More Gender Bias: Woman Assaults Husband With an Axe

Women getting off easy.

http://www.wmur.com/news/9981169/detail.html

Linda Masse, a Laconia NH resident was charged with attempted assault, resisting arrest and criminal mischief after attacking her husband with an axe. The couple had been drinking when Mr. Masse declared he wanted to leave his wife, during an argument over their marriage.

The violence erupted when Masse grabbed a collector’s axe off the wall, and started to chase Mr. Masse around the house screaming that she was going to kill him.

The courts have defines the axe Masse was wielding as a weapon that could cause serious harm or death. Mrs. Masse in court referred to this lethal weapon as a toy.

Not only did Mrs. Masse vandalize her husbands’ car, she also destroyed several household articles, including a glass door.

Mr. Masse made his escape from his enraged, axe-wielding wife by running across the street to a neighbor’s house, locking the door, and calling the police.

The neighbor Jennifer Morrill says she saw the entire event from the start: "I saw the whole thing," Morrill said. "She went quiet for five minutes, and all of a sudden, she just cracked and went at him with an ax." She also says, "I was trying to convince her to put it down, but she wasn't listening to anybody."

Linda Masse was combative and resistive police say during her arrest and transport.

 

Well, it seems to me that because Masse is a woman, the charges placed upon her are quite lenient for her crimes.

Understand, this woman erupted violently, grabbed a lethal weapon of the wall, and chased her husband around the house until he could make his escape to a neighbor’s home and call police. She destroyed property both inside the house and Mr. Masses car outside with her "toy axe". She gave the police a bunch of flak and resisted her arrest.

And what? She is charged with attempted assault, resisting arrest and criminal mischief? WTF?

Chasing somebody around the house while swinging a deadly weapon, and damaging property during the chase is hardly an attempt at assault. It's straight up assault. Criminal mischief? A misdemeanor? You have got to be kidding me.

If any man had committed these criminal acts, he would undoubtedly be charged with Assault with the intent to commit bodily harm, assault with a dangerous/deadly weapon, maybe even attempted murder, and lastly without a doubt SPOUSAL ABUSE and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! A man would not see daylight for at least 5 years - at LEAST.

Unfortunately this seems to be just another case of women getting off easy and yet another example of gender-bias in the courtroom.

It appears that justice really is blind, at least when it comes to female criminal behavior.

 

You can read the entire fiasco by clicking the link below.

20,437 views 43 replies
Reply #1 Top
I'm not sure where you're getting the gender bias accusation from...it's just supposition on your part (unless there's more information about this case that you've read but not shared with your audience).

It's one thing to claim that the charges against her are lenient compared to other similar cases (of which you have provided no links or information), but quite another to insist that the charges are lenient BECAUSE she is a woman when there is no evidence (to my knowledge) to suggest such a thing.

If you've got more dirt on this case, feel free to enlighten me. As it stands, I'm not seeing the gender bias connection.
Reply #2 Top
PS - Isn't it usually the men who "get off" easy?
Reply #3 Top
It's one thing to claim that the charges against her are lenient compared to other similar cases (of which you have provided no links or information), but quite another to insist that the charges are lenient BECAUSE she is a woman when there is no evidence (to my knowledge) to suggest such a thing.


I figure this is a no brainer. Anybody who has been involved in the legal system due to violence knows what charges go with what crimes. I also understand many people do not find themselves in these predicaments.

In that light, I'll hunt down a few situations for you; heres one:

Another man in the group, 19-year-old Charles Caughman, also faces aggravated assault charges. He is accused of threatening and chasing someone with a baseball bat. WWW Link

Well this guy has done about the same thing, though I consider a bat to be less lethal than an axe, but none the less this male has been charged with aggravated assault.

Now I'm not to sure if you understang how assaults become aggravated, thus elevated to felonies. If I hold an axe threatning you, I have commited an assault. If you try to get away, and I chase you down continueing the assault, thats felony aggravated assault.

