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.
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac
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.
