Re: What happens when spouse kills spouse?

On Feb 12, 8:29 pm, Jill <perspicaci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:08:00 -0800, Mark Borgerson

<mborger...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <ap74r3li0a7vckkues6sobokocjo05t...@xxxxxxx>,
perspicaci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:43:38 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
<andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 12, 7:27 am, "Society" <Soci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ben" <ArGe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0154c280-d006-4f26-bb9a-18eb59afb598@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mark Borgerson wrote:

Jill says...

Viking wrote:

http://mensreality.com/id3.html

"This previously unpublished data dramatically
undercuts the myth that husbands who kill their wives
are treated more leniently than wives who kill
their husbands.

Having stats is a good thing. I never heard the myth
that husbands who kill their wives get more lenient
treatment under the law than women who kill their
husbands.

I wondered about that too. After considering the reactions
from people to whom I mention that fact, tho', I concluded
that it's an unspoken myth -- if there can be such a thing.
I doubt that most people think about the issue much but
when someone hears me mention how much more leniently
spouse-killing women are treated than spouse-killing men,
the typical immediate reaction is to scoff and assert that
I _must_ be wrong.

Indeed, and such people betray their own biases, when faced
with popularly reported cases such as Paul Bernardo and Karla
Homolka. Not only is now a matter of proven fact that she was
as much a participant ( And, *more* of an initiator of murder than
him ) in their crimes, but she got out after 12 years, hes in
forever. No chance of parole.

I just watched a true crime show about them the other night. I find
it chilling that someone as dangerous as Karla Homolka is out walking
the streets a free woman and in large part because she was a pretty
young woman at the time of the murders and nobody could believe she
was as dangerous as her male crime partner. Of course, she got quite
an edge with the investigators for being a "battered wife." I'm still
not sure how true that was...she was battered by the looks of some of
the photos but maybe so was he. These biographies don't always tell
all the facts.

However, common sense and just watching the nightly
news would tell the same story the stats are telling.
Mary Winkler is an obscenely obvious example
of how lightly murderous wives are tapped on the wrist
for the murder of a husband.

I've been told that Mary Winkler is the exception that
proves the rule by womanfirster "truthers" of both the
feminist and traditionalist factions.

Well, let them prove that claim. The numbers on this issue
that Michael Snyder posted here, years ago, prove that such
a claim would be false.

The available evidence points overwhelmingly
in the opposite direction, Wives who kill their husbands
were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the cases studied,
while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted
in only 1.4 percent of the cases. Women who were
convicted of killing their husbands were sentenced to
an average of six years in prison, while men received
an average of seventeen years for killing their wives,
Sixteen percent of female spousal killers get probation,
compared to 1.6 percent for males. By almost every
other measure as well, female spousal killers are treated
more leniently than male spousal killers."

The paragraph above is really a bit puzzling. "Wives who
kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the
cases studied" If the wife was acquitted, she was found
not guilty of killing her husband, so how can you say
that she killed her husband?

You do this just to try and be cute sometimes, don't you?

I find it plausible that Mark Borgerson is O.J. Simpson's
golf partner.

Indeed. Borgerson displays a trait of his that he values his being
" cute " as being far more important to him than his being factually
correct and accurate is.

The problem is that Borgerson is factually correct quite often. This
makes his playing cute all the more annoying IMO because there is no
logical purpose to it.

Anyway, I wondered about that too and concluded that the
writer of that paragraph was simply sloppy and wrote
"who kill" instead of "were brought to trial on the charge of
killing" _or_ the cases studied were examined in some manner
similar to the ones in the Kamen study of false "rape!" accusations.

The essential point being made was that women are more
likely to escape the legal consequences of killing their spouse
than are men. Mark Borgerson did not dispute _that_. He's
merely quibbling.

Thats what excusers and enablers of femicentricism do. Thats
why he IS a Feminist. Just a particularly dishonest one.

I don't personally view him as a feminist. I see him more as a
traditionalist...someone who perhaps views himself as a knight in
shining armor out to defend all those poor little damsels in distress.
Of course, the end result is usually the same.