So, why does this woman assulting a man with an axe recieve attempted assault, and this guy is charged with felony aggravated assault by use of a lesser weapon?
Reply #4 Top
As it stands, I'm not seeing the gender bias connection.


Heres another:

While sitting at a business at the intersection of High Road and West Tharpe Street, Detective Lee Fuller observed a group of subjects, one armed with a baseball bat, chasing a single individual. Detective Fuller activated his siren to distract the subjects long enough to order them to stop. He then detained the subjects and waited for backup to arrive.

When back up arrived, Detective Fuller learned that the group of subjects was chasing the one individual because of an argument at a pay phone. According to reports, the victim was on the pay phone at the convenience store at the intersection when one of the subjects, Cameron Clayton, pulled in playing his car stereo loudly. The victim reported they argued about the loud music and during the argument Clayton displayed what the victim thought was a handgun. The victim reported they continued to have words and Clayton drove away. Instead of leaving the area, Clayton allegedly went across the street to the apartment complex and summoned the help of some friends. The victim reported Clayton and four friends came back to the store and began striking at him and chasing him. Witnesses to the disturbance confirmed the victim's account.

The subjects, identified as Christopher Stephens, Niles Jenkins, Harvey Brown, and Jonathon Robinson were detained and brought to the Sheriff's Office for interviews. All subjects admitted their involvement in the disturbance. They were all charged with assault except for John Robinson, who was allegedly armed with the bat. He was charged with Aggravated Assault.

Link

Again, all the men other than Robinson, the man with the bat, were charged with assault, Robinson, aggravated assault. If Linda Masse commited this crime with her axe against this poor victim, she gets attempted assault? Whats with that?
Reply #5 Top
I guess you've never heard of Amy Jones' case. =/ Her husband tried to kill her in a hotel room, in what one of the officers called the bloodiest crime scene he'd seen. (She was bludgeoned with a flashlight, then he tried to smother her and drown her in the tub) They considered him a first time domestic abuse offender, so he wasn't charge initally with attempted murder and was released after 24 hours. A few weeks later he returned and hid in her van, despite the restraining order and shot her in the head, twice. She survived, yet he's sitting in a jail cell for only 30 years. Even in jail he's tried to hire a hitman against her. Yeah, us women just get the easy breaks when it comes to the law.
Reply #7 Top

Damn!  You mean there is more than one woman like my Ex-wife?

But I will draw one distinction between your examples.  The 2 you cite were not domestic in nature.  The Courts are generally more lenient on domestic cases (and that is not necessarily a good thing) than on 2 non-related people.

Reply #8 Top
Because she is smaller and weaker than him and the damage inflicted would be that of a mosquito biting you?


Absolutely! Because women are generally smaller and weaker than men. However, she sure did a good number on his car as well as the glass door.

They probably bargained the charges down?


Im not sure at this point Jen as she has just been arrained on the charges listed. You watch, this lady will walk out of that court and never spend a night jail as a convicted ciminal.

She survived, yet he's sitting in a jail cell for only 30 years.


HHmmmm. Only 30 years? I see you have never spent so much as a day in jail have you? 30 years is more than 1/3 of a persons life. Actually, 30 years is quite a sentance for attempted murder, it's usually 20 years or so.

If you can bare a little sarcasm: Amys husband did not get sentanced for attempt, but rather for violating his restraining order

Well, Amy's husband as you say was at least charged with Domestic Violence.

Anyway, thats just my point. Masse should not have been released, as she is certainly capable of murduring her husband, so say her actions concerning the axe.

............................................................

Police say 50-year-old Linda Masse's husband reported that she chased him through their house with an axe, swung it at him and missed, shattering a glass door.WWW Link

Swinging an axe at somebody and missing them, shattering a glass door is a no-brainer for aggravated assault with a dangerous/deadly weapon at the least. I call that attempted murder/manslaughter.

