Differential treatments for male and female prisoners in England and Wales: Where does inequality end and where does equality begin?

Evidence suggests that women in England and wales commit fewer crimes than men in the same region. According to this evidence, the number of female prisoners in England and Wales is about 4000 compared to the number of male prisoners in the same region which is over 70000. Based on these figures, policy makers are trying to reward few female offenders by proposing a scheme called the “Local Resettlement Programme for female offenders”.

The local resettlement programme for female offenders involves accommodating female prisoners in local prisons rather than in distant places. It is argued that female prisoners who spend their custodial sentence within this setting can maintain family bond with their loved ones as well as enhance their chances of getting a job on release. Any effort to ensure that prisoners do not suffer more than their punishment could allow including allowing female offenders to spend their time under the local resettlement programme should be welcomed. However, the local resettlement programme does not provide for the plights of male prisoners? Does it mean that male offenders who are held in distant prison far away from their home can cope very well without making regular contacts with family members?

Government also tries to justify the local resettlement programme by claiming that most female offenders who will benefit from the scheme were victims of abuse prior to their offending. In other words, the government is trying to argue that these female offenders are not responsible for their action. Can the same be said of male offenders who may have suffered abuse in the past?

If female prisoners are given preferential treatment over their male counterparts, then the underlying principles for punishment of crimes will be defeated. Punishment for wrongdoing is based on the principles of proportionality and fairness. The principle of proportionality demands that punishment fits the crime regardless of the offender, while the principle of fairness requires that all defendants convicted of similar offences be treated equally. Giving preferential treatment to female offenders over their male counterparts as the local resettlement programme is designed to do also will send the wrong message to potential female offenders. One of the major reasons for crime punishment is to serve as deterrence for future crimes. However, potential female offenders will not be deterred from committing crime if they know in advance that the punishment for such crime is light.

The proposed local resettlement programme for female offenders is not the only policy that attempts to show that women offenders are treated differently from their male counterparts. Another biased policy in favour of female offenders and against male offenders is related to prostitution. At least two people are required for the act of prostitution to occur. However, if a man and a woman are caught engaging in act of prostitution the man would be punished but the woman would not. The assumption is that female prostitutes engage in prostitution because of domestic abuse brought upon them by their former male partners or because the women were coerced into the illicit trade by greedy men or women. It is true that some of these factors can lead women to engage in prostitution but positing that women prostitutes have no control over their action is flawed. According to research, most women prostitutes engage in prostitution on their own accord rather than being forced to do so by external factors.

In this modern age where so much emphasis is being placed on gender equality in the work place and politics, female prisoners should not be treated differently to their male counterparts. All prisoners should be treated similarly. Doing otherwise will mark an act of hypocrisy.