Sports and domestic violence / rape.

[950483]

Why does this keep happening? Courts are much more lenient towards men who are good at some kind of sport. Why is being good at sports seen as some kind of extenuating or mitigating circumstance? Seriously, wtf?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39529714

"Oh, so you're not busy playing cricket after all? Right then; you can go to prison."

 

[MickeyLee]

toxic masculinity

admiration leniency

men feeling entitled to women's' bodies

that and good old fashion male privilege
add whiteness to the equation ya can literally get away with murder

 

[950483]

add whiteness to the equation ya can literally get away with murder

In this context I don't think colour is as important as maleness and sporting achievements, after all it was probably OJ who set the gold standard, and the guy in the news story I linked is Indian.

 

[MickeyLee]

i had Brock Turner in mind when i comment on race playing a factor
he got caught raping a woman and did less time than people get for jay-walking

i have a feeling is the man from the article were white he wouldn't be in custody right now

 

[Scarletbegonia]

ML, I think you mean "able to afford great lawyers."

 

[TexanStar]

toxic masculinity

admiration leniency

men feeling entitled to women's' bodies

that and good old fashion male privilege
add whiteness to the equation ya can literally get away with murder

This really. It's just straight up, old fashioned, classical sexism and it ends up prominent in any testosterone-heavy institutions (which includes athletics programs, but also institutions like the military).

 

[TinyPrincess]

Well, affluenza can keep your butt out of jail

OJ proved it - you can be too rich to serve time - even for murder or manslaughter.

 

[TexanStar]

This really. It's just straight up, old fashioned, classical sexism and it ends up prominent in any testosterone-heavy institutions (which includes athletics programs, but also institutions like the military).

To expand on this a bit, straight forward sexism has a tendency to crop up when the male-female ratio starts getting too skewed. I think part of the reason there's so much on this board, actually is that there's so many men here as compared to women. It's not that sexism can't crop up in more balanced situations, but some men feel more free to bolster and support sexist attitudes of others when they have numbers on their side.

So anyways, college athletics program have a gender disparity problem that's gotten worse since title IX rather than better.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/02/23/women-college-coaches-title-9-ix/23917353/

The numbers are staggering.

• Fourty-three years ago, 90 percent of all women's teams were coached by women
• Today, that number is 40 percent.
• The number of women coaching men's teams is minuscule with fewer than 300 nationwide — less than 2 percent.

Coaches are the closest hand in guiding the behavior of the team on & off the field/court and somehow the representation of women in the field has become grossly disparate. Female coaches are even being driven out of coaching female teams. The gender bias there is super clear. No one can look at those numbers and argue that it's a level field.

I think this sets up a dynamic that has a lot of problems. For starters, it communicates a message of male superiority to the players. If virtually all the men's teams coaches are male, and the majority of the women's team coaches are also male, it's hard for players not to walk away with an impression that men are better coaches with women... that men have some kind of inherent superiority not just at playing the game, but at instructing and guiding it as well.

It also creates a system where the definitions of what qualifies as normal behavior are set pretty exclusively by men. The behavior of male athletes is an issue that women have had their voice removed from.

When I say it's classical sexism, that doesn't mean it's not something to be fought, just that the causes are straightforward and clear. Men's athletics is one that men, as a group, have staked a flag in the ground though. (some) men really love their football and basketball. That defensiveness on the part of the gender that holds the power in this case means it's going to be particularly challenging to root out. I think effecting real change would require leadership and participation from the players on the issue. Men inside the system would have to start calling this out as a problem. I'm optimistic that could happen (on the basis of some encouraging movement I've seen from mens athletic teams on the issues of trans rights), but I don't really see it happening right now.

 

[Beedie Tijii]

I can understand why OJ was acquitted. I'm not saying he was innocent (with the benefit of hindsight his guilt is as clear as day) but my view is that the almighty mess that the prosecution made of the case had more to do with his acquittal than how much money he spent on his legal defense.

The case of the cricketer in the original post is a scary view of the criminal justice system in this country. The comments made by the judge are revealing.

 

[950483]

Perhaps we just get to hear about these cases because sports, sports teams, and personalities get more coverage. I don't know whether judges tend to be ludicrously lenient in similar cases where the man claims that going to prison would have a negative impact on his career, his quality of life and his finances.

I agree with @TinyPrincess though, that affluenza will protect someone from most things.

 

[Beedie Tijii]

Perhaps we just get to hear about these cases because sports, sports teams, and personalities get more coverage. I don't know whether judges tend to be ludicrously lenient in similar cases where the man claims that going to prison would have a negative impact on his career, his quality of life and his finances.

