Why are women allowed to get a way with murder?

Question

If a man commits murder, he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, despite lame excuses. Murderers like Mary Winkler and serial killers like Andrea Yates just have to claim some looniness and get off with light sentences. Then they go on Oprah Winfrey and go boo-hooing about being victims. Justice apparently isn't blind, it is massively sexist against men.

Let's try to remember that, although public opinion (and probably some facts) say that OJ killed his, he never admitted guilt or was found guilty. Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler actually admitted to the crimes.

Also, if a man had done the same thing, he would have been hooked, booked and cooked without a whisper.

Answer 1

I posted this several days ago and I think it has application here:

Feminists have indoctrinated judiciaries, as a result of years of feminist propaganda (e.g. women = good, men = bad) so as to instill in the judge's mind the notion that women who harm/kill are driven by an forces beyond their control (you know, 'women can do no wrong' - it's always something or someone else's fault). Hence this leads to the distortion in sentencing b/w the genders, as you highlighted.

Interestingly enough, women even have the 'battered women's syndrome' defence whereby they are given a license to kill a man supposedly after "years of abuse", without actually establishing proof b/c the husband isn't around to provide any evidence or to refute the allegation. In some instances, women have walked away free from courts even after admitting to the murder of their husbands.

Answer 2

Men and women are suckers for a woman's tears. The jury that convicted Winkler was 8 women and 2 men. The 8 women wanted her to walk away free.

It is often male judges that screw over men in the divorce cases. The problem is obviously all the media that says men are bad and women are good. Women often get diagnosed with mental illness, which is true sometimes. Men also have these. We are just learning men deal with depression with anger and aggressive behavior. These conditions are often abused by women who can rent a shrink to say whatever they want.

I was shocked to see Oprah would allow her on the show. Winkler already killed her husband once. Now she is killing him again by demonizing him. During the trial and now she will demonize him again in front of millions. This while her husband can't defend himself because he is in a coffin.

For all you who say she was abused, you should know there that was zero proof of abuse. Her word was good enough, for the court and now the public. I can only imagine how many innocent men will be killed and demonized by malicious women now that they can see what they can get away with.

Answer 3

I was really sickened when I found out Oprah was having Mary Winkler on her show. It's not just that Murdering Mary is used a women's only defense to get away with it, the circumstances of the whole thing were VERY dubious.

Oprah having her on her show and treating her like some sort of heroine is the exact sort of thing that feminists have done over the years to get us to the point where a woman can get away with murder if she so chooses. Treating them like heroines is merely what appears to be the next step.

The main reason it is sickening is because it holds these murderers up as role models. What is someone going to think watching that... "I want to be a heroine like Mary Winkler and kill my 'abusive' husband one day".

Not too long ago the Washington Post commiserated with the woman who killed her husband, said he "walked into the knife", ended up getting a plea bargain for involuntary manslaughter and walked free in less than a year.. THEN RECEIVED $400,000 OF HIS LIFE INSURANCE. The Washington Post held her up as a big victim who had to rebuild her life now that she had been in jail.

The reason is that feminists have milked the good will of men and the apparent will to irresponsibility of women to this point over many years. This bias dates back to around the mid 1800s when the first wave feminist movement started promoting a sort of bastardised chivalry and unconditional protectiveness of women. The law used to hold men and women equally accountable. One of the first instances of gender bias in the courts was when lashings were abolished .. for women only. It's been downhill ever since.

Frankly the feminist movement is now responsible for promotion of murder.

Answer 4

Women have more excuses to get away with using the insanity plea.... severe depression after having children, battered womens syndrome, etc. Are some of the pleas BS pleas? Absolutely.

I think the only difference between a man getting a heavy sentence and a woman getting a light sentence is legal representation. OJ murdered two people, had NO mental issues (ALLEGEDLY!) and had all of the money in the world to get an amazing attorney!

That just goes to show that with the right people, even Jeffrey Dhamer could have gotten away with murder... you just have to spin it the right way!

Hope this helps!

Answer 5

Well, I didn't know that.

(And I'm not sure if that happens in my country).

Anyway, when I was growing up I remember that society used to be more judgmental towards a criminal woman than a man.

I guess that's because women are believed to be more emotional by nature, and men more aggressive (and that's probably true).

I don't know if that's still the case (or that society disapproves more women's misconduct than men's...)

However, I see no difference between a criminal man or woman. (Although, I would probably feel unsafer if I were in the presence of a criminal man... Because he could use force over me, and harm me more...)

Answer 6

It's another example of the double standard that exists in this country with regard to women. As has been observed countless times, they want "equality" when it benefits them, and they want inequality when THAT benefits them. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system in this country does not comply with the doctrine of men and women being equal under the law.

Answer 7

There are a lot of issues on this one, and Chunga raised some crucial ones regarding numbers. The media tends to "play up" women's brutality because it's not seen as being as common as when the crimes are committed by men. We expect men to be violent, we do not expect it in women. From Lizzie Borden on down, women's femininity and the disbelief that women are capable of murder has allowed women to receive more lenient sentences.

I have read a lot of books on women murderers and one of the big differences between men and women in the commission of the crimes is that women have murdered in ways that virtually guarantee they won't be caught. They tend to be systematic and plan out their murders carefully. The victims of women tend to be children--and the murder of children has been happening for a very long time, often at the hands of mothers or female caregivers. Further, women are often involved in partnerships with men who murder, and often abet or actually commit the crime for which the man is often covicted, and the woman is often excused. Case in point--Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. He is rotting in jail for life; she got 12 years and is currently a free woman walking the streets with her newborn child. This is in spite of the fact that she assisted in the rape and murder of her younger sister and two other young girls. She claimed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his abusing her. Then she married him. And their crimes were videotaped, with her apparently enjoying every minute. That case alone is enough for me to say that perceptions of women killers have to change. Women are just as capable of murder as men--they do not do it as often, but they do it, and should be treated the same way a man would. There is no question she got a lighter sentence because she's a woman, and all the assumptions about women contributed to that. Quite frankly, to be against feminism is ridiculous in this situation because feminists want to eliminate stereotypes about females--the very sterotypes that allow these things to happen. There is a dramatic increase in the violence being committed by women, particularly young women, and Kelly Allard, 18 at the time, was one such girl who killed a school mate because the school mate didn't quite fit in. This was in front of an audience of numerous other school girls. One guy was also there, and he's also in jail. Kelly appealed 3 times before she was confirmed to be the one who dealt the fatal blow, but she wasted years and thousands of tax dollars denying her involvement.
BTW to the person who mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer--he literally did get away with murder. After drilling a hole in the back of a man's head, he went out for food, assuming the guy was rendered helpless, then came back to find the man sitting on a street corner talking to a cop (incoherently, but trying to get help). Dahmer passed it off as a lover's quarrel, and so did the cop, who laughingly walked away. Dahmer then took the guy upstairs and killed him. So...stereotypes about gay men and stereotypes about women contribute to these types of attitudes. We know for certain men can be violent. I think it's time we actually believed that women are just as capable, and stop making excuses for horrific behaviours.

Answer 8

It would seem -- without sitting the jury, all that's left
is media hype and opinion based on those "facts".
It would seem like justice of inner family crimes
begs to be dispensed by kinfolk.

Answer 9

You make a valid point. Let's not forget, though, too, that the criminal justice system is also racially oppressive. (In the United States.) The prison population is over-represented by African Americans, due to institutionalized forms of discrimination and prejudice (bad laws that seem neutral on the surface but actually result in discrimination against particular groups of people). We have a long way to go (in the U.S.) to solving these issues. The system is by no means as fair as it should or could be.

Answer 10

When Andrea Yates killed her kids, NOW (national organisation for women) came running to her defense... so it seems that feminism isn't after 'equality' as most people would define it.