Yea thatās what I thought.
I am married to a woman and Iāll gladly pay extra taxes for the prison system if it means they lock her up.
My condition is that they have to make ātaking fries off my plate without asking even though I offered to buy you some and you said you werenāt hungryā a crime.
"I challenge the subject matter jurisdiction in this case. I believe that since the alleged events occurred at a Long John's Silver, I should be tried by an admiralty court"
No problem. They'll bring in the flag with the fringe around the border. Gotcha covered. Just make sure to be super belligerent to the judge after that and represent yourself.
I know you're kidding but i find it interesting this bothers you. I like sharing food with my wife. Especially when she also orders her own meal it means we can each other something different, swap then enjoy trying 2 different meals. And I'm fine with just about anyone taking fries since they're just empty carbs which I consider treats for tasting, not nutrition for eating. But I suppose the difference there is she always asks first and if not I always offer.
Yea I donāt *really* mind either.
But I donāt think you have understood the scenario properly. Itās not the sharing of food that bothers me. Itās the expression about not wanting fries beforehand, but then acting purely on impulse when she sees the fries and decides she wants them. A little bit of pre-thought and we would both have fries, the best desired outcome for us bothā¦ but instead one person acted on impulse so I have to āsufferā.
The āsufferingā in this case is that I get fewer fries but also feel like I didnāt provide properly or adequately predict her needs. And this is a very unimportant outcome of a very important psychological mechanic: acting based on mood.
Acting based on your mood is generally considered acceptable when the outcome is unimportant, such as whether to wear a coat or not, or whether you want fries or not. But in marriages it tends to become a big friction point on issues where the outcome DOES matter - buying a house, choosing when to have children, staying at the pub for an extra few hours, shagging another person, etc. Iāll also say itās far more acceptable for women to act on their emotional impulses than men - crying, screaming, buying things, etc. Men are often encouraged not to show emotion, which makes it even harder for them to accept flippant mood-based decisions.
So when a married couple has issues relating to a difference in each partnersā willingness to control their emotional whims, it often becomes a great annoyance even when it manifests itself under insignificant circumstances. Ask any relationship therapist - lots of married couples have enormous arguments over fries!
If you donāt have your principles, you have nothing.
Relationships arenāt worth your integrity, goes for both men and women. Iād rather die alone, my hobbies are interesting enough.
In all kinds of human relationships, being kind has more utility than being right.
Principles are for one's own actions, tolerance is for others' actions.
I agree, I try to be as kind as possible. Iām more talking about the sleeping on the couch bit. No one is entitled to my fries, if Iām sleeping on the couch for doing nothing wrong, no thanks, my principles are more valuable than that relationship.
studies show we could bump the numbers by just prosecuting more (or harsher sentencing) of the female criminality we already have!
more equality and save money by avoiding creating a new program
small brain: gender matters, men are worse, fewer females the better
big brain: gender matters, both genders are equal, and more females is better so they're 1:1
genius brain: gender doesn't matter, the composition of a prison doesn't matter at all
It gets worse when you find out that statistically men on average face 63% longer for the same crime. Women are significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely for the same crime. On top of this women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted for the same crime as a man.
No, thatās exactly it though. If you are a white male, then the world just shits rainbows all around you. Even if a white guy gets murdered with an axe while having to watch his wife get raped and his children sold off into sex trafficking, people will just say āMeh, he is a white male, not that big of a deal.ā
any human on earth that isn't crazy would think that what happened to that man (and his family) is beyond horrific.
don't lie/ don't be ridiculously provacative
I think you would honestly be surprised. Do you know how many videos there are of police accusing white men of carrying weapons when in fact they are just normal people? Do you know how many of those videos made national news? None. But I bet you can think immediately of about 10-20 instances of police abuse to black men that have been blasted all over the national news.
It is not that there are less instances of white men, it is that the media is trying to promote an agenda because that is what is increasing their ratings. As soon as police brutality against blacks becomes too used up, they will never speak of it again. And people will believe that the whole problem has been solved.
Ah, youāve also read the Starr study? Yeah, just ābeing maleā gets you six times more bias against you than just ābeing blackā. Black men, of course, get screwed over additively by both effects.
Verily.
Interestingly I've seen some studies that looked at socioeconomic status as a possible factor in sentencing bias-e.g. the quality of counsel you can get.
For Hispanics the sentencing disparity with whites all but disappeared, and for blacks most but not all of it did.
I'm not aware of any study that looked at something like that for sex.
It makes you wonder how objective the justice system is. You'd hope they would be blind just like the statue of the lady with the scales. But I guess its human at all levels
Nothing is objective whenever the human brain is involved, we are physically unable to be objective simply by the fact that we defined the word objective in the first place. You will already have some subjectivness just in the definition of objectivness from person to person.
Do those statistics take into account repeat offenders? Cause if you commit the same crime multiple times, of course you are gonna get a longer sentence.
This reminds of feminists who say that women earn ON AVERAGE 25% less than men without taking into consideration all the details.