Attempted assault is a joke. A witness already said she actually performed the assault.

Linda Masse: "I didn't threaten him or to kill him or anything". No she just repeatedly swung an axe trying to hit him with enough force to at least bust a glass door. Duh, well Mrs. Masse, what was your intent?

Reply #9 Top
Damn! You mean there is more than one woman like my Ex-wife?


You better believe it Doc!!
Reply #10 Top
Xythe, what is the real purpose of your article? I'm really curious. These drop in the bucket examples of women perpertrating violence towards men does NOTHING to address the issue of domestic violence and the acceptance of violence against women in society.

Both genders commit violence. If that is your point, then fine. If I bothered, I could probably find a lot of instances where a man did something as equally horrible to another woman and got off easy. Oh, wait! I bet it might be kind of hard to find, because a lot of violence against women doesn't even make it to the courtroom anyway. People look the other way, and dang, it's just so common that it's not really interesting news. After all, if it doesn't have some kind of novelty shock value, then if it doesn't bleed then it doesn't lead. And really, if the woman had just chased the guy with some less "glamorous" item would it have even made a blip on the media?

Should people be punished equally under the law? It's the ideal, isn't it? But for right or wrong, effectual or ineffectual, sometimes when there is a bias like that, it reflects an awareness that there is an unbalance in society before even getting to the courtroom. Did this woman's treatment fix that imbalance? No.

But really, what is the point of this article? To let us know that women commit violence? That justice isn't perfect? That sometimes a woman gets away with what a hell of a lot of men have and still continue to get away with if the actually are brought to face justice? Is it to justify the continued violence against women because every once in a while some women commit violence, too?

Reply #11 Top
Yeah, a man definately would have gotten far far worse charges. The domestic alone is enough to keep you in jail. Let alone if you have an axe in your hand...
Reply #12 Top
Xythe, what is the real purpose of your article?


Its been pretty much printed, all you need to do is read:

"More Gender Bias"

"Well, it seems to me that because Masse is a woman, the charges placed upon her are quite lenient for her crimes."

"If any man had committed these criminal acts, he would undoubtedly be charged with Assault with the intent to commit bodily harm, assault with a dangerous/deadly weapon, maybe even attempted murder, and lastly without a doubt SPOUSAL ABUSE and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! A man would not see daylight for at least 5 years - at LEAST."

"Unfortunately this seems to be just another case of women getting off easy and yet another example of gender-bias in the courtroom."

It seems as caracarn1's reply might help you understand:

Yeah, a man definately would have gotten far far worse charges. The domestic alone is enough to keep you in jail. Let alone if you have an axe in your hand...


Sorry, I thought I was writing in English


These drop in the bucket examples of women perpertrating violence towards men does NOTHING to address the issue of domestic violence and the acceptance of violence against women in society.


Not the purpose of the article; addressing domestic violence. Though this lady clearly commited this crime and was not charged with it. Thank you for highlighting that issue.

Personally, I do not feel many people accept violence against women, or anybody for that matter.

I could probably find a lot of instances where a man did something as equally horrible to another woman and got off easy.


Please do so, I would be interested in seeing some; 2 or 3 will do.


...because a lot of violence against women doesn't even make it to the courtroom anyway.


How interesting. Where are your statistics? What is your source for this bold statement?


And really, if the woman had just chased the guy with some less "glamorous" item would it have even made a blip on the media?


Unfortunately she did not, but rather used a lethal weapon.



But really, what is the point of this article?


Please refer to the top of this reply.

I think after you actually understand the words in type, you will see why I won't adress the rest of your questions...they are simply unrelated to the topic at hand.

Reply #13 Top
Yeah, a man definately would have gotten far far worse charges. The domestic alone is enough to keep you in jail. Let alone if you have an axe in your hand...


