Though I wrote this in the fall of 1993, I thought it would be of interest.
26 years. 30 days. The difference between the recent sentences of a 48 year old man, Ronald W. Price, convicted of statutorily raping three high school students, and a 24 year old woman, Jean-Michelle Whitiak, convicted of statutorily raping a pre-teen boy (the relationship lasted 3 years beginning when he was eleven; she also admitted having sex with two of his friends but was not charged with that). The cases were reported in the Washington Post.
Ms. Whitiak's prosecutor is quoted in an October 16, 1993 article as calling her a "child abuser," but he indicated, as if to mitigate the offense, that she was "more than just a swim coach, they [she and her victim]were friends." He did not believe the differential sentences were a concern calling Mr. Price a "predator."
It is important as a society to examine the tendency to stereotype and stigmatize the male convicted of a serious criminal offense, while mitigating the seriousness of the misconduct of the female. The impulse to protect the female is deeply ingrained going back millennia. What is disconcerting is that in this age of equal rights, disparate treatment based upon sex appears to be common in the American criminal justice system.
Warren Farrell in a book, The Myth Of Male Power, published this year by Simon and Schuster, notes that for a range of serious crimes, being male "contributes to a longer sentence more than race or any other factor
He asserts that a man convicted of murder is twenty times more likely than a woman to be given the death sentence, and that although 70,000 women have murdered since 1954, the actual carrying out of a death sentence against women is so rare that he calls capital punishment "the male-only death penalty." He cites Department of Justice statistics in a recent year, reflecting sentencing outcomes in 28 felony courts, nationwide, showing that for rape, females are sentenced on the average 117 months, males 159 months, for aggravated assault, females 49 months, males, 83 months, for burglary, females 46 months, males 66 months, and larceny, females 36 months, males 48 months. Even when offense histories are the same, females are 57 percent more likely to receive treatment sentences than prison sentences. According to Mr. Farrell, females also have a signficant advantage over males in receipt of: (1) lower bail for equal crimes; (2) plea bargains resulting in reduced sentences; (3) probation as an alternative to prison; and (4) early release from prison.
The data cited in the book is troubling but may provide insight on the two rape cases. It is clear that Mr. Price had emotional problems linked to a physically abusive father who was an alcoholic. Mr. Price's case was extremely public. It included the charge, ostensibly confirmed, according to an October 15, 1993 Washington Post article, that Anne Arundel school officials knew of his affairs with students and did nothing. The article cited the conclusion of a state Department of Education report that the county school system had been negligent. Interestingly, Ms. Whitiak's attorney argued that she had emotional problems and had been punished enough because of the intense publicity surrounding her case. To the extent that emotional problems and intense publicity were the issue, the two defendants found themselves similarly situated.
Prior to sentencing, a psychiatrist testified that Mr. Price could be rehabilitated, saying, "he's like a blind man who doesn't see, not a malicious person who doesn't care at all," and Mr. Price speaking in a low sobbing voice, indicated he was sorry. Ms. Whitiak was, according to her lawyer, too nervous to speak to the court, so she handled the judge a note sealed for the record instead. The courtroom was filled with her supporters. Her judge was more sympathetic than his: Ms. Whitiak got barely a slap on the wrist; Mr. Price received a 26 year sentence, which, in light of his age, may be tantamount to a death sentence.
He will be in a prison system where a man has an astronomically greater chance than a woman of being raped, and is, according to Mr. Farrell, 1000 percent as likely as any given woman to die, via suicide, homicide, etc, with conditions as bleak as they are because of, among other things, a lack of concern and money. Mr. Farrell observes that significantly more is spent to care for female prisoners than male (e.g., data for a recent year in Wisconsin reflects that monthly $2,120 per capita is spent for female prisoners and $1,120 per capita for male prisoners).
As if her sentence were not light enough, Ms. Whitiak's prosecutor indicated that she may be released from jail after 15 days for good behavior! Bob Foor, her employer at the swimming pool where she had taught young boys to swim, was quoted as saying: "Hopefully she can put her life back together again." It is not indecent or dishonorable to give people a chance to put their lives back together. But if Ms. Whitiak is deserving of such a chance, should not Mr. Price have been given the same? Or to the extent society views statutory rape as a heinous crime deserving exemplary punishment, should not Ms. Whitiak have been sentenced more severely?
Whatever unique circumstances there may have been in the two cases, these sentences for statutory rape are too wildly divergent to be acceptable to our society. The pattern and practice of unequal sentencing and punishment based on the sex of the offender must stop.
agree that there are generally real differences between the way men perform sex crimes and the way women do. However, what was interesting about the cases cited and compared in my earlier post is that they both involved statutory rape, i.e., rape, as a matter of law, because the person had sex with someone under age. As far as I know, there were no allegations in the two cases that the sex was coerced