It may be a chicken-and-egg thing. I only pick on the
innacurate details when someone presents them in an attempt
to inflate the importance of an issue. If an issue is important,
so are good data, statistics and analogies.

That may be true, only you can know what your reasoning is for picking
at the details you do.

However, readers can make their own judgements...

Warren Farrell discussed the more lenient
treatment of women by law enforcement in his landmark book,
_The Myth of Male Power_.

Of course. Anyone wishing to get the FACTS, as opposed to being
female excuse-mongeringly " cute " would already know this fact.

Do you know something that the jury does not?

Most often, almost everyone involved in the case
knows more than the jury knows.

Quite true.

Indeed.

If wives are more often acquitted, could it be that
they are more often prosecuted based on flimsy evidence
that was insufficient for conviction?

Anecdotally (and yes, I recognize the limitations), I'd venture
that prosecutors want an even stronger case against women
than they do men.

I'd say that Mark Borgerson is speculating on "flimsy evidence...
that was insufficient for" his hypothesis to hold water.

Thats his game. Hes just shy of being a kook, because he clearly
values playing his games OVER finding out facts.

I don't agree. Borgerson can be very handy with the facts and he is
very good at analyzing statistics. But the way he likes to tweek
people...to try and get their goats...that makes me disregard a lot of
what he has to offer. I'm not the most patient person in case anyone
couldn't tell. LOL.

You shouldn't have to explain that to Andre---it has much in common
with his own posting style:

I disagree. Andre has a brash style of posting...I doubt few would
deny it.

Hell, I won't deny it. I am direct, and I face the issues. Theres an
old
word for that: honesty.

You tend towards nit-picking IMO but that is nothing like
Andre's style. Me...I'm no saint. I'm short-tempered and often rude.
I'm probably much closer to Andre's style than to yours.

Well, thats a good thing.

"Well, if you mean my posts that appear " angry ", understand that
I always know why I'm writing what I'm writing,
and such posts are constructed to display my deep disdain at the loons, bigots and
sexists. Were I really emotionally affected by reading or writing
such posts, I'm sure my S/O would notice ( As she's standing within
a half metre, as I write this, for example ). Rather, I often call
her in to hear a funny post, or a particularly loony one. And, if
she didn't like me doing that, she'd tell me."

<<SNIP>>

When I'm responding to posts or cites full of ridiculous assertions,
and sloppy, or plainly innacurate statistics, it is difficult for me
to respond without subjecting the material to a bit of ridicule.

I suppose that much of what you think of as "cuteness" could be
my attempt to avoid the endless repetition of

"No proof offered, claim fails" ...and that was the sanitized
version... ;-)

I used to find myself trying to avoid Andre's crazy "macro" as well
but no more.

<bg> Well, that " crazy macro " is just me being direct. I do call
cowshit on unsubstantiated claims, and Borgerson sure likes to
make those... How Feminist of him...

I recently slammed him for using it on me (yet again)
and I won't be bullied by it any more.

Whos bullying ? How the heck does anyone even DO that on a text
only medium ? Its not like I can get Chico and the boys to shove
anyone into a gym locker...

I don't understand why someone
as intelligent as you would even care if Andre hurls that nonsense at
you especially since last I heard he killfiled you.

Its very simple: Borgerson's public self image is of the " nice guy
".
One aspect of playing ( Note that I said " playing " and not " being
" )
a nice guy is that everyone's supposed to like and agree with the
nice guy. So, when someone states that this nice guy is, in fact,
no such thing, its a threat to that cultivated self image.

Thats why Borgerson cannot let me go. As long as I am clear that
he is not a nice guy, but, in fact, IS a femicentric excusing
nitpicker,
well, his cover is blown.

<shrug> Me, I just care about the facts. On this issue of which spouse
murderers get longer sentences, thats been settled a long time ago,
when the departed Michael Snyder posted his excellent analyses on
that topic, and found that women get far lighter treatment at every
step along the way. So, nitpicking at such a topic is simply a case of
" I didn't like the factual answer, so I will try to muddy the waters.
"
WomenFirster game playing.

Thats all.

Andre
.

Relevant Pages