You bet your ass!
Reply #14 Top
I applaud your resolve, yet you did avoid my point.  No matter.  My ex proves your point (at least to me!)
Reply #15 Top
I agree - the charges should have been more serious.
Women's Lib was suppose to be about equal rights - so she gets short-changed on the charges. That's not equal justice.
There are many examples of the double standard. Take that goofy blonde teacher screwing around with a student - the lawyer said she's too pretty to go to jail. If a male teacher's attorney said that, womens groups would go balistic!
The women's groups are not pro-women - they have become anti-men.

Hopefully he won't get back together with this woman.
Reply #16 Top
I applaud your resolve, yet you did avoid my point.


Sorry Doc, I'm not avoiding your point What I need is a good database to search legal cases. Typical search engines dont give me the oppertunity to search criteria efficiently; filters etc.

I hve not let it go, I'll keep trying. I have to keep up with my own arguments at least.
Reply #17 Top
Take that goofy blonde teacher screwing around with a student - the lawyer said she's too pretty to go to jail. If a male teacher's attorney said that, womens groups would go balistic!


How true it is. Just wait till Little Whip gets ahold of this article. If she does not hammer me to hard, we will get a good womans perspective.

The women's groups are not pro-women - they have become anti-men.


Absolutly. It almost seems as they would like to become men minus our penises
Reply #18 Top
Even in this day and age the courts still somehow feel that if a woman is upset it must be the man's fault. If you don't believe this try going through a divorce some time.
Reply #19 Top
If you don't believe this try going through a divorce some time.


Divorce court is were you will experience the highest level of female gender-bias in the courtroom. If you don't believe this and don't want to go through a divorce, try reading some court transcripts or attending a few divorce courts. You will quickly see what truely happens.
Reply #20 Top
As for the perception that women who murder their husbands are treated harshly by the justice system, Dr. Mann found that few female domestic homicide offenders receive prison sentences, and that those who do rarely serve more than four or five years. Justice Department sources, report that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only 6 years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.


I hope your not shocked...but:


The twelve "female only" defenses
"Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: The Twelve 'Female-Only' Defenses" excerpted from The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

Top

(1) The innocent woman defense
Farrell starts with the innocent woman defense because it underlies all twelve defenses. At first he called this the "Female Credibility Principle" due to the tendency to see women as more credible than men because of being thought more innocent. However, even when women admitted making false allegations that they were raped or that their husbands abused them, for example, their admission that they lied was often not believed. Therefore, he found the belief in the innocent woman ran even deeper than the tendency to believe women.

(2) The PMS defense ("My body, no choice")
In 1970, when Dr. Edgar Berman said women's hormones during menstruation and menopause could have a detrimental influence on women's decision making, feminists were outraged. He was soon served up as the quintessential example of medical male chauvinism. But by the 1980s, some feminists were saying that PMS was the reason a woman who deliberately killed a man should go free. In England, the PMS defense freed Christine English after confessed to killing her boyfriend by deliberately ramming him into a utility pole with her car; and after killing a co-worker, Sandie Smith was put on probation — with one condition: she must report monthly for injections of progesterone to control symptoms of PMS. By the 1990s, the PMS defense paved the way for other hormonal defenses.

Sheryl Lynn Massip could place her 6 month old son under a car, run over him repeatedly, and then, uncertain he was dead, do it again, then claim post partum depression and be given outpatient medical help. No feminist protested.

(3) The husband defense
The film "I Love You to Death" was based on a true story of a woman who tried to kill her husband when she discovered he had been unfaithful. She and her mom tried to poison him, then hired a mugger to beat him and shoot him through the head. A fluke led to their being caught and sent to jail. Miraculously, the husband survived.

The husband's first response? Soon after he recovered he informed authorities that he would not press charges.

His second response? He defended his wife's attempts to kill him. He felt so guilty being sexually unfaithful that he thanked his wife!

He then re-proposed to her. She verbally abused him, then accepted.

