Edited for clarification. Nice find Feckless.
Old but gold....NUMBERS!!!
Males Get Longer Sentences than Females for Same Crime
Originally printed in: Los Angeles Daily Journal, August 1, 2001
Author: Marc Angelucci, Angelucci2000@alumni.law.ucla.edu.
When Etta Ann Urdiales was murdered in Colorado, two completely different juries convicted two different people of the crime. Both juries believed there was only one murderer. One convicted Bobbie Hogan, a woman. The other convicted Jess Jacobs, a man. She got 10 years in prison. He was put to death. This case is just one example of the discrimination men face in criminal courts throughout the United States.
According to Pradeep Ramanathan, vice president of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), a volunteer, non-profit organization that has explored and addressed men's issues since 1976, "All the research clearly demonstrates that gender is the most significant biasing factor in determining whether or not someone will be charged, prosecuted, indicted and sentenced, as well as determining the severity of the sentence."
And Ramanathan is right. Department of Justice figures show that being male increases a murderer's chance of receiving a death sentence by more than 20 times. And the data repeatedly confirms that men receive higher sentences than women for the exact same crime. One study, published in Justice Quarterly in 1986, examined 181,197 felonies in California and found that, for the same crime, being male increased the chance of incarceration by 165 percent. Being black, in comparison, increased the chance of incarceration by 19 percent.
Another study, published in Crime & Delinquency in 1989, examined non-accomplice crimes and factored together the number of charges, convicted offenses, prior felony convictions, as well as the race, age, work history and family situation of the accused and found that "gender differences, favoring women, are more often found than race differences, favoring whites."
In yet another study, published in the International Journal of the Sociology of Law, researchers Mathew Zingraff and Randall Thomson found that being male increases sentence lengths more than any other discriminatory variable.
The bias applies to victims as well as the accused. When Edward Glaeser of Harvard University and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth College examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they found that killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6 percent. Killing a white instead of a black, in comparison, increased sentences by 26.8 percent.
Even when the exact same type of crime is accounted for, the disparities still persist. For example, a drunk driver who kills a black male receives an average sentence of two years. A drunk driver who kills a white male, four years. A drunk driver who kills a white female, six years.
To those who recognize the problem, gender stereotypes are a major culprit. In a 1991 NCFM report titled "Gender and Injustice," researchers John Ryan and Ian Wilson suggest the problem stems from stereotypes about women being more innocent, more reformable and less dangerous than men. Barbara Swartz, former Director of New York's Women's Prison Project, called it the "chivalry factor" and says, "If there were more women judges, more women would go to jail."
Others attribute the problem to the devaluing of male lives. But addressing the causes does little good when the public does not even recognize the problem. One reason that we don't is that the task forces that we appoint to investigate the problem are just as biased as the legal system that they are supposed to monitor, so a full picture of the bias never gets drawn.
In 1980, the National Organization for Women and the National Association of Women Judges formed the National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts (NJEP). In 1986, they wrote "Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual for Action," which became the manual used by gender bias task forces nationwide. The manual opens by stating that gender bias operates more frequently against women and that it is not a contradiction for task forces to focus primarily on bias against women in courts.
As one might guess, this is exactly what the task forces do. "None of (the commissions) study bias against men," said Ramanathan.
For example, even though men are more likely to get prison and women to get probation for the same crime, a New York task force claimed that it is women who were discriminated against because - get this - they receive longer probation periods. One commission recently justified giving women shorter sentences because women are often custodial parents. But the sentencing disparities persisted in the above studies that took family situations are accounted for. So even if custodial parenthood justifies a shorter sentence, courts are giving men longer sentences than women even when neither (or both) are custodial parents. Needless to say, when a father commits a crime, the courts have no trouble calling him an unfit parent and removing him from his kids.
The gender bias in our courts and in our gender bias task forces is not just an injustice to the victims; it is a tragic betrayal of public trust. In fact, as embarrassing as it sounds, we may need to create task forces to investigate the gender bias of the task forces that we created to investigate gender bias in the first place. ---
Last edited by Tyrael; 1st-April-2009 at 11:26 AM. Reason: Added ling, fixed post paragraphs
Disclaimer:The men's and fathers' movement needs to make sure it never sees females as the enemy,but only misandry--whether from females or from males.If not, we'll become like the bigoted feminists that this movement was formed to oppose.Glenn Sacks
Fecks Warcraft File:
Edited for clarification. Nice find Feckless.