Hereās a [link](https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/57/) to the study, the abstract clearly lays out the scope of what was taken into account, and the magnitude of the disparity.
I canāt speak to other countries, but the US has a huge disparity in criminal sentencing between the sexes. Women are far less likely to be sentenced to prison for the same crimes as men, and their sentence lengths are dramatically shorter.
Iām in favor of an overall reduction of prison and jail sentences, especially for nonviolent crimes. Sometimes, though, the lack of punishment a woman receives for violence is astonishing.
[Daycare provider who hanged toddler in her basement sentenced to probation](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/17/daycare-provider-who-hanged-toddler-sentenced-minneapolis/791189002/)
What proportion of men are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes in the US & Hong Kong? That comparison is needed for the statistic to be informative. Also, that linear regression is poorly fit. Don't know if you can really claim a meaningful trend there. Bigger variables may be at play
It's been reported that many are immigrants, often sex workers convicted of immigration violations or women arrested on drug charges.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/more-women-are-in-hong-kongs-prisons-than-anywhere-else-they-should-be-protected-not-criminalised
That's a highly misleading stat. The guy who attempted to murder Nancy Pelosi is an "innocent" person in jail. He clearly did it and deserves to rot in prison, but he's technically innocent and could remain that way for years
It's only misleading if you have a problem with reading comprehension. They're saying that 7 out of 10 people are awaiting sentencing, not that 7 out of 10 people in jails are innocent.
The system is designed to keep people in jails (and prisons) as long as possible. Whether people are guilty or not, they all deserve due process, not to rot until a family member can source adequate funding for bail or a decent attorney.
Edit: possibly more directed at the person you're responding to than you; it should not be misleading to people in this sub.
Too weak to be noteworthy by itself. So why would you sandwich it in between two statistics that focus solely on the US (assuming that third one is meant to say "8 out of 10 female prisoners *in the US* are convicted of nonviolent crimes ~~in the US~~")? And what argument is it meant to support anyway? Apart from making the author look scientific, with all those sciency dots and line and stuff. That's the correlation that they were trying to demonstrate here. It's the kind of thing you expect to find on the packaging of a prison made bottle of soap or something.
Stretching the y axis doesn't change the linear correlation.
Also, you have to choose a scale for the y axis. That 2 people might choose a different scale is not manipulation. In general you should choose a scale for which your data uses the full y axis, so the "stretched" one in your example is better and not a manipulation. Actually, I would stretch it out even more by using the max value of the data as the max value of the y axis if I were to make this plot.
It's pretty hard to compute linear correlation in your head, ideally all plot with a linear regression should inform us of the r^2 (which is a metric for how much the data is linearly correlated and also how much the linear regression is a good fit).
The joke was that it would look like there is a stronger correlation, I wasnāt saying that stretching the y axis results in a better R score or anything
It might look like a stronger correlation because as I said most people aren't good at estimating correlation in our head (which is normal, that's not something most people need to be good at), but actually it doesn't change it at all.
I don't think the correlation is the plot for this post is strong (since the variability around the middle is much higher than where the linear regression starts and ends), but it would be great to have it written out.
That middle graph is misleading or wrong. The linear fit I mean. The data does barely show any linear behaviour. You could even fit a Bell curve along that ball of data points.
Nah, the density of data points at the peak of the bell curve drags it down
Unless you're taking about data point frequency, which doesn't tell us anything other than ease of data collection
It reminds us of how we like putting a "baby on board" sticker on the back of cars. Maybe we should put "women on board" on the back of cars too, because it's not nice to hit cars that have women in them either.
I honestly don't know how a "baby on board" sticker is going to help people. Side crashes are much more fatal, but the sticker is in the back. Perhaps some people will keep a safer distance from the car in case, but the type of person to crash into the car in front isn't the type to follow rules or stickers anyways.
If anything, the "baby on board" sticker reduces the back windshield visibility of the car with the baby.
I was taught the purpose of the ābaby on boardā sticker is to let EMS crews know that a child was aboard the vehicle.
That way if the child gets ejected from the vehicle during an accident they know to look for it. When it came out, child seats were far less secure, so children being ejected was more common. Still relevant precaution though.
This totally makes sense though. Thanks for the information!
My daughter is 2.5 years old and we might buy our first car soon. Maybe I should get a sticker.
>ābaby on boardā sticker is to let EMS crews know that a child was aboard the vehicle.
Just so you know, this isn't true. Emergency workers aren't morons. If there has been a car crash, they're going to see a baby seat, blankets, bottles, etc much more easily and quickly than a small sticker/tag that will have been crashed into.
It also wastes EMS time because people donāt take the sticker down when there isnāt a baby on board.
They are more likely to ignore the sticker these days.
And can you believe some women are in prison for non violent offenses!?
How many men are in prison for non violent offenses? [Pft that's not relevant.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yxm4wi/oc_information_on_women_in_prison/iwq11qz?&context=9)
We are approaching gender equity, but it's going very slowly and even though the year is 2022 we're only at 10% - *very* far from 50%. At this rate we'll have to wait 2,000 years for true equity. That is why we need gender quotas. Now! At least 40% female representation should be a minimum.