(4) The " Battered Woman Syndrome" defense, AKA learned helplessness
Until 1982, anyone who called premeditated murder self-defense would have been laughed out of court. But in 1982, [Denver-based psychologist] Lenore Walker won the first legal victory for her women-only theory of learned helplessness, which suggests that a woman whose husband or boyfriend batters her becomes fearful for her life and helplessness to leave him so if she kills him, it is really self-defense — even if she has premeditated his murder. The woman is said to be a victim of the Battered Woman Syndrome. Is it possible a woman could kill, let's say, for insurance money? Lenore Walker says no: she claims, "Women don't kill men unless they've been pushed to a point of desperation." Ironically feminists had often said, "There's never an excuse for violence against a woman." Now they were saying, "But there's always an excuse for violence against a man... if a woman does it." That sexism is now called the law in 15 states.

(5) " The depressed mother" defense


Baby blues

Remember Sheryl Lynn Massip, a mother in her mid-twenties who murdered her 6-month old son by crushing its head under the wheel of the family car? Massip systematically covered up the murder until she was discovered. Then she testified that she suffered from post-partum depression, or "baby blues."

Her sentence? Treatment.

Mothers do get the baby blues. As do dads. Were the husband to kill his baby, as Sheryl Lynn did, it is unlikely that we would just treat him for baby blues or Save the Marriage Syndrome. Why does her version of baby blues allow her to receive treatment for child murder, when he would receive life in prison for child murder, with or without baby blues?



The terrible twos

Josephine Mesa beat her 2-year-old son to death with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger. She buried the battered child in a trash bin. When scavengers found the boy outside her Oceanside, California apartment, she denied she knew him. When the evidence became overwhelming, she confessed.

The excuse? She was depressed. The child was going through the terrible twos.

The punishment? Counselling, probation and anti-depressants. She never spent a day behind bars.

(6) The "Mothers don't kill" defense
ITEM: Illinois. Paula Sims reported that her first daughter, Loralei, was abducted by a masked gunman. In fact she murdered Loralei. But she got away with it. So when her next daughter, Heather Lee, disappointed her, she suffocated her, threw her in the trash barrel, and said another masked gunman had abducted her daughter. It wasn't until the second "masked gunman" abduction that a serious search was conducted. Only the serious search led to evidence. Might Heather Lee be alive today if mothers did not have a special immunity from serious investigation?

Or see the case of Marybeth Tinning in Patricia Pearson's book When She Was Bad: How and Why Women Get Away with Murder. Marybeth killed nine (9) of her own children and wasn't caught until the ninth one died.

(7) The "Children need their mother" defense
ITEM: Colorado. Lory Foster's husband had returned from Vietnam and was going through mood-swings both from post traumatic stress syndrome and diabetes. They had gotten into a fight and he had abused her. So she killed him.

Even the prosecutor did not ask for a jail term. Why not? So Lory could care for the children. Lory was given counselling and vocational training at state expense.

The most frequent justification for freeing mothers who kill their children is that their children need them. Moreover, if mothers were freed because "children are the first priority," then fathers would be freed just as often. But they are not. Even when no mother is available.

(8) The "Blame the father, understand the mother" defense
ITEM: Ramiro Rodriguez was driving back from the supermarket. His daughter was sitting on his wife's lap. As Ramiro made a left turn, a van crashed into the car and his daughter was killed. Ramiro was charged with homicide. The reason? His daughter was not placed in a safety seat. Ramiro explained that his daughter was sick and wanted to be held so his wife decided to hold her. Yet only Ramiro was charged. The mother was charged with nothing. Ramiro was eventually acquitted after protests over the racism. No one saw the sexism.

(9) The "My child, my right to abuse it" defense
A million crack-addicted children since 1987, but only sixty of the mothers have faced criminal charges. One was convicted. That conviction was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Three percent of infants in Washington D.C. die from cocaine addiction, but no mothers go to prison. The right to choose means the right to kill — not a fetus but a child.

