[1]If you disagree with the notion that courts favor women, and you flag me instead of the article, you're doing it wrong. I'm pointing out flaws in submission's logic, not arguing whether or not it is correct.
[1]If you disagree with the notion that courts favor women, and you flag me instead of the article, you're doing it wrong. I'm pointing out flaws in submission's logic, not arguing whether or not it is correct.
Also, this is specifically talking about sentencing which therefor relates to criminal law. You want to get into a myriad of issues relating to Civil law and it's flaws, that's a whole other can of worms.
The nightmarish campus rape policies aren't created in a vacuum:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-un...
They're a result of a generation of activist law school graduates. Once you give an ideology carte blanche, people will abuse it.
You could move sentencing only to a separate body from the trial judge and jury, which acts based on a record only of the offenses found by the trial court and the criminal history of the offender, without other information, including the race and gender of anyone involved.
It also assumes the situation won't be recursive. Lighten sentences for men.. then suddenly women get even lighter sentences. Repeat until there is no sentence at all?
The article basically boils down to, "It's not fair to men. We should Do Something![TM]" It does not strike me as a well thought out appeal to the reader.
It...does not support his ideas.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-div...