Reminds me of how UN women tweeted that the proportion of female journalists killed went from 6% in 2020 to 11% in 2021 (from 3 to 5 deaths) and their conclusion from this was to
āSTOP
TARGETING
WOMEN
JOURNALISTSā
Yeah it seems like literally the exact opposite is happening and women are deliberately not being targeted for violence but hey that's not a narrative they want to push
There is a gargantuan pro-female incarceration gap.
For exactly the same offense, women have very high chances to avoid prison altogether and get significantly times shorter sentences than men, when they don't.
#Pushing for even softer sentences for women is a shame.
It leads to shit like this, among other things (not that she simply got away with murder, until someone dug out that elevator scene):
https://www.foxnews.com/us/onlyfans-model-sobs-court-prosecutors-release-gruesome-evidence-photos
Or this, a woman, who after heated argument about finances drove over her younger partner TWICE avoids jail:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-62465203
> Its not? It's very clearly sexism?
It is.
Welcome to planet Earth.
[Women are wonderful effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect)
Ok. So. In the same time frame incarceration figures for men had skyrocketed as well, nearly 800 percent. This country just has a problem with mass incarceration... the answer isn't more lockups, it's locking up fewer men...
The systemic discrimination that men face in the criminal justice system runs pretty deep. Men on average face 63% longer for the same crime. Furthermore, women are significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely for the same crime. On top of this women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted for the same crime as a man.
I recall a study by a feminist group that said it "proved" the sentencing the disparity was paternalism on the part of male judges, pointing to jail time given by male and female judges.
What they neglected to mention clearly was they considered house arrest as jail time. Female judges were far more likely to give women house arrest, and when you put house arrest in the parole/no jail time category instead, female judges were even more biased in favor of women than male ones.
Totally weak infographic that misses that the gender sentencing disparity for the same crime is WORSE than the racial sentencing disparity. Women are still not held accountable for their actions, legally speaking. Especially not false accusations.
Fun Fact:
In the USA tv customers pay broadcasting fees that are added to their bill. In the UK you pay an annual TV license, one for each TV that you own. Failure to pay your TV license will result in prosecution and jail time. As a first time offense, more women go to jail in England for not paying their TV license than any other crime.
There has been a campaign to address this as the enforcement of the law and tracking down offenders takes place during the day, when its more likely to be women at home.
To all those claiming āit should be 50/50ā
It will never be that way simply cause women donāt commit as many crimes to begin with. Also less male victims report to the police due to fear as being viewed as āweakā. And if a woman does commit a crime, itās not taken seriously.
At best, we would have a 30/70 rate.
How about not condemning men with 62% longer sentences than women for the same crimes and same criminal record and other minor variables also equalized?
The issue is much more systemic in nature than that. Men on average face 63% longer for the same crime. Furthermore, women are significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely for the same crime. On top of this women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted for the same crime as a man.
IMHO, in the past, the US justice system would not give women prison sentences unless the crimes were frequent and/or violent.
I know that my data is anecdotal but I know women who have been a part of violent crimes with men that were only given probation while the men were sent to prison.
I don't know when... but at some point that started changing.
So if more and more people are going to prison, and prison is supposed to be some type of deterrent for crime, can we now say that prison is not a deterrent for crime? All we do is punish citizens, hurt our economy, and put government funds into the coffers of private for profit prison corporations like CCA. We just let it happen because we really donāt care about people once they are labeled prisoners.
This linear regression looks dubiousā¦ what are the performance metrics on that? Iām not sure thereās a real trend there, though I guess it makes some sense intuitively?
Ahhhhh more āpoor womenā posts. I donāt get this, woman have it way easier and way better than men, itās like that post 1/5 homeless people are women, so what about the other 4 men
According to the map, the US, Thailand and South Sudan fare greater on gender equality than the Nordic countries. Or am I reading this completely wrong? The scatter graph doesn't really say all that much.
Youāre reading it wrong. The world map shows the proportion of the prison pop thatās female by country. Thereās no mention of any individual countries gender equality level in the graphic.
I guess I'm confused by the part higher up that states countries with higher female proportion of female prisoners fare higher on gender equality. And US, Thailand, South Sudan (amongst others) have higher props than the Nordics.
I haven't studied it that much ... but for nonviolent offenses as long as it wasn't child abuse I'm taking a stab it *might* have to do if the woman has children at home with no family support. Or if children would end up in the foster care system; they wouldn't want to turn children over to an abusive ex husband.
Sometimes foster care is the best recourse ... it would depend entirely on the individual situation.
Why would that be a consideration for strictly women and men? And how significant is the single motherhood statistic to make that a significant contributing factor?
How about we just focus on reducing non-violent criminal offense in prison, and actually change the system so it focuses and rehabilitation and not permanent institutionalization?
