5 Comments »

1. 

   This is one of the more unbelievable examples of pro-female, anti-male sexism and the pussy pass. No explanation is given for why the charges were dropped against this woman who had already pleaded guilty but not against the man. Gender equality, yeah right.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 24th January 2016 @ 9:40 pm

2. 

   And another one …
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11579355&ref=rss

   Comment by golfa — Mon 25th January 2016 @ 4:37 pm

3. 

   Hi Golfa – hope you have no issues with my posting a couple of details from the link you provided.

   A woman who filmed herself performing a sex act on her son for $300 has dodged a jail term.

   Krystal Harvey, 23, was sentenced to eight months home detention after admitting sexually violating the 1-year-old and producing the objectionable minute-long video at the request of a paedophile.

   She applied for permanent name suppression at Manukau District Court this afternoon but Judge Phil Recordon rejected her bid.

   The victim’s paternal grandparents and the baby’s father wanted her to be named and the judge said it would be wrong to go against their wishes.

   “It’s something you’re going to have to live with,” he told Harvey.

   The offending happened in August 2014 after a 21-year-old Christchurch man contacted her online and the pair formed a bond.

   Maybe this woman is a comedian and makes us laugh? Or perhaps it was only a baby boy being abused so no harm done? Something is seriously wrong with the legal system in this country when it permits crimes like these to go virtually unpunished.

   Comment by BruceS — Mon 25th January 2016 @ 5:55 pm

4. 

   Unless the sexual offence involved significant fear, pain or cruelty, it’s likely that in itself it won’t have much effect on the 1yo child. It may be that Krystal Harvey’s attitude and behaviour as a mother generally will have caused harm to him. However, it looks like the child’s grandparents will make sure the sexual offence causes psychological harm by telling him about it when he’s older, over and above the harm the state has caused by ripping the child from his mother.

   The issue here is that a woman is given a light sentence and the judge’s comments show a lot of sympathy towards her as well as suggesting that punishing her by imprisonment won’t help rehabilitate her. This stuff simply wouldn’t happen to a man who sexually offended against a 1yo child in his care, nor would his behaviour be blamed on some woman who enticed him to offend in that way. The Courts would see such a male offender as an ongoing threat but they seem to find it difficult to believe that any woman could really be a threat even though she has already proven she is. Also, the Courts appear to believe that male sexual offenders are best rehabilitated in jail, and the Parole Board will keep them in jail until that rehabilitation is believed to have been completed. Somehow, all those beliefs don’t apply when it comes to women, as if female offending is a whole different thing from male offending.

   While it’s true that Krystal Harvey received a very light sentence relative to what most men would receive for the same behaviour, it’s not correct to say that her crime went virtually unpunished. Home detention is a form of prison sentence that can be more challenging than prison., It’s not unusual for offenders on home detention to change it so they serve out the rest of their sentence in jail. They either request to have the sentence changed or they screw up their home detention (e.g. by escaping, using alcohol or drugs at home or offending otherwise) to ensure they are sent to prison instead, even when that results in extra prison time. On home detention the demands of normal life continue whereas in prison most normal responsibility is taken away. Also, people on home detention often have difficulty managing friends and associates, e.g. discouraging them from visiting with alcohol or drugs. It’s often less stressful to serve a sentence in jail.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 25th January 2016 @ 10:12 pm

5. 

   And here’s another form of pussy pass. Female tennis players can lose their temper and seriously break tournament behavioural rules yet not be disqualified when male players are disqualified for similar behaviour. This is chronicled here.

   Also, when a female tennis player throws tantrums and abuses people around her because she’s losing, we get the headline ‘Daria Gavrilova throws epic tantrum, then breaks hearts with apology‘. You simply would not see such a headline or the sympathetic story and news coverage generally for male players who let their anger get out of control and behave aggressively or rudely. Instead, here’s the kind of headline we get for badly behaved male players: ‘Could nappies be next for this potty-mouthed Aussie?‘ and ‘Editorial: Tennis wrong to go easy on bad boys‘.

   Might seem trivial, but someone needs to call out this duplicity so here I am. It’s simply another example of favouritism, sympathy, understanding and forgiveness towards females in situations where males are generally treated harshly. I can hear the indignant feminist brigade already, claiming that behaviour done by a female is never as bad as when the same behaviour is done by a male, and that a man must have made her do it.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 25th January 2016 @ 10:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