The court found it "repugnant to our moral sense" that a duty would be created because Burns was a woman, as no such moral or legal duty would be implied if she had been a man.

ritz_k · 2011-07-18T09:21:32+00:00

We have hope.

ima_coder · 2011-07-18T12:39:12+00:00

Wasn't "failure to act" why Seinfeld and his friends went to jail?

AntiFeministMedia · 2011-07-18T11:34:35+00:00

He was found guilty in the first instance because society understands that women are infact, children, and that a man be held accountable for the children in his care.

On appeal, the decision was reversed on the basis that women arnt children (women are like men), and therefore, men should not have to take responsibility for them.

Thats the problem we face today.

As a society, we have a male system of law and conduct which is how things should work.

But we have a section of society (women) that have been granted adult status, when society know's that they are infact children, thats why we get sentencing differences, thats why the law is easier on women, because its like punishing children. Its not morally right to punish children too harshly because they are not fully grown human beings. So we make allowances for them, we let them get away with things.

Comments