~ Support Fathers & Families for Father's Rights and Equal Parenting! Go to fathersandfamilies.org ~
~ Fathers & FamiliesTM improves the lives of children and strengthens society by protecting the child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. ~
~ Feminism = Every bad thing any man has ever committed highlighted and exaggerated; every bit of good systematically undermined, vilified or ignored. ~
~ A man needs a woman like a lion needs a stove. ~
~ Women deserve only equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. ~
~ Men are not collectively "guilty" of anything. ~
~ Never needing to be pregnant is a blessing. ~
~ Feminist ideology “men have to respect women, but women have no reason to respect men” ~
~ Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special treatment because of those choices.
Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at all. ~
I was intrigued by the Etta Ann Urdiales case, so i looked it up and post this link for anyone else who might be interested.
good article feckless.
Thx....(the reputation button is on top in form of a scale )
Disclaimer:The men's and fathers' movement needs to make sure it never sees females as the enemy,but only misandry--whether from females or from males.If not, we'll become like the bigoted feminists that this movement was formed to oppose.Glenn Sacks
Fecks Warcraft File:
I understand that wimins's groups are frantically endeavouring to redress this outrage in sentencing in their striving for equality with the men
--Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.--
Antimisandry now offers it's members personal sub-forums
(click here to register yours)
►A Decade of Investment in YOUR Future. ►AntiMisandry.com
If the rules were simpler then fewer outrages would occur. Since then there would be less room for bias and backroom deals and overlawyering to kick in.
I mean in the same drunk driving violation there is a 3:1 difference in punishment depending on the color of the victim or what is between their legs??!!? This should have nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant.
I think that the big issue with laws is that mostly lawyers run for office and they love making things more complex. We seldom repeal laws and simplify.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
September 1995, NCJ-156831
Spouse Murder Defendants in Large Urban Counties
(Note: This file does not contain graphics or tables. The full report may
be ordered using the title and NCJ number above by calling the BJS
Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277.)
Number of spouse murder defendants
and their demographic characteristics
In 1988 the justice system in the Nation's 75 largest counties disposed of
an estimated 540 spouse murder cases. Husbands charged with killing
their wife outnumbered wives charged with killing their husband. Of the
540, 318--or 59%--were husband defendants and 222--or 41%--were wife
Blacks comprised 55% of the 540 defendants, and whites comprised 43%.
Among husband defendants 51% were black and 45% were white.
Among wife defendants 61% were black and 39% were white. In 97%
of the murders, both spouses were the same race.
Ages of spouse murder defendants ranged from 18 to 87. The average
age was 39. The average age of husband defendants was 41; of wife
defendants, 37 years.
First-degree murder was the most frequent charge at arrest, accounting for
70% of defendants. In descending order of seriousness, charges were
distributed this way across the 540 spouse murder defendants:
70% first-degree murder
24% second-degree murder
6% nonnegligent manslaughter
How the justice system disposed of spouse murder cases
Cases were disposed of in one of three ways:
(1) the prosecutor declined to prosecute; or
(2) the defendant pleaded not guilty, stood trial, and was either acquitted
or convicted; or
(3) the defendant pleaded guilty.
Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 232--or 43%--pleaded guilty to
killing their spouse, and 238--44%--pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
The remaining 70 persons--or 13%--were not prosecuted.
Outcome for spouse murder defendants
who pleaded not guilty and stood trial
Of the 238 who pleaded not guilty, 63% were tried by a jury and the
remaining 37% were tried by a judge. Together, judges and juries
acquitted 16% of the 238 spouse murder defendants and convicted
84%--or 199 persons--of killing their spouse.
Bench trials (trials before a judge) had a higher acquittal rate than jury
trials: 26% of bench trials ended in acquittal, versus 11% of jury trials.
Defendants convicted of killing their spouse
Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 431 (or 80%) were ultimately
convicted of killing their spouse. Their conviction was the result of either
pleading guilty (232 persons) or being convicted at trial (199 persons).
