If they were male, they would've got much longer sentences

The crime of murder, the girls committed, would have been something that more males are renowned for and that is why males can pay a harsher price, for the behaviour of their fellow brothers. The girls weren't criminals, in the text-book, generic sense either. But yes, I agree, that if the story were similar and it was 2 boys who conspired to murder the parent of one them, it would have likely been a much harsher penalty.

Just one of the many free passes, females can tend to get over males. Wanting some equality thing; but wouldn't acknowledge that males don't get some of the same privileges they do, for not being sugar and spice and all things nice.

I can't speak for the NZ legal system, but the girls were 15 and 16 when they committed the murders, and in some countries male juveniles get much lighter sentences than adults who've done the same damn thing.

I also have no idea what the 1954 NZ legal system would have done with a couple of teenage boys who were suspected of haw-mew-sex-su-alitay.



“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!

Minors in New Zealand in 1954? No. They wouldn't.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

In Australia, the only crime kids (either sex) can get in trouble for is murder. Literally any other offence is "without conviction"

Meaning they get away with anything. Funny world we live

As stated above, they girls were underage, that's why they didn't get the death penalty. So if boys of the same age had committed the same crime, at the same time, in New Zealand, they also would've got lighter sentences.

Like here actually still; unless you're "tried as an adult," you may well get a lighter sentence for being younger.