Hi, Willis Hart here to tell you that I think this is an example of "male privilege" rearing its glorious head YET AGAIN!
But seriously, we all know that male privilege is a myth. Meaning it does not exist. Something else we all know is that every case of murder results in sending the killer to death row... or it should. Right? No matter if the murdering scum is a man or a woman. Yeah, you heard me. I absolutely do not buy the following argument.
| According to the Justice Department, roughly one in 10 homicides are committed by women. And when women kill, their victims are more likely to be someone close to them, like their children, boyfriends or spouses. Forensic psychologists and criminal profilers say women who kill have backgrounds and motivations that are often quite different from their male counterparts. Compared with men, women are more likely to be related to their victim, less likely to plan in advance and less likely to use extreme violence. "Women are different in whom, how and why they kill", said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. "The victims are younger, they're more often related to them, they kill with means other than guns. "The traditional female role is a nurturer, not a murderer. Extreme violence is far more alien to females than to males", he added. "When a murder is committed by a female, it's more likely to be self-defense or can reflect some sort of mental illness". (Why Do Some Women Kill? by Scott Michels, Sarah Netter, Laura Marquez and Sabina Ghebremedhin. ABC News, 4/14/2009). |
So what this article is saying is that women aren't premeditating or violent killers, they don't usually kill strangers, and (when women kill) the reason is likely to be self defense or mental illness. While with men the murders are more often premeditated and more often violent (although not necessarily both)... and this could very logically explain why, while women commit 10% of the murders, they only comprise 1.5% of those on death row.
OK, so now I have to admit that this argument does make sense. After reading the reasoned and logical article (from which I excerpted the material presented above), I have no choice but to say that I *do* buy it...
But, on the other hand... so what? Even if this argument makes total sense (and it does), I say that the particulars of a case should have no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is applied. We should only look at the percentages, IMO. If women commit 10 percent of the murders, then they should represent 10 percent of death row inmates. And be 10 percent of those we fry (or lethally inject).
This is only fair in my idiotic brain-dead misogynistic opinion. BTW, if you, the reader, do not agree? You're probably a feminist. Or some pansy pussy-whipped man who can't stand up to his woman! And you can stuff your (correct) view of my (moronic) opinion!
In any case, I'm a male and therefore would benefit from this supposed male privilege, should it exist. Which it absolutely does not. Or that's the BS I'm spinning, at least. Society needs to stop oppressing men and acknowledge the fact that men are superior to women (which society has largely already done, but a bunch of feminists are trying to change that, damn them!).
Byline: This ignorant commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of misygony. LLIN-159.