While most persons arrested (70%) for spouse murder were charged with
first-degree murder, most persons convicted (52%) of spouse murder had
negligent or nonnegligent manslaughter as their conviction offense.
Sentences for defendants convicted
of killing their spouse
Of the 431 defendants convicted of killing their spouse, 89% were
sentenced to a State prison, 1% were sentenced to a county jail, and the
remaining 10% received a sentence of straight probation (no prison or jail
An estimated 12% of the 431 convicted spouse murderers received a
sentence to life imprisonment and 1% received the death penalty.
Excluding life and death sentences, the average prison term imposed was
Wife defendants less likely
to be convicted
Wife defendants had a lower conviction rate than husband defendants--
* Of the 222 wife defendants, 70% were convicted of killing their mate.
By contrast, of the 318 husband defendants, 87% were convicted of
* Of the 100 wife defendants tried by either a judge or jury, 31% were
acquitted. But of the 138 husband defendants tried, 6% were acquitted.
* Of the 59 wife defendants tried by a jury, 27% were acquitted. But of
the estimated 91 husband defendants tried by a jury, none was acquitted.
Convicted wife defendants sentenced
An estimated 156 wives and 275 husbands were convicted of killing their
spouse. Convicted wives were less likely than convicted husbands to be
sentenced to prison, and convicted wives received shorter prison sentences
than their male counterparts--
* 81% of convicted wives but 94% of convicted husbands received a
* On average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about
10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death
sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for
wives but 16.5 years for husbands.
* Among wives sentenced to prison, 15% received a sentence of 20 years
or more (including life imprisonment and the death penalty); among
husbands, it was 43%.
Victim provocation more often
present in wife defendant cases
According to information contained in prosecutor files, more wife
defendants (44%) than husband defendants (10%) had been assaulted by
their spouse (threatened with a weapon or physically assaulted) at or
around the time of the murder.
Self-defense as possible explanation
for wives' lower conviction rate
In certain circumstances, extreme victim provocation may justify taking
a life in self-defense. Provocation was more often present in wife
defendant cases, and wife defendants were less likely than husband
defendants to be convicted, suggesting that the relatively
high rate of victim provocation characteristic of wife defendant cases was
one of the reasons wife defendants had a lower conviction rate than
husband defendants. Consistent with that, of the provoked wife
defendants, 56% were convicted, significantly lower than either the 86%
conviction rate for unprovoked wife defendants or the 88% conviction rate
for unprovoked husbands.
No explanation for why State prison sentences
were, on average, 10 years shorter for wife
defendants than husband defendants
Wives received shorter prison sentences than husbands (a 10-year
difference, on average) even when the comparison is restricted to
defendants who were alike in terms of whether or not they were
* The average prison sentence for unprovoked wife defendants was 7
years, or 10 years shorter than the average 17 years for unprovoked
Victim's race unrelated to outcomes
The victim was black in 55% of cases and white in 43%. The likelihood
of a defendant being convicted of spouse murder was about the same
whether the murder victim was white or black. Among spouse murder
defendants whose victim was white, 81% were convicted. Among those
whose victim was black, 79% were convicted.
Likewise, the sentence was unrelated to the victim's race. The likelihood
of a convicted spouse murderer receiving a prison sentence was about the
same whether the murder victim was white or black: the convicted spouse
murderer was sentenced to prison in 93% of cases where the victim was
white, not significantly different from the 87% of cases where the victim
was black. The length of the prison sentence imposed on a convicted
spouse murderer was generally unrelated to whether the murder victim
was white or black--
* For conviction for first-degree murder, the average prison term
(excluding life and death sentences) was 29 years in white-victim cases,
not significantly different from the 32 years in black-victim cases
* For conviction for second-degree murder, the average prison term
(excluding life sentences) was 19 years in white-victim cases, significantly
longer than the 13 years in black-victim cases. However, 23% of
convicted second-degree murder defendants in black-victim cases received
a sentence of life imprisonment, compared to 8% of defendants in
* For conviction for nonnegligent manslaughter, the average prison term
(excluding life sentences) was 8 years in white-victim cases, not
significantly different from the average 6 years in black-victim cases.
