Before you start debating which sex is more inclined to criminal behaviour, is it not necessary first to define exactly what you mean by criminal behaviour? It may sound self-evident, but bear with me.

I have long maintained that societies define crime by reference to the damaging excesses of male behaviour. The damaging excesses of female behaviour get overlooked and ignored. If I am right, then it is inevitable that we will always have more male criminals; because the system is set up to make it so. If I had unlimited power, I could turn all of you into criminals, simply by defining breathing as a crime. Or I could make all women into criminals by defining having breasts as a crime. It is a purely subjective matter; crime is whatever the lawmakers of any society choose it to be - and things that are crimes in one society are acceptable in another.

Take an example. A man punches you in the face, or robs you of your wallet at knife point. You call the police, the miscreant is arrested and convicted, and another number is added to the statistics of male criminals. Now compare that to what a woman can do to damage your life, but using far more typical female behaviour to do so. She could tell lies about you behind your back. As a result you are ostracised, people despise you, your life is made a misery. It is likely to go on and on. Or she nags the life out of you, causing you enduring mental pain. Or she tricks you into fatherhood against your will, changing your life for ever in a way you did not want. You cannot call the police to help you; there is nothing they can or will do for you. But in any of these cases, the damage is deeper and more lasting than that punch in the face or the loss of your wallet, long ago shunted to the back of your memory. The woman can inflict far, far more pain on you than a punch in the face; and she can extract far, far more money from you than you could ever keep in your wallet.

But she is not a criminal for the simple reason that her behaviour is not defined that way in the law. So she goes unpunished, and there is no impact on any crime statistics. And our clever social commentators can happily continue to tell us, armed with those impeccable statistical facts, that they prove beyond all argument that men are simply worse people than women.

You are being deceived. If we were to redefine crime to include lies, gossip, nagging, manipulation, sexual blackmail, mental cruelty and all those other ways that women specialise in hurting other people, we would have our jails bursting with females. And for the rest of us, life would be a lot less painful.

But that would never do, would it?

""While the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life in prison, the judge noted the maximum "is reserved for worst offences committed by worst offenders." Ms. Homolka "has committed the worst crime. However, she is not the worst offender, for whom the maximum sentence is designed." He also said that "no sentence I can impose would adequately reflect the revulsion of the community in the death of the young girls who lived lives beyond reproach. I understand the outrage the community feels, and rightly so."""

I copied this from Karla's Web

this is an example of legal claptrap

worst crime not equal =worst offender !!

""While the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life in prison, the judge noted the maximum "is reserved for worst offences committed by worst offenders.""


where the judge admits Homolka "committed the worst crime"

""However, she is not the worst offender, for whom the maximum sentence is designed.""" ??????

then

"""no sentence I can impose would adequately reflect the revulsion of the community in the death of the young girls who lived lives beyond reproach""

sure no sentence is adequate and so a lesser sentence other than life is less adequate !!!!!!!

Homeolka a homicidal sexual psychopath served up her sister as a gift to her homicidal sexual psychopath husband then she openly enjoyed the crimes against her own sister and other women (video taped for later enjoyment)

but no life sentence for her

is this an example of the power of the pussy pass

I hear on the grapevine that Homeolka is writing a book maybe she coudld promote it on some popular midday wimmins hour

there wouldn't be a dry eye in the auditorium

"When women do commit serious crimes, they are more often followers than leaders. A study of women in correctional settings, for example, found that women are far more likely to assume "secondary follower roles during criminal events" than "dominant leadership roles." Only 14% of women surveyed played primary roles, but those who did "felt that men had little influence in initiating or leading them to do the crime." African-American women were found to be more likely to play "primary and equal crime roles" with men or with female accomplices than were white or Hispanic women. Statistics such as these dispel the myth that the female criminal n America has taken her place alongside the male offender--in terms of either leadership roles or the absolute number of crimes committed."

That paragraph right there sums it up nicely. Once again, excuses and blame (most) is placed upon men.

In a nutshell, "yea, women are doingmore crime, but men are making them do it (leading)...

BAH!

TMOTS

Quote from paul parmenter

Before you start debating which sex is more inclined to criminal behaviour, is it not necessary first to define exactly what you mean by criminal behaviour? It may sound self-evident, but bear with me.

I have long maintained that societies define crime by reference to the damaging excesses of male behaviour. The damaging excesses of female behaviour get overlooked and ignored. If I am right, then it is inevitable that we will always have more male criminals; because the system is set up to make it so. If I had unlimited power, I could turn all of you into criminals, simply by defining breathing as a crime. Or I could make all women into criminals by defining having breasts as a crime. It is a purely subjective matter; crime is whatever the lawmakers of any society choose it to be - and things that are crimes in one society are acceptable in another.

Take an example. A man punches you in the face, or robs you of your wallet at knife point. You call the police, the miscreant is arrested and convicted, and another number is added to the statistics of male criminals. Now compare that to what a woman can do to damage your life, but using far more typical female behaviour to do so. She could tell lies about you behind your back. As a result you are ostracised, people despise you, your life is made a misery. It is likely to go on and on. Or she nags the life out of you, causing you enduring mental pain. Or she tricks you into fatherhood against your will, changing your life for ever in a way you did not want. You cannot call the police to help you; there is nothing they can or will do for you. But in any of these cases, the damage is deeper and more lasting than that punch in the face or the loss of your wallet, long ago shunted to the back of your memory. The woman can inflict far, far more pain on you than a punch in the face; and she can extract far, far more money from you than you could ever keep in your wallet.

