| Same as in France: - Being lenient towards criminals because we need to have empathy towards all humans (real victims being forgotten here); - Encouraging “deconstruction”, deconstruction of family values, of masculinity, of marriage, of traditional rules, replacement by state-sponsored benefits, which break the social fabric (a human as a free-spinning electron without roots may be healthy and wealthy, but at extremely high risk in case of unexpected event); - Cult of female employment as their main role in society, which, in positions of power, happens to soften the stance towards criminals and deconstruct structures (hierarchies, things that worked to develop our nations, justice system). I don’t know the ratio for Cali but in France, 76 to 81% graduates of ENM (main school for judges) are female since 1977, and we basically free the criminals because they have compassion for them. - Immigration and being ostracized when pointing out illegal immigration or rules about it, which leads to unreasoned immigration. Which turns into people with broken social fabric, which means they weigh on state sponsored rescue instead of family. But the biggest danger about a California is that it impacts the whole rest of the world: they apply their cultural pressure using the soft power that is social media, which puts the sane parts of the world at risk of having the same ideas. |
Hmm, my first reaction to this is that it's just poorly considered sexism. Do you have any evidence that the gender of the judges is contributing greatly to the leniency crisis you seem to be proposing? And plus, it's even possible that there are some problems showing the direction of causation; for example, it could be that electorates/leaders wanting lenient judges tend to perceive female judges as more lenient. I'm naturally very skeptical that the gender of judges could have such a large causal effect.
I looked into this briefly and the two articles that I found quickly were [1] and [2], one of which finds an effect obscenity and death penalty cases in State Supreme Courts and the other which finds an effect only in sex discrimination cases. Neither seems to imply such a sweeping and consequential effect as you do.
And the apparent suggestion that women in position of power in general is causing problems for society seems to be an argument out of the last century. Am I correct that that's what your suggesting, and if so what would be the cause of it? That whole line of reasoning strains credibility in my mind.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/42864001
[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-5907...