Criminal is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
I must watch too much TV these days, but let's be honest, that's where most of the bullshit is flooding us from, and I need something to write and get angry about because it makes me forget how miserable my life is. Alas, to be a Millennial is bliss!
The news is that by a spark of brilliance, some brainiac feminists have figured that statistically there are more women in prisons than there should be. Obviously in their mind this was a fatal flaw and therefore had to be dealt with immediately.
The Prison Reform Trust in the UK have announced this and are preparing to issue a program that does not convict women for minor offences. Their reasons for encouraging this frankly baffling move is that females in prisons face historic and gross neglect; short prison sentences for minor, non-violent crimes are detrimental to their circumstances and do not help tackle the root of the problem, namely why they have committed the crime in the first place, let that be mental health issues—which they strongly hinted at during the interview on Victoria Derbyshire—or their financial or familial circumstances. Apparently 86% of female prisoners have been convicted for non-violent crimes as opposed to 67% of men. Apparently. Their legislation does not include a single graph or data set that would indicate there was actual research that went into the statistics that they claim to base this ridiculous piece of reform on. It's 55 pages long—there should've been enough room for it.
I was expecting more of an outrage, but unlike me, people spend their mornings at work, jabbing away at their keyboards in blissful oblivion so the expected flood of anger was absent as of now.
How this strategic step wasn't labelled sexism I have no idea. What is crystal clear from this is that feminists are slowly achieving what some of them have preached of wanting in the first place: men bad, women innocent butterflies exempt of blame.
Personally, I've had enough of women being treated as soft, vulnerable plush toys that have no agency and need other people to protect them and speak out for them. It may seem counterintuitive to speak out against my own gender like this in relation to a cause that may affect me in the future if my life continues to roll downhill without a stop, but I thought myself to be the sort of 'F' word that wants to be treated equally to any man. Even if that means I would have the same harsh treatment regarding prison sentences. I cannot fathom why women would be receiving special treatment just because of their gender.
It can't only be me who sees this new reform as basically encouraging women to commit minor crimes like shoplifting whenever they want to. If it goes unpunished, crime is going to increase. If women can get away with theft, what else could they get away with next?
It is true that the primary care-givers are usually women. However, there are single fathers as well—shouldn't we be considerate on their behalf too? Men's lives are also destroyed by prison sentences; convictions affect one's chances to integrate themselves into society, find a job, or lead a regular life altogether. This is how the law works; by retribution people learn the consequences of their actions which can potentially be life destroying. By this legislation the law itself is weakened by making it inconsistent, unfair, and gender-biased.
We have seen the outrage surrounding the woman who, despite stabbing her Tinder date, somehow walked free out of court without a hint of conviction. It is making an exception with women and allowing them an advantage for no other reason than their uterus, which is what anti-feminists have been trying to point out. That feminism uses a cloaked sexism and turns the fight for equality into means of gaining momentum and ultimately accomplishing possessing more rights than men.
Equal rights should mean that men and women get the same treatment. This should refer to the treatment of mental health issues as well. I wonder how in the midst of so many men committing suicide so recently such as Anthony Bourdain or Robin Williams, this is something we favour women with. Men and women can suffer from similarly severe issues of mental health that drive them to crime. If necessary professional care and assistance should be provided, convicts should be assessed in prison since it is the institution's duty to—other than punish criminals—at the end of their sentence hopefully reinstate them into society so that they're able to be a valuable member of it and not relapse.
Since men can be much less outspoken about their issues, this too, as well as the recent deaths, may have shown that depression might indicate a grander issue for males than for females. Violent crimes are committed more often by men because violence is a much easier, non-verbal way of problem solving for them than for women. Excessive violence and aggression can serve as a mechanism for coping with certain emotions they cannot express since this is the pattern they inherited and learned from their peers or parents. Women are naturally better at verbal communication and self-expression, therefore petty thefts and other minor criminal offenses will be more common in the female population.
To be quite honest there's an explanation to each of the problems the proposition brought up. Different explanations imply that the root of the problem is not being female. If anything one should start with paying more attention to offenders' mental health in the first place to tackle the roots of the problem—all offenders, not solely the female ones. Then again not all criminals will have a disorder that will if not justify then lend the blame on them. And if we start justifying theft by claiming it is only committed because of reasons that may mitigate a harsher judgment, we're looking for excuses to put thieves and murderers back on the streets.
However, a crime is a crime. A minor offense is still against the law. Gendering lenience seems to be riding the wave of radical feminism at the moment and there are people buying into it. Even though there is no one willing to publish the "crystal clear" data that suggests women are less of a criminal in the Eyes of the Law because they only stole £300 worth of tote bags, people praise the cause and glorify its founders.
As a way of appeasing people, the reform suggests that later on this can be extended to the male convicts as well, but since there are less female inmates, they are starting small and working their way outward, into broader territories.
I feel like after real-life stories like this, satire loses its meaning. I shall start a Kickstarter where I fund my misadventures to stores so I can shoplift to my heart's desire with a group of my fellow accomplices. Once I get caught I'll just bat my lashes, flash someone, and will be let off with a flick of the officer's forefinger with a promise that it won't happen again. Little will he be aware of the fact that after he turned his back I pocketed four necklaces, three whole bars of Dairy Milk, and his baton.
After all, we should all be encouraged to steal, lie, and cheat as long as we don't get caught...and as long as we're women. Right?