But she is not a criminal for the simple reason that her behaviour is not defined that way in the law. So she goes unpunished, and there is no impact on any crime statistics. And our clever social commentators can happily continue to tell us, armed with those impeccable statistical facts, that they prove beyond all argument that men are simply worse people than women.

You are being deceived. If we were to redefine crime to include lies, gossip, nagging, manipulation, sexual blackmail, mental cruelty and all those other ways that women specialise in hurting other people, we would have our jails bursting with females. And for the rest of us, life would be a lot less painful.

But that would never do, would it?

Brilliant!

I have trouble with the pedophilia craze for this reason. It is only the law that creates these criminals (I am referring to "victims" after puberty). It used to be quite common for girls to begin pro-creation right after reaching puberty. Today it is a crime unless she is 18.

I understand the spirit of the law, society is alot different today. What I don't understand is the craze that has sprung up around the issue recently. Nature hasn't changed, only societies and the laws have changed. If people understood that, then perhaps the craze wouldn't exist.

Before anyone asks, I have never slept with anyone under 18 (except when I was also under 18). I just think the pedophilia craze is out of control and even in this craze, we see women treated differently than men. The laws are chivalrous in that they are only designed to protect girls, not boys.

It is conceivable that laws can make criminals out of everyone. Shocking that fatherhood, a perfectly natural and healthy act...has been criminalized.

Quote from Garak

I have trouble with the pedophilia craze ... Today it is a crime unless she is 18. ....

Pedophilia in medical sense is something totally different.
It is a medical disorder (majority men, but also females) who are attracted sexually to pre-pubescent children (regardless their gender).

----------------

Here we are talking about pedophilia in feminist sense (which means push away any responsibility from girls to men regardless their age).

Most countries have different laws and do not agree with USA, and the 18-years-old protective age limit (in Japan even 20 years-old limit) is only in case of prostitution.

Age of consent for consensual sex is much lower, in Japan and Spain it is 13, in Austria, Hungary and Germany 14, in most European countries 15 for both, boys and girls.

This helps a lot to avoid charges related to statutory rape.

Quote from yohan

Pedophilia in medical sense is something totally different.
It is a medical disorder (majority men, but also females) who are attracted sexually to pre-pubescent children (regardless their gender).

----------------

Here we are talking about pedophilia in feminist sense (which means push away any responsibility from girls to men regardless their age).

Most countries have different laws and do not agree with USA, and the 18-years-old protective age limit (in Japan even 20 years-old limit) is only in case of prostitution.

Age of consent for consensual sex is much lower, in Japan and Spain it is 13, in Austria, Hungary and Germany 14, in most European countries 15 for both, boys and girls.

This helps a lot to avoid charges related to statutory rape.

Do you have this sort of craze in Japan?

Pedophilia in medical sense is something totally different.
It is a medical disorder (majority men, but also females) who are attracted sexually to pre-pubescent children (regardless their gender).

There is a self-fulfilling prophesy component in the designations in the DSM, Yohan. If women's attraction to and interference with young children is not noted and determined to be criminal, it doesn't make the stats. Most paedophiles are not recognised and reported by doctors and psychiatrists but by cops and courts.

I've read that it was thought that incest may have played a part in the mental illness many of the Bathory family members shared. MadShangi

That is a possibility - as with the Swiss cretinism I mentioned. But it still begs the question, was Bartholy bad or mad?

Quite a lot of criminal activity can be sheeted home to a pathology (the larger proportion of prisoners are psychopaths) but again are we talking of them being Mad, or just plain Bad? Ot is it a case of BadMad as opposed to just looney mad as opposed to Evil.

Quote from Percy

That is a possibility - as with the Swiss cretinism I mentioned. But it still begs the question, was Bartholy bad or mad?

Quite a lot of criminal activity can be sheeted home to a pathology (the larger proportion of prisoners are psychopaths) but again are we talking of them being Mad, or just plain Bad? Ot is it a case of BadMad as opposed to just looney mad as opposed to Evil.

In the case of Bathory, I think it was pure evil. Despite her upbringing and mental illnesses, she wasn't retarded... she was crazy, yes... but she wasn't mentally incompetent. She knew full well what she was doing, but didn't care. She felt she was above society's rules, much like many of the nobles during that period. Bathory was a spoiled brat to its most extreme.

she wasn't retarded... she was crazy, yes... but she wasn't mentally incompetent. She knew full well what she was doing, but didn't care.

I agree with that. Further, she revelled in it. It was a power issue. Full-blown psychopathic narcissism treating other humans as 'things' to be destroyed for her pleasure. Evil.

Feminists continually rant and rave the untold, horrific affect of violence in every living room and bedroom. The fact are the in America today there are 98,000 women in prison and 1,2000,000 males in prison. This don't not only demonstrate the leniency women receive but the overall figure is only half of one percent of the total population..