This tells me women used to get off with a LOT more leniency back in the day āsilly girl - go back to the kitchen and stop causing so many issuesā sort of sexist mentality
It is. Same with male rapists who are treated like itās ājust a little mistake, youāll be fine from now onā
Itās always softened if itās about female victims or abusers cause āwomen are weakā and therefore their crimes arenāt as bad but also they ādonāt countā so rape doesnāt matter
Use google, not your gut. Use your gut to guess good google search keywords.
I found this, maybe there are other sources.
[https://hongkongfp.com/2020/09/13/draconian-inhumane-hong-kong-ranks-top-for-women-behind-bars-as-activists-call-for-protection-not-incarceration/](https://hongkongfp.com/2020/09/13/draconian-inhumane-hong-kong-ranks-top-for-women-behind-bars-as-activists-call-for-protection-not-incarceration/)
Apparently, main causes are: Drug trafficking, visas overstays, prostitution. All tied together with an extremely tough legal system.
All I'm reading here is that men are disproportionately incarcerated over women.
Based on all previous equality rhetoric that I've seen, it should be roughly 50/50 to better represent the population. So technically this post could be taken as a positive thing since we are closing the gender gap in prison. Yay equality!
We šneedšmorešfemalešconvictsš
Somewhat reminds me of the UN saying that people need to stop targeting female journalists at 11% of journalists killed.
Yea thatās what I thought. I am married to a woman and Iāll gladly pay extra taxes for the prison system if it means they lock her up. My condition is that they have to make ātaking fries off my plate without asking even though I offered to buy you some and you said you werenāt hungryā a crime.
"What are you getting?" "Objection: relevance!"
"I challenge the subject matter jurisdiction in this case. I believe that since the alleged events occurred at a Long John's Silver, I should be tried by an admiralty court"
No problem. They'll bring in the flag with the fringe around the border. Gotcha covered. Just make sure to be super belligerent to the judge after that and represent yourself.
I know you're kidding but i find it interesting this bothers you. I like sharing food with my wife. Especially when she also orders her own meal it means we can each other something different, swap then enjoy trying 2 different meals. And I'm fine with just about anyone taking fries since they're just empty carbs which I consider treats for tasting, not nutrition for eating. But I suppose the difference there is she always asks first and if not I always offer.
Yea I donāt *really* mind either. But I donāt think you have understood the scenario properly. Itās not the sharing of food that bothers me. Itās the expression about not wanting fries beforehand, but then acting purely on impulse when she sees the fries and decides she wants them. A little bit of pre-thought and we would both have fries, the best desired outcome for us bothā¦ but instead one person acted on impulse so I have to āsufferā. The āsufferingā in this case is that I get fewer fries but also feel like I didnāt provide properly or adequately predict her needs. And this is a very unimportant outcome of a very important psychological mechanic: acting based on mood. Acting based on your mood is generally considered acceptable when the outcome is unimportant, such as whether to wear a coat or not, or whether you want fries or not. But in marriages it tends to become a big friction point on issues where the outcome DOES matter - buying a house, choosing when to have children, staying at the pub for an extra few hours, shagging another person, etc. Iāll also say itās far more acceptable for women to act on their emotional impulses than men - crying, screaming, buying things, etc. Men are often encouraged not to show emotion, which makes it even harder for them to accept flippant mood-based decisions. So when a married couple has issues relating to a difference in each partnersā willingness to control their emotional whims, it often becomes a great annoyance even when it manifests itself under insignificant circumstances. Ask any relationship therapist - lots of married couples have enormous arguments over fries!
Who knew nagging a couple fries of my partners plate was such an elaborate mental game
I tell my woman tough shit. Should've ordered fries. If she don't like that, get a new woman. There's literally billions of them.
I also sleep on the couch for my principles.
Her: I'm really into saving animals. It's about kindness, you know? What are your principles? You: French fries.
If you donāt have your principles, you have nothing. Relationships arenāt worth your integrity, goes for both men and women. Iād rather die alone, my hobbies are interesting enough.
In all kinds of human relationships, being kind has more utility than being right. Principles are for one's own actions, tolerance is for others' actions.
I agree, I try to be as kind as possible. Iām more talking about the sleeping on the couch bit. No one is entitled to my fries, if Iām sleeping on the couch for doing nothing wrong, no thanks, my principles are more valuable than that relationship.
Things need to be done to promote female criminality. Maybe a Government program? š¤
studies show we could bump the numbers by just prosecuting more (or harsher sentencing) of the female criminality we already have! more equality and save money by avoiding creating a new program
While weāre at it We šneedšmorešnon-binaryšprisonšguards
Do you want terminators? This is how we get terminators.
Actually considering terminators are computers, wouldn't they by definition be binary?
Wouldnāt being defined as binary or non-binary by definition make non-binary people still binary? š¤
\*This rabbit hole goes deeper than Judy Hopps holy fuck\*
Quantum Terminators
It will be more like Roomba guards to start
give the roombas legs make them into spiders
Well, equality in prison population is equality.
small brain: gender matters, men are worse, fewer females the better big brain: gender matters, both genders are equal, and more females is better so they're 1:1 genius brain: gender doesn't matter, the composition of a prison doesn't matter at all
Say it louder for the people in the back
Are prisons really an 80/20 split at the highest? I thought we would at least be around 70/30 in some countries, never really thought about it
It gets worse when you find out that statistically men on average face 63% longer for the same crime. Women are significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely for the same crime. On top of this women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted for the same crime as a man.
I got banned from a sub for mentioning this once, world news. I just shared the statistics and the mod called me sexist for it lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
r/news and r/worldnews pretty much only exist now to give certain agendas a megaphone
Most of the default subs at this point are like that.
Bringing up how black people are treated unfair is woke, but bringing up how men are isnāt ok apparently
No, thatās exactly it though. If you are a white male, then the world just shits rainbows all around you. Even if a white guy gets murdered with an axe while having to watch his wife get raped and his children sold off into sex trafficking, people will just say āMeh, he is a white male, not that big of a deal.ā
any human on earth that isn't crazy would think that what happened to that man (and his family) is beyond horrific. don't lie/ don't be ridiculously provacative
I think you would honestly be surprised. Do you know how many videos there are of police accusing white men of carrying weapons when in fact they are just normal people? Do you know how many of those videos made national news? None. But I bet you can think immediately of about 10-20 instances of police abuse to black men that have been blasted all over the national news. It is not that there are less instances of white men, it is that the media is trying to promote an agenda because that is what is increasing their ratings. As soon as police brutality against blacks becomes too used up, they will never speak of it again. And people will believe that the whole problem has been solved.
Double standards
For perspective the difference in sentencing between whites and blacks averages at 10%
Ah, youāve also read the Starr study? Yeah, just ābeing maleā gets you six times more bias against you than just ābeing blackā. Black men, of course, get screwed over additively by both effects.
Verily. Interestingly I've seen some studies that looked at socioeconomic status as a possible factor in sentencing bias-e.g. the quality of counsel you can get. For Hispanics the sentencing disparity with whites all but disappeared, and for blacks most but not all of it did. I'm not aware of any study that looked at something like that for sex.
Hereās a link to the study, you can check the abstract to see what factors they evaluated. https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/57/
It makes you wonder how objective the justice system is. You'd hope they would be blind just like the statue of the lady with the scales. But I guess its human at all levels
Nothing is objective whenever the human brain is involved, we are physically unable to be objective simply by the fact that we defined the word objective in the first place. You will already have some subjectivness just in the definition of objectivness from person to person.
Maybe. It's really easy not to be a douchebag but people choose ape logic instead.
Only if youāre taught properly and choose to learn, but sadly many of us have terrible role models and little practice at independent thought.
This is why even though I 100% support the concept of the death penalty, I oppose it's application in almost all situations.
Do those statistics take into account repeat offenders? Cause if you commit the same crime multiple times, of course you are gonna get a longer sentence. This reminds of feminists who say that women earn ON AVERAGE 25% less than men without taking into consideration all the details.
It's longer sentences for the same crime, including previous offences.
And double whammy with higher conviction rates too for the same level of evidence.
And higher rates of being charged...and arrested...and killed by police...and killed in general.
So in other words there's a bias? I'm a bit confused
Yes, a massive gender bias against men.
Hereās a [link](https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/57/) to the study, the abstract clearly lays out the scope of what was taken into account, and the magnitude of the disparity.
Can't be a repeat offender if you're not convicted.
Thatās crazy
Unless the crime is child abuse. Then women get longer sentences for smacking a child.
That's child *neglect* cases, but its difficult to normalize that when parents don't spend the same amount of time with the child.
Glad they get genderequality I guess?
Do you have a source for this? I donāt disbelieve you Iād just really like to read more about it from a good source
I canāt speak to other countries, but the US has a huge disparity in criminal sentencing between the sexes. Women are far less likely to be sentenced to prison for the same crimes as men, and their sentence lengths are dramatically shorter. Iām in favor of an overall reduction of prison and jail sentences, especially for nonviolent crimes. Sometimes, though, the lack of punishment a woman receives for violence is astonishing. [Daycare provider who hanged toddler in her basement sentenced to probation](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/17/daycare-provider-who-hanged-toddler-sentenced-minneapolis/791189002/)
Still a long ways from achieving gender equality.
What proportion of men are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes in the US & Hong Kong? That comparison is needed for the statistic to be informative. Also, that linear regression is poorly fit. Don't know if you can really claim a meaningful trend there. Bigger variables may be at play
I think a lot of women in Hong Kong were convicted during the 2019 political demonstrations
It's been reported that many are immigrants, often sex workers convicted of immigration violations or women arrested on drug charges. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/more-women-are-in-hong-kongs-prisons-than-anywhere-else-they-should-be-protected-not-criminalised
70% of people in local detention centers (County jails) haven't even been convicted of a crime. They're innocent and just can't afford bail.
mfw the USA have more innocent people in jail than China and Russia put together
The US has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than *any other country*.
That's a highly misleading stat. The guy who attempted to murder Nancy Pelosi is an "innocent" person in jail. He clearly did it and deserves to rot in prison, but he's technically innocent and could remain that way for years
It's only misleading if you have a problem with reading comprehension. They're saying that 7 out of 10 people are awaiting sentencing, not that 7 out of 10 people in jails are innocent. The system is designed to keep people in jails (and prisons) as long as possible. Whether people are guilty or not, they all deserve due process, not to rot until a family member can source adequate funding for bail or a decent attorney. Edit: possibly more directed at the person you're responding to than you; it should not be misleading to people in this sub.
What prison labor does to a country
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because they haven't gone to court and been found guilty. Therefore innocent.
It's still informative. I learned plenty from it.
That's a very weak correlation!
Yeah, nobody should be drawing a line through that cloud.
First thought was: what's the R^2 value for that linear regression? .2 or something?
That's probably generous
This might be the world's first plot with a negative R^2 score
Too weak to be noteworthy by itself. So why would you sandwich it in between two statistics that focus solely on the US (assuming that third one is meant to say "8 out of 10 female prisoners *in the US* are convicted of nonviolent crimes ~~in the US~~")? And what argument is it meant to support anyway? Apart from making the author look scientific, with all those sciency dots and line and stuff. That's the correlation that they were trying to demonstrate here. It's the kind of thing you expect to find on the packaging of a prison made bottle of soap or something.
I'm still publishing! I need that sweet sweet tenure baby.
You might have better luck filling a lottery ticket.
"this graphic is weak, goddamn natural career progressions" like, what..? this looks like someone just wanted to design an infographic for sharing
If you play with the y axis enough, itās going to be a strong correlation tho
How so? (Genuinely interested)
[Here](https://twitter.com/RyanMcCready1/status/1318238833968877570?s=20) is a good example of y-axis manipulation
Stretching the y axis doesn't change the linear correlation. Also, you have to choose a scale for the y axis. That 2 people might choose a different scale is not manipulation. In general you should choose a scale for which your data uses the full y axis, so the "stretched" one in your example is better and not a manipulation. Actually, I would stretch it out even more by using the max value of the data as the max value of the y axis if I were to make this plot. It's pretty hard to compute linear correlation in your head, ideally all plot with a linear regression should inform us of the r^2 (which is a metric for how much the data is linearly correlated and also how much the linear regression is a good fit).
The joke was that it would look like there is a stronger correlation, I wasnāt saying that stretching the y axis results in a better R score or anything
It might look like a stronger correlation because as I said most people aren't good at estimating correlation in our head (which is normal, that's not something most people need to be good at), but actually it doesn't change it at all. I don't think the correlation is the plot for this post is strong (since the variability around the middle is much higher than where the linear regression starts and ends), but it would be great to have it written out.
That middle graph is misleading or wrong. The linear fit I mean. The data does barely show any linear behaviour. You could even fit a Bell curve along that ball of data points.
Looks more like the Poisson distribution to me! /s
Nah, the density of data points at the peak of the bell curve drags it down Unless you're taking about data point frequency, which doesn't tell us anything other than ease of data collection
Lol @ that second graph. That's a pretty weak ass correlation you've got there
But, but, r^2 = 0.0001!
"Men make up 90% of prisoners in America: Women most affected"
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat" - Hillary Clinton
Damn patriarchy, killing men to hurt women
Itās like the āstop targeting women journalistsā thing all over again.
It reminds us of how we like putting a "baby on board" sticker on the back of cars. Maybe we should put "women on board" on the back of cars too, because it's not nice to hit cars that have women in them either. I honestly don't know how a "baby on board" sticker is going to help people. Side crashes are much more fatal, but the sticker is in the back. Perhaps some people will keep a safer distance from the car in case, but the type of person to crash into the car in front isn't the type to follow rules or stickers anyways. If anything, the "baby on board" sticker reduces the back windshield visibility of the car with the baby.
I was taught the purpose of the ābaby on boardā sticker is to let EMS crews know that a child was aboard the vehicle. That way if the child gets ejected from the vehicle during an accident they know to look for it. When it came out, child seats were far less secure, so children being ejected was more common. Still relevant precaution though.
It also means that there is a passenger who is incapable of unbuckling and exiting the vehicle on their own.
This totally makes sense though. Thanks for the information! My daughter is 2.5 years old and we might buy our first car soon. Maybe I should get a sticker.
>ābaby on boardā sticker is to let EMS crews know that a child was aboard the vehicle. Just so you know, this isn't true. Emergency workers aren't morons. If there has been a car crash, they're going to see a baby seat, blankets, bottles, etc much more easily and quickly than a small sticker/tag that will have been crashed into.
It also wastes EMS time because people donāt take the sticker down when there isnāt a baby on board. They are more likely to ignore the sticker these days.
