- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,953
- Reaction score
- 1,475
the last i saw of Allitt,she had lost about 100lbs and was into clam noshing.
Pics ? .
the last i saw of Allitt,she had lost about 100lbs and was into clam noshing.
which you now i can't supply, cause you're not allowed your phone in maximum secure.Pics ? .
Neither really. Just stating that your comments about crazy bitches, combined with your AV of a super crazy bitch go well together.not sure if i'm being insulted or complimented.
which you now i can't supply, cause you're not allowed your phone in maximum secure.
It is already like this.
If you're a criminal defendant, it may help—a lot—to be a woman. At least, that's what Prof. Sonja Starr's research on federal criminal cases suggests. Prof. Starr's recent paper, "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases," looks closely at a large dataset of federal cases, and reveals some significant findings. After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
I don't think I agree with the motivations of this program, but I support it big time.Seems like a cost cutting measure, although aside from the comparative lack of violent women offenders I don't see a reason to make it a gender based policy.
If you're going to introduce "home detention", low security prisons or similar policy for misdemeanors, it should just be a blanket approach.