Ross on Crime. Originally written by the late David Ross QC and now updated by Professor Mirko Bagaric, it is a staple for practitioners and students across Australia.
In the context of the book and the broader work of Mirko Bagaric (who is a vocal advocate on sentencing reform), the reasons women serve less time than men in the Australian system are broken down into three primary legal and pragmatic pillars:
1. The Principle of “Equitable” vs. “Equal” Treatment
Ross and Bagaric often argue that “equal” treatment (the same sentence for the same crime) does not always lead to a “fair” outcome.
Greater Hardship: The book suggests that imprisonment often has a more severe impact on women than men. This includes higher rates of mental health issues, a greater likelihood of having been victims of prior sexual or physical abuse, and the specific physical/biological toll (such as the impact on the right to procreate if imprisoned during certain years).
The Goal: To achieve an equitable impact, the sentence must be adjusted so the “pain” of the punishment is felt equally, which often justifies a shorter duration for women.
2. Primary Caregiver Status and Social Utility
Under Australian sentencing law (and highlighted in Ross on Crime), the role of the offender in the lives of dependents is a critical factor.
Collateral Damage: Because women are statistically more likely to be the primary or sole caregivers for children, sentencing them to prison is seen as a “double punishment” that unfairly penalizes innocent children.
Judicial Discretion: Judges utilize “mercy” or consider the “hardship to others” as a mitigating factor more frequently in cases involving female offenders to prevent the total breakdown of the family unit.
3. Recidivism and Risk Profiles
The text notes that the “protective” nature of the community is a core goal of sentencing.
Lower Risk: Statistical evidence frequently cited in the book shows that women re-offend at significantly lower rates than men and are rarely involved in “heinous” or gratuitously violent offenses.
Rehabilitation Potential: Because women are often seen as more responsive to rehabilitation and less of a future threat to public safety, the legal system leans toward community-based orders or shorter custodial terms rather than “incapacitation” (long prison stays).
Edit I removed the summary as it wasn’t from the book.
Until this view changes I can’t see anything different happening on this subject sadly.
Weak-Fly-6540 on
“On Friday, the Probation Service recommended to the court that Sweeney receive a high-level community order with support from mental health teams, after a psychiatric evaluation stressed she had been suffering from untreated complex post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse.”
In mitigation, “She understands that if she breaches that, it will land her back in this court. If the court were minded to follow the recommendation in the report, what could then happen, if there is a breach, is that the court would not have its hands tied.”
She could end up back in prison if she breaches it.
fordesc16883 on
Yeah if she was ugly, foreign or a man we just know this one would be handled differently.
caeseron on
Would be 5 years in jail or more if the genders were reversed.
Equality is a one way street for feminists.
circleribbey on
Fun fact: it is the policy of the Green Party and a suggested policy of the Labour Party to reduce or even abolish jail terms for women (and only women)
Though it does often feel like this is the case already
Catherine_S1234 on
This is the type of gender discrimination that keeps people like Andrew Tate in the spotlight
Silencer-1995 on
Eh I dunno, sorta feels like if she was a man… oh wait didn’t we have a crazy guy literally murder 3 people last year even though he’d spent the weeks leading up to it doing all kinds of sketchy shit?
I think sometimes you just roll the dice and if it lands on 1 you release a dangerous person back into the wild for lols.
ForwardTourist6079 on
Feminists: We Demand Equality! (But not for prison sentences)
frappefanatic on
That’s so typical. I bet if it was the other way round he’d be given a life sentence.
Comfortable_Love7967 on
She’s a nice girl, just gets a bit stabbed when she’s drunk
reallycoolguylolhaha on
Looking at the article unfortunately seems it was the jury at fault here. They found her not guilty of the more serious offence and chose to find her guilty on the alternative lesser offence which comes with a much lighter sentence. No idea why they would do that but having worked around jurors before it doesn’t surprise me, some of the most boneheaded decisions I’ve ever seen in some cases
Humble_Pay_6380 on
No wonder society is collapsing. Can you imagine the punishment for something like this 150 years ago? I’m a pretty progressive person, but when it comes to people who behave so incredibly out of line, I think society has almost lost the plot…
Meanwhile, protesters get years of real jail time instead of having it suspended.
It’s just our system being backwards for some reason. A slap on the wrist for violent thugs, regardless of who they are, and a big sentence for people who are an annoyance at worst.
Vivid_Employment8635 on
How the hell is that not attempted murder and why on earth isn’t she in prison?!
17 commenti
So he was so ill he was airlifted to hospital. Stabbed deeply enough that it punctured his lung and he needed to have his spleen removed.
Suspended sentence. Righttt…
“Woman spared jail” ofc she was.
Remember this one?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-41389520
Ross on Crime. Originally written by the late David Ross QC and now updated by Professor Mirko Bagaric, it is a staple for practitioners and students across Australia.
