Susan Bosworth, 51, with a history of damaging property and 58 previous convictions (for 178 offences) smashed up Leicester Crown Court with a hammer ‘on impulse’ following an all-day bender. Suspended sentence.

Our thanks to a supporter for this. An extract:

She admitted causing £1,650 damage and was ordered to pay £500 compensation to the court and was put on curfew between 9pm and 6am for one month.

So her fine – should she be bothered to pay it – accounts for 30% of the cost of the damage she caused. This isn’t punishment, it’s a farce. Another extract:

She had been sent to prison in the past and Mr Majid (prosecuting) added that she was in breach of a conditional discharge for an earlier criminal damage conviction.

Predictably there’s a mental health defence, commonly employed to excuse women’s crimes, rarely to excuse men’s crimes:

Steve Morris, defending, said: ‘I have known the defendant for many years. She does act impulsively. She has been diagnosed with a personality disorder.’

Susan Bosworth must have learned long ago that she’s above the law, because she’s a woman, and can play the mental health card too. What is the point in wasting taxpayers’ money in prosecuting women, when they are so seldom adequately punished? Why is imprisonment deemed a deterrent for men, but not women? As William Collins has outlined, if British men were sentenced as leniently as British women, five out of six men in British prisons wouldn’t be there.

And why is it that drunkenness is a mitigating circumstance for female criminals, but an aggravating circumstance for male criminals?

Alison Tieman, a Canadian videographer and Honey Badger, who we were pleased to welcome to the recent second International Conference on Men’s Issues, knows what’s behind these perennial double standards – gender differences in moral agency – and explained it in Men’s Rights Versus Feminism Explained by Magnets (4:27).

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Susan Bosworth, 51, with a history of damaging property and 58 previous convictions (for 178 offences) smashed up Leicester Crown Court with a hammer ‘on impulse’ following an all-day bender. Suspended sentence.

  1. I also notice that newspapers are less likely to print pictures of female offenders. That may be to protect their ‘reputation’.

  2. To the extent that deliberate, compulsive or uncaring breaches of the law can be described as having an abnormal personality (otherwise we’d all be in jail), most people who are convicted of breaking the law can be described as having a personality disorder. This is the foundation for the concept of treating criminals, rather than just punishing them. It also applies to men at least as much as women but should not excuse either of them from being put in jail to keep the rest of us – and our property – safe.

    “What is the point in wasting taxpayers’ money in prosecuting women, when they are so seldom adequately punished?”

    This is a point far too often overlooked in discussing how to reduce crime. About a year ago, I was discusssing the matter with a retired policeman. I talk more about this here – http://www.antimisandry.com/node/554673 – but in brief, his point was exactly this. What IS the point? Police have targets and are judged, to some extent, by the ability to reduce crime and to get convictions for crimes committed. They know that chasing down males is more effective in meeting such targets than chasing down females.

    Resources are not unlimited. Given 100 man-hours to solve 3 equivalent crimes, one committed by a man, one committed by a woman and one committed by someone unknown, which will the police prioritise for reducing crime?

    The ex-policeman went so far as to postulate that the majority of unsolved crimes (which is the majority of crimes) is female-perpetrated. The idea that men are more likely to commit crime could be, in itself, a fallacy based on the fact that everyone from the bobby on the beat to the judge in the courtroom is doing more to stop crime committed by males.

    It starts at the top. Our courts need to teeat all criminals the same, regardless of sex. Only one MP is standing up in parliament saying this and he is being attacked by feminists, so if you haven’t already done so, let him know that you approve of what he is doing: http://tinyurl.com/LegalEquality

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s