Human Rights: Single mums might not be sent to prison

FoxEye

FoxEye

FoxEye

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Just listening to this on the news.

In future judges will be expected not to send mothers of young children to jail - apparently it infringes the human rights of the children - that being the "right to a family life".

Naturally this doesn't apply to blokes. Instead it guarantees that mothers will have lesser sentences for any crime than a man would (that is probably mostly true today regardless).

What I don't understand is how this is happening when we ostensibly have a conservative government in power.

But yeah, we're going to (literally) give mums a "get out of jail free" card.
 
FoxEye said:
Assuming that this is sarcasm... you're quite happy for the justice system to have dual standards?
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy for the justice system to have different solutions to different issues yes.

The prisons are full, understaffed and underfunded so just 'lock em up' isn't a universal solution to everything. Here is a small subset of criminals (really, how much of the prison population do you think new mothers make?) that through incarceration causes subsidiary issues to an innocent dependent, so if other ways of meeting out justice can be done, like home curfew with tags, community service, having to sign in with a social worker/parole officer then I'm good with that yes.

Or we could just execute both of them, that's another solution.
 
Freakbro said:
I'm quite happy for the justice system to have different solutions to different issues yes.

The prisons are full, understaffed and underfunded so just 'lock em up' isn't a universal solution to everything. Here is a small subset of criminals (really, how much of the prison population do you think new mothers make?) that through incarceration causes subsidiary issues to an innocent dependent, so if other ways of meeting out justice can be done, like home curfew with tags, community service, having to sign in with a social worker/parole officer then I'm good with that yes.

Or we could just execute both of them, that's another solution.
Click to expand...
So why not do all of that for blokes as well? Why just mums?

Also why not allow the very rich to make donations to avoid prison? Since you're OK with not applying the same rules to everyone.
 
Can I assume the OP is talking about this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48663833

With women more likely to be the sole carers of children, they face a "double punishment" in the court system, says Dr Shona Minson from the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford.

Many women are afraid to reveal in court that they are mothers because they think they will be judged more severely, she says.

In many cases, grandparents care for the child during the mother's sentence, Dr Minson says. But unlike foster care placements, they usually receive no support from the state.

"What is really important is that the state recognizes a responsibility for those children, whoever's fault it is," she says.

Unlike the family court system, the criminal courts are not expected to prioritise the welfare of children, although there are some protections under human rights law.

That is the focus of an inquiry by Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the Labour MP Harriet Harman.

She says when a mother is imprisoned, their children's education suffers, they develop a fear of the authorities and some family relationships never recover.

"When you've got the terrible damage inflicted by something the state is doing to an innocent child, you really should have to justify that," she says.

The committee is conducting an investigation of the right to family life for children of imprisoned mothers, examining whether planned government reforms go far enough.

Current guidelines to take into account the impact on dependent children are inconsistently applied and inadequate, Ms Harman says.

Instead, the government should legislate so "the interests of the child are paramount" in criminal sentencing, she says.
Click to expand...
 
I also wonder why it is considered that the interests of the child are best served by living with a mother who is a criminal... not going to be a stellar role model in some cases.
 
FoxEye said:
So why not do all of that for blokes as well? Why just mums?
Click to expand...

I know rite, I feel completely oppressed being a white male in this country.....LOL

Also why not allow the very rich to make donations to avoid prison? Since you're OK with not applying the same rules to everyone.
Click to expand...

You seem to be getting a little excited over something that happens anyway, since sentencing is always variable dependent on circumstances.

And as for the very rich....you don't think that happens (metaphorically) anyway? It's always been one rule for "them" one for "us" - Them being rich/positions of power/people with connections etc.
 
Minstadave said:
Why does a right to family life only protect mothers from prison? Is a father not part of family life?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it would apply to single father families too, since it's about the welfare of the child, it's just that since 90% of single parent families are women I guess that's why the discussion is framed as it is.
 
danoliver1 said:
I thought women wanted equality? Or is it just the good bits of equality they want. :D
Click to expand...

They haven't got it, woman are still the predominant sex when it comes to being sole carer of children.

It is a tricky one though. As was said above, how many cases does this really affect? Then counter that with the number of children that will go on to have issues.

Is a different way of punishing such cases without creating a vicious cycle of behaviours better overall for society?
 
The justice system has gone mad like everything else in society.

Last I heard the woman who stabbed her boyfriend in the leg and avoided a sentence because she was a medical student quit university.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom