The news article Crack Cocaine and Powder Cocaine Punishments Modified, which discusses sentencing parity, got me thinking. First, let’s start with a snippet from the article:
The sentencing disparity was viewed as unjust because everything about the two drugs is pharmaceutically the same, except the demographic who buys them. African Americans accounted for 82.7 percent of crack cocaine convictions in 2007. Powder cocaine tends to be purchased by upper class suburban youth, according to the Wall Street Journal. Though the new law only applies in federal courts, which only hears a small fraction of cocaine possession cases, many states have significantly lowered the sentencing disparity already. Virginia, for instance is 2-to-1.
I knew of this disparity for some time, so I was quite happy to see that it will be resolved. I’m sure there are a lot of other sentence disparities involving race & ethnicity (rape comes to mind – I believe minorities receive longer sentences). But, it made me think about the gender disparities in sentencing. I’ve often seen comments by men (and some women) that women receive shorter sentencing for killing a man or that female teachers get off easy when they sexually abuse their students. I’ve certainly seen some cases like this, but why don’t people recognize the gender disparity when women get charged more often than men or have longer sentences than men?
“Failure to protect” laws come to mind. Here’s a paper posted on the Liz Library about how mothers are more often charged with failure to protect than fathers. I’ve often seen these cases in the news.
Who’s failing whom? A critical look at failure-to-protect laws by Jeanne A. Fugate
I’ve also seen news articles where women are charged with false allegations – but are men? Research (Bala & Schumann) finds more men make false allegations than women in family court.
I’ve seen articles about women being gagged from talking to the media about their family court cases – but are men?
And from: Defending justice
Women can be charged with child abuse or drug trafficking if they test positive for drugs during pregnancy. It is estimated that at least 200 women in 30-40 states have been “arrested and criminally charged for alleged drug use or other actions during their pregnancy,” the majority of them being poor women of color.22 This criminalizes a medical problem, violates women’s privacy rights, and undermines the doctor-patient relationship, without doing anything to help women to have healthy babies.
Or, how about testing positive for alcohol during pregnancy? This seems Taliban-esque, don’t you think?
…laws that have been passed in five states that make it legal to place a woman under “civil confinement” if she drinks while pregnant. She’s not confined to prison but to an institution where workers can monitor what she imbibes. The rationale being that drinking–as we all know–is not good for a fetus. (From: ABC News)
And, why do incarcerated mothers more often lose their children than fathers?
Most women in prison are mothers, and they are five times as likely as imprisoned fathers to have children in foster care. (When a father goes to prison, the children are most likely to live with their mother; when a mother is in prison, the children are most likely to live with a grandparent, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports.)
And females can be further punished if they served time for drug use: Out of jail, mothers struggle to reclaim children
A federal law signed by former President Bill Clinton prohibits people with a drug felony from receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the federal welfare program that provides temporary assistance for five years or less to families living below the poverty line.
“The ban singled out drug offenses, but not rape or murder or other kinds of offenses that one might consider much more heinous and you’ve singled it out for lifetime punishment,” says Jacobs.
Prostitution also comes to mind. More prostitutes are charged with crimes than are Johns, or even pimps.
Incest, although it’s more traumatic to victims, also results in shorter sentences for men than stranger-perpetrated sexual assaults. Is there a patriarchal reason behind this (ie. that fathers “own” their daughters or that men are more prone to stranger-perpetrated crimes)?
Here’s a case in Iowa, with lots of facts interspersed: Case shows frustrations of proving allegations of incest
Here’s a PDF on differences between stranger and non-stranger crimes: Violence between lovers, strangers, and friends
Look at the royal treatment incestuous adults are given in California: Child sexual abuse and the state
And, of course, there’s virtual impunity in rape cases: US Senate Committee to hold hearing on rape investigations