No it is not irrelevant. OP considers higher male conviction rates to be evidence of bias. But evidence establishes that men do, in fact, perpetrate crime at much higher rates than women.
If true not evidence of bias, and totally irrelevant.
Furthermore, those who don’t commit suicide deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Furthermore, I would be happy if all of the bastards committed suicide. Then they would no longer be a threat to innocent people, and would no longer be expensive wards of the state.
Probation only for a murder conviction? I don’t think so. Of course if she was being physically abused by the almost inevitably much stronger male then she would deserve sympathy, and might well beat the rap, with good reason.
Not a chance.
Yes it is: investigation, arrest, prosecution, and prison are all functions of criminal justice.
You have pulled the rug out from under yourself. This is case of flagrant bias in favor of the male criminal, and flangant bias against his female victim.
I would respond but you took sentence by sentence and failed to understand any of it.
You assume that men are convicted of more crimes because they commit more crimes. In some categories, such as rape, it's quite true. In others, it's not at all true. Child abuse is not the province of mostly male criminals but females more often than not get a pass. I worked on cases where the man was being abusive and the mother was complicit. The man does time the woman waits for him to get out and takes him right back.
Oh, and I never said, women get probation for a murder conviction did I? I said they got probation for killing, murdering, their husbands. But, the bias starts incredibly early. The woman who shot her husband in the head while sleeping wasn't even going to be prosecuted. No trial. Nothing. I spoke with the DA. "Pat, you wouldn't believe what than man did to that woman in the bedroom."
"Oh, I might. Any witnesses?"
"No, of course not. Just the two of them."
"Well, did she complain about what was happening to her friends at the time?"
"No, she was embarrassed."
"Did friends or family notice bruises or cuts or scrapes who even Ms. Smith having trouble walking or moving?"
"No, no, none of that."
"How about medical reports. Visits to the doctor. Injuries consistent with the abuse she reports?"
"No, never saw a doctor for the abuse."
"Any Polaroids, audio tapes, anything like that?"
"No, no, nothing like that."
"Okay, Steve, I don't believe it."
"Pat, she wouldn't lie about something like that."
"Why not, Steve? She shot him in the head twice while he was asleep. She found out from the insurance agent that she couldn't collect his life insurance if she killed him so she had him drop her as a beneficiary. Who knows, Steve, she might tell a friggin' lie."
"I think she's telling the truth."
"Tell it to the reporters, Steve." Well, Steve didn't want to tell it to the reporters. So, he charged her with a laundry list and shot for voluntary manslaughter. He got it. Funny thing. He never had the insurance agent testify in court about her asking about being a beneficiary or having her husband drop her from the policy.
Women get a ride from the court over men. That doesn't mean the system that is designed to benefit lawyers and crooks doesn't sometimes screw women, too, like the rape victim.
But the fact is, men and women charged with the same crime, similar evidence, get totally different treatment from what is called the criminal justice system. More than that, they get totally different treatment from society in general. "Oh, a mother wouldn't do that." Nonsense. I've known mothers who tortured their children and that wouldn't be the liberal definition of rudeness being torture.