instead, she left the decision to the judge and claimed that she was surprised when the judge vacated most of the sentence.
[Taken from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.md.ci.abuse15jan15,0,7280598,full.story]
- Michael Duhs -
1. He was convicted of burglary in 1991. He returned to prison in 2002 as a result of a parole violation stemming from a drug charge and was paroled in less than a year. He was arrested in 2003 again on unspecified charges, went back to jail, and was paroled again in 2004. Just out of curiosity, why isn't knowingly exposing children to habitual criminals child endangerment?
[Taken from http://blog.silive.com/advanceupdate/2007/06/sentencing_for_si_man_charged.html]
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Good Job Doc and Justin,
This type of analysis would never be done on a feminist web blog. I feel that if we have the attention of fair and critical thinkers such as yourselves, we are doing something right here!
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 am
I read alot of articles and have been a long time reciever of Glen's e-mails, as well as a single part time Dad for almost 9 years. What I see in Public is a very 2 sided approach to almost every aspect of men or women. If I remember History class, there was alot of talk about equal rights, whether it be race, religion, or sex. We all fought to be treated equally. Women wanted to vote, hold certain jobs, be able to have there voice heard, etc..... but when something happens all of the sudden they want ot be pampered or that they should be allowed to have a lesser punishment. I blame this on society in general, no I am not a hater or have a personal dislike of anyone, I just want to see equall treatment for everyone. Society has always put women on some higher level, why? Because they ask for it , because they deserve it , because if we don't then they through some kind of temper tantrem and find some other way to get there way. Now I'm not say we should start saying no all the time, just that society needs to learn to be truly equal in every way, whata world that would be if every person was truly treated as an equal.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Cullum and Stephen both make good efforts at understanding the story. I would add that it is not likely that either one of the peo;ple who committed these acts could have predicted the DEGREE of harm that would occure. I think that the presentation of these stories, without sufficent facts, is in it's self a crime to stir up the choir. I do, however, believe that women are given the kid glove treatment in our courts.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
[...] Glenn Sacks Blog Post a comment | Trackback [...]
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
This is actual cut and paste from local murder/suicide from last week on the central coast of California, San Simeon:
"Mom found dead in ocean with daughter apparently fled over custody ruling. Police rule it a Murder/Suicide. Marcia Harrigan 43, killed Gillian Goldman, 7 in order to keep the child's father from getting custody. A judge had ruled in an emergency hearing that Harrigan should immediately turn over custody of the child to her ex, Glenn Goldman.
Autopsy shows woman drowned daughter before killing herself in ocean near San Simeon."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's gets even worse. Below is an actual cut and paste of a reader comment on this horrible tragedy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know the people from the story but I am glad that little girl is safe now."
Posted by: Pink
1/15/2008 11:31 PM
http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=kr-slotm&tid=4058
or
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/breakingnews/story/249460.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right bloggers. This person thinks a child is safe if she's been murdered by her mother instead of being alive with her father.
Tragic.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Unfortunately, the disparity in punishment of male and female criminals is all too common. While we can't necessarily do anything about it in the near term, at least we can talk about it and raise the public's conscienceness about it. Most people never even think about it. What we really need are laws that say that the state will not discriminate in its prosecutions on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.