Except it's literally part of UK law that you must be lenient when sentencing women.
You said not be punished. Now it's only leniency? And if UK law (retardedly) requires that you be more lenient to women, why is it that women commit so many fewer crimes than men still, despite the lesser deterrent?
Rotherham was the police choosing to not enforce existing law.
And in so many other places as well. That somehow is not oppression? And Saudi Arabia is not oppression?
The key to whether it's oppression or not lies in whether you think that their contributions to society are at all valuable. Otherwise, anything short of violating their basic human rights can be justified.
Well, a suspended sentence for murder is a mockery of justice and basically means nothing.
Because half the time they don't even get charged at all, so they don't show up in statistics. They also are less likely to be caught in the first place because nobody suspects a woman. They also are less likely to be in gangs, which makes up the majority of crime.
Because half the time they don't even get charged at all, so they don't show up in statistics
Is this true, can you show me?
Even if half the murders committed by women resulted in no charges, that would still mean that far fewer women commit murders than men. So they really are our better halves...
They also are less likely to be in gangs, which makes up the majority of crime.
This is supposed to be an argument? Murders don't count if you're in a gang?
Except it's literally part of UK law that you must be lenient when sentencing women.
Female Offender Strategy (all sentences under two years will be thrown out.)
"Coercive Control". (Any woman who claims the victim harassed her in any way, even verbally, cannot be charged with murder.)
The guidebook for judges in the UK actively states to be lenient with women.
Rotherham was the police choosing to not enforce existing law.
You said not be punished. Now it's only leniency? And if UK law (retardedly) requires that you be more lenient to women, why is it that women commit so many fewer crimes than men still, despite the lesser deterrent?
And in so many other places as well. That somehow is not oppression? And Saudi Arabia is not oppression?
The key to whether it's oppression or not lies in whether you think that their contributions to society are at all valuable. Otherwise, anything short of violating their basic human rights can be justified.
You're getting more incoherent by the minute. Are you claiming that women in Saudi Arabia and Rotherham are not oppressed?
Well, a suspended sentence for murder is a mockery of justice and basically means nothing.
Because half the time they don't even get charged at all, so they don't show up in statistics. They also are less likely to be caught in the first place because nobody suspects a woman. They also are less likely to be in gangs, which makes up the majority of crime.
Is this true, can you show me?
Even if half the murders committed by women resulted in no charges, that would still mean that far fewer women commit murders than men. So they really are our better halves...
This is supposed to be an argument? Murders don't count if you're in a gang?