Should the mother who addicts her child to crack have any more rights than any other child abuser or drug dealer?

How can we give a normal drug dealer a life sentence but claim that a mother that deals drugs to her own child should not so much as stand trial?

If we feel compassion for the circumstances that drove her to drugs, where is our compassion for the circumstances that drove the drug dealer to drugs, the child abuser to abuse, the murderer...?

(10) The plea bargain defense
Once a woman is seen as more innocent, her testimony is more valued, which leads to prosecutors offering the woman a plea bargain in crimes committed jointly by a woman and a man.

And if a District Attorney is up for reelection, the Chivalry Factor allows him to look like a hero when his office prosecutes a man, or portray him as a bully if he should put a woman behind bars.

(11) The Svengali defense
A beautiful woman dubbed "The Miss America Bandit" conducted an armed robbery of a bank. Federal sentencing guidelines called for a minimum of four and a half to five years in federal prison. The federal judge gave her two years because she told the judge that she was in love with her hairdresser and he had wanted her to rob the bank.

The judge concluded, "Men have always exercised malevolent influence over women, and women seem to be soft-touches for it, particularly if sex is involved... It seems to me the Svengali-Trilby relationship is the motivating force behind this lady...the main thing is sex." [Svengali is a fictional character said to have hypnotic qualities of persuasion over the innocent Trilby.]

(12) The contract killing defense: Defend self by hiring someone else
When Farrell did the first review of his files in preparation for a section on contract killing, he was struck by some fascinating patterns.

• First, all of these women hired boys or men.

• Second, their targets were usually husbands, ex-husbands, or fathers — men they had once loved.

• Third, the targeted man usually had an insurance policy significantly larger than the man's next few years income.

• Fourth, the women often were never serious suspects until some coincidence exposed their plot.

• Fifth, the women usually chose one of three methods by which to kill: she (1) persuaded her boyfriend to do the killing (in reverse Svengali style); (2) hired some young boys from a disadvantaged background to do it for a small amount of money; or (3) hired a professional killer, thus usually using money her husband earned to kill him.

An example, Dixie Dyson tucked in her husband for his last night's sleep. She had arranged to have a lifelong friend and a boyfriend pretend to "break and enter," then rape her, kill her husband, then "escape." She would collect the insurance money. At the last moment, the lifelong friend backed out, but the boyfriend and Dixie managed to kill Dixie's husband after 27 stabbings. They were caught. Dixie "cut a deal" to reduce her sentence by reporting the boyfriend and his friend. The friend who backed out got 25 years for conspiracy.

Deborah Ann Werner was due one third of her dad's estate. She asked her daughter to find some boys to murder him by plunging a knife through his neck.

Diana Bogadanoff hired two young men to kill her husband on an isolated nudist beach, while she watched. After he was shot through the head, she reported the killers but produced no motive for the murder — no money was stolen and she was not sexually molested. Diana did not become a suspect until an anonymous caller contacted a nationwide crime hotline. The caller coincidentally heard about the murder on the radio and remembered a friend describing just such a murder he had refused to do...on an isolated nudist beach while a woman named Diana watched. Without this tip, Diana would never even have become a suspect.

How individual women are given more power to kill than the entire U.S. Government
Top

Taken together, the twelve female-only defenses allow almost any woman to take it upon herself to "exercise the death penalty." The government is not allowed to take it upon itself to kill someone first and declare him or her an abuser later — only a woman can do that to a man.

Do men kill women more than women kill men?
Top

The six blinders
1. A woman is more likely to poison a man than shoot him, and poisoning is often recorded as a heart attack or accident. [This will skew the figures]

2. Contract killing is also less detectable because it is premeditated and often hired out to a professional. When it is discovered the Department of Justice registers it as a "multiple offender killing" — it never gets recorded as a woman killing a man. [This will skew the figures]

3. The money factor. Women who murder husbands or boyfriends usually come from middle class backgrounds The money allows the best lawyers, more acquittals, therefore fewer female murderers to become Justice Department Statistics.

