Via Doug Berman, the Los Angeles Times has a story about the Second Chance Women’s Re-entry Court,

Although women make up only a small fraction of prison inmates, their numbers have been climbing for decades at a far steeper rate than men’s.  Women are also more likely to be convicted of nonviolent drug or property crimes motivated by addictions or necessity….

Based on what he sees in the report and what the women have to say, Tynan doles out sanctions or incentives such as a month back in jail, an order to write a 1,000-word essay or permission to go on an out-of-town trip….

“A lot of them have been really, really beleaguered and beaten up, primarily by the men in their lives,” Tynan says.  His court, he adds, “is just a sliver of what’s needed.”…

A sliver indeed.  Does this mean that men are evil and women, well, not so evil?  Does this mean that men deserve the real criminal court and women get a second chance?  Is the “weaker sex” back in fashion?

Speciality courts are in vogue as a means of sidestepping the harsh tough on crime attitude by creating a more sympathetic path for those arrested under the “smart on crime” banner.  The only downside, which doesn’t seem problematic to either judges or the public, is that the defendants in specialty courts either waive all rights and lie down spread eagle before the court, or go elsewhere.  There’s no tolerance for innocence, or constitutional violations, or any of the host of issues that otherwise arise in real courts.  These are places where the guilty go to get a break.  All they have to give up is their rights.

But this time the differential isn’t the nature of what drives a defendant to commit crime, or the nature of the crime committed, but their gender.  Girl court.  Girls are soft and cuddly.  Girls can’t withstand the pressure of bad boys.  Girls are different. Girls deserve a second chance.

Men are evil animals.  Blame men. Punish men. Men are bad.

Not what they’re trying to say?  Sure, but that’s precisely what they’re saying.  When there’s a special court for women, it by definition precludes men.  Some women deserve a break, having been manipulated and pressured into committing crimes, or having done so to feed their children.  So do some men.  But there’s no court for that.

What this perversely reflects is the inability of the criminal justice system to lose the rhetoric of blame and give every case the degree of individualized thought it deserves.  There’s no reason why a woman before a criminal court shouldn’t be given the depth of scrutiny necessary to determine whether she’s an evil, malevolent person, but rather a victim of circumstance who is undeserving the typical harshness our system metes out.  There’s no reason every person who comes before a court shouldn’t receive that.

Is it more true of women than men that they are less evil, less deserving of punishment, more worthy of a second chance?  Perhaps, but it’s not a numbers game.  Every defendant serves his or her own sentence.  Every child with a parent in prison suffers, regardless of whether it’s his mother or father. 

By establishing courts that cater to a “specialty”, the system relinquishes some degree of its obligation to be fair to all.  If a defendant suffers from drug addiction, should he be denied treatment because he refused the chance to go to drug court?  What if the defendant has a defense as well as an addiction?  What if the evidence was unconstitutionally seized and he has a drug addiction?  Why does the system only offer useful sentences when the defendant gives something away?

Gender based courts, however, take this problem in an entirely new direction, given that the junk in the trunk isn’t a matter of bad choices or unfortunate circumstances, but nature.  It seems a facial equal protection problem, on top of a poor policy choice.  So the man manipulated into committing a crime by a woman is screwed?  Are we prepared to categorically state that only women are manipulated by men, and never the other way around?

Most importantly, however, is the idea that a court only for women somehow fulfills the responsibility of the criminal justice system to be “smarter” or more fair.  Every defendant deserves fairness.  And the public should expect every court to be smart.  Give women a second chance when appropriate.  Do the same for men as well.