Our thanks to a supporter for this. An extract:
She admitted causing £1,650 damage and was ordered to pay £500 compensation to the court and was put on curfew between 9pm and 6am for one month.
So her fine – should she be bothered to pay it – accounts for 30% of the cost of the damage she caused. This isn’t punishment, it’s a farce. Another extract:
She had been sent to prison in the past and Mr Majid (prosecuting) added that she was in breach of a conditional discharge for an earlier criminal damage conviction.
Predictably there’s a mental health defence, commonly employed to excuse women’s crimes, rarely to excuse men’s crimes:
Steve Morris, defending, said: ‘I have known the defendant for many years. She does act impulsively. She has been diagnosed with a personality disorder.’
Susan Bosworth must have learned long ago that she’s above the law, because she’s a woman, and can play the mental health card too. What is the point in wasting taxpayers’ money in prosecuting women, when they are so seldom adequately punished? Why is imprisonment deemed a deterrent for men, but not women? As William Collins has outlined, if British men were sentenced as leniently as British women, five out of six men in British prisons wouldn’t be there.
And why is it that drunkenness is a mitigating circumstance for female criminals, but an aggravating circumstance for male criminals?
Alison Tieman, a Canadian videographer and Honey Badger, who we were pleased to welcome to the recent second International Conference on Men’s Issues, knows what’s behind these perennial double standards – gender differences in moral agency – and explained it in Men’s Rights Versus Feminism Explained by Magnets (4:27).