4. The Chivalry Factor,

5. and the Innocent Woman Factor prevent many women from becoming serious suspects to begin with.

6. The Plea Bargain Defense sometimes leads to the dismissal of charges.

When the six blinders are combined, we can see how we have consciously and unconsciously kept ourselves blind to women who murder men. A distortion of statistics is created by the Six Blinders. But a distortion of perception is created by the media's tendency to make it international news when men murder women (the University of Montreal Murderer, the Hillside and Boston stranglers) and, unless the man is famous, to make it local news when a woman murders only a man.

In brief, it is impossible to know the degree to which the sexes kill each other. The only thing we know for certain is that both sexes kill more men than they kill women.

Warren Farrell, Ph.D.



I figured I might toss in a few statistics from the justice department:

From a data set of 6,200 cases of spousal abuse in the Detroit area in 1978-79, McLeod (1984) found that men used weapons 25% of the time while female assailants used weapons 86% of the time. In such assaults, 74% of men sustained injury and, of the injured, 84% required medical care. He concludes that male victims are injured more often and more seriously than female victims.

While from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Women in Prison, NCJ-145321, we find that:

• Murder is the most prevalent violent offense among female inmates.

• Violent women are more than twice as likely as violent men to commit the offense against someone close to them.

• Women in prison for homicide were almost twice as likely to have killed an intimate than men in prison for homicide.

• The average sentence for violent women is more than 3 years shorter than the sentence for men convicted of the same category of offense.

As for the perception that women who murder their husbands are treated harshly by the justice system, Dr. Mann found that few female domestic homicide offenders receive prison sentences, and that those who do rarely serve more than four or five years. Justice Department sources, report that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only 6 years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.


WWW Link
Reply #21 Top
As it stands, I'm not seeing the gender bias connection.


I'm guessing your a woman. I find often times its like that when women cant accept a fact...they cant see it. Face it, in the end, women kill more children, they ARE often times the major players in domestic violence cases, and well, it appears they commit more crimes when they are locked down as well. Then they want to either shake their ass, or work up some tears to try getting off. Somehow whenever a woman cant get what they want with ass or tears, its some mans fault. Cripes, if this man womt work, you'll blame some other.

Whatever.
Reply #22 Top
Wow, Xythe. You're way too much of a misogynist for me. Ugh. Enjoy your thread. I'm out of here.
Reply #23 Top
Xythe:

I spent time working in a Domestic Violence center and safe home. We worked with both male and female survivors--the crimes of domestic abuse do not become less simply because of the gender of the perpetrator. I have had to attend the funeral of clients who were killed by their partners--an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I find your article to be shockingly insensative and misinformed. Nearly 1/3 of all domestic violence cases never make it to trial--charges are dropped on a regular basis. This is a tradegy, for both the victim and the society.

If it wouldn't breach the confidentiality agreement I signed, I would be able rattle off hundreds of cases where the perpetrator (predominantly male in the area I worked in) walked away with little more than a stern warning--though it's starting to change, DV crimes are still not taken very seriously. While some states have mandatory arrests--this doesn't stop the judge from throwing out the case in the morning.

You appear to have lots of anger issues directed at women--I might suggest some counseling before you end up releasing it all in a fit of violence and get to experience first hand the supposed gender bias that you speak of.

By the way, your misogynistic comments do not further your argument.



Reply #24 Top
Wow, Xythe. You're way too much of a misogynist for me. Ugh. Enjoy your thread. I'm out of here.


Great minds think alike, TW. I was typing while you were posting.
Reply #25 Top
Wow, Xythe. You're way too much of a misogynist for me. Ugh. Enjoy your thread. I'm out of here.


Thats what I figured.