Defendant's race unrelated to outcomes
The likelihood of conviction, and of a prison sentence if convicted, and
the length of the prison sentence were about the same whether the spouse
murder defendant was white or black--
* 78% of white defendants were convicted, not significantly different from
the 80% of black defendants.
* Among convicted spouse murderers, 93% of white defendants were
sentenced to prison, not significantly different from the 88% of black
Three measures of processing time were taken from the day of the
murder--to arrest, to indictment, and to final disposition. Most spouse
murder defendants were arrested on the same day the killing occurred.
Average time to indictment was 4 months. Average time to final
disposition was almost exactly 1 year.
For husbands tried by a jury, 12. months was the average elapsed time
from the day of the murder to the conclusion of the jury trial. For wives
tried by a jury it was significantly longer, about 18. months.
This study is based upon a systematic sample of murder cases disposed of
in the 75 most populous counties in 1988. A case was considered
disposed if the prosecutor screened it out, if the defendant pleaded guilty,
or if the defendant went to trial and was either convicted or acquitted.
The 75 are where a little over half of all murders in the Nation occur.
Spouse murder defendants in the sample were drawn from State prosecutor
files in 33 of the 75 counties. The counties were widely scattered, from
Los Angeles and San Diego, Denver and Dallas, to Philadelphia and Dade
County (Miami). For each defendant, data collectors filled out a lengthy
questionnaire and prepared a brief narrative from file information.
Prosecutor files include such items as the police arrest report, investigator
reports, and information on how the case was disposed. Questionnaires
and narratives are the sources of data for this report.
The same database used in this report was previously analyzed by John M.
Dawson and Barbara Boland (Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988, BJS
Special Report, NCJ-140614, May 1993) and by John M. Dawson and
Patrick A. Langan (Murder in Families, BJS Special Report, NCJ-143498,
(END OF FILE)
When in need of a drink to Refresh the soul
Drop into the Knight & Drummer Free House.
Always leave a Comment as a tip.
Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum
Love the Sinner but not the Sin.
“ For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against Powers,
against the Rulers of the Darkness of this world, against Spiritual Wickedness in high places. “
(and within ourselves)
A Feminist is a human being who has lost her way and turned vicious. If you meet one on the road as you
Go your Own Way, offer kindness but keep your sword drawn.
Has anyone here noticed that when a MAN gets sentenced for MURDER, that is what he is sentenced for.
There is a trend over here in NZ that if a woman might kill someone, intentionally, it is almost always "down-graded" to MAN-SLAUGHTER?
It makes me wonder why the judge doesn't just say "would you like fries with that?"
He will be named and shamed in the media, often having his photo spread over the front page of one of a number of newspapers here (they are all owned by the same guy here).
She on the other hand, will get total media anonymity, will be sentenced to a short stretch in prison (if she isn't granted Home Detention to look after her kids, beforehand).
It smells of fish in here.
There are times when I positively despise America, Americans generally and all things American. The evil pestilence that is Feminism all started out in that country, wreaking havoc within the social fabric over there, before spreading to the rest of the western world. Much of the crap dumbing down of society has its origins in America, including the economic problems now infesting the entire globe - all down to sheer greed and financial irresponsibility all going to show the very worst aspects of rampant capitalism gone crazy.
This blatant discrimination against the male gender has always been a factor of American life, and the feminists have fed on it big time, manipulating it all in favour of the female gender at the expense of the male.
Over 20 or so years ago Warren Farrell laid bare to it all in his book "The Myth of Male Power", but such is the power and influence of Feminazism over western societies now that nobody has the balls to confront it head on or to redress the balance of this blatant anti-male discrimination of all kinds and in all aspects of life.
I know it's wrong to be fashionable and to jump on the "Hate America" bandwagon, but it really is so difficult to resist it. The same could be said for hatred towards not only the Feminist movement but for all the entire female gender as well. Hardly a day goes by that I don't feel a very strong enmity towards women generally. I believe that the poet Rupert Brooke suffered from exactly the same "condition"....his aversion to most women was very apparent throughout his life.