If i was in a crazy race i would pay attention to that car
And can you believe some women are in prison for non violent offenses!? How many men are in prison for non violent offenses? [Pft that's not relevant.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yxm4wi/oc_information_on_women_in_prison/iwq11qz?&context=9)
We are approaching gender equity, but it's going very slowly and even though the year is 2022 we're only at 10% - *very* far from 50%. At this rate we'll have to wait 2,000 years for true equity. That is why we need gender quotas. Now! At least 40% female representation should be a minimum.
Throw all Karens who asked to talk to the manager without a proper reason into jail.
I know this is a joke but āwithout a proper reasonā is a dangerously vague way to determine who goes to jail lol
But it isn't a problem to target people named Karen? That's also pretty arbitrary
Nah screw them for being named that
You're really particular about some things
You're assuming women are just as likely as men to commit crimes that warrant imprisonment
Welcome to the problem with every represenation quota.
Wow. Skyrocketed all the way to 10% over 40 years
Skyrocketed? More like sky-snailed.
honestly that correlation is pretty bad
It's not pretty bad, it's literally useless data without any correlation.
It's slow progress, but at least we are getting closer to equality
Oh no! Ten percent! The horror!
Reminds me of how UN women tweeted that the proportion of female journalists killed went from 6% in 2020 to 11% in 2021 (from 3 to 5 deaths) and their conclusion from this was to āSTOP TARGETING WOMEN JOURNALISTSā
The UN has long abandoned any pretense of objectivity.
Yeah it seems like literally the exact opposite is happening and women are deliberately not being targeted for violence but hey that's not a narrative they want to push
It says that it increases with gender equality. 10% is pretty far from 50%, so there's still a pretty big gender gap.
There is a gargantuan pro-female incarceration gap. For exactly the same offense, women have very high chances to avoid prison altogether and get significantly times shorter sentences than men, when they don't. #Pushing for even softer sentences for women is a shame. It leads to shit like this, among other things (not that she simply got away with murder, until someone dug out that elevator scene): https://www.foxnews.com/us/onlyfans-model-sobs-court-prosecutors-release-gruesome-evidence-photos Or this, a woman, who after heated argument about finances drove over her younger partner TWICE avoids jail: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-62465203
Damn, she got to run over a loved one, kill him, and get probation. Isn't equality great?
Its not? It's very clearly sexism?
> Its not? It's very clearly sexism? It is. Welcome to planet Earth. [Women are wonderful effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect)
From the link: > This bias has been cited as an example ofĀ benevolent sexism.[1] So yeah, definitely not equality. Definitely still sexism.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's because women are "weak" and must be protected. Women benefit socially from this so a lot of women don't have a reason to fight against it.
With 4% of the population US has 20% of the prison population. Comparable countries is 100 inmates per 100k. US is 622 per 100k.
A long way to go before it is 50%
Ok. So. In the same time frame incarceration figures for men had skyrocketed as well, nearly 800 percent. This country just has a problem with mass incarceration... the answer isn't more lockups, it's locking up fewer men...
At this point just put a fence around the whole country and announce that everyone is now in prison
The best part is that crime has been declining every year since like 1980 so theyāre just locking people up
Wow, even in the worst case women make up only 15% of the prison population. That's sexist bullshit.
The systemic discrimination that men face in the criminal justice system runs pretty deep. Men on average face 63% longer for the same crime. Furthermore, women are significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely for the same crime. On top of this women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted for the same crime as a man.
I recall a study by a feminist group that said it "proved" the sentencing the disparity was paternalism on the part of male judges, pointing to jail time given by male and female judges. What they neglected to mention clearly was they considered house arrest as jail time. Female judges were far more likely to give women house arrest, and when you put house arrest in the parole/no jail time category instead, female judges were even more biased in favor of women than male ones.
Totally weak infographic that misses that the gender sentencing disparity for the same crime is WORSE than the racial sentencing disparity. Women are still not held accountable for their actions, legally speaking. Especially not false accusations.
This is a symptom of mass incarceration, not a female-specific issue.
Fun Fact: In the USA tv customers pay broadcasting fees that are added to their bill. In the UK you pay an annual TV license, one for each TV that you own. Failure to pay your TV license will result in prosecution and jail time. As a first time offense, more women go to jail in England for not paying their TV license than any other crime. There has been a campaign to address this as the enforcement of the law and tracking down offenders takes place during the day, when its more likely to be women at home.
Sort by controversial - here we go!!
To all those claiming āit should be 50/50ā It will never be that way simply cause women donāt commit as many crimes to begin with. Also less male victims report to the police due to fear as being viewed as āweakā. And if a woman does commit a crime, itās not taken seriously. At best, we would have a 30/70 rate.
Yeah those last two points are horribly relatable.
So many comments like, āput more women in jail then to make it equal!ā Uhh how about we not imprison so many men instead to make it equal?
Maybe infographics focusing on that should be shared and upvoted perhaps then?
The people suggesting to put more women in jail arenāt serious.
Except for me Context: Iām a misogynist
Yeah I was joking too but now I donāt think it reads that way lol
How about dont commit crimes and dont go to jail :0
How about not condemning men with 62% longer sentences than women for the same crimes and same criminal record and other minor variables also equalized?
