« Judge Young's latest account of (and homage to) jury involvement in sentencing fact-finding | Main | Two notable forthcoming FAMM events »

May 17, 2012

Notable Slate piece on gender disparities in sex crime sentencing

Last week in this post I discussed an Arizona case in which a female teacher's aide got a lifetime probation sentence for her sex offenses involving two young teenage boys.  I noted that the case reinforced my sense that adult females sexually involved with under-age boys sometimes get much more lenient sentencing treatment than similarly situated males, and now Emily Bazelon has more to say on the subject in this notable new Slate piece.  Here are a few paragraphs from her commentary:

Is [Gabriela Compton's] sentence of probation nonetheless justified because women molesting boys is just different than men molesting girls?  There are salient differences between men and women when it comes to sex offenses.  For starters, men are far more likely to commit sexual assault than women are, accounting for 96 percent of the total. They are also rearrested much more frequently.

The women who perpetrate this misconduct not surprisingly have serious problems.  Like the men, they have poor coping skills and trouble showing empathy.  This report by the Center for Sex Offender Management breaks female sex offenders into three types, based on clinical observations.  The first group were coerced by men into abusing children, even their own.  The second were themselves victims of incest or other sexual abuse — this kind of history is far more likely for women sex offenders than for men, and the women in this category also tend to victimize young children in their own families.  The third type, labeled “teacher/lover,” sounds more like Gabriela Compton.  They were “often struggling with peer relationships, seemed to regress and perceive themselves as having romantic or sexually mentoring ‘relationships’ with under-aged adolescent victims of their sexual preference, and, therefore, did not consider their acts to be criminal in nature.”...

I’d rather the law err on the side of caution and uniformity here.  And I can’t really get my mind around probation for a woman who was facing nearly four decades in prison, even if it is probation for life that includes sex-offender registration.  Thirteen-year-old boys should be shielded from predatory adults the same way girls are.  If they don’t think they want the shield, well, maybe they don’t know what’s good for them.

Not surprisingly, as as true with my original post, this discussion of gender differences and sexual relations has generated a lot of diverse comments.

Prior related post:

May 17, 2012 at 06:53 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20167669222d6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notable Slate piece on gender disparities in sex crime sentencing:

Comments

I think Emily Bazelon, who has written on various types of childhood victims, is on the right page here & noted in my comment that I thought giving her probation should raise a red flag. The fact the two classes aren't the same doesn't mean they are THAT different.

Posted by: Joe | May 17, 2012 7:22:48 PM

A crime should cause a harm, not a benefit. If Ms. Bazelon is a feminist, her ipse dixits have the the validity of KKK pronouncements in 1912. Her intentional misunderstanding of the benefit to the male is to provide a cover, a masking ideology to show even handedness in the witch hunt against the productive male.

Nature says, adulthood is 14. The lawyer says it is 18. No contortion of the facts by the rent seeking lawyer founder and leader of the KKK and of feminist witch hunt can change that fact.

The model of the feminist lawyer and its male running dog, now in total control of the three branches of government, is old. It is copied from the Inquisition. "You have blasphemed by eating meat on Friday. You must go to the stake." "We have a plea bargain for you. Perhaps you can save yourself by donating your assets to the Church." Meanwhile, the rule is nowhere in the Bible. It is just made up after the fishing industry bribed the Church to pass it.

The remedy for the feminist lawyer and its male running dogs also comes from the Inquisition. It ended when French patriots beheaded and expelled 10,000 high church officials during the French Revolution. Do the same to the lawyer hierarchy, a group of internal traitors, in insurrection against the Constitution. After an hour's fair trial, of course.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 17, 2012 7:23:21 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB