WTF, women, the law & society

[nevergaveitathought]

WTF said something that i agree with (finally?). He said

Originally Posted by WTF

That is the point...feelings shouldn't get in the way of the law.

that quote awoke in me something i have thought often about.

we spend much of societal capital on tamping down the natural inclinations of men. law and acculturation (the process of causing one to adapt) has served to domesticate man and keep man's naturalness, instincts, aggression, and sexuality under wraps.

what about women's nature? for example, serving on a jury, they tend to be lenient when no leniency is called for. we do nothing about these feelings that tend to harm society.

if you consider law and norms are designed to put parameters on actions, why not both ends of the continuum?

or am i wrong?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

or am i wrong?

If I said something that you agree with then there is a good chance I might be wrong!

My main man nevergives, if you are saying that we have given our balls over to the women folk, I tend to agree. Sorry ladies but at some point we are going to want our balls back and it won't be pretty because that will mean the world is in survival mode. OK, I'll stop there with my optimism

[atlcomedy]

I know this isn't where you were going with this NGT, but similarly feelings shouldn't be the basis for law.

All too often many of us want to create policy based on annecdotes. Simply it is a bad idea.

I don't want to make this a discussion on immigration, just using this as an example. Most of us have heard stories about people in this country illegally that have lived fantastic lives and are true assets to their communities. That doesn't change the fact that they broke the law to get here. Should we give that individual leniency? Where do you draw the line? The same is true with the people who favor tax cuts (count me as one). Probe them long enough and most of them have one or more pork programs that they would keep intact.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

All too often many of us want to create policy based on annecdotes. Simply it is a bad idea.

Isn't that better known as precedent though? Isn't the law heavily reliant on that? Or am I mis-understanding what you are saying/mean ATL?

C x

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

what about women's nature? for example, serving on a jury, they tend to be lenient when no leniency is called for.

or am i wrong?

Do you have to ask? Of course you are wrong!

What makes you think, first, that your stereotype is correct. I've actually served on a criminal jury and in our case, the opposite was true, although everyone eventually agreed to acquit the Defendant (although I was on of the last to come around and tried to broker a probation deal).

Second, even if it were to be correct, why would you automatically assume that the male view is the correct view (which you obviously do when you say that "no leniency is called for"). Wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that men don't give leniency when it is called for? What makes your gender's view the correct one?

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

for example, serving on a jury, they tend to be lenient when no leniency is called for.

Tush is correct. Women can be merciless on a jury - particularly in rape cases where the issue is consent and not force. Prosecutors and defense counsel fight like dogs over the gender of the jury in a consent-based rape case. The defense wants all the middle-aged soccer moms it can get. Conservative, bible-belt, thirty-something women will blame the victim and acquit in these cases every time. If you're defending a weak rape case you send your clerk out to the parking lot to record which of the female jury candidates have Sarah Palin bumper stickers. Those are the women you want on your panel.

Women have also been shown to give higher awards to employment discrimination victims and in cases where a child was injured. There's actually tons of research on gender bias in the jury room. You can buy guides from law publishers that help you pick exactly the demographic you want for the jury in a particular case.

we do nothing about these feelings that tend to harm society.

In the case of juries we do take action - we equip both sides of the case with the same information about gender bias in jurors. We then let them bang away on each other to reach a happy medium and achieve a jury panel that's fair.

For the most part this works well. There are certainly outliers where you get a panel of 12 that has 10 old ladies on it. It's a statistical process and you're going to get the occasional trial where you just can't get a good mix on the jury. Overall, though, I think we have developed a good system for picking juries that avoids a lot of the old 12-white-guy biases.

The bigger problem is with who shows up for jury duty. Smart people find ways to get out of it. What you're left to choose from is not even close to an actual cross-section of the public, but that's a topic for a different thread.

if you consider law and norms are designed to put parameters on actions, why not both ends of the continuum?

I think you've got the wrong attitude toward all of this.

When you use the law to enforce your own view of proper behavior on somebody you inevitably end up screwing the pooch. Try to "tamper down" the "natural inclinations" of women you end up with Saudi Arabia and a population of women who can't drive or eat in the same restaurant with men. Try to "tamper down" the "natural inclinations" of blacks you end up with South Africa and moral disaster of tremendous scale. All you're really doing in such cases is having a powerful majority make the rules and then use them to oppress whatever target group they don't like.

The better approach, IMHO, is to recognize and celebrate the natural differences between people, not to suppress them. The proper solution is to adapt societal processes to human behaviors, not to try and hammer people into a model of society that the majority thinks is best.

The recognition that men are horny pigs would go a long way in the Muslim world where women take the blame for sex crimes. The recognition that "Christian values" aren't the answer to all the world's problems would go a long way toward true gender equality in the West. Educate people and get them to see beyond the dogmatic approaches they're tied to and you'll get the result you're looking for here.

In the law we've learned to recognize and work with the natural differences in how men and women approach problems and resolve conflicts - and we've done it in a way that makes it work pretty well for everybody. Apply that rule to society as a whole and I think you'll get a much better outcome than if you try to "tamper down" somebody's "natural inclinations".

Cheers,
Mazo.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Camille

Isn't that better known as precedent though? Isn't the law heavily reliant on that? Or am I mis-understanding what you are saying/mean ATL?

C x

I was originally referring more to the legislative process/branch but you make a fair point except that most judicial precedent is made by judges who ostensibly are looking at the big picture ("if I rule this way what will happen in subsequent cases?") so it really isn't annecdote.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

What makes you think, first, that your stereotype is correct. I've actually served on a criminal jury and in our case, the opposite was true, although everyone eventually agreed to acquit the Defendant (although I was on of the last to come around and tried to broker a probation deal).

?

Yeah as Maz points out there is a whole science around how jurors of different backgrounds will react, but to make a blanket statement about women isn't helpful. There are a lot of different kinds of women. How old is she? What is her ethnicity? Is she a mother? What is her education? What is her profession? and on and on....

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

The bigger problem is with who shows up for jury duty. Smart people find ways to get out of it. What you're left to choose from is not even close to an actual cross-section of the public, but that's a topic for a different thread.

.

Yeah, you get the old, the un(der)employed, the bored*, and the too stupid/naive to get out of service (every now & then mixed in with a patriotic citizen)

I say this not to boast (in the first case I'm certainly not proud of it) but I've personally gotten removed from jury duty altogether twice. The first time I was a middle manager at a Fortune 500 company. I was certainly not "indespensible" and this company would have survived just fine without me but I was bucking for a promotion, had an anal retentive boss and didn't think being away for the better part of a month would be a strong career move. The second time I was running a small company and me serving really would have been a hardship. Point being if you are so inclined getting dismissed isn't a real feat.

*I know a number of folks with cushy corporate jobs that are happy to serve...for the most part it is a break from the same ol same ol at the office...

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Do you have to ask? Of course you are wrong!

What makes you think, first, that your stereotype is correct. I've actually served on a criminal jury and in our case, the opposite was true, although everyone eventually agreed to acquit the Defendant (although I was on of the last to come around and tried to broker a probation deal).

Second, even if it were to be correct, why would you automatically assume that the male view is the correct view (which you obviously do when you say that "no leniency is called for"). Wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that men don't give leniency when it is called for? What makes your gender's view the correct one?

i have been on a jury regarding murder..we were hung for three days because of two women...thats anecdotal..just like yours is...it doesnt prove anything but...


i think i have lived long enough to know that generally speaking women have a different nature than men. why does a bigger percentage of women vote democrat than men vote democrat? do you think every little shop in every strip center or mall would exist if men were the only creatures on this earth? hsn, qvc ..all that...its geared to women, there is a reason. If men were the only creatures on this earth, i dare say our economy would falter, we would soon enough revert to growing our own food in our back yards. dont be so pc, think.

men might be wrong, no one is assuming anything on any given jury, what i'm putting out there is does a certain type of thinking and acting harm society, that we dont consider, perhaps in subtle yet destructive ways?

[TxBrandy]

I think it's called balance. Sometimes it may tip to one side or another, but in general an equal balance is necessary in all aspects of life. The feminine balances out the masculine and vice versa. Without one the other would cease to exist. What is good without bad, up without down? Perspective would be lost without an opposite. In some aspects, one may cause harm but then in other aspects one does more good than the other.

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

we spend much of societal capital on tamping down the natural inclinations of men. law and acculturation (the process of causing one to adapt) has served to domesticate man and keep man's naturalness, instincts, aggression, and sexuality under wraps.

what about women's nature? for example, serving on a jury, they tend to be lenient when no leniency is called for. we do nothing about these feelings that tend to harm society.

I think such simplistic generalized biases regarding either gender is really unfair and rarely reflects reality and is often more damaging then helpful.

Women, throughout history and across cultures, are often the "morality police". They are the backbone of religion, often much more insistant than males that religious practises be observed, and a family's faith structure will most of the time reflect that of the mother, not the father. So from that it does seem logical to deduce that women would actually be less sympathetic to the accused as jurors.

There are studies that show middle aged women are often the most active participants in the deliberation between jurors, but that doesn't suggest sympathy for the accused. Now I have not read the studies Mazomaniac mentions regarding gender correlations in juries, however, there is a great deal of history and research that would make the idea of women as "compassionate creatures" very questionable. Women can and often do lack compassion, especially when it comes to other females, even their daughters. Though we like to blame men for the down trodden role of women in history, women did and continue to do a great deal to opress each other.

If there is a tenancy for women to be overly compassionate in cases, I would assume the compassion will almost always go towards the victim, not the person charged with the crime. Furthermore, there is very little compassion from female jurors in cases where the victim is a female sex worker, and even in rape cases.

I don't think anyone can arbitrarily decide when compassion is called for and when it is not. We must also not forget that the basis of law in North America is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. If you walk into a jury session and have decided that the accused deserves no compassion - then you have already decided he or she is guilty of the crime, before the evidence or the testimonies have been presented. Truthfully, I do not believe being considerate of another human soul, even an evil one, makes a person weak. I think, as Mozomaniac suggested, the key is balance. On a jury you need people who are both compassionate, and those who are not to reach a sane medium. I strongly believe that one can judge a society as "civilized" or "uncivilized" based on how they treat the weakest and worst members of their world.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

When you use the law to enforce your own view of proper behavior on somebody you inevitably end up screwing the pooch.
The better approach, IMHO, is to recognize and celebrate the natural differences between people, not to suppress them. Educate people and get them to see beyond the dogmatic approaches they're tied to and you'll get the result you're looking for here.

Well said. Trying to tamper down" the "natural inclinations" is social engineering, and history has proven that this sort of mindset can only end in disaster. We are not slaves to our instincts, nor are individuals predictable and elementary as gender biases dictate. When you allow people to flourish as individuals, people and society can find balance, because there is so much variance from one to the next. What inclinations either gender may have cannot be viewed as right or wrong, they all serve a purpose and with a little mindfulness and self awareness are cause for celebration.

I have spent far too much time in court, and I find that reality and what actually happened isn't really important. Two things exist in a court room: rules and evidence. They are not necessarily a reflection of events as they occurred - both rules and evidence are up for interpretation.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

we spend much of societal capital on tamping down the natural inclinations of men. law and acculturation (the process of causing one to adapt) has served to domesticate man and keep man's naturalness, instincts, aggression, and sexuality under wraps.

what about women's nature? for example, serving on a jury, they tend to be lenient when no leniency is called for. we do nothing about these feelings that tend to harm society.

Ok I'm getting lost in this thread now so before it gains more momentum can you explain something for me? There have been loads of responses to your women Jurors statement...but can you give a couple of examples where you think "man's naturalness, instincts, agression, and sexuality" are damped down or kept under wraps? I'm trying to understand exactly what it is you are comparing...and an example would be helpful for someone like me.

Thanks

C x

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

When you use the law to enforce your own view of proper behavior on somebody you inevitably end up screwing the pooch. Try to "tamper down" the "natural inclinations" of women you end up with Saudi Arabia and a population of women who can't drive or eat in the same restaurant with men. Try to "tamper down" the "natural inclinations" of blacks you end up with South Africa and moral disaster of tremendous scale. All you're really doing in such cases is having a powerful majority make the rules and then use them to oppress whatever target group they don't like.

I actually wonder if the bigger question isn't about gender, but the way civil cases are brought...and if there should be any ammendments. I am stunned at how long it can take for a relatively staright forward civil case to get through the system in the US. When I spoke to a few attorneys about this (long time ago..when I first moved here) they explained that the courts are backed up with all manner of cases where Mr X is suing Mr Y over something that should have been settled out of court. Now, I'm sort of 50/50 on this issue...because in England, if I had a civil dispute with say Lauren and I tried to file suit, not only would it be made VERY clear to me that if I lose, I will be liable for her costs as well as mine...there are a lot of solicitors that just won't even touch a case like that if you don't have a hefty bank balance no matter what their track record is for winning. It used to be until recently that solicitors could not even advertize (i.e. TV, radio etc) their services but now the UK has become a dearth of legal ambulance chasers. Here, everyone is generally responsible for their own costs..unless you successfully sue them for court costs (risky)....so people seem more inclined to pursue civil cases that just wouldn't make it to court in England. Middle ground seems appropriate so that those less affluent in the UK can STILL bring a civil case where necessary..and those with money but a case that could be resolved with mediation don't clog up the US court system. I'd be interested to know what proprtion of males v females bring civil cases by type in both countries. THAT would be interesting....

I do agree that generally, women are MUCH tougher on "crimes" that involve moral turpitude..for all the reasons Lauren said. They are programmed (often hypocritcally) to at least posture themselves as abiding by and raising their offspring to understand and accept flagrant abuse of MT as a no-no. Now, where she might be harsh on a woman who has been charged with prostitution, she is also going to be generally tough on a woman charged with stalking. I have seen and read about that happening multiple times.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i have been on a jury regarding murder..we were hung for three days because of two women...thats anecdotal..just like yours is...it doesnt prove anything but...


i think i have lived long enough to know that generally speaking women have a different nature than men. why does a bigger percentage of women vote democrat than men vote democrat? do you think every little shop in every strip center or mall would exist if men were the only creatures on this earth? hsn, qvc ..all that...its geared to women, there is a reason. If men were the only creatures on this earth, i dare say our economy would falter, we would soon enough revert to growing our own food in our back yards. dont be so pc, think.

men might be wrong, no one is assuming anything on any given jury, what i'm putting out there is does a certain type of thinking and acting harm society, that we dont consider, perhaps in subtle yet destructive ways?

I never denied that there are differences in thinking between sexes, age cohorts, socioeconomic groups, etc. I think that the particular distinction that you make is false and has been disproved by jury research, however.

I deal with focus groups, jury research, mock jury results and studies on a regular basis. We know more now than at any time in our history about how different classes of jurors make decisions and on their cognitive biases. But female always equals soft on punishment isn't one of the trends I've heard discussed (although I don't practice criminal law).

But you duck the far bigger question that I ask: Why to you presume that the male view is the correct one?