In the context of the book and the broader work of Mirko Bagaric (who is a vocal advocate on sentencing reform), the reasons women serve less time than men in the Australian system are broken down into three primary legal and pragmatic pillars:
1. The Principle of “Equitable” vs. “Equal” Treatment
Ross and Bagaric often argue that “equal” treatment (the same sentence for the same crime) does not always lead to a “fair” outcome.
Greater Hardship: The book suggests that imprisonment often has a more severe impact on women than men. This includes higher rates of mental health issues, a greater likelihood of having been victims of prior sexual or physical abuse, and the specific physical/biological toll (such as the impact on the right to procreate if imprisoned during certain years).
The Goal: To achieve an equitable impact, the sentence must be adjusted so the “pain” of the punishment is felt equally, which often justifies a shorter duration for women.
2. Primary Caregiver Status and Social Utility
Under Australian sentencing law (and highlighted in Ross on Crime), the role of the offender in the lives of dependents is a critical factor.
Collateral Damage: Because women are statistically more likely to be the primary or sole caregivers for children, sentencing them to prison is seen as a “double punishment” that unfairly penalizes innocent children.
Judicial Discretion: Judges utilize “mercy” or consider the “hardship to others” as a mitigating factor more frequently in cases involving female offenders to prevent the total breakdown of the family unit.
3. Recidivism and Risk Profiles
The text notes that the “protective” nature of the community is a core goal of sentencing.
Lower Risk: Statistical evidence frequently cited in the book shows that women re-offend at significantly lower rates than men and are rarely involved in “heinous” or gratuitously violent offenses.
Rehabilitation Potential: Because women are often seen as more responsive to rehabilitation and less of a future threat to public safety, the legal system leans toward community-based orders or shorter custodial terms rather than “incapacitation” (long prison stays).
Edit I removed the summary as it wasn’t from the book.
Until this view changes I can’t see anything different happening on this subject sadly.
“On Friday, the Probation Service recommended to the court that Sweeney receive a high-level community order with support from mental health teams, after a psychiatric evaluation stressed she had been suffering from untreated complex post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse.”
In mitigation, “She understands that if she breaches that, it will land her back in this court. If the court were minded to follow the recommendation in the report, what could then happen, if there is a breach, is that the court would not have its hands tied.”
She could end up back in prison if she breaches it.
Yeah if she was ugly, foreign or a man we just know this one would be handled differently.
Would be 5 years in jail or more if the genders were reversed.
Equality is a one way street for feminists.
Fun fact: it is the policy of the Green Party and a suggested policy of the Labour Party to reduce or even abolish jail terms for women (and only women)
Though it does often feel like this is the case already
This is the type of gender discrimination that keeps people like Andrew Tate in the spotlight
Eh I dunno, sorta feels like if she was a man… oh wait didn’t we have a crazy guy literally murder 3 people last year even though he’d spent the weeks leading up to it doing all kinds of sketchy shit?
I think sometimes you just roll the dice and if it lands on 1 you release a dangerous person back into the wild for lols.
Feminists: We Demand Equality! (But not for prison sentences)
That’s so typical. I bet if it was the other way round he’d be given a life sentence.
She’s a nice girl, just gets a bit stabbed when she’s drunk
Looking at the article unfortunately seems it was the jury at fault here. They found her not guilty of the more serious offence and chose to find her guilty on the alternative lesser offence which comes with a much lighter sentence. No idea why they would do that but having worked around jurors before it doesn’t surprise me, some of the most boneheaded decisions I’ve ever seen in some cases
No wonder society is collapsing. Can you imagine the punishment for something like this 150 years ago? I’m a pretty progressive person, but when it comes to people who behave so incredibly out of line, I think society has almost lost the plot…
*”I bet if she was a man!!!”* **No.**
The courts aren’t lenient just because she’s a woman. Every violent offender seems to be spared jail by our courts, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen [news of](https://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/25944711.weston-man-handed-suspended-sentence-sexual-assault/) some [violent](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkl87m3j4do) people [who are](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2jg1zv50zo) clear [dangers to the public](https://metro.co.uk/2024/01/30/man-beat-gig-goer-glare-bald-head-spoiling-view-20193077/) and who [deserve to actually GO to prison](https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/man-29-handed-suspended-sentence-following-attack-on-partner-in-northampton-home-3820731) being given suspended sentences.
Meanwhile, protesters get years of real jail time instead of having it suspended.
It’s just our system being backwards for some reason. A slap on the wrist for violent thugs, regardless of who they are, and a big sentence for people who are an annoyance at worst.
How the hell is that not attempted murder and why on earth isn’t she in prison?!
Flip the Sexes.
If the result isn’t the same.
Why, if not sexism?