Australia: Teenage girl puts man in hospital - for mispronouncing her name

It's pretty obvious why a teenage girl would use violence. Take a look at the media. The women are constantly hitting, insulting, and killing men in just about any movie or sitcom. This girl should be made an example of how it's wrong to do such things, but instead she's made an example of how the justice system actively promotes it.

I was wondering about her coming home drunk at 17 but a quick search of Australian law reveals that there is no minimum consumption age only a minimum purchase age of 18. Minors can drink on private property all they want they just can't buy it themselves.

Still bad form I would imagine for a 17 year old to come home drunk and send one of her parents party guests to the hospital.

Not familiar with Australian culture so much but I can guarantee a gender reversed scenario in North America would not see the teen male escaping without a criminal conviction. Though in anywhere in Canada it would not likely be handled in adult court and the person would receive a youth record which only appears on his public record if he commits another crime as an adult. But the drunkenness would be a factor here as the minimum age of consumption is the same as the minimum purchasing age so the drunkenness would likely be an aggravating factor rather then a mitigating one.

But of course females don't get away with crime either. In order to get away with a crime there has to be a consequence in place if you get caught. If you drive 80 in a 60 zone and don't get caught, you got away with it because if you were stopped there would be a fine. If you rape, assault, or murder and no one ever finds out it was you, likewise you got away with it. If you are a female however, if you rape, assault, steel or murder you will not 'get away with it' because all you have to to is get arrested, demonstrate the you are in fact female, and you will be free to go as the male laws do not apply to you.

Women simply have no rules to follow at all so when they do acts that would result in a criminal conviction for a male, and they do not get punished by the legal system, they did not 'get away with the crime' they were simply declared above the law and free to do as they please.

..alcohol is in fact such a strong mitigating factor that even a male perpetrator would likely have walked.
Alcohol (legal to buy at 16+ years) is such a scourge here, since I've switched over to a more healthy lifestyle I realized how bad it really is.
But what is supposed to happen about it if you see top politicians drinking Weißbier at election campaign events, the Chancellor (ex in this case, Schröder) visibly drunk and his slurred speech used for a techno song (no kidding). And nobody takes offense, it's considered normal.

On the other hand, the US is strange too, with people drinking from bottles in bags etc..:).

Remember the USA is the fucked up country that tried prohibition. They are so fucking wrapped up in their own self guilt they need to invent at least two moral causes to declare war on per decade to hide their own shame.

Canada is not much better but we tend to silently silence those who are not acceptable to society rather then a loud boisterous meaningless war of moral outrage.

Nay, a proverbial abbey...how could it be otherwise - it mainly consists of women! Of course then the question is: what do you guys think would happen, if a monk were the one to commit this heinous act. Do you really think he would be let off because it was "out of character" for him?? (I know monks don't go to parties, but bear with me).

-ax

Driving around drinking from bottles in bags..liquor stores with drive-thru windows..ah, those were the days! (just kidding, I'm not a juicer).
But once the little GIRL on the bicycle was killed by a drunk driver (bonus points for the girl being white), they formed a group called "Mad Drunks Against Mothers"..er, excuse me.."Mothers Against Drunk Drivers" - so 25 years later, the spec is .08% in Florida, thus you need to have a "designated driver" to go to Hooters and have a single beer..
-ax

Fuck, these days, good luck finding a single male clerk at most retail establishments.

What the judge meant by out of character was not really individual, it was more gender specific. What he meant was that violence and aggression are out of character for females (was there ever a bigger lie told then that?).

The Pope could get drunk and beat the holy hell out of a female and no one would claim it to be 'out of character' for him. They'd just say he was consumed by his maleness.

At least all concerned would see where she was coming from straightaway, and thus skip the often drawn-out process of pretending to interrogate, when it is a forgone conclusion that the women did it because she was "out of character" (of course that includes mental illness and anything else "unusual").
-ax