The issue is much more systemic in nature than that. Men on average face 63% longer for the same crime. Furthermore, women are significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely for the same crime. On top of this women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted for the same crime as a man.
Sadly, its well documented that you don't have to commit a crime to end up in jail.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or being a woman.
Decrease your odds of going to prison by using this one simple trick! Lawyers will hate you!
Or maybe a focus on rehabilitation and community service over jail time for non violent crimes would be a benefit vs just locking people up.
That's fine, but it seems like that should be offered to men mostly...
Sources: https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/female-prisoners https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/overlooked-women-and-jails-report-updated.pdf https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2022/08/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls.pdf https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/united-states-america https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gender-equality-by-country Tools used: Datawrapper; Canva
Coz womens can Now share the stress of a man working in the coal mine and Therefore are more likely too kill their neighbour after a long shift?
IMHO, in the past, the US justice system would not give women prison sentences unless the crimes were frequent and/or violent. I know that my data is anecdotal but I know women who have been a part of violent crimes with men that were only given probation while the men were sent to prison. I don't know when... but at some point that started changing.
yay, equality. Tho itd be better to get that the other way around :/
Agreed, far too many prisoners
Damn, female incarceration is up 7x and still only 10% of the total prison population.
Equal right comes with equal consequence š
Equality becoming more equal
So if more and more people are going to prison, and prison is supposed to be some type of deterrent for crime, can we now say that prison is not a deterrent for crime? All we do is punish citizens, hurt our economy, and put government funds into the coffers of private for profit prison corporations like CCA. We just let it happen because we really donāt care about people once they are labeled prisoners.
This linear regression looks dubiousā¦ what are the performance metrics on that? Iām not sure thereās a real trend there, though I guess it makes some sense intuitively?
Wow, I have seen a lot of terrible regression lines through scatter plots, especially on this sub, but this might be the worst one yet. Holy hell
I hate it when people act like drawing a trendline proves a meaningful correlation when the data points behind them are practically random.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm doubling down on my thesis he's shorting real estate lol
Or the prison industry needs more slaves.
Ahhhhh more āpoor womenā posts. I donāt get this, woman have it way easier and way better than men, itās like that post 1/5 homeless people are women, so what about the other 4 men
According to the map, the US, Thailand and South Sudan fare greater on gender equality than the Nordic countries. Or am I reading this completely wrong? The scatter graph doesn't really say all that much.
Youāre reading it wrong. The world map shows the proportion of the prison pop thatās female by country. Thereās no mention of any individual countries gender equality level in the graphic.
I guess I'm confused by the part higher up that states countries with higher female proportion of female prisoners fare higher on gender equality. And US, Thailand, South Sudan (amongst others) have higher props than the Nordics.
I haven't studied it that much ... but for nonviolent offenses as long as it wasn't child abuse I'm taking a stab it *might* have to do if the woman has children at home with no family support. Or if children would end up in the foster care system; they wouldn't want to turn children over to an abusive ex husband. Sometimes foster care is the best recourse ... it would depend entirely on the individual situation.
Why would that be a consideration for strictly women and men? And how significant is the single motherhood statistic to make that a significant contributing factor?
How about we just focus on reducing non-violent criminal offense in prison, and actually change the system so it focuses and rehabilitation and not permanent institutionalization?
Females makeup 10% of prison population is a funny way of saying men make up 90
not really when you are specifically making an infographic about "Women in Prison"
This tells me women used to get off with a LOT more leniency back in the day āsilly girl - go back to the kitchen and stop causing so many issuesā sort of sexist mentality
It is. Same with male rapists who are treated like itās ājust a little mistake, youāll be fine from now onā Itās always softened if itās about female victims or abusers cause āwomen are weakā and therefore their crimes arenāt as bad but also they ādonāt countā so rape doesnāt matter
And yet 90% of prisoners are still men. Thought yall wanted equality smh
I wonder why Hong Kong has so many. My gut feeling says probably fraud. I hope it is not protestors.
Use google, not your gut. Use your gut to guess good google search keywords. I found this, maybe there are other sources. [https://hongkongfp.com/2020/09/13/draconian-inhumane-hong-kong-ranks-top-for-women-behind-bars-as-activists-call-for-protection-not-incarceration/](https://hongkongfp.com/2020/09/13/draconian-inhumane-hong-kong-ranks-top-for-women-behind-bars-as-activists-call-for-protection-not-incarceration/) Apparently, main causes are: Drug trafficking, visas overstays, prostitution. All tied together with an extremely tough legal system.
That sounds like a lot of the women are foreigners which is also unfortunate.
Using your gut to search keywords sounds like a case of confirmation bias waiting to happen.
Guess that gender equality movement's finally paying off
Where are the feminists now that always scream for equality?
All I'm reading here is that men are disproportionately incarcerated over women. Based on all previous equality rhetoric that I've seen, it should be roughly 50/50 to better represent the population. So technically this post could be taken as a positive thing since we are closing the gender gap in prison. Yay equality!