A year or so ago we published a story of a 20-something barmaid who stole about £3,000 from her employer. Her ‘punishment’ was to repay just £500 to her former employer, at the rate of £5pw for 100 weeks.
I can’t recall if there were mitigating circumstances in that case, but two pieces in the latest Hucknall Despatch – Ian Young lives in Hucknall – reminded me of the story. Time after time, female criminals aren’t punished appropriately because of claims of stress, depression, or alcohol problems. Male criminals wouldn’t be shown the same shocking leniency, whatever the truth about their problems.
The first story – stress, depression, alcohol – concerns a woman who was ‘punished’ for stealing £3,641.60 from her employer, by having to pay him back… er… £3,641.60.
The second story – stress, depression – concerns a woman who stole £205 from her employer to pay for her dead dog’s cremation. She had four previous convictions for theft dating back to 2008, including stealing from previous employers. Her ‘punishment’ for stealing £205? To pay £240. The final line of the article is a gem:
The Lead Magistrate said the offences were a very serious breach of trust.
Not ‘very serious’ enough to merit an appropriate punishment, clearly. You couldn’t make it up, could you?
By allowing women to get away with all sorts of nonsense,on gentlemanly grounds,the harm done by the gentlemen is the most harmful harm.
And in case you wonder just how such double standards could ever come into existence,look no further than the Gentlemen culture. If you want to treat your women in a special,privileged manner,like a true gentleman,this is the result. So we’d better let go of the archaic gentleman’s code of conduct towards women. At least in the case when we no longer deem today’s women’s privileges acceptable.
And dont forget the campaign which was in all the media recently to HALVE the number of women prisoners – who at the moment comprise only 5% of the prison population anyway