When Justice Depends on Gender
A curious pattern emerges if you pay attention to the headlines. When a man is accused of threatening behaviour, assault, or revenge porn, the press often reach straight for the most condemnatory language: “beast”, “monster”, “predator”. His photograph appears on the front page, his reputation shredded before he even reaches court. Should he be convicted, prison is assumed to be the natural outcome.
Yet when a woman commits a strikingly similar act, the tone often shifts. Stories of “troubled” or “scorned” women appear, framed as human interest pieces rather than moral outrages. Headlines are softened, punishment is minimised in print, and in court the sentence may be reduced to a fine or community order. The recent case of a Scottish woman convicted of threatening to share intimate images of her ex-partner makes the point clearly. For a crime carrying up to five years in prison, she received a fine of just £350, described in the press as having “dodged jail”.
This is not a plea for harsher treatment of women. It is a call for parity. Justice is meant to be blind. If we believe non-consensual image sharing is serious, and the law says it is, then it should not matter whether the offender is male or female. Nor should the press act as if the gender of the accused dictates whether we should feel disgust, pity, or amusement.
Supporters of the current approach argue that judges weigh each case on its merits and that sentencing guidelines already account for proportionality. But this reassurance rings hollow when we compare outcomes across genders. Time and again, men find themselves imprisoned for offences where women walk free. The discretion in the system consistently bends in one direction.
Why? Part of the answer lies in how women’s advocacy groups have reshaped the legal and cultural landscape. Their work has rightly brought attention to abuses against women. But the unintended consequence is a chilling effect: institutions now fear any decision that might be branded “anti-woman”. As a result, men as victims struggle to be taken seriously, while men as defendants face a presumption of guilt and harsher penalties.
A free press has every right to cover these stories. But when reporting itself becomes an amplifier of double standards, vilifying men while excusing women, it undermines the very equality campaigners claim to seek.
If justice is to retain its credibility, it must not only punish fairly but be seen to do so. And if the press is to serve the public, it must describe male and female offenders with the same moral vocabulary. The alternative is what we have now: a system where punishment and shame are measured less by the harm caused than by the sex of the person who caused it.
The question is simple: do we want justice to reflect equality before the law, or equality only when it suits the prevailing narrative?