I agree with @TinyPrincess though, that affluenza will protect someone from most things.

To be honest, I have only heard of cases where financial consequences are taken into account due to the offendant's ability to pay a fine, not for a custodial sentence. I am not sure what sentencing guidelines this judge was following. Also, assault cases with a weapon usually indicate a higher culpability which ought to result in a more severe sentence.

 

[TexanStar]

To be honest, I have only heard of cases where financial consequences are taken into account due to the offendant's ability to pay a fine, not for a custodial sentence. I am not sure what sentencing guidelines this judge was following. Also, assault cases with a weapon usually indicate a higher culpability which ought to result in a more severe sentence.

Here stateside, we've had judges set aside prison time for wealthy defendants that they felt "wouldn't survive" in the type of prison their crime warranted.

 

[950483]

To expand on this a bit, straight forward sexism has a tendency to crop up when the male-female ratio starts getting too skewed. I think part of the reason there's so much on this board, actually is that there's so many men here as compared to women. It's not that sexism can't crop up in more balanced situations, but some men feel more free to bolster and support sexist attitudes of others when they have numbers on their side.

So anyways, college athletics program have a gender disparity problem that's gotten worse since title IX rather than better.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/02/23/women-college-coaches-title-9-ix/23917353/

The numbers are staggering.

• Fourty-three years ago, 90 percent of all women's teams were coached by women
• Today, that number is 40 percent.
• The number of women coaching men's teams is minuscule with fewer than 300 nationwide — less than 2 percent.

Coaches are the closest hand in guiding the behavior of the team on & off the field/court and somehow the representation of women in the field has become grossly disparate. Female coaches are even being driven out of coaching female teams. The gender bias there is super clear. No one can look at those numbers and argue that it's a level field.

I think this sets up a dynamic that has a lot of problems. For starters, it communicates a message of male superiority to the players. If virtually all the men's teams coaches are male, and the majority of the women's team coaches are also male, it's hard for players not to walk away with an impression that men are better coaches with women... that men have some kind of inherent superiority not just at playing the game, but at instructing and guiding it as well.

It also creates a system where the definitions of what qualifies as normal behavior are set pretty exclusively by men. The behavior of male athletes is an issue that women have had their voice removed from.

When I say it's classical sexism, that doesn't mean it's not something to be fought, just that the causes are straightforward and clear. Men's athletics is one that men, as a group, have staked a flag in the ground though. (some) men really love their football and basketball. That defensiveness on the part of the gender that holds the power in this case means it's going to be particularly challenging to root out. I think effecting real change would require leadership and participation from the players on the issue. Men inside the system would have to start calling this out as a problem. I'm optimistic that could happen (on the basis of some encouraging movement I've seen from mens athletic teams on the issues of trans rights), but I don't really see it happening right now.

Or, what is more relevant to the subject of the thread, is that judges are far more likely to be male, white, and from a privileged background. The UK is pretty bad for representation of women and minorities, (and even people from working class backgrounds, who are the majority ). I can only imagine that there might be a similar trend in the land of capitalism on steroids.

 

[950483]

To be honest, I have only heard of cases where financial consequences are taken into account due to the offendant's ability to pay a fine, not for a custodial sentence. I am not sure what sentencing guidelines this judge was following. Also, assault cases with a weapon usually indicate a higher culpability which ought to result in a more severe sentence.

What do you think their logic is in 'letting people off easy' so as not to interfere with their chosen career in sports then?

 

[TexanStar]

I can only imagine that there might be a similar trend in the land of capitalism on steroids.

Gender disparity in the courts in the US is a little better than the UK, but not by much. Many judges here, and pretty much all the high ranking ones, are appointees of the executive branch. In a country where elected officials skew predominantly male, it creates a boys club where men get elected and appoint a lot of men in return.

President Obama put a lot of effort into the federal judiciary during his tenure (and appointed a more diverse group of judges to the federal bench than any president in history (less than 30% of his appointments were white males). But now we're in the age of Trump and I'm fairly certain there will be a return to old form from our pussy grabber in chief.

To your point, I don't feel like there's a favoritism in the US court system towards male athletes over men in other occupations or extracurricular activities. I do feel like there's a ton of favoritism before one even reaches the courts (e.g. before one discusses favoritism at trial, you have to get to trial, and experience here is that athletes are more capable in avoiding that altogether). There's some difficulty due to a lack of published studies on the matter though, so people are mostly going off anecdotal gut feel about the fairness of the system: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/us/brock-turner-college-athletes-sentence/

 

[Beedie Tijii]

What do you think their logic is in 'letting people off easy' so as not to interfere with their chosen career in sports then?

