ForumsWEPRSexual discrimination in sentencing in the US?

28 8124
gnosiphile
offline
gnosiphile
58 posts
Nomad

Has anyone else noticed that men who get involved in underage girls tend to get stiff (pardon the pun) sentences, including multiple years in jail and sex offender registration, while women who get involved in underage boys tend to get a relative slap on the wrist and an admonishment not to do it again?

I don't have statistics on hand to prove my point, and I suppose it's possible (though I doubt it) that I'm counting the hits and not the misses. It just seems as though every time I see an adult/teenager story, when the adult is male he gets five years and more, while women get a year or two plus probation.

  • 28 Replies
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Well I found a case for you!

Anyway, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system, forcible **** is 'the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.' To the FBI, the carnal knowledge of a male forcibly and against his will is considered a different (and lesser) crime: 'assault.'

So you know, women can never be charged for ''****''. Of course the incidents of women raping men is fairly rare, and much less common than the other way round, the law does discriminate in the event it does occur. Which is unfair after all.

gnosiphile
offline
gnosiphile
58 posts
Nomad

Well, I wasn't even thinking about anything forcible. I'm talking about adults having relations with sexually active yet still under 18 "children". I'm not advocating such relationships, mind you, it just seems to me that this is one of those cases where the law fails to provide equal protection.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Well, I wasn't even thinking about anything forcible.


Might as well talk about everything related since it's a broad discussion.

I'm talking about adults having relations with sexually active yet still under 18 "children". I'm not advocating such relationships, mind you, it just seems to me that this is one of those cases where the law fails to provide equal protection.


Well I'm not really sure about the USA, so barring the topic, I've only known one or two well known cases of an older female engaging in sexual activity with a minor. Both got royally screwed by the law, so to speak. I don't think there was sexist treatment.

But I don't know. There's no smoke without at least a flame, so if you even have such a notion, there must be a cause for it.
deathbewithyou
offline
deathbewithyou
534 posts
Nomad

One time a bunch of RAs (Royal Ambassadors) were given tickets for free pizza for certain pizza place. All these kids go there only to get ***** by a man. For those of you who don't know who RAs are, they are young christian men (little kids) for the sort explaination.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

One time a bunch of RAs (Royal Ambassadors) were given tickets for free pizza for certain pizza place. All these kids go there only to get ***** by a man. For those of you who don't know who RAs are, they are young christian men (little kids) for the sort explaination.


Pray tell us, how does this show sexual discrimination? Read the OP before posting.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I've only known one or two well known cases of an older female engaging in sexual activity with a minor.


I've only known one or two well known cases of an older female engaging in sexual activity with a minor, from where I come from.*

Missed out a few words.
gnosiphile
offline
gnosiphile
58 posts
Nomad

For the record, I'm quite certain there are separate standards for anything that could be considered a forcible sexual encounter. A local university I attended had a sign on a student bulletin board warning about the dangers of sex while drunk. Not that there was an increased risk of pregnancy or transmission of disease, though. The risk that they warned of was, if a male and a female get drunk together and then have sex, under the law he ***** her because she didn't have the mental capacity in her diminished state to consent to the encounter. My argument with the administration was that, if she can't consent, then neither can he, and didn't she **** him just as much as he ***** her? After nearly a year, they removed the sign, though I'm fairly certain that the law still reads the same way it always did.

There's no smoke without at least a flame, so if you even have such a notion, there must be a cause for it.

While I appreciate your confidence in my observational skills, that's actually why I threw the topic up here. There can indeed be smoke without flame. There's a "news" channel here in the States that weeps about the &quotersecution" of the majority whenever they fail to force their own viewpoint into law. This channel has made an industry of creating smoke with no flame. The cause in this instance might be my own prejudices, though my awareness of the possibility makes that, I hope, less likely.

As far as the number of cases, in the last few years there have been adult/teen relations discovered with fair regularity. Usually it's a school teacher and a student, though it's not always one of the teacher's own students. In less common cases, it's an instructor of some kind (martial arts, tap dance, etc) or a parent with a child the same age as the victim. At a guess, it averages out to one nationally exposed story every two or three weeks.

In the same vein as the rest of this, it also seems to me that when it is a woman who fooled around with a boy, the more attractive the woman is the lighter her sentence is. While I would hazard that this trend is less pronounced (and harder to gauge) than the male/female sentencing dichotomy, it nevertheless seems to be a fact.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

After nearly a year, they removed the sign, though I'm fairly certain that the law still reads the same way it always did.


I read somewhere, some time ago that the law does see it that way, and it's biased against males. I can't find it for the life of me.

There's a "news" channel here in the States that weeps about the &quotersecution" of the majority whenever they fail to force their own viewpoint into law. This channel has made an industry of creating smoke with no flame. The cause in this instance might be my own prejudices, though my awareness of the possibility makes that, I hope, less likely


Fox? Either way, you've shown your fire.

So, is it time for a maleist movement?
jroyster22
offline
jroyster22
755 posts
Peasant

In lamen terms, this is the way American culture works.

gnosiphile
offline
gnosiphile
58 posts
Nomad

In lamen terms, this is the way American culture works.


Calling discrimination "culture" doesn't make it okay. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean that it should continue in that manner. Up until a century ago, women couldn't vote, and in layman's terms that was the way American culture worked.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Okay so let's grant for a moment that the justice system does in fact punish males to a higher degree than females in cases of ****. Is there another explanation for why this is, other than the sex of the offender?
Looking at the crime itself and the damage (both long and short term) done to the victim, it does seem that females can physically suffer more than males. Tearing and tissue damage, plus the risk of pregnancy is something that is unique to cases of female victims. Can this alone account for the discriminatory practices?

dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

Looking at the crime itself and the damage (both long and short term) done to the victim, it does seem that females can physically suffer more than males. Tearing and tissue damage, plus the risk of pregnancy is something that is unique to cases of female victims. Can this alone account for the discriminatory practices?


I would say yes in the case that it is proved that the damage has been done. Ifpp someone ***** a man and caused more damage then another women who was *****, then this man should be judged harsher. So what I mean is that the same rule should apply to men to stop it from being unfair to men. If a female rapist gives the man tissue damage or a cut on his penis, then this female rapist deserves the same punishment as a male rapist who gave a girl a cut in her vagina.
gnosiphile
offline
gnosiphile
58 posts
Nomad

No offense, but you folks seem to be missing the point of my question. I'm not talking about anything forcible or non-consentual. There are already (I mentioned) different standards applied to men and women for non-consentual acts.

But is there a different standard being applied for consentual acts with a minor depending on the sex of the adult involved?

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

But is there a different standard being applied for consentual acts with a minor


These acts aren't consensual according to U.S. law because a minor is incapable of legal consent.
But I see your point - it's not forcible in the relevant sense.
In the case of statutory ****, though, couldn't the consequentialist argument still have force? After all, the physical harm (both actual and potential) would still be greater in a consenting female victim than a male.
Of course, I'm no legal theorist, and this may not at all be a consideration that is made when determining punishment. But at the very least it seems plausible that the gender of the victim is a salient feature of the crime.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

In the case of statutory ****, though, couldn't the consequentialist argument still have force? After all, the physical harm (both actual and potential) would still be greater in a consenting female victim than a male.


Well, what if the female suffers no consequences then? If she turns out all fine and bright? I don't think it would be fair to then sentence the male to a stricter sentence.
Showing 1-15 of 28