Harking back to my days as a very young lad, and the experiences I had at the wrong end of the female hand, I can now see more clearly where and when the seeds of my own personal dislike of the female gender were planted.
Each time I see case after case after case of females virtually getting off Scot free in relative terms while males in exactly the same circumstances, or even in less serious situations, get their balls screwed off big time, I really can feel the red mist descend. Unfortunately, or fortunately would be more like it, I am not the type of bloke to let this red mist lead me to do something I would deeply regret later.
I don't know about you guys but it seems to me that this "anti male" attitude seems to be getting more and more evident in our society. It's as if so many males have become hypnotised or something similar by the feminists and carrying so called "chivalry" to ridiculous extremes.
Well I guess that cat is out of the bag. All of the worlds ills are caused by America and Americans.
It is a plot we concocted to make the rest of you miserable.
We are truly a horrible lot. I deeply apologise to the rest of the world for being born in America and causing so amny problems for the rest of you.
I wish now I had chosen to be born else where.
"no greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his brother."
Despite the "glaring" sentencing disparity according to gender, this wholesale unethical discrimination against men is ignored and excused in a most sinisterly contrived way throughout every sphere of life. No example betters serves mens lowly position and womens elevated status. What rotten corruption we as men are beset by."All the research clearly demonstrates that gender is the most significant biasing factor in determining whether or not someone will be charged, prosecuted, indicted and sentenced, as well as determining the severity of the sentence."
Even if the feminist rot is vanquished, we are still left with the domesticated obedience of chivalry to gynocentrism. Maybe how best to "kill two birds with one stone?"
This says it all. It makes the corruptness of ancient Rome look rather subdued by comparison.The gender bias in our courts and in our gender bias task forces is not just an injustice to the victims; it is a tragic betrayal of public trust. In fact, as embarrassing as it sounds, we may need to create task forces to investigate the gender bias of the task forces that we created to investigate gender bias in the first place.
Last edited by Celtic Druid; 30th-December-2008 at 01:05 AM.
The wicked flee when none pursueth. Proverbs 28:1
'Rise like Lions after slumber In unvanquishable number - Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you - Ye are many - they are few.'
Percy Bysshe Shelley
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
The internet has been a lifeboat for men's opposition to the floodings of feminism.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...le-standard/3/When a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend he was charged with a felony for statutory rape.
When a 17-year-old girl in the same town commited the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?
Alan Jepsen was playing video games at his home in Sheboygan, Wis., when the cops came knocking on his door. He was handcuffed in front of his sister and thrown in jail. In the words of his attorney, Jeffrey Purnell, “This child, this 17-year-old high school kid, had to spend a week in jail—they locked him up and they put him in jail with grown-ups.”
His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. And, perphaps, being a boy.
“These are kids,” said Purnell. “It’s ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it’s frustrating, really.”The day after Alan's arrest, Sheboygan authorities arrested Norma Guthrie, also 17, for having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend. Norma, however, did not have to spend a single day in jail. She was released immediately, on signature bond, while Alan was held on a $1,000 cash bond, which his family could not afford. Sheboygan County Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch is handling both cases.
The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.
The cases caught the attention of the local press, generating a heated debate over whether Alan is being given harsher treatment simply because he is a boy. “After all,” said Purnell, “this isn’t one district attorney in Tennessee and one in New York deciding how to charge these cases. This wasn’t even one district attorney in one county in Wisconsin and another county in Wisconsin. No, this was the same guy who charged these two cases.”
The district attorney’s office refused to comment, but experts say it would not be far-fetched to assume that Alan has been the victim of bias. According to Dr. Marty Klein, author of America’s War on Sex, “the double standard is not unusual. It is unusual to find such an extraordinarily clear example of it, but the philosophy behind the phenomenon is very common.”
Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a 14-year-old high school freshman accused of statutory rape was the victim of gender discrimination in a case involving him and three girls with whom he had been sexually active. Two of the girls were 12, and one was 11.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall pointed out that even though both the boy and girls involved were under the age of consent, “the boy was the only child charged with statutory rape, or any offense, as a result of the incidents alleged, and he was the only male among the four children.” Furthermore, she added, “the district attorney affirmatively declined to bring charges against the female children where the facts described by the girls could be viewed as contravening those same laws by them.”
While Suzanne Goldberg, who teaches sexuality and gender law at Columbia Law School, acknowledged that “every case has to be dealt with individually,” she said she believes “a state would be inclined to punish young men more harshly than young women because young men are often seen as aggressors in adolescent sexual contact.”
According to Dr. Klein, however, the double standard emerged from the historical treatment of women as the property of men. “Women were not considered to be sexually autonomous beings,” he said. “Their sexuality was never considered to be a weapon. It was never considered that it could damage somebody else’s property. But men have the ability to damage another man’s property with their sexuality by violating their daughter or by violating their wife. So just bring that system of thinking forward into the present day and you get 17-year-old boys that are still considered to have the potential of damaging something with their sexuality, while it’s much harder for people to imagine a 17-year-old girl causing harm with her sexuality.”
That seems to be what District Attorney Haasch had in mind when he charged Alan and Norma. There is nothing in the record to explain why Alan should be treated so severely. The difference in age between Norma and her boyfriend, for example, is actually greater than that between Alan and his girlfriend. Although both perpetrators were 17 and both victims 14 at the time of the alleged abuse, Norma is two years and 11 months older than her boyfriend, whereas Alan is two years and four months older than his girlfriend. Court records also show that Alan admitted to having had sex with his girlfriend “two or three times,” while Norma said she and her boyfriend had sex “somewhere between 10 and 15 times, but she was not exactly sure.”
Alan’s 19 year-old sister, Kathy Jepsen, has a simple explanation for the charges. “It’s bullshit [is] what it really comes to,” she said in an email, adding that “our court system is messed up in Sheboygan.” Asked if she believes young men deserve harsher punishment, she responded: “No, I don’t believe that; we should all take responsibility for what we do, whether you’re a boy or girl. We are all human, but where the law is concerned we are not equal. They should change that.”
According to Kathy, Alan's girlfriend told him she was 16. The criminal complaint against Alan confirms this, and reveals that his girlfriend lied to the police, as well. She was at Alan and Kathy’s apartment at the time of the arrest, and told the officers twice that she was 16. One of them “then advised [his girlfriend] that if she was not truthful with the officer, she possibly would be arrested for obstructing if she lied about her age, at which point [his girlfriend] looked down at her feet, looked back at the officer, and said she was 14. Immediately when the defendant [Alan] learned of this, his body tensed up and he got a scowl on his face.”
At that point, said Kathy, “I was pissed off and wanted to hit her, but there were three cops in my apartment, so I couldn’t.”
Kathy’s anger is understandable. “This issue has embarrassed our family,” she said. “I mean, how can you give somebody your name, or face your co-workers? People look at you different.”
Purnell shares her frustration, and points out that the root of the problem is not the double standard but the fact that Alan or Norma could be prosecuted to begin with. “These are kids,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it’s frustrating, really.”
Dr. Klein agrees. “What is fundamentally not fair,” he said, “is treating consensual sex between teenagers as a crime in the first place. Once you criminalize sex between teenagers, then it’s only a matter of how much harm you’re going to cause; how much destruction you’re going to bring into people’s lives. In the case of the 17-year-old girl, you’re bringing in a small amount of destruction into her life. In the case of the 17-year-old boy, you’re bringing a lot of destruction into his life.”
Alan has not yet been convicted, and his lawyer is negotiating a plea agreement. In the meantime, as Norma and other 17-year-olds look forward to finishing high school, Alan is left wondering if he will be able to come back for his senior year. He might be in prison by then.
Yeah, I'd say that's clearly a case of discrimination.
Last edited by Tyrael; 1st-April-2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason: made it a sticky and tried to fix the blank area in the top of the post
Anyway, I was reading the comments and the defense attorney responded:
So it seems that even though Alan was charged with a felony, something caused the DA to change his mind.baldlaw
i represented Alan in this case. I can tell you that on Tuesday, March 17, Alan plead No Contest to one count of 4th Degree Sexual Assault, a misdemeanor. The same judge who sentenced Ms. Guthrie sentenced Alan to roughly the same punishment that he gave to Ms. Guthrie.
This is good but how many cases like this go unnoticed and the felony sticks?