Good question. No idea. I really can't understand this, or fathom the mindset that might find this morally justifiable.

I am a fan of the fact that we have a rule of law that punishes people who commit violent crimes. It is a damn good thing that it is possible for our society to remove people who commit violence (especially abusive violence), punish them accordingly, and rehabilitate where appropriate. Sentencing should be relative to the vulnerability of the victim, the physical ferocity of the violence, and usually the level of premeditation that the crime involved, but certainly the consequences of punishment to the offender should not be a consideration. The whole point of an effective criminal justice system is to enforce the rule of law equally, to all, and treating people differently due to their level of personal achievement in anything, let alone sports, is completely the wrong way to do things.

If I even tried to guess at the logic, I would be naive to think that a judge who gives a lesser sentence because of a person's sporting achievement has society's best interests in mind. The message it sends is that certain people are ultimately less subject to the rule of law than others. That goes to the heart of what is particularly fucked up about cases like this.

I don't know how common stories like this are, although it's not something that has occurred to me to keep an eye out for in the news. I'm familiar with the Ched Evans case during which he won his appeal and retrial, but I don't think there's any evidence that his sentencing itself was treated differently because he plays football: he was serving time up until he won the appeal. Are you familiar with other cases like this?

 

[950483]

Good question. No idea. I really can't understand this, or fathom the mindset that might find this morally justifiable.

I am a fan of the fact that we have a rule of law that punishes people who commit violent crimes. It is a damn good thing that it is possible for our society to remove people who commit violence (especially abusive violence), punish them accordingly, and rehabilitate where appropriate. Sentencing should be relative to the vulnerability of the victim, the physical ferocity of the violence, and usually the level of premeditation that the crime involved, but certainly the consequences of punishment to the offender should not be a consideration. The whole point of an effective criminal justice system is to enforce the rule of law equally, to all, and treating people differently due to their level of personal achievement in anything, let alone sports, is completely the wrong way to do things.

If I even tried to guess at the logic, I would be naive to think that a judge who gives a lesser sentence because of a person's sporting achievement has society's best interests in mind. The message it sends is that certain people are ultimately less subject to the rule of law than others. That goes to the heart of what is particularly fucked up about cases like this.

I don't know how common stories like this are, although it's not something that has occurred to me to keep an eye out for in the news. I'm familiar with the Ched Evans case during which he won his appeal and retrial, but I don't think there's any evidence that his sentencing itself was treated differently because he plays football: he was serving time up until he won the appeal. Are you familiar with other cases like this?

The fact that Ched Evens went to prison at all was unusual. I think they made an example out of him, or he committed his crime the week after they changed the rules.

 

[sizehungry]

No man should ever be allowed to escape justice for rape / domestic violence / indeed , violence against anybody ,( regardless of gender) ., regardless of fame , wealth , or position . Sigmund Freud had a theory about men seeking control over others , some thing to do with size deficiency perhaps .Given that i am an advocate of equal rights , pay etc , etc , for women , I for one , am sick and tired of the never ending , time wasting gender dominance struggle , as i find it to be a frustrating endeavor , which often breeds resentment , anger , and sometimes ( far too often) , violence . I wish we could all just " get it right " . Regrettably , i have been guilty , and stupid enough , in my youth , to look at women as property , suffering all of the stupid , hurtful jealousies that go hand in hand with such bullshit attitudes . The misery , and discomfort experienced by the girls/women , on the receiving end , is something i'm not proud of . I have been truly fortunate regarding the women in my life , and i am profoundly grateful for their perseverance , tolerance for as long as it lasted , and most of all , their forgiveness . All of them added to my " education " as it were , enriched my life , and the fact that i'm happy and content with the man i am today , is is no small way , due to them . Ps , have to say that i love the women's forum ...we are all a " work in progress " , and i have learned quite a bit from this section of LPSG .

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

If some rich asshole is making more money off these rich assholes where's there incentive to do anything about it? I mean, it's not like they give a fuck about anything but that $$$

Fucking Assholes. Actually, that's an insult to my delightful anus. I don't even know what to call them but they deserve some fucking Justice.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

I think it begins in the schools, where athletes take their place at the top of the class system, and it's painfully obvious to all that adults approve of this hierarchy.

I love (some) sports; I played sports in high school, but I really believe one of the best things that could happen in America would be to eliminate school-vs.-school competitive sports. Kids who want to play a sport can join the Y or an after-school rec league.

One bit of good news is that (American) football is probably the primary driver of this athlete-worshiping mentality, and American football is not going to exist, as we currently know it, in 10-15 years.