“The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice”
–Arthur Schopenhauer
Have you ever tried having a logical conversation with your wife, girlfriend or any woman in your life only to find yourself apologising and trying to understand what went wrong?
For example, you might try discussing with your female counterpart a general concept or theory about some aspect of society or human nature. But you’ll usually always regret it, because too often you’ll unintentionally cause offence and the response you’ll get will be something like: “So is that what you think of me?”
In situations like this the reality of the female psychology rears its head and stares you in the face, and it can be a disappointing one to behold: The woman is virtually incapable of considering anything you’ve said without thinking about how it pertains to her personally. She even suspects you may be subtly referring to a certain shortcoming regarding her own character, by discussing human nature generally.
Basically, its almost impossible to talk about anything broadly with a woman because she’s always thinking inwardly and of individuals: normally of herself and whoever is in her immediate vicinity. She may also think about the status and security of her immediate family, but nothing else beyond that can be effectively processed or understood, except insofar as how it affects her personally.
I’ve opened with this because a few days ago I read a story coming out of Sydney. Some elements surprised me but others didn’t.
I learned that a woman, Corbie Walpole, who I believe was 22 at the time of the incident, doused a 23-year-old man in petrol and set him on fire. Obviously that’s pretty shocking behaviour for a woman of that age, even for one spelled by ideas of “the patriarchy” and the evils of men.
Her victim suffered burns to 63% of his body, was put in a coma for 10 days, spent another 74 days in a burns unit, required 10 surgeries, can no longer go in the sun and has trouble regulating his body temperature as his sweat glands were burned off.
But what’s not unusual and certainly not surprising is despite almost killing the guy and earning herself a charge of “burning or maiming by using corrosive fluid”, Miss Walpole after pleading guilty based on the evidence stood in the witness box and spoke first of how the incident had impacted her personally.
“I feel horrible for what I’ve done,” Corbie said, before crying and prattling on about her depression and how she had developed PTSD as a result of her own crime.
The second most notable aspect of her statement was, and I quote:
“I find it very hard to believe the injuries that were caused was from my doing.”
Read that again if you please, because it’s an extraordinary remark! It gives us a glimpse into the mental framework of women, particularly those of the liberal or “feminist” variety.
Imagine setting a guy on fire and then struggling to acknowledge his burns were a consequence of your actions. This highlights a complete lack of personal responsibility which seems to be a modern trend among many western women. Everything is always somebody else’s fault and the blame for whatever they regret doing can always be heaved onto the shoulders of whatever man is unfortunate enough to be involved.
And indeed, Corbie had her reasons for setting her victim on fire. She was “feeling overwhelmed”, in her own words, by “misogynistic comments” she claims her victim made, while they drank together at a party.
Not only has Miss Walpole essentially blamed her victim for what she did, she also believes she should walk free. Corbie instructed her lawyer to argue for a non-custodial sentence on the grounds that prison would be detrimental to her mental health.
This makes me wonder how as a nation have we’ve produced a system of justice where guilty criminals fully believe that consequences shouldn’t apply to them, on the grounds that their race, gender identity or “mental health status” makes them more of a victim than the actual victims of their crimes.
But when you consider the observation I made at the beginning of this opinion piece, then reflect on the sheer amount of women proudly parading about parliament as lawmakers and presenting as judges in the courts, the answer becomes clear.
The obsession the Australian judiciary and the institutions at large have with the sexual or ethnic identity, as well as the personal feelings and circumstances of individuals, is only a logical consequence of women in administrative roles.
Women have created and legislated a victim Olympics where dangerous criminals are never just dangerous criminals, but individual victims of poor circumstance.
The individual offender and his or her personal woes are the primary consideration during legal proceedings, since woman-lawmakers think inwardly and in such a way where the feelings of the individual are paramount, while the greater implications for the national community are not important.
I’ve always understood that justice is about establishing balance and upholding what is right, by creating deterrence through fair and effective punishment for crime and serious breaches of trust. Justice has little to do with individuals and their personal circumstances. If somebody who is depressed commits a crime, it doesn’t matter that they were depressed. What matters is the crime was committed and that the person if found guilty is punished accordingly.
Individual identity status and the personal woes of the criminal make no notable difference to the impact their crime has on society. People don’t want to live and work in a society which releases serious criminals back into the community on compassionate grounds.
The fact Corbie is a woman with depression and hurt feelings isn’t an important factor in determining her sentencing – since her crime is a serious one the punishment must ensure justice is done, not just for the sake of her victim but for our national community in its entirety.
We obviously can’t have people with upset feelings setting other people on fire then walking free without consequence.
It’s astounding to me that Corbie can’t think beyond her own nose on this one. A term of imprisonment is absolutely necessary and how she personally feels about that doesn’t matter. That Corbie would lean on her female and depressed status and expect these factors to absolve her from consequence demonstrates exactly why woman-lawmakers can have a disastrous impact on the process of justice.
If Miss Walpole doesn’t serve some serious prison time, deranged feminists around the world will rejoice and some may even feel emboldened to commit similar crimes, in the same way certain immigrants on their seventh count of bail laugh at the Australian courts and don’t see any good reason to stop stealing, raping and killing.
I’m not making the argument here that women are bad. Women are natural child-bearers, so they’re more psychologically geared to consider feelings and small circumstances for obvious reasons.
My argument is that women often fail to consider what’s logically necessary and fall short of taking responsibility for whatever outcome their decisions produce, making them a terrible choice for leadership and lawmaking.
The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is on the table.
The post Crazy Corbie and the dangers of a feminised legal system first appeared on